Re: Baseline skillset
When Ushiro is talking about kata he is talking about karate kata. Like their Southern Shaolin ancestors, the Okinawans generally practice their basic kata without a "technique partner." As solo exercise.
Especially Sanchin, which is what I understand he is teaching folks in the aikido community. Of course someone can parse my words and claim that the person testing the shime of the Sanchin practitioner is a partner, and thus, Sanchin practice is like aikido waza practice. It's not. It's building the right kind of body to support Ushiro's karate technique.
Too many people have raised "technique" up as some kind of false god, as superior to "strength" which is denigrated. Ridiculous. Any technique's success or failure is based on the conditioning (strength, flexibility, cardiovascular, etc) of the practitioner, as well as her/his timing to apply the technique. The stronger you are, the better the technique works. Everyone wants timing and "smoothness" but it's not about that....no conditioning, no technique. Strength and conditioning are the foundation for everything. One can have all the timing in the world, and all the smoothness in the world and _still_ fail in application against resistance. The question is, what kind of strength? That is what the solo practice is for, developing the special kind of strength and conditioning. Who cares what something is called...resistance, non-resistance, ultimately what matters is human performance. Although, if one wants to take an Idealistic stance (the capital I is intentional), I can see that performance might not be very important.
Remember-- your legal training teaches you to make procrustean arguments for your client, who must, be definition be correct. In contrast, science is empirical and biology, non-deterministic. You make a lot of bold argument-by-analogy claims about the physics of kokyu etc, yet, you have yet to show _one_ instrumented test or even a proposal for _how_ you would measure and gather the data to either support or falsify your claim. Another key part of any scientific undertaking is reproducible results. You put out a protocol, then see if other people can reproduce the experiment.
Funny thing-- Dan, Mike and Akuzawa (through Rob) have put out protocols which _people who have never met them_ have tried and used to develop results consistent with what the proponents claimed the protocol could develop. I wouldn't have taken Rob seriously, or bought tickets to Japan otherwise. I want you to think really hard about what I'm going to say next.
Your protocols on the other hand, have not had that kind of success, at least, from what I can see here. Maybe the reports of the success of your gyrodynamic training method are simply getting lost in the chatter. That should tell you something-- either your protocol is _wrong_ or you're explaining it poorly.
Now you may not like this and you may think it's a personal attack. It isn't. I'm critiquing your methodology. You have repeatedly said that you are doing things from a western, scientific perspective. I have a lot of friends and family who work as university or graduate level scientists and sometimes they tell me about their research and what goes on during their symposia. I can assure you that from all accounts it is sharp, highly critical, and completely unforgiving.
Probably way more unforgiving than the discussion here on Aikiweb.
Last edited by Tim Fong : 02-06-2007 at 12:42 AM.