I think that people from outside of the grappling and MMA world seriously underestimate the effectiveness of wrestling as both self defense and a "martial art".

I wrestled all four years of High School. My point was to conflate it with Aikido in that some parts don't look practical or "only work if someone is working with you to make it work" when, in reality, they work. Although some are genuinely impractical. I would never go for a single leg sweep in a street fight, unless I managed to catch a poor kick, but most people don't try and kick that high. Or when their opponent isn't already on the ground.

Because I'm getting reply limited...

@atom-morgan

>Watch Division 1 wrestling and you see guys really going at it.

The difference there is it is a competition between two people trying to take each other down and pin. Aikido is not a competition between two people trying to take the other down - thus looks more demonstrative.

Demonstrative stuff looks fake and impractical, because it looks like a demonstration. :)

But imagine if your years of wrestling had no competitions, and no live wrestling during practices. Just four years of technique. That's the point myself and atom-morgan are making.

I'm not refuting that many of the takedowns are impractical. They involve "first get into this position" but offer no practical methodology of "getting to that position". While the impractical wrestling example I gave has a method of "get to the position you are holding your opponents leg up" it doesn't necessarily make it any more practical because getting to that position in an actual fight isn't well... practical. It's only practical within the rules of wrestling. There are takedowns I can cite that are practical in street fight scenarios, and I'm sure I could find Aikido ones that are equally practical.

I don't practice Aikido and I'm not overly familiar outside of what few videos I've seen of it. So I won't try and argue "X and Y move would be practical!" just that "looking impractical and being impractical are two different things".

I shared your criticism and pointed it out near the end of my original response:

>That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.

The body doesn't bend certain ways and using your own or your opponents body weight is effective regardless of how much they appear to be "allowing you to". Any criticism needs to be directed towards "you could not practically get into that position during a fight" which isn't as readily proved.

Although you are correct, that if it were more practical you would see more MMA/UFC fighters using Aikido and that can be used for a supporting claim of the impracticality of such positions.

I mostly responded because "looking impractical and being impractical aren't the same" because a lot of wrestling looks impractical, but people know it works.

Another tangent/example:

This is a big issue within Krav Maga, specifically the tactics for disarming knife-wielding opponents. A lot of it is battle-proven and works and has saved lives of field operators. But while being practiced it looks impractical or "the other person is letting you" and so people readily dismiss it ("Krap Maga")

I'm making a different point, which is that you are only good at what you have trained. And in the context of fighting, the training that matters most is against a live opponent.

Oh lord, Krav Maga and their knife disarms. You know what happens when an unarmed guy tries to fight a guy who is armed with a knife? He loses. Period.