View Single Post
Old 05-02-2013, 07:25 AM   #90
OwlMatt's Avatar
Dojo: Milwaukee Aikikai
Location: Wisconsin
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 401
Re: Can we see that aikido is all over the place in MMA?

Christopher Li wrote: View Post
Sure they do - he was difficult to understand, that's all, especially without the proper context. Not only did he give some very clear definitions, but he repeated them ad nauseum. Read through "Take Musu Aiki" and one of the first things that hits you is the continued hammering on repeated themes.
If O Sensei gave such clear definitions of aikido, then why do you need such a broad definition as "anything aiki"?
Not at all, just because a dancer may have Aiki doesn't mean that all dancers have Aiki, or that all dancing is Aiki. Same for martial arts.
But you maintain aiki can be present in dancing and in many martial arts, and that the definition of aikido is anything done with aiki. Therefore, according to your definition, the sentence, "I practice aikido," is a very unclear sentence--we don't really know what activity the speaker is talking about.

Mary Eastland wrote: View Post
Co-ordination of mind and of body is what it either know how to get it or you don't. It doesn't matter what you call it.

The study of aikido to me is a practice that encompasses co-ordination of mind and body with some principles. It is a life study.
Many things incorporate the coordination of mind and body. Surely they're not all aikido.

I am sure there are as many definitions to both aiki and aikido as there are serious practitioners.
The martial art we practice in the dojo needs a name, and in order for a name to be useful it must distinguish the object it names from other objects. We don't all have to have the same definition of aikido, but we do all need definitions that distinguish our art from other arts and other activities, otherwise our definitions are linguistically useless.

Going back to the original post, Dan says that he sees aikido "all over the place in MMA". Surely, Dan doesn't mean that he sees MMA fighters doing iriminages and nikkyos; he means that he sees certain physical principles at work in MMA. The problem with Dan's statement is that it stretches the definition of aikido to encompass anything in which can be found certain principles of physics--principles which have never been exclusive to our martial art. In so doing, Dan has created a definition of aikido which does not distinguish our art from others; it is no longer a name for just our martial art and therefore our martial art needs a new name. It is the same with Chris' definition.

As Mary says, there are many different definitions of aikido; it would be foolish for us all to try and settle on one. But that doesn't mean we can't discard some definitions which are useless. Any definition which does not distinguish our martial art from others is useless. Dan's does not, and Chris's does not, therefore they are useless.

Last edited by OwlMatt : 05-02-2013 at 07:31 AM.

  Reply With Quote