View Single Post
Old 06-12-2005, 08:52 PM   #229
CNYMike
Dojo: Finger Lakes Aikido
Location: Cortland, NY
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 976
United_States
Offline
Re: Aikido minus mysticism: a step forward

Quote:
Phillip Kirkan wrote:
If I reached a high level in aikido and started teaching, I Wouldn't teach my students that I was teaching them "love". I wouldn't force them to wear hakama. It would probably be a really informal class...
That's your prerogative. Although I haven't been involved in a martial arts class that didn't involve a uniform, even if it was a t-shirt with the school insignia and black sweat pants.

Quote:
Most bjj'ers also do no-gi and quite of a bit of them do vale tudo training as well. The gi in bjj or judo and the kurtka in sambo seem more like a piece of equipment for those sports.
Following your reasoning, they should do ALL no-gi and never, ever, wear a gi at all. This "equipment" is still "outdated Japanese clothing" as you put it, and if martial arts are supposed to be technique devoid of cultural references, then you should tell them not to do that ever again.

Quote:
If people could agree on what exactly 'ki' is, then disproving it (or proving it depending on the defition... as I said some people think it is just good technique) would be a lot easier.
Well, I just posted a quote that ki is "central to Aikido, and [O Sensei] always emphaszied the importance of ki." (Usehiba, Kisshomaru and Moriteru Usehsiba, Best Aikido: The Fundamentals, p.16). So if you take the ki out of Aikido, yeah, you could teach the joint locks and throws, but it's doubtful you could call it Aikido anymore.

Quote:
You might actually get better results teaching people without using the term 'ki' because they might understand it faster.
Well, the Seidokan people talked about ki coming out of their fingertips, and they seemed to be doing all right.

Quote:
What does the term 'master' mean to you? I've seen plenty of demonstrations where so-called 'masters' performed party tricks or demonstrated on compliant students. I've yet to see any of them in a fight.
Feel free to look up Sifu Dan Inosnato, Maha Guru Victor de Thouard, and/or Sifu Francis Fong, and challenge them. Let us know how it goes. Don't forget the bucket for your ride home.

Quote:
You're confusing your reason for training with the reason these martial arts were developed. You seem to be caught up in the mindset where martial arts aren't about hurting people, but self improvement. That mindset was an attempt to get rid of the bad image jujitsu etc. had during the early 19th century. People thought jujitsu was only for thugs, so Kano developed judo and claimed it was for self improvement. You see this trend again after WW2 with aikido.
It started sooner than that, in Japan, with the idea of "the sword that gives life." Budo systems just shifted the focus there, but it had been there all along.

Oh, and in Kali, yes, we get into things that can hurt and/or kill people. No question. But Guro Andy has emphasized "we are here to improve ourselves," not become assassins.
  Reply With Quote