jonreading

I enjoyed the article myself. I believe George has identified several major potential issues with the organization and leadership of aikido. It is unfortunate many responses to this article seem to discount the severity of the issues which are outlined.

I think the decision has establish a single successor for the art of aikido has ultimately resulted in extensive splittering of political aikido factions, and the promotion of diluted technical curriculum. In many older Japanese arts the leadership of a ryu is divided between a political figurehead and a technical instructor. O'Sensei chose not to apply this leadership structure when he designated his son to succeed him as both political and technical leader of aikido. I am not suprised the organization of aikido is experiencing growing pains related to O'Sensei's decision to combine the political and technical leadership of aikido.

Today, we have factions and organizations who do not observe a clear hierarchical structure established by the head of aikido, sandai doshu. The testing requirements and quality of student vary greatly from one organization to another, and from one school to another. Many dojo do not rigidly adhere to the dissemination of technical skill, and even bastardize aikido technique through the influence of other martial arts.

I understood George's article to call attention to a potential problem we (as aikidoka) may face in the future. I enjoy training aikido in my small dojo with my friends, and my goal is to train aikido. But sometimes we are called to leave our small dojo to assist others to achieve a bigger goal in aikido. If everyone thinks, "I don't need to leave my dojo, someone else will come along to do bigger things," then no one will come along. I think George is asking future leaders of aikido to be prepared should aikido need help. To that end, I suppose if you don't see George's call to preparation, then his message is not directed to you anyway...