Ron Tisdale wrote:
I think Wayne answered your question pretty well, and Larry seems to have spoken to it several times.
I get all of that, although I would not necessarily have put Ki Society into the regimented camp of teaching modality. Having zero experience in that style, I am quite prepared to be corrected, either way.
The point for me is about how to stage or manage training to transition from the kihon, however it is initally taught to experience the takemusu paradigm of applied aikido, which in truth ought not ultimately differ much among styles, to my mind, other than as to ephemeralities.
Ron Tisdale wrote:
Indeed, I attempted a brief answer myself earlier, referring to renzoku waza, and how chaining different waza together while requiring strict adherence to form is often used as a bridge to jiyu waza. ... These often start as simple 1, 2 3 types of forms, and then grow in complexity over time, eventually incorporating role changes in shite and uke to foster more spontenaity.
What I don't get is how you go from the training regimen of A+B=C; D+ E= F to something like A+K = Q, much less A+ Y= %& which may be how a given encounter actually gets resolved, and may not be a defined sequence in the planned progression.
I fully believe that you get what you train for. I have sympathy with the "fully resistant" "practical" budo training crowd for this reason, because it is, in a sense, training in chaos for chaos. I disagree with them because of the the un-aiki nature of such training, and because I find it has less broadly applicable uses as the aiki approach.
There is actually very complex order in chaos, but the balance of those aspects of order and disorder and the nature of the relationship is not linear or as simple as a linear training program would suggest.
With all respect, saying that we simply do jiyu waza and randori to train those chaotic aspects, severs one training environment from the other, such that there is order, and there is chaos, but not fundamentally interleaving the two in a complex mix -- which is the reality of the thing.
As a point of departure, however, the "chaining" of defined techniques, whether as henka waza or as successive attacks in jiyu waza or randori is a point of conenction between us, I think. This is not so dissimilar, (although far more fixed in form -- huge surprise, huh? ) from the variational mode of teaching that I gleaned from my Iwama days.
Basically, it starts at a node of a given technique in fundamental kihon form, and then explores the branch points from that node , keeping one element always consistent throughout and then exploring portions of the variable space or branches along some line of progression, varying tai-sabaki movement or adaptation, timing, sequence, degree or direction of uke's resistance, etc. I try to make a point of describing the similarities of transition in seemingly different sequences that occur in each progression.
I have described it elsewhere as the "Anchor and Kite" model, lackgin any better name for it. Essentially, you anchor at a point on the landscape and then fly the kite in that context. Next class, move the anchor somewhere else and fly the kite from there. When testing creeps closer, we tend to orbit those elements and techniques relating the upcoming test.
The training then is directed toward body placement and connection to maximize sensitivity and opportunity for points of divergence that may created in the mutual movements, and specifically emphasizing the occurrence and flow of potential branch points as they present themselves in that dynamic.
Ron Tisdale wrote:
I found with my own training that while formulaic kata would pop out quite naturally with the first attack or two, I would usually then be stuck in the same waza for the next 8 throws or so. It was (and sometimes still is) difficult for me to 'unstick' what happened first from my body and mind. There can be no doubt that in my case the formulaic environment is sometimes difficult to 'overcome'... I think in more formulaic styles, it is even more important for the individual to realize at some point that a great deal of self exploration is required once one gets to the Dan level.
Ron (it always comes down to the individual...)
A lot of this is driven by learning styles, which are very individual -- although they vary categorically. For this reason diverstiy of approach is appropriately encouraged, and a reason I faind no fault with any given strategy for teaching, it s the management of the transition that puzzles me, because that model is NOT my learning style at all.
That "stuck on X-technique" was my actually my precise concern about the eventuality of the training model. One thing that got drummed into me about jiyu and randori in this way was the principle that -- if in doubt, connect somewhere and either irimi or tenkan -- if still in doubt -- repeat as needed.