Greg Block wrote:
This is a argument which cannot be proven . It would be better that we respect all martial arts as valid and useful. Some styles fit better with some individuals than others. Just as some techniques work better for some individuals than others
Agreed. This is why it is important to establish the criteria upon which you are placing judgement against, and why I ask the term Martially Effective to be defined, before we can have a conversation on this subject.
so if you have defined martially effective or "potent martial art", it eludes me, and I will not ask you to define it again. However, we simply cannot have a discussion on this matter.
Adjectives like martially effective and potent, even the term MMA are emotionally charged words that have many meanings attached them. We all think we know what the other means and we probably don't really.
So instead of answering the question, you appeal to authority with quotes from Ikeda sensei and Ushiro. This says nothing about your ability to convey change, or to speak as an authority on the subject.
I would ask them the same question. I have trained with Ikeda at a couple of Cherry Blossom seminars in DC. I have felt him, and have listened to him talk about aikido and kokyu.
No his words do not fall on deaf ears. Their are people out there listening to him and finding what works. These guys will also tell you to find your own path and voice. That can be interpreted in many ways.
I have had a few high ranking aikidoka that I respect tell me that same thing. I do not translate this into aikido is broken in a major way, but on a personal level that my way of training is appropriate and valid and one they feel will lead me in the right direction.
Maybe we can get together and train some day. We'd have to reach an understanding though of what is considered to be an apporpriate critieria upon which to train within though before then.
I don't know from our conversations what that might be.