I guess my point is that if you are training a weapon art, then train a weapon art. I should see every single person on the mat sporting a weapon. The whole idea of "If you put a weapon in his hand it works" just seems silly no matter if it's uke or nage.
I guess it comes from my belief in aliveness. I think it is silly to train something other then in the manner you plan to use it. I don't run to be a better bike rider. I ride a bike.
Hello don yes I do agree with you.
I would say that aikido is not a weapon art, I think it has it's root in weapons, weapons access and weapons retention.
Every bit of weapon we do in aikido is technically spund sense but we are missing bits and pieces to make it a proper sword arts. IE a way to reliably break distance to get in striking range safely.
Well the way we do it anyway, some other style seems to be more weapon based, the way we do it is to enhance our body techniques.
We start from the bind (when the sword are crossed), and this is a good trick because you do not have to estimate distance and you by pass the entry so it is much easier to get a consistent starting point.
I think pedagogically, it makes lots of sense but the trick with fencing is to gain that entry. And I think that is the crucible of the relation with weapon , and you can see that in what Eyrie wrote.
What he wrote and the way he expresses it, is typical of a fencer/weapon way on conceptualizing fight. It is very difficult for someone that does not have a modicum of weapon pratice to concretely understand the implication of that.
The art of fencing in earnest (this is not so much the case in Olympic fencing) is to gain the "true place." As Gorge Silver calls it
To summarise it quickly the true place is where you can use proper body mechanic to deliver the strike, in range to hit your opponent and where he can not hit you directly.
He is then forced to defend and you can use his defence to create a direct threat and so on.