Discussion in 'Aikido' started by Bob Hubbard, Jan 15, 2006.
I havn't read it all, but it looks realy good.
AS is almost always the case, the definition and description of Aikido written only covers the Ueshiba Aikido.
It does not relate to Korindo Aikido and, from what I recently read. It is also incorrect for Nihon gosin Aikido.
The nice thing about this is, if you can cite verifiable credible sources, you can edit the entry to be more inclusive, etc.
Or, add a link to the other arts.
Forgive a newbie to the forum, but not to Aikido:
If this thread is monitored by the person/people who created the Wiki entry I have a couple of suggestions:
Aikido use of the tanto is by no means limited to wooden or rubber. I've seen clubs in several styles use steel tanto and know of one style that also uses 'live' steel tanto (sharp edged) as I used to in Shudokan and as I believe they still do. Insurance difficulties may have restricted this for some clubs, but it is certainly a part of the art retained by some and should be mentioned in the Wiki entry IMHO.
I would also argue that atemi by a defender (tori) should always be a committed strike, never a distraction, as it is integral, to applying a lock or throw, that resistance is overcome by a good strike. In practice, place a palm in front of the face or make light contact to the body, but at least it should not be punching or waving at fresh air air.
Dojo practice (again IMHO) should not comprise the totality of what is described as the art of Aikido - we are practising in order to apply Aikido, the practice is not the art itself. Kuzushi may be achieved by 'distraction' in a rehearsed dojo situation, but we are supposed to be studying a 'martial' art.
It is also how we meet a hard and fast attack that IMHO differentiates the styles, not the attack itself, which should always be as fast and hard as the student can cope with. I've never seen vids of O Sensei using a floppy wrist waft, and despair when I see vids of some clubs using slomo dalek attacks followed by a walk around and a gentle roll.
Sorry to rock anyone's boat, but IMHO Aikido is 'harmonising' with an attacker and his potentially harmful attack - if there's no threat to safety why bother?
i agree with your points. It comes down more to the way you train when determining the effectiveness of Aikido.in regards to atemi, there are multiple quotes and picture evidence that backs up the importance of atemi in Aikido and it being a real dedicated strike.
for whomever is moderating this ...the link would not work for me
The link in the OP does not work.
I think this might contain the same information.
You do make a good point. I've always been taught from the martial perspective.
Separate names with a comma.