Dojo Storming

Rupert Atkinson wrote: Here in Korea someone told me how when he was younger he learned Taekwondo and, full of youthful vigor as he was, went around other dojos beating up the students and instructors. He said he would walk in, kick the apparatus or TKD sign, and generally cause trouble until the physical stuff started. He did this until he enetered a Thai Boxing gym and got his come-uppance. He is now a Thai Boxing teacher. And that first Thai Boxing gym he entered was then being run by our present Korean Aikido president, Yun Ick-ahm (previously a Korean kickboxing champion but now an Aikido teacher).

Ha ha. That's awesome, great story. I could definitley see that happening to someone back in the day before Thai boxing got big.

Rupert Atkinson wrote: Here in Korea someone told me how when he was younger he learned Taekwondo and, full of youthful vigor as he was, went around other dojos beating up the students and instructors. He said he would walk in, kick the apparatus or TKD sign, and generally cause trouble until the physical stuff started. He did this until he enetered a Thai Boxing gym and got his come-uppance. He is now a Thai Boxing teacher. And that first Thai Boxing gym he entered was then being run by our present Korean Aikido president, Yun Ick-ahm (previously a Korean kickboxing champion but now an Aikido teacher).

Its true then...If you look for trouble you'll always find it!

What are the "rules" for dojo storming?

I mean a guy comes into your dojo with the intent on proving that his skills or art is "superior". How do you prove that, and to what extent, and in the end what has been accomplished?

If you study aikido, it is the harmony way of peace...so within the context of that, what does "winning" or "successful" storming really look like?

In the storming he is able to prove he is more effective at resolving conflict with minimal force???? How ridiculous!

If his intent is to prove that he is a superior figher....where do you draw the line? what are the rules of engagement. Do you stay within the confines of your paradigm established by your art, and he in his?

That is ridiculous too since the "rules" and criteria for success in each one of the ARTIFICIAL systems are different! Comparing them as to who is more successful would be hard!

Do you judge based on who recieved more injuries? who bled the most? or who lived or walked away?

What if I am the one being stormed and I decide to pick up a gun and shoot him or an escrima stick and render him unconscious, did I win? or did he? Those might have been my rules for success!

Reminds me...there was a riot in the U.S. about a week ago over a KKK rally. Who won that one? The KKK that staged the rally (who most consider "Losers"), or did the guys that rioted in protest? I believe the KKK feel they won since they caused the reaction they wanted. I think the rioters feel they won because they showed the world that they are strong and will not sit by and watch such demonstrations take place in their community!

So, to me, I really don't understand what dojo storming accomplishes. There really is no clear "winner" since the rules are not spelled out, or if they are, the would be restrictive in nature and the one who is able to strategize his game plan to exploit the "rules" the best would "win" the bout. Doesn't mean he is a better martial artist, or more effective overall....just more effective at winning that particular venue with those established rules!

one other thing....

To me this all goes back to the basic question....

why are you studying martial arts?

Once you define this, you are able to more clearly define the boundaries of your future success.

I think many people believe (or are deluded) into thinking that the study of empty hand martial arts is primarily for self defense and fighting prowness.

Sure there are skills to be learned to aid in this area. But if this is yor primary concern, then Budo (which really most MA fall under), is a tremendous waste of time.

The self defense paradigm defines "success" as walking away with minimal injury to self. It does not regard the other persons (opponents) success critera or endstate. it is simply self preservation.

Now you can couple this with an principle/value/ or ethic of "minimal damage to the other person", but now you have left the simple realm of self defense and are not in the realm of compassion.

What does this have to do with dojo storming? alot I believe....since if you are going to storm, then you need to define how you measure success and what you consider to be effective as a martial artist.

I could measure success from the self defense paradigm as simply my ability to walk away from a fight with minimal injury to self. That would allow me to use anything and everything at my disposal to accomplish that goal...to include weapon based violent action to kill or seriously incapacitate the person.

Now, if I did that to someone I stormed, or who stormed me you might say..."that was not successful, he pulled out a gun and shot him!" He didn't use empty hand martial arts, and the force was way too excessive!".

You just fogged the waters by injecting ethics into the equations!

So now you establish a criteria that says...the storming must include ethics and require "minimal force necessary to resolve the conflict!".

See the problem?

I could do this by simply calling the police and having the atagonist removed from my dojo.

Then I lose cause I am a "chicken" and didn't "prove" myself! But I was successful based on the ethical criteria!

Can't win! See why I think storming is a futile proposition and is based on flawed logic.

I really think people need to ask hard of themselves "WHY I AM STUDYING MARTIAL ARTS".

It is not about the fighting skills IMHO!

People that storm (or want to) really do not understand martial arts and have not learned the lessons of the importance of martial arts and the relationship that fighting skills play in society and how they contribute to our development as human beings. I view these individuals as failures in learning the important lessons in what MA is all about!

(edited, added last paragraph).

Kevin Leavitt wrote: What are the "rules" for dojo storming? If you study aikido, it is the harmony way of peace...so within the context of that, what does "winning" or "successful" storming really look like? In the storming he is able to prove he is more effective at resolving conflict with minimal force???? How ridiculous! What if I am the one being stormed and I decide to pick up a gun and shoot him or an escrima stick and render him unconscious, did I win? or did he? Those might have been my rules for success! rules!

The students and potential future students make the rule for themselves on their own.

Suppose some one strom your dojo. If you beat the stormer into submission, some students think you know your stuff and learn from you, some may think you're a brute man, and go to other dojo.

If you fight the stomer and get beaten badly but continue fighting, some students may want to learn from you because of your budo, while some may think you're useless and leave.

If you call the police, some student may think you're a wise man, while other may think you're a coward and leave.

"Aikido is the harmony way of peace"

I think Aikido is the harmony way of MAKING peace. If there is no confilcts, what's the need of Aikido? I may think it's a real test of your Aikido.

Do you think anyone would storm a ballet school? a tai chi class? A yoga workout? No.

Afterall, Aikido is a Martial art. A head instructor is supposed to be a martial expert. If a instructor thinks that he teaches a type of 2 person dance, he may just well tell the miss-informed stormer. The students who want to learn pretty dance may stay, while other who want to learn martial art may leave.

I don't think dojo storming is a good thing. War is a bad thing too. But war happens all the time. Even as we speaking. One has to learn how to deal with it.

Roosvelt Freeman wrote: I think Aikido is the harmony way of MAKING peace. If there is no confilcts, what's the need of Aikido? I may think it's a real test of your Aikido.

You shouldnt make a conflict and then solve it. There are plenty of conflicts out there everyday without us making our own.

I think dojo storming is stupid, from what i've read about it on this thread. Aikido is traditionally not competetive and it should be kept that way. If you want to compete with another practitioner or teacher then you should take a style of aikido that practices competition, or just another competetive style period.

I love to compete but to me.. competition or calling someone out just shouldnt be a part of aikido.

What defines someone as a martial expert? How do you know that they are?

How do you define aikido as "effective"? or what is "martially effective"? How do you test it? How do you know when it "works" or is "good"?

When is aikido dancing and when is it martial? What is the criteria?

Are you equating war to dojo storming? I don't understand the point of the analogy if so.

I'd say an aikido instructor is an expert at the teaching methodology of aikido...not a "martial expert", as such he teaches budo using the methodology of aikido to do so.

If the students make the rules...then what if they are incogruent to the dojo's rules, etthics, or values? In most places they are asked to leave, or voluntarily move on to other things. Doesn't require storming.

BJJ defines "effectiveness" quite well. They have an fairly established set of criteria for "gameness" and rolling in which someone can judge martial effectiveness...again, based on the agreed upon criteria. So I would submit, the yes, you can effectively "dojo storm" in BJJ and I do it all the time when I go to a BJJ dojo and train. I can measure myself against the instructor and other students quite easily. Again, within the criteria they establish.

I think aikido is a whole other matter as it is purely budo in methodology and practice. Yoshinkan guys seem to have a good measure to test there effectiveness.

However, if you are successful in BJJ or yoshinkan aikido, you may not still be a great "martially". It would again depend on your definition of that.

On the criteria of being martially effective, i probably come out on the scale fairly high, as I am a Combat ready, airborne ranger, expert marksmen, physically fit, combatives instructor, ready to go to war kinda guy. That is my criteria for being "martially successful".

Yet sadly, I am a brown belt for many years in aikido, and a blue bet in BJJ. I can easily defeat all my instructors in battle or conflict. Saotome Sensei, Jimmy Sorentino...The Gracies...all of them! No problem! Based on MY Criteria of "martial effectiveness I would consider most of them a failures as none of them have the skills that I do.

Yet I consider that they all are more skilled than I, and I have much to learn from them in the pursuits of my empty hand martial studies.

What does this have to do with being a so-called "martial expert" have to do with budo, aikido, BJJ or any other empty hand martial art?

NOTHING. It is all a romantic fantasy designed to appeal to your ego and distract you from the real reasons to study martial arts for most people.

"Martial effectiveness" is a very interesting subject to me (as you can tell I get emotional about it!)

To me martial effectiveness requires that I can fire my weapon, clear it, load it, and fire it again under combat stress. It requires me to enter a building at night with full combat load after a 12 mile road march with my NVGs on, trip on the crap on the floor, go down, and get jumped by an enemy and be able to roll with him, maintain my cool, and hold him until my buddy can but stroke him. It requires me to be able to calm down a irrate man at a check point using my interpersonal skills to resolve conflict and to keep things from escalating. It requires me to train my soldiers to always be prepared and alert. These are things I practice and prepare for regularly.

For police offficers it might be something different.

for civilians it might be other things too. Rape Prevention, Mugging prevention, conflict resolution....many scenarios.

So pick one...define the criteria, and choose the training methodology that best allows you to prepare for that, AND PLEASE test it against others that don't come from your paradigm or school. (Not storming, but cooperative training!).

I don't think that ANY of those scenarios has much to do with dojo storming, or that it would accomplish or prove anything.

It is simply a romantic notion full of clutter, ego and emotion.

Thanks for the discussion. Not trying to be a pain in the ass...but we all (me included!) make assumptions about what "martial effectiveness" is, yet we never really define it or fully develop the criteria, and it is the KEY to just about all the discussions (arguments) that we have here on aikiweb.

I wish I had all the answers, but I don't! Just lots of questions!

Kevin Leavitt wrote: To me martial effectiveness requires that I can fire my weapon, clear it, load it, and fire it again under combat stress. It requires me to enter a building at night with full combat load after a 12 mile road march with my NVGs on, trip on the crap on the floor, go down, and get jumped by an enemy and be able to roll with him, maintain my cool, and hold him until my buddy can but stroke him. It requires me to be able to calm down a irrate man at a check point using my interpersonal skills to resolve conflict and to keep things from escalating. It requires me to train my soldiers to always be prepared and alert. These are things I practice and prepare for regularly. For police offficers it might be something different. for civilians it might be other things too. Rape Prevention, Mugging prevention, conflict resolution....many scenarios.

Not that I'm saying it's a good thing to storm dojos or that Aikido is the best self defense training, but I can say that for us civilians (and for the police I know, who are supposed to adhere to "Appropriate Use of Force" policies), whatever self-defense techniques we know had better have something other than shooting people. Shooting people would definitely stop them, but given that in the US most assaults are unarmed (as we've seen in the government statistics), shooting someone who is attacking empty handed would be an inappropriate use of force and that would get the defender in trouble.

So what's appropriate for Kevin in a military situation definitely doesn't apply to us civilians, even those in law enforcement.

As for what's "martially effective," I don't know how I'd propose doing it but I would like people who say their stuff is martially effective to test it against people they don't usually work with, giving real attacks (really trying to punch in the solar plexus, for instance, and following up one technique with another instead of waiting politely to be stopped after the first technique).

Everyone doesn't need to teach a martially effective form; but anyone who says their form is martially effective should take themselves out of their comfort zone to test it out once in a while to be sure they're right.

Wendy,

Totally agree with you. I was worried that I wasn't being clear. I have concepts and ideas, but sometimes it is hard for me to get them out in a clear way that gets across the salient points.

You are emphasizing what I was trying to convey. Yes, what is martially effective for military and civilians is different. That is my point. EVERYONE, regardless of their professional status, has a different idea or criteria of what is martially effective.

Because of that, it really makes quantifying the success of a dojo storming difficult and pointless once you start really understanding your own personal goals of why you study martial arts.

Agree also on the force continum/spectrum. In the cryptic post I wrote in #28, that was my point. How do you decide in a dojo storming where to stop on that continium that is a sliding scale to determine a successful storming if two people have different views on "martially effectiveness" and two different ethical bases?

Absolutely! You should get out of your comfort zone and test it. I am advocating that in post #32. What is important though is that you really "know yourself" and develop a good criteria for what you consider as success. It is more difficult than you think.

Why, because we all have a personal idea of what our paradigm tells us is successful, and if it does not line up with reality and we don't know it...well then we are deluding ourselves.

I thought I was a really good and decent martial artist a few years back and could handle myself, that was until I moved to my new assignment and started mixing it up with a few "professionals" that showed me the light on why I was looking at things wrong.

That is wrong for ME. Not you or anyone else!

You can be successful and a good aikidoka, BJJer, shotokan guy, UFC MMA fighter, within the established rules and paradigm established within the boundaries of the values, goals, ethics, and rules of those martial arts/methodologies.

however, when you start using the words "martially effective", you open up a whole can of worms that no two people can really agree upon 100%, nor can they agree on the "sliding scale" of how you apply ethics through minimal/maximal use of force.

It really becomes personal in nature. I think this is where the internalization of your style or martial arts takes place, when you make it your own.

Sorry this is so hard to write about!

Wendy,

I guess my point is, much like yours,

1. That it is good to test yourself and your martial effectiveness. You must understand your own personal criteria of how you measure your success. It is against yourself and no one else. They may serve as uke, training aids, whatever you want to call them.

2. When you are doing that, it is just that YOURSELF. You are not testing them, they have their own success criteria for measuring themselves. IT is possible that they are testing themselves at the same time you are.

3. Therefore, dojo storming or dojo arashi, is simply an illusion that is a waste of time and clouds the real thing that is going on...not proving the others instructors value or worth, but it becomes a personal batttle of your ego and a test of your personal skills...which is selfish in nature.

To me if someone goes into anothers dojo to storm with the intent to discredit, then they are only showing their lack of understanding of not only martial arts, but are severly failing as a martial artist because they don't really understand why we study martial arts! They are an amateur.

Thanks, Kevin. I like the way this discussion is causing us to be more precise in our writing and thinking.

The Takafumi Takeno interview on Aikido Journal http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=661
explains how to test for martial effectiveness in your own dojo:

The interview quoting Takafumi Takeno on Aikido Journal wrote: At my dojo I set aside time for people to test the effectiveness of their techniques, as well as their limitations and resistance as the recipient of techniques. During such practice I tell the students not to move if their balance is not being broken, not to take falls if a lock is not well applied, and not to submit unless a technique is being done effectively.

Of course, people in the same dojo are more likely to share some of the same expectations, so that makes it easier to evaluate one's own martial effectiveness. But his description would be a good basis for an alternative to "dojo storming" that would be done by invitation to help people at both schools.

Thanks for the link Wendy. Not sure if I needed to be a subscriber to get to exactly what you are talking about as you can't read the full article if you are not a subscriber. However, I did find it to be relevant for sure!

I especially like this:

"The teacher, however, needs to modify the training method according to the type of training sought by each student. The martial feeling of aikido will diminish if everyone has to practice in the same way, while on the other hand, general practitioners may not accept training in which the martial aspects are over-emphasized. Teachers have to respond to these various aims and offer what they have accordingly. Of course, this requires a broad knowledge on the part of the teacher.

People inclined to the martial aspects of aikido obviously should adopt a more martial approach. Naturally, professionals need to pursue this kind of training. Of course, favoring that sort of training exclusively may lead to the loss of the original nature of aiki, so it's a sensitive issue."

Excerpted from:

Interview with Takafumi Takeno (02)
by Stanley Pranin
Aikido Journal #100 (1994)

I think this is dead on with what I am talking about as well. Understanding WHY you are studying and the expectations about what you want to get out of it. As Takeno Sensei points out, you must be careful because there exist a fine line.

Another note on Dojo Storming. I think some out there have began to use this term as a "good thing" meaning to go to another dojo in a non-hostile manner with the intention of sharing information/skills and breaking down the paradigms...all in the name of becoming a better martial artist.

In the MMA world they call these "throw downs" where guys will get together, establish parameters and rules, and then roll and decide who has what and to test their knowledge and skills against a "non-believer".

I believe in these training methodologies, but they are a far cry to dojo storming of old.

BUT, in the "throw downs" you still have to be cognizant that the established rules you agree to abide by may not favor your particular style or strategy. That does not necessarily invalidate your skills, just need to make sure you understand yourself and fighting really well to keep things in check and in perspective.

Also, aikido, as it is budo as practiced by most as a methodology, usually does not fare to well in these "throwdowns", as the rules tend to favor the muay thai and ground grappling genre. Something all well rounded martial artist should probably be comfortable with...BUT it does not invalidate aikido by any stretch of the imagination, as it becomes apples and oranges when you compare fighting strategies (MMA) with Budo (Aikido).

To caveat...MMA can have budo aspects and you can get some of the same benefits, but it is not the intent of MMA (the study of budo).

I am personally struggling with trying to explain to my students right now (and myself!) the importance of budo and how it differs from "fighting prowness/skill", and how it is the same.

Inevitiably you end up on conversations such as "how does it differ from dancing" and "aikido doesn't work in a real fight", and "hakama's are pointless and are tactically not sound", and "it is so deadly I can't show you for real".

These questions typically come from people that are being honest and sincere in their quest for knowledge, but are applying logic and attempting to measure success by quantifiable criteria.

I really believe that Budo is much more complicated than that.

Gotta run!

Good conversation!

Of course we could all take on the Tomiki model.

Wendy Rowe wrote: Wendy Quoted: The interview quoting Takafumi Takeno on Aikido Journal wrote: At my dojo I set aside time for people to test the effectiveness of their techniques, as well as their limitations and resistance as the recipient of techniques. During such practice I tell the students not to move if their balance is not being broken, not to take falls if a lock is not well applied, and not to submit unless a technique is being done effectively.

Sounds sensible and I have heard it many times. But, why say don't move until your balance is broken? This implies, and creates the idea, to go along with the throw after the beginning moment. Why not just say DON'T MOVE! Surely, a better test

Rupert Atkinson wrote: Sounds sensible and I have heard it many times. But, why say don't move until your balance is broken? This implies, and creates the idea, to go along with the throw after the beginning moment. Why not just say DON'T MOVE! Surely, a better test

I assumed he meant "don't fall for your uke if you don't need to," which would also imply that it's OK to try to recover your balance rather than just waiting politely to be taken down.

I'd been assuming he was talking in Japanese and it was translated, so if that's the case we'd have to ask Stan if we wanted to know the exact wording -- but that still wouldn't tell us precisely what he meant when he said it.

Your post makes me wonder whether he also might have meant that it's OK to take ukemi when you first feel your balance is broken, since at least in some cases by the time you are certain you're going down it's too late to fall well and you might get hurt.

Your post makes me wonder whether he also might have meant that it's OK to take ukemi when you first feel your balance is broken, since at least in some cases by the time you are certain you're going down it's too late to fall well and you might get hurt.

Certainly that's how we've been looking at ukemi - for us ukemi is primarily a source of defense for the uke and should be used when other options are poor, but if you can stand up rather than falling over, why not? Here of course I'm assuming that resistence has been for in the technique.

I think practiced properly, as has been said so many times by many on aikiweb, ukemi is not at all about falling over, but about maintaining your ability to recover at all times as quickly as possible. You should never, ever do anything that is not tactically sound as uke!

The only thing you have done as uke is cooperate and given nage the initial advantage to start his technique, which is his, not yours! He only knows what you are going to present, the rest is up to him. Your job is to simply be honest. Both with him and yourself.

To me, resistant or uncooperative training, as proposed by Wendy and the article she quoted changes the whole dynamic. It causes nage to work in increasingly smaller "gaps" with untelegraphed attacks, feints and change ups.

I think it is good to train this way, buuutttt! Many aikidoka, especially inexperienced ones will not know how to deal with this dynamic.

For one, uke may simply do the "grab and plant" rooting themselves strongly in one place. Lets say nage was going to do irimi nage, well he isn't now. He is probably going to kick, punch, or headbutt to get uke moving again. then, maybe uke pulls once moving, well nage is going with him and may ride uke to the ground into a mount possibly, then spin around and stand up. At least this is what an experienced person would do.

An outsider may say "hey that's not aikido...that's MMA!" Your not "doing aikido!"

Thus drawing the conclusion that aikido doesn't work! All the while you understand that you are staying within the sphere, dynamics, and principles of aikido!

On the other hand during the grab and plant an inexperienced aikidoka (nage) may continue to try and do the irimi nage to the point of trying to "will" uke into the correct ukemi. An outsider would say..."see that aikido stuff doesn't work...i'd go for double underarm hooks and clinch you to the ground!

Man ya can't win!


I really believe that it is important to explore this area, but realize that it must be kept in perspective and aikido is not so much about winning, or dealing with uncooperative partners and testing it against the skeptical, but developing yourself and understanding the relationship of yourself and how you respond to conflict and the rest of the world. If you keep this in mind, I think it is good to do this!

Superb post, Kevin.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: How do you define aikido as "effective"? or what is "martially effective"? How do you test it? How do you know when it "works" or is "good"?

-----------------Spoiler, the following is gross, graphic, offensive to some, please don't read if you don't want -----------------------------

You sond like Clinton on a stand to define what is sex? How do you define "sex"? Not. Is dry hump "sex"? Is dry hump with liquid "sex"? Not. Is dry hump to liquid on her dress "sex"? Not, Is dry hum to liquid on her skin "sex"?

Just be honest. Don't impose your paragram on others.

Roosvelt Freeman wrote: ...Just be honest. Don't impose your paragram on others.

Man, Roosvelt, for someone who says "Don't impose your paragram [paradigm?] on others," you sure do seem to be certain about what Aikido is about. How long have you been studying, and is Aikido your first martial art?

Roosvelt Freeman wrote: -----------------Spoiler, the following is gross, graphic, offensive to some, please don't read if you don't want ----------------------------- You sond like Clinton on a stand to define what is sex? How do you define "sex"? Not. Is dry hump "sex"? Is dry hump with liquid "sex"? Not. Is dry hump to liquid on her dress "sex"? Not, Is dry hum to liquid on her skin "sex"? Just be honest. Don't impose your paragram on others.

Actually, wasn't Slick Willy trying to define the word "is"?

Roosevelt,

How do you define martial effectiveness?

Your analogy I don't think is quite applicable to this situation. Could you please elaborate on how it applies, maybe I simply don't understand.

The issue that Clinton was dealing with was a "litmus" test of ethics from this standpoint. Either he did or he didn't.

The concept of Martial Effectiveness is somewhat more complicated than "sex". It is more of a sliding scale and more conceptual and subjective than what your analogy presents.

Also, how am I imposing my paradigm on others? I thought I was simply offering a viewpoint on the subject, which is the whole point of having a thread to discuss. If I have done that in anyway, please show me where so I can rectify it....it certainly is not my intent!

Gozo Shioda tested his aikido, as did Ueshiba. We all want to see how well it works. I think dojo storming is cool - just that most of us don't have the balls to do it. It's not like you're going into a primary school and beating up kids - you are going into an arena surrounded by people who won't protect you, and challanging someone who is regarded as a good martial artist. I think, good on them.

Hello....what century is this?

I think these days its a joke.

People build a dojo, they do the best they can for their students.

I've never ever heard anyone say they are the best in the world ...yet people think its ok for anyone to just come in and beat up on them.

I've no doubt that someone like mike tyson could come in one night, kick my butt, then walk out again.

Who would that benefit? me? my students? even the stormer?

Nope....no one...it would simply prop up the ego of the saddo doing it.

f someone wants a dojo that badly they can start their own and build it up through hard work and long term commitment to the students.

Now that would be cool.

D

Ian Dodkins wrote: Gozo Shioda tested his aikido, as did Ueshiba. We all want to see how well it works. I think dojo storming is cool - just that most of us don't have the balls to do it. It's not like you're going into a primary school and beating up kids - you are going into an arena surrounded by people who won't protect you, and challanging someone who is regarded as a good martial artist. I think, good on them.

I definitely second that. Let's forget about "storming". What if a sincere and polite challenge is made in your dojo, being strictly the martial skills and honor involved? No guns, no knives (hey, remove the cursing too). Because Aikido is THE Way of Harmony, taking a polite challenge is out of the question? I keep hearing stories about O-Sensei taking on different martial artists (and prevailing), but I'm yet to hear one that said that he didn't take the challenge. There was even a story I read here some time ago which stated that at one time, O-Sensei took on a challenger, and to the eyes of the challenger, Ueshiba had disappeared. O-Sensei was moving in complete sync with the challenger, so he became "invisible". It seems to me that Ueshiba did show the efficiency of Aikido to non-believers and succeeded. Perhaps he didn't go out issuing challenges, but he took them when offered (politely and honorably, I believe). Post-war, pre-war. What has changed in Aikido that somehow taking a sincere challenge is out of the question? When did Aikido stop being martial?

These are all honest questions. I'm ignorant, but I'm willing to stop being one if somebody sheds some light.

-U- (Looking for enlightment)

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Reminds me...there was a riot in the U.S. about a week ago over a KKK rally. Who won that one? The KKK that staged the rally (who most consider "Losers"), or did the guys that rioted in protest? I believe the KKK feel they won since they caused the reaction they wanted. I think the rioters feel they won because they showed the world that they are strong and will not sit by and watch such demonstrations take place in their community! So, to me, I really don't understand what dojo storming accomplishes...

Equating the testing of martial prowess to the KKK is not (whether from the side of the campaigner or the protestor) the sign of an aiki-like mind. I don't equate anyone to the KKK unless they are linked to it.

Dojo yaburi was part of the evolution of martial arts, it still is. How do you think good clubs grow? Why do you think people trained with O Sensei? Why do you think people trained with Kano and Gishin? They thought they could kick their arses and they couldn't. The opposite side of the dojo yaburi coin - good teachers prosper ... martial darwinism.