At what point does accomodation of a student remove them from practicing the actual art?

[seasoned]

In a wine tasting contest, at what point is the participant disqualified if they are a tea totaling nonparticipant.
On a serious note, your either in or you are out......................

 

[Kenlee25]

Okay well, what if you were to teach someone martial arts? A friend, your son, your wife, anyone. You are just giving them personal training and helping them learn to fight/defend themselves or maybe it's just exorcise.

you teach them the moves, foot work, application of moves, etc etc etc. Basically everything, but you don't force them to memorize forms.

does that mean you aren't teaching them the art? ( henceforth the art will be karate ). Just because you don't force them to go over every single kata does that mean that they don't know karate? What if they can go to tournements with the skills you have taught them and win the sparring and kumite sessions? What if they still were able to defend themselves in an altercation. Does that mean that they do no know karate just because you decided not to teach them forms?

In my opinion, it is the application of the techniques, not everything else, that denotes practicing an art. and even if in the end it looks nothing like the art that you taught them...then they are basically a practitioner of jeet kune do at that point right? As I understand it, jeet kune do incorporates all styles and any move the practitioner deems useful. So essentially, jeet kune do ( although i'm aware it means the way of the intercepting fist ) is "freestyle".

also, take note that in each art there are many different variations of said art. My taekwondo class is a lot less hoppy jumpy and uses as many punches as we do kicks, which makes us fundamentally different in application than many other schools. the OP used the example of the aikido practioner that doesn't fall. Well we are taekwondo practitioners that don't hoppy jump skip and don't use mostly kicks. Does that mean we are not practicing the art? Is it a new style all together?

my two cents

 

[seasoned]

Okay well, what if you were to teach someone martial arts? A friend, your son, your wife, anyone. You are just giving them personal training and helping them learn to fight/defend themselves or maybe it's just exorcise.

you teach them the moves, foot work, application of moves, etc etc etc. Basically everything, but you don't force them to memorize forms.

does that mean you aren't teaching them the art? ( henceforth the art will be karate ). Just because you don't force them to go over every single kata does that mean that they don't know karate? What if they can go to tournements with the skills you have taught them and win the sparring and kumite sessions? What if they still were able to defend themselves in an altercation. Does that mean that they do no know karate just because you decided not to teach them forms?

In my opinion, it is the application of the techniques, not everything else, that denotes practicing an art. and even if in the end it looks nothing like the art that you taught them...then they are basically a practitioner of jeet kune do at that point right? As I understand it, jeet kune do incorporates all styles and any move the practitioner deems useful. So essentially, jeet kune do ( although i'm aware it means the way of the intercepting fist ) is "freestyle".

also, take note that in each art there are many different variations of said art. My taekwondo class is a lot less hoppy jumpy and uses as many punches as we do kicks, which makes us fundamentally different in application than many other schools. the OP used the example of the aikido practioner that doesn't fall. Well we are taekwondo practitioners that don't hoppy jump skip and don't use mostly kicks. Does that mean we are not practicing the art? Is it a new style all together?

my two cents

Good points.
I Do think there are some that just want to preserve to art intact and pass that down as a whole entity.

 

[bugatabugata]

Allrighty, my two cents from everything I've been able to gather: there's a difference in the way most arts were practiced at their origin and the way they're practiced today. Way back when, mastery of an MA was a matter of survival -- literal life or death. Therefore, anyone that was weak, or otherwise "deficient" got weeded out of the training pool. Nowadays, teaching MA is, in most cases, a business. The focus is less on a competitive advantage in survival, than on self-confidence, perseverance, camaraderie, what-have-you. But then again, most of us live in a world, where we don't have to worry about the Vikings swooping in in the middle of the night and making off with our goats and womenfolk . So, MAs adapt to the times and the lives of their practitioners, i.e. accommodation is the name of the game, if you want to be successful in teaching MA.

 

[K-man]

If you have beginners, prior to their first grading, are they practising the art? Assuming that other styles are similar to the karate or aikido I train, it takes roughly three months to get to that level. So, at that stage they are ranked in the style and are training for their next level. I doubt anyone would question that they are students of and are training whatever system it is they are training.

Now if it is a requirement of grading that these students are required to learn a particular kata and for whatever reason one of them can't, then obviously that student will not progress. So now we have a student stuck at a particular learning level and they may not ever go past that level unless there is some form of accommodation. If that student decides to forgo grading and keep training he/she is still a student of that art. I would argue, yes.

That leaves a student who doesn't get to the first level. In my mind this is a grey area. If someone can't fulfill the basic requirements of a style, can they remain a student? It would be hypothetical because why would someone keep going at that level if they were never going to progress. But technically a student? Yes.

Skip ahead 20 years and one of our dedicated students is Yondan. It is a requirement of this hypothetical organisation that at this level the student is required to demonstrate proficiency in teaching beginners in order to progress to the next level.
This student is more than happy to forgo teaching and remain at the Yondan level. The catch is, at Godan our student was to be included in the teaching of some of the finer points of the style, the inner secrets if you like. So now we have a high ranked practitioner who for a reason really unrelated to his/her proficiency is not practising the full style even though at that level he/she should be. Is this person a student or practitioner of the art? Yes.

Our Yondan now decides that the kata is a waste of time and he/she decides that he/she is not going to train it any more. Kata is an integral part of that system. Another grey area because if the person is not teaching, does it really matter if they are not performing kata? Probably not. In Okinawa, at the Jundokan, our Yondan could turn up and train, night after night, and, because of the informality, no one would even notice. So once again he/she is still a student of the art but are not going to progress further.

To summarise, if the student is happy to remain at the level he/she is at, and is not teaching then they are practising the art, incomplete though it may be.

 

[K-man]

Good points.
I Do think there are some that just want to preserve to art intact and pass that down as a whole entity.

Totally different story. If you are not passing on the whole art, you are not passing on the art all. You are passing on a variation of the art.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Didn't this subject come up just a while back? I can't find the thread, but I could swear we had a discussion about disability and martial arts.

This is less to do with disability and more to do with a student who, say loves TKD pumse but hates shihap kyorugi and never participates in that part of the class, or participates in everything up to but not including free sparring.

Just to clarify, this thread is not meant to address the reverse: MA instructor removes a core element from the curriculum entirely. Though if people wish to discuss that, that is up to them.

Anyway. My opinion is very similar to Chris' on this, but the key is to distinguish what the ACTUAL core components of an art really are.

But, to add to the discussion, I am not sure I see much value in distinguishing these things unless you're talking about grade and promotion. What I mean is, I see a lot of value in someone who is disabled (for example) training in an art that he or she is incapable of mastering. Even if a person is physically or mentally incapable of accomplishing a core task, there might still be a lot of positive benefit from training and so it becomes a moot point.

That is pretty much my opinion.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Allrighty, my two cents from everything I've been able to gather: there's a difference in the way most arts were practiced at their origin and the way they're practiced today. Way back when, mastery of an MA was a matter of survival -- literal life or death. Therefore, anyone that was weak, or otherwise "deficient" got weeded out of the training pool.

That is only true to an extent. Most unarmed arts were not trained entirely as matter of survival. All cultures had some form of fight sport that common folk engaged in for fun and amusement, and probably for social standing within their peer groups. When the common folk needed to defend themselves against armed enemies, they generally broke out the farm implements and hunting weapons. Engaging them in hand to hand combat was a last resort. The same was true for the warrior class; they trained in the weapons of war and used them in battle, only using unarmed technique when forced to.

 

[dancingalone]

Assume Ueshiba Sensei hasn't taken any falls for the last 40 years of his life, for whatever reason. Would you say that for the last forty years of his life, he wasn't doing aikido?

But he HAS done ukemi. That's the difference. He HAS experienced the full art.

 

[Chris Parker]

I agree, an art is not the end result, it is the methodology used to achieve the end result.

To my mind, there are other things that have to be considered regarding accomodation. First, is a technique or concept part of the core of an art? To continue the aikido useage, I would say that yes, ukemi is central to aikido as an art. Second, would it be possible to properly teach said technique or concept without first learning it yourself? This is where the area starts getting grey. It may be entirely possible for one person to teach the concept of proper ukemi to someone else, even though they've never done it themselves. If they can, there's no reason that they cannot advance in aikido even though they can't do ukemi themselves. However, there are other people that could not figure out the concept of ukemi without first experiencing it themselves. These people, in my opinion, should not advance in aikido because they cannot do ukemi themselves. So, a case by case basis in my mind, and impossible to throw a blanket statement over.

Hey Paul,

Yeah, the methodology is as important (if not more so) as anything else. With a lot of our kinda stuff, it's found in the kata, with particular kata, or sometimes ways of performing particular kata, being one of the definitive aspects of a particular system. To take something like Seitei Iai, for instance, and contrast that with MJER, or MSR Iai, they start with the same kata... but the way they are done show whether or not it's one of the Ryu. Simply doing "Mae" as part of Seitei Iai doesn't mean that you're then actually doing Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, or Muso Shinden Ryu, even though it's ostensibly the same kata. Of course, as you know, pointing out what makes it one or the other is another matter entirely! But what it comes down to there, is what are you practicing? And the answer is found in the methodology.

When it comes to the idea of teaching, say, Ukemi for Aikido without having first learned it yourself, my honest answer is no. And again that comes down to the same distinction as between MJER or MSR's first kata, and Mae from Seitei Iai. Without having learned Aikido's Ukemi, it can't be taught. You may know Ukemi from another system, but bringing that into Aikido doesn't make it Aikido's Ukemi. Generic Ukemi doesn't cut it, it would need to be Aikido's Ukemi. And how could that be taught by someone who didn't learn it first? For the record, I am familiar with the Ukemi methods of about 8 or 9 different systems, if not more, and each have their own little quirks and peculiarities. To teach Yagyu Shingan Ryu Ukemi as Aikido Ukemi isn't correct, no matter how good Yagyu Shingan's Ukemi (and Nigemi... now that's fun!) is.

Exactly. And at that point, the distinction between "doing" and "not doing" something becomes meaningless. What is the purpose of judging someone as "doing" or "not doing", other than going through some sort of academic exercise which leads nowhere? It's a waste of time, trying to figure out if this person or that person does or does not do a particular martial art.

Hmm, no, I'd disagree. Firstly, Paul's take on my words was clarified, as what he was seeing wasn't what I was saying, so the precept is incorrect in the first place. Next, the purpose is not anything to do with an academic exercise, but more simply to have an understanding of what is required for a person to be considered a practitioner of a particular art.

We could take young Alex here as an example. He's claimed a large number of systems, but has shown no actual understanding of any of them (save his base system of a form of TKD), and honestly it comes down to the fact that he's never actually been a practitioner of any of them. He's had a little exposure (possibly, if we're being generous), but everything that would define each of the systems has been completely lacking in his experience. Therefore, he hasn't really ever "done" any of those systems. That's really the kind of thing we're looking at here.

Assume Ueshiba Sensei hasn't taken any falls for the last 40 years of his life, for whatever reason. Would you say that for the last forty years of his life, he wasn't doing aikido?

Didn't you ask the same question in the other thread? The answer is pretty simple, and it's the same as I gave you there: Is Ukemi present in the art still? Ueshiba might not have taken Ukemi (as he was not acting as Uke) for the final 4 decades of his career, but Ukemi was still present in each of the demonstrations he put on as an integral part of the art, he just wasn't the one demonstrating it. Now, if you think that means that he never performed Ukemi, you really should rethink your premise.

Okay well, what if you were to teach someone martial arts? A friend, your son, your wife, anyone. You are just giving them personal training and helping them learn to fight/defend themselves or maybe it's just exorcise.

you teach them the moves, foot work, application of moves, etc etc etc. Basically everything, but you don't force them to memorize forms.

does that mean you aren't teaching them the art? ( henceforth the art will be karate ). Just because you don't force them to go over every single kata does that mean that they don't know karate? What if they can go to tournements with the skills you have taught them and win the sparring and kumite sessions? What if they still were able to defend themselves in an altercation. Does that mean that they do no know karate just because you decided not to teach them forms?

In my opinion, it is the application of the techniques, not everything else, that denotes practicing an art. and even if in the end it looks nothing like the art that you taught them...then they are basically a practitioner of jeet kune do at that point right? As I understand it, jeet kune do incorporates all styles and any move the practitioner deems useful. So essentially, jeet kune do ( although i'm aware it means the way of the intercepting fist ) is "freestyle".

also, take note that in each art there are many different variations of said art. My taekwondo class is a lot less hoppy jumpy and uses as many punches as we do kicks, which makes us fundamentally different in application than many other schools. the OP used the example of the aikido practioner that doesn't fall. Well we are taekwondo practitioners that don't hoppy jump skip and don't use mostly kicks. Does that mean we are not practicing the art? Is it a new style all together?

my two cents

I've taught friends and family a range of aspects of my system, but in no case did that qualify them as saying they were doing my art. Mainly as I wasn't teaching them the art, I was teaching them whatever aspect was important to their situation, typically from out street defense side of things. However, the reason that what they did wasn't enough to call it "doing the art" wasn't because I wasn't giving them everything, it was because they were missing the key components/training methods. So no, just because you're not teaching your friend each and every kata doesn't mean they're not doing karate, but if kata is a core component of your karate, and you don't teach them any, then that excludes them from having been taught karate.

A friend of mine commented recently that when he was young, he was shown how to play fast notes on a guitar (hammer-on's and pull-off's) in order to understand how metal players did their fast solos. That's really all he learnt, and he can still do it... but he's not a guitarist, is he? I mean, that's all he can do on one. No chords, no runs, no scales, not even the introduction to Stairway to Heaven, just those little hammer-ons and pull-offs.

To get to your take that it's the application of techniques that makes the art, I'd disagree. What makes the art of karate is the kata, it provides the template, the core approach and strategy, all the key fundamental concepts... it IS the art. Without it, all you have is a bunch of kicks and punches. And if, at the end, it's just up to the individual to put things together the way they want to, there's no point in learning a martial art.

With your idea of "different styles" with your form of TKD not being all hoppy-jumpy, yeah, it can come down to particular forms of an art. There are some karate systems to whom the use of a makiwara is essential, and if you're not engaging in makiwara training (or, more accurately, if makiwara training is not part of the methodology of that school), then you're not really doing that form of karate. But, if makiwara training is not part of your karate system, then it's not a necessary component. But there will be other aspects that absolutely define it as "karate", just a different system. This is why it's a case-by-case basis, and what needs to be understood is what is required for whatever system you're looking at.

Oh, and that's really not what JKD is about, either.

Allrighty, my two cents from everything I've been able to gather: there's a difference in the way most arts were practiced at their origin and the way they're practiced today. Way back when, mastery of an MA was a matter of survival -- literal life or death. Therefore, anyone that was weak, or otherwise "deficient" got weeded out of the training pool. Nowadays, teaching MA is, in most cases, a business. The focus is less on a competitive advantage in survival, than on self-confidence, perseverance, camaraderie, what-have-you. But then again, most of us live in a world, where we don't have to worry about the Vikings swooping in in the middle of the night and making off with our goats and womenfolk . So, MAs adapt to the times and the lives of their practitioners, i.e. accommodation is the name of the game, if you want to be successful in teaching MA.

I was going to answer this, but Daniel has gotten there before me (damn it, man, I had a power blackout! not my fault!), so I'll quote his answer, then add my comments to that.

That is only true to an extent. Most unarmed arts were not trained entirely as matter of survival. All cultures had some form of fight sport that common folk engaged in for fun and amusement, and probably for social standing within their peer groups. When the common folk needed to defend themselves against armed enemies, they generally broke out the farm implements and hunting weapons. Engaging them in hand to hand combat was a last resort. The same was true for the warrior class; they trained in the weapons of war and used them in battle, only using unarmed technique when forced to.

The other thing to realise is that, when looking at arts such as Japanese sword-based systems (Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, Tatsumi Ryu, etc) is that the sword was never really a battlefield weapon at all... yet they are central to the teaching of these so-called "battlefield" arts. So do you think that they were really originally practiced purely for "a matter of survival -- literally life or death"? The answer is actually no. They were practiced for the lessons they imparted, which could certainly be centered around combative realities, but weren't necessarily.

If you have beginners, prior to their first grading, are they practising the art? Assuming that other styles are similar to the karate or aikido I train, it takes roughly three months to get to that level. So, at that stage they are ranked in the style and are training for their next level. I doubt anyone would question that they are students of and are training whatever system it is they are training.

Yeah, quite a number of systems (particularly Japanese ones) won't consider you an actual student until you pass that first grading. You are, in fact, "mu kyu", or "no student" until then.

Now if it is a requirement of grading that these students are required to learn a particular kata and for whatever reason one of them can't, then obviously that student will not progress. So now we have a student stuck at a particular learning level and they may not ever go past that level unless there is some form of accommodation. If that student decides to forgo grading and keep training he/she is still a student of that art. I would argue, yes.

There seems to be a bit of confusion over the basic concept being put forth here. The idea isn't of not training in one particular kata or another, it's of not having the entire concept of kata training as part of the karate training. So provided kata is still part of the training, even if one or more of them are skipped, it's still training in karate, and "doing the system". Skip too many of them, though, and you are diluting the particular karate system itself (removing Sanshin from Goju, for instance, and there's quite a strong argument that it's no longer Goju) to the point of no longer being the same system.

That leaves a student who doesn't get to the first level. In my mind this is a grey area. If someone can't fulfill the basic requirements of a style, can they remain a student? It would be hypothetical because why would someone keep going at that level if they were never going to progress. But technically a student? Yes.

Again, the thing we're looking at is whether or not the core aspects (training methods, in this case) are present. They may remain a very low-level karateka, but a karateka they remain.

Skip ahead 20 years and one of our dedicated students is Yondan. It is a requirement of this hypothetical organisation that at this level the student is required to demonstrate proficiency in teaching beginners in order to progress to the next level.
This student is more than happy to forgo teaching and remain at the Yondan level. The catch is, at Godan our student was to be included in the teaching of some of the finer points of the style, the inner secrets if you like. So now we have a high ranked practitioner who for a reason really unrelated to his/her proficiency is not practising the full style even though at that level he/she should be. Is this person a student or practitioner of the art? Yes.

Yep, agreed. The level that the student attains wasn't really a question, as I read it.

Our Yondan now decides that the kata is a waste of time and he/she decides that he/she is not going to train it any more. Kata is an integral part of that system. Another grey area because if the person is not teaching, does it really matter if they are not performing kata? Probably not. In Okinawa, at the Jundokan, our Yondan could turn up and train, night after night, and, because of the informality, no one would even notice. So once again he/she is still a student of the art but are not going to progress further.

Ah, now we get interesting... by taking out kata from their own training, I'd start arguing that they're moving away from the art itself, and basically being a fair bit dishonest in their continuing with the system.

To summarise, if the student is happy to remain at the level he/she is at, and is not teaching then they are practising the art, incomplete though it may be.

Provided they are still training the art (meaning following what the art teaches, and continuing the core components of it), then yeah, they're doing the art, regardless of the level they get to. But if they start to move away from what the art actually teaches, they are no longer training in that art.

 

[Steve]

You guys have heard the term, "Ready, willing and able." Right?

This conversation puts me in mind of that. There's a difference between "won't do," "can't do" and "can't do yet."

Not Willing: I'd say that if a person is unwilling to train in certain aspects of an art, they are choosing not to train in that art.

Not Able: If a person can't do some aspects of an art, they may not be fulling training in that art, but it depends on the instructor and what are truly its core aspects.

Not Ready: If a person can't do some aspects of an art yet, they are still training in the art. They're just not very advanced. A white belt, for example.

I figure if we all add our 2 cents, we'll have enough money to share a cup of coffee.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

You guys have heard the term, "Ready, willing and able." Right?

This conversation puts me in mind of that. There's a difference between "won't do," "can't do" and "can't do yet."

Not Willing: I'd say that if a person is unwilling to train in certain aspects of an art, they are choosing not to train in that art.

Not Able: If a person can't do some aspects of an art, they may not be fulling training in that art, but it depends on the instructor and what are truly its core aspects.

Not Ready: If a person can't do some aspects of an art yet, they are still training in the art. They're just not very advanced. A white belt, for example.

Assuming that they are able, I always just assume that they are still baking. Some take longer to bake than others. If they quit before they're fully baked, then that is on them. Until that point, I don't make the distinction about whether they are doing the art or just training (insert name of art)-moves.

I figure if we all add our 2 cents, we'll have enough money to share a cup of coffee.

Even a venti caramel machiatto?

 

[Black Belt Jedi]

At my school, it seems most likely students slow down in Karate at 1st dan. Many black belts left sometime after being shodan, while so few stayed and kept training. It is because some gone off to college, some thought that they had finished the training, and others have other personal problems outside of the dojo and don't have the heart to stay and train.

For me I don't do free sparring as much at Black Belt how I use to be when I was going up the kyu belt ranks. I find that kata and studying the Bunkai is more important than sparring. I don't even do sparring in tournaments anymore. I had many reasons like I'm getting older and sparring is dangerous and people get hurt. I went through sparring so much, and I felt that I don't have nothing to prove. Once in a blue moon I do some sparring to see if I still have it.

 

[pgsmith]

I feel that there is a little bit of a communication problem that we're arguing about, rather than actual ideas. From the perspective of those doing traditional martial arts, an art is defined by its methodology. If you aren't following the methodology, you are doing something else. The more modern arts tend to have more generalities than that. If someone is practicing a certain way, they could be said to be practicing karate. However, unless they were practicing using a particular methodology, they could not be said to be practicing Shotokan karate. (Completely random example by the way).

Even a venti caramel machiatto?

Nope, a plain generic coffee from the Quick Mart ... small.

 

[K-man]

I feel that there isB a little bit of a communication problem that we're arguing about, rather than actual ideas. From the perspective of those doing traditional martial arts, an art is defined by its methodology. If you aren't following the methodology, you are doing something else. The more modern arts tend to have more generalities than that. If someone is practicing a certain way, they could be said to be practicing karate. However, unless they were practicing using a particular methodology, they could not be said to be practicing Shotokan karate. (Completely random example by the way).

Which is pretty much how 'freestyle' karate has originated. The school I am thinking of dropped kata and incorporated Muay Thai.

 

[puunui]

But he HAS done ukemi. That's the difference. He HAS experienced the full art.

But if he hasn't done ukemi for the last 40 years of his life, can you still say that he is "doing aikido"? Wasn't your premise that if you don't do ukemi, you aren't doing aikido? Our assumption is that he hadn't done ukemi for the last 40 years.

How about an art like BJJ? If you don't do ukemi there, is it still BJJ? I ask because when I was training in that, we used to spend 50% of the class time doing self defense techniques. The other half was groundwork. During the self defense portion, the teacher took all of the falls. When I asked about that, he said my job was to learn the technique, and his job was to take the falls for me. I suppose if and when I became the teacher, I would then have to take the falls. But not at the level I was at. Is taking falls a part of BJJ? And was I doing BJJ when I was learning the self defense techniques but not taking any falls?

 

[puunui]

Even a venti caramel machiatto?

I was looking at that on the menu this morning at starbucks.

 

[Chris Parker]

I feel that there is a little bit of a communication problem that we're arguing about, rather than actual ideas. From the perspective of those doing traditional martial arts, an art is defined by its methodology. If you aren't following the methodology, you are doing something else. The more modern arts tend to have more generalities than that. If someone is practicing a certain way, they could be said to be practicing karate. However, unless they were practicing using a particular methodology, they could not be said to be practicing Shotokan karate. (Completely random example by the way).

Agreed. I was trying to find a way to say this last night... nicely put, Paul! So, uh, what he said.

But if he hasn't done ukemi for the last 40 years of his life, can you still say that he is "doing aikido"? Wasn't your premise that if you don't do ukemi, you aren't doing aikido? Our assumption is that he hadn't done ukemi for the last 40 years.

No, that wasn't the premise. The premise was that if Ukemi isn't part of the training methodology, is what you're doing still Aikido? When you get to the point of Ueshiba later in his career, he might not have focused on Ukemi (from his side), but it was still an ever-present aspect.

And where does that assumption come from? The video's of Ueshiba's demonstrations where he's always Tori? Hmm.

How about an art like BJJ? If you don't do ukemi there, is it still BJJ? I ask because when I was training in that, we used to spend 50% of the class time doing self defense techniques. The other half was groundwork. During the self defense portion, the teacher took all of the falls. When I asked about that, he said my job was to learn the technique, and his job was to take the falls for me. I suppose if and when I became the teacher, I would then have to take the falls. But not at the level I was at. Is taking falls a part of BJJ? And was I doing BJJ when I was learning the self defense techniques but not taking any falls?

Each art/system has it's own set of immutable aspects, Ukemi is a big part of Aikido, Judo etc, but to arbitrarily suggest that it's part of each system is a little naive or plainly ignorant, don't you think? While falling is a part of BJJ, it's less of an integral aspect than things like transitioning position on the ground.

Applying one concept across the board just doesn't work. If you're going to ask whether you were training BJJ by applying Aikido structure then you've missed the point of both systems, as well as the discussion. Another major point is that the Ukemi discussed is Aikido's Ukemi... which is different to Judo's, or any other form, really. So asking about it in BJJ is just plain odd.

 

[puunui]

And where does that assumption come from? The video's of Ueshiba's demonstrations where he's always Tori?

No. Check my earlier post to dancingalone in this thread.

Each art/system has it's own set of immutable aspects, Ukemi is a big part of Aikido, Judo etc, but to arbitrarily suggest that it's part of each system is a little naive or plainly ignorant, don't you think?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking dancingalone a question, not you.

While falling is a part of BJJ, it's less of an integral aspect than things like transitioning position on the ground.

Only if you think groundwork is all that there is to BJJ.

 

[Chris Parker]

No. Check my earlier post to dancingalone in this thread.

So you're saying it's a hypothetical, unrealistic, and still flawed premise that you're inventing, and want comments on that? Well, you got an answer from both Dancingalone and myself, telling you the same thing, and you continue to argue without basis.

Considering you'd already tried the same tact in the other thread, I wonder whether or not you actually listen to anything you're ever told.... Tell you what, let's revisit it (from the "21 Year Old 6th Dan" thread):

Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?Specific martial arts have immutable parts to them. We can choose to focus on certain aspects to the possible exclusion of the others for periods of time, and that can be a good thing occasionally. However, this can't stand permanently. If you train karate without kata, arguably you're not doing karate. You're doing something else, no matter how much it can resemble karate.

Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?

Yes. Yes. and yes.

Hmm. Show your work.

Mainly as I feel, as Dancingalone does, that these aspects are integral to the practice of said arts. No, they aren't the entire art, yes, you can be training in the art while not specifically doing those aspects, but if you're training karate and you never do kata, are you doing karate? If you do Aikido without falling/learning how to fall, are you doing Aikido? If you train in Kendo without ever doing shiai, are you really doing Kendo? Or are you doing a portion of the material without actually doing the art, which would require a more complete experience.

the original questions were: Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?

And my answer is yes to all three. Yes you can do those arts without kata, sparring or falling. This can apply to both beginners and advanced practitioners. For example, I studied kenpo karate under Professor William Chow, and he never taught any kata nor did I ever see him doing any, at least not any solo type kata which I believe is the subject in this thread. Similarly, I have watched some video (probably less than you) on youtube of Ueshiba Sensei demonstrating techniques and never once did I see him take a fall. As for kendo, one of my students competes at the World Kendo Championships and he spends a great deal of time training by himself hitting an old tire mounted on a stand, which he made himself. Are they not practicing karate, kendo or aikido?

Similarly, I have watched some video (probably less than you) on youtube of Ueshiba Sensei demonstrating techniques and never once did I see him take a fall.

With regards to Ueshiba, are you suggesting that just because you never saw him take a fall in the videos you saw (when he was presumably teaching or demonstrating) that wasn't part of his Aikido training? How about the guys he was throwing around, were they taking falls?

Seriously flawed argument, Glenn.

His partners were taking falls, but he hasn't. In fact, to use one of your debate tactics, I would say that there is no evidence that Ueshiba Sensei took falls for anyone during the last 40 or more years of his life. But if you wish to do a google or youtube search in an effort to prove me wrong, be my guest. In other words, "show your work".

You're kidding, right? Firstly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Secondly, when can you think of any teacher, when teaching or demonstrating the techniques, being the one receiving them in this way? So when you have only seen video of Ueshiba demonstrating, why would you think that that's all he did, or taught? And finally, if he, due to his position, didn't take falls (act as uke) for the last 40 years of his career, does that mean that falling was not part of his Aikido training? Or do you just like putting up non-arguments with no basis?

So we've done this dance already, yeah?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking dancingalone a question, not you.

Yeah, and I answered.

Only if you think groundwork is all that there is to BJJ.

Do you really want to go through this again? Seriously?

"Each art/system has it's own set of immutable aspects, Ukemi is a big part of Aikido, Judo etc, but to arbitrarily suggest that it's part of each system is a little naive or plainly ignorant, don't you think? While falling is a part of BJJ, it's less of an integral aspect than things like transitioning position on the ground."

Each art has it's own SET of immutable aspects.... not singular by any means. And I highly doubt you have any idea how much of an understanding of BJJ I have. I'd suggest it's a fair bit higher than yours, though, for a range of reasons (no matter what names you throw at us), as your posts seem to increasingly show a lack of understanding of many basic aspects of different systems, as you can't get out of the small context you have in your head already.