View Single Post
Old 12-19-2012, 04:33 PM   #25
aiki-jujutsuka
 
aiki-jujutsuka's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 192
Offline
Re: Aikido Isn't Bullshit

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote: View Post
His style of Aiki-Budo? I think perhaps you should do a bit more research. In a very loose sense, you *could* say that.

But, for example, it's like saying that present day Olympic athletes are doing Kano's judo. Technically they're doing judo, sure. It can be traced back to Kano, so it's Kano's judo. In reality, it's nothing like Kano's vision of judo.

Ueshiba was given Takeda's aiki and made it his (Ueshiba) own by IP/aiki changing his body. The outward form is 99% Daito ryu techniques. So, by very loose technicality. you could say it's Ueshiba's "style of Aiki-Budo". In reality, it's all IP/aiki as given to him by Sokaku Takeda and Ueshiba is using the outward form of Daito ryu techniques as a visual presentation.

He didn't develop Aikido. He had no curriculum. His art was formless. He rarely explained and when he did, most ignored what he was saying. Ueshiba cared more about his own personal development than his students' development, especially after the war. When his son, Kisshomaru, wanted to do a public demonstration, Kisshomaru literally expected his father to fly into a rage. Why do you think he expected Ueshiba to physically rage so?

I would start reading Peter Goldsbury's TIE articles here on Aikiweb. Then pick up Ellis Amdur's books about aikido. Read Aikido Journal's back issues. IMO, those are the required reading for starting conversations. Both Peter and Ellis have extensive reading lists about the material, along with people they think should be interviewed/conversed with for more information. Stan Pranin has stated he has tons of material not yet translated.

Mark
Thank you for the recommended reading; I am no scholar on Aikido, I have read a few articles on aikidojournal and have a biography on O'Sensei but my reading is limited. I may have generalized so I apologize if I have brought further complication rather than clarity to the discussion. I wasn't trying to be controversial.
  Reply With Quote