quote

a quote by gozo shioda,
you must follow my path from the start...and not from where i now stand.

what a brilliant quote,i think that is how aikido should be taught ie teaching pre ww2 style aikido for the first 10 years of training followed post ww2 training once a good solid practical base has been formed.

 

i will use another quote,
study the old to understand the new.
another brilliant quote and for the average person not the gifted i'd say that is the way to go.

 

Here's a couple quotes for you:
I came up with this one:
Aikido looks really cool until you try to do it.
My Sensei is fond of saying things like:
This ain't knittin' class.

 

here is a quote my sensei uses,
if you go swimming your gonna get wet,if you take up martial arts your gonna get the odd smack.

 

Warren if you take that approach to Aikido then before you can learn Aikido you must first go learn all the arts it is based on, travel all over Asia and become very deeply involved with O Senseis religeouse beleifes. And then there are the things O Sensei used to do as part of his daily training. Things like ice cold baths in the morning and banging your head off a rock to toughen your skull.

If that sort of dedication were reqired to learn Aikido properly I doubt there would be very many Aikidoka in the world today.

Over the years as O Sensei was developing his martial arts skills he found better ways of doing things and changed his teaching accordingly. As O Sensei added students to his Dojo those students were taught what O Sensei was currently teaching. They didn't have to go learn all the martial arts O Sensei had learned.

A martial art must change with the times. Dualing with katanas at noon simply isn't acceptable any more.

 

Conversely, in order to learn to be an excellent musician, classical, jazz or otherwise, it is often quite useful to be exposed to a broad curriculum.

I've personally found that the most skilled aikido have generally cross-trained in other things and have an appreciation for aikido as a martial art. The least skilled tend to speak the most about 'ki' and you'll almost never see them on the mat sweating.

 

I disagree.

A martial art is many things to many people.

Take my study of Iai. Iaijutsu isn't in a [modern] context a practicle system.. Obviously we don't carry shinken in our dialy life but, does that discredit it as a viable and legitimate martial discipline/art ? No. If anyone want's to come to my dojo and attempt to take my Shinken from me, in a sparring environment feel free. But, I don't need a shinken to use effectively my Iai skills, all I need is some form of stick etc that would give me a substantial advantage on someone else, should I carry a walking cane ? All perfectly legal of course.

Aikido was as we know a martial colaboration of a number of systems of 'old' Japan however, an attack is exactly that, an intent to harm [of various levels] so what's different about an attack say 50-60 years ago and, now ? Not a lot I'd suggest.

Therefore I suggest it isn't the martial art that needs changing but the naff attitudes of the students and instructors that ponce about teaching ****e. And, as Budd says, getting on a matt and "sweating" out some hard training.

 

And also, dare I say it, some people just want to practice an 'art form'.

Learn a little about another culture, not everyone wants to fight

Col

 

R u a musician Budd?

Bye,
VFarias

 

I've been taught, experimented with and achieved varying degrees of incompetence with the piano, clarinet and trombone.

I also have some training as a vocalist. My singing range sits right between baritone and tenor, so it was helpful in my former life when I was doing theatre.

 

Ok... after all we've something in common... but i still play the piano and keyboards... i've a sextet but we don't just play jazz, we like funk, soul and so on...

Bye,
VFarias

p.s. all musicians r good people...

 

aye, that as well. And as far as I'm concerned, if someone is honest enough to admit that to themselves and to the instructor; provided that person still trains in a spirit befitting Aikido and contributes to the class in line with others, I haven't a problem.

I think I may have said this before here, practicality isn't on the top of my agenda, prefering to study the entire Aikikai syllabus, including the sections that many [consider] outdated. But that's just me.

Dave

 

I don't have a problem with any of that, either, I think that martial arts should address fighting in some capacity (even if, in the case of aikido, the idea is to avoid it), but I don't necessarily think that such things are synonymous.

My feeling is that it only matters to that degree of the claims that you're making.

 

All good points Budd, Dave and the others.

I have nothing against cross training. If you can pull that off fantastic. I also have nothing against practising an art purely to learn the art form. Not everybody involved in martial arts is paranoid about being mugged.

On the point of being mugged, the attack it's self may not change. However it has become far harder to protect your self today from an attack without landing your self in trouble with the law. Causing harm or injury is only acceptable where there really was no other option.

In our increasingly capitalist society your attacker can even sue you for injuries they may have received as result of your action to defend your self.

The legality of carrying certain objects changes depending on where you live. In Scotland for example a cane could be interpreted by the police as an offensive weapon if you cannot provide a satisfactory explanation as to why you are carrying it.

I think it's best just to keep your self on the right side of the law if you can. Criminal convictions follow you everywhere you go and can make life unpleasant.

I also read a post in the beginners section by a guy who had taken up shobu-kai (I think that's how he spelled it). However he was now considering giving it up as he was constantly receiving injuries that he felt would have prevented him from using his martial arts skills in a self defence situation. He was quite rightly asking him self, what was the point?

Injuries are a part of martial arts. You must accept you're going to get hurt at some point. Injuries however should not be so common and so sever that your training puts you out of the game before you even get started. Which takes me back to warrens original statement.

Many of the old Aikido techniques have changed over the years for different reasons. Some of the techniques have changed because the mode of teaching has changed, others have changed because it was found they simply didn't work even in the Dojo and other techniques changed because uke’s were being injured far to frequently.

If all of your uke’s are suffering from severe shiho-nage elbow, who do you practice with? Doesn't it make more sense to find a better way?

When flaws are found in techniques those flaws should be corrected. To ignore them is simply bad practice and poor teaching.

On the point about taking 10 years to develop a good solid practical base. What would you define as a good solid practical base? The ability the break arms and legs at will? A good grasp of the basics? Or something else?

I personally would say 10 years is too slow to get to grips with the basics and then learn how to use that knowledge in a useful way.

 

the main thing that appeals to me about pre ww2 aikido i.e the yoshinkan style is that it was taught when o sensei was in his prime.
the problem with cross training is people tend to change arts with out first mastering one and there is no way you can get to a reasonable standard in just 3 years training a couple of times a week 2 hrs at a time which leads me in to another quote.

jack of all trades master of none.

 

As someone that cross-trains, I think there's more challenge and it can be something that gets in the way of mastering any one thing, but as a student of some very well-respected folks that have also cross-trained, here's where I think the key ingredients are (yes, it's just my opinion -- and that's the last time I preface it that way, because it should be pretty obvious that I'm just relating an opinion):

1) You have the ability to segment what you're learning in the moment, but then take what's useful from one area into another.

For instance, if I'm trying to figure out irimi nage, and can't seem to get sufficient kuzushi to enable the technique -- there's a temptation to just use a ridgehand from karate or forearm smash from sub wrestling, but since I'm working on trying to perfect irimi nage, I'm not even going to consider the other tools, because they won't fit the current construct on working on.

Conversely, if I'm doing judo randori or sub wrestling, or even standup striking, the evasive footwork I learned in aikido is fantastic for getting off the line and/or closing the distance. Hand atemi can be used in grappling to off-balance on your grab, body atemi can be used for getting kuzushi in close for a throw.

2) You always see yourself as a student and therefore, whichever class you're in, you're there to learn.

When my aikido sensei is trying to show me a lock or throw -- I could be an **** and say, "Oh yeah, well I could defeat it this way", but then I might never learn what they're trying to teach me, which I know from watching and feeling it is valuable stuff. I have a buddy that's a senior aikido student and teaches classes -- I'm also training him to sub grapple, so we take turns wearing the teacher hat, but whenever we're each instructing, there's no question who wears the hat. If my ego were to get in the way, because I'm trying to prove that I'm "better" (better at what, fighting, being a jerk?), then I might not have made that connection last night about the ikkyo attempt and henka transition into irimi nage, which was pretty damn exciting.

3) Be honest with yourself about your goals for each art you train.

If you're just there because you're paying for it, you might as well save your money. I like grappling because I think it's the best exercise there is. I'm getting back into standup strikes because it's a skillset I already developed that I'm just trying to polish and keep sharp. I train aikido because I believe the philosophical aims have great merit and I'm trying to find that potential in me through the training to be able to live that philosophy. I train koryu because it's fascinating, scary and intense stuff and it just feels right.

Notice that nowhere have I mentioned learning to fight or fighting or beating anyone up. I do think it's important to crosstrain, if after an honest and informed assessment, there are holes in your training you would like to address. If you're looking to fight, aikido probably shouldn't be your primary art. Aikido can be your primary art, however, if you want to be able to understand the dynamics of fighting, but I would recommend crosstraining in good striking and grappling arts, so that you have an understanding of those ranges of engagement.

It's not about being a jack or master of any and all trades. It's about having objectives and wants and setting a course to achieve and fulfill them.

Pretty simple, really.

 

If this is your reason for practicing it's not my place to say it's wrong.

I think you're generalising a little too much here. Cross training is two arts at the same time is different from starting art one and then giving it up to do art two. As the student is continually trainging in both arts he/she can continue to develop both arts.

Acheiving a resonable standard in Aikido or anything else for that matter is relative to what you would call a reasonable standard. The length of time it takes is also relative to the quality of the teacher and the quality of the student.

A lazey student will not progress as fast as a commited student. Equally a teacher with more experience can help students to develop faster than a teacher of lesser experience. Purely because the benefits of the teachers experiences gets passed on to the students.

What would you call a reasonable standard?

Hmm...ever watch Tommy Walsh? He seems to know his stuff.

 

I've studied Aikido since 1988 and I'm still learning something new with the basics every time I step on the mat.

Lets talk turkey.. Just what "is" a reasonable time to learn a MA and become proficiant ? Anyone ?

There are far too many people out there in cloud coo coo land who think they can learn a practical MA in a matter of months or even a few short years. I'm not going to despute the fact that very street wise systems exist and each of the techniques can be learned fairly quickly but, does that mean the user is proficiant ? I think not.

Technical ability can be taught very quickly but, conditioning the mindset to cope with confruntation and deal with it in a logical way whist remaining relatively safe in the process takes much much longer.

I've seen burly 16+ stone noobie Prison Officers straight out of college get the ****e kicked out of them by lesser built prisoners purely because they haven't understood WTF to do. Despite several weeks intense training in control and restraint techniques. It's not the technique, it's the approach of the user, his/her experience [over skills] that is by far more important, this cannot be developed in a short time.

Just my opinion

 

I agree Dave. Even the highest teacher has something to learn from the basics. However to suggest that anybody who hasn't studied Yoshinkan Aikido for 10 years is some how lacking a good grounding in basics and shouldn't be studying whatever they are studying I think is wrong.

I personally don't like the label of 'master' because it seems to imply there is nothing more that person has to learn.