DH

Jun
The reason I posted the thread was to discuss how one form of aiki has proven to be effective historically and now in the modern era.
I also wanted to specifically discuss why it has caused just about 100% of those who encounter it to switch to that method. I thought *effectiveness* would place a foundational talking point as a start. It was the one talking point that addressed some of Krystals talking points in the OP.
I don't know how to discuss that now.
The historical aspects are hotly debated and denied. You've seen that.
The translations are denied and debated
I think the real results happening in rooms around the world are worth mentioning although I see what you mean by a blunt instrument, and it''s a fair point. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I am trying to figure out the guideline. As I stated earlier, the translations, and the historical and cultural connections have been debated into nothing. There isn't a lot left to even add to that argument. Effectiveness and clarity, one form aiki versus the other, certainly is the one and only point that has ended all debate in person. And this while a very friendly discussion over the training model and exercises ensued.
To me effectiveness of one over the other is the one element that should be defining a budo discussion. And it has led to profound changes in peoples careers.

In Judo BJJ, MMA, Karate, and many other arts effectiveness is the actual starting point. I realize that traditional budo people are not as concerned with effective results, but it sure has changed the minds of over a thousand Aikido people from shodan to shihan. Isn't that worthy of discussion? its why I started the thread. I thought so. Why is it a negative?
And I am sincerely asking.
Dan