Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
You're defining it along the lines of what you're doing in your particular dojo - which is fine, but other dojo still calling themselves "Aikido" are doing completely different things, right down to the technical curriculum.
|
I am doing no such thing, and I made that abundantly clear yesterday:
Quote:
Matthew Story wrote:
All the technical curricula you mentioned above have irimi, tenkan, ikkyo, nikkyo, sankyo, kotegaeshi, koshinage, etc. I have trained with students of the Saotome, Nishio, Yamada, Chiba, Tohei, Homma, Shodokan, Shingu, and Hombu curricula, and they all used nearly identical terminology for essentially the same set of techniques. We might not all agree on what is good aikido, but virtually all of us do seem to agree, according to a technique-based definition, on what is aikido and what is not.
|
Quote:
Matthew Story wrote:
It's the same with our art. Doshu or anyone else can say that whatever organization isn't doing aikido, but any useful, functional definition of the word aikido is fulfilled by all the curricula we named above
|
That is clearly not a definition derived from the one particular curriculum at one particular aikido club.
If you do not wish to continue this conversation, that's fine. If you do, please refrain from further straw man tactics.