Originally posted by PeterR
Clarification aside - what doesn't ring true about it?
Nothing in regards to the practice but the terminology doesn't work for me. I know I'm being picky but full resistance implies a number of things which to my way of thinking probably isn't what you are doing.
For instance, I would be surprised if you thought of countering as resistance. Resisting locks out a lot of effective counters and makes many techniques more potent than they otherwise might be. In fact, it tends to lock you up thereby making you more vulnerable than you otherwise would have been.
There's a lot more I could go into but I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think the words full resistance
do your practice justice and I'm not buying that it's an accurate representation of what you do. There's a better term somewhere.
AIKIDO WITH A STRONG/STATIONARY UKE
Students at a brown belt level are clearly capable of defending themselves
I had to think about this one a bit. My own experience is that people who work exclusively against a more stationary uke are more capable of executing a given technique against the attacks they practice against. I might go further and say that when compared against the other extreme it would even appear that they have stronger/better technique. The problem, in my experience, is that competent people usually don't attack in a static way, nor do they flop for you. So ultimately, the very practice that looks strong is really just as limited in it's own way.
Personally, I don't think either extreme by itself is a terribly good thing.