Most jurisdictions outlaw pocket knives of three inches or longer, and will not permit any knives over six inches or more. No where will any jurisdiction give a permit to carry a knife for self-protection. They'd rather you had a gun. If you are on your way to work as a chef with your knife roll, or a fisherman with tackle, you might be let go, but there is far more fear of knives than guns by law enforcement and anyone sane.
This video explains how cops need to keep their distance, or be ready for hand to hand. Well, be better be ready for hand to hand. Practice like a knife is involved (another aikido advantage, the moves come from sword and knife fighting), expect to get cut at least, and get in close as fast as possible.
Here is a famous knife assault, and watch how the secret service respond when the First Lady of the Philippines is attacked.
That's right, keep your distance! Get him from behind. (The fellow was gunned after he was downed by fellows hitting him from behind.)
I was watching a video of a 7th dan giving a seminar and showing some techniques, and the crowd went wild after each technique. I can see why people find aikido incredible, in the etymological sense of "not credible."
While the shihan is showing a twist of the wrist, any casual observer is noting the other 95% of the threat, which is idly standing by while a painful twist is applied. Not real world.
Since aikido demonstration is limited to this, shihan are limited in experience to ignoring 95% of threat potential from a human. Having been smacked good and silly while sparring with followers of other arts, I've taken to practicing with full-spectrum encounter. Yes, the throw gets down to that twist of the wrist while an opponent's momentum is sailing past, but the threat potential any human can offer before and after must be addressed in tactic, movement and attitude.
When you step within the range of the ma ai of a mal-actor the attitude ought to be "I came here here to pacify you, why are you here?" as you take in the entire threat potential.
To give 5% attention to a human in a demonstration because the throw only takes 5% of the total encounter is to denigrate what aikido can be. The fact is one has no idea at any given time in the continuum of an encounter which 5% will be drawn on.
To demonstrate a throw in the context of not knowing what you will show, or having to do three or four other throws to get to a situation where you can do what you hoped to show, is better for aikido, the instructor and the students. In the real world, you never know. Better to teach in that milieu.
In the Fall of 1968, the American War was raging in Vietnam, Martin Luther King had been murdered a few months before, RFKennedy had been murdered as well. It was interesting times, so much good in art, food, architecture, fashion, music, cultural interaction going on, and yet such terrible things happening too. Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.
Whereas the hegemon deals with resistance through murder, people like Martin Luther King declare nonviolence as the proper means to right wrongs. MLKing, according to a court of law, was murdered in a conspiracy involving active duty USA military personnel, exactly one year to the day MLKing condemned American violence in Vietnam and the world. This led to riots across America in what we now call "the ghetto" and a general repudiation of nonviolence. This was the intended effect of the hegemon, for the hegemon ever gains more strength when it draws violent reaction, and the hegemon ever diminishes in the face of nonviolence. Nonviolence in the face of the hegemon seems ridiculous.
Jesus expressly disagreed, so Christians are obliged to be nonviolent. Pro-war Christians are a contradiction in terms, the hypocrites so condemned by Jesus Himself.
Tommie Smith was the Usain Bolt of 1968, the fastest man in the world. An Australian, Peter Norman took the silver, and a another American, John Carlos took the bronze. Smith and Carlos, during the awards ceremony, raised their fists in protest of USA cultural patterns and practices. This act ended their athletic careers, and their act was deemed "violent" and they were whisked out of the Olympics and back to USA to face death threats.
Usain Bolt earns $20 million per year, and Tommy Smith would have earned a similar amount in his time, had he simply not raised his fist. He knew what raising his fist would cost him. But he simply could not allow the false narrative that is imposed upon winning athletes at the Olympics: USA is the land of opportunity. Well, it may be for some, but not for Americans of African ancestry, or native Americans, etc. For Smith and Carlos, no amount of money was worth advancing that lie. (Both went on to careers as High School PE teachers. Lucky kids who had them as coaches.
Nonviolent resistance may seem pointless but can be very effective on a diffuse basis. Everyone in USA at the time was well aware of this event. Back then the Olympics were covered by ABC all day with Highlights at prime time, in an era when there were only three TV channels. The Olympics today are a difficult hash to watch, better viewed on Youtube after the fact. But in 1968, Smith and Carlos electrified USA.
I recall watching it, and in my adolescents forming an understanding of the reality the hegemon could be resisted, needed to be resisted. Nonviolence and its effects, along with the widely argued American war Vietnam war (no useful discussion of USA wars are any longer allowed), led me to consider all wars, and arrive at my conscientious objector position. Among other influences, if Smith and Carlos could give up all, should one not consider joining them. Peter Norman continued at the games after Smith and Carlos were ejected, but wearing sympathetic articles on his uniform for the rest of his time in Mexico. Although an Australian he suffered terrible consequences for this, including being denied the opportunity to continue to compete against the best. Within a year or two, I was writing a letter to the hegemon's representative for drafting people for war, and explained how I could not join their efforts.
They agreed, and categorized me 1-O (women and children first, they fight before I do. I am very proud of that.) Now, I harbor no delusions that the hegemon makes just exceptions, for the history of conscientious objectors in USA is historically they are usually beaten or starved to death after being thrown in prison. There was no chance of this when I was drafted, so I did not fac that. The American War in Vietnam was never an existential war, it was entirely a fun-time money-maker for the hegemon's minions. Why the hegemon granted exemptions, and does to this day, is they simply do not want the idea of just cause and just war ever to be considered by soldiers. To daft me would put me in the barracks of soldiers who had never thought of conscientious objection.
They think about it eventually, usually too late. Who can ponder veteran suicide rates without considering a lack of orientation to just cause and just war before joining the military.
So Smith and Carlos missed out on millions, are now long forgotten, but had their effect, quite diffuse but long term. Who knows how many they inspired, and unlike Dr. King, their legacy is too simple and clear to romanticize or hijack by the hegemon to advance the hegemon (no one will name streets after Smith or Carlos, or make a holiday that never mentions war resistance by MLK).
To this day, USA athletes are forbidden to protest war, and quite the contrary, USA athletics are probably the #1 venue for promoting war and sustaining the pattern and practices of oppression in the USA. A current wikipedia article on Bill Walton simply does not mention his career anti-war resistance, and even contemporary newspaper articles of his actions were buried in newspapers of the time.
Smith and Carlos are the definition of hero, people who do what is right knowing they will get nothing for it, in fact lose everything they worked for, and go ahead because it is the right thing to do.
Here is a sincerely perplexed fellow criticizing aikido as it is often presented:
Rogan's question is a good one, where is a video of effective aikido? The vids of O Sensei waving his arms and people falling down are not credible. Rogan notes a NCAA D1 wrestler would wipe that old man out. No doubt. But O Sensei did not build his reputation as an 80 year old man. He rarely taught after say fifty years old, meaning 1935, more the occasional coaching, and demonstration of principles.
Rogan credits a judo tenth dan (in a video shown in a simultaneous window) showing credible counters to judoka in their prime. But any of those guys could have also taken the 80 year old judo tenth dan, as could any NCAA D1 wrestler, and O Sensei could have as well at 80 years shown the judo counters as well as the spry 80- year old judo man. The judo man is showing judo principles, the aikido man showing aikido principles. (Aikido is an original mixed martial art, blending kendo, judo, jiu jitsu, etc. O sensei had mastered judo before forming his own art.)
Rogan is stating the obvious: martial arts is not some magic thing, where an 80 year old master must be effective against a NCAA D1 wrestler. And then when some deluded fellow believes that, Rogan denigrates the art. How about simply cautioning the deluded fellow? Such delusions can end badly.
You'll note the fellow here has a dojo of deluded students. Yes, O Sensei waves his arms and people fall down. O Sensei was making the point that if you are not fighting, you can win. The idiot above actually tried to fight an MMA guy. How is not fighting and fighting the same thing? It is not. If students are self-deluding, that is not the master's problem. If a "master" is self-deluded, that is also not a problem, for an MMA man, although you will note, initially, even the MMA bought the delusion, briefly. And by the way, if O Sensei could take on a D1 NCAA wrestler, he would have, and taped it. He was not delusional. The test of a system depending on how it deals with a D1 NCAA wrestler is a false test anyway. What weight class? Within D1 NCAA the weights are divided since since a contest between bantam and middle is inherently unfair. Next, to train enough to get to compete in NCAA takes discipline and dedication. Many wash out. In too many years of playing at martial arts, I am yet to see an accomplished fighter of any stripe initiating aggression. The people I see initiating may be big and strong and fast, even crazy, but never disciplined. Any discipline can be the deciding advantage in a contest. The test is against the no-holds-barred, open-class attack. Even MMA forbids that. Muhammed Ali was not delusional when he fought Foremen in 1974. Ali developed a tactic to keep from losing, let alone killed. He did not fight, but let Foreman fight the ring ropes. After Foreman tired out, Ali went in for the knock out.
Pacquiao fought Mayweather, and Pacquiao was defeated, although controversially. In any event, it is fair to say Mayweather won by not fighting, or in the measure Mayweather refrained from fighting Pacquiao, Mayweather got the edge. (Incidentally, Pacquiao also used rope-a-dope in a fight once to win against a superior boxer.)
Aikido is unique in martial arts for making this paradoxical point, as Tohei called it, positive non-fighting (negative non-fighting is to run away). NCAA D1 wrestlers experience what many judo competitors note, that beautiful throw took no force on the part of the winner, the opponent's force brought him down when met with the timing and body positioning of the winner. A throw forever in the highlight reels. Aikido as a martial art studies exactly that. No more, no less. Every art esteems it, Aikido specializes in it. In every martial art there is someone working on this concept. O Sensei when he was a young badass, decided to concentrate on this. Where is the video of effective aikido?
Here is O Sensei at 52 years old, in 1935. This is the kind of aikido I learned, and although it looks suspiciously compliant, the uke are defending their limbs from nasty pain should they counter or resist. O Sensei is not moving to win, he is moving to de-escalate. Having the wind knocked out of you, or hitting the ground hard can dampen ardor. What is not shown is aikido against a NCAA D 1 wrestler, O sensei would move very differently. And a 52 year old v a 22 year old would be messy. (Also, in Japan Japanese students tend to "all fall down" as a sign of respect when not thrown... I've seen the same kinds of things outside of Japan where one or two get knocked down, and the others do not fall for formality sake. They make a master earn his throw.)
Like Pacquiao and Ali, O Sensei would adjust his tactic. He would neither box a boxer nor wrestle a wrestler. Three things, 1. both arts require both sides fight or the non-fighting side gets points off to the degree of losing the match. 2. All non-aikido systems have rules, while aikido does not. No one trains to defend against what is not allowed. Expect an aikidoist to make moves the other practitioner has never practiced against. 3. Both arts have clearly defined moves, expect the aikidoist to study the counters employed in the other sport. When a NCAA D1 wrestler goes for another's legs, rarely does it work out, for the counter. What makes one think an aikidoist will not employ the same counter?
Let's look at a 50% weight advantage vs aikido's chief instructor, circa 1955 (The aikidoka is Tohei Sensei, aikido chief instructor, with whom I have trained, and the instructor of my first three teachers):
The earnestness is demonstrated by the fact the challenger has torn Tohei Sensei's clothes, and apparently Tohei Sensei reckoned he might get taken if he did not choke his opponent out, which he does. I see various points at which Tohei might have thrown the opponent with an tomoe-nage, but if you don't know how to hard fall out of that, you might get seriously injured if not killed.
I have practiced all over the world and sparred with people trained in plenty of other styles. That just happens in 45 plus years of practicing assiduously. I've sparred with an air force judo man who was a training partner in Colorado for the USA Olympic judo team. I trained with a secret serviceman and surprised him. Tae kwon do, and so on. Never was anyone out to win, but to learn.
As a student of the legendary Bernie Lau I was taught to make arrests, and have effected about a dozen of them over the years, and plenty of face-offs that did not lead to me arresting the other party. Here is another point often missed in these discussions. Never once have I encountered anyone in a conflict that had any martial arts training. I don't think there is a single club that will train someone essentially criminal, no instructor will tolerate such presence. While most resisted, none were effective, because they simply had no idea what was happening or what to do about it. Their resistance just brought them more pain, and clearly, I had not even begun to fight. At the same time, if I ever tried to arrest a true psychopath, who could care less what was happening to him, and intent on killing me, well, then, my number came up, and I die. It's the life I chose.
The reason we have NCAA vs NCAA because there it does get down to the man. There is a closed system for competing within which there is another system for comparing and scoring. Aikido Vs whatever does not tell us much of anything.
But aren't there a lot of aikidoists who believe (like Rogan's guest) that the master could wave his arms and people fall down? Sure. Delusion sells. I've been in those dojo's. I am not welcome. But I have practiced all over the world and you can find enough people everywhere that study aikido as a martial art.
Senator and Judo champion Ben Nighthorse credits judo with keeping him out of trouble, but then training for the Olympics does tend to mop up all of one's time. His only regret is judo can sure beat up the body, leaving one with lifelong injuries, acute with old age. It is no coincidence that most of the old aikidoists come over from judo, where they gave up the combat and injury to work on that rare exquisite perfect throw.
Aikido has more than its share of delusionals, but so what? If you want an effective non-fighting martial art, there is aikido. Mr. Rogan needs to nuance his criticism a bit more.
Aikido, practiced as a martial art, by a conscientious objector, looks like the above. I will come at you with a view to pacifying you, you will not get up after I deal with you. I won't kill you, and I'll work not to injure you, but if you do get up, I am coming at you again. I can say truthfully there is nothing I enjoy more than dealing with violence. Never am I happier or more alive.
The top aikido people all came out of judo, so sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference.
Note when he says "with a forceful movement".
Well, often your opponent is giving you the force in judo, and so you do not have to supply your own. Many judo people know this, and switch to aikido, giving up the competition side, and just work on the shibui of the perfect throw.
If someone is behaving rather badly, but not initiating force, then aikido is pretty useless, to be effective, it needs the opponent's force. If someone is just being boorish, insulting and picking a fight, you can simply use spoken aikido, embrace and extend, redirect: agree with the insult (your are right to criticize the way I am dressed, I never had any sense of style, tell me, how might I improve my look?) Give them three chances to lighten up, and then say "Now I think you go to far with that statement. By then there is usually enough people on your side to inhibit the boor from escalating. If not, aikido game on. A great scene in literature is exactly this in Brothers Karamazov when the odious father is abusing the old holy priest in front of his sons. Check it out. Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.
