Meaning of Competitive?

[Please visit our sponsor:]

Round-Earth.com - "Ki in Aikido" Book, 2nd edition, now available.

[Chuck Clark]

Hi everyone,

I was just reading some of the posts here on AikiWeb Forum and I see lots of folks using the words "competition or competitive" and I would like to kinda pick this word apart a bit because I think our society's usage is skewed. I would appreciate your thoughts after reading the following essay.

Competition
This article originally appeared in the Jiyushinkai Budo News and
then was reprinted in Furyu, The Budo Journal

I am a competitor. I grew up competing for grades in school and victories on the athletic field. Now I compete in the business world. At times it seems my whole life is a competition. So, what drew me to aikido? This is a noncompetitive martial art with no tournaments, trophies, or the other traditional trappings of competition. Am I trying to escape from competition?

My involvement in aikido has forced me to question my understanding of competition. I've always thought of competition as winning or losing. Where did I get this idea? As a kid I was told that it doesn't matter if I win or lose, but it's how I played the game that counts. As an adult, I was told that winning is everything, and the only thing worse than losing was failing to compete. This approach to competition seemed to produce a state of warfare in my life. Every situation became a confrontation resulting in either a win or a loss, and losing was unacceptable. Is competition reflected in this zero-sum view of life?

The word compete comes from the Latin competere, which is a compound verb formed from com that means 'together', and petere that means 'to seek'. Therefore, compete originally meant 'to seek together'. Webster's defines compete as 'to come together or to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective'. These definitions appear more closely related to aikido than my zero-sum view of life as 'winning is everything'.

So, maybe aikido is competitive. It is a journey we take together, seeking an objective, and hopefully as we travel our journey moves from the unconscious to the conscious.

I believe that competition has become confused with combat, which is a zero-sum path. Combat comes from the Latin combattere, which means 'to fight together'. Webster's defines combat as 'fighting with and striving to reduce or eliminate'. These definitions appear to be more consistent with our society's understanding of competition. We like to view our activities in terms of warfare. Why else do we find Sun Tzu's The Art of War in the business section of our bookstore, or hear athletes talking about 'taking no prisoners'? Are these competitors or combatants?

Traveling along the road of competition is healthy, and it is only when we detour into the darkness of combat that we lose our way. Confusing the two roads has deprived many people of the chance to experience the lessons of competition. Some have become engrossed with the idea that winning is everything, and they only see life as a series of battles in a war. The only purpose to their life is winning, but they never question what they have won. Others are scared of losing, so they refuse to play the game. They become spectators, failing to participate in life, and losing by default. Neither of these groups understands that competition is part of our journey through life, not the final destination.

Life requires participation (getting your hands dirty; putting our hand in your partner's face; taking a fall), and participation involves the risk of failure. In The Art of Peace, O-Sensei says, "Failure is the key to success, each mistake teaches us something." How can we find failure or success if we confuse competition with combat?

Success and failure are 'mile markers' along the road during competition. We use them to gauge our progress. We should learn from both our successes and our failures, because neither are permanent nor final stops along the road. However, in combat, success is just a reprieve until the road ends in failure. Which road do you wish to travel?


© Copyright by Roger Alexander 1996 All Rights Reserved

(Roger was a professional baseball pitcher and is now a teacher and coach as well as a sandan in aikido.)

Thanks,

[akiy]

Good points there, Chuck.

I don't think competition is a bad thing, even in aikido. I feel that competition with ego leads to the concepts of winning and losing, something that's probably not "right" in aikido. However, competition in it's purest sense will help both parties learn and grow in a cooperative manner.

(I have a quote here on my whiteboard at home that says, "Always make new mistakes." As long as I'm open to making mistakes, I feel like I'm open to fixing them, too...)

-- Jun

[Chuck Clark]

Happy 4th of July, Jun!

By training with the "real" meaning of competition and the intent to transcend the fear or worry of "winning and losing" we have the chance to actually succeed in this transcendence.

I think if we do not have a "competitive attitude" there is no real chance to grow. However, if we have, as Roger says, taken to using the concept of "combat" while using the word competitive, we just muddy the waters. We are then trying to eliminate something that is necessary to succeed in the practice.

I think there was a mistake made in translating M. Ueshiba's teachings by using the word "competitive" as meaning a zero sum activity where there is a winner and loser. Of course this is paradoxical because most of us for a long, long time feel deep in our guts that we "lose" every time someone makes a technique on us when we don't expect it, etc. This is why the transcendence is necessary. Winning and losing isn't important ... until it IS important! We must know the difference.

[AikiTom]

Good insight. Wanting to excel and wanting to win are two different things, or maybe one at different points on the same continuum. A matter of degree. Pressing yourself to excel is good I feel because you take pleasure at achieving something that took focused effort, whereas in winning some take pleasure from the fact that someone subdued/dominated another.
On a tangent, a thought I always have liked is in the Sun Tzu book, in which it is asked, "What is the object of war?" Someone answers, "Victory," and they are told that's not correct. Rather, it's "Peace." The knowledge behind the exchange is that "victory" is not lasting, and often prompts retaliation in a new try for "victory," in a cycle of violence. And that is where an excessive thirst for "winning" on the mat, can be dangerous, not fun, and distort the mood/culture of a school.

[giriasis]

Thank you Chuck.

That article made me think of my band competitions in junior high and high school. The schools in my home county were part of the Florida Bandmasters Association and they did not believe in competition. They believe that to excel in music a muscisian should "compete" against him or herself. We did not compete for first, second or third but rather for Superior, Excellent, Good ratings. We were judged for the quality of our performance rather judged against other performers. So essentially if all participants were good enough, they all could receive a Superior rating.

Even now as I learn and practice aikido this concept of competing with oneself has been reinforced so I can become a better person whether it is in law school or in the dojo.



[Edited by giriasis on July 5, 2000 at 09:42pm]

[dbgard]

I liked the thread concerning irimi and tenkan, but I was having trouble logging in to respond. I'd like to sum up my thoughts on it. Irimi at its highest level is entering a distant or future situation with one's mind, then deciding whether or not to physically enter this friendly or dangerous environment. If a positive outcome is predicted, then it is time for either irimi "hug" as Dennis Hooker Sensei taught at a seminar of his which I attended, or irimi nage to "cleanse" the situation. If one forsees a negative outcome for his or her self, then tenkan / kaiten is far more noble and wise than iriminage. I hope y'all like my thoughts on that =).

Aiki is Eternal,
Drew Gardner
Gokyu (but ALWAYS a beginner)
Aikido Schools of Ueshiba
FSU Aikido Club, Tallahassee, FL

[Nick]

I believe that competition, in Aikido, even as described above, is still a bad thing. Competition is about winning, IMO, and if someone in an Aikido dojo tries to "compete" with others, the results are disasterous. Uke comes in with an attack, and BOOM! Nage wants to show everyone his technique is soooo good (competition) and throws uke with excessive force, breaking his wrist.

Now, this is an exaggeration of course, but as O-sensei said: "There is no attack. To be attacked is to lose." So therefore, if we try to attack each other (competition), we both lose...

-Nick

[Chuck Clark]

Nick,

You're missing the point.

The "construct" you're using for competitive is skewed and slanted towards aggression and combative behavior which is destructive and does not contribute to learning aikido.

Combative training relationships do not form trust and intimacy between partners.

Training in a way that leads to transcendence of winning and losing must have a true "competitive" intent but without aggression and the zero sum attitude of a combative intent.

[Nick]

damn... I hate it when you're right :).

-Nick

[dbgard]

Chuck,

This is an aikido website. If you would like to discuss the beauty of competition, reverse evolution, and killer instinct, please start your own website for your martial "art", godblessyuwazzap aikibudo or whatever. In aikido it is my understanding that a positively numbered sum is better than a zero sum. I think you are forgeting a key philosophy of the East when you make your bold statements. (Remember, the East is where all this great budo came from that we practice.) Here it is:

Increase can often be Decrease.

e.g. 2 + (-1) equals 1. Adding something negative to such a noble number as '2' will only manifest itself as a step in the wrong direction.

Do not fret, increase can also be increase!

e.g. 2 plus 1 equals 3. do you understand, Chucky? I look forward to your feedback on this matter.

the number 0 is terrible! that's the goto statement in computer programming, it's the endless cycle of rebirth in Hinduism and Sikh (I think), 1 is no-mind, 0 is no life. Life is a sport, so drink gallons of water and pee in the toilet so as not to kill flowers in the garden. There I go again rambling, I'll say bye for now.

Drew "The Man" Gardner
Arrogance is Only Fun
When it is Harmless

[Chuck Clark]

Mr Gardner,

Young sir, you show your instructors that you list in your profile great disrespect by treating anyone in such a disrespectful manner. I'm certainly glad that I don't have to put up with you.

'Nuff said.

[Keith]

Drew,
Are you referring to Chuck CLARK? Because I see the exact opposite of what you are criticising in your post. Have I missed something? Help me out here. Perhaps you think he meant "competitive" in the way it's normally used in our culture, when he actually meant it in the spirit of the first post. Of course if I'm the one who has misunderstood Mr. Clark, he is welcome to correct me.

Keith Engle

[AikiTom]

Dang!
I'm with you Clark Sensei.

[Edited by AikiTom on July 9, 2000 at 01:39pm]

[dbgard]

AikiTom wrote:
Dang! I, too, am speechless. Feel like I was sitting in an empty room, and an airplane flew in one window and out the other! A little too much rawness to be beautiful in that mental Altoid.
Arrogance ain't harmless or fun, and it hurts or gets hurt on the mat.
I'm with you Clark Sensei.


I don't respect the ego, neither should anyone else, an uchi deschi of O'Sensei's for 15 or so years once became a Tengu and taught me that. Sorry y'all didn't pick up on it. I hope you learn it soon or form your own little martial "art" because aikido has no room for the likes of this bull shit.

Peace,
Drew

[AikiTom]

[Edited by AikiTom on July 9, 2000 at 01:40pm]

[dbgard]

thomas,

Since you have all the right words and the perfect order for them, why haven't you written a book yet? Or maybe you just couldn't find a publisher. keep the faith kohai!! Oh, and you seem to be a little obsessed with me, and if you feel that turning into anger-filled, psychotic envy, Dr. Drew recommends fluoxetine HCl (Prozac). Take care now, bye bye then.

8P
Drew "Mr. Misogi" Gardner

p.s. I use the words in the proper way I think, just not the way in which you can complete your psychotic secret mission in life (I apologize for that) NOTTTT!!!

[Nick]

Drew:

I understand the kind of person you are. You believe you are right, and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps we are. However, you have no right to personally attack someone or call their philosophy bullshit because you don't agree with them is not only arrogant, but is stupid, and in real life will get you hurt. You should be more repectful of everyone on this board, and also their opinions.

Also- how do I understand the kind of person you are? Because I used to be that kind of person. Then I found the art that is called Aikido, and it totally changed my life. I now have respect for everyone, no matter how low my opinion is of them, because everyone thinks that they are right. Are my words and thoughts bullshit? Perhaps. However, if they are, I don't want to see the truth, because this bullshit called Aikido is amazing, and has permentantly changed my life.

I only hope you realize the spiritual aspects of Aikido soon.

Peace,

-Nick

[AikiTom]

Nick, thanks for the back-up, bud. The problem with a "'roid rage" guy like this isn't his words or his lack of understanding of aikido, (for instance, his statement "gokyu but still beginner's mind" - Duh, gokyo IS a beginner, Drew!) it's that he doesn't see these faults.
This type of person always hurts someone on the mat, and leaves a trail of injuries. I doubt he works out with the senseis he mentions - they wouldn't tolerate that behavior.

[Pete]

I think another aspect of this chaps disrespect for people is the way he changes your name without permission in his posts. I wouldn't dream of calling Chuck Clark Sensei 'Chucky', and if TOM chooses to sign his threads TOM, who is he to decide to use THOMAS?? After all, your given on your birth certificate name may actually be TOM!!

The thread itself is very informative, AND I think, quite ON TOPIC about Aikido, after all, as far as I can tell, one of the BIG questions revoloving around in the Aikido world, seems to be 'should Aikido be competetive'!!

I personally don't get a great deal out of 'competetive combative' sports, but enjoy trying my best against friends in say bowling as much as the next guy. In Aikido, the only person I compete against is me! After all, I am the only one that is getting in the way of bettering myself in the art!!

Domo Arigato

Pete

[Chuck Clark]

Hi everyone,

This struggle with the concepts of how to be "competitive" without being "combative" is troublesome. I suspect we have gotten so used to using these words while meaning the same thing that we don't have a word for what it's like to be able to stop worrying about winning and losing.

What if we just "always try to do the best we can without worrying if we're 'better than someone else (or even how we were yesterday)' and just do the practice."

If we value the budo aspect of the practice then we must enter into the paradox of "caring whether we let the energy of the uke do its intended job or to get off the line, blend, take balance, and render that energy harmless" but not caring whether we "win or lose" or that we're "right or wrong" or that we're better than the other person. Just do the practice, try our best to survive a dangerous encounter (if it ever occurs), and let the relative dynamics of life determine all of those other things.

Thanks,

[dbgard]

All these grandiose opinions, and I have yet to hear a direct quote - or any type of substance - from one of the great aikido books out on the market. I do recall Erik Sensei mentioning one of Leonard Sensei's books, but the rest of you? Don't you want to share a viewpoint on a work by John Stevens, Kisshomaru Ueshiba, Saotome Mitsugi (besides just his photos and discussion of aikijutsu)??? Wouldn't anyone like to thank Ikeda Sensei for operation one hell of a good aikido equipment business? I would.
This personal assault crap has gotta go, in my opinion, because compared to Saito Sensei, Saotome Sensei, and other rokudan and higher-ranking Sensei, we are all little ants trying to climb the hill in the U.S.
Maybe there's a hill in each country of the world which will one day be climbed by all the good citizens. One that glorious day the world will sing together. Honestly though, any one of we aikidoka conversing on this web page who is below the rank of rokudan, let's say (so we can draw a line somewhere), is a baby in aikijutsu. I know of students who have never even set foot in an aikidojo who are Sensei and Sempai to me in Aikido. Those who have acheived a form of satori and have found their personal Maai I consider Sensei and Sempai in the Way of Truth, the Way of the Kami, the Way of the kami, the Way of Harmonious Blending with the Spirit of God, the Way of Harmonious Blending with the Spirit of Good.

Drew

[giriasis]

"In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control." --Morihei Ueshiba

or

"the Art of Peace can be summed up like this: True victory is self-victory; let that day arrive quickly!" --Morihei Ueshiba

From the way you speak, your words are very disrespectful. There are ways of expressing your disagreement without attacking them. I have read many of Chuck's words and others on this site and their words have given reason for deserving respect.

Just because someone with more experience, more knowledge, and more understanding of aikido disagrees with you does not mean you are less. It is just that they disagree.

My question to you would you speak to these people this way in person? I don't think so.

Anne Marie


[Edited by giriasis on July 10, 2000 at 12:59pm]

[Nick]

It is amazing the kind of zeal and bravery people get when their words cannot hurt them in real life. However, that bravado goes away for many faced with an attack. It is at that point that our bullshit turns to Aikido, and we subdue the opponent.

Also, to Pete: Who said we had to quote anyone or anything? Our own opinions have effect also.

-Nick

[dbgard]

giriasis wrote:
"In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control." --Morihei Ueshiba


A perfect example of hypocrisy and/or bold statements in light of lack of coherence and/or gratitude.

Do you think that calling me a coward and extremely disrespectful is a compliment of sorts? Sounds like a verbal attack to me. One which I deal with much more often than the physical attacks.

Fighting fire with fire gets nobody very far, try cooling the "hot ones" down with a little water, maybe everyone will feel better. Or, are you just trying to make an uncomfortable situation here behind the guise of an innocent girl? If so, you are kind of being a bitch. Take care now, bye bye then.

Drew G.

[Nick]

"Take Care now, Bye Bye then."

I hope you will heed your own words and leave this board. Your presence is dragging us off-topic and starting a flame war.

-Nick

[dbgard]

Nick,

C'mon buddy, this art is about staying lighthearted I think (though not necessarily 'flaming' as you might say hahaha).

It's time to do away with this macho "look at me I'm a samurai in a long skirt" nonsense, and for the love of God start enjoying ourselves.

If I happen to throw a quote or two in from Ace Ventura, that should be funny I think, didn't you see those movies?

Hasta la vista, baby,
Drew

[JO]

To bring this thread back to the meaning of competitive. I have to disagree on the competitive/combattive split. Maybe it was our messed up society that changed the meaning from the latin, but I can think of no one speaking english who would use the word competition to describe people striving together for something, not from a teamwork perspective anyway. To quote the Oxford dictionary under competitive "having a strong urge to win".
In ecology (my field of study), we use the word competition to describe two or more organisms striving for one common resource with the idea that if one gets it the other doesn't and this is pretty much in line with the general usage of the word. For two organisms working together for mutual gain, we use the term mutualism or symbiosis.
Using this terminology I would say that aikido is (or strives to be) a mutualistic martial art, and that this is part of what I enjoy about it.

[Nick]

one thing- I meant Drew, not Pete, in my above post.

-Nick

[Chuck Clark]

Great post, JO

This is the sort of discussion I had hoped to get going.

I agree. What I call our randori practice for example is a "managed competition based on the recognized need for a symbiotic relationship of mutual trust and growth." Similar to your biological model.

Something different about it though, is that we engage in a desensitization and resensitization process in order to transcend 'winning and losing', which is of course, paradoxical. While doing randori, each person must be trying one hundred percent to take the partner's initiative and make the best quality of technique possible while at the same time ... not really caring who throws or is thrown as long as it is a "sweet technique."

This is very hard to understand for many people and extremely difficult to learn to do. It is a process which takes perserverance and great focus of our intent. We go through various levels of attitudes which we often aren't proud of, but if we continue in the right direction, we eventually reach the goal.

Once you really don't care if someone "catches" you, the sensitivity to the process reaches very high levels and you're so relaxed that you learn that there are still many options to make kaeshiwaza, for example. A person who "fights" and is unwilling and uncomfortable being at risk lacks the sensitivity to feel the openings.

The process takes quite some time and there must be a strong motive in the practitioners to cooperate in this mutual learning exercise while using this 'competitive' attitude of trying to 'win' without caring who actually wins. Often it boils down to ... "some get it, and some don't."

Experienced judo players can tell immediately, for example, who knows the difference between randori and shiai. You can tell at first contact by the way the person responds to having their balance broken.

Well, enough for now. I am interested to know what you think about these ideas.

Thanks for your input.

[Pete]

Why does throwing in a quote from a book by a recognised Aikidoka make a persons point more acceptable to some people? Why rely on what is basically that one authors point of view on something, when even the lowliest grade, or even someone who has never done Aikido may be able to bring a fresh view point to what ostensibly could become a stagnant discussion! This world of ours, this 'democracy', and especially this FORUM is supposedly built on free speech and having the chance to air your view without fear of reprisal, or rebuke. And too often like most things it gets bogged down in petty bickering and childish ignorance (of which we are all guilty of, even me!!). Every single person, from a no kyu right up to the Doshu himself has the right to express their view and to live life how they choose. So, in the interests of democracy, the forum, and humanity in general perhaps it would be nice to 'listen' or read, digest others points of view, and then reply in a courteous AND respectful manner without resorting to name calling, or bickering!!

Peace people. After all as Aikido is 'The Art of Peace'.

Pete

[George S. Ledyard]

It was suggested earlier that we look to the great Senseis for our inspiration and essentially stop spouting our own ideas. Well, I must say that I have read every book in English on Aikido, some more than once. I go back over and over to the best ones. There is a point in which you have to take the concepts and great ideas and make them your own. The reason I submit my ideas to the forum is to practice putting them in coherent form and checking to see if what I am saying seems to make sense to others. Not only that, but without your own personal training to illuminate the words of the teachers with such a depth of experience you won't necessarily understand what they mean anyway.

The whole issue of what is competition is an interesting one. If my partner does not allow me to throw him when my technique isn't adequate, is that competition? I once attended an Aikido seminar and was training with a student from a different dojo. We were doing katate tori related techniques. I grabbed the wrist of my partner in the way that I do when I am out at someone else’s place (not the way I would with my own students or as I would with my training buddies). In other words I was being polite about it but trying to give good energy. The person was completely unable to move. Normally I would have immediately backed off because clearly the person wasn't up to training at even that reduced level. But before I could make the adjustment the training partner said to me "You're very resistant! Your energy body isn't very sensitive." I was flabbergasted to realize that as a partner I was expected to make their technique work for them. That in pointing out the complete lack of understanding which my partner had (even though I hadn't been intending to do so) I was considered at fault. I am sure that that person would say that I was being competitive. But at the point where it is the uke's fault that you can't do your own technique, does anyone have any idea what is going on in the training? Is there even training going on at that point? I don't think so.

I have had the experience many times of doing a whole two-hour class with Ikeda Sensei as my partner. On a number of occasions I hardly did a technique the whole time. His turn to throw I fall down, my turn to throw, I fall down. You get the picture. When you stand across from someone like Ikeda sensei and look in his eyes you see implacable partner. There is no doubt in your mind that one way or another he will do whatever it takes for you to go to the ground (and I mean he'll do it with skill and precision, without injuring you at all). His martial intention is something to behold. In my younger days I would defeat myself before he even had to do a technique just do to the strength of his intention. I finally got to the point where I would at least endeavor to make him work for it. I would shoot for a small grunt or something that would act as a sign that he actually had to devote some small effort before I went flying. Very occasionally I would get it; most of the time, not. I know that many people in Aikido would look at what we were doing as competition. It is in a sense. in a sense. But I would say that they misunderstand the nature of the competition. When Ikeda Sensei is training like that with me he is being the grindstone on which I polish myself. I can't say that it's always fun because of course we all really are attached to success and it's not so reinforcing to have to face the fact that you can't do something. But it’s extremely valuable. Talk about having to deal with your ego. That kind of training is a form of tough love. But Ikeda Sensei is also a very "clean" gentleman. You can train that way with him precisely because you can trust that on the rare occasion that you get the better of him on a technique, he won't make you "pay" the next time as many teachers I've encountered will do. I trained for fifteen years before I ever managed to hit one of my teachers. When I finally pulled it off I went home to tell my wife "I did it, I finally got him!" Saotome Sensei's response when I was able to strike him was a smile and the simple comment "good" and them I went flying as usual on my next attempt. He was genuinely pleased that I had been able to land one.

That kind of training you can only do with a small number of people. It requires an agreement between you that honesty in your technique is what you are looking for. If I don't have it, I don't want my students falling down. How can I get better if they are giving it to me? If my partner stops my technique I say "Thank you" (as long as the arrangement is mutual). People can give each other a very hard time on the mat and look very competitive. But it’s the attitude behind the competition that counts. You can have a competition of sorts both with yourself and your partner as long as it is not trying to make yourself bigger at the expense of someone else. When you give your partner a hard time out of respect for him because he deserves your best efforts as uke and you expect the same from him that may have some elements of competition in it but its a positive version.

O-Sensei once did a demonstration in which one of his ukes pulled his attack; he didn't attack with real intention because he feared that O-sensei (who had been very ill) couldn't handle the attack. O-Sensei broke his arm because he hadn't come in cleanly (not intentionally so but as the result of a attack that had incorrect energy). He expected that he would be attacked all out and in fact that was the only way to really be safe when you took the ukemi.

I think there is a large component of competition in our practice but it is a competition that doesn't have winners and losers. Winners and losers happen in sport and combat. In our form of competition there aren't any winners and losers, the participants all win because they all get better through the efforts they put in.

[Edited by George S. Ledyard on July 11, 2000 at 06:48am]

[JO]

I agree that intent has a lot to do with whether or not you are being competitive in aikido. There are no competitions in our practice in the conventional sense (say as in most sports). However, if when practicing you resist a technique to prove to yourself or to your partner that you are better than him you are competing with him. If you resist his technique because he is missing something, I find it helps if you give him an idea about what is missing both when I am resisiting and when being resisted against, then you may actually be helping that person improve.
If I go back to my biological model, it is only competition if you take something away from the other to give yourself (or in this case you ego) a boost. But if you give something back to the person and help them reach their goal (of a better technique) how can you be seen as competing with them.
I do find it tricky to know how much to resist a technique though. Some partners seem to like a strong resistance to see if they can still do the technique while others get quickly frustrated, hopefully with experience I will learn to read which is which more quickly.

[Chuck Clark]

George,

What you're describing is very much what we do in randori except we have a method for teaching people to do it. Of course, we start very slow but committed to full movements full of intention. If you start a movement, you have to complete that movement to it's natural finish (ie. when going slow it's easy to realize you have made a mistake. You must understand that if you were going regular speed, it wouldn't be possible to stop and change your movement, so you continue and learn what the outcome is).

Eventually after quite a few years of this practice, we can go full speed and power at times. This is very strong and difficult practice and isn't done very often. We prefer to go about 1/3 speed or so. It's a very powerful learning tool. Your brain is picking up information whether you're doing the technique or end up taking the ukemi.

[dbgard]

Ledyard Sensei,

Yes it is sometimes tough love, a very samurai love. My congrats on connecting a punch to Mr. Saotome I've seen him "live in concert" and I don't think he gets hit too often. My home dojo is affiliated with the ASU, so Saotome Shihan is our...well....our shihan. 8). I went to a seminar of his in Orlando not too long ago. After the seminar, a few nidans were testing for sandan, which certainly was exciting and quite humbling to watch.

One of the nidans was called out to do a randori with three shinai wielding "ninjas" attacking. He kept on trying to use their own shinai against each other, execute textbook techniques, and I think, just all-around look cool. He kind of reminded me of Johnny Ringo in Tombstone[.

After getting smacked in thr forehead full-force by at least 2 shinai, "Ringo" ended up getting his promotion.

Shihan decided he'd let us know a slightly better way of accomplishing randori. Well, A MUCH BETTER WAY. Saotome M. Shihan asked the "ninjas" to take positions on the mat, and yelled ATTACK!!!! I don't think he even had to touch one attacker or one shinai, he just moved through it all. He was taking a walk through the park, and the attackers were only helping Shihan's breath circulation my mixing the air molecules around him with their missed slashes.

Some Amaebi Heads for the Recycle Bin,
Drew

[Erik]

You see an attractive member of your desired sex you....

a) let your internal feeling of love attract him/her to you.

b) rely on the harmony of the universe to put the 2 of you together.

c) express your interest whilst highlighting what makes you a better partner than all the others doing the same thing. In other words, you compete with them.

If you are smart you compete based on that. If you are rich you compete on that basis. If you are good looking you compete on that basis. In nature you see this when males compete for the females affections. The strongest gets to mate and the loser doesn't. The competition helps to ensure the best mate with the best.

I remember my 8th grade math teacher fostered competition amongst 3 students and we each moved much further than we otherwise would have. Competition was a tool to get us to work harder and learn more. I'd suggest in that environment it was very much a positive thing.

I do recall Erik Sensei mentioning one of Leonard Sensei's books, but the rest of you?

I hope there's another Erik out there. I've been fortunate (hopefully those in the class agreed with that interpretation) to have taught a fair amount and played a fairly major part in more than one school but I definitely don't fit the generally accepted usage of this term. Hell, I'm not even close to being the senior student in rank or time where I currently hang out.

Also, my suggestion would be to not use this term here at all. My understanding is that the term simply means teacher but for some reason it often seems to carry strange overtones which lead to bizarre and strange behavior. My fear is that it causes people to subordinate what might or might not be valid opinions. Maybe these are just my own personal issues but I've seen some big huge hangups around that term and they weren't fun to be around.

[JO]

Yes we all compete at some time or another for something. This usually makes life harder although sometimes it just makes it interesting.
As for competition at school, I think that this is a perfect example oh how competition can be a problem. When in CEGEP (Quebec's junior coillege system)I was in an advanced program with a small number of students, we tended to help each other out with our school work, to everybody's advantage. In the general school population, I heard many stories where competition for grades was so high that students would avoid giving any help or even mislead their peers. This generally creates great stress.
Personnally I always aimed for high grades but not necessarily for grades higher than anyone elses. So I have helped many fellow students over the years. I once coached a friend through a stats test, she thinks she would have failed without me, instead she did better than I did (although we both got A's).
I think we can all strive for our ideals (high grades, money, great aikido technique) without competing. For myself, when it came to grades I compared myself to my ideal more than to the other students.

[Erik]

JO, your missing the point I was making (or I made it badly). We were not competing for a scarce resource. We were competing to learn. It's different from your educational example where there are limited resources (scholarships or whatever) and winning or losing can make the difference between a good education and a job flipping burgers. It might if there are only so many opportunities for advanced education. In the latter case I'd imagine almost anything goes.

[Chuck Clark]

Consider some ideas from concepts of sport from earlier times... "it isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game," etc. or how about, "winners never cheat and cheaters never win."

These sayings are almost laughable now in big time pro sports, collegiate money making athletic programs, even high school programs which have become farm teams in essence for the colleges and pros. I have no problem with these programs producing good athletes who plan to try to make a living in the pros. However, the tactics and goings-on behind the scenes to succeed are not reminiscent of the sayings quoted above.

Business now is not just competition for a share of the market; it's more often "put the other guys out of business!" Sounds like lots of nasty, combative stuff to me.

[Erik]

Chuck Clark wrote:
Consider some ideas from concepts of sport from earlier times... "it isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game," etc. or how about, "winners never cheat and cheaters never win."

These sayings are almost laughable now in big time pro sports, collegiate money making athletic programs, even high school programs which have become farm teams in essence for the colleges and pros. I have no problem with these programs producing good athletes who plan to try to make a living in the pros. However, the tactics and goings-on behind the scenes to succeed are not reminiscent of the sayings quoted above.

Business now is not just competition for a share of the market; it's more often "put the other guys out of business!" Sounds like lots of nasty, combative stuff to me.

I couldn't agree more. I used to regularly play in pickup basketball games and for some of us it was good exercise and occasionally good competition. I used to like nothing better than to have someone better come out because it motivated me to play better and see how good I could be.

For others it was different. I used to have to endure arguments, fights and generally deal with petulant children. I've been intentionally hurt, heard of knives and guns coming to play and even been in one fight myself (pre-aikido). I've watched people cheat and lie when the only reward was winning a game no one would remember playing the next day. We're talking games with nothing on the line, yet these people lied and cheated. It was amazing to behold.

One other positive aspect to this is that occasionally someone would get under my skin and piss me off. It helped make things real, was often a very good learning experience and interestingly enough the energy of the anger would often be the catalyst for an improvement in my game. It's an interesting energy and one I've not really been able to duplicate on the mat.

[dave]

Nick wrote:
damn... I hate it when you're right :).

-Nick NICK if any one was rightit was you,tthe point was participation and cooperation,some would justify competition and aggression if they could.

[Orange]

George S. Ledyard wrote:
I was flabbergasted to realize that as a partner I was expected to make their technique work for them.

I know this is off topic but...

I have seen people resist techniques in such a way that Nage is forced to pick a different technique. I can't think of any examples offhand but I do know that locking the elbow often turns a relatively painless technique into something that can become rokkyo. In cases like these, we usually have uke do something they aren't doing instinctively for the sake of the exercise, in essence, making nage technique work.

[JO]

Erik, I think I understand your position. Comparing oneself to others and "competing" to acquire knowledge or skill can be a strong motivation for improvement but I have seen it get out of hand. If you are motivated purely by the thought of being better than the others you may try to bring them down rather than bring yourself up. You and your classmates may have been above that kind of behavior but many are not and it does not necessarily take anything as seductive as a big scholarship to bring it out (although it can help, the worst stories I have heard are from students trying to get into med school).
I think maybe the question comes down to the line between frienly competition and no holds barred competition, personnally I have found that that line is easier to cross than we like to think (I've seen enough fights in little league hockey and baseball to know that much).

[Chuck Clark]

JO wrote:

Comparing oneself to others and "competing" to acquire knowledge or skill can be a strong motivation for improvement but I have seen it get out of hand. If you are motivated purely by the thought of being better than the others you may try to bring them down rather than bring yourself up

I agree wholeheartedly. That's exactly why we need training in a controlled learning environment monitored by a teacher who has gone through the process and has achieved some level of their own self-control.

Running away from or refusing to deal with these human problems in dealing with conflict are not the way to learn behaviors which give us the tools to resolve conflict.

Great discussion now, by the way. We all have much to learn from each other!

Thanks,

[Edited by Chuck Clark on July 12, 2000 at 04:07pm]

[Yo-Jimbo]

People most often set their personal records when competing with others. Gold medals have that effect. It is easy to motivate one to reach for the carrot or avoid the whip. Sometimes that motivation is greater if someone else can get the carrot or whip too.

I've always played basketball by the words, "If your not trying to win, why keep score." -Worf. I love how it pushes me to perform, win or lose. Still, not long ago, in a pickup game a (football) player that was on the other team riped my shirt off my back because he was frustrated by losing. My aikido in that situation was to take off the remains of my shirt and keep playing. He taught me to blend with and channel unnecessary aggression and I taught him that being mad and voilent isn't enough to keep one from losing two more times.

Competition is not inherently evil. Cooperation is not inherently good. I happen to prefer cooperation with others towards positive goals to even competing with myself. Aikido is said to be about destroying the "competitive mind" and the "ego". During training, I try to defeat my desire to compare myself to others while being aware that everyone has various abilities that are stronger/weaker than my own. I'm not afraid of competition/conflict with others; I just try not to go looking for it.

When playing multi-player computer games, I now find it more fun to play on the same side as one of my friends and lose to the A.I. (computer player), than to beat one of my friends when playing the game against them. I look to work together if it is at all possible, if the activity has no point without competition with others (like Black Jack) then I enjoy it for what it is.

Boiling it all down: do others agree that it is the craving of conflict aspect of competition with others that must by eliminated?

Can competition (or lack thereof) with oneself be just as destructive?

[Chuck Clark]

Welcome to the AikiWeb forum,

Of course competition with yourself can be bad, any competition CAN be bad.

"Ultimately Master Ueshiba concluded that the true spirit of budo is not to be formed in a competitive and combative atmosphere where brute strength dominates and victory at any cost is the paramount objective."

K. Ueshiba

From the quote above I sense that M. Ueshiba sensei was "qualifying" those attitudes. What if we can be competitive without using brute strength and we've actually gotten to the point where we don't really care who makes the technique because we've realized that we both learn from both sides of the experience.

If we have no competitive sense in our intent, how can we care about "self-defense," how can we really be motivated to take the initiative and be the one who is making the quality decisions about where all this energy is going?

I think what it comes down to is - do we practice aikido as an artful exercise or do we include the aspect of aiki (bu) do? Both have value. We should just make sure which we really want to do and then be sure we're practicing in a manner that actualizes our intent.

Regards,

[barry.clemons]

Thread Resurrection

Sensei Clark,

With respect, these are the first thoughts that occured to me when (past the interruptions) I read this thread;

- Our environment has intertwined the concept of winning and losing with the idea of success and failure. To be successful in 'life', you have to 'compete' for the good job (and continue to compete for the job in respect to job security and promotion), 'compete' for the house and car (there is an element of competition derived in your finances in the form of your credit unless you bought your house with cash), and even in some religiously spiritual aspects there is 'competition'.

- How can one apply this change in mentality to their environment, not just on the mat?

I felt your words on this subject merited its reintroduction for further discussion.

Great post, JO

This is the sort of discussion I had hoped to get going.

I agree. What I call our randori practice for example is a "managed competition based on the recognized need for a symbiotic relationship of mutual trust and growth." Similar to your biological model.

Something different about it though, is that we engage in a desensitization and resensitization process in order to transcend 'winning and losing', which is of course, paradoxical. While doing randori, each person must be trying one hundred percent to take the partner's initiative and make the best quality of technique possible while at the same time ... not really caring who throws or is thrown as long as it is a "sweet technique."

This is very hard to understand for many people and extremely difficult to learn to do. It is a process which takes perserverance and great focus of our intent. We go through various levels of attitudes which we often aren't proud of, but if we continue in the right direction, we eventually reach the goal.

Once you really don't care if someone "catches" you, the sensitivity to the process reaches very high levels and you're so relaxed that you learn that there are still many options to make kaeshiwaza, for example. A person who "fights" and is unwilling and uncomfortable being at risk lacks the sensitivity to feel the openings.

The process takes quite some time and there must be a strong motive in the practitioners to cooperate in this mutual learning exercise while using this 'competitive' attitude of trying to 'win' without caring who actually wins. Often it boils down to ... "some get it, and some don't."

Experienced judo players can tell immediately, for example, who knows the difference between randori and shiai. You can tell at first contact by the way the person responds to having their balance broken.

Well, enough for now. I am interested to know what you think about these ideas.

Thanks for your input.

[Chuck Clark]

Thread Resurrection

Sensei Clark,

- How can one apply this change in mentality to their environment, not just on the mat?

It's about truly understanding your original nature and then making your "outsides match your insides" with the goal of uplifting all beings and doing as little harm as possible.

It's about learning to share appropriately (you have to make it "fit" each instant... the real meaning of takemusu aiki in my opinion). It's about the quality and long term vialbility of a simbiotic managed competition with each of us trying to do our best and taking care of each other.

Jigoro Kano said it simply: Seiryoku Zenyo Jita Kyoei. Best Use of Energy with Mutual Benefit.

Budo practice in this philosophical model is a training method and demonstration of a way to achieve this in our whole life.

I had forgotten about this thread from years ago. It is still the heart and meaning of my practice and what I try to pass on to others. Thanks for bringing it back.

[Kevin Leavitt]

I like alot of the work of Stephen Covey. He covers it best with the concept of creating a Win/Win society or mentality.

Win/lose is short sighted and eventually (at least philosophically), it catches up with us. Sometimes in ways we don't even realize!

I think much or the suffering we experience in life is due to the fact that much of what we do is based on the concept that in order to "Gain" someone else has to lose.

I don't think it necessarily has to be this way and I try and strive for creating synergy and win/win where ever I come.

Aikido is a good allegory and practice for this type of philosophy and mentality as it seeks to create synergy, heal, and to find options other than win/lose.

[jennifer paige smith]

Nick,

You're missing the point.

The "construct" you're using for competitive is skewed and slanted towards aggression and combative behavior which is destructive and does not contribute to learning aikido.

Combative training relationships do not form trust and intimacy between partners.

Training in a way that leads to transcendence of winning and losing must have a true "competitive" intent but without aggression and the zero sum attitude of a combative intent.

I'm really enjoying this discussion and I have some experience with both sides of the competition equation, as do many of us here.

I come from a sports competitive background and the environment was really powerful in stimulating me to do my best, to seek together, as Mr. Clark defined so nicely, and to grow in our skills as a team. What it didn't do was move my mind beyond the human construct toward the flowing power of NATURES WHOLISTIC MODEL which doesn't stop or begin with competition, as sports do. (even darwinian posits are fragmented in juxtaposition to natures fullness). The trap of competition is that it appears to be complete. The ultimate test, if you will.
Someone in sports said "it isn't wether you win or lose, but how you play the game." To me, the larger aspect of aikido is 'how you play the game'. O'Sensi tried to play it like nature, it seems.
He spoke of the the 'body level' of practice and the 'spirit level' of practice; nature being the model of spirit.
I recently wrote an article for the Federal Government in which I stated "competion has no place in the pursuit of harmony". I was challenged by my own convictions after I saw the article published and I felt less certain about my assertion that it was 'useless'. On a level, I agree with my own understanding. On another I know competition in appropriate context is healthy. So I continue to dance the dance of context and look beyond my own incomplete human terms for life. Sometimes competing, sometimes harmonizing, sometimes doing both. Always looking beyond.;)

[L. Camejo]

Chuck,

This is a brilliant thread. Apparently it existed a long time before I joined aikiweb so I never saw it.

My personal view is inline with Chuck's, but then again this view is also Tomiki's view of what can be accomplished through competition and is in line with the original olympic ideal of human beings coming together "to meet and to test" which is also a translation of shiai if I am not mistaken.

The negative impressions many get from the word competition I think is unfortunate since what happens in reality is that competition forces us to dig deep into ourselves and try our best to succeed. The problem is since we are dealing with human beings who all possess weakness and fear, digging deep brings out stuff that is not all peaceful, harmony-seeking or a positive influence on those around us or ourselves. When we focus on winning alone we lose sight of the true purpose of competition.

Imho the definition of competition has never changed but the weakness and base elements of humankind, when forced to the surface as a result of the pressures and challenges of competition, have over time changed our general perception of what defines competition. In effect many are blaming the mirror (in this case competition) for what it reflects (mankind's general tendency to resort to base/life or death survival instincts when placed under extreme and severe pressure).

To me competition is critical if one is practicing Budo since it does not take the aloof road of denying that the baser elements of humanity exist, but it confronts those baser instincts and forces us to cut deeply at the true enemy, which is the self and our need to win at any cost and be combative (not competitive) with out fellow humans.

Just my 2 cents.
LC:ai::ki:

[L. Camejo]

Sorry, that last line should have read "With our fellow humans."
Gambatte.

[Chuck Clark]

Good post Larry. I look forward to someday meeting you and training together. Ain't it grand!

Best regards,

[George S. Ledyard]

My partner, Genie Rivers is a beginner in Aikido but she was a national championship fencer. She has always been a bit irked by the "disrespect" shown by many Aikido people for competition and felt it didn't recognize the extent to which competition could be an essentially "spiritual' endeavor (see the discussion of "spiritual" in the other thread).

I think an essential element in the "spiritual" side of competition is losing. Of course we strive to win. But most people doing an activity are not in competition to be "the best". only a very elite group of folks ever have a shot at that. So most folks compete and their experience is a mix of wins and losses, just like everything in life.

The place where competition becomes a trap is when you hit the top. Genie found that she started to find her sense of self worth being defined by staying on top. It became about the winning, about the recognition she got by winning, about how she felt about herself when she won. She stopped competing and started doing Aikido because (as we do it) it didn't have any competition and she was a total beginner so she didn't get many strokes for her efforts as an aspiring 6th kyu (not an easy thing to wean herself away from). I think she is getting ready to get back into her fencing and I think her perspective will be totally different now.

Most folks don't run into this issue as they will most likely lose as much as they win. For most folks there is always that person who can beat them so they don't get caught by the trap of winning.

[tarik]

Great thread. As part of my training lately, I've been reviewing old notes, old threads, and old messages in my e-mail and re-evaluating discussions I'd read and/or participated in years ago. It's an interesting process and a revealing process how greatly our understanding changes and grows over time. It's also mildly amusing to see some of the old flames and immature behavior that comes and goes over time on these forums.

Anyway, I love the content of this thread and I'm glad to see it resurrected. I come from an educational background that tried to take back the idea of what good competition means (a school based on supposed real Greek classical thought). I've striven against the idea of zero-sum practice for a long time and at this point, in the interests of clearer communication, I'm willing to consider conceding the use of the term competition to those who think competition must mean combativeness, even though I think it describes well the training process that Chuck Clark describes.

If so many people refuse to acknowledge that competition can be appropriate and not combative, perhaps a more precise term is required.

Of course, when I tried to convey this sort of training in person, like George Ledyard, I have met resistance to the idea that a partner should offer any sort of challenge to a tori practicing a technique, so it is not just in words that we need to learn clarity.

[Kevin Leavitt]

I think competition can be looked at macroscopically and microscopically, or internal verses external.

To me, there are two basic types of competition. Sports competition is one form, and then competition in which we desire to possess something that may not be possessed.

It is possible to compete in say a judo tournament and still stay focused on your internal goals of self improvement in a healthy way, using competition as a means to assess, grow, and establish a bond and cooperative spirit with your fellow judoka.

However, once your attitude becomes "win at any cost", and you become focused on winning is the only thing...it becomes unhealthy.

I think it is okay to compete in sports and maintain the right perspective on the meaning of winning. Winning and losing in sports is not the same thing as winning at all cost.

I think many lose sight of the distinctions and lump "competition" into one huge category and view it as a bad thing in any form.

[tiago]

the matter is simple:

Competition is only for loosers

think about it.
regards,

tiago

[tarik]

the matter is simple:

If it were simple, why are there so many posts and discussions about it?

Competition is only for loosers

Pithy. Meaningless. An observation that is actually untrue.


think about it.


I have. The most I've ever learned has occurred because of failure, so I'll stick with 'competition', thanks.

[jennifer paige smith]

Seems like we definitely talk about the simple things the most.

If you wish to align yourself with O'Senseis teachings, you will need to align yourself with nature at some point.You will (need to /choose to )abandon the model of competition that we are discussing here to surmise how nature really functions.To open your mind to a new model. If this is your training goal, as it was for the founder,to train in the model of nature, than this will break down.

Nature is simple. Re-aligning our lives and egos with it is not.

Just try competing with it.

[tiago]

From the Oxford American Dictionary in my Mac:

Compete: strive to gain or win something by defeating or
establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same

Competition is only for loosers
you've chosen competition
now you know you'll never be a winner
it's a fact, but do as you like
Jennifer has been much more eloquent and I agree with what she says
and, by the way, failure does not come from competition
and life is not a competition
if the most you've learnt, you've learnt it in a competition...
I hope you see my point so I don't need to actually say it

[L. Camejo]

In light of recent posts I think this link may be of some assistance, especially those interested in competition as it occurs in nature as well as "definitions" of competition.

http://globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/competition/competition.html

An ongoing issue with this thread is that various people see competition in various ways (this issue goes all the way back to Ueshiba M and Tomiki K). Their definitions of the thing will directly affect how they view it.

Just to add a bit of confusion in the hope of bringing clarity, in this thread alone we have at least 2 dictionary definitions of competition:
From the Oxford American Dictionary in my Mac:

Compete: strive to gain or win something by defeating or
establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the sameandWebster's defines compete as 'to come together or to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective'. These definitions appear more closely related to aikido than my zero-sum view of life as 'winning is everything'.

It is agreed however that both words come from the Latin root competere which is defined as follows:
to strive together, from Latin: to meet, come together, agree, from com- together + petere to seek (http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-synonyms/compete)

I think how you already feel about the concept will have much to do with the definition you prefer believe is the correct one imho. This returns us to the point that the whole issue is really one of perception and prejudice and not what the actual meaning of competition is. The Latin root is clear as to what the word means, even if English translations are somewhat varied imho.

So the real question is: "Is your interpretation of competition congruent with the practice of Aikido?"

Imho many are confusing competition with contest and combat.
Gambatte.

[Chuck Clark]

Good post Larry. It amazes me how many people will not budge from their own view and try to look through a wider window to achieve a broader view. Part of competition is not only with others but with ourselves so that we're able, no not only able to learn and change even though it can be frightening, but to look forward to the constant change in all things and be willing to discard some things as well as accept new things. When we can do this following universally understood values of best efficiency with mutual benefit then we will know true competition as a means of growth and sustenance over the long term.

[tarik]

From the Oxford American Dictionary in my Mac:

Compete: strive to gain or win something by defeating or
establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same

Competition is only for loosers,

Your dictionary contradicts you.


you've chosen competition
now you know you'll never be a winner
it's a fact, but do as you like

You are not a mind reader, and you clearly do not know what I have or have not chosen. It appears that you haven't read my posts and the posts of those I reference in context and thought about much what was actually said.

I hope you see my point so I don't need to actually say it

I am not a mind-reader, so you'll actually have to say it.

[tarik]

If you wish to align yourself with O'Senseis teachings, you will need to align yourself with nature at some point.

I'm very interested in his budo, and his humanity and his passion. Like every other human being, his foibles are what make him interesting, but why would I want to model my life after a man who did the things he did and made the choices he made? I want my children to know me and enjoy spending time with me.


You will (need to /choose to )abandon the model of competition that we are discussing here to surmise how nature really functions.To open your mind to a new model. If this is your training goal, as it was for the founder,to train in the model of nature, than this will break down.

I'm sorry Jen, but your comments about nature completely violate everything I've ever learned by actual observation. Nature is extremely competitive. As a gardener, you should have some idea about that.

As someone who majored in biology in college, and studied anatomy, and who is fascinated by nature and it's examples, I would offer the following current conclusions:

1) Competition is a fundamental part of nature and natural systems.

2) What we really are learning when we learn "aiki" is not natural at all. If fact, it is directly counter to our instincts of how to deal with opposing force. It works by studying nature and working WITH natural movements and responses and reaction to create a new outcome, but the chosen actions of tori are not 'natural' in any normal sense of the word, although they certainly do have to become relaxed and 'natural' movements.

What I am exploring in my training today is in fact to remove my natural responses and reactions to being attacked and to have the ability to choose something else. Hardly 'natural', IME, to change my internal responses to being hit, pushed, or otherwise attacked.

Ask me again in 10 or 20 years and we'll see if I've modified this opinion.

Nature is simple. Re-aligning our lives and egos with it is not.

Nature is the most complex system in existence. The global warming fiasco is a great example of an oversimplification of science and an understanding of how and why the world is changing.

[QUOTE=Jennifer Smith;178800]Just try competing with it.

I had steak for dinner last night. Mmmmmm.

Regards,

[tarik]

So the real question is: "Is your interpretation of competition congruent with the practice of Aikido?"

Imho many are confusing competition with contest and combat.
Gambatte.

Amen.

Larry, I agree with you and Chuck.

Regards

[Janet Rosen]

I note with a small smile and a bit of satisfaction that the linguistic root of competition is the same as for competent. How does one get to be competent?....

[PeterR]

From the Oxford American Dictionary in my Mac:

Compete: strive to gain or win something by defeating or
establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same

Competition is only for loosers
you've chosen competition
now you know you'll never be a winner
it's a fact, but do as you like
Jennifer has been much more eloquent and I agree with what she says
and, by the way, failure does not come from competition
and life is not a competition
if the most you've learnt, you've learnt it in a competition...
I hope you see my point so I don't need to actually say it

Let me see if I understand this.

You are a winner if you don't compete and a looser if you do?

Is anyone else just overwhelmed by the irony here?

[tiago]

of course it is ironic!
oh, god
I will have to say it
but later, now I'm in a rush
best,
tiago

[PeterR]

Usually I hate it when long dead threads are resurected but this one had a few gems peppered througout - glad I re-read most of it.

I liked the one below - especially the comment concerning randori and shiai in the Judo context.

Great post, JO

This is the sort of discussion I had hoped to get going.

I agree. What I call our randori practice for example is a "managed competition based on the recognized need for a symbiotic relationship of mutual trust and growth." Similar to your biological model.

Something different about it though, is that we engage in a desensitization and resensitization process in order to transcend 'winning and losing', which is of course, paradoxical. While doing randori, each person must be trying one hundred percent to take the partner's initiative and make the best quality of technique possible while at the same time ... not really caring who throws or is thrown as long as it is a "sweet technique."

This is very hard to understand for many people and extremely difficult to learn to do. It is a process which takes perserverance and great focus of our intent. We go through various levels of attitudes which we often aren't proud of, but if we continue in the right direction, we eventually reach the goal.

Once you really don't care if someone "catches" you, the sensitivity to the process reaches very high levels and you're so relaxed that you learn that there are still many options to make kaeshiwaza, for example. A person who "fights" and is unwilling and uncomfortable being at risk lacks the sensitivity to feel the openings.

The process takes quite some time and there must be a strong motive in the practitioners to cooperate in this mutual learning exercise while using this 'competitive' attitude of trying to 'win' without caring who actually wins. Often it boils down to ... "some get it, and some don't."

Experienced judo players can tell immediately, for example, who knows the difference between randori and shiai. You can tell at first contact by the way the person responds to having their balance broken.

Well, enough for now. I am interested to know what you think about these ideas.

Thanks for your input.

[skinnymonkey]

Didn't O-Sensei get some of his best students (Tomiki, Shioda, etc) by allowing them to attack him so he could "prove" that his Aikido wasn't just a show? Those are probably bad word choices, but it seems to me that testing yourself and showing your technique isn't the same as competing. I'll bet that Shioda or Tomiki wouldn't say that they "lost" to O-Sensei and I'll bet O-Sensei didn't feel like he "won" against them. It was just an honest way to show the technique and the principles of Aikido.

Here is a perfect example of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2TJoq0lPHM
This is from an old documentary and what you don't see is that Ueshiba was sitting and watching this as well. So was this "Competition" from Tohei? Did it serve to enlighten "Herman" or did it just make Herman a loser?

I don't know the answers to these questions for certain, but it seems to me that you can use honest techniques against resistance without sacrificing the ideals of aikido.

What do you all think? Is this competition in this video? Was it competition when O-Sensei did it with Shioda or Tomiki?

Thanks,

Jeff D.

[dps]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2TJoq0lPHM
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1T3ZG_JqqY

[Paul Sanderson-Cimino]

I hadn't seen the Tomiki/wrestler video before. That was interesting.

[tiago]

hi,

I will first try to respond to Tarik, and then more generally, in case somebody finds my point of view interesting.

Tarik,
I don't have to read your mind, I say you chose competition because you said so. You should read your own posts.
To understand my point you don't need to be a mind reader either, just read between lines:
Life is not a competition
if the most you've learnt you've learnt in a competition
then get a life
The most I've learnt was during the worse and the best moments in my life, none of them had anything to do with any competition.
It reminds me a strip from Mafalda (the cartoon by the genius of Quino) although it's not related to competition:
one child is working hard with a ruler and scissors, making a paper plane. Another child comes and asks what is he doing.
- I'm trying to make this plane great! - he says
- oh, I see... what I would like to make great is my life... - his friend responds, and leaves
the first one looks at the paper in his hands, throws it away, and runs to play with the other children

So, in general, what I think,
If you want to talk about competition, then talk about competition. Don't tell me that competition, in fact, means something else, which happens to be almost the opposite of what we understand by competition, and which is in accordance with Aikido theory. Please, be honest. Try the following exercise if you like:
A - last night, my family and I competed for my glasses

what is the sentence with the closest meaning to A:
1- last night, my family and I joined efforts to find my glasses
2- last night, my family and I tried to determine who was the best at something, and the winner got the glasses

So you see the meaning of competition, which is close to what we understand when we talk about competition in nature. Or nobody else sees that some are trying to find "competition" not aggressive, and then talk about "how natural" it is, in fact, to compete, when we could say that competition in nature is probably the most aggressive of all.
People are trying (consciously or unconsciously) to bend the meanings.
In fact, what we call "competition" in nature is what humans see as competition. I'm sure that the lion trying to get some food for its cubs, or the zebra, trying to survive, don't see it as a competition. It is the same with aggression. You have to be very careful not to humanize animals' behaviors. I think it is confusing because it is called "competition" in the biological sciences, but it is just a name.

I agree that testing is not competing. Otherwise it would be impossible to learn anything. The problem is that in Aikido there's a thin line between practicing hard, testing, and competing. And the problem is much worse because it is not explicit (except in the Tomiki-ryu) and probably nobody would admit that they're competing, although sometimes you can feel how they are competing... from little clues... or can you?
Another thing I found, is that many times what I thought was a non-cooperative uke, a competing uke, or just a bad person, where in fact my misreading of my partner, probably of a different school, or used to a different way of standing. So I've decided that, unless somebody challenges me explicitly, I will never assume there is any kind of competition (and if I get challenged, I would never compete, of course) Similarly, I've learnt not to judge others' technique as inferior or worse than mine, as I've heard too many times people saying that of each other reciprocally (both to me separately, of course)

And about the irony,
competing is only for losers
it is!
some people apparently have a problem with being a loser. They could try and think why...
the sentence was meant as a joke. To call somebody a loser, is, in some way, competing already.
but on the other hand, I also think it is true
The concept of competing is inseparable of the concepts of wining and losing (with or without aggression, that's a different issue)
once you accept competition, you accept the division of the universe in winers and losers
it's a fact!
and by that, you become yourself a loser, automatically, as nobody wins always at everything
If you want to look at it from a different perspective:
when you compete, you are placing the outcome of your success in your competitors. Therefore, you're not free anymore. You depend on your competitors to proclaim you a winer (in case you win, of course) and then, even if you win, if you're the best and everybody claims you're a hero and nobody could ever defeat you, even then, that victory is empty, because it's relative.
so there, I've said it

Sorry for the long and boring reply.
That was it, I promise.
And sorry if my english is not perfect, it's not my mother tongue.
Best,

tiago

[miratim]

A - last night, my family and I competed for my glasses

what is the sentence with the closest meaning to A:
1- last night, my family and I joined efforts to find my glasses
2- last night, my family and I tried to determine who was the best at something, and the winner got the glasses

Or 3, which may represent what competition can sometimes accomplish:

3- the previous few years, my family and I competed in scavenger hunt and hide and seek, honing our skills against each other to become faster and smarter. So when I lost my glasses, we competed against each other again to see who could find them first. No matter who actually found them, we all won because we found my glasses very quickly and could get back to regular family time.

[mjhacker]

what is the sentence with the closest meaning to A:
D. You're a blind loser with no life?

[tarik]

I don't have to read your mind, I say you chose competition because you said so. You should read your own posts.

What else did I say about competition and the use of the word?


Life is not a competition
if the most you've learnt you've learnt in a competition
then get a life


I'll presume your aggression is merely a poor use of a second language.


If you want to talk about competition, then talk about competition. Don't tell me that competition, in fact, means something else, which happens to be almost the opposite of what we understand by competition, and which is in accordance with Aikido theory. Please, be honest.

I see significant intellectual honesty presented in the opinions in this thread.

People are trying (consciously or unconsciously) to bend the meanings.

I think it is confusing because it is called "competition" in the biological sciences, but it is just a name.

It's ok to 'redefine' or tweak the meaning of a word to more precisely match our intent and meaning as long in a scientific context, but not in Aikido?

and if I get challenged, I would never compete, of course) Similarly, I've learnt not to judge others' [...] as inferior or worse than mine, as I've heard too many times people saying that of each other reciprocally (both to me separately, of course)


the sentence was meant as a joke. To call somebody a loser, is, in some way, competing already.
but on the other hand, I also think it is true


<ahem> So why are you competing here? ;)

some people apparently have a problem with being a loser.

Not here.

The concept of competing is inseparable of the concepts of wining and losing (with or without aggression, that's a different issue) once you accept competition, you accept the division of the universe in winers and losers

Go study game theory.

If you want to look at it from a different perspective:

I DO look at it from a different perspective.

when you compete, you are placing the outcome of your success in your competitors. Therefore, you're not free anymore. You depend on your competitors to proclaim you a winer (in case you win, of course) and then, even if you win, if you're the best and everybody claims you're a hero and nobody could ever defeat you, even then, that victory is empty, because it's relative.

If I am defining my win-loss criterion, it really doesn't matter what my 'competitors' say or do; but I'll agree with you to the extent of saying that I choose me 'competitors' VERY carefully to be people who agree with my goals and are willing to help me achieve them. So yes, in that sense, my success depends upon their cooperation and their competition.

Regards,

[PeterR]

I hadn't seen the Tomiki/wrestler video before. That was interesting.
I assume you meant Tohei.

The last part was clearly demonstration but the first part it really looked like the wrestler was trying to come to grips and was nicely controlled.

[Paul Sanderson-Cimino]

I assume you meant Tohei.

The last part was clearly demonstration but the first part it really looked like the wrestler was trying to come to grips and was nicely controlled.

Sorry; it was a typo. I recognized it was Tohei, but I guess when I started typing some synapses got crossed and I used the wrong "T-name".

Sort of how like they say avoid writing a story with two characters whose names start with the same letter...it's surprisingly confusing.

[jennifer paige smith]

This has become a very competetive converstion.

We are a family (like it or not). While we're competing we are removing ourself from our family time (inversely related to above post about scavenger hunt and glasses..sorry don't remember which number). If we were cooperating in task then we would never be leaving our 'family time' or our musubi. We would be in consistent principle:circle:..

[Basia Halliop]

While we're competing we are removing ourself from our family time

I guess some people never had fun playing monopoly, clue, racing, who can push who off the couch first using only their feet, last one there's a rotten egg, potato-sack races, had a snowball fight, etc or any other good spirited games with friends and family when they were little... competitive games can sometimes be very fun games to play _with_ family, IMHO, if the attitudes towards it are good. Of course if the attitude is unhealthy, then it can be totally different (like a bad gym class or whatever).

[jennifer paige smith]

I'm very interested in his budo, and his humanity and his passion. Like every other human being, his foibles are what make him interesting, but why would I want to model my life after a man who did the things he did and made the choices he made? I want my children to know me and enjoy spending time with me.

I'm sorry Jen, but your comments about nature completely violate everything I've ever learned by actual observation. Nature is extremely competitive. As a gardener, you should have some idea about that.

As someone who majored in biology in college, and studied anatomy, and who is fascinated by nature and it's examples, I would offer the following current conclusions:

1) Competition is a fundamental part of nature and natural systems.

2) What we really are learning when we learn "aiki" is not natural at all. If fact, it is directly counter to our instincts of how to deal with opposing force. It works by studying nature and working WITH natural movements and responses and reaction to create a new outcome, but the chosen actions of tori are not 'natural' in any normal sense of the word, although they certainly do have to become relaxed and 'natural' movements.

What I am exploring in my training today is in fact to remove my natural responses and reactions to being attacked and to have the ability to choose something else. Hardly 'natural', IME, to change my internal responses to being hit, pushed, or otherwise attacked.

Ask me again in 10 or 20 years and we'll see if I've modified this opinion.

[QUOTE=Jennifer Smith;178800] Nature is simple. Re-aligning our lives and egos with it is not.

Nature is the most complex system in existence. The global warming fiasco is a great example of an oversimplification of science and an understanding of how and why the world is changing.

I had steak for dinner last night. Mmmmmm.

Regards,
Tarik, Just because it violates your personal understanding doesn't make it wrong.


Please look into Master Fukuoka's texts 'Mu Farming" or 'The One Straw Revolution' before you attempt a discussion about what I should know about nature and how it works. After that, we can talk. Until then, keep scarfing the meat.

[mjhacker]

We are a family (like it or not). While we're competing we are removing ourself from our family time (inversely related to above post about scavenger hunt and glasses..sorry don't remember which number). If we were cooperating in task then we would never be leaving our 'family time' or our musubi.
In my dojo family, we cooperate precisely BY competing appropriately with each other. To do any less is to lie to my brothers and sisters. Yet... somehow, we are closer than any other dojo family I've ever been a part of.

Hmmm.

The painful truth is that many (if not most) of the rabidly anti-competition "peace and love" folks I've experienced are, in reality, extremely passive-aggressive abusers who talk a good game, but whose true heart is actually very different from what they'd prefer to believe it is.

<sarcasm>Oddly</sarcasm>, we don't seem to have (m)any of those folks in our family.

Direct honesty and appropriate use of competition in training either weeds these people out or changes their nature.

[jennifer paige smith]

I have been taught to view the whole art and it's practicioners as my family, not just my dojo. My 'great-grandfather' taught that the art was not for competition. I have yet no reason to dis-believe him.

[Chuck Clark]

This has become a very competetive converstion.

I agree. It's the only kind of "conversation" I like to take part in. What's absolutely important is: we need to define our terms if we're to have a conversation that is productive. If different meanings are going to be used for the same word/s then we will continue to be at loggerheads and be wasting our precious breaths.

I'd rather not take part in: adverserial, antagonistic, combative, argumentative, passive-aggressive "conversations" or discussions that are really attempts to "defeat" or "win over" the "opponent" to a way of thinking or belief system while protecting one's own position.

Nothing wrong with that stuff in the appropriate venue. A courtroom for example, or a debate that is designed and intended to be adverserial. An academic that is being questioned on a therory that is being tested to try and disprove the theory. It must be vigorous and often adverserial in nature. I'm willing to do any of these all the way up to physical combat if I have decided it is absolutely necessary (and have done so in the past on many occasions. Unfortunately, the first time I was young and too naive and ignorant to understand I didn't have enough good information to make that decision. I learned.)

As pointed out earlier in this conversation/discussion it is very important to determine which common definition of "competition" you need to use that is germain to the general nature of the point at hand.

From the Oxford American Dictionary:
Compete: strive to gain or win something by defeating or
establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same

From the Webster's Dictionary:
Compete: to come together or to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective.

It is agreed however that both words come from the Latin root competere which is defined as follows: to strive together, from the Latin: to meet, come together, agree; from com - together + petere to seek.

I prefer Webster's version when applied to the aikido ideal as do a lot of people I know and love to train with.

People keep using Ueshiba Morihei's statements about "competition." Please go to the trouble of looking into what he really said, not what other's have translated it as. There are many versions. Since very few people are alive today that heard him, we should be very careful about how we commit ourselves and our passion.

If we use language properly we can figure out, along with our gut level knowledge, what each other really is about. In a conversation, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or beliefs... I want to find out what those are at whatever level the other person is willing to share. I'm looking for information, knowledge, and education, and am willing to share with anyone so we can all grow and enjoy each other if possible.

Sorry for the length of this, but it seems a bit silly to me to keep talking around the fact that we need to be specific about our terms and be willing to widen our view. If not, then we aren't having a "conversation" or a "discussion".

[Ron Tisdale]

Similarly, I've learnt not to judge others' technique as inferior or worse than mine,

Hmmm, not sure I could tell that from the posts on this thread...

This is one of the perennial conversations on aikido boards. There are so many posts discussing this it's not even fun anymore. The only thing I can add is that we would probably get more mileage from looking at the Japanese word Ueshiba used when he made his statement on "competition", and understanding it in the culture in which it was used. The latin root, the common use in English etc., does very little to enhance our understanding of what Ueshiba meant.

Best,
Ron (I do find it odd that the ones who most espouse being open minded, often seem to me to be the most close minded. But then I've been told I'm rather odd...so...)

[Chuck Clark]

I think competition can be looked at macroscopically and microscopically, or internal verses external.

To me, there are two basic types of competition. Sports competition is one form, and then competition in which we desire to possess something that may not be possessed.

It is possible to compete in say a judo tournament and still stay focused on your internal goals of self improvement in a healthy way, using competition as a means to assess, grow, and establish a bond and cooperative spirit with your fellow judoka.

However, once your attitude becomes "win at any cost", and you become focused on winning is the only thing...it becomes unhealthy.

I think it is okay to compete in sports and maintain the right perspective on the meaning of winning. Winning and losing in sports is not the same thing as winning at all cost.

I think many lose sight of the distinctions and lump "competition" into one huge category and view it as a bad thing in any form.

Sorry for the duplication, but I thought this post would fit here also.

[tarik]

This has become a very competetive converstion.

I almost made the same point earlier. I find it ironic that people want to argue over explicit definitions instead of being willing to discuss how one explicit definition can actually be helpful or instrumental to the learning process. Instead people jump on and call everyone losers who acknowledge what they're doing as appropriate competition . How ironic, indeed.


Tarik, Just because it violates your personal understanding doesn't make it wrong.

Certainly not. What makes it wrong is that it violates the current consensus of theory and observation in today's comprehension of nature.


Please look into Master Fukuoka's texts 'Mu Farming" or 'The One Straw Revolution' before you attempt a discussion about what I should know about nature and how it works. After that, we can talk. Until then, keep scarfing the meat.

Working more efficiently with natures own processes (which include competition) does not change how nature works.

Regards,

[Ron Tisdale]

Here is an example of where I think this conversation could most profitably go...

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15050&highlight=competition#post15050

Or, in plain english, this is where the meat is... :D

Best,
Ron

[dbotari]

Best,
Ron (I do find it odd that the ones who most espouse being open minded, often seem to me to be the most close minded. But then I've been told I'm rather odd...so...)

Amen brother.

Dan

[Chuck Clark]

To make it clear from my own heart... I am completely in agreement with anyone that dosen't take part in sports (kyogi) type competition. I did for many, many years in judo and would not do it again. However, other facets of competion are, in my experience, necessary in learning budo. Of course, at some point, we actually can rise above it... if we are willing to go through the process of experiencing and learning what it is we need to rise above. I don't think it can be done only by intellectual conceptualizations and philosophical argument. I know people that I think have done it... I'l be the first to say that I have not... but I'm in the midst of it and on the journey. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

[tiago]

just to leave things clear
just one more thing
or two...

I do understand the different meanings people are giving to "competition" in this conversation

some keep confusing competition with testing
I find no problem with testing
I like hard training, and a good, strong uke, that resists my technique
there's no competition there
but if you like, of course, you can call it competition
you can also say that the moon is the sea, and that Friday is the day after Monday

Then there are those who are fond of competition
because they use it as a carrot, to motivate themselves
and do unpleasant, although useful or necessary, things
this is ok, I've heard it is very effective
although I've never seen the need for such a trick
maybe I'm not the right kind of donkey

many thought I'm competing
and I believe it is because they have the competition-mind very deep in their souls
so be it
some people just don't get it, and there's no solution for that
although it is a pitty, and I'm sorry to see it

oh, well
the possitive side is that I chose to change my motto
now it's: "winners don't compete"
it sounds better
and the subconscious message is that competition is like a drug
:)

enjoy

tiago

[Ron Tisdale]

Took some little digging, but found what I was looking for. Man, it's Peter G.' first post on the board! Talk about history...

Hello, Everybody,

This is my first post in this forum (so please be nice!). Cyber-shihan Ubaldo Alcantara first asked me for information on this topic and it took me some time to realise that it was in connection with Jun Akiyama's web site. I sent Ubaldo a reply, but then realised it was better to contribute to the forum myself. So here is what I have discovered in O Sensei's writings about competition.

1. The word which O Sensei uses for 'competition' is ‹£‘ˆ�@(‚«‚傤‚»‚¤: KYOU-SOU). The first character is composed of the Radials 117 (standing) and the character (344 in Nelson's dictionary) for 'ani' (brother). The second character is also read as 'araso' and the meaning of the compound is basically 'rivalry'.

The word ŽŽ�‡�@(‚µ‚ ‚¢ SHI-ai) has the sense of two teams meeting for a game or match and is not used by O Sensei.

2. Where does O Sensei discuss competition in Aikido? I have seen no evidence for any general declaration made by O Sensei against competition. There is a reference to sports understood by O Sensei in a western sense on Page 50 of Hideo Takahashi's book, "Takemusu Aiki", which records lectures given by the Founder. A translation of O Sensei's ideas is given on Page 21 of Issue 117 of Aikido Journal. There O Sensei does talk about competition as applied to aikido, always using the Chinese character I explained above. His views are clearly old-fashioned and he makes statements about Japan and western sports which are no longer true.

3. The reference to Tomiki Sensei and competition appears on pp.184-188 of "Aikido Ichiro", by Kisshomaru Ueshiba. Doshu explains that Tomiki Sensei became a professor at Waseda University in 1954 but often came to visit the Founder in Iwama and Tokyo. Tomiki Sensei was a POW in Siberia and developed a system of aiki-taiso, probably to stay alive, and explained his system to O Sensei. In Kisshomaru Doshu's words,

"On seeing this (sc. Tomiki Sensei's system), my father said,

‚»‚̂您‚¤‚È‚à‚Ì‚ð�@�‡‹C�@‚Æ�Ì‚³‚ê‚Ä�¢‚é

"If you call this sort of thing "Aiki", it will cause problems."

Kisshomaru Doshu then goes on to discuss what happened afterwards. I muself have had lengthy conversations with Kisshomaru Doshu and with Okumura Shigenobu Sensei (9th dan), who first learned aikido at the hands of Tomiki Sensei and was later deputed to negotiate over whether Tomiki Sensei should use 'aikido' for his art. Okumura Sensei was clearly torn between loyalty to his sensei and loyalty to the Founder.

Best regrds to all,

Peter Goldsbury

The link to the thread is here:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=998
and is important for the follow up posts...

Best,
Ron

[Ron Tisdale]

Tiago,

I don't know if it's the language difference, or if it's that internet thingy getting in the way. But you come off sounding WAY condescending and smug. No biggie...but you might want to at least be aware of it.

Best,
Ron

[tiago]

sorry,
and the last, I promise
Tarik,
the only competition that there is in nature
is the one you bring
if you don't understand this
you don't understand, period
go think about it
instead of assuming that people don't know what you are talking about

[tiago]

thanks Ron
I can see what you mean
but if you look at the thread, it was this ironic joke of mine
that produced some irate responses
you can do with it as you like
it is not my choice to lie in order to make anybody feel better

[Ron Tisdale]

it is not my choice to lie in order to make anybody feel better

Hmm, well, wouldn't want you to compromise your principles, such as they are. :(

Best,
Ron

[ChrisMoses]

but if you look at the thread, it was this ironic joke of mine
that produced some irate responses


Are you still joking in post #93? My sarcasm-detector doesn't work on your posts...

[Ron Tisdale]

Actually, Tiago, I appologize.

This sideline is way off topic...I'd rather focus on the posts by Peter and others, than my own sniping.

Let's take it to PM if we must, or start a new thread. Jun, my bad, feel free to move my junk to new thread, or just delete.

Best,
Ron

[tiago]

Ron,
sorry, that did sound harsh, right?
but in a way, I cannot admit that the moon is made of water, because someone chose to call the sea "moon", and I don't want to disturb his mistake...
and there might be a language component also
but I cannot help but feel very sad for this people who are looking forward to "resume normal family time"
I'm really sorry, I know it's me, so don't bother to get angry
I wish everybody many years of normal family time
just as much as I wish my family will never get to be normal

Christian,
There is no joke in post #93
although I see it sounds strong
(especially the "go think about it" part, I could have said "please, try to consider it...", but it wouldn't have had the same effect)
my point is strong
if you read from my first post, you'll see I tried to explain everything in the best way
but some people just get angry at what they don't understand
instead of asking "what do you mean"
they just accuse you of whatever, trying to feel safe and in control again
so be it

thanks both, I apreciate your concern

tiago

[tiago]

sorry, Ron, didn't read that last post of yours before posting mine
I agree

[Esaemann]

"some people apparently have a problem with being a loser."

If so, I'm surprised its not more than "some". Anybody who does not, has already mastered a very difficult concept preached by (Cheng Man-Ching?) regarding Tai Chi -- "invest in loss". If so, I'm way behind in my practice. Seems in my experience that most outside the Tai Chi or Aikido community (and even some inside them, including me) have a problem with being a loser. The extent is different for each, though. Some want to have a problem with being a loser, and others are working on the problem, while others are not aware of the problem, and some don't.

Not inferring criticism from the comment, just positing my worthless thoughts.

Eric

[ChrisMoses]

Christian,
There is no joke in post #93
although I see it sounds strong
(especially the "go think about it" part, I could have said "please, try to consider it...", but it wouldn't have had the same effect)
my point is strong


Strong points are only interesting if they're vigorously defended (meaning with a LOT of background and evidence). When Einstein offered his theory of relativity, he did so with enough evidence and logic behind his theory, that while it was initially rejected as absurd by many in the Physics community, it eventually won them over and has become the primary model for modern Science. It was only worth consideration however because of how vigorously it was defended and reasoned. I could make the statement, "Gravity pulls us away from other objects of mass!" That's a strong challenging statement, but it's also wrong and I could not offer a single thing to back up my claim. So when you claim that there is no competition in nature, I'm stuck in something of a predicament. Since I know that to be false, and you have offered no evidence to the contrary, I can either assume that you are non-credible or are defining your terms much differently than I (and others on this board) are. Either way, we can't enter into a meaningful discussion at this point based on what you've presented so far. Perhaps it's a language barrier, I don't know.

[tiago]

Hi Christian,
I am not saying that there is not competition in nature
I just say that the competition that we find in nature is a human concept (it's in the eyes of the beholder, if you like)
so, it is in fact a falacy to justify competition by saying that nature is competitive

tiago

[L. Camejo]

Imho competition is for winners. When done with the correct mindset one cannot lose.

I think Yann said it best here - http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=95057&postcount=20
...competition is teaching me what I need to improve on. It shows me when my techniques are weak and ineffectual. It shows me I have to work a lot more before I am ``good''. That's why I win all the time. It's a learning tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

For those who practice and compete in this manner there is no incongruency between Aikido and competition and there are no hang ups on the word as experienced by those who do not understand the paradigm. Those who experience negative effects of losing are actually experiencing the ego attempting to reconcile self perception (I think I am really good at Aikido and am hard to beat) with reality (I just lost, what could I have done better?) imho.

Gambatte.

[Keith R Lee]

This quote came to mind while reading this thread:"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."


Theodore Roosevelt
"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

[tarik]

sorry,
and the last, I promise
Tarik,
the only competition that there is in nature
is the one you bring
if you don't understand this
you don't understand, period
go think about it
instead of assuming that people don't know what you are talking about

All belief's are assumptions and predicated upon assumptions, but I do make a sincere effort to make mine educated.

Actually, I think it would be quite fair to say that you don't know what I'm talking about. Perhaps there is indeed a language barrier.

All the irate attitude and aggressive language I've read so far has not come from my posts. If I were unkind, I might assume that you are merely a troll, but I have taken your comments as sincere and at face value and addressed them directly.

Instead of responding in kind, and asking clarifying questions or saying and offering something substantial to challenge or question my assumptions or the assumptions of those whom I have publicly stated my agreement with; you have chosen to attack and say that I'm a loser.

If I continue to take your words at face value, it would appear that you aren't interested in discussion, you merely want to provoke me or else you're agitated by my measured response and can only resort to name-calling and accusations of 'irate' behavior. Perhaps there are other options, but I currently find little of value to discuss with you about this.

Regards,

[tarik]

This quote came to mind while reading this thread:

Theodore Roosevelt
"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

Thank you, Keith.

Regards,

[mjhacker]

Thank you, Keith.
Thank you TEDDY!

[L. Camejo]

Very apt post Keith.

[tarik]

"some people apparently have a problem with being a loser."

If so, I'm surprised its not more than "some". Anybody who does not, has already mastered a very difficult concept preached by (Cheng Man-Ching?) regarding Tai Chi -- "invest in loss". If so, I'm way behind in my practice. Seems in my experience that most outside the Tai Chi or Aikido community (and even some inside them, including me) have a problem with being a loser. The extent is different for each, though. Some want to have a problem with being a loser, and others are working on the problem, while others are not aware of the problem, and some don't.

Not inferring criticism from the comment, just positing my worthless thoughts.


Eric, this is in fact a key point. I've known people who dropped out of aikido because they perceived falling down as 'losing'; which I suppose it is in a sense. However, it is by letting of winning and losing; or more accurately; redefining what you and your partner want to 'win' and 'lose' or achieve, we learn and grow in our trai