PDA

View Full Version : O'sensei and his students...


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Skribbles
03-17-2009, 05:15 AM
im a total newb but it seems to me all the people who bash how effective aikido is or rather it'd work in a real fight are forgetting something? O'Sensai didnt take in newbs like myself (at least when he first started his art..maybe later on i dunno?) but from what i remember reading he only took people who were at least a blackbelt in another MA?

so my question is why would these people who had apparently spent years training in an art to be an effective fighter decide to train under someone who had an art that wasnt effective? and why would they stick with it if they didnt stand to gain something from it?

*shrugs*
justa newb tho so if someone could explain that to me...

gdandscompserv
03-17-2009, 08:18 AM
I don't think it's a question of whether O-sensei's aikido was effective or not. I think that's a given. Some just wonder if present day aikido is as effective as O-sensei's was.

mathewjgano
03-17-2009, 09:53 AM
so my question is why would these people who had apparently spent years training in an art to be an effective fighter decide to train under someone who had an art that wasnt effective? and why would they stick with it if they didnt stand to gain something from it?

*shrugs*
justa newb tho so if someone could explain that to me...

The best argument that makes sense to me is that it's like a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...
Small deviations over time can add up to large differences down the line. Also, I think anything that becomes as popular as Aikido has become is going to "fluff" up a bit. "Aikido" is a big group of people.
...Plus i think of Aikido as an exercise in subtlety, and that means the potency isn't glaringly obvious at a glance. I know my first impression of Aikido was that much didn't look very real. Now I see some method to the madness.

Skribbles
03-17-2009, 11:15 AM
The best argument that makes sense to me is that it's like a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy...
well that would be true in any art then... kung fu for example is very old in comparsion to aikido and noone questions rather or not kung fu is effective...

what im saying is it shouldnt matter that its a 4 generation old MA when you compare it to some of the older ones theres no reason if o'sensei's aikido was effective ours should be as well dontcha think?

mathewjgano
03-17-2009, 12:42 PM
well that would be true in any art then... kung fu for example is very old in comparsion to aikido and noone questions rather or not kung fu is effective...
Very true. I was describing one aspect of why parts of the Aikido world might not be very effective. I've heard plenty of folks question kung fu's effectiveness though. Bruce Lee, as but one, seemed to think much of it was too rooted to form.
I think much of what you might be describing then is the image of the art, not the art itself? Speaking as the lovey-dovey son of a hippie who grew up in the 55th worst city in America, i think I understand part of what feeds that too.

what im saying is it shouldnt matter that its a 4 generation old MA when you compare it to some of the older ones theres no reason if o'sensei's aikido was effective ours should be as well dontcha think?
If every student of his was roughly as dedicated to their training as he was, and every student of theirs was the same, going down the line to the present mass of students, I don't think the Aikido-effectiveness issue would be as popular as it is today.

Cyrijl
03-17-2009, 02:57 PM
well that would be true in any art then... kung fu for example is very old in comparsion to aikido and noone questions rather or not kung fu is effective...

what im saying is it shouldnt matter that its a 4 generation old MA when you compare it to some of the older ones theres no reason if o'sensei's aikido was effective ours should be as well dontcha think?

Just for my own edification...are saying you think kung fu is effective?

grondahl
03-17-2009, 03:07 PM
I dont think anyone questions sanshou/sanda as being effective, after all itīs just chinese full contact kickboxing with some throws. But for the more traditional forms that lacks conditioning and sparring........;)

well that would be true in any art then... kung fu for example is very old in comparsion to aikido and noone questions rather or not kung fu is effective...

what im saying is it shouldnt matter that its a 4 generation old MA when you compare it to some of the older ones theres no reason if o'sensei's aikido was effective ours should be as well dontcha think?

Cyrijl
03-17-2009, 03:49 PM
Peter,
The statement about the effectiveness of "kung fu" says something about the poster's views. I agree Sanda/SanShou is alot different than Win Chun or Crane Style. But if the OP takes the latter as "effective", then surely he must accept Aikido as effective.

Skribbles
03-17-2009, 08:33 PM
Just for my own edification...are saying you think kung fu is effective?

yes i believe kung fu is effective...i believe every martial art is effective if trained hard enough... and that includes aikido... my reasoning for this is that i dont believe accomplished martial artists would have trained under o'sensei if his art "didnt work" and as amazing as he was i dont believe he was unique in it... with training i dont see why anyone cant be just as good...

the reason i used kung fu as an example was because kungfu panda is obviously not lacking in skill :D
but seriously i think aikido is just as effective as any other art it just needs practice

anywho....

Michael Douglas
03-19-2009, 03:34 AM
Good comment Brian.
im a total newb but it seems to me all the people who bash how effective aikido is or rather it'd work in a real fight are forgetting something? O'Sensai didnt take in newbs like myself (at least when he first started his art..maybe later on i dunno?) but from what i remember reading he only took people who were at least a blackbelt in another MA?

so my question is why would these people who had apparently spent years training in an art to be an effective fighter decide to train under someone who had an art that wasnt effective? and why would they stick with it if they didnt stand to gain something from it?

This can't be stressed enough.
In the beginning there were NO BUNNIES.
Also, Ueshiba obviously had something which experienced Budoka found fascinating enough to make many of them follow his teachings. There are LOTS of older posts in this forum which throw light on what that might've been. Look in "non-aikido" threads.

George S. Ledyard
03-19-2009, 06:08 PM
Just for my own edification...are saying you think kung fu is effective?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
This is like the BLOB from the old horror movies... it just grows and grows. After lengthy and interminable discussion of whether Aikido works on the street and its myriad aspects... the topic that NEVER dies, has joined the unkillable undead of threads, we have spawned a discussion of whether Kung Fu is effective?

I say NO, NO , NO! Don't let this happen. It's bad enough that we can't restrain our need to discuss our own art this way. This is an Aikido site. Let's not take on the effectiveness or lack thereof of ANOTHER art... please?

I can only take just so many mixed martial arts are superior posts. Don't create another opportunity for this. The only thing that can kill these threads is the stake through the heart of non-participation. No other response will do. Take pity on an old man and spare my heart. Don't go there, don't even think about going there.

Skribbles
03-20-2009, 01:21 AM
braaainnnsss......