Michael Gallagher wrote:
Did my example indicate it was? No.
So if, on your first day of physics class, you thought Heisenberg's Uncetainty Principle was bunk, would you go up to your professor and say "I think that's wrong"? That's a better analogy to what I am getting at. It's one thing if you think someone is a lousy teacher -- and I had one, too -- but another if you think you know the material better than he does. If you think the instructor isn't a good instructor, it's one thing. But if you go up to him and saym "I don't think you should teach it your way; teach it another way," that knocks on the door of knowing the material better than he does. How do you know the methodology is not good when he's gone farther in it than you and knows where it leads? You don't.
Well, there's also how quickly people can absorb things. Someone who's slow at picking some things up will be slow regardless of how they're taught.
I disagree. A martial art is not independent of the culture it originated in but a product of it. So to understand what's going on, you know at least a little bit of where it's coming from. It's not "pretending" anything; it's part of the package whether the art is Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, whatever. And how does learning the term "kote gaeshi" slow down learning the actual technique? Unless there's a connection between the linguistic and motor centers of the brain I don't know aboout?
Like you say, you train your way. But think twice before making pronnouncements on how well other ways "work."
See, but you are still not looking at it right. I'm not saying "Your training method is wrong." I wouldn't tell a physics teacher "This principle is wrong". I am saying "Your training methods are wrong, this is why I feel this is the case, this is my solution to the perceived problem." That is a lot different. Instead of showing me how my training methods will not help aikido, you are instead saying "Don't question the master".
My argument is that by watching and using training methods based on the I-method I have found that people will learn faster and will be able to leverage that knowledge with a higher level of consistency then students who do not use the I-method. I have decided this though years of trial and error of watching, working with and trying different training methods and seeing how other students react. I have noticed a distinct pattern in the level of skill at each belt level between schools that use this method, and schools that don't. This does not mean that a judo club using the I-method can beat up aikido guys. It simply means that you will notice a more consistent skill level in students of any rank. This simply means that the art is being taught though a better method so more students are able to leverage the teachings faster.
Now, rather then show me how I am wrong. You have simply told me not to question a master. You have talked about culture and how this stops us from being able to even explore the possibility of using a different training method. I have argued that the training method and the culture are not related and that in my opinion the culture is detrimental to the learning process if it is slowing down advancements in teaching practices. Again, you have simply not shown me a counter argument, but said to not question the masters. You have stated the the culture does not allow us to question our training methods because our 'masters' know more than we do.
I know you must feel the I-method will not give any improvement to the training of aikido. So I would like to ask why you feel this will not improve the training of aikido? Simply because some guru or master says so is simply not enough. How do we know they are right? How do we know O Sensei was aware of these types of training methods and choose to ignore them? How do we know these methods were not used and simply ignored by his students? A great martial artist doesn't equal a great teacher.
Martial arts are a very oral tradition and things get misplaced and screwed up. It saddens me every time I read about people disregarding even exploring how something could improve their training because some old fart told them it wont help or out of fear of insulting their teacher. This is the problem I have with the culture. It breeds false modesty and false respect where the word of a higher rank is golden and a lower rank simply hasn't done it long enough to understand. Respect is not blind obedience. I can respect you and still tell you that you are wrong to your face. However telling that you are wrong is not enough if I respect you. I have to prove my point. Again, I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong. I am saying I feel you are wrong and this is why. Please show me how I am misunderstanding. But I don't get an answer that satisfies me. It reminds me of the medieval church. The earth was flat, don't question that. You should respect us because we know more than you. After all we talk to god.
See, I am not content to do things the way they are done. I want to know why they are done that way. I want to know why they are better than other methods. And finally, I want to see the results. If I think something is wrong I have no problem pointing it out. Why? because I want to know why I am wrong. I want someone to show me how I misunderstood and why what I think should be done will not work or is inferior to what is being done.
So to wrap this up.
My argument: The I-method of training allows more people to grasp concepts quicker and integrate these ideas faster then the traditional method of training martial arts. For proof I site judo, bjj, and modern MMA schools.
Your argument as I see it: You are wrong because we have done it this way from day one and it has worked. I will not consider the option because it may offend a shihan and I was told by my teacher to never change the art. You will never have a better idea than what exists.
Of course we then have a few posts that state obvious things such as not everyone can learn at the same pace, and talk about what respect is, etc.
And yes, I have thought long and hard about this. I have thought about this for years from the time I was first starting as a teen until now. I went though phases of thinking it was me that was the problem, it was the art that was the problem, it was the teacher that was the problem, etc. I jumped about and tried a lot of things. I read a lot of books, I came to a conclusion based on that research. It is only now that I have found a name for the method (thanks to the SBG) and can express what I was feeling from day one. Also my teaching exp allows me to also have an insight on how to each people. I have come to realize that all the physical techniques in the end are the same, the speed in which you learn them is really based on two things. Who you are, and the training method you use. I have come to realize that the philosophy behind the arts can be taught regardless of the training method. This is not some "Hey I got an idea aikido sucks" post. I have thought about this and truly feel that the I-method (and other SBG style training methods) are superior to other training methods. I only wish to explore other peoples opinions and experiences with these training methods and hopefully start down a path that will improve my martial arts training further.