Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > General

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-19-2008, 12:02 PM   #401
GeneC
Location: Henderson,
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 370
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote:
Martial effectiveness is not a characteristic of any martial art. It's a measure of the capability of the practitioner of a given art.
Characteristic- distinguishing trait, quality or porperty.

Yes, I believe a distinguishing trait, quality or property of a MA should be it's martial effectiveness, in order for it to BE a MA. No matter how good a practitioner practices and excutes offering his back to a knife wielding opponent, if his MA teaches him to do that, it it not a martially effective MA, and perhaps not a MA at all, but simply an art of some kind. Either way, the results can be fatal.

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote:
When you divorce the art from those that employ it you render the question of martial effectiveness meaningless.Ron
Noone is suggesting divorcing anything form anything (except you) and that has nothing to do with anything. The practitioner practices what he's taught, the Sensei who's teaching the techniques has the responsibility to make sure the techniques are martially effective. Again, the simple truth here is if the MA is not martially effective, then in the event it has to be employed in a fatal encounter, it's most likely to be fatal for the practitioner and IMO, shouldn't be called a martial art at all.

Last edited by GeneC : 12-19-2008 at 12:05 PM.

Only between a single breath is Yin/Yang in harmony
Emotion is pure energy flowing feely thru the body-Dan Millman
 
Old 12-19-2008, 12:23 PM   #402
RonRagusa
Dojo: Berkshire Hills Aikido
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 782
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Clarence Couch wrote: View Post
...the Sensei who's teaching the techniques has the responsibility to make sure the techniques are martially effective.
Hypothetical: Practitioner A executes technique against practitioner B and is successful. Practitioner A executes same technique against practitioner C and is unsuccessful.

Question: Is the technique martially effective or not?

Ron
 
Old 12-19-2008, 02:33 PM   #403
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,611
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Hypothetical: Practitioner A executes technique against practitioner B and is successful. Practitioner A executes same technique against practitioner C and is unsuccessful.

Question: Is the technique martially effective or not?

Ron
The relevant text is: "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all."

As I see it, Aikido is never allied to the principle of "better than" but rather "in tune with" and therefore "readier than." It radically allows and accepts the contingencies that must inevitably come. No matter the theoretical disparities that may exist, the principles of Aikido make one readier to play in one move in a sudden void, rather than trying to eliminate ALL Voids by attempting to construct an indefeasible plan of action to a preordained goal by a set path.

Aikido, the Founder said is, about "divine technique." One need not take that religiously to understand that it is meant to teach us, in the words of someone else, to think as God does, not as men do. Where the accidents, the places between, the lowly and insignificant things actually turn reality more than the easily seen and seemingly mighty things of the world.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
 
Old 12-19-2008, 04:04 PM   #404
RonRagusa
Dojo: Berkshire Hills Aikido
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 782
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
The relevant text is: "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all."

As I see it, Aikido is never allied to the principle of "better than" but rather "in tune with" and therefore "readier than." It radically allows and accepts the contingencies that must inevitably come. No matter the theoretical disparities that may exist, the principles of Aikido make one readier to play in one move in a sudden void, rather than trying to eliminate ALL Voids by attempting to construct an indefeasible plan of action to a preordained goal by a set path.

Aikido, the Founder said is, about "divine technique." One need not take that religiously to understand that it is meant to teach us, in the words of someone else, to think as God does, not as men do. Where the accidents, the places between, the lowly and insignificant things actually turn reality more than the easily seen and seemingly mighty things of the world.
Thanks Erick... I think.

Clarence insisted "the Sensei who's teaching the techniques has the responsibility to make sure the techniques are martially effective." I'm trying to eclicit a response from him that explains how he determines whether a technique is martially effective or not when the outcome of an encounter can assume any number of forms. My point is that martial arts cannot be proven martially effective in any sense of the word since martial effectiveness is a variable not a constant. In short, the Sensei cannot "make sure the techniques are martially effective."

Ron
 
Old 12-19-2008, 04:32 PM   #405
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,611
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
... My point is that martial arts cannot be proven martially effective in any sense of the word since martial effectiveness is a variable not a constant.
Variable/Contingent -- I think we are talking the same thing.

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Clarence insisted "the Sensei who's teaching the techniques has the responsibility to make sure the techniques are martially effective."
And so he has, but that is not the student's to judge -- for several reasons, not the least of which is that he does not generally understand the point of most of the lessons until much later in his training. It is true of me, it is true of those who have taught me. Trust cannot be substituted.

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
In short, the Sensei cannot "make sure the techniques are martially effective."
And could not even do so when there is a real prospect of life or death encounters. The film Gladiator, excellent in many, many other respects, actually exemplified this problem. The things that made a man an exeedingly good killer in actual battle, were not that effective toward the larger goal of the much larger conflict that existed outside of the immediate engagement in the arena stage. That was a strategic matter that required a change of tactics to more showy, less efficient means of killing. The reverse is more typically true of aikido in our time in that training tends to be more showy and larger -- and thus revealing details of action obscured in the sudden and brutal reality, but it, too, is also directed to a larger goal beyond the immediate encounter.

True budo is always simplicity itself -- and very, very hard work to achieve small bits of it.

Last edited by Erick Mead : 12-19-2008 at 04:35 PM.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
 
Old 12-19-2008, 05:45 PM   #406
GeneC
Location: Henderson,
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 370
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Hypothetical: Practitioner A executes technique against practitioner B and is successful. Practitioner A executes same technique against practitioner C and is unsuccessful.

Question: Is the technique martially effective or not?

Ron
How do you know Part.B is trying? or Part C? This is why a contest will ensure both are trying their best, but certainly two contests won't give one a conclusion. But how about 50 contests and unbeaten? Beaten only twice? 5 times? What if he does 10 contests and loses 5, 6, 7, all of them- something's wrong with his technique, it'd be safe to say his MA is not martially effective. What would you be comfortable with?

How many experiments in science to reach a conclusion? What is the criteria in science for a conclusion?

This does make it more signifcant for Osensei, in his 80's to say he's unbeaten.

Only between a single breath is Yin/Yang in harmony
Emotion is pure energy flowing feely thru the body-Dan Millman
 
Old 12-19-2008, 05:51 PM   #407
GeneC
Location: Henderson,
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 370
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
The relevant text is: "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all."

As I see it, Aikido is never allied to the principle of "better than" but rather "in tune with" and therefore "readier than." It radically allows and accepts the contingencies that must inevitably come. No matter the theoretical disparities that may exist, the principles of Aikido make one readier to play in one move in a sudden void, rather than trying to eliminate ALL Voids by attempting to construct an indefeasible plan of action to a preordained goal by a set path.

Aikido, the Founder said is, about "divine technique." One need not take that religiously to understand that it is meant to teach us, in the words of someone else, to think as God does, not as men do. Where the accidents, the places between, the lowly and insignificant things actually turn reality more than the easily seen and seemingly mighty things of the world.
Still, all that there boils down to can your MA defeat that 6'2" 240lb MMA monster punk on steriods or that hardened felon on Crank/PCP who stands before you that wants to take you out? Are you comfortable with your MA to fight anybody, anytime, anywhere?

Only between a single breath is Yin/Yang in harmony
Emotion is pure energy flowing feely thru the body-Dan Millman
 
Old 12-19-2008, 06:12 PM   #408
GeneC
Location: Henderson,
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 370
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Clarence insisted "the Sensei who's teaching the techniques has the responsibility to make sure the techniques are martially effective." I'm trying to eclicit a response from him that explains how he determines whether a technique is martially effective or not when the outcome of an encounter can assume any number of forms. My point is that martial arts cannot be proven martially effective in any sense of the word since martial effectiveness is a variable not a constant. In short, the Sensei cannot "make sure the techniques are martially effective."Ron
You don't have to elicit a response, just ask. This is very simple for anyone who has any experience in Budo or combat or any MA- any technique or principle that is sound in fighting. and can be proven in competition (or combat). I don't know about other branches, but the Marines uses past battles to develope a fighting sytem that's martially effective. Quite simply, say in boxing, standing there with your hands down at your side is not martially effective, whereas, standing there with your hands up and elbows close to your body is more martially effective. So, more specifically, in Aikido, let's see what Nishio Shihan has to say:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH0-IyJPsyc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt4ts-rOpyM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9PTMSwr1h0

Notice in each of these, he emphasizes how these techniques as being practiced and taught are martially ineffective and even eluded to Osensei changing some techniques because they were martially ineffective.

Last edited by GeneC : 12-19-2008 at 06:24 PM.

Only between a single breath is Yin/Yang in harmony
Emotion is pure energy flowing feely thru the body-Dan Millman
 
Old 12-19-2008, 06:28 PM   #409
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Clarence wrote:

Quote:
And the point is? Ok, so there's other ex and current military. Then why aren't they talking about the reality of a vicious fight? I'm not assuming anything. I'm seeing alot of folks missing key points about Budo and fighting, key points that could mean the difference of life or death, that refutes some of this "feel good, no problems, new age Budo" that seems to be "flowing". I'm simply offering my insights and I'm not insisting on anyone taking it or not.
Okay...I am current military, Ranger Infantry Officer type, what do you want to "discuss". I typed a pretty long post outlining my perspective on "martial methodologies" and why it I felt it was important to work within "frameworks" of methodology and possibly perserve those frameworks or best practices as such.

I also "discussed" why it was important to UNDERSTAND those martial methodologies what what the essentially the "Terminal Learning Objectives" (TLO) are to use a "Military Term" and to work within the constraints of those methodolgies to gain the lessons they have to teach.

I also "discussed" the time constraints that folks have in training and that it takes great deal of time to train properly to achieve a well rounded "martial warrior".

and a few other things as well.

All of which you essentially ignored I assume since you didn't respond to it.

So, I didn't see much since of re-hashing the same thing that I already offered up...from my "Military" perspective.

If you have questions or want to sincerely explore this or you really want to know what I think about this subject, feel free to ask. After 7 years and about 3000 post on aikiweb...it is apparent that I am willing to talk about "stuff".

Right now though, I am going to go prepare for the Reflexive Fire and CQB class I have to teach down at Quantico next month so that is what I am going to do with my time right now!

I'll probaby check back in later though!

 
Old 12-19-2008, 06:31 PM   #410
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
Thanks Erick... I think.

Clarence insisted "the Sensei who's teaching the techniques has the responsibility to make sure the techniques are martially effective." I'm trying to eclicit a response from him that explains how he determines whether a technique is martially effective or not when the outcome of an encounter can assume any number of forms. My point is that martial arts cannot be proven martially effective in any sense of the word since martial effectiveness is a variable not a constant. In short, the Sensei cannot "make sure the techniques are martially effective."

Ron
Yeah I tried that too Ron, only place we have gotten is that "whatever" needs to be proven martially efffective against other martial arts, but not in the UFC!

 
Old 12-19-2008, 06:35 PM   #411
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Clarence Couch wrote: View Post
Still, all that there boils down to can your MA defeat that 6'2" 240lb MMA monster punk on steriods or that hardened felon on Crank/PCP who stands before you that wants to take you out? Are you comfortable with your MA to fight anybody, anytime, anywhere?
Who knows? Can you defeat such a person? How about you and I get together and throw on a couple of Blauer suits, sign a waiver and see who comes out on top!

Then again what does that really prove in the end?

Would that mean that if I could consistently beat you down that you would adopt to my way of training...which involves Aikido not really evolving as you say it needs to?

 
Old 12-19-2008, 07:28 PM   #412
Demetrio Cereijo
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,221
Spain
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Clarece Couch wrote: View Post
Hmm, Im sorry that y'all feel that way. Maybe if you two could get together and contribute something beneficial, we can move on. Otherwise I'd suggest skipping this thread. I;m jsut discussing ideas and conceptswith folks. Not really trying to come across as anything other than a person with ideas and opinions.
Well...

Let's see if you find the following beneficial enough.

Quote:
Fact is , I'm not interested in learning more about Misogi at this time (I'm a Christian, Misogi is Shinto), that's why I didn't ask. I understand the concept of spiritual cleansing and how Aikido is geared to help with that, but I also know that is an individual journey that each of us are on, so YMMV.
Misogi (and related ascetic practises) seem to be fundamental for the developement of power, both physical an psychological, required for aikido to be martially effective. Disregard this kind of ascetic training if you feel it not compatible with Christianity, and subtstitute it with pumping iron at the gym, but don't complaint if later you find your aikido lacking enough firepower.

Quote:
Ok, so there's other ex and current military. Then why aren't they talking about the reality of a vicious fight?
I suppose the ones who have real experience in vicious fighting: the ones who have been there, done that for real don't find enjoyable writing about tis kind of things in internet forums as it happens to the civilians who also have been there, done that but are not psychopaths themselves nor the readers. You want gore? Not here. Look for other kind of forum.

Got the point?

Quote:
Quite simply, say in boxing, standing there with your hands down at your side is not martially effective, whereas, standing there with your hands up and elbows close to your body is more martially effective.
And this is suicidal outside boxing....

When you manage to understand the doctrine behind, and the strategy and tactical parameters aikido has been designed for, you can start to understand the how's and why's of aikido techniques and training methods. Not before.
 
Old 12-19-2008, 08:07 PM   #413
GeneC
Location: Henderson,
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 370
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
Okay...I am current military, Ranger Infantry Officer type, what do you want to "discuss".
I'll probaby check back in later though!
Whaddaya mean what do I want to discuss? I want to discuss what would be involved in evloving Aikido.

You got in about in the middle and talked about Ghandi.

Then I want to define some terms and you say:"I don't worry too much about defining what something is or isn't. Aikido and all martial arts are only concepts and methodologies, they can really "be anything".What we have is ourselves and our understanding of self."know they self, and unto they self be true".

Then you misunderstood and thought I said to take the violence out of Aikido, to wit you responded by quoting John Stevens "to present such a strong front that noone'd dare attack you."

Then we were in agreement for awhile

then you said: "Is it evolvement, revolution, or simply a paradiqm shift?more aptly put, a rennaissance, or a re-discovery of what was once known, but forgotten over the years.The UFC and emergence of MMA is probably the most recent example of a paradiqm shift.

then this:"semantics, but I would not say there is violence in aikido as much as what we practice recognizes and is concerned with violence. To me for violence to be actually present requires actual acts of harm to be present. To me competition can occur on many levels and it is in aikido and Yoga even! Who hasn't been in a yoga class and you look around to see how well your warrior pose is to someone elses! That is competition! I do think aikido is meant to be a paradox in this respect."

Which I responded by disagreeing.

Then we have a disgreement about the first UFC bouts...you say Royce Gracie was in the first one, I say he camelater , after a bunch of karateka,boxers, Grecco Roman wrestlers and "pit' fighters.

Then you use a whole bunch of wordsto say we need to define "martial effectiveness".

Then you use a whole bunch of other words to say:" Going back to the topic at hand concerning evolution of aikido.Again, we have to define and agree that aikido moved away from it's original intent. "

Then you use a whole bunch of other words to say:"It could be that aikido loses students and there is actually a decline away from aikido with more folks going into MMA."

Then you say: "Come train with me, I am always on the offense, I avoid the defense and believe in always attack, always win."

Then you say: "Semantics maybe, but I don't see what I would do as evolutionary as we are not changing the core measures and principles of aikido.good discussion"

Then you use a whole bunch of words to say:"Again though, I think it important to not overthink or over complicate the physical practice of aikido with reframing or revision by the introduction of philosophy or spirituality."

Then you say this: "As you know I don't necessarily see things the same way on BJJ/AIKIDO/MMA was you do. Won't rehash that here. However, if you do indeed believe that the distinct difference betweeen aikido and BJJ is based on the allowing or disallowing of harm..."

The you use alot of words to ask this: "That is not to say that we should shut our eyes things external to our practice and that we should not be open to adopting new training methodologies and experimentation...I think that is very important. However, is it evolution or simply a re-interpretation?"

Then you used alot of words to say: "So what part of martial effectiveness does aikido attempt to maintain really?I actually have a hard time when someone like him says that in order to remain a martial art it must be practiced as we practice it with the sword.
IMM, if that is the case, then practice it correctly tactically, not some theorectical, principle focused practice. In fact, sword based arts lost there martial relevancy quite a while ago I believe!"

To which I disagree.

Then you asked me: "You are more than certainly entitled to your opinions. However....., It would really help me to understand your position if you would spell out your criteria for martial efffectiveness and how that relates to aikido. "

To which I replied: ", simply, (like Bruce Lee and Shoji Sensei, et al said) improve a technique (or strategy) that make it more martially effective. Like you said, I haven't been in Aikido long enough ( so, is that how you judge folks, by how long they been doing this?) to know exactly what that is (but I'll train every day with that in mind), but in my limited experience it'd be things like no technique that'd put you directly in harms way (like a punch or kick or takedown, etc); Always lead with your dominant side; intercept an attack with an attack, rather than block, then counter; rather than go in circles, go in staight lines exclusively, etc. Some folks here have alot more experience in Aikdido and I thought that that was the purpose of this thread- to talk about it."

To which you responded:"If this is our primary concern in aikido, that is, to be effective in these types of situations, I'd say aikido is fairly inefficient to help you be successful in this situation.Same with avoiding knifes, guns, rear chokes, and etc, etc.Are these the reasons you feel aikido should evolve because it is not able to effectively answer the mail in these areas as good as some other practices? "

Then you say: "No martial art is complete in reality."

The you ask this: "Would you all be willing to change the phrase "Martially Effectiveness" for "Martially Relevant"? or "Martially Applicable"?"

To which I disagreed.

Then you used alot of words to say: "As a guy that is concerned with "effectiveness" I think I am doing a good job of adopting a MMA philosophy and that my own personal practice follows much of what Clarence is saying aikido needs to move to."

The you say this: "And then we ask...what is the point of studying empty handed martial arts anyway????"

The say this:"Could be he was bring up the fact that he was strong and could fight to let everyone know that he had transcended the physicality and yet still was happy and vibrant."

Only between a single breath is Yin/Yang in harmony
Emotion is pure energy flowing feely thru the body-Dan Millman
 
Old 12-19-2008, 08:20 PM   #414
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

I was referring from the conversation from about post #303 on.

You still have not materially answered anything directly I have written, you simply move on and continue with the same theme of your discussion.

Much of what you quoted was taken out of context of conversations that occurred much longer than you have been here on aikiweb.

You STILL Contend that Royce Gracie came later on? Really? He won the first UFC which was conceived of and ran l by his brother Rorian and Art Davies.

Here is a very direct question:

What is it specifically that needs to evolve in aikido?

OR

What does aikido need to evolve into?

 
Old 12-19-2008, 08:38 PM   #415
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Reading through the threads over the last couple of minutes it appears that maybe your concern is that you simply have a very limited exposure to aikido or maybe competent instruction.

You talk about hands down at the sides, and turning your back to some one to name two just on this page.

You also offer videos of sensei or Others that you seem to think are doing good aikido...which from the videos I have seen I have no issue with.

OR,

You may not quite understand martial methodology or training methodolgies.

It took me several years to figure this one out until I had a larger exposure to some good martial artist and a sound basis as a training officer in a large combat training center for the Army.

Aikido may not fit the bill for your objectives. As I stated it does not completely fit mine, but serves as a integral methodology over an overall combined integrated training strategy.

Bad aikido certainly does not fit my objectives and there is plenty of that going on out there I am sure.

The objectives of aikido are fairly well established by most Shihan. Again, I have the fortune I suppose of studying under a Shihan that was an Ucshideshi of O'Sensei (although not directly these days) and maybe you have not had these experiences.

Another specific and direct question:

What do you think about the aikido performed in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1WNUThJ9E

I hope that you will specifically identify the exactly model of evolvement in something other than "effective against other martial arts".

It is simply too vague and open ended for me to really discuss in any productive manner.

 
Old 12-20-2008, 08:36 AM   #416
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Kevin,

I've always liked that video very much, thanks for posting it.

I've decided to give Gene what he wants though -- the last word.

I can't figure out if Gene is low-hanging-fruit or a train-wreck of a debater (maybe a produce train wreck in an orchard?). But his pattern of saying anything and everything to defend each and every position he's taken indicates to me an incapacity to engage in dialogue. Literally. It's an issue of comunicative competence.

That requires both a communication receiving device as well as a sending device. Really, the receiving device is all you need for communication to occur when someone else is speaking.

They are really cool, those receiving devices. They allow you to absorb information and ideas. They allow you to engage in a competition of ideas, not just voices. And as Gene contends competition is a really, really, really good thing -- keeps us on our toes and all, you know -- you'd think he'd care enough about the quality of his ideas to put them to the test.

But he can't. That's my conclusion. Not won't; not doesn't choose to; can't. Can't even see, I suspect, the many acts of kindness that strangers have extended to him, waiting for him to catch the hint and listen.

I'm sorry Gene. Goodbye.
 
Old 12-20-2008, 10:10 AM   #417
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Attilio Anthony John Wagstaffe wrote: View Post
Seems to me THAT'S how aikido WILL evolve?...........

Tony
Hi Tony.

I don't know. But it does seem that the idea is to see how the way something in being replicated on one level -- say, individual practice, or different schools -- is reflected in the structure of the whole. And I just watched a really cool show on fractals, and probably want to see how looking at things that way changes my perspective.

It also seems at an incohate level (that would be a statement about my own level of clarity), to connect with some of what Kevin has been saying about different martial arts allowing different set pieces to study -- Judo and unbalancing, for example.

The principles that animate the particular art will tend to be reflected in the overall structure of the art, just as the way a tree grows results in a replication of patterning in the branching of limbs (which a guy on the show assured me was subject to being analyzed in terms of fractals).

But to go back to Chiba Shihan's tree analogy, each branch needs to contain the patterning of Aikido's fundamental principles. That at least is my reading. And that, when you look beneath the apparent diversity, the deeper patterns still should be there.

But I should probably put this thought on the shelf and go practice.

Regards,

David
 
Old 12-20-2008, 10:40 AM   #418
GeneC
Location: Henderson,
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 370
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
It is simply too vague and open ended for me to really discuss in any productive manner.
Well I don't see why that'd be. This isn't that difficult a concept.

I didn't start this thread. I came onto Aikiweb and saw this thread. I think it's a good thread, very significant and warrants discussion, so I started discussing. What I found is some folks don't even want to talk about it, other folks thinks Aikido is perfect and don't need evolving, still some think Aikdio does need to be evolved , but doesn't know how to express it, to everything one can imagine about the concept of evolution. My position hasn't changed since I started posting- Aikido has room for evolvement and there are many facets to it's evolvment. I don't believe I need anything answered, that's something y'all projected. Far as I know, this medium goes like this, Someone posts an idea and then folks gives their ideas/experience/anecdotes/opinion about the subject, but generally folks discuss it. Now there may be some differing opinions, but hopefully they present their sides and then agree to dis-agree and go on.
So where are we here? Why are we having so much trouble with a seemingly simple concept? My position is this: Since Aikido is manmade, it is flawed and has room to evolve- from it basic techniques all the way up to expanding it's popularity.
Kevin, you have spent the most words to say stuff I can't understand. I thought the goal of communication is for folks to understand what you're saying. The measure of intelligence is not the big words or complex concepts, but being able to convey them in simple terms.
I think Gen. MacArthur said, "It is fatal to enter into any war without the will to win it." And " In war, you win or lose, live or die- and the difference is just an eyelash." and " There is no substitute for victory." I figured anyone with military/ cqb experience would respond to the results of FoF with the knife, etc. Or at least the concept of 'martially effective'.
But it seems like the first thing some folks want to do, when they reach an impasse, is question a person's personal integrity. Why? Why not just ask or discuss the topic or leave it and go do something else?

Last edited by GeneC : 12-20-2008 at 10:45 AM.

Only between a single breath is Yin/Yang in harmony
Emotion is pure energy flowing feely thru the body-Dan Millman
 
Old 12-20-2008, 10:46 AM   #419
raul rodrigo
Location: Quezon City
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 777
Philippines
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

In my country, there is a proverb. Translated into English, it runs: "It is impossible to awaken someone who is only pretending to be asleep." I think of it often when I run into someone who claims to want to discuss ideas but can only hear his own voice.
 
Old 12-20-2008, 11:17 AM   #420
RonRagusa
Dojo: Berkshire Hills Aikido
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 782
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Clarence Couch wrote: View Post
What if he does 10 contests and loses 5, 6, 7, all of them- something's wrong with his technique, it'd be safe to say his MA is not martially effective.
No it would not. Especially when some else using the same style comes along and wins all 10 contests.

The point is that no amount of contests will ever prove the martial effectiveness of a technique. Techniques, like hammers, are tools and in and of themselves neither effective or not. The Sensei cannot prove the martial effectiveness of a technique, only display his own effectiveness as a martial artist employing the technique.

Ron
 
Old 12-20-2008, 11:27 AM   #421
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
No it would not. Especially when some else using the same style comes along and wins all 10 contests.

The point is that no amount of contests will ever prove the martial effectiveness of a technique. Techniques, like hammers, are tools and in and of themselves neither effective or not. The Sensei cannot prove the martial effectiveness of a technique, only display his own effectiveness as a martial artist employing the technique.

Ron
And you would think this is obvious...Great Post Ron.

William Hazen
 
Old 12-20-2008, 12:17 PM   #422
observer
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 113
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Clarence Couch wrote: View Post
My position is this: Since Aikido is manmade, it is flawed and has room to evolve- from it basic techniques all the way up to expanding it's popularity.
Obviously, I only express my opinion. I think, you agree, that Mona Lisa doesn't have room to evolve. Same with aikido. It was created by an artist and we can admire, or hate it. Mostly, people study and enjoy it. Some folks think that they are able to use it effectively against a threat, but others have doubts. Some teachers find aikido inspirational in the development of new idea. Others, take it for face value. I think, that you are looking for a tool to suit your expectations, and aikido definitely doesn't fit. However, for me, aikido has everything that I need, and we both have the same needs, I presume. You want to understand how it works before learning the art of aikido. It took me a while, and I tried to explain it to you, but you didn't get it. I did not expect for you to accept my point of view, but I was waiting to discuss it in details. Instead, you were responding to many theoretical concepts about Martial Art and aikido in particular. I agree, that it does make sense to raise aikido popularity, to keep the art alive, but if we change it, we will have nothing. Think about it.
 
Old 12-20-2008, 12:28 PM   #423
Joe McParland
 
Joe McParland's Avatar
Dojo: Sword Mountain Aikido & Zen
Location: Baltimore, MD
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 309
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
No it would not. Especially when some else using the same style comes along and wins all 10 contests.

The point is that no amount of contests will ever prove the martial effectiveness of a technique. Techniques, like hammers, are tools and in and of themselves neither effective or not. The Sensei cannot prove the martial effectiveness of a technique, only display his own effectiveness as a martial artist employing the technique.
There is a middle ground here.

There are two main variables: the System and the Student. Teaching methodology comes into play, of course, but let's just conveniently put that under System for now.

When I was in the Army back in 1990, the self-defense curriculum including something we called "The Betsy:" using a rock and a big overhead swing to crack your opponent on the helmet. I understand that, today, TRADOC has removed The Betsey from the core curriculum and is even advocating some kind of BJJ-ish system? [I presume Kevin can clarify any details.]

An individual who cannot develop a martial attitude or cannot develop martial skills, either through lack of effort or lack of ability ("LOE" or "LOA," if memory serves), will not succeed in just about any System. But, if your entire System was "The Betsy" and you didn't have a rock nearby, the average practitioner is screwed.

It takes a bit of a leap for the Student to not be trapped by the forms of any System. For instance, even though The Betsy is no longer taught explicitly in the Army's system, if there's a rock nearby, an open-minded, improvising soldier will still grab it and whack you on your kevlar with it.

But, just because every Army soldier is now wearing the back beret, it doesn't make them a Ranger. Not every Ranger makes a good Green Beret, and vice versa---since certainly not every Green Beret fits so well in the regular infantry. Why does the US have separate Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, ..., and within them different levels of differentiation?

The Systems themselves are forms as much as are the individual techniques of the System. And, historically, is it not true that whenever a System appears, a Counter-System will eventually be developed? And isn't it the end-state of most martial teachings not to be trapped by form?

Budo is formless. Systems are formed expressions created from budo and pointing to budo. The techniques of Systems are the same. We can create form on a whim and adapt our favorite System---call that evolution if you want---but budo itself is beyond evolution.

Finally, it's easy, from a fractal perspective, for the branch to believe it is the trunk, calling what is below it as the roots and what is above it leaves and branches---and to some extent that makes sense. But, if you find yourself rooted in Form rather than the Formless (budo), you're lost.

 
Old 12-20-2008, 01:02 PM   #424
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
Joe McParland wrote: View Post
But, if you find yourself rooted in Form rather than the Formless (budo), you're lost.
True enough I "suppose". However perhaps you should contemplate that one cannot know Budo unless one expresses a "form" of Budo and that maybe that is the meaning of "hiding in plain sight."

Being rooted in "form" Bu is a natural stage of progression on the journey Do

Bashing (or not bashing for that matter) someone over the head with a rock is no more Budo than never practicing a Budo "form" at all if one is not aware they are on the "path". However it can still be an expression of Budo that much is true. This would not make the person Budoka unless they became aware of it in the moment they expressed it.

The only illusion here (for lack of a better metaphor) is believing your form is the only path up the mountain.

So IMHO Clarence's questioning of form is a natural stage of his development towards realizing Budo.

Our "role" is to help him along his journey.

William Hazen
 
Old 12-20-2008, 02:37 PM   #425
Joe McParland
 
Joe McParland's Avatar
Dojo: Sword Mountain Aikido & Zen
Location: Baltimore, MD
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 309
United_States
Offline
Re: The continued Evolution of Aikido

Quote:
William Hazen wrote: View Post
However perhaps you should contemplate that one cannot know Budo unless one expresses a "form" of Budo and that maybe that is the meaning of "hiding in plain sight."
Ha! Yeah, maybe. Alas, I made a bit of an error---well, a big error---with "budo is formless" bit. "Budo" itself as a concept is also just form Lots of arguments have roots in different understandings about what budo is. Insomuch as a budoka is someone who embodies the principles of budo---and is bound in some way by thoughts such as "this is budo," "that is not budo," "I have to do this because I'm a budoka," or "I must not do that because I'm a budoka"---then that someone is still stuck in form.

But, if you need a form to point you back toward no-form, then budo's as good a path as any, I suppose!

Quote:
Our "role" is to help him along his journey.
Ha! Well, I'll give that a "maybe," too.

Some genuinely good folks are getting themselves bent out of shape trying to make others understand some tightly-held points of view. [And, no, I certainly don't exempt myself from that. ] In this sense, the players are not different---they're just carrying different flags, speaking different languages, or whatever.

If Gene said, "I think 2+2=5," would it really matter? To what lengths would I go to convince him he's wrong, since clearly "2+2=6"!

 

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aikido in Amsterdam, Terry Lax style... tiyler_durden General 11 11-03-2008 09:31 AM
AikiWeb Raffle for Mary Heiny Sensei akiy General 68 05-27-2008 11:37 AM
Baseline skillset eyrie Non-Aikido Martial Traditions 1633 05-23-2008 02:35 PM
Women and Everybody Else in Aikido George S. Ledyard Teaching 113 03-16-2008 08:27 PM
Omoto-kyo Theology senshincenter Spiritual 77 12-04-2005 10:50 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate