"Proficiency", which will always be a key goal of training, is not, nor should ever be a part of any conversation regarding any evaluation or comparison of the Aikikai Foundation's system of Aikido, with those of any other Aikido system developed consistently with the Founder's Aikido. For all such systems, the fact of proficiency in their own respective applications, is a given,
I have 2 questions on this section of the article:
1) I was unaware that there was an "Aikikai Foundation's system of Aikido". The impression I got from pretty much all of the Aikikai instructors I have trained with is that they are linked directly to the Aikikai Hombu dojo and Doshu in some form or fashion, but the range and variety of training was different under each instructor, even to the point where the definition of Aikido itself was varied among instructors of the same dojo. My question is how does this represent a "system of Aikido"? I had the impression that the Aikikai was an overseeing body with the particular system or style of training being defined by the local instructor, shihan or regional organization. In other words there is no visibly identifiable "Aikikai style" of Aikido per se, but there is an Aikikai organization that acts as a centralizing body for all the instructors within its purview. Please clarify.
2) "For all such systems, the fact of proficiency in their own respective applications, is a given
". Imho the definition of Proficiency
indicates competence, i.e. an ability to do. Are you saying that this competence is automatically given (i.e. to be assumed) in all systems that adhere to the Aikikai foundation's goals etc.? My question is then, if proficiency relates to "the quality of having great facility and competence", as per the linked definition, how is this quality measured and maintained?