Quote:
Arno Hist wrote:
This has been very informative. I was not aware about the kata vs kumite debate. I will look more into it. Regarding your points, I agree and disagree.
1. Bad Kata is indeed a problem of dojos and not of the art itself. I haven't been in any japanese dojos but I would think that the quality of the exercise is higher. The criticism with kata, as i see it, is that there can be dojos that train kata in a proper way and dojos that don't. The kumite approach, it seems like it would remove this obstacle.
2. I have read that atemi is very important to aikido. I do not believe it makes any sense not to train it properly, in the boundaries of the art. Sounds wrong. It either is important or not.
3. Perhaps you are right. My comparison is with other internal m.a. like taiji and chen hsin, though, which really focus on the internal workings of the body and relationships (intrinsic strength, IP/IS) from their conception. To my understanding/ reading and from all the people I have discussed with, the techniques slowly teach you the "internal" of the art. Not the other way around.
Regarding mixing aikido with a non compatible art. I agree with you. Do you believe that Jujitsu would make a good complement, or is that also not compatible in your view?
|
In your original post, you referred to the absence of kumite as a criticism of aikido. The absence of kumite is not an equivalent criticism of the quality of kata you have observed in a dojo. Kumite is a different kind of training, not better, not worse. It will address some failings in kata training and it will create some failings that are addressed by kata training. My point is simply that both have their place in training and the randori training we have is only part of the larger education.
As for your comments about atemi... Aikido is a large tent that is inclusive of many different people with many different perspectives. I happen to believe that aiki is a foundation training. The striking style into which I put my aiki is a secondary training. To Mert's point, aiki is the attack. We happen to practice striking in our dojo for this reason, using pads. But, there are those in aikido who do not - as long as they can express aiki, who is to say they are wrong? The art is aiki do. Don't mistake the jujutsu facade of curriculum for what we are doing. The curriculum is just a common set of movements to give us something into which we can express aiki.
Speaking personally to your points as a whole... Aikido is packaged to be tangible and accessible to a variety of practitioners. While the methodology may work from this aggregate perspective, it leads something to be desired on the individual level. It is an internal art that is not taught as an internal art. Aikiweb has a number of threads on this debate. Holding similar questions from my younger days, my best advice is to look at other dojos. You want to inherit aikido from an individual that has the goods, not an organization processing students.
Personally, I prefer judo and karate to jujutsu. My issue with jujutsu is that the technical instruction is similar enough to our kansetsu waza that it is very easy to never transcend jujutsu in your training. I think if you find a good internal CMA, that is also beneficial if you can deal with the cultural differences. I think it has already been pointed out, but remember you are not the first person to ask these questions. You will not be the first person to find a path to aiki if you scrutinize your training.