Popularity of Aikido

Michael Gallagher wrote: Now she tells me.

Actually, if Aikido was really common, it would lose alot of appeal for me. I don't like doing trendy things.

Jeanne

Jean de Rochefort wrote: Michael Gallagher wrote: My equation is like this: No students=dead art; students=alive art. What keeps an art alive is the act of being pased from generation to generation; if that doesn't happen, it dies. If you say so ......

All right then -- you tell me: how is it anyone on this forum knows anything about Aikido? If it's not because O Sensei and his family and their students made a point of teachng it to people who have gone on to teach other people, then how did we end up with an estimated worldwide population of 1.5 million Aikido practitioners?

If O Sensei had said to his family, "Aikido is for us and a very select few, no one else -- it is too precious to be entrusted to the rifraf," do you think anyone reading this forum would know it even existed? Hey, would this forum, Aikiweb, even exist? And if it had ended up in the custody of a handful of old men, what would have happened after they died?

Well? You tell me.

Michael Gallagher wrote: All right then -- you tell me: how is it anyone on this forum knows anything about Aikido? If it's not because O Sensei and his family and their students made a point of teachng it to people who have gone on to teach other people, then how did we end up with an estimated worldwide population of 1.5 million Aikido practitioners? If O Sensei had said to his family, "Aikido is for us and a very select few, no one else -- it is too precious to be entrusted to the rifraf," do you think anyone reading this forum would know it even existed? Hey, would this forum, Aikiweb, even exist? And if it had ended up in the custody of a handful of old men, what would have happened after they died? Well? You tell me.

This is the response to the comment I made?

I think you folks ought to reread the statements I made to see where you digressed from the point.

I think Jean has a point. If Aikido is dying or started to die out at some point in the future, then trying to popularise it would be the wrong thing to do because it would inevitably become watered down to suit people who would otherwise not do it.

Jean de Rochefort wrote: This is the response to the comment I made? I think you folks ought to reread the statements I made to see where you digressed from the point.

Fine.

Here is the comment you made in post #44:

"If that makes sense to you, ok. But, it doesn't make sense to me. I see this equation: No students=dead art. Not the real art=dead art. You simply have a mutation of the original art...but the art is dead either way."

Where I disagree is with the use of "dead art." Obviously, you have a definition that is different from mine. Mine is very simple: A martial art is dead if it is not passed on to subsequent generations. When the last adhererants die, it is gone: DEAD. Lost forever. Consequently, to keep an art alive, it must be taught. That is all there is to it. You may think you have the truest, purest understanding of Aikido, with the higest claiber of techniqes, but if you don't teach it to others, then it dies when you die. Fortunately, there is no immediate danger of this with Aikido given that there over a million pracitioners worldwide. But the danger is there, even if remote.

I think that proposition is pretty straightforward; it's not rocket surgery. What about it does not make sense?

Alex Lawrence wrote: I think Jean has a point. If Aikido is dying or started to die out at some point in the future, then trying to popularise it would be the wrong thing to do because it would inevitably become watered down to suit people who would otherwise not do it.

I don't agree with that; I do not accept it. If Aikido dies out at some point in the future, it will be because people are not teaching the art. After it is gone, it is GONE. Goodbye. A curiosity in books on the martial arts, but impossible to find. Then what good is it to anybody?

If you don't want to "water down" Aikido, don't. As long as you teach whatever you want to teach, and produce instructors who can pass it on, then it won't die.

Michael Gallagher wrote: I don't agree with that; I do not accept it. If Aikido dies out at some point in the future, it will be because people are not teaching the art. After it is gone, it is GONE. Goodbye. A curiosity in books on the martial arts, but impossible to find. Then what good is it to anybody? If you don't want to "water down" Aikido, don't. As long as you teach whatever you want to teach, and produce instructors who can pass it on, then it won't die.

If they're not interested in what you're teaching, what you are teaching will either have to change so they are interested or die out.

Alex Lawrence wrote: If they're not interested in what you're teaching .....

"They" can vote with their feet. But those who are interested can and do stay. And getting back to the original posters concern, the Aikido class I'm in has had a pretty good turnout the last few times I've gone. Of course, I only go once a week, and it could be a ghost town the other two. But on Monday, the mat was pretty crowded.

..... what you are teaching will either have to change so they are interested or die out.

There's plenty of 'traditional' karate out there in spite of the rise of sport karate schools. FMA, Thai Boxing, and SE Asian systems seem to be gaining traction without having to modified. So it's not that different MA don't attract people. But someone's got to be willing to teach it, or there's no opportunity for anyone to do it.

Michael Gallagher wrote: I think that proposition is pretty straightforward; it's not rocket surgery. What about it does not make sense?

Agreed, it is so simple. I don't understand why there's question.

If you accept: "That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet."

Then you must accept that names are arbitrary designations intended to denote a certain idea--that's the gist of the line. If, we define Aikido as A, then, through dilution, A devolops into B, we can continue to call it Aikido, but is ain't Aikido...A is dead.

I hope this helps you understand your misinterpretation of the original post which implied this concept.

Jean de Rochefort wrote: ...... If, we define Aikido as A, then, through dilution, A devolops into B .....

What do you mean by "dilution"?

O Sensei allowed a certain amount of wiggle room in passing down Aikido; every source I've come across makes points about how personal Aikido is and how it is supposed to be evolving. In fact, in "Essecne of Aikido," John Stevens quoted O Sensei as saying, "change and adaptability are the essence of Aikido." So two people from different lineages looking at each other might think the other is "diluted" when, in fact, neither is.

That said, there are things that O Sensei did consider important and you don't have any wiggle room on those points; in that instance, going too far way from them would be disrepectful to O Sesnei and Aikido if that's the art you want to pursue.

.... we can continue to call it Aikido, but is ain't Aikido...

In which case, don't even bother calling it Aikido.

Michael Gallagher wrote: What do you mean by "dilution"?

Think about it...that's what I've been saying from the beginning.

Jean de Rochefort wrote: Think about it...that's what I've been saying from the beginning.

The only way "popularizing" Aikido leads to "dilution" is if the person doing the popularizing decides lazy Americans are too dumb to handle the "real deal" and changes. You want to argue this has already happened, fine, but it's not necessary. The old East West Academy, where I trained in Kali, Wing Chun, and Tai Chi from 1997 until its closing in 2003, didn't appear to have watered down anything; it offered Thai Boxing, and there's nothing watered down or diluted about that!

So I don't see how popularizing/commercialization inevitably leads to dilution/death if the head instructor is careful not to do that.

Michael Gallagher wrote: 1)You want to argue this has already happened, fine, but it's not necessary. ...2)didn't appear to have watered down anything; it offered Thai Boxing, and there's nothing watered down or diluted about that!

1) That's the problem! I don't want to argue it. Nowhere did I say that it has happened anywhere specifically. I only said,"generally, that's what happens to an art that's been 'popularized.'"...such as in most TKD schools and Judo sport schools.

2)What makes you think you're an authority to designate what's been watered down? Because you've trained in the current form of the art doesn't mean you know what the art was originally anymore than what I know Aikido was under the direct tutelage of Shioda or Ueshiba.

Who cares about popularity. It is what it is.

Jean de Rochefort wrote: 1) That's the problem! I don't want to argue it. Nowhere did I say that it has happened anywhere specifically. I only said,"generally, that's what happens to an art that's been 'popularized.'"...such as in most TKD schools and Judo sport schools.

Well, then it's a bit late in the game to worry about it because Aikido as been "popularized" for at least 55 years now, depending on what your starting point is! OTOH, since watering down seems to be associating with sport forms of TKD and Judo, that is not a hazzard with most Aikido lineages; Tomiki ryu, I don't know what's going on there.

2)What makes you think you're an authority to designate what's been watered down? .....

What makes you an authority on whether TKD and Judo have been watered down? Which is off topic. I mentioned the Thai Boxing program because it is a full contact system and Guro Kevin and Guro Andy always desribed it as the hardest thing you can do to your body. So I'm guessing that neither Arjan Surachai Siriute nor the instructors under him (including Kru Kevin Seaman) changed or dilluted anything just to make Thai Boxing more popular.

If that's correct, the point is not that I am an authority on what has been watered down but that "watering down" is not inevitable if the instructors take care. Which was my point.

Then again, I have little training in TKD and none in Judo, so I can't say anything from first hand experince. How about you?

Because you've trained in the current form of the art doesn't mean you know what the art was originally anymore than what I know Aikido was under the direct tutelage of Shioda or Ueshiba.

No, but again, the sources I have read indicated "Ueshiba" didn't want Aikido to be frozen in any one particular state -- he wanted it to change and evolve over time. So not only do either of us know what Aikido's original form was, O Sensei probably wouldn't want us to.

competition doesn't necessarily dilute an art. It must be kept in the proper perspective though.

Popularity can be a good thing and a bad thing. Look at yoga, for instance, it became very popular in the last 10 years. Certainly there were mcyoga studios that popped up all over the place, along with magazines, and certification seminars etc.

You know see alot of those trendy/fad things fading, and the core of yoga is doing just fine. I believe it has probably benefited from the popularity.

I believe if Aikido ever took off big time that there certainly would be alot of mcdojos pop up, the question is not if the art is being diluted by those that come along and claim expertise, and teach, but whether or not your EGO can survive the trend!

In the long run, those who stick to the core and quality/long term dojos will be better fulfilled and will only be better for having survived the popularization.