David Orange wrote:
Okay, Dan. That expresses perfectly what I've been saying. Aikido is a fighting art. It is an art of self defense and it has served me very well ever since I began training in it. It took me from someone who was next-to-last chosen for every game, afraid of all the bigger kids, to a 51-year-old who meets those old bullies and finds them much worn down by time, rather shrivelled and nothing like a threat to me anymore. The years and what I've trained in have been far kinder to me than to them. Their response, of course, is that they have a lot more money than me, now (most of them), bigger houses and cars and they're going to retire with big pensions.
But as a method of self-defense, I am very happy with aikido as I have learned it. This doesn't detract from what you do, but it does show that we are talking about different things. I am talking about aikido as I learned it from a meijin and I see the roots of that art in every child who learns to stand and walk.
You missed the point entirely. I was merely trying to keep the conversation on track about your natural movement theory VS my argument for unnatural, trained body methods. And to keep it out of a discussion centered around fighting. THAT
is why I said fighting is different topic.You could of course talk about these skills and how they are valid for stability, balance, and health and ways to train them........Then..... talk about training the body to fight using these skills. As for testing under pressure- an MMA format is far more trying then doing aikido anyway. It also gives validity to provable skills in a changing pressured environment as opposed to more cooperative play or "static tricks." Connection, Aiki, and setting up a throw is a whole different topic with collegiate wrestlers or MMA guys with 5 oz gloves and knees smashing into your head and chest. And sword, spear, and the ways the body moves while using them is a great discussion as well....But as I said again and again, that's a different topic.
I enjoy debating with you here and there bud, but sometimes its hard to keep your mind from wandering all over the place. The real question was about a method of training the body. I didn't, and still don't, see the need to bring up play time.
Maybe a more interesting topic is to address Gernot's post about the AIkido guy having to extend the arms to do his aikido and what that says about a skill level? Or what about breath power? How would that affect his fingers? What connects them? How about what is happening on the inside of that Aikido guy, as oppossed to enountering power at a touch anywhere in the body in the other method with Arkuzawa. Or Mark Murrays experience in feeling me VS Ikeda in the same week. There are two men, who don't know each other, feeling two different means of holding the body together and telling you they are different. Both have given a written opinion about their views as to whether they would call it "aiki" vs "aiki"-do and how it felt different. How about follow up questions to them about the feel and what they think is going on? About what this "whole body feel" -they who are thousands of miles apart- both try to describe? How or why is there such a difference that it is tangible upon contact? How did it affect them on the inside? Why or how could that be natural or unnatural-the subject of the thread?
Or would you rather relegate the discussion to single leg shoots to a side mount crucifix with knees in the head? Why do you keep bringing up fighting? What does fighting have to do with anything we are discussing?