Joshua Reyer wrote:
I'm sure you would recognize it. What we're talking about is not resisting strength-against-strength, but uke maintaining structural integrity until nage takes it.
No, this is not simply a difference in language. Many of the people posting in this discussion talk about forcing Uke. Even your language here about Nage taking Uke's structural integrity reflects a different understanding of Ukemi and the relationship between Uke and Nage than what I have been taught. We don't force Uke or take from Uke. We don't impose, generally speaking, but lead, follow, and shape. In fact, we don't think in terms of Kata but Katache (sp?), a distinction made by Ikeda Sensei.
Uke's structural integrity is compromised by the act of attacking, both spiritually and physically. To truly attack is to become vulnerable, at least momentarilly. To attack someone you must go to them, and this intention can be used to lead the attacker outside of his balance. Once unbalanced, if the motion is continued, there is no opportunity to resist. If resistance is encountered or if something doesn't go as intended, it is always possible to change (either inside the technique or to a different technique, or no technique). I think too often it is the lack of a true attack that gives Uke the opportunity to live in the egotistic delusion of resistance.
I think my earlier post and my quotations of Saotome speak for themselves. More importantly, I think Saotome's books and videos address this issue very well. Again I would say watch the post WWII videos of O'Sensei and his students as well as the videos of both Doshu (the first Doshu has a great basics video that discusses the circular and blending nature of Aikido). If your Ukemi and the relationship between Uke and Nage do not look like that of the students on these videos, then I would suggest that this is something to think about. Who can say that these students did not have proper Ukemi with O'Sensei, or either Doshu, standing next to them and allowing them to be video recorded?