Questions about Aikido, Wingchun

Well to be honest if someone knows how to fight, Aikido isn't going to do s*** so you're better off going with a martial art that isn't so purely defensive. Not sure what Wing chun is DivergeUnify

Akaido and Wing Chung are for the most part unless you're really good at them pretty bad to use in a street fight or a fight in general,

Go learn some Muay Thai that will teach you all you need to know to KO someone

man screw you guys, that was funny-DirtySanchez-

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"]man screw you guys, that was funnyBranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"]man screw you guys, that was funnyLiftedHeadshot

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]Well to be honest if someone knows how to fight, Aikido isn't going to do s*** so you're better off going with a martial art that isn't so purely defensive. Not sure what Wing chun is Zensword

While it's true that Bruce Lee studied under (Y)ip Man, he outright rejected most of the training methods, techniques and theory behind Wing Chun. He was one of the first to embrace what is now called a Mixed Martial Arts mindset -- taking the best methods and techniques from all available styles, and discarding everything else.

If you are interested in Bruce Lee's training, read the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and you will get a sense for what he advocated. That said, he did not actually learn the full Wing Chun curriculum before rejecting it.

As for effectiveness, neither Wing Chun or Aikido have had success in modern Mixed Martial Arts competition, or the No Holds Barred/Vale Tudo (anything goes) fighting that preceded the sport we see today. If you consider the ring to be like a laboratory for testing fighting techniques and training methods, neither Aikido and Wing Chun appear to not be very effective.

The most important factor that make a martial art effective seems to be training against freely-moving, fully resisting opponents (called "aliveness" by Matt Thornton, a famous Jeet Kune Do Instructor), a training style which is not typical in Aikido or Wing Chun. Sound technique develops in styles that train with aliveness, evolving in a way similar to natural selection. Better technique will continually beat inferior technique, and will become the norm taught in that style.

Styles that have been successful in full contact competition (including early, unregulated contests complete with eye gouges, groin strikes, headbuts, etc.) also tend to be those styles that train with aliveness: wrestling, brazilian jiu-jitsu, submission wrestling, judo, boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, and to a lesser extend tae kwon do and kyokushin karate.

To answer your question more directly, I would think 1 year of Wing Chun training would prepare you for self defense slightly better than 1 year of Aikido would, but not by much. A wrestling, kickboxer, or BJJ player with one year of training would eat you for breakfast either way.

XenonRadon

Learning boxing for only one year will help 10x more then karate (you know what I mean) in a street fight.

For someone who is having issues with sight, I don't think that a fast-striking martial art is ideal (so no Jeet). People saying Judo are right I think; you can really feel that out as someone goes after you, and it's not as visual as BJJ. You might want to leaven it with something like Hapkido cane-work, and something emphasizing more mobile footwork like a flavor of Kung Fu.

Finish it off with some civvie SD Krav Maga to replace the moves Judo took out to save lives and you're set.

"Let me Judo throw you on carpet and you're going to the hospital. Let me Judo throw you on concrete and you're going to the morgue." Guy Mezger an MMA fighter with a very solid record.

From my understanding the best forms of self defence are Judo, Muay Thai, Boxing and maybe Kyokushin Karate. Of course if you have some sick perverse idea of wanting to kill some drunken idiot that wants to fight, you should just carry a knife and save yourself the money.

I'm going to have to agree with people saying Judo and Muay Thai.

While wrestling is great, you do have to get down and dirty which can lead to your knees getting ****'d up, and you have to exert a good amount of force to actually subdue your opponent so he's not a threat( i.e. take him down hard enough to stop him there, or get in a position where you can ground and pound).

With Judo, a swift throw can end the fight( since Judo focuses on throws, with some submission), and Muay Thai is basically boxing, but without boxing gloves, and you can use your elbows, knees, and feet. BJJ is also probably really good, but from what I know, focuses more on locks and submissions

[QUOTE="Zensword"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]Well to be honest if someone knows how to fight, Aikido isn't going to do s*** so you're better off going with a martial art that isn't so purely defensive. Not sure what Wing chun is XenonRadon

While it's true that Bruce Lee studied under (Y)ip Man, he outright rejected most of the training methods, techniques and theory behind Wing Chun. He was one of the first to embrace what is now called a Mixed Martial Arts mindset -- taking the best methods and techniques from all available styles, and discarding everything else.

If you are interested in Bruce Lee's training, read the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and you will get a sense for what he advocated. That said, he did not actually learn the full Wing Chun curriculum before rejecting it.

As for effectiveness, neither Wing Chun or Aikido have had success in modern Mixed Martial Arts competition, or the No Holds Barred/Vale Tudo (anything goes) fighting that preceded the sport we see today. If you consider the ring to be like a laboratory for testing fighting techniques and training methods, neither Aikido and Wing Chun appear to not be very effective.

The most important factor that make a martial art effective seems to be training against freely-moving, fully resisting opponents (called "aliveness" by Matt Thornton, a famous Jeet Kune Do Instructor), a training style which is not typical in Aikido or Wing Chun. Sound technique develops in styles that train with aliveness, evolving in a way similar to natural selection. Better technique will continually beat inferior technique, and will become the norm taught in that style.

Styles that have been successful in full contact competition (including early, unregulated contests complete with eye gouges, groin strikes, headbuts, etc.) also tend to be those styles that train with aliveness: wrestling, brazilian jiu-jitsu, submission wrestling, judo, boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, and to a lesser extend tae kwon do and kyokushin karate.

To answer your question more directly, I would think 1 year of Wing Chun training would prepare you for self defense slightly better than 1 year of Aikido would, but not by much. A wrestling, kickboxer, or BJJ player with one year of training would eat you for breakfast either way.

[QUOTE="XenonRadon"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"] You don't know Wing chun ? I'm sure you know Bruce Lee, he's a disciple of the legendary Ip Man, master of Wing Chun.hydralisk86

While it's true that Bruce Lee studied under (Y)ip Man, he outright rejected most of the training methods, techniques and theory behind Wing Chun. He was one of the first to embrace what is now called a Mixed Martial Arts mindset -- taking the best methods and techniques from all available styles, and discarding everything else.

If you are interested in Bruce Lee's training, read the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and you will get a sense for what he advocated. That said, he did not actually learn the full Wing Chun curriculum before rejecting it.

As for effectiveness, neither Wing Chun or Aikido have had success in modern Mixed Martial Arts competition, or the No Holds Barred/Vale Tudo (anything goes) fighting that preceded the sport we see today. If you consider the ring to be like a laboratory for testing fighting techniques and training methods, neither Aikido and Wing Chun appear to not be very effective.

The most important factor that make a martial art effective seems to be training against freely-moving, fully resisting opponents (called "aliveness" by Matt Thornton, a famous Jeet Kune Do Instructor), a training style which is not typical in Aikido or Wing Chun. Sound technique develops in styles that train with aliveness, evolving in a way similar to natural selection. Better technique will continually beat inferior technique, and will become the norm taught in that style.

Styles that have been successful in full contact competition (including early, unregulated contests complete with eye gouges, groin strikes, headbuts, etc.) also tend to be those styles that train with aliveness: wrestling, brazilian jiu-jitsu, submission wrestling, judo, boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, and to a lesser extend tae kwon do and kyokushin karate.

To answer your question more directly, I would think 1 year of Wing Chun training would prepare you for self defense slightly better than 1 year of Aikido would, but not by much. A wrestling, kickboxer, or BJJ player with one year of training would eat you for breakfast either way.

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"][QUOTE="XenonRadon"]

While it's true that Bruce Lee studied under (Y)ip Man, he outright rejected most of the training methods, techniques and theory behind Wing Chun. He was one of the first to embrace what is now called a Mixed Martial Arts mindset -- taking the best methods and techniques from all available styles, and discarding everything else.

If you are interested in Bruce Lee's training, read the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and you will get a sense for what he advocated. That said, he did not actually learn the full Wing Chun curriculum before rejecting it.

As for effectiveness, neither Wing Chun or Aikido have had success in modern Mixed Martial Arts competition, or the No Holds Barred/Vale Tudo (anything goes) fighting that preceded the sport we see today. If you consider the ring to be like a laboratory for testing fighting techniques and training methods, neither Aikido and Wing Chun appear to not be very effective.

The most important factor that make a martial art effective seems to be training against freely-moving, fully resisting opponents (called "aliveness" by Matt Thornton, a famous Jeet Kune Do Instructor), a training style which is not typical in Aikido or Wing Chun. Sound technique develops in styles that train with aliveness, evolving in a way similar to natural selection. Better technique will continually beat inferior technique, and will become the norm taught in that style.

Styles that have been successful in full contact competition (including early, unregulated contests complete with eye gouges, groin strikes, headbuts, etc.) also tend to be those styles that train with aliveness: wrestling, brazilian jiu-jitsu, submission wrestling, judo, boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, and to a lesser extend tae kwon do and kyokushin karate.

To answer your question more directly, I would think 1 year of Wing Chun training would prepare you for self defense slightly better than 1 year of Aikido would, but not by much. A wrestling, kickboxer, or BJJ player with one year of training would eat you for breakfast either way.

DivergeUnify

That doesn't mean that Aikido is ineffective. I'm no expert, but I get the feeling an Aikido practitioner was challenged to some kind of fight that was an exhibition, he would back down, because Aikido is a peace martial art. I dunno if there was even a time when some guy who was an Aikido practitioner listened and took a challenge...

hydralisk86

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"]

That doesn't mean that Aikido is ineffective. I'm no expert, but I get the feeling an Aikido practitioner was challenged to some kind of fight that was an exhibition, he would back down, because Aikido is a peace martial art. I dunno if there was even a time when some guy who was an Aikido practitioner listened and took a challenge...

DivergeUnify

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="hydralisk86"] Aikido was never done in MMA, so you can't say it's not effective. Am I right? It might be what TC is looking for. I am doing an Aikido class in school, and the basic principle is being able to take down larger opponents, without using resistance or physical strength. TC, I think you should do research on the martial arts that you want to do. Asking on a forums is not going to get you much info, unless those people actually do the martial arts. hydralisk86

Whatever martial art you decide to try out, remember to exercise too. Being stronger with more endurance will help you no matter what sty|e you practice.

As for effectiveness, neither Wing Chun or Aikido have had success in modern Mixed Martial Arts competition, or the No Holds Barred/Vale Tudo (anything goes) fighting that preceded the sport we see today. If you consider the ring to be like a laboratory for testing fighting techniques and training methods, neither Aikido and Wing Chun appear to not be very effective.

XenonRadon

Well, this is OT, where the accepted laboratory for testing fighting techniques is your local cineplex.

Whatever martial art you decide to try out, remember to exercise too. Being stronger with more endurance will help you no matter what sty|e you practice.

[QUOTE="XenonRadon"]

As for effectiveness, neither Wing Chun or Aikido have had success in modern Mixed Martial Arts competition, or the No Holds Barred/Vale Tudo (anything goes) fighting that preceded the sport we see today. If you consider the ring to be like a laboratory for testing fighting techniques and training methods, neither Aikido and Wing Chun appear to not be very effective.

Palantas

Well, this is OT, where the accepted laboratory for testing fighting techniques is your local cineplex.

[QUOTE="I"]

Well, this is OT, where the accepted laboratory for testing fighting techniques is your local cineplex.

m25105

I'm sorry, but Stevel Seagal does Aikido, and he's in movies, so it must be effective.

[QUOTE="m25105"][QUOTE="I"]

Well, this is OT, where the accepted laboratory for testing fighting techniques is your local cineplex.

Palantas

I'm sorry, but Stevel Seagal does Aikido, and he's in movies, so it must be effective.

I'm just repeating what I've heard on this forum.

[QUOTE="m25105"][QUOTE="I"]

Well, this is OT, where the accepted laboratory for testing fighting techniques is your local cineplex.

Palantas

I'm sorry, but Stevel Seagal does Aikido, and he's in movies, so it must be effective.

Oh, the kick Silva used on Vitor Belfort? There a lot of kicking in Aikido?

Krav Maga is where it's at if you want to learn to defend yourself. It's blunt and brutal and not complicated. Doesn't mess around and isn't meant to look pretty. Don't bother with Aikido or Wing Chun.

[QUOTE="m25105"][QUOTE="I"]

Well, this is OT, where the accepted laboratory for testing fighting techniques is your local cineplex.

Palantas

I'm sorry, but Stevel Seagal does Aikido, and he's in movies, so it must be effective.

IMO this is unassailable logic taht any sane person must bow to.

MMA isn't suited for counterterrorism, animal attacks, and futuristic underwater combat. Ya got me there. Next time I'm getting attacked by a bear in the Atlantic Ocean with a bomb strapped to his chest, I'll be sure to use my Kung Fu instead of MMA." (Some guy on a site that is probably dead by now)

MMA isn't suited for counterterrorism, animal attacks, and futuristic underwater combat. Ya got me there. Next time I'm getting attacked by a bear in the Atlantic Ocean with a bomb strapped to his chest, I'll be sure to use my Kung Fu instead of MMA." (Some guy on a site that is probably dead by now)

Frame_Dragger

Oh, the kick Silva used on Vitor Belfort? There a lot of kicking in Aikido?

Palantas

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

MMA isn't suited for counterterrorism, animal attacks, and futuristic underwater combat. Ya got me there. Next time I'm getting attacked by a bear in the Atlantic Ocean with a bomb strapped to his chest, I'll be sure to use my Kung Fu instead of MMA." (Some guy on a site that is probably dead by now)

hydralisk86

Yeah, for machine-guns you use MMA and ninja skills to block the bullets with a small sword. I don't see how that can fail honstly... I mean, nobody has ever tried it and complained.

Against machineguns, I would recommend mortars.

Against machineguns, I would recommend mortars.

Palantas

JDAM please.

Against machineguns, I would recommend mortars.

Palantas

My plan's a lot cheaper than yours'.

Against machineguns, I would recommend mortars.

Palantas

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="m25105"] I'm quite sure at least a few persons here (myself included) have been in street fights and I can't for the life of me see how effective Aiko would be against someone who has even a lick of knowledge how to fight. BranKetra

I'm sorry, but Stevel Seagal does Aikido, and he's in movies, so it must be effective.

He didn't teach them anything, but gave them some hints how to perform a kick better that they already knew. Steven Seagal doesn't have any legit fighting record either. At least Jean Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris have a legit full contact background.

If you open up a book about Karate or Aikido, it assumes that the attacker will attack you a certain way or that the one assaulting you is a moron. In the early days of the UFC where clothes were allowed and were there was almost no rules, the Karate and Kung Fu guys were getting their butts handed to them by wrestlers, kickboxers and Sambo practitioners. Being in films is not an indication on how effective it is. Judokas generally perform very well in MMA bouts and Vale Tudo. Yet when was the last time you saw an action film with Judo?

Judokas generally perform very well in MMA bouts and Vale Tudo. Yet when was the last time you saw an action film with Judo?m25105

Goldfinger.