View Single Post
Old 11-04-2012, 01:44 PM   #14
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
From some things I've been reading of late, and something that Dan's comments were just flavored with is, I believe yet another definition of "Aiki". I think it goes a little something like this:

D) A body skill, that once acquired, allows your body to automatically adapt to movements and changes made by an attacker/opponent, that make the opponent feel strange, weak, unable to adapt to you.
This definition D is something that I feel is newly arising, and maybe I'm wrong but I also believe Amdur Sensei is kind of talking about (However I am still waiting my copy of HIPS, which should be here Monday).
The definition is not accurate and I don't think you are going to discover that definition in Ellis's book.

D. correctly stated is a result of and part of C. But I don't buy the automatic portion of.
It all begins with C. If you have studied internals in an internal art- you would understand all of this. In a classic model it is seamless.

Quote:
I am in camp "A" and camp "B". I do believe Ueshiba was describing mostly camp "B", but due to some recent reading, it's hard to say exactly what he was talking about.
He continued to discuss solo training and self centered joining of forces as his model. And THAT...is so stunningly obvious to someone who trained internals (not internal arts) that it is a non starter. More importantly Ueshiba's views were consistent with a standard model. Yours is unique and all your own. more on that to follow.

Quote:
I saw the usefulness of internal, studied it with an internal expert, got what I found useful and moved on. It does seem magical, at first but once you understand it, nothing that couldn't be basically understood/used in a year or two (in a non task specific context). I would also say that most all professional athletes are basically using internal in relation to their specific skill set. It's part of the reason professional athletes seem so amazing. So I don't understand the way that people around here are using definition "C" and exactly what it is that they are pointing too.
If you got internals in your training in an internal art, I have yet to read, or see or hear of it. Assuming anyone got *internals* because they studied an internal martial art is equal to thinking they got aiki because they studied Aikido.

I would say that your discussion point of athletes all having internals is empty and unsupported. You logically have to follow that with all exceptional martial artists are just superior athletes then.
.
Quote:
I saw the usefulness of internal, studied it with an internal expert, got what I found useful and moved on. It does seem magical, at first but once you understand it, nothing that couldn't be basically understood/used in a year or two (in a non task specific context).
WHAT????
I would only state that this is the most stunning and unique example of "understanding internals" I have ever read. I think we should send notice to people who have spent 11 years in China and 44 years in Aikido....wasting their time.
Chris Hein got it in a year or two.
Tens of thousands of people could save a lot of time and money and travel from around the world to train with you.
All due respect, Chris, I propose that you don't know what internal training actually is, and why it takes so very long to learn.
Dan
  Reply With Quote