Quote:
Ahmad Abas wrote:
Say ikkyo aihanmi for good measure. Whats there at the kihon level?
Proper hanmi, center, extension. Then make the connection, Kuzushi (and > uproot). Extend into uke's center and his elbows go up automatically. From here there's a few divergence. ... Later on, ikkyo doesn't even look like that. Its just up down up down and that's it. Or its come come come and out you go. And that's the level when kihon is no longer applied, because they're understood all that and now they're on a different level of understanding. Kihon was a step for us to learn. eg basic maths before going to algebra then we go to calculus and so on and so forth. Pretty soon, we'll be playing with sin, cos, logs and maths doesn't look like maths. Additions don't look like additions. But if we tried to start off students at that level without basic maths, everyone will go screwy. It'll be mumbo jumbo and some people will just go out there spouting memorised formulas and workings and they can't go beyond that. cause there's no understanding.
That is my understanding of it anyway. And that's why I believe you have to learn a 'certain defined way' at first. Until you understand that level, and then you can use what you have learned to suit your temperament.

A very good post. An interesting point, the mathematics. Maths are interesting in one way because they are taught in a certain progression. However, from another perspective, it does not and should not matter where or with what set of concepts you start to teach maths, because it IS a coherent whole, and wherever you may happen to start it all still leads everywhere. I, for one. would have been far better of with a different progression in maths  and ultimately had to find my own way, with rather more difficulty.
Some of this is learning styles and some of it teaching preferences based on the learning styles of those who end up teaching. The same might be said of Aikido.