View Single Post
Old 07-04-2008, 01:03 AM   #3
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 138
Re: Aikido™ and Aiki…do. Where are we at?

Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
I can field this as I already posted this exact topic on a different thread in the past.
No offense, Rob, but can you? Dan stated a willingness to wager. Now it might well have been a rhetorical flourish, but *I* would bet you don't manage his purse.

It is my impression after having worked with him that one trained in that way can much more realisticaly take control of another adult as if they were a 2 year old (because the power differential is about the same).
I understand and accept the principle, but you are exaggerating. I work with horses, and they can't overpower me to the extent I could my two-year-old. I have no problem with the general sentiment, but it *is* possible to muddy the waters with exaggeration. It need not be malicious exaggeration either. What do you think personally: does the exaggeration of certain aspects of what should reasonably be expected from given training methods sometimes mislead? Based on your extensive posting, I would guess you would say, "Yes, the promise held out by some training paradigms can mislead those unqualified to judge them yet." I am open to correction.

I also find that Dan is working on is how to deal with other people similarly trained. That makes him farily unique in the scope of things.
Well, he's either unique or he's not. Can you clarify which it is? Personally, I don't think Dan would claim to be unique -- which is why I'm not sure you speak for him.

Going back to my real question: you say (and I believe you completely) that Dan is 'working on' how to do this. Dan is 'willing to bet . . . which methods offer the greater potential'. So my question was whether he can actually demonstrate that his methods can accomplish what he says they can -- and with such clear superiority over all other methods. It's not that I disagree with the general thrust of Dan's points. I don't. But he did throw down a challenge, so I just want to understand what he is actually claiming. For example, I don't doubt that Dan can beat the crap out of me -- but I'm not sure he can do it without hurting me. It's not something I really want to test though, if you see what I mean. Hell, if I could win bets just by getting beat up, I wouldn't need a day job.

  Reply With Quote