Originally posted by Tim Griffiths
No, no, and "necessary but not sufficent and vice versa".
Aikido is a martial art. This is not a grey area. Someone who does aikido is doing a martial art. Someone who practices a martial art is a martial artist, good or bad.
To say something else you have to twist one of the definitions so far as to make it unrecognisable, or useless.
Why do you ask?
First, Aikido is a martial art (budo). I wouldn't be so religously devoted to the art if I thought it wouldn't be effective (with another 10 years of practice
. I really can't wait for those FORCE powers
to kick in and the gods to flow through me (I'll save that for another post.) My question is not about the art but the artist.
I think the latest poll got me to thinking. If a person goes to an art class to learn how to paint and all he does for 10 years is through paint on the canvass (I know this too can be art in a abstract sense) and pound clay is he an artist? Even if he's enjoying himself and loves to go to class, does the fact that he can't paint a simple flower or sculpt a bust exclude him from being an artist?
If a person goes to a dojo and practices for 10 years without martial intent is s/he an artist ? I know people whos wazas are beautiful, who roll without making a sound, but there is no Thunder (for lack of a better term) in their techniques. Is this person a martial artist? Is a person who goes to the park and pracitces tai chi with a martial artist. I'm not knocking Tai Chi. Chen, Wu and Sun Style tai chi are quite effectvive, but are what the people pracitcing in the park a martial art. If a technique is done without martial intend and just for the beauty (I'm saying this is wrong) is it budo?
Please understand I'm not trying to knock anyone. I'm just trying to get things straight in my mind. I tend to get very focus on a thing and tend to exclude other peoples point of view.
Just another man looking for a better way.