Dan Harden wrote:
The way we train here is more in line with -I suspect- the way-Takeda taught to concrentate on the body first. This results in a body that cannot be taken down without great effort- sacrificing your body. I think it is the reason that he produced some incredibly powerful men and Ueshiba-by comparison never did.
I think Takeda taught what he knew, Ueshiba knew more than he taught
I think the goal was to tell your inner students to concentrate on their bodies. The end result should be powerfully evident on contact The body is to be trained to be supported by giving a negative with a supported positive, in many directions at once, rotationally, front and back, up and down, over and under.
I am sincerely thankful for your above points. Perhaps you mentioned them previously and I simply missed the opportunity to make my following points. In any case, it is wonderful for you to make my point for me so clearly for all Aikidoka to consider for themselves. I will start by mentioning one aspect of martial arts that was instilled in me early on in my own journey, that being that all martial arts are the same in that they begin and end with "Rei" (a bow) Of course what happens in-between those two bows may look and be entirely unique to the either individual or art form.
Here are your words, followed by my clarifications...
Dan Harden wrote:
I think it is the reason that he produced some incredibly powerful men and Ueshiba-by comparison never did.
Power, whatever that may be has many various definitions. "Gan-Sa-Tan-Riki" is one of many gokui relating to Aikido, and many martial arts, I would suspect. On the surface it talks about levels of power. Just below the surface it offers a road map for seekers of higher-level martial arts. At some point beyond that it becomes a gauge by which one can measure his or her one's own progress or understanding by reflecting back the exact nature of the essence of the person. So what we have is a simple equation that says that Takeda Sensei was very good at producing men of power in terms of how you
define it. Similarly, Ueshiba Sensei was very good at producing men of power in terms of how he defined it. These two different "faces" of what power may be defined as are, well... different by their very nature. As most people would agree that Aikido and Daito-Ryu are not the same art, it would make logical sense to conclude that there is something different between one and the other - more so than simply the number of or variation in which the way a particular technique is executed. What you have pointed to in making your assertion about what Takeda Sensei and Ueshiba Sensei were able to produce is that the power within Daito-Ryu, is a different one from that of Aikido. They are different "powers" because the goal of each art and what each art aims to produce is, yes... different.
Dan Harden wrote:
I think Takeda taught what he knew, Ueshiba knew more than he taught.
As I meditated on your point, it became crystal clear to me that:
- This couldn't possibly be substantiated as anything more than opinion at best.
- Would presume that you knew that each teacher wanted the same result.
- It is not ever possible to teach all that one knows or even get close.
- as things generally turn out, is probably the exact opposite of what actually happened... of course, that is about as much opinion as your original statement, and not my opinion at all, as it turns out.
So, in conclusion, while our (two different) Arts are completely different at their core, in intended result, in execution of techniques and in training to produce those very differences, I bow to you. Budo wa, Budo desu.
Best in training...