View Single Post
Old 02-06-2007, 12:53 AM   #401
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,619
United_States
Offline
Re: Baseline skillset

Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
When Ushiro is talking about kata he is talking about karate kata. Like their Southern Shaolin ancestors, the Okinawans generally practice their basic kata without a "technique partner." As solo exercise.
See my earlier quote of him rearding bunkai kumite -- which is what aikido training is, based on well-understood forms, with many variations.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
It's building the right kind of body to support Ushiro's karate technique.
And what is that budo body, exactly? He said that too:
Quote:
Ushiro wrote:
For example, what do you do when your opponent suddenly comes at you with a strong attack? Do you respond to it by clashing with equal ferocity? Or somehow absorb it? Or let it flow by? Or do you use some even more advanced means, like predicting the attack early on and controlling it with your ki? How you respond to a serious attack depends on what your body remembers, which depends on what level of training you've reached, or in other words the degree of usability you've achieved.

If, for example, your body is equipped to "catch" all of the information about the opponent at the moment of contact and use this to formulate a correct response on the fly, then I think you can say you have "usability." At that point you can start using bunkai kumite (step-by-step sparring) based on kata as a system for getting feedback about the usability you've achieved.
The principles I learned involve abosolute non-resistance, which is a funny thing because in order to NOT resist an actively applied force, I have to first know where it is going, so as to not conflict with it.

With that in mind my body is reaching for that flow of information to process and then act on. As Ushiro says, to "catch" all of the information about the opponent at the moment of contact is much easier when my concern is not in applying my "strength," but at first merely following whatever force pattern his attack has established and only then adapting it. That's one of the more powerful reasons we seriously practice the role of uke, and not merely the solo forms as nage.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
Any technique's success or failure is based on the conditioning (strength, flexibility, cardiovascular, etc) of the practitioner, as well as her/his timing to apply the technique. The stronger you are, the better the technique works. Everyone wants timing and "smoothness" but it's not about that....no conditioning, no technique. Strength and conditioning are the foundation for everything.
Ikeda Shihan, who is pointed to as being one the chief aikidoka taking this approach discussed by Ushiro is saying precisely the opposite, that as we age our budo should get better and be the better of stronger opponents and not be contingent on our waning strength or loss of condition.
Quote:
Ikeda wrote:
The underlying principle of budo is that no matter how old one gets, one should be able to deal with a person of greater strength using the techniques and spiritual mastery one develops through training.
I know for a fact this is severely true with Hooker Sensei, and just as severly tested given his physical condition. So, no, I do not agree with your take on the points that Ushiro is making, and not just becasue I want to be contrary about it. There is a real difference in goal and training involved.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
One can have all the timing in the world, and all the smoothness in the world and _still_ fail in application against resistance.
That is a logically flawed premise. It is not true if you never offer force against restance to begin with. Which is sort of my point all along in reasserting throughout this discussion O Sensei's "principle of absolute non-resistance."
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
Remember-- your legal training teaches you to make procrustean arguments for your client, who must, be definition be correct.
Non-lawyers always misunderstand what we do. The law is THE LAW. I do not get to change what the law is. I do not get to misrepresent or fudge it. I get to argue its application in circumstances that may not yet be factually certain or its extrapolation to novel circumstances. The "law" in this circumstance is "the principle of absolute non-resistance" and the ramifications of applying that law, rigorously and forcefully, to our practice in Aikido.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
In contrast, science is empirical and biology, non-deterministic. You make a lot of bold argument-by-analogy claims about the physics of kokyu etc, yet, you have yet to show _one_ instrumented test or even a proposal for _how_ you would measure and gather the data to either support or falsify your claim.
Another key part of any scientific undertaking is reproducible results. You put out a protocol, then see if other people can reproduce the experiment.
Applied mechanics has gotten a good deal past the experimental verification stage in the last four hundred years. The only queston is the accuracy of the observed movements to which it is being applied, which no one here has seriously challenged, yet.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
Funny thing-- Dan, Mike and Akuzawa (through Rob) have put out protocols which _people who have never met them_ have tried and used to develop results consistent with what the proponents claimed the protocol could develop. I wouldn't have taken Rob seriously, or bought tickets to Japan otherwise.
Then by all means carry on, and with my blessing. Metaphorical methods are very vlauable if the metaphor worls to engage things for you. These are not mutually exclusive approaches, a point I keep making and the other folks keep ignoring, apparently because to them it is a mutually exlcusive thing. That air of exclusivity is what causes me such serious concern for those early on within aikido who come ot place like this trying to learn what they need to learn. The issue of resistance also concerns me in the 'protocols' that have been given.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
I want you to think really hard about what I'm going to say next. Your protocols on the other hand, have not had that kind of success, at least, from what I can see here.
No, I suppose not. Newton. Coulomb. Euler. -- Pikers.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
Maybe the reports of the success of your gyrodynamic training method are simply getting lost in the chatter. That should tell you something-- either your protocol is _wrong_ or you're explaining it poorly.
There is no such thing as "my protocol," or any different training method, which if you would read what I write, you would understand. I have stated, again and again, (and somewhat vigorously defended) the validity of teaching the kihon and kokyu undo that I was taught in the progressions and the manner of attention to variations as I was taught. Mechanical observaiton is something I work on for descriptive and analytical purposes -- for evaluating and critiquing training, not for doing it.
Quote:
Tim Fong wrote:
I have a lot of friends and family who work as university or graduate level scientists and sometimes they tell me about their research and what goes on during their symposia. I can assure you that from all accounts it is sharp, highly critical, and completely unforgiving.
All of which is fair game. Misstating facts is not, which others have done when it suits their agenda.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote