Hello Niall,
A few comments.
Quote:
Niall Matthews wrote:
Thank you, Peter. That is a formidable review.
If I have understood you correctly it looks like the conclusion is that Ellis Amdur has bought into the whole IS thesis. He doesn't seem to be writing as an aikidoka - whether that is a flaw or an advantage is a different question.
|
PAG. I think Ellis himself will post here and join the discussion. He usually does. He spent a few years in Japan and trained for some of this time at the Hombu. However, he acquired some expertise in a few other arts, besides aikido. The book is a presentation / distillation of a whole range of issues previously discussed in
Aikido Journal blogs, which I am not sure are still available to read.
Quote:
Niall Matthews wrote:
Outliers is a cool word but I think it is our job as teachers to teach aikido in such a way that outliers shouldn't really be necessary. That's one of the points of our own journeys after all. To do the work so that our students don't have to.
|
PAG. Well, I think that this was one of Gladwell's aims in writing his book--to explain what outliers really were, so that there could be many more of them. However, putting in the training hours required is utterly necessary, for both teachers and students.
Quote:
Niall Matthews wrote:
And who would say to Saotome Sensei, say, or Tamura Sensei - to take two great teachers at random - that what they are teaching isn't adequate for an understanding of aikido.
Maybe I should read the book! But thanks again for your scholarly analysis, Peter.
|
PAG. I think one of the issues raised by Ellis is whether any postwar teaching is adequate for the aikido that Ueshiba himself practised.
Best wishes,
PAG