View Single Post
Old 11-02-2011, 02:36 PM   #84
jonreading
 
jonreading's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido South (formerly Emory Aikikai)
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 897
United_States
Offline
Re: Being overly complacent as Uke

Quote:
Graham Christian wrote: View Post
Jon. I've explained as best I can. When expanding on the point for clarification then comments such as digging a whole don't make sense. So, not knowing why you see what you do in what I've written I'll attempt to clarify using your points. In post 56, you say "As I've said earlier you get ukes tapping out because of what they think is about to happen, usually based on past 'bad' experiences. That's not the time to let go." This is an advocation to assume authority over your partner and decline a request to cease the technique.

Point 2, agreed.
Point 4, Not agreed. Reread what I said and you'll see my view ie: Trust is increased through good capable handling. My 4th point was "Trust is earned by establishing safe and respectful training environments, not because you are sensei." In post 68 you say, "In a dojo it is, or should be, a place of inherent trust in each other otherwise in my opinion it's not a good dojo. Therefore trust should be given as soon as you step on the mat. When someone betrays that trust then you enter correction time and reprimand time. So my point is that you should always give your trust not wait for it to be earned."
Point 3. Not agreed. Students come to be taught well and thus the Sensei is already empowered to correct and improve otherwise why is the student or the sensei there? My 3rd point was "It is NEVER the role of the sensei to empower himself to "rectify" deficiencies in a student without obtaining consent from that student." A sensei should always seek consent from students. There is no discussion here, without consent you are committing assault.
Point1. If you don't understand through what I said then I have no other way of putting it. My 1st point was "Uke has the right to tap out whenever he wants, for whatever reason he sees fit. Nage has the obligation to respect and obey that request." In post 56, you say "As I've said earlier you get ukes tapping out because of what they think is about to happen, usually based on past 'bad' experiences. That's not the time to let go." Is this, or is this not an advocation to assume authority over your partner and decline a request to cease the technique.

Where you get trust is earned.............not because you are Sensei from I don't know.
In post 68 you say, "In a dojo it is, or should be, a place of inherent trust in each other otherwise in my opinion it's not a good dojo. Therefore trust should be given as soon as you step on the mat. When someone betrays that trust then you enter correction time and reprimand time. So my point is that you should always give your trust not wait for it to be earned." While you are using passive language, I can only assume the trust you are giving is to the instructional body, sensei. If that is not the case, perhaps you should be identify the subject of your sentences.

Where you get thoughts of pushing limits or assault from beggars belief.
In the US, acting upon an individual without his consent is a crime, assault. As pointed out above, you advocate action upon an individual, not necessarily with consent. Incidentally, I do not mention "beggars". Secondly, In my 2nd point, to which you responded "agree" in your post, You concede that partners who trust each other may use that trust to increase environmental stress in their training, to push their limits.

A simple fact of being able to differentiate seems to freak a lot of you out. I sit here in amazement wondering why?
I did not address this point because I have no position on the argument whether I am able to differentiate when my partner really wants to stop our interaction and when she is simply "bluffing". I am disturbed by your seeming advocation to continue interaction after your partner has asked you to stop.

As you and others here are always shouting about keeping it real then I feel sorry for you if you had to use a control technique for real. In real life the person will scream blue murder in order for you to let go 90% of the time NOT because it hurts but because they want to knock your block off.
What does this have to do with anything in my post? Is this based on a real-life experience that you wish to share as proof of your position? Didn't you chastise Katherine in post 64 for posting personal experiences to back up a point of view? Yes, as a tangental point, habitualized termination points can cause premature termination in real-world scenarios. Judo players who stop after a throw, officers who holster weapons after 3 rounds, aikido people who... Well, you get the point. However, this is not germaine to my post.

Another misunderstanding here I think is most who are unaware of what I'm talking about or against it seem to me to be talking purely about pins. I am not.
I mention this no where in my post, nor is it relevant to my post. This is another tangental point not germane to the conversation.

Pins come at the end of a move and when addressing only pins then what they say fits, I put them on side one of the coin also.
I mention this no where in my post, nor is it relevant to my post. This is another tangental point not germane to the conversation.

The situations I described had nothing to do with pins, in fact Nikkyo was the named technique I used for explanation.
I mention this no where in my post, nor is it relevant to my post. This is another tangental point not germane to the conversation.

While I'm at it let's get more real shall we? An example of tapping out in real life. You're helping an old lady or man up from a chair or a wheelchair. They put their hand out and asked you to help them up. Half way up they 'yelp' (equivalent to tapping out) Do you let go? No, you immediately move to make them comfortable and ask what's wrong.
This is a poor "real" scenario. As pointed out, this is not analogous to the thread. 1. the subject has consented to your aid; 2. the subject is damaged by an injury unrelated to your interaction (i.e. she would be in pain standing up whether or not you assisted).

Blindly following rules is no excuse. It makes you more blind.
I don't even know what this means. Except maybe some demeaning comment meant to imply you are not blind.

Regards.G.
I'll have a go at this to re-iterate my point about avoiding posts... I have edited your response to my post.

I wish I could edit with line-out, about half of your post is irrelevant to my request to clarify your existing points. As I said in my earlier post, instead of consolidating and clarifying the several post you have already made, you choose to make more posts with more tangental comments that require more explanation.

I don't necessarily have anything against your comments because I do not yet understand them. When I ask for clarification, I am being serious because I want to understand your points. Even if they are points with which I do not agree I appreciate differing perspectives.

On a grander scale, would it then agree that your larger perspective is that poor uke waza is a reflection of poor nage waza, since nage possesses and inherent right to correct uke, with or without his consent?
  Reply With Quote