View Single Post
Old 11-28-2005, 06:12 AM   #42
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Article: On the Interdependent Nature of Tactics and Strategies by "The Grindstone"

Quote:
David Valadez wrote:
No, I wouldn't say that anyone was taught that commitment leads to defeat.
I didn't mean I was taught. Just that I never learned. Probably my stubborn streak got in the way.

Quote:
David Valadez wrote:
It is a subconscious construct of our training culture - that was my point. Moreover, because commitment is a cultivated state, this subconscious construct becomes reinforced by our own ego hangups - particularly our fears. This means that we can subconsciously come to associate commitment with defeat (in truly spontaneous environments) at the same time that we can satisfy our habitual tendencies to have our fears dictate us along a path of non-commitment.
Okay, I can understand that. But, you wouldn't just jump right into spontaneous environments in training, would you? You'd start with basics and slow movements and progress to spontaneous environments, right? In my view, from the beginning as an attacker, if you learn to give a good committed attack each and every time as a building block to help tori/nage, then it isn't really defeat, but training for tori/nage. Then at some point as an attacker, you learn to give a committed attack but then look for openings and reverse the situation, especially on that very first movement by tori/nage. That's training for uke. (Why should we train just for tori/nage?) And if you train as an attacker to look for and take advantage of openings, you won't get any good openings unless that first attack is committed and good. Otherwise tori/nage doesn't have energy to work with and won't be able to make the glaring mistakes. Some time later, the committed attacks and committed techniques become more subtle and require less energy to complete and tori/nage and uke find themselves interchangeable until someone makes a big mistake. Along the way, uke finds that giving a committed attack isn't a defeat but an opening of sorts to reverse the situation. That's my view of taking the "fears" and "non-committed attacks" out of training.

Quote:
David Valadez wrote:
My experience suggests that we can never see this for what it is if we only continue onward with our Aikido training. This is like the eye trying to see itself. We need a mirror or something, some kind of contrast. One way to gain this contrast is to go 180 degrees opposite to Aikido training paradigms, such as, "In this training, we just do whatever. You do whatever, and I do whatever."
Don't get me wrong, I think that this kind of training does help. And I think that a good teacher will know when to use it and when to use something else so that the student's comprehension keeps rising. Course, being a good teacher is another topic.

Mark
  Reply With Quote