View Single Post
Old 01-12-2003, 11:14 AM   #7
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 117
Absolutely yes. Weapons training is an integral part of aikido training. That's why we learn it
An absolutely fallacious argument. . .There are many things that people learn though they don't need them, out of tradition and inertia.
It's also students and teachers who lack sufficient weapons training that like to downplay the importance weapons in one's overall development in the art.
You might also say that there's people who have done a lot of weapons training and may wish to use that as a factor that makes them superior to those who haven't.

I myself like weapons training and wouldn't want to drop it, but I can easily imagine how aikido - as in, art of coordination of mind or body or, more simply put, the ability to control people and throw people to the mat in the way practiced by masters of aikido - could be learned without weapons training if other training methods are substituted to provide the additional skills that weapons training might yield.
A solid knowledge of the use of tanto, bokken, and jo is also important if one ever hopes to become a complete teacher.
Oh, undoubtedly. A complete teacher should be a proficient lecturer on philosophy and modern art as well. The question of the poll does not, as far as i understand, run 'is weapons training necessary for one to become a complete teacher?'.

A person who has learned the principles of aikido through taijutsu would likely be able to apply them rather easily to weaponswork without as much practice as a complete novice would need.

What we learn and do not learn in aikido is our own choice. If we do not wish to learn weaponswork, we should substitute something for it. If we do not want suwari waza, we'll have to do something else to gain the same effects. Those things CAN be done. The real question is - what's the point in messing with a system that works? If people physically DISLIKE suwari waza or weaponswork even after a year or two of practice, there might be one, otherwise. . .
  Reply With Quote