Well, I agree that there is/was a legitimate debt there, no question. My point was that to some degree Takeda almost undoubtedly was well aware of the traditional antecedents of ki, kokyu, hara usage, and so on, since his internal-strength skills would have depended on them and there's no way he could not have been aware of them, to some degree. Considering that he spent a lot of time competing, talking, etc., with and among martial artists as he grew up, it's pretty much a certainty. The point being that Takeda would not and never did consider himself the inventor of Aiki skills.
I think this is progress.
No one ever said he was the inventor of aiki.
He never said he was either.
So where is there an argument? It was his use of it to infuse an entire art and refine it as a body method that was dramatically different in his era. And each of his five big dogs all state they continued to grow past his initial teaching. That's all.
That explains Mark's postion as well.
Similarly, Ueshiba, because of the things he said and published, would not have considered Takeda to be the innovator of "Aiki" (I told you it was/is a fairly well-understood skill and has been for many generations). Hence, no matter that Ueshiba personally owed some sort of debt/fealty to Takeda, it would be nonsensical for Ueshiba to credit Takeda with "Aiki".
I think the distinction we argue over is
1. Takeda was thee source for Ueshiba to have first learned
2. Not that Takeda was THEE source of
No where have I said any different.