Well I guess I would have to point out that Ueshiba certainly didn't seem to think so.
Nor do I. In fact I believe he went out of his way to prove the opposite-that "the art was formless" every chance he got. I was teaching in an Aikido dojo last night, Oddly enough this subject came up repeatedly of their own voliton. I think the consensus there was "Oh my god, why would you even worry about waza anymore?" To which I said "I don't!" Or as Bill once stated so clearly "This training will wreak havoc on Aikido as we now know it." Speaking for myself I certainly do not see the substantial portion of the work I do as "waza" or waza related, nor apparently do the aikido teachers and students training with me. I see it as a physical manifistation from an attempt to embody a fully intergrated mind / body and spirit.
So count me out of the waza model. I see the focus on waza as Aikido's biggest flaw. The why of it is well represented in Stevens choice of terminology in translation of a much simpler model extent in the bujutsu Ueshiba studied.
Of course being a bujutsu man as well as an Aikido teacher....Larry...nailed it.
I think you have misunderstood me. I'm agreeing with you, for heaven's sake.
I very carefully left waza
untranslated and especially avoided using the term 'techniques'. There are 166 waza
illustrated in Budo Renshu
: so it is obvious that Ueshiba used waza
in his Daito-ryu at the time. However, the introduction to Budo Renshu
, especially the parts I have translated, does not mention the term and the point of the translations was to suggest that the training envisaged in the introduction is in fact much wider then even Bieri suggests. So I wanted a phrase that combines what Ueshiba actually does in Budo Renshu
with what he explains in the technical introduction. Since there is no such term in English, I left waza