View Single Post
Old 07-12-2009, 12:40 PM   #38
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Japanese Aikido Teachers - Translation

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
On Mikes comments and misquotes

I'll state it flatly and complete.
"Aikido IS NOT Daito ryu." It's Ueshiba's school-and it is a different model from DR so continuing to misquote that does little good. I admire what Ueshiba did with his change in direction.
But,
"Aikido's aiki...IS...Daito ryu aiki." Something which most know little about, but more and more aikido teachers are catching on to.
I initially dismissed Mike's view when he came on the scene because he simply could not address how and where the two arts differed in his past offerings here as he went through his many phases; from denial, grudging agreement, to apology and eventual (albeit limited) agreement that there even were internal components in DR. The internal training aspects of DR directly correlate to usage in Aikido's movement and approach to create aiki in defined ways and for specific reasons in applicable use. George was sharp enough to have seen it, so was Gleason and an increasing number of other Aikido teachers. It generally speaks for itself and requires no defense for experienced teachers in aikido. I'm not sure anyone elses opinion matters. Teachers will do what they think is best.
We could say
"Enough already!!"...
Lets say it again
"Enough already!!"...
And I would agree, except that the discussion here and there goes to "Where do we find what Ueshiba had?" And that leads back to the history.

History
Many have enjoyed and benefitted from the contention, and information in the debates here regarding the history and origin of Aikido's aiki; with me stating "Aikido's aiki is Daito ryu aiki" Against Mike's "Aikido's aiki is Ueshiba's research into some (undefined, no school, little known and undisclosed source of "generalized internal training Mike theory" that Ueshiba sprung from.
When I compared the "ideas" as a model, in the end I find one inescapable truth:
The nebulous, undefined "catch all" Asian training model that Ueshiba supposedly trained in produced no one else, (in that generation ) of any significant notability for anyone to consider to stand next to Ueshiba, Takeda, Sagawa, Kodo, and Hisa.
Takeda, on the other hand made each of them. All budo giants in a classification of aiki usage that was unique at the time.
So,I find Mike's "unified asian arts theory" on the history and origins of Ueshiba's power to have little credibility worth further consideration.

Current training
A better discussion today is whether it is better for aikido people to try and find what is generally (but not completely) agreed is missing from the art from just anywhere…or anyone at all who has got something internal; Karate, Taiji, Bagua, Yoga, the kitchen sink, whatever. Or, whether it is probably smarter-as George points out -to go to a school from which the art, and the man, sprang, as it will more directly relate; not only in building the internal componants but also a) what is worked on and why, but b) what is or isn't stressed and why c) what is unrelated but could be brought in and how it can be expressed in motion that directly relates to Aikido.

I could agree that continuing to talk about DR as a source for Aikido's aiki can be a distraction, except that I have experience with training with students and teachers alike from both arts -with decades of experience- who, not surprisingly completely disagree with Mike as to what, where, and how, the Aiki of those arts ARE connected.
Once again, Dan... if you're going to represent *anything* you think I said or anything you think I think..... give a reference to where I said something. You have gone beyond mischaracterization to the point that you simply make it up. I.e., you do not tell the truth. Do not use my name and assert what I have said without a reference. This is how many times you've been told the same thing? Source? Cite? Or more probably, silence, right?

In terms of the subject at hand, maybe I'm missing a rather obvious absurdity from the DR hyperbolists: Is it the position of Dan and Mark and others that the "aiki" skills are only found in DR and Aikido and that they are not common skills found in a number of Asian martial arts? Is that the position? If so then you're missing a lot of obvious clues, even in Ueshiba's writings. The reason Ueshiba referenced ancient traditional Chinese sayings about his skills was because he knew full well that these skills he was using were the same ones used throughout Chinese martial arts. Takeda would have known it, too. So to try and maintain the position that Ueshiba could only have gotten his skills from DR is absurd and untenable, if that's the position.

Some skills, yes.... but everyone has agreed for years that some degree of Ueshiba's knowledge of the ancient skills probably came from DR. Did *all* of the total skills Ueshiba had come only from DR? Probably not. I'm holding a couple of examples in my hot little hands and I'll bring them out sometime in the future publicly. Meantime, when the topic comes up I continue to show these things to Aikido people so we can get around the DR advocacy. DR had a place in Aikido's past. DR had predecessor arts in its past. How far back do we have to go?

FWIW

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote