In the dojo, 90% of Aikido is uke

Joshua Reyer wrote: What Hanna means is that if uke doesn't attack, or grab tori's wrist, or advance, or anything like that, there's nothing for tori to do. You can irimi-nage air, but I don't know if you can really call it aikido.

Can you also call them *uke* if they doesn't move/attack? isnt that uke=attacker?

Anyway I go for 50 50 for without ukes cooperation *harmony*, no tori can perform exquisitely as he/she is hankered for. I pressume.

leon

Szczepan Janczuk wrote: I think the difference in our approach comes from different understanding of aikido practice as ‘Kata'. I can't say how you guys practice it, but in my dojo, what we are doing, only looks like kata because of a fact having prearranged attack and prearranged technique. In reality, however, there is so much room ‘inside' of attack and a technique, that one can't really call it Kata. .

Do you practice some form of Randori / Kyoshu ?
If you do not, then this may explain the source of the difference. You would have to find some other way to gain the benefits of this type of practice in your system training style.

Event at very first level of learning, I've never seen in any aikido style such rigor to execute a technique as I saw in Koryu training or in Judo kata. Once one arrives at 3-2 kyu level, all resemblance to kata training is completely gone. And at 2-3 dan level, only global shape of attack / technique is preserved, but I'd call it rather application of technique.

I have not seen enough Koryu practice to compare. At least to the best of my understanding, as far as my sensei and shihan have explained it to me, Kata need not be rigid in form. The Kata in which one has to step in some exact way etc. are very formalized forms. In a seminar with an Iai teacher, he claimed this is an element in which he preferred the Koryu concept over the Seitai concept (I never learned the latter, so I can only trust him): learn the essence and adjust to circumstances as opposed to precise steeping and movements definitions.

This is the way I grasp Kata: It is a practice pre-ordained by someone in order to teach something to the practitioners.
If the Kata is done correctly - you should learn something from it, if this aim is not achieved, someone is goofing, it is most likely to be Tori, might be Uke and in some cases, might be the teacher who invented the Kata.
I thing one should learn from a specific Kata might be any one of multiple ideas: rough execution of a technique, specific evasion against some attack, Timing, Kuzushi, sensitivity, handling stress, etc. A good teacher should know the reasons he is teaching this particular form, I will admit the truly great teachers (I include my own among them), know this without thinking, instinctively, at some unconscious level. They can later rationalize and explain their reasoning, but when they teach, they do not need to pass through this phase. If one has a good teacher and he trusts him to lead the path, one should try and use each Kata to learn from it, the ideas the teacher stressed in it, to the best of his ability.

IMO it is in accordance with O sensei teaching, he said that he broken with traditional Koryu spirit and approach to practice Budo in kata form.

I do not follow the path of Ueshiba, so I would not presume to know. As far as I understand it today, without learning any Koryu style, Korindo Aikido follows some Koryu styles approach more closely (I know different styles have different approaches, and we are a modern eclectic, yet traditional style).

Amir

Lucy Smith wrote: You mean an advanced student shouldn't tell a beginner how to do a technique correctly?

Only if he himself understands the principle of the technique. I have a shodan mate who loves being a "teacher uke" even when visiting other dojo or attending seminars. The problem is after he has "instructed" the beginner or junior student, the shihan or the instructor has to correct both his and his partner's technique. The sad part is he still could not get those corrections and he is still teaching the wrong techniques at the dojo where he acts as an assistant instructor. He calls himself a socialite aikidoka...

David Yap wrote: Only if he himself understands the principle of the technique. I have a shodan mate who loves being a "teacher uke" even when visiting other dojo or attending seminars. The problem is after he has "instructed" the beginner or junior student, the shihan or the instructor has to correct both his and his partner's technique. The sad part is he still could not get those corrections and he is still teaching the wrong techniques at the dojo where he acts as an assistant instructor. He calls himself a socialite aikidoka...

I'd call him a pain in the a** aikidoka

Mark Freeman wrote: I'd call him a pain in the a** aikidoka

Indeed he is except for the aikidoka part

Amir Krause wrote: This is the way I grasp Kata: It is a practice pre-ordained by someone in order to teach something to the practitioners. If the Kata is done correctly - you should learn something from it, Amir

I think this is along the line of thinking that I am on. I also found a great article on doing kata in Aikido at http://www.koryu.com/library/dskoss8.html

I think that in doing these exercises, it is not just the technique that is meant to be learned, but more importantly what is learned in the practice of the technique. To do this correctly, the approach to learning should be in keeping with the principles. One of the main principles of Aikido is harmony between self and other. To say that "uke is never wrong" is to take a singular approach which separates ourselves from the other. If there is no connection, no harmony, then there is no Aikido. This is not to say that tori is always right either. I think it is tori's responsibility to practice and learn. Uke's responsibility is to practice and learn also. I don't think there is any room for teaching or challenging; just practice.

Someone brought up and excellent point about randori. If someone wants to practice their skills in a type of intense "anything goes" situation, then I think randori is the only way to do it. Randori, to me is the situation where "uke is never wrong". When or if the attack comes, being right or wrong is irrelevant. But this concept is inappropriate for organized paired practice. When a person first learns to drive, it is on a closed, controlled course with orange cones with few or no other cars at all. This is like Aikido. It isn't a good idea to learn how to drive doing 90 on the interstate.

The senior student - that is a tough one. I think I might even start another thread on it. There is always the problem of who really is senior. The problem I have encountered personally is the uke who refuses to cooperate unless I follow his instruction. One time I said to an individual "I know I'm not that good, so could you please just go along with it because I'm working on something" He refused and told me how I had to take his center or he wasn't going to fall. I just told him I wasn't good enough to practice with him and sat down.

I think Leon also made a great point...if uke doesn't attack, then there isn't anything to do. I agree that if we try to control and force someone down who isn't attacking (or stops attacking in the middle of a technique), then we become the aggressor.

Controlling others? If I could only learn to control myself I would be happy.

Exellent posts Amir and John.

I think the relationship is 60/40. Aikido can be done in kata forms but the problem is without resistance or obstacle from the uke (the bodyweight of the person, not the actual struggle) you might not have a feel for the proper technique, and could just do movements without precision or power. On the other hand, nage and uke relationship is vital. The uke relationship is also dependent on nage.
If uke is a beginner then paired with a another beginner, they are both lost, zero to bad learning happens.
If uke is a beginner then paired with a colored belt, the uke's reaction will be dependent on the colored belt, probably because of the 'teacher-uke' complex, because colored belt is going the path of senseihood.
If uke is a beginner paired with a sensei then all essentials is up to the sensei to teach about resistance, compliance and proper behavior or motivations with regards to being an uke.
If uke gets to be a senior or a colored belt after being paired with those three personalities then his ukemi performance will be dependent on how he learned, who he learned it from and his actual attitude towards the whole practice.
The actual attitude I think is partly a responsibility of the sensei who has guided him up to this point.
If from the sensei the attitude is that of being too relax as not to help the nage in technique, or too stiff to prevent nage from doing technique (the only solution to this stiffness is not blending but painful atemis applied to the uke) then the uke will pick it up all and add a dash of how he sees things.
So uke response is based on teacher approach plus uke's personality.
To learn techniques lies on the sensei and of course the uke, if the uke is good and faced with a senior or a sensei the latter can direct the course from soft to hard. So if uke resist they can manage techniques.