Is It Missing In Everybody's Aikido?

Joep Schuurkes wrote: I would not use the phrase in any context. "External muscular strength" implies that there is something like "internal muscular strength". The only way I can parse that is to think of the former as mobilizing muscle use and the latter as stabilizing muscle use. And that lands us nicely in this thread starting from post #74, which just happens to be posted by David Skaggs. As you can read there, it works for me as an image, but I would not use it in a definition of 'it'.

Good. Now we are excluding things. "Muscular strength" is typically used as a negative in defining "it." Now I take it you would conclude that they operate -- but differently than is "typically believed?" OK, so far?

"Mobilizing" and "stabilizing." There several ways to look at stabilizing. Muscles can be used to stabilize joints, which is biomechanically unavoidable to exert leverage around a joint - as in a curl for instance. It is, I think, generally agreed that a curl (and by extension the associated use of joint isolation and leverage) is the antithesis of "it" in the context of our discussion.

Let me stop there to see if I exceed the realm of general agreement before we explore other varieties of stabilization.

Joep Schuurkes wrote: All systems of the human body? That seems a bit vague and all-encompassing. Wikipedia produces the following list: * Circulatory system * Digestive System * Endocrine system * Integumentary system * Immune system * Lymphatic system * Musculoskeletal system * Muscular system * Nervous system * Reproductive system * Respiratory system * Skeletal system * Urinary system

Yes. The human body is a system made up of a lot of subsystems that work together. The condition of one subsystem has an effect on all the other systems.

I prefer to keep explanations as simple as possible.
I do not think that anyone wants to go into a detail explanation of how the different systems effect each other unless it is part of your or someone else definition.

David

Erick Mead wrote: Now I take it you would conclude that they operate -- but differently than is "typically believed?"

Agreed. The muscles do operate when using 'it', but in a different way than the simple Western biomechanical view, i.e. bones and joints as levers and power coming from the muscles associated with each lever.

It is, I think, generally agreed that a curl (and by extension the associated use of joint isolation and leverage) is the antithesis of "it" in the context of our discussion.

You mean a curl like this, right? The normal way of doing it (joint isolation and leverage) is antithetical to 'it', sure, but you could do that curl by using 'it' as well. 'It' has more to do with where the power comes from than with what it looks like, although where the power comes from is observable to some degree.

Joep Schuurkes wrote: Agreed. The muscles do operate when using 'it', but in a different way than the simple Western biomechanical view, i.e. bones and joints as levers and power coming from the muscles associated with each lever.

I do hope to try and broaden your view (not an uncommon one) on the horizons of "Western biomechanics" in this context.

Joep Schuurkes wrote: You mean a curl like this, right? The normal way of doing it (joint isolation and leverage) is antithetical to 'it',

Quite so.

Joep Schuurkes wrote: ... sure, but you could do that curl by using 'it' as well.

Good, but let's stick with "curl" as meaning the tradition leveraged one . How, if at all, would you differentiate between what is occurring in the musculature in a "curl' (in that leverage sense), and a standing snatch of the weight from suspended at the waist to the same ending position?

Erick Mead wrote: How, if at all, would you differentiate between what is occurring in the musculature in a "curl' (in that leverage sense), and a standing snatch of the weight from suspended the waist to the same ending position?

Joep, this how the "I already knew that" threads always start. Ultimately, it's the students that get caught in these debates.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: Joep, this how the "I already knew that" threads always start. Ultimately, it's the students that get caught in these debates.

It is not a debate. There is no proposition to be defended, it is a civil (and it seems, useful) clarifying conversation.

Why suggest foreclosing the conversation just as it gets started in earnest ? If that is not what you meant -- and you intend to offer additional clarification, what do you suggest?

Erick Mead wrote: Why suggest foreclosing the conversation just as it gets started in earnest ? If that is not what you meant -- and you intend to offer additional clarification, what do you suggest?

I think that you've proffered your "angular momentum" and other theories, Erick. Frankly, if you'll notice by the lack of response, none of that seems to work. The assumption by you seems to be that all theories are equally valid. I don't think so. In fact, I think that until someone has established their bona fides in terms of replicating the same demonstrations, etc., that Ueshiba, Tohei, Shioda, etc., have done, it's vague to argue that "we're all talking about the same things".

I can read from others about demonstrations by Ikeda, Ushiro, Dan, Akuzawa, and many others, and I can shrug and say, "sounds like they're doing legitimate jin/kokyu to me". There is nothing to indicate from anyone that you're doing the same demonstrations, nor is there anything in your descriptions that rings a bell to me that you're doing the same thing everyone else is talking about. Hence, your comments that assume your perspective of describing things is as valid as anyone else's strikes me as an argument that you've never established any basis for. So I've brought up the question.... again, as in the past.

The question to Joep seems to be more like a quest for information. Maybe I'm wrong. Convince me otherwise... preferably by meeting with others, as has been suggested to you by various people over the years.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: I think that you've proffered your "angular momentum" and other theories, Erick. Frankly, if you'll notice by the lack of response, none of that seems to work.

Lack of response = does not work? or = has not been understood? I'll take my share of blame if I have not been understood, and am trying at the moment to be sure I remedy that if it were the case.

Mike Sigman wrote: The assumption by you seems to be that all theories are equally valid.

Hardly. Some are flat out wrong. If mine is so wrong -- it should be easy to show. Please do. I'll be the better for the correction.

Mike Sigman wrote: In fact, I think that until someone has established their bona fides... it's vague to argue that "we're all talking about the same things".

So an effort to be "less vague" in what we are all talking about -- be it the same or be it different -- is a problem ... how?

Mike Sigman wrote: There is nothing to indicate from anyone that you're doing the same demonstrations, nor is there anything in your descriptions that rings a bell to me that you're doing the same thing everyone else is talking about.

So shownmanship is the key to skills, then ? Doubt demonstrates nothing. I haven't offered that for your judgment, though the fact concerns me not nearly as much as it does you. Why is that? I study, I observe and train. I think carefully, physically and conceptually. Judge that as critically as you care to and with as much challenge as you have to offer. We will all benefit from that -- doubt teaches nothing.

Mike Sigman wrote: The question to Joep seems to be more like a quest for information. Maybe I'm wrong.

You are wrong. It is Socratic dialogue. Hopefully, he'll ask me narrowing and clarifying questions in turn we can all challenge each other to be clear and speak in common rather than past one another, toward a mutual endeavor rather than baseless suspicion causing recurring opportunities for misunderstanding.

David Skaggs wrote: Is it just the people who practice Aikikai Aikido who feel that something is missing in their practice ( internal strength, connection, intent, etc) or do the people who practice Yoseikan Aikido, Yoshinkan Aikido, Shodokan Aikido and Korindo Aikido feel that there is something missing also? David

Not in the system of DaiKido [dalens thai aikido]
Just kidding, but seriously, as someone pointed out - it really seems where you put your focus.

To a large degree, yes a certain branch of Aikido may have a bigger gap in one area that you have to seek out on your own... kind of like taking the best of all the above and mix and matching it to your taste.

This is not really a fault, per say, in the systems - as much as its a reflection of what Aikido is to them in their current understandings.

Personally I would take what I know and if it were possible go check out some of the other styles. [I would love to do Ki Aikido, but I could not see that being an exclusive, all encompassing method of Aikido for me.]

In the same token Yoshinkan has an appeal as they actually take the time to drill down methods, which you can later add the flow to.

And Yoseikan mixes arts, from my understanding, and again seems to fill a gap the rest of Aikido has in terms of a 'fuller' fight system is concerned. [Throw in this mix Tomiki for the sport aspect, as the these two seem to compliment one another.]

So... in a sense its as if Aikido is split off in different areas of interest... If you want the full meal deal, you have to go the extra mile, and then if you were to open up a dojo you would more than likely see yourself splitting them back down to suite the interest of the students coming to you. [not everyone seeks the larger package, and this is fine... everything has a fit.]

Never heard of Korindo, reminds me of the word coriander.
Did a wiki search and it had one full sentence on this art. [maybe its the art of secrecy?]

Peace

dAlen

Erick Mead wrote: You are wrong. It is Socratic dialogue.

It looks to me more like the start of another futile discussion where you insist that you have good ki/kokyu skills while presenting idiosyncratic theories, not understanding the common dialogue, and so forth. I just think it's easier to avoid another fruitless discussion that is based, as far as I can tell, purely on your own assertion of "I do that already". Why not just meet up with some people and establish a common dialogue, as has been suggested to you for several years? Think of all the positive aspects of such a meeting with, say, Ikeda Sensei.

Socratic dialogue doesn't work real well, BTW, with a topic that has long been described in Asia as something that must be transmitted by feel. But you probably already knew that.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: It looks to me more like the start of another futile discussion --

Only if you insist.

Mike Sigman wrote: Think of all the positive aspects of such a meeting with, say, Ikeda Sensei.

Met him, thanks. I am quite certain I got much more out of it than he did. What positive aspects would you emphasize?

Mike Sigman wrote: Socratic dialogue doesn't work real well, BTW, with a topic that has long been described in Asia as something that must be transmitted by feel. But you probably already knew that.

And yet, funnily enough, in Philaeus and Meno Socrates did a fair turn on the purely perceptual category of "color" ... as did Aristotle in de Anima, so let's not abandon all hope on those grounds just yet, shall we?

The East has no monopoly on applicable physical wisdom. The West has long abandoned the Eastern cultural habit of secrecy or misdirection , which is fully admitted and present on these topics. So the discussion could be fruitful. Who knows? One of the reasons that the West prevailed in the breadth of applicable physical understanding, winning over both the Indians and the Chinese, is that inquiry is conducted without any guarantee of a particular intended result or even the prospect of success, and without concern over "bona fides" other than good reasoning and good data.

The only failure that does not teach is a failure to attempt.

While I realize that the sense of an unexamined conformity to a false (or misunderstood) idea is part of this general (and useful) criticism of mainline Aikido, everyone devoted to such a cause should be just as aware that this is a universal human bias. Rebels against the system are no more insulated from risk for unexamined conformity on their own issues than are the 'benighted' mainline adherents.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/...ef=instapundit

In other words, it may pay to be kind to skeptics with information one doesn't have or hasn;t considered, even if one wishes to prove (and firmly believes) they are thoroughly wrong in what that information may mean.

After all, you were one, once.

Erick Mead wrote: I do hope to try and broaden your view (not an uncommon one) on the horizons of "Western biomechanics" in this context.

That would be interesting. (But note I did say "simple Western biomechanics"; I realize the field has progressed beyond the simple idea of levers.)

How, if at all, would you differentiate between what is occurring in the musculature in a "curl' (in that leverage sense), and a standing snatch of the weight from suspended at the waist to the same ending position?

In a standing snatch you add a rocking-like motion to the curl, so that you lift the weight using the combined power of the curl and the projecting/throwing of the hands upwards. Both are definitely not 'it'.

In a standing snatch you add a rocking-like motion to the curl, so that you lift the weight using the combined power of the curl and the projecting/throwing of the hands upwards. Both are definitely not 'it'.

Having done my fair share of hanging snatches (a snatch with weight starting at waist height), I don't think this is an accurate description of whats going on, even on a simple level. "Curling" or bicep flexion plays only a very small part of the overall movement. The hanging snatch is like an explosive wave of a bunch of different muscles firing in sequence.

As taught to me by my lifting coach, the hanging snatch starts with an explosive hip extension, utilizing mostly the hamstrings and glutes, as if you were pelvic thrusting the bar, simultaneously driving the heels into the ground. Its less a muscular contraction and more focusing on locking out the hips. His words were "Like a folding chair being kicked and locked open." That provides the initial momentum, after that the wave almost immediately rides up to the upper back as the lifter performs a massive shrug, where the trapezius, rear and lateral deltoids, and all the other random muscles stabilizing the scapula and shoulder girdle pull upward on the bar. There is some bicep flexion here, but in no way like an isolated curl; if anything, its just to facilitate the elbows moving directly upward, helping to "pull" with the shoulder shrug at the apex of the "catapult" provided by the hip extension. At this point the bar is flying close to the body near the chest level; at this point, I was taught to completely relax, let the bar ride up more, then dive beneath and catch it.

I was also told that if my arms felt sore after a snatch workout, I was doing the exercise wrong, as I was using muscles in isolation. Especially considering a person can usually snatch a weight far, far greater than he or she can bicep curl.

I would say snatches, and most Olympic style lifts, are less about levers and more about compressed springs; a seesaw versus a catapult. Most of the work is done by the posterior chain of hamstrings, lower and upper back.

Joep Schuurkes wrote: That would be interesting. (But note I did say "simple Western biomechanics"; I realize the field has progressed beyond the simple idea of levers.)

There is more it is true, but one need not go too far, actually to begin with -- in every pinned lever, there is developed a concurrent shear moment.

Joep Schuurkes wrote: In a standing snatch you add a rocking-like motion to the curl, so that you lift the weight using the combined power of the curl and the projecting/throwing of the hands upwards. Both are definitely not 'it'.

That is how many weight lifters might describe doing a snatch. Further narrowing. But to clarify, do I presume correctly that you would say that both together (curl and throw) are not 'it'-- and that neither alone are 'it' either?

The point is to isolate as many known mechanics that might be misconstrued and see what is left. What thoughts do you have on Sy's description ? -- Can you describe your way of performing the curl or snatch with aiki -- or if you haven't thought about it in quite that way -- simply do it and then describe it after paying attention to what is different from what you described for the weight lifter -- either curling or snatching.

Erick, the funny thing is, we don't see martial artists going and setting powerlifting or weightlifting records in these specialized lifts, because with respect to the conditions of the lifts, the competitive ways of performing the lift are pretty much maximally effective.

The competitive lifter's understanding of making things move involves far more understanding of the spectrum of relaxation, tension, and motion than most martial artists I have encountered seem to assume. So it might be said many aikidoka could benefit from the understanding therein, even if it was never within aikido before, and as such, some might feel it could be an understanding that is also "missing" . This understanding is not just intellectual or even intuitive, it is a level of control of the body they have, especially at the competitive levels, that can't be reproduced unless it is trained in over time, and by that nature overlaps with a spectrum of what is considered "internal" study.

Sy's description was really good. Though lifting a bar, and, say, a sandbag in this manner are way different - the weight can have hugely different properties. Even the bar's manufacturer matters - some of the better competition bars are extremely flexible, whereas cheaper ones or powerlifting bars tend to be far stiffer - and even how much the sleeves of the bar roll the weight varies a lot too. It would be fair to say that no two weights are really alike, and that a human doesn't behave like a barbell and has a behavior that changes drastically depending on what you are doing to it.

Erick Mead wrote: In other words, it may pay to be kind to skeptics with information one doesn't have or hasn;t considered, even if one wishes to prove (and firmly believes) they are thoroughly wrong in what that information may mean.

There's a peripheral subtopic in the ki/kokyu/qi/jin skills discussion that has to do with judging someone else's level. Essentially it boils down to watching what someone does wrong (through feel or action) or what they say that indicates what they know and don't know. What someone does or says may indicate no knowledge of the skills, some knowledge of the skills, a lot of knowledge, and so on. But "look for what they do or say wrong" is the way evaluations are normally made. The person who makes the mistakes is usually unaware of the mistakes he's made and may think that his words or actions leave no indication of his true knowledge, but, depending upon the level of the observer, usually it's clearer than many people think.

In the topic of "Is It Missing In Everybody's Aikido", I've had an interesting time watching this whole phenomenon, partially because of my past affiliation with Aikido and partially because I still have some good friends who have continued doing Aikido, lo these many years. But it's also interesting because the whole ki/kokyu/qi/jin thing is sort of a once-in-a-lifetime event.

In the case of Aikido, one of the big questions is how this body of skill was mostly lost, particularly in the West. Koichi Tohei made a concerted effort to use this baseline skillset as a keystone to his Shin Shin Toitsu Aikido and even though he described a lot of aspects metaphysically, there was enough information presented that it should have clued a lot of people. I was in Aikido in some of those days and I can say unequivocally that the ego and politics of many Aikidoists in the U.S. was a large part of why this essential information was trivialized and dismissed. That was a real case of information overlooked... information from the previous head instructor of mainline Aikido under Ueshiba.

The last few years have been interesting to watch. If people think back to, what, 2005 I think, there was an interesting gauntlet involving conformity of speaking, "outsiders", "what rank do you have?", "my teacher G. Sensei already does all that and he taught me to do it, too", "I don't like you personally", "we already do that and if you want lessons, you have to come to my dojo," and so on. Watching the process has been intriguing.

At the present time, there's a bit of turmoil. Once people get even a rudimentary understanding/ability in the ki/kokyu skills, it becomes very obvious that these skills are indeed baseline and, worse yet, many credentialed 'experts' don't know these baseline skills. So we're in the middle of a transition. Will everyone care or bother to get involved in these baseline skills? No. Most people in Aikido do not and will not care. They are happy with their "Aikido" for whatever it is, whatever their Sensei tells them it is, and so on; they are not curious beyond that. But leaving that large group of Aikidoists aside, what about the rest who tend to be more serious?

Overall, the entrance of the ki/kokyu skills into Aikido has some large ramifications. There is going to be the unavoidable recognition that many well-credentialed practitioners are missing something that should have been basic in Aikido (rest easy... other arts are in the same pickle). Much of the serious literature about Aikido (and other arts) is going to have to be revised. Some people will adapt by gathering a few tricks here and there and claiming they have parity of expertise with everyone else. People with varying levels of information will begin to form coalitions and minor fiefdoms. And so on. The role-playing and politics will adjust accordingly.

On the plus side, as the skills really get good, I think Aikidoists will drop the minor love-affairs with Systema, Daito Ryu, MMA, etc.

My thinking is that during these initial stages where some of western Aikido recovers the ki-skills, it will be chaotic and efforts have to be made to keep the information from instigating more factionalizing (and hence becoming limited again). Along those lines of thought, I personally try to forestall potential factionalizers by making sure that there is more or better information outside of their circles. Ultimately, in my opinion, once the noise subsides and the outsiders' (that includes me) influence contracts, I think the heir-apparent is and should be Hiroshi Ikeda. So I tend to watch what happens at the Boulder Aikikai, for the moment.

Overall, in regard to "information", I think, as I've said a few times already, that there is more information about the topic than I've seen anyone indicate (some posts and opinions would not have been made by someone with more information, IMO). There are going to be a number of people advertising (or their sychophants advertising for them) during this transition and afterward that they have all the information. I'd recommend that everyone take everything with a grain of salt and think carefully how various skills could and *should* be used in Aikido. Don't get me wrong... these are good times for Aikido, despite the turmoil; the turmoil is unavoidable.

YMMV

Mike Sigman

Erick Mead wrote: There is more it is true, but one need not go too far, actually to begin with -- in every pinned lever, there is developed a concurrent shear moment.

Cool, but what does the shear add to the equation (pun intended)?

But to clarify, do I presume correctly that you would say that both together (curl and throw) are not 'it'-- and that neither alone are 'it' either?

Correct.

What thoughts do you have on Sy's description ?

A lot better than mine, but it's still a throw and thus not 'it'.

Can you describe your way of performing the curl or snatch with aiki -- <snip>

No can do. Aiki requires the force input of another human being. (Animal would work as well - although differently, with the four legs and all. Or I should start practicing on chickens? )

Mike, seriously, what is the beef with Erick proposing a hypothesis about what he sees as a predictive model of aikido? I don't see him claiming it fully explains everything there is to know, or that it is the ultimate explanation for what every other or one particular martial artist can do, only that he sees predictive value in it. If you can debunk Erick's proposal on the merit of the concepts, then do so on the grounds of his proposed concepts, but otherwise it is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Steering a discussion of whether people feel something is missing in the understanding of aikido into the pigeon-hole of knowledge having to come from a lineage of specific origin does far more harm than good, especially if there is a conceit that everyone else must feel there is one specific thing missing to the exclusion of all else, however right or wrong or utilitarian the view. It just silences and bullies new attempts at (re-)understanding and turns into an echo chamber. It is getting to feel like if you don't claim you can start fires with your mind, that your opinion immediately gets shot down around here.

Rob Liberti wrote: Or just meeting Dan, or Mike, etc... "My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?" --Letter from Galileo Galilei to Johannes Kepler

Of course, if the telescope is pointed at the ground, they might have excitedly remarked, "Alas, we have discovered a giant 2nd moon!" What the ultimate value of that would end up being, as well mannered as they may have been is probably on the level of whomever it was that proffered up the idea of "humors" being responsible for disease...

Point in fact, that Dan, Mike, Akuzawa Sensei... and the "hundreds of whom-evers, be they highly recognized aikidoka of any rank, or practitioners of any other art, are still in no place to determine if the "IT" being spoken on here is at the foundation of Aikido or not.
O-Sensei did forward his art to specific teachers, and believe it or not, there actually is a list. You might be surprised by who is on it, but I am positive that many would be completely dumbfounded by who is not on the list.

O-Sensei left very clear markers for those looking to find "IT" so they would know exactly how to do so. Unfortunately, what would be required to assemble these foundational concepts is beyond most people's will, free time, innate ability and mind set. Most can't even see what was put right in front of them to see - and I am not kidding, there are actual, real "signs" maybe even in neon, or back lit that state where to find these things. However, they won't be found on the internet. The bottom line, even with the best of intent, the purist of hearts and the clearest of minds, many will not be able to ever develop the skill level and abilities of the "IT" at the center of Aikido.

What I can say is that unless Dan or Mike or Akuzawa Sensei went to a very small subset of O-Sensei's Deshi, they and their very well-meaning and talented groups are in no real place to determine if the "IT" they are working with is even part of the "IT" that O-Sensei put forward. I am not judging them or their "IT" but I am most certainly questioning the logic used (over, and over and over... and over) whereby they use people who, by their own admission, can't possibly be in the know because they are looking outside of the art for an answer that is not found there, an answer that they have also admitted they do not know, nor have they directly experienced.

Again, I am not judging anyone's abilities or talents nor denying the usefulness in going out and training with anyone not from their organization or art form. I would always recommend it at some levels. At the same time, I have been told that the "IT" that maybe being discussed here is simply not is what at the source of the Aiki in Aikido. I want to be clear, I am not talking about the non-physical component, nor the spiritual side, or the philosophical side of things. I am talking about the actual physical generation, culmination and application of the Aiki within Aikido. Of course, you are free to take that as you will. I am sure there are those who in reading this have already shaken their heads back and forth in denial. What they hope to see with their telescopes pointed at the ground, I cannot say...

What say you?

...best in training to all.

.

Lee Salzman wrote: Mike, seriously, what is the beef with Erick proposing a hypothesis about what he sees as a predictive model of aikido?

Hi Lee:

Well, note that Erick's hypothesis has little to support it other than assertion. That's the beef. The demonstrations Ikeda makes, the descriptions of Dan's demonstrations, Ushiro's, Tohei's, Shioda's, etc., etc., all hang together with classical traditional phenomena and classical descriptions AND there has been interplay between a number of those people so that there is satisfactory agreement that they're all talking about and (mostly) doing things based on the same general principles.

Erick's descriptions are simple assertions by himself that he is doing the same things, yet his explanations (even the math and physics ones) mean nothing. Opening a door involves "angular momentum" and shear forces, so that sort of description tells us nothing. So when Erick enters debates that hinge upon the *assumption* that he is doing the same thing (no supporting indicators and no one with known skills has vouched for Erick on the forum), then it's a valid question, don't you think? Or are you suggesting that Erick shouldn't be questioned because all explanations are equally valid?

Regards,

Mike

Shaun Ravens wrote: O-Sensei left very clear markers for those looking to find "IT" so they would know exactly how to do so. Unfortunately, what would be required to assemble these foundational concepts is beyond most people's will, free time, innate ability and mind set. Most can't even see what was put right in front of them to see - and I am not kidding, there are actual, real "signs" maybe even in neon, or back lit that state where to find these things.

This is starting to sound like a Dan Brown novel.

David Skaggs wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROXaswf5OWo Nariyama Sensei is a deshi of Tomiki Sensei who was a deshi of O'Sensei http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL9hQ3yuTaA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMia4...x=0&playnext=1 Heiny Sensei studied at Hombu Dojo from 1968 to 1973 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMia4...x=0&playnext=1 any of her Aikido - Principles and Techniques 1-6 David

Personally, I didnt' see "IT" in any of the videos you provided links to. With all due respect, David, You may want to go and visit with Dan, or Mike or Akuzawa Sensei if you have the opportunity so you can, at the very least have some common ground in terms of moving the conversation forward, but more importantly in terms of opening up your own training to levels higher than simplistic ju-jistu level waza.

...best in training to all.

.

Mike Sigman wrote: Hi Lee: Well, note that Erick's hypothesis has little to support it other than assertion. That's the beef. The demonstrations Ikeda makes, the descriptions of Dan's demonstrations, Ushiro's, Tohei's, Shioda's, etc., etc., all hang together with classical traditional phenomena and classical descriptions AND there has been interplay between a number of those people so that there is satisfactory agreement that they're all talking about and (mostly) doing things based on the same general principles.

But there is an assertion in what you are saying here about these specific people, phenomena, and descriptions are, and also the understanding of your audience as to what those things are. As I see it, you have an equal burden of proof for these things to explain why you hold these opinions without appealing to the authority of others if you are trying to convince others of your position, and the superiority of that position over Erick's. You are not Ushiro, Tohei, Shioda, Dan, Ikeda, or any number of other people... you are you... so implicitly asking that people go to these sources to validate your opinion for you in their minds, without leaving open the possibility that they might actually see these people and disagree with you, is a fallacy to me.

Erick's descriptions are simple assertions by himself that he is doing the same things, yet his explanations (even the math and physics ones) mean nothing. Opening a door involves "angular momentum" and shear forces, so that sort of description tells us nothing. So when Erick enters debates that hinge upon the *assumption* that he is doing the same thing (no supporting indicators and no one with known skills has vouched for Erick on the forum), then it's a valid question, don't you think? Or are you suggesting that Erick shouldn't be questioned because all explanations are equally valid? Regards, Mike

I am saying that nobody is yet distinctly questioning Erick at all, but rather pointing to their own opinions and saying, "I am right, so you must be wrong."

Shaun Ravens wrote: What I can say is that unless Dan or Mike or Akuzawa Sensei went to a very small subset of O-Sensei's Deshi, they and their very well-meaning and talented groups are in no real place to determine if the "IT" they are working with is even part of the "IT" that O-Sensei put forward. I am not judging them or their "IT" but I am most certainly questioning the logic used (over, and over and over... and over) whereby they use people who, by their own admission, can't possibly be in the know because they are looking outside of the art for an answer that is not found there, an answer that they have also admitted they do not know, nor have they directly experienced. Again, I am not judging anyone's abilities or talents nor denying the usefulness in going out and training with anyone not from their organization or art form. I would always recommend it at some levels. At the same time, I have been told that the "IT" that maybe being discussed here is simply not is what at the source of the Aiki in Aikido. I want to be clear, I am not talking about the non-physical component, nor the spiritual side, or the philosophical side of things. I am talking about the actual physical generation, culmination and application of the Aiki within Aikido.

Well, here's a snippet from the story of Ueshiba standing 'immoveable' against the push of Tenryu, the Sumo wrestler:

... I asked someone at my side who this person was. It was explained to me that he was the famous Tenryu who had withdrawn from the Sumo Wrestler's Association. I was then introduced to him. Finally, we ended up pitting our strength against each other. I sat down and said to Tenryu, "Please try to push me over. Push hard, there's no need to hold back." Since I knew the secret of Aikido, I could not be moved an inch.

I know how that's done and it's called "the secret of Aikido" by Ueshiba and Ueshiba has demonstrated it on film numerous times (along with related demos), as has Tohei, and others. Worse yet, these skills are known all over Asia by numerous people and they're always part of "ki" (as in "Ai-ki-do"), so I toss the ball back you to explain how we got so far off. Or did we?

Regards,

Mike Sigman