Ok but what is it? I have already heard a couple of times before about a reason being there for our training being so biased towards un-combativeness, but every time they allude to it, for some reason they don't explain this reason openly.

For a guy who comes from a boxing background, and who learned how highly educative physical clash can be, it seems irreplaceable - confrontation against vigorous resistance, a tonic like no other!

Once you have experienced it, once you sipped that type of training, learning by trial and errors within a highly combative training setting, all the rest seems ghastly.

I don't know if what I say makes some sense too.

Maybe one needs to have been there - do you know, that nostalgia, that ancient Greek "nostoi", that inability of the fighter to accommodate himself ever again into common life once he has been through combat...
I think it's a splinter of that - once applied the appropriated proportions.

thence we speak two entirely different languages where I am at fault in both cases: I can't understand aikido, and I can't make myself understood either when I advocate the beauty of vigorous fighting training, because maybe only if one has been there one understands it (btw I think safety concerns are something I always showed considerable respect, however).

Now that I cannot boxe anymore, and now that I got fascinated by aikido, I keep dreaming an aikido where they would allow me to learn by intense physical confrontation.

I will never find that dojo.