Quote:
Jason Casteel wrote:
Mark,
I don't disagree with anything you said, but I'm not sure what value the fire and brimstone aiki talk is going to have long term. Everybody who had "something", put in the time to get it. While we talk about Shioda, Ueshiba and others and this sub-10 year mark, those guys trained for like 8 hours every day to get what they had.
|
Jason,
I'll ask an important question here ... Who said "those guys trained for like 8 hours every day to get what they had"? And follow up with, What research backs up that sentence?
There are a lot of things that modern aikido people have taken for granted for way too long. It's ingrained in them. In trying to get outside my own box, I ask a lot of questions. I test theories and ideas. I track down what research I can.
The quotes below are in regards to the Kobukan Dojo training.
Quote:
|
Aikido Journal wrote:
The new dojo was used extensively and normally two morning and three evening classes were held at the dojo with uchideshi having an opportunity to practice at other times during the day.
|
Quote:
|
Aikido Journal wrote:
Morihei's teaching style was long on action and short on words. He would execute techniques in rapid succession with almost no explanation. His teaching method was not at all systematic.
|
Quote:
|
Yoshio Sugino wrote:
Ueshiba Sensei, unlike present instructors at the Aikikai Hombu Dojo, taught techniques by quickly showing the movement just one time. He didn't provide detailed explanations. Even when we asked him to show us the technque again he would say, ‘No. Next technique!' Although he showed us three or four different techniques, we wanted to see the same technique many times. We ended up trying to ‘steal' his techniques.
|
So, I ask people who said they trained 8 hours a day? And if they did, with whom? How? In what manner?
Personally, I think it's a myth that they all trained 8 hours a day. And given Ueshiba's teaching style, what exactly were they getting? American instructors break everything down, go over it, explain it, and do their best to help a student "get it". Ueshiba did not.
And I ask, which is better? Ueshiba's early teaching style or the detailed explanation teaching style of Americans? Picture yourself seeing a technique once, quickly, then another, quickly, then another, and having to work on those techniques without explanations. How much quality training are you getting in 8 hours? If you did 8 hours of training with 2 morning sessions and 3 evening sessions?
Quote:
Jason Casteel wrote:
Now granted, one can cut that down significantly by getting rid of allt he fluff and tradition in transmission methods that htey had to suffer through, but still, we're talking about a LOT of training time to get to that level. How many aikidoka today do you really think will put in the time? Considering the work involved, why would anyone assume that the ratio of people who get it vs. those who just do waza will be any higher going forward?
|
People are getting quality training in aiki right now. And those people coming to train have realized that aiki is missing from modern aikido (broad brush).
There's a lot of myths in modern aikido that need dispelled.
There is no 20 year technique.
Prior martial arts backgrounds did not help students of Ueshiba to learn aiki (the exception being Tenryu who studied ... sumo ... see HiPS Takeda background).
Training times were 10-20 years to get very good with significant progression from there, depending on training style. Note that both Takeda and Ueshiba had similar training experiences. Testing, fighting, etc. Even 5 years of quality training in aiki will set you apart from everyone else. Takeda taught Ueshiba, Sagawa, Kodo, etc. He showed them how to train aiki and told them not to teach it to everyone. Ueshiba trained in the Kobukan days and knew what to work on. I'm impressed that anyone coming out of that era actually got as good as they did, considering the training style.
There is a specific way to train aiki that includes solo and paired training but doesn't focus on jujutsu techniques.
Quote:
|
Hisao Kamada wrote:
There were techniques like yonkajo, but these were ways of training the body, while I believe that using them as applied techniques (oyowaza) is a matter of the spirit. The basics went about as far as gokajo, and after that it was applied techniques.
|
Ways of training the body. Not applied techniques. Aiki is not a technique, but a way of changing the body. Specific ways of training to change the body. Ueshiba was taught aiki. He knew what to work on and how to work on it. Kodo knew it. Sagawa knew it.
Quote:
Jason Casteel wrote:
I don't disagree at all and even mentioned that in my reply to Mark. That's one of the great benefits to us people who are just coming on board from the work Sigman, Ark and yourself (and others) have already put in. We get a nice jump on the learning curve and get to skip over a lot of the fluff.
|
It isn't that we're skipping over the "fluff". It is that there is a specific way to train aiki. That training has been lost to modern aikido. Everyone I know who is training aiki has had to start at the beginning. History yet again reasserts itself. Prior martial background doesn't mean much (unless it's specific internal training), prior martial background isn't on par with aiki, and everyone has to put in the work, both solo and paired.
But the training has little to do with jujutsu techniques.
The really big kick in the pants comes later ... After you've trained and have some aiki ... Just what in the world was Ueshiba meaning when he talked about spirituality?
