Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote:
Some of the things Gleason sensei describes in terms of aikido waza are remarkably clearer now. The basic rules he explained like no pushing (think ikkyo), no pulling (think iriminage), and no lifting (think shihonage) make a lot more sense.
|
Strangely enough, those rules make perfect sense to me.
Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote:
... waza are all clearer because I'm doing things much more like the way he does them. ... Anyway, there is little chance that *I* was going to QUICKLY develop aiki from Gleason sensei's aikido because I believe I would need him to be my training partner 8 hours a day for several years.
|
If I may be so bold, what I perceive in what you have said is the reason that I am doing what I am doing. You do not presently have reliable categories in which to fit what you see/feel when you see/feel it. Hence you are somewhat stuck learning it "beyond" category, which is always more difficult, because without category one has trouble replicating situations to study them more closely for various defects that need cleaning up. The training systems that regularize things differently may help you find something that makes sense without having to directly attack those category questions within the physical model of aikido.
I have no brief on a be-all-end-all set of categories, I just want one that seems to be notably missing -- a valid physics model for the action used in aikido. It has to be variant from the familiar and standard linear force-vector model, because the action of aiki, it seems to me, is meant to defeat the linear force-vector model at a fundamental level.
And so I keep working on it. As openly as I know how, warts and all ...
http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/