View Single Post
Old 03-03-2006, 04:09 PM   #265
Adam Alexander
Dojo: none currently
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 499
Re: ?? Exaggeration in Aikido ??

James Kelly wrote:
I have, often. Shihan in fact. O Sensei's Uchideshi even.

But the truth is, everyone knows that only the Pope is infallible. Paul VI decreed it so himself (I think it was Paul VI, he changed his mind a lot).
Cite the source. I'm sure, by considering context, we'll find a meeting place on the issue.

No one's saying that a person is infallible. Only that infallibility is a part of a pure Aikido technique.

It's sort of like when Mike Tyson was big. Everyone I've ever known always loved to watch him fight. However, although he was in a boxing match, anyone I've heard who seemed familiar would always say that he's a "brawler, not a boxer" because he didn't demonstrate a lot of technical skill.

Keith R Lee wrote:
That is a really unusual way of saying how long you've been training.
Yeah, it is unusual. When I first started training, everyone at the lower ranks always asked "what rank are you" when they wanted to get an idea of your experience. Then, as I trained a little while, the people who seemed to grasp a little more would ask "how long have you been training." Then, after I started to watch a lot closer, I noticed a lot of people trained ten years twice a week with occasional lay-offs, while others trained five years every single day.

So, I've come to conclude that rank--because of the variety of reasons people are promoted within organizations--seems to have relatively little in regard to technical and practical significance, and length of time training in the typical number of years, for the reason stated above, means little to gauge a persons understanding, I offered a slightly better answer.

However, in reality, the question of training is simply a personal swipe. If that made a bit of difference, I could simply cite someone with a strong rep. Then, you'd shut up? I doubt it...You still wouldn't get it.

And I know you don't get it because of your lack of understanding about instruction--book or instructor--and solo training. Hmmmm I think it was K. Ueshiba who wrote that solo was necessary...but whatever, I doubt you'll get it with that either.

Just for you, I train an hour a day, nearly everyday. For between four and five years. There's been periods where I trained much more, periods--due to injury--where I've trained less...and the studying really came into play. It was dedicated Aikido for this period of time.

Keith R Lee wrote:
All that's there to say: easy up on the definitive statements about something as ambiguous as fighting. Also, keep an open mind because there are some people on the board with more experience in Aikido, and other martial arts than you. A LOT more. Maybe what they have to say is worth consideration as well, y'know?
I think I'm right about the statements on fighting. No matter what, there's a limited number of attacks and responses...we live in a finite world. So, physically, fighting isn't ambiguos--It's clear as a bell...but in the's just my opinion.

On the second half of the paragraph...I'll keep an open mind to those who prove they know something. You'll notice if you check my history, there's plenty of instances of me dropping out of threads because someone said something that made sense.

You wouldn't spend much time listening to a janitor's perspective on the economy unless he demonstrated some real understanding, right? This is the same thing. When someone demo's it, I'll consider it.

Fooks wrote:
Nope, no conceit there :-)
Yeah, that's really unfounded confidence: I've been training for years and I have a perspective. Or is it that I express a group of opinions that I find to be reaffirmed everytime I read something by masters?

LOL. Get over it Fooks.

eyrie wrote:
OR maybe you need to pay him a lot of money to show you're genuine and then maybe he'll still tell you to go practice
They weren't handed to me on a silver platter. So, I imagine that it's not right to pass them on a silver platter. Further, they're not mine. I'd say, if anything, they're the property of my instructors...and they're the property of their instructors. I don't know why I found things out...or why any of them were kind enough to give me the guidance they did. But, I do know that it's not things to be thrown around indiscriminately.

That's why, if you read through my posts, I only cite books or interviews for guidance to others (Yeah, Fooks, quoting...Wow, how conceided.) and I always offer my rudimentary experience that started me on the path.

Honestly, this is like dealing with a bunch of catty women (no offense non-catty women). Get over it ladies. If you disagree, that's the end of it. Your experience is different.

End of we go...

Aikido has been demonstrated to me and experienced by me in such a way that I recognize the principals as being capable of being applied correctly and inescapable when applied correctly.

In watching, studying (books, demos) and practicing other MAs, I've recognized that the same principals are throughout all of them.

I haven't been exposed to ALL movements or all MAs. I've been exposed enough, and have the ability to see consistencies in the, movements to lead me to believe that these things are universal.

Am I wrong? Some of you think so. That's okay. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

So what? Let's all get over it.

As stated earlier: Aikido is a platform. Is it infallibe? I believe so. You do not.

Why is there anything else to say?
  Reply With Quote