Peter Rehse wrote:
Contradictory is the statement that you generate power before you generate power - you either do you do not. No problem with your above statement - that is not what you said previously. I do think that my understanding of atemi is quite comprehensive thank you - albeit in the context of Japanese martial arts.
Here's the original quote, Peter. It does not say what you're attributing to it:
"Secondly, even without being "percussive", I can generate fairly large power in each of those techniques, even if I just put my hand on someone before I do the generating. That power can be learned from suburi done correctly, IMO
Just because the word "atemi" is being used doesn't mean that we're talking about a specific subject that is restricted to "Japanese martial arts". We're getting back into this Japan versus China versus the West, etc., that is really a "my style is best" discussion, at heart. I think an accomplished martial artist (note that word "accomplished"... meaning having more than just a superficial knowledge about limited issues) from Japan or from China or Indonesia or wherever, just looks at these things as being simply all part of the same thing. "Atemi" has to do with striking and the why's and how's of doing so.
Insofar as the discussions about Tomiki Aikido, it gets a little sketchy to pretend that a style which has incorporated judo and randorii is the same thing as traditional Aikido in all respects. I simply don't see any point in arguing the obvious. Certainly if I taught a combination of Aikido and BJJ I would have the grace to acknowledge that it was not the founder's art instead of impeding all discussions with a "no, no they're the same thing" stance. At least acknowledge the *possibility* and show some flexibility in the discussion.