Aikido is not technique; not fighting

Looks like there's a very strong Ki Aikido influence there.

 

I'll take your word for it mate, in your experience of Ki based aikido, is this typical methodology ?

 

Well this from http://www.universalaikido.com/what-is-aikido/sensei-kolesnikov (bolding below is my edits)
---------
Sensei Kolesnikov started practising Aikido in 1970 as a hobby. He is now a 7th Dan international Aikido teacher, head of the KSMBDA organisation.
•In 1972, he practised full-time with Sensei Williams, becoming his number 1 student.
He gave up his profession of psychiatric nursing.
The Aikido style was initially Aikikai, which was later changed into the Ki style.
•In 1975, he taught Aikido in Plymouth, on behalf of Sensei Williams.
•In 1976, he met Toichi Kohei, 10th Dan, and attended various lessons and seminars.
•In 1982, he founded the KSMBDA organisation, developing his own style of Aikido.

<snip>
--------

And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koichi_Tohei

-------
Koichi Tohei (藤平光一, Tōhei Kōichi?) (born January 1920) is a 10th Dan aikidoka and founder of the Ki Society and its style of aikido, officially Shin Shin Toitsu Aikido (literally "aikido with mind and body unified"), but commonly known as Ki-Aikido.

-------

Not sure about the spelling difference in the names, but all else seems to match.

 

Okay, then. What about anything I wrote that was not as recent?

 

Nope, I won't be drawn in your petty game.

You already know what.

I'll take issue as I see fit. Clearly you're not respecting my choices, remember that, do you ?

 

It's not a matter of me respecting your choices Dave, I fully understand and respect the choices you make. I was merely offering you more choices.

Did you want to discuss anything that I hadn't written as recently as well as that choice that you already made to discuss my recent posts, and that which you see fit to discuss?

That's all I was wondering. I'm open to either.

 

No you're not, you've been extended several opportunities to discuss things recently in an adult way and yet you STILL retort with riddles gibberish and avoidance.

 

Okay...getting back to the topic of this thread.

For those of you who might actually be trying to think in terms of the material I have presented thus far, and who might be actually looking at the videos as I have suggested, here is a hint.

X marks the spot. Think in terms of the center (not a center, but the center), and think in terms of the void, and creating the void. In a dynamic situation this is constantly in motion.

I know...more riddles. Again, please take the initiative to do some work on your own and attempt to see if this is one of the aspects you understand and recognize.

I am in no way saying that I fully understand this, as I am only beginning to see it and work with it myslef. Also, try and use videos of Osensei in his latter years (G Shiodas videos are also applicable, I'm sure there are others, however, in these two it is most evident).

 

Izu, are you eluding to the importance of hara? http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Hara_(Martial_Arts)


Also, what do you think of this statement since it is the videos of O-sensei in his later years you direct us to?

 

Not entirely. I think there web site made some mention of tai chi? Although with Ki Aikido there is talk of Ki moving in spirals and circles. Sometimes called "soft ki". And then ki moving in straight lines or "hard ki". But it does look very Ki Aikido-ish. In particular the badly executed techniques with the Jo were very common in the Ki Federation of Great Britain. Pretty much down to that exact set of techniques.

I've trained with people in the Ki Fed who could do those techniques very well and actually make them somewhat effective. They all had a background of studying multiple arts in the past. And then there were the people who had only ever trained with the Ki Fed. Which ironically wasn't pretty.

Ki Aikido I find tends to be at it's worst when the practitioners have no other martial arts experience.

 

I can't remember when Ken Williams met his second wife Margret. But if she were around at the time then this guy was never the No.1. My head is now starting to ring with a vague idea I've heard this guys name mentioned before by my old teacher. Thanks Rebel. I'll be in the deepest darkest hole I can find if I'm needed.

 

what i don't get is, if aikido is not technique and is not fighting, then how am i supposed to use it to defend myself? or is that not the point? i was under the impression that aikido was a martial art.

 

What I assume izumizu is alluding too with his thread title is an ideological concept/philosophy that aikido is much more than mechanical technique and, I presume (because it's often hard to actually tell), that he also feels aikido has more purpose than actually being used for fighting ability.

I for one have little interest in discussing philosophical topics because they are generally subjective to an individual's own point of view or outlook, additionally - and the important bit for me personally, having never met the founder of aikido, I see absolutely no reason to adopt HIS philosophy(s), as a person, I'm quite happy and able to formulate my own. That doesn't mean I don't want to understand/comprehend/appreciate what Ueshiba Morihei was striving for, just that I'd rather live by my own set of morals and opinions rather than, adopt someone else's purely on the basis of it's association with a martial discipline I choose to practice.

This sums it up to me perfectly

Emphasis is mine.

Aikido is a martial discipline and should be studied as such. It should not, in my opinion, be studied primarily as a philosphical doctrine.

 

For once I am going to (semi) disagree with Dave.

I think martial disciplines *can* be practiced as primarily philosophical or developmental studies, but if someone does this, they should understand (and keep to the fore) their arts' martial heritage and intention.

To lose track of this or give the combative aspects less importance is to lose all martial purpose. You may as well learn to dance.

 

How often do you disagree ? LOL

I wasn't refering to martial disciplines generally with my comments, they were specific to the practice of aikido and they were of course just my opinion. However; I do see your sentiments on a broader sense.

 

I think people simply need to be realistic about the type of practice they are engaged in. If their practice is solely focused on achieving a philosophical ideal or more of a meditative practice then they shouldn't pretend otherwise. To do so is dishonest and self defeating.

As for Aikido being technique or fighting? I don't think it is. But not for ideological reasons. Aikido in my opinion is a study of the principles that make the techniques work. And it's this that makes Aikido accessible and unlimited in scope and appeal.

But as I say. People need to be honest with themselves and other about what it is they are doing.

 

Trouble is mate, people who are already delusional find being honest with themselves a difficult, if not entirely impossible thing to do.

Unfortunately, it's all subjective because it's far easier to deny truth, than accept it when it's contradictory to what you understand or believe. That's human nature for you. It's why it's so important for students to be given accurate information from the onset of their training, this brings me back to my earlier statement...

 

@aikiwolfie
Attempted to PM you, I think your box is full.

 

Some great stuff here. Thanks all for your comments and additions to this thread. I think perhaps it is time to emphasize for the sake of practicality that although there may be some philosophical approach to this thread, I am speaking more in terms of mind set in relation to aikido is not fighting.

I am also wishing to focus on and investigate/learn about that which I feel is happening in aikido that makes executing technique a matter of having many systems/processes in check. This in essence would require that I not be focused on any particular technique, but aware of other factors that may have more of a significant role in what transpires on and off the mats. Thus aikido is not technique, nor can we be focused on it primarily, IMO. There are many other factors taking place before any technique is ever manifested. It is a result of these factors that allow aikido to manifest. That is why I say aikido is not technique, and that technique should not be the goal.

And then, to think that our technique will look like the technique we do in the dojo, the ones we focus and concentrate on, to make it look like we want it to look when going for grading...and have it look that way outside the dojo is a huge assumption.

So, again, IMO, the emphasis is not on technique, aikido is not technique. There is much more to it than that. Think of it kind of like a pre flight check list, and then all of the constant adjustments and checks one is making while in the air. Maybe not the best analogy, I know.

Speed/timing/distance/interval...all of these affect maai.

No, I am not referring to the Hara. The hara is a center, not the center.

As for principles, I'll buy that but which ones?

BTW...I never met Osensei either, but we have a pretty good reference to what he said and what he did. IMO, his words and his actions have to match up.

 

No it's empty. Seem's there's a problem with my PM box. In the mean time my e-mail contact should be on my profile.