AIKIDO - The way that doesn't work! - The Series

Markus Rohde wrote: Iwama people are quit keen in keeping the old way of performing techniques alive. And of course there are many other people who care about how Ueshiba perfomed techniques, my teacher for example points out, if there is a difference between what he does and how O Sensei did it. If there is, it is for a good reason. They point is that the punching techniques were not junked by Ueshiba, he performed atemi-techniques his whole live. Indeed I never saw him kicking, but that is because he said that both feet belong on the ground.

Depends on the situation, a comment from a Daito ryu group on one of O'Sensei's challenge matches:

Igor-san, I cannot present You the source right now, but I've heard that story in 1990-ties (where Internet was not developed yet so publicly), the content was more-less like that:
once one Japanese guy challenged UESHIBA Morihei for a fight, and UESHIBA has agreed. When that guy started to prepair his best stance for the fight, UESHIBA said "OK, attack me, I'm ready" and was just standing and looking on him. The guy said, "Please, prepair yourself for the fight, I cannot attack You because You're standing totally unprotected!" - but Ueshiba did nothing and had not changed his position. The guy asked again, "Please, don't stand like that, because it is actually too much dangerous for to be attacked", but Ueshiba did nothing again. Finally after the 3rd such a request, Ueshiba has kicked his balls and came away.

Also some of his prewar students have been said to have used kicks like Rinjiro Shirata - "His atemi (including kicks) came out of nowhere, perfectly timed and dead-on." from: http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22687

and Minoru Mochizuki:

"When Tadashi Abe traveled he always carried a knife with him, this was not for his own protection, he carried it to hand to his shocked opponent, he would say "please, this is for you". Abe said that an opponent with his bare fists was no challenge, a man with a knife was "very interesting".

"According to Minoru Mochizuki...:

There was a man named Tadashi Abe who passed away recently. I had the following encounter with him when I visited the Iwama dojo to greet O-Sensei after my return to Japan when the war ended. O-Sensei was pleased to know that I had come back safely and welcomed me warmly. I stayed there over night. That night an evil-looking man with a monk-like hairstyle came to the room where I was staying and asked permission to come in. When I gave him permission this man came in.

"My name is Tadashi Abe. Sensei, could I ask you a direct question?". I told him to ask me anything. He asked if I was really studying aiki jujutsu seriously. At that time the art was not yet called aikido. When I replied I was, he said:

"Ace you really? I have heard about you, Sensei, for a long time. I heard that you have had experience in actual fighting situations. I think it is strange that a person like you feels satisfied with an art like aiki jujutsu." When I asked why he thought so he said that Ueshiba Sensei or Mr. Morhiro Saito would not be able to stand against him in a match even for three minutes because he would defeat them with one blow.

"You're quite boastful, aren't you?", I replied. "You feel confident that you can defeat Ueshiba Sensei?", I added. He said that he thought it would be easy for him to defeat Sensei and added:

"Although I have been observing Ueshiba Sensei for a long time, I don't feel like practicing an art like aiki jujutsu. I feel confident that I can defeat him with one boxing punch. I hear that you emphasize actual fighting. Is that true?"

I replied as follows:

"I have been in many street-fights but I wouldn't include them in the category of actual fighting. I have also drawn a sword and stormed the enemy camp."

Then he asked me whether or not aikido was really useful for fighting. When I replied that aikido was very useful not only for fights but also in times of war, he said my answer didn't convince him. So I suggested that he attack me and stood there telling him to come anyway he wanted. He asked me to adopt a ready stance. I told him:

"Don't say unnecessary things. There is no way for someone to defeat his enemy if he tells him what to do. Attack me as you like!"

Abe still mumbled: "Sensei, can I really strike you? Strange... You have openings everywhere..." Then he took a stance and suddenly came straight in. I dodged the blow and kicked him with my leg. He groaned and fell. I applied a resuscitation technique and massaged him.

"How can a person like you who faints when he catches a little kick last in a fight?"

"Sensei, does aikido also have kicking techniques?"

"You fool! What do you mean by such a question? We use kicking techniques or anything else. I even used artillery. Martial arts, guns and artillery are all aikido. What do you think aikido is? Do you think it involves only the twisting of hands? It is a means of war... an act of war! aikido is a fight with real swords. We use the word 'aiki' because through it we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately. Look at Sumo. After the command is given ("Miatte! Miatte!), they stand up and go at each other in a flash. That's the same as aiki. When a person suddenly faces his enemy in an mental state free from all ideas and thoughts and is instantly able to deal with him, we call that aiki. In the old days it was called 'aiki no jutsu'. Therefore, artillery or anything else becomes aiki." "Is that so... I think I understand." "If you still don't understand, come to me again." After that he was afraid of me and bowed to me from far off. When I went to Europe he asked me to take him as well.
"
from Aikido Sangenkai

Igor Vojnović wrote: Depends on the situation, a comment from a Daito ryu group on one of O'Sensei's challenge matches: Igor-san, I cannot present You the source right now, but I've heard that story in 1990-ties (where Internet was not developed yet so publicly), the content was more-less like that: once one Japanese guy challenged UESHIBA Morihei for a fight, and UESHIBA has agreed. When that guy started to prepair his best stance for the fight, UESHIBA said "OK, attack me, I'm ready" and was just standing and looking on him. The guy said, "Please, prepair yourself for the fight, I cannot attack You because You're standing totally unprotected!" - but Ueshiba did nothing and had not changed his position. The guy asked again, "Please, don't stand like that, because it is actually too much dangerous for to be attacked", but Ueshiba did nothing again. Finally after the 3rd such a request, Ueshiba has kicked his balls and came away. Also some of his prewar students have been said to have used kicks like Rinjiro Shirata - "His atemi (including kicks) came out of nowhere, perfectly timed and dead-on." from: http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22687 and Minoru Mochizuki: "When Tadashi Abe traveled he always carried a knife with him, this was not for his own protection, he carried it to hand to his shocked opponent, he would say "please, this is for you". Abe said that an opponent with his bare fists was no challenge, a man with a knife was "very interesting". "According to Minoru Mochizuki...: There was a man named Tadashi Abe who passed away recently. I had the following encounter with him when I visited the Iwama dojo to greet O-Sensei after my return to Japan when the war ended. O-Sensei was pleased to know that I had come back safely and welcomed me warmly. I stayed there over night. That night an evil-looking man with a monk-like hairstyle came to the room where I was staying and asked permission to come in. When I gave him permission this man came in. "My name is Tadashi Abe. Sensei, could I ask you a direct question?". I told him to ask me anything. He asked if I was really studying aiki jujutsu seriously. At that time the art was not yet called aikido. When I replied I was, he said: "Ace you really? I have heard about you, Sensei, for a long time. I heard that you have had experience in actual fighting situations. I think it is strange that a person like you feels satisfied with an art like aiki jujutsu." When I asked why he thought so he said that Ueshiba Sensei or Mr. Morhiro Saito would not be able to stand against him in a match even for three minutes because he would defeat them with one blow. "You're quite boastful, aren't you?", I replied. "You feel confident that you can defeat Ueshiba Sensei?", I added. He said that he thought it would be easy for him to defeat Sensei and added: "Although I have been observing Ueshiba Sensei for a long time, I don't feel like practicing an art like aiki jujutsu. I feel confident that I can defeat him with one boxing punch. I hear that you emphasize actual fighting. Is that true?" I replied as follows: "I have been in many street-fights but I wouldn't include them in the category of actual fighting. I have also drawn a sword and stormed the enemy camp." Then he asked me whether or not aikido was really useful for fighting. When I replied that aikido was very useful not only for fights but also in times of war, he said my answer didn't convince him. So I suggested that he attack me and stood there telling him to come anyway he wanted. He asked me to adopt a ready stance. I told him: "Don't say unnecessary things. There is no way for someone to defeat his enemy if he tells him what to do. Attack me as you like!" Abe still mumbled: "Sensei, can I really strike you? Strange... You have openings everywhere..." Then he took a stance and suddenly came straight in. I dodged the blow and kicked him with my leg. He groaned and fell. I applied a resuscitation technique and massaged him. "How can a person like you who faints when he catches a little kick last in a fight?" "Sensei, does aikido also have kicking techniques?" "You fool! What do you mean by such a question? We use kicking techniques or anything else. I even used artillery. Martial arts, guns and artillery are all aikido. What do you think aikido is? Do you think it involves only the twisting of hands? It is a means of war... an act of war! aikido is a fight with real swords. We use the word 'aiki' because through it we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately. Look at Sumo. After the command is given ("Miatte! Miatte!), they stand up and go at each other in a flash. That's the same as aiki. When a person suddenly faces his enemy in an mental state free from all ideas and thoughts and is instantly able to deal with him, we call that aiki. In the old days it was called 'aiki no jutsu'. Therefore, artillery or anything else becomes aiki." "Is that so... I think I understand." "If you still don't understand, come to me again." After that he was afraid of me and bowed to me from far off. When I went to Europe he asked me to take him as well. " from Aikido Sangenkai

pre war fight stories, pre war students who were already trained fighters. guns and artillery, hmmm... Just like Shioda using his back, if you are good enough, i guess your arse could be a weapon, aiki-arse . I could even be an aiki-ice cream eater. imho generalization could go too far sometimes. Nice story about Osensei kicking someone in the balls but afaik, O sensei was never famous for his kicking technique unlike Fong Sai Yuk with his 'shadowless kick'.

Kong Seng Yuan wrote: pre war fight stories, pre war students who were already trained fighters. guns and artillery, hmmm... Just like Shioda using his back, if you are good enough, i guess your arse could be a weapon, aiki-arse . I could even be an aiki-ice cream eater. imho generalization could go too far sometimes. Nice story about Osensei kicking someone in the balls but afaik, O sensei was never famous for his kicking technique unlike Fong Sai Yuk with his 'shadowless kick'.

Only the one with O'Sensei was prewar and actually both prewar and postwar students were trained, mostly in Judo or Kendo of coursel, via school curriculum. Some others like Mochizuki were more heavily trained. The fact that O'Sensei wasn't "known" for a certain aspect of fighting in the conceptual sense as in other martial arts doesn't mean that he didn't apply those aspects when they suited him. Not to mention certain principles of Sokaku Takeda's Daito ryu:

Sokaku Takeda's Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu has three principles:

1. Don't stand in front of your enemy.
2. Crush him down to your feet, don't throw him away.
3. Use your legs to finish him.

Igor Vojnović wrote: [i]Igor-san, I cannot present You the source right now, but I've heard that story in 1990-ties (

That*'s the problem...
It's all storys.

With regards to Tadashi Abei, I also heard that he was a good fighter, and in his book he showed a lot of atemi techniques, including kicks.
But I practiced karate for some years, and I must say that the kicks are poorly executed.

Igor Vojnović wrote: Use your legs to finish him.

Normally in daito ryu the legs are used to control uke, not to stomp him to dead.

Markus Rohde wrote: That*'s the problem... It's all storys.

I really don't see the problem, two of them are from credible sources, John Stevens and Minoru Mochizuki, the one with O'Sensei wasn't even about the kick it was more about the attitude with which he fought. In fact all of those stories were more about the attitude of fighting rather than "what is and what isn't" Aikido. But I get your point, everything should be always taken with a grain of salt.

With regards to Tadashi Abei, I also heard that he was a good fighter, and in his book he showed a lot of atemi techniques, including kicks. But I practiced karate for some years, and I must say that the kicks are poorly executed.

Which book?

Normally in daito ryu the legs are used to control uke, not to stomp him to dead.

It depends on who you ask, I got the info from here:
Hisa-den Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu

plus the version of sankyo done in my dojo is basically taking uke down, kicking him in the head, then applying sankyo. Of course you don't actually kick him in the head you just mimic it.

Igor Vojnović wrote: Which book?

https://es.scribd.com/document/11512...-Japonais-1958

Starting at p. 43.

Igor Vojnović wrote: I really don't see the problem, two of them are from credible sources, John Stevens

Maybe, but If you read his book "Abundant Peace" you know that there are some storys in it, that no one can really believe.

Igor Vojnović wrote: taking uke down, kicking him in the head,

Original finishing technique was controlling the opponent
with the legs while having the hands free for cutting the throat or taking the head....
Finishing with a kick and than applying sankyo makes no sense

Markus Rohde wrote: Maybe, but If you read his book "Abundant Peace" you know that there are some storys in it, that no one can really believe.

I didn't read that book but yes I have heard of some of the more mythical stories.

Original finishing technique was controlling the opponent with the legs while having the hands free for cutting the throat or taking the head....

OK then.

Finishing with a kick and than applying sankyo makes no sense

Well it's not finishing, the kick is basically an atemi. Similar to when Saito goes here with a punch, instead of a punch we go with a kick. The hand placement and movement is a bit different of course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m75lQ1oK0CU

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: https://es.scribd.com/document/11512...-Japonais-1958 Starting at p. 43.

Thanks Demetrio, the back kicks remind me of Savate.

Igor Vojnović wrote: Thanks Demetrio, the back kicks remind me of Savate.

Probably because the demonstrator is a French student of Abe, so the kicks have more of a Savate flavor than of Japanese Karate.

I see Saito being mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD78wnhje9s

go to 5:45

And IIRC there was at least a kicking technique in Budo Renshu.

Igor Vojnović wrote: Well it's not finishing, the kick is basically an atemi. Similar to when Saito goes here with a punch, instead of a punch we go with a kick

You can do that, there are lots of possibilities for kicking, for knees, ellbows, fists.
I just said I never saw Ueshiba doing kicks, atemi with his fists a lot.

In Budo Renshu, I couldn't find any drawing with a kick.

Markus Rohde wrote: In Budo Renshu, I couldn't find any drawing with a kick.

It's in the explanation of technique #68 in this edition. Translators: Chikako Tsuji & Gerard Blaize.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: It's in the explanation of technique #68 in this edition. Translators: Chikako Tsuji & Gerard Blaize.

Yes thank you, I have a copy of this edition.
Its also an atemi, but not for finishing.
In the soden techniques of the Takumakai there are a lot of kicking atemi.
Video

First, I think there is always validity to the generalized comment that martial training performed inexpertly may not have the intended effect. Ask any judo or jujutsu player how many techniques they chain together when she plays... It is probably more interesting to note that aikido people may not understand the actual success ratio of applied techniques.

Second, I happen to believe that aiki is not what is trained in aikido. Y'all know this by now. For me, the problem is that aikido looks to technique to generate "aiki" and that is also the [arguable] difference between an aikido arm bar and a jujutsu arm bar - at some point, we use "aiki" to generate our movement. The problem is that jujutsu can be effective without aiki. This leaves some with a, "grass is greener on the other side," perspective - why not change instruction of an arm bar from modern aikido to the more effective jujutsu? Most of us cannot perform the aikido waza the way they were originally instructed. Demetrio makes a comment that I think is important - who cares what the old man did? It is a valid point and something that should contribute to the way you practice.

Aiki is not aikido. Self-defense is still fighting. If I gouge out my partner's eyes and perform the most terrible nikyo ever witnessed, is that still nikyo? At some point, we need to be critical of why a technique is (or is not) successful.

Jon Reading wrote: who cares what the old man did? It is a valid point and something that should contribute to the way you practice.

If the old man would have done just normal jujutsu armbars, we would not know about him or Aikido, so maybe we should care.

Here's an episode about uchi kaiten nage

Igor Vojnović wrote: Only the one with O'Sensei was prewar and actually both prewar and postwar students were trained, mostly in Judo or Kendo of coursel, via school curriculum. Some others like Mochizuki were more heavily trained. The fact that O'Sensei wasn't "known" for a certain aspect of fighting in the conceptual sense as in other martial arts doesn't mean that he didn't apply those aspects when they suited him. Not to mention certain principles of Sokaku Takeda's Daito ryu: Sokaku Takeda's Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu has three principles: 1. Don't stand in front of your enemy. 2. Crush him down to your feet, don't throw him away. 3. Use your legs to finish him.

daito ryu principles are fine but if u read what i wrote earlier, and despite common knowledge, i don't believe he was teaching exactly what he taught in pre war/ww2 days after 1950. Osensei stated that "the secret of Aikido is not how you move your feet, it is how you move your mind".

Kong Seng Yuan wrote: daito ryu principles are fine but if u read what i wrote earlier, and despite common knowledge, i don't believe he was teaching exactly what he taught in pre war/ww2 days after 1950. Osensei stated that "the secret of Aikido is not how you move your feet, it is how you move your mind".

And if in the process of moving your mind you happen to move your foot towards someone else's body to perform atemi how does that change anything?

Jumping back into this conversation...

I think the general idea is that aikido should have something *unique* (or at least demonstrably different) from sister arts. As a reference to the comments about movement using the mind, there are several varied references to elevation of body power (notably internal power) using the mind/body connection. Depending on who you ask, this can be a number of things. In tai chi, "Yi leads qi. Qi leads movement." I think O Sensei has a few quotes similar to this, advocating for the mind to move energy and energy to move the body.

In answer to the general question, whether you move this way with your hand or your foot, the comments implies that you should move using mind/body connection. This is a rare way to move, so the effect of the movement should be notably different than unconnected movement.

Jon Reading wrote: This is a rare way to move, so the effect of the movement should be notably different than unconnected movement.

Rare and not readily apparent to an outside observer. The effects however, are obvious and viscerally felt by your partner.

Ron

Markus Rohde wrote: That*'s the problem... It's all storys. But I practiced karate for some years, and I must say that the kicks are poorly executed. .

Hi Markus,
There is also a second booklet by Abbe about nikkajo.

Well,
from a martial viewpoint, many modern karate kicks are poorly executed. They then create and give a feeling of false strength and are attractive to look at. Good for business.

Egami was perplexed how easily the two old men, be it his own karate-teacher, be it O-Sensei, could drive him around, him the thoroughly trained iron hard, with seemingly no effort. That made him rethink and change everything for the better. From then on he was looking for pointed sliding aiki effectiveness, not for strength in execution. Technique became second.
Good Savate never had to fear Karate or any other stile. But for westerners Nakayama and his competitive stile and others alike were more easily understood and thus became widespread. Westerners and especially Americans have a knack for the athletic touch….
Oh, and by the way, Shorinji Kempo's kicks do not look overwhelmingly either, but have you ever received one? People have died in normal training, I was reliably told, though they are very careful there with their partners.
A good kick or another technique may look like nothing, you may not even become aware of it…
By the way, our common teacher was a fantastic kicker, when he was younger, though he only did it openly, as soon as someone like Tada or Noro afforded this. Noro could have pierced you with his naked toes…
No limits … but self-restriction and self-control , an all important part in real martial arts.
Martial arts in their strictest sense are dangerous without this, and after you ran your stomach into a knife someone might say," oh, look! the man has guts …."

Best,
Bernd

Igor Vojnović wrote: ... why would you want to put something as complicated as aiki into something that already works on the good old basic physics of leverage and gravity?

Jon Reading wrote: ...I happen to believe that aiki is not what is trained in aikido. Y'all know this by now. For me, the problem is that aikido looks to technique to generate "aiki" and that is also the [arguable] difference between an aikido arm bar and a jujutsu arm bar - at some point, we use "aiki" to generate our movement. The problem is that jujutsu can be effective without aiki.

Ron Ragusa wrote: The prevailing view among aiki first proponents is no, you can't develop aiki via the practice of technique. Personally, I think that's just a marketing gimmick. There are many ways of training mind and body to work in unison in order to develop aiki, the study of aikido being just one. Ron

I could say that the utility of the jujutsu techniques in Aikido (which is what they all are) provide a base template so it can become clear in contrast when aiki is or is not present in performing the technique. Without that essentially fixed base of technique for comparison, however, the student would really be totally at sea in trying to develop what aikido strives for - which is aiki. Whether the teacher can perform it with aiki is a different question from whether they can point to what the student is doing or should be doing to perform it themselves.

In my experience Ikeda (and Hooker IMO) unmistakably could do the former, but I never found they could well-articulate for students how they did what was being done. This is not surprising - even for them. Human dynamic performance and stability is notoriously unconscious and reflexive. It is hard to get at with ordinary conscious perception and description. You have to take step back and not just feel what you feel in the action, but in a sense, watch yourself feeling and acting in a way that finds the "blind spot" and uses other tools to fill in what is not being seen in ordinary perceptions.

Nothing they have taught me is in anyway inconsistent with my own account, which takes a more technical, but also I believe a more demonstrable view. By this I mean that it permits one to point at and show the student first what they ARE actually doing (mostly unconsciously) "You're doing THIS - don't do that." Then you describe what they SHOULD be doing, as you then show them and let them feel: "Do THIS - and not THAT." But having a conceptual template to provide allows the student the same "step back" to help their own training and the developing coherence of their own structure.

To address the difference conceptually, I have come to sum it up this way: I agree that most jujutsu (including judo) is largely leverage, coupled forces and gravity. Coupled forces, judo's specialite' de la maison -- opposite and offset linear forces (^-v) -- basically act like a leverage dynamically without a fixed fulcrum, or you can view the inertia of the target serving as a quasi-fulcrum in motion - if you want a slightly technical description. Leverage in this sense takes a structure, isolates and focuses force on it to make it fail locally, whether at a joint or at the support on the ground .

Aiki -- unlike linear ideas like force-couples or leverage -- forms a field. Not a field of woo-woo or ghosties. It is a mechanical field - a field of stress, more specifically of torque stress. Such a field has both certain mandatory physical and neural feedback conditions to create it, to maintain it, deploy it and manipulate it. Those conditions we call aiki.

Like all fields it has many apparently non-intuitive effects or actions that happen in ways and places in which the manner of action is deeply unclear -- like magnetic force. In contrast to the isolating, focused power of leverage, a field forms a large but relatively diffuse potential spread though all connected structures and which is coherent throughout its reach. Its power flows in a concentrated manner only through those parts that lose their coherence with the field.

A field of stress, like any other field, allows action to result anywhere within the coherent field. An electrical circuit grounds its power through even the strayest of small connections -- if that connection interacts with the field and has a clear conducting path to ground. Such stray contacts can be immensely destructive if the power within the the field flows, especially through any weak or unsuitable path that does not make itself coherent with the field.

The human body has reflexive structural organs that may be analogized to circuit breakers (muscle spindles & Golgi tendon organs) which will involuntarily sacrifice stability to save physical structure when they sense a potential has developed for such a catastrophically ill-suited grounding of the mechanical field power through exposed parts of the structure. Tripping those breakers in succession we call kokyu tanden ho and with results that have all the naive mystery of magnetic levitation - despite the rigorous explanation available for the action.

Leverage within the body of the aiki practitioner is antithetical to the development of the field effect that aiki manipulates. Leverage has counter-posed forces or rotations. This internal opposition of stress breaks the coherence that defines the field; it stops the torque stress from being communicated coherently through the structure. The stress field collapses. In a target, their use of leverage amplifies their vulnerability for the same reason. This collapse can concentrate at the point of opposed force or rotations any stress that did develop in the field.

Conversely, aiki-on-aiki allows a fully coherent field or circuit between people. This is not necessarily immediately damaging to either. If the path to ground is well-suited and coherent, the circuit can conduct its power without any harm, and can do significant work. But it also allows a contest of relative skill over who has better command of both their own coherence and the diffuse effects of the field between them, and which can better exploit any vulnerabilities created by even slight losses of coherence in the target at any point in their structure. If that happens, the power potential of the much larger stress field they are capable of managing can flow like a dam break.

Jon Reading wrote: I happen to believe that aiki is not what is trained in aikido. Y'all know this by now. For me, the problem is that aikido looks to technique to generate "aiki" and that is also the [arguable] difference between an aikido arm bar and a jujutsu arm bar - at some point, we use "aiki" to generate our movement. The problem is that jujutsu can be effective without aiki. This leaves some with a, "grass is greener on the other side," perspective - why not change instruction of an arm bar from modern aikido to the more effective jujutsu? Most of us cannot perform the aikido waza the way they were originally instructed.

Ah ha ... someone else is of the same opinion. We have a lot of work to do to change people's minds. My book was written with the idea to develop aiki- it's about looking for and developing training ideas that might get you (and me) along the way. The online version is now more comprehensive as I occasionally add stuff.

Something to consider - when Ueshiba junked Jujutsu, how did he come to decide upon the waza in Aikido we have today? I know his son created the syllabus we have today, but that was based upon what Ueshiba was doing. I have my own thoughts ...

Jon Reading wrote: For me, the problem is that aikido looks to technique to generate "aiki"

Aiki, in my view, is a product of mind/body coordination and technique is a way of focusing the application of aiki rather than a way of generating it. You can generate and apply aiki without doing any technique at all.

Ron

That's the rub, right?

The problem is that either you can manifest aiki (albeit the quality can vary), or you can't. With this ultimate outcome in our personal training, it's about finding the path to manifest aiki. It's also about holding ourselves accountable to a metric of accomplishment to provide critical feedback and drive change. Even if that critical feedback is negative.

Thought exercise - if everyone in your dojo performs ikkyo omote in a manner that feels similar (albeit varying quality of skill) it leaves us with a question, is everyone in the dojo manifesting aiki? Or, is no one in the dojo manifesting aiki? Everyone with whom I have worked out who had aiki felt materially different. Even within a dojo, you can feel the difference between students training in IP and students who are not.

This threads connects a couple of issues because I think at its base level, we recognize the limitations of aikido waza. I don't agree with the premise of taking something and calling it aikido. I like jujutsu and it is has several good arts within it. I like aiki better, which is why I choose aikido. Now we can also talk about aiki, because that should be the separator in our movement from other arts.

I think instead of being critical of the skill, we should instead consider training body movements. They are not the same - it is also why people who move with full body connection feel different.
If we get academic for the moment, we all know that the curriculum we have is not from M. Ueshiba, but rather largely from his early student base and his son. To some extent, I happen to believe that Ueshiba was probably not teaching precisely what we would call kata (waza), but rather more in line with applied body movement (waza). There are many citations of students indicating that early dojo life was not kata-oriented. The difference is that Ueshiba was moving with full body connection (i.e. aiki) and eventually the student body did not possess that skill. The [successful] outcome of the movement could be contrived and that contrivance was the evolution of aikido. We now have this period of time where other martial arts can test our stuff and we become limited to the conditions of the contrivance. I don't like "right" or "wrong", because to each his own. But, we should not ignore this gap.

In a contemporary thread, Cliff made an interesting comment criticizing kata instruction from Ueshiba regarding rear attacks. I don't think he is necessarily wrong - Ueshiba was showing what he could do with respect to rear attacks. Except I would change one word, "he" should be "we". Ueshiba was showing what "we" can do if we properly train aiki. I happen to believe the old guys who said technique didn't matter are dead on - when you move with aiki your entire world expands and you can experiment with any attack.

My earlier comment regarding Ueshiba is a challenge. If we train to understand what he did, can we do what he did? Or, do we instead spend time nit-picking the reasons why not?