DH

David
I didn't suggest E-budo for any useful information about the book, but rather that people can go there and read more feedback from still other budo people guessing and wondering and misunderstanding the nature of the book and hear what they are saying about about our own discussions of the book.
Like the comments here- "strengthen the back and legs", or "lift your arm to throw," (words loaded; either with meaning or misinformation) we can see from several personal testimonies that being able to read the original Japanese, training in the art, and translating it, didn't help budo people in actually understanding the material and changing their own skill level. Even for those in the art- their own physical skills revealed their lack of understanding of the material and the direction Sagawa pointed to.

There are those who trained with Sagawa and who now train with Kimura who lack the skills. Recent personal testimony confirmed that Sagawa was telling the truth when he said he did not teach this stuff most of his life. Other testimony offered here seems to corroborate that fact that only Kimura got it to some degree or another.
One can debate just why that is, but consider this;
1. After years of personal one-on-one and hands-on with a teacher/student relationship intact, and with the now humorous idea of the "deeper initiation" model supposedly intact- the teacher reveals that he purposefully did not teach what he knew would make the defining difference.

2. We find other examples of purposeful misinformation and withholding from those with "deeper initiation."

3. You find out that the body of information, the real meat of what makes power and aiki exists as an undercurrent in Asian arts in different cultures and it is widely kept back there as well and we run into the same kind of "holdback" stories.

4. We realize that it isn't singular but an example of more of a widespread Asian model of teaching. Which explains why the vast majority of budo people feel like they do. It also helps explain the state of Budo throughout history: The rare budo giants who by all accounts can do amazing things, handle the efforts of accomplished budo men, go through their efforts with ease and stand apart from their own era's budo men like they were nothing more than budo "wall paper."

I've never bought the idea that the ones that "got it" in each generation were all geniuses and weirdly talented-and everyone of their peers were dolts stumbling around trying to get it....from the same information.
I think it is more realistic to consider it a case of the exceptional ones (meaning talented and above average) being actually taught defining material, and everyone else was left to guess and steal information. That makes more sense to me.
Which brings us back to Sagawa's statements which keep getting verified
Takeda said not to teach Gaijin the real art-so he didn't
Takeda said only teach one or two and no one else-so he didn't
Takeda said not to talk about the solo work-so he didn't

Now, in the modern Era; who -from that art- was talking about those very things publicly, years ago? Who, from that art was publicly denying it was so? What level of understanding is being displayed in various people's practice today?
I think it verifies and supports Sagawa's statements as true and as a budo "constant," yet again.

Dan