View Single Post
Old 07-05-2012, 02:17 AM   #25
Chris Knight
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 138
England
Offline
Re: Shouldn't we be responsible?

Quote:
Chris, The first lesson is to learn the difference between budo and bujutsu. If you want to learn "martial skills" then you should seek a bujutsu ryu.
The path of Aikido budo is something much different than mere martial technique.
I have recently seen experienced practitioners on this site stating that budo has to be effective - to be defined as such?

Quote:
Hey Chris:
A video is a snapshop on the web. A whole style can't be judged by a video taken out of context. Most videos are put up to show a point or start a conversation. You can't tell how effective a martial art is by how it looks on youtube.

I talk about peacefulness yet we most always train in self-defense mode.
I disagree and agree in the same context - I know all about the "it has to be felt scenario" however, by looking at recent videos posted here in relation to aikido,
no connection to uke, no developed centre, no concept of core stability, rocking on the feet, not being grounded, no centre line rotation, reliant on UKE - the list goes on and on. I disagree you cant tell how effective it can be via visuals

Quote:
Yes, interesting but does not change the difference between budo and bujutsu and for those like Chris seeking one without the other.
where did I say that??

Quote:
Interesting can of worms this, fluffy bunnies notwithstanding, this is a martial art. I do believe that the new student is owed context, especially if this is their first venture into martial arts. People with significant rank in other arts should be able to figure it out for themselves.

I will, typically, explain to a new person (I am yudansha but not sensei) that Aikido is a little more difficult to get to a real world application level than the standard kicking and punching curriculum. That Aikido requires a sensitivity to uke's movement not required in basic striking arts and that (particularly for men) you have to unlearn the whole muscling thing to get that sensitivity, and this takes time (14 years in and I'm still muscling things on occasion).

I do explain to them that if they think they are going to become a whirling cyclone of death and whoop ass that this may not be the right thing. What they will learn are principles of moving, locking, destabilizing/throwing, falling, all based on natural movement, that will allow them to control an opponent(s); with minimum expenditure of energy and allow them to inflict the least amount of damage the situation requires. This all presupposes diligent training over many years viewed though a lens of realistic expectation concerning ones basic physical milieu. Whilst they blink at me attempting to parse the previous sentence I tell them, essentially, if you are weak, slow, uncoordinated and myopic we will improve you to the best of your ability, but don't expect to be Steven Segal any time soon.

In previous arts (kempo, tang soo do) we always made a distinction between theoretical style/form and application level technique. In my current dojo it is more along the lines of, here is an idealized attack performed slowly so you can understand how a given principle applies to a specific technique(s). Later it becomes "this is how you do it at the next level/how it would really be applied". In free style I tend to throw more punches, backfists, knees, elbows, kicks, and the dreaded double punch (at less than full speed) just to acclimate my training partners to wider menu of aggression.
probably the best post on here in a long time - thanks!
  Reply With Quote