Quote:
Lukas Stark wrote:
Being from the peanut galley, My definition of "aiki" was defined to me through Aikido, its practice, and watching Osensei films -based on my experience of coaching. Aiki definitions do change in regard to what subject is being talked about,like sport. But the principles are same even though the fields are different using different language to describe each activity's principles. The approach and application is what changes as the principles remain the same. Aikido approach and application doesn't work well in MMA, for instance. You have to change the language realizing applications and results are different. Some say Aiki is a single principle others say it is a skill set. In this discussion it is less complicated to go with it being one principle. My experience in other martial arts, sports, and MMA- dabbling in it and BSing with the guys- has helped me see a difficulty arises when terms and styles are mixed. When you use Aikido terminology and language to describe aiki and apply it to MMA. But if you use a common and not specialized language, such as using the language of science it creates much less confusion. I speak from experience on that one, learning the hard way. In a non contact sports context Golf and Aikido have allot in common, heck martial arts in general. But, don't expect martial arts to instantly be able to hit a ball. Don't expect golfers to be instantly adept martial artists. Both activities have much in common.
|
IMO, you're defining "aiki" from Modern Aikido. The "aiki" in Modern Aikido is completely different than Morihei Ueshiba's aiki. Two different things. Sort of like equating a VW Beetle with an F-117 Stealth Fighter.
Everyone can learn how to drive a VW Beetle. It'll get you where you need to go. It's dependable and functional. Some beef it up with various other equipment items so it can be more competitive. But, not everyone pilots an F-117. It takes hard work and a different set of skills.
If you think differently, then ask yourself why:
Sagawa, Horikawa, Ueshiba, Tomiki, Shioda, Shirata all were considered very good at 10-15 years of training. Remember, most of them didn't have very much hands on time with their teacher either. Compare that to all the teachers under Kisshomaru/Tohei and how many of them in 40 years have equaled the pre-war students of Ueshiba? Why not with 3-4 times the training years?
Perhaps read this article:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21445
And ask yourself why was Shirata different?
In the simplest of terms, the answer is Daito ryu aiki as taught by Takeda to a select few, who included Ueshiba Sagawa, and Horikawa. Those few, in turn, only taught a select few. Unlike other people who post that there is no secret -- aiki was THE secret. Ueshiba stated that Tenryu could not move him because he knew the secret of aiki. NOT technique. NOT timing. NOT bobbing and weaving. NOT modern sports principles. Something completely different.
The cup that is full is the closed box.
The cup that is on the pedestal is stagnation.
How can you tell that you don't know that you don't know?
Empty the cup and use it.