Stand relaxed with feet side by side about shoulder width apart and do not use any waza, your hands, or any offensive techniques and remain that way while .....
1. Have someone push your chest with one hand in an attempt to push you over. Really push.
2. Then two hands as hard as he can. We're talking total 100% full force of whole body pushing you.
3. Then have him pile drive into you.
4. Then even casually.. increasing to severely- pull you and push you around while you stand there without moving your feet. Let them have your wrist and let them pull you for all their worth.
5. Place your hand on his chest. Without moving your shoulders or body in any discernable way, send them 3-6' with your hand.
I'm a little confused:
In my young understanding, "waza" includes any method one consciously employs, hence the saying there are infinite techniques in Aikido...probably just splitting hairs, but "internal techniques" would be internal waza, wouldn't it?
It also seems to me that the ability corresponding toward "doing" the above is relative to who you're trying it on. I have no problem grounding out some people while others seem impossible. I can certainly do elements of the above mentioned, though not in all cases.
You know what really gets to me? This hypocrisy about non-aikido people not knowing anything about aikido.
I didn't read anything as saying non-Aikido people know nothing about Aikido. We're all learning how to move the same human form, after all, but maybe I missed it.
We often read and inject our own connotations into the areas not addressed directly. If the interlocutor included every caveat which applied to the things they say, they probably would never finish a post. Initially, I recall Mike bugging the heck out of me. I'd always arrive in the middle of a conversation (dangerous in it's own right) where he was describing some negative thing and after a while he just seemed to have nothing positive to say about Aikido. Over time, I began to realize he wasn't criticizing "Aikido," only what he had specifically witnessed and was addressing. When people make strong assertions, unfortunately, I think we humans tend to look for ways we might be under attack and respond to what WE read into the message more than what is actually said, some of us more than others, I know.
If you can't do them all, then you don't know, nor do you understand what's being said here. It's that simple.
Ok but is it a matter of an "on-off" type of ability, or is there a gradient of ability? Aren't the skills used to do any one of those the same or similar skills used to do the others? I don't see how being able to do #1 but not #3 precludeds any
understanding of this topic.
It certainly makes a difference whether or not one can feel it or not (talking is pretty useless comparatively). I recall telling one newer student that the feeling they had just experienced for the first time should be repeated to some degree every time they did that technique. I had felt her suddenly ground out my efforts and the look of pleasant surprise dawned on her face as she realized she had just taken control of the situation. I could have told her all day about what it feels like, but she never would have had an idea what I was talking about (and I assume this is what you're really trying to say), but I don't think any of us can say specifically what another of us is lacking in their training without witnessing it directly.