Roque Bevilacqua wrote:
I've just read a number of replays to your post, certainly not all, and I still wonder I don't understand what the real question is.
If it is all about some martial arts better than other, then I think that it depends on what you expect of them at the end: self-defence, be a powerfull fighter, or something more "spiritual".
No, the discussion was firstly about the level of "high" martial arts and what is considered "high level" in Asian circles (and O-Sensei rightfully considered Aikido to fit that description). I have no idea where the discussion gave you the impression that some martial arts are "better" than others or that we were discussing the useability of Aikido... those were not really issues.
At worst and best, I was explaining why Aikido is considered one of the better martial arts (because it contains the elements that allow it to go to those heights... not all martial arts can claim that). I used that premise to indicate that the search for and study of ki and kokyu development is a worthy pursuit, as opposed to changing the focus to other arts, looking for what is missing. What is missing is the Ki and Kokyu parts. And note that I have never even suggested that ki and kokyu things are the most important or singularly needed focus in Aikido.
Koichi Tohei was arguably the best Aikido practitioner in Aikido at one time and he also feels the ki and kokyu parts are missing in too much of Aikido. Certainly when I see some of the Japanese Aikidoists exhibiting development of some skills I don't see in westerners, I get to thinking that there are other people than just Tohei, me, and a few others who think these things are important. ;^)