View Single Post
Old 03-22-2003, 11:57 PM   #33
Location: Bangkok
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 803
Below is an excerpt for Stanley Pranin article published on

"Finally near the end of my stay I asked Iwao Tamura, one of Tohei Sensei's deshi who was fluent in English, if it would be possible to ask Tohei Sensei again about helping me. As a result, I was called to a room on the second floor of the dojo late in August. Present were Tohei Sensei, Mr. Tamura and myself. I was told clearly that I was considered to be a student of Tohei student and as such was mistaken to have trained with other teachers during my stay in Japan. Tohei Sensei also criticized the Founder's teaching methodology and said in no uncertain terms that I should focus my efforts on his ki approach to aikido. I was 24 years old at the time and emotionally unprepared to deal with such a confrontation. Totally deflated, I left the dojo almost in trance and wondered seriously how I could continue my aikido training having heard such words about the Founder from his top student."

On the other hand, and to go back to the thread subject, O sensei taught the traditional Japanese way, and I believe that he succeeded in forming a group of outstanding aikidoists who might have even surpassed in skills, starting from early pre-war students such as Mochizuki, Abe, Shioda, Tomiki... etc, untill the after war period students such as Tohei, Tamura, Noro, Yamada...etc.

Now it is obvious, at least to me, that while Osensei produced such highly-skilled studenst with his non-methodical aikido teaching, the ones who established instructional systems such as Saito, Tohei, Tomiki, Shioda failed to produce any outstanding students of their own, I mean not as skilled or more skilled than themselves.
  Reply With Quote