Just Peter thank you. I don't consider myself a teacher especially here on the forums. I have opinions - that's it.
We're all guilty of thread drift - no need to apologize (to me least of all) even if it were totally off topic which its not.
To the question - I have no idea. My little rant was set off by someone denigrating his teacher of Aikido because his didn't view/teach Aikido philosophy in the same way as the student would. Talk about full cups.
What you describe appears to be the opposite and raises a whole series of other questions.
Techniques lack the essence of Aikido
could mean anything from tangible to I just don't want to promote you. Frankly speaking this speaks more to the problem of technical directors
coming once a year for gradings than any lack of understanding on anyones part. A teacher should know his student - how one can judge essence over the course of an afternoon is beyond me. Anyway I am sure the Shihan had his reasons and I am in no position to second guess. I am sure that if you put 10 shihan in a room that all would probably disagree to what the definition is.
David Yap wrote:
I might be off the thread. I humbly apologize.
A few years ago, an international renowned shihan visited my country for a seminar and yudansha gradings for an organisation which he was (still is) the Technical Director. A 2nd dan with 15+ of training sat for the 3rd dan exam. He did what we thought was flawless free flowing aikido. He failed. Reason given: "Techniques lack the essence of Aikido".
Coming from this world renowned Shihan, what this means?