Re: Is the Aikidoka losing faith in their own martial art? I hope not.
Hi Demetrio,
To be clear, I do not mean "traditionalistic." "Tradition" for me, and in particular to this topic here, I find a stark contrast between the following:
Traditional Understanding: Martial viability and spiritual maturity were not contrasting in nature but were rather co-dependent.
Modern Understanding: Spiritual maturity stands in contrast to martial viability and/or independent to martial viability.
Traditional Understanding: The term "combat effectiveness" related to non-rule-governed weapon armed fighting.
Modern Understanding: The term "combat effectiveness" related to rule-governed weaponless duels.
Traditional Understanding: "Training" means daily training (4-6 hours a day?).
Modern Understanding: "Training" means two to five hours per week training.
Traditional Understanding: Physical strength supplemented technique.
Modern Understanding: Physical strength stands in contrast or opposition to technique.
Traditional Understanding: Training was concept oriented.
Modern Understanding: Training is technique oriented.
Traditional Understanding: Live application was a problem of mind development and the training oriented itself toward mind cultivation and spontaneity.
Modern Understanding: Live application is a problem of simplification and the training is oriented toward reducing and simplifying technique architectures.
Traditional Understanding: The tactical elements of the art were understood to work to make each element martial viable (e.g. ne-waza and the threat of ne-waza set up nage waza; nage waza and the threat of nage waza set up katame waza and atemi waza; empty-handed elements support and are supported by weapons; etc.)
Modern Understanding: The art is contained entirely within Aikido Kihon Waza (empty hand) and there is no tactical co-dependence between multiple elements.
Can we start here? I could go on if necessary but I think this allows the discussion to continue. Let me know.
Thanks,
Dave
|