Daren Sims wrote:
Heres what was said
"Point 1.... My assertion was that at the core of aikido is irimi and atemi. Dig a bit deeper into those books of yours and somewhere along the line you'll find this is pretty much a direct quote from O'sensei. "
Fair play - you asked for evidence ...a cite.
This has been followed by evidence that this came from Tamura Sensei . I believe this is ...using your own terminology...source material by accepted experts in the field.
When you directly attribute a saying to someone, a citation doesn't mean a secondary source for the remark. That's out of the picture entirely. You're obviously not used to the convention, so let me explain it, using this current example.
You say Ueshiba says something, it's important because it goes to the core of what Aikido really is. IF what you say is true and important, though, "irimi and atemi" should be noted in other credible books as the basis of Aikido, which is what you were saying they were. It's NOT in other books in that manner, but the 2 are listed with a group of other basics, like tenkan, etc. Go look... I suggested that. Still, to give you the benefit of the doubt, O-Sensei MAY have said this, although it's odd for such an important point to be missed by Ueshiba K., Tohei, and a number of others. But rather than finding the citation, you find a citation from Tamura *attributing* a remark to Ueshiba. That's a totally different matter because while some people will equate Tamura to maybe Jesus Christ, others will say things like "Oh... Tamura was known in some circles for mis-attributing things". One never knows... and one doesn't want to go off on that tangent, either.
So a secondary citation doesn't help in the search for information. All I have now is the *possibility* that Ueshiba said something like that to Tamura but strangely didn't say it to other uchideshi (do you believe O-Sensei would miss telling something so important to his own son?).... *unless* he was simply lumping ALL entries, including tenkan, into the word "irimi". But we don't know that. And so on. In other words, if you're logically approaching information about a topic, a secondary attribution isn't a sufficient information source, particularly when your whole thesis depends on it. Go back and look.... the suggestions for tenkan, etc., were politely put and the rejection of those ideas was by you. People seem to miss the preliminaries in some of these discussions, but there's always a place where the problems started.