Then according to the the definition above, would "haves" and "have nots" be more appropriate competitive classifications? Erick has a good point - I think we want to differentiate dualism from competition. Competency is a singular evaulation of a qualitative ability. Competition is a hierarchy of competency. ... TANGENT
... uke said, "I don't like to fall." ... "Anyone would is so good they don't have to fall if they don't wanna is way outta my league so I chose a different partner." Brilliant. The truth of the situation was that the other black belt was senior and did not want to be thrown because he took poor ukemi.
O Sensei loved poetic forms of truth, so I will point out this wonderful line in the theme song to Casino Royale by Chris Cornell, "You Know My Name" :
"If you think you've won
You never saw me change
The game that we have been playing ... "
That incident was a marvel of aiki and faux-aiki in action -- the game to begin was a simple training game with a throw as the programmed "win" and the fall as the "loss." The senior thought he changed to the status game to "win" by avoiding the "loss" of the fall (which is a "loss" on both games, in plain training (where there is no shame), and in the status game (where the fall is a loss of status), because his ukemi is poor, which is because of his inordinate concern on "winning" a programmed training game where the fall is an ordinary and expected element. So far, faux-aikido, and very bad training, and very shameful on many levels.
Junior guy -- good aiki, when the game changed and training could not happen, and the status game came into play, he did not "win" but instead forfeited the pointless status "win" to the senior, which of course, is no "win" at all , but a shameful "gift." He walked and neither lost the status game (which could not be won as structured), nor lost the training game as he got good training. No shame.
Underlines the proper measure of the victor in any martial engagement -- the guy walking away -- by whatever means, without shame.