100% Cooperative Training

There's one term used that I have always been miffed by. Cooperative training.

It seems to me like a term that sneaked in the back door and became a colloquialism. The use for which is, well I don't know, I don't see any use at all.

Rather than use to describe or differentiate between types of training if I was asked about it by some inquiring mind I would say all training is 100% cooperative or else it is not good training.

Based on this I would then go on to say that nearly all injuries and faults come from the avoidance of this fact.

Thus this also means to me that there is and cannot be such a thing as uncooperative training for with uncooperation there is no training.

This I see as true in all sports, all arts, across the board.

All sports and all arts have rules. You agree to those rules and thus 100% cooperation is in play. People within those sports who break the rules are called cheats or otherwise everytime it happens it's called a foul.

The same goes for training. I have never seen any training where people didn't agree to what they were going to practice. Those who can't agree then don't practice, therefore no practice.

So we have rules and we have agreement. When agreed to 100% then we have a game, a go ahead, something to do together.

In AIkido there are different styles and even different ways practiced by different dojos. Each has their set of rules and principles and techniques etc. Thus the rules of their game is set up. Those that agree 100% then train accordingly.

No cooperation, no together, no anything.

Within this framework of training there would be of course a gradient of increased difficulty. Once again 100% agreed upon and indeed expected. Still no change in the fact of complete cooperation within that framework.

A shihan stands up and tells five students to attack at will how they want. The students know him, know that's within the rules, know he is capable. He in turn knows they will do so. We have 100% cooperation once again and hopefully a good demo.

Uncooperation in training therefore to me is a myth.

Anyone being uncooperative therefore shouldn't be there.

Food for thought?

Regards.G.

I usually prefer the term "aliveness" as used here.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: I usually prefer the term "aliveness" as used here.

Being that this is an aikido forum, how much aliveness can you get in aikido training before it ceases to be aikido? The form in which it is practiced and has been practiced since the beginning seems to only leave room for so much aliveness in the training. There will be this constant debate in the aikido world about movement practice vs. fighting practice. IMO it's a hard case to make that aikido was ever intended to be fighting practice. Though I think there's plenty of room to stretch in that direction within the boundries of the practice as we know it. You can only go so far before it ceases to be what it is. Thoughts?

...then, when do we begin to train sensitivity and response or sensitivity and appropriate response cause the root of all training, yes even for the pacifists, starts from fear. Not from the fear of getting injured or killed but the fear of incompetency when protecting our loved ones are concerned.

FWIW.

David Y

Jason Casteel wrote: Being that this is an aikido forum, how much aliveness can you get in aikido training before it ceases to be aikido?

Considering statements of Aikido greats like Mochizuki Minoru (see Black Belt magazine, August 1989 issue, p 34-35), Saito Morihiro (see Traditional Aikido Vol 5, p 39-40.) or the randori method developed by Tomiki Kenji, I'd say a lot.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Considering statements of Aikido greats like Mochizuki Minoru (see Black Belt magazine, August 1989 issue, p 34-35), Saito Morihiro (see Traditional Aikido Vol 5, p 39-40.) or the randori method developed by Tomiki Kenji, I'd say a lot.

I will look those up as best I can, but a lot?

statements aside, Saito's mode of training sure doesn't seem any more alive than anyone elses.

Ueshiba was critical of what Tomiki was doing and didn't seem to approve. Do we still call it aikido or is it judo with some aikido techniques thrown in?

I'd like to get someone like David Orange's opinion, as he trained with Mochizuki sensei and is more familiar with that than most of us. I've seen quite a few vids of Yoseikan and at the point where the aliveness comes into play it seems to veer off pretty sharply from what aikido training is and seemingly, was.

This is why I started the "testing (skill) aikido" thread in the general forum, feel free to offer your thoughts there as well.

Jason Casteel wrote: Ueshiba was critical of what Tomiki was doing and didn't seem to approve. Do we still call it aikido or is it judo with some aikido techniques thrown in?

IIRC, Ueshiba told Tomiki to call his art "aikido."

Katherine

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

Katherine

Jason Casteel wrote: I will look those up as best I can, but a lot?

Well, I can provide some links to make it easier:

Mochizuki mentioning freestyle weapons sparring and sumo style wrestling with the founder

The relevant pages of Saito's "Traditional Aikido" as attachements. See (5) freewheeling training.

Ueshiba was critical of what Tomiki was doing and didn't seem to approve.

Morihei or Kisshomaru?

Do we still call it aikido or is it judo with some aikido techniques thrown in?

It looks aikido to me. There are around some practitioners of that lineage who could ellaborate better about if it is "judo with some aikido techniques thrown in"

I'd like to get someone like David Orange's opinion

Me too, of course. I think he's the interviewer in the BB article I linked.

This is why I started the "testing (skill) aikido" thread in the general forum, feel free to offer your thoughts there as well.

I'll take a look.

If I may, what has been meant by people like David Orange and Dan Harden when they say "uncooperative training" is this: it is training where the uke does not collude to make nage's technique work at all costs. The uke presents a "real" attacker (for various values of 'real') and does not throw their center out of alignment when they attack. They attack like someone that knows how to attack!

That's it, that's all.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Morihei or Kisshomaru? .

Excellent, thanks for the links and attachments.

It was definitely Morihei, though I know that Kisshomaru did not agree with what Tomiki was doing either. Unfortunately I don't recall the exact source, but it went something along the lines that O'sensei was always concerned with what Tomiki was doing and felt he had somehow strayed from the path of aiki. I want to say it was Shioda, but I'm not 100% on that and it may have been a recounting of his visit to him on his deathbed.

The Saito stuff really sounds like what David Orange described as some of their randori. Not completely open, no holds barred, but certainly more alive than the typical kata uke/nage model or even jiyu waza.

thanks again!

100% cooperative training is a disaster.
Always has been
Always will be
It will always fail.
It isn't budo
It isn't Martial arts
It has no place in a discussion of Budo or in Martial arts
It is something else.

What possible value is this to Budo?
What does it have to do with weapons?
What does it have to do to defending against a weapon?
If it is a budo why not get a swordsman to cut with a bokken like they use in real budo?
Since it is not an attack, since it is not therefore a defense against an attack.... what is it, on the earth?

Can someone explain to me how this relates to any budo practice that they recognize? How does this 100% cooperative training relate to any budo anyone, anywhere, recognizes as a Budo?

Budo is taught in degrees of cooperation that gradually increase in resistence. Otherwise you are not doing a budo. But that's okay too. Just don't confuse the two.
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: What possible value is this to Budo? Dan

nice pink striped hakama and designer gi. wonder where i can get those. need some purple running lights and smoke machine and we are all set.

Phi Truong wrote: nice pink striped hakama and designer gi. wonder where i can get those. need some purple running lights and smoke machine and we are all set.

I have no idea of what that it is, but I would peg it as 100% cooperative in a way I have never seen. I would love to see someone explain it's worth as a budo.
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: What possible value is this to Budo? What does it have to do with weapons? What does it have to do to defending against a weapon? If it is a budo why not get a swordsman to cut with a bokken like they use in real budo? Since it is not an attack, since it is not therefore a defense against an attack.... what is it, on the earth?

Nope
not budo
was going to call it dance....but not very good dancing either

Dan, how on earth did you find this anyway? It's so and that makes me go and mostly leaves me
Now back to the topic....

Dan Harden wrote: I have no idea of what that it is, but I would peg it as 100% cooperative in a way I have never seen. I would love to see someone explain it's worth as a budo. Dan

that's because you are a barbarian, like many of us Neanderthals. we just aren't refine enough to understand the peace and harmony of such thing. be honest, you really want to be in there and dance away and be happy, right?

Once again it may seem that Dan and Graham are at either end of the paradoxical stick! One says that 100% co-operative training is all wrong and the other says all training is 100% co-operative.

I think they both have it right, I'll leave it at that.

regards

Mark

Mark Freeman wrote: Once again it may seem that Dan and Graham are at either end of the paradoxical stick! One says that 100% co-operative training is all wrong and the other says all training is 100% co-operative. I think they both have it right, I'll leave it at that. regards Mark

Mark:

They certainly don't see eye to eye on many things.... I think that Demetrio added an important distinction, in terms of "aliveness."

Grahams original post simply made no sense to me and mixed up two very different things and then tried to treat them as the same thing. Cooperative practice is very different than people agreeing to abide by rules. You can agree to rules and practice within them with the very real possibility of people being hurt and injured, WHILE abiding by the rules. In an MMA contest, full-contact kumite, etc., people are anything but cooperative with one another while following the rules, while people frequently get injured, while no one committed a foul. How Graham connected that to 100% cooperative training, is a logic all onto itself.

We can talk about the various levels of aliveness and look at the benefits of training a various levels of aliveness and have a very interesting discussion. Linking 100% cooperative training to following rules of contests was going to go nowhere because of faulty logic.

Hope to see you in New York soon!

Marc Abrams

Marc Abrams wrote: Mark: They certainly don't see eye to eye on many things.... I think that Demetrio added an important distinction, in terms of "aliveness." Grahams original post simply made no sense to me and mixed up two very different things and then tried to treat them as the same thing. Cooperative practice is very different than people agreeing to abide by rules. You can agree to rules and practice within them with the very real possibility of people being hurt and injured, WHILE abiding by the rules. In an MMA contest, full-contact kumite, etc., people are anything but cooperative with one another while following the rules, while people frequently get injured, while no one committed a foul. How Graham connected that to 100% cooperative training, is a logic all onto itself. We can talk about the various levels of aliveness and look at the benefits of training a various levels of aliveness and have a very interesting discussion. Linking 100% cooperative training to following rules of contests was going to go nowhere because of faulty logic.

Hi Mark

I agree with Graham that all 'training' is co-operative, however 'contest' is an entirely different thing.

I agree with Dan that complete co-operation where no 'reality' is involved is pretty worthless from a budo point of view. I mean, how can one practice non-resistance if there is no resistance to be non-resistant with?

I still think they are often closer to each other than their words appear.

I too like the term aliveness, but that in itself is a hard term to quantify, like all other nominalisations, they can mean different things to different people.

Hope to see you in New York soon!

I'm working on it. I am looking forward to getting things finalised at this end. I look forward to meeting and doing rather than talking about it

regards,

Mark

Mark Freeman wrote: Once again it may seem that Dan and Graham are at either end of the paradoxical stick! One says that 100% co-operative training is all wrong and the other says all training is 100% co-operative. I think they both have it right, I'll leave it at that. regards Mark

In this case I don't think so. Of course one must read the o/p properly.

Nathan hit the nail on the head. Co-operative training as I defined stands far apart from what Dan shows as an example.

I call that collusive training.

Now, collusive training is another subject altogether.

Regards.G.

Dan Harden wrote: I have no idea of what that it is, but I would peg it as 100% cooperative in a way I have never seen. I would love to see someone explain it's worth as a budo. Dan

I am in the camp of increasing resistance, and no way an advocate of what they are doing but...It seems to me to be uke training rather than waza training. Learning how to be sticky. That's what I got out of watching it. That being said, I can't understand what he's saying so...

Graham Christian wrote: In this case I don't think so. Of course one must read the o/p properly.

Hi Graham,

I think my clarification in reply to Marc, shows that I read correctly.

Nathan hit the nail on the head.

if not completely, pretty close

Co-operative training as I defined stands far apart from what Dan shows as an example. I call that collusive training. Now, collusive training is another subject altogether. Regards.G.

I agree - another thread Graham?

regards,

Mark

Mark Freeman wrote: Hi Graham, I think my clarification in reply to Marc, shows that I read correctly. if not completely, pretty close I agree - another thread Graham? regards, Mark

No, I don't think so. However on that subject of collusive there is one part of training which is very collusive, a drill if you like, which is very good for improving a skill which if seen by someone on the outside would look quite strange and 'vaguely' similar to that video. So I wouldn't be 100% certain as to say that video has no budo value, even though it looks so.

Regards.G.

A video is just moment of training. It does not encompass everything about a system. I am sure we all have moments in our classes if caught on video would not represent all that we teach. I am not sure what the principle was that was in that video but the movement was beautiful.