Logan Light wrote:
I think that teaching commitment (too much) can backfire. A lot of Aikidoka have a false expectation of what an attack looks like because we generally fully commit to our attacks, which makes it easier for Nage. Without doing so, you'll likely expect resistance and have to work around it, which I think is important anyways. But for the sole purpose of training techniques, it is necessary to commit fully... just gotta make sure that the newer Aikidoka mistake that as what could happen for it will likely not, but I definitely agree with everything else.
I think that you are talking about at least two different things here. Many people get caught up in this notion of commitment. I've discussed this with aikidoists many times in person. I think we need to make finer distinctions. A good question to start with is: Commitment to what? It is probably also helpful to consider what someone's objectives are.
In some sense, there will always be a moment in which we commit to any action we are engaging in. I think this is an important moment to take notice of.
I can promise you that when boxers strike, they are committed to that strike. And I don't believe that fully committed attacks are easier to deal with.
How do you think the experience for nage varies as uke takes each of the following as an objective?
(1) Assist nage in learning/executing this particular technique
(2) Assist nage in executing any aikido technique
(3) Hit nage full power in the face with this particular strike
(4) Hit nage full power in the face in any way
(5) Defeat nage
Obviously, there are many more possibilities, but this is a good place to start.
(My apologies to Mark Murray for stealing his trademark numbered list format.