View Single Post
Old 09-01-2002, 10:42 PM   #17
Kent Enfield
Kent Enfield's Avatar
Location: Oregon, USA
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 224
Colleen Annes (ca) wrote:
I disagree that kicks, punches, etc being taught or being used absolve you from a moral factor, and would say that is the difference between what looks like aikido that is being taught in Judo, BJJ, Karate, etc.
Huh? I never related striking to morality. I stated that the technical principle "aiki" is not a moral thing. I also stated that striking was not inherently "un-aiki." Two independent statements.

Why does a technique that uses aiki but is taught under a different name have to be not aikido? Is it not possible for there to be overlap between different martial arts?
Colleen Annes (ca) wrote:
For instance, the kick or punch done as you described earlier might have been to demonstrate openings that are left if a tech. is not done correctly (kick with kotegaeshi) or as an attack (the first you mentioned)... [snip]

Futher, punches and kicks can be integral parts of a tech., either as atemi or another part, but it is the spririt that it is delivered (and perhaps the timing) that makes it different. Are we pucnhing/kicking to maintain space/move our attacker, or are we punching him or kicking him during the pin
In my example above the technique was: 1) Uke strikes munetsuki. 2) Nage starts on a regular kotegaeshi, but instead of taking it all the way into a throw, only takes it far enough to immobilize uke and open his chest. 3) Nage kicks him in the sternum or solar plexus. The kick wasn't about maintaing distance or getting uke to move. It was the "goal" of the technique.

And practicing this technique immediately followed statements by Saotome s. to the effect that aikido is not limited to a list of techniques: whatever you do following the principles of aiki is aikido. This technique still relied on blending and taking balance just like you'd expect with ikkyo or kotegaeshi. It just ended with a strike rather than a throw, lock, or pin.
Jay Peatee(JPT) wrote:
The word Aikido is commonly describe as meaning "the way of Harmony"

Suppose we have a bad man using "Aikido" to beat up somebody & mug them. Where is the "Way of Harmony" in that ?
Well, I think that that common description is incorrect. Aiki doesn't mean harmony, not in a "we all get along" sense. If by harmony you mean being in synch or coordinated with, I guess you could translate aiki as harmony. So, yes that bad person can beat up someone and take their lunch money using aiki and hence be doing aikido.

(As a tangent, I do believe that O-sensei thought that by practicing aiki in a technical sense, one would begin to practice its moral analog. However, I do not think that one must practice that analog, or even agree with someone else on what it is, to be doing aikido.)

You seem to agree that aiki is technical principle, not a moral one ("Aiki yes, Aikido No"). What then differentiates a technique that uses aiki and looks like aikido but isn't aikido from one that that uses aiki, looks like aikido, and is?

  Reply With Quote