I'd take that to then refer to the training of the individual, which makes my comment still valid. Glenn put forth a hypothetical that Ueshiba, not actually taking ukemi for 40 years, was therefore not actually doing Aikido, and both Dancingalone and myself said that ukemi was part of his Aikido training, so Glenn's premise was incorrect and invalid.
It isn't a question of Glenn's premise; The question essentially is if a person drops ukemi from their aikido training, are they no longer 'doing' aikido?
Honestly, that's not the way I've seen it, and I don't think that's the way Dancingalone meant the original context either. The original concept is if Ukemi wasn't a part of the training (at all), not that it was present, but moved past (as a regular part of the training), either in part or entirely. If there is never Ukemi present, then a vital part of Aikido is missing, therefore no Aikido. Glenn's premise was that it was present, but later removed, which was incorrect and invalid.
I'd take that to then refer to the training of the individual, which makes my comment still valid. Glenn put forth a hypothetical that Ueshiba, not actually taking ukemi for 40 years, was therefore not actually doing Aikido, and both Dancingalone and myself said that ukemi was part of his Aikido training, so Glenn's premise was incorrect and invalid.
Christopher, I am not certain how you justify this assertion that to have removed ukemi practice means one is no longer practicing Aikido?? I think it is a assertion that is lingering in the theoretical having spent insufficient time in the reality.
Ah, my dear J, perhaps you missed what I said. I am not justifying, or even putting forth that to have removed ukemi practice means one is no longer practicing Aikido, that's what Glenn put forth. To state again from the above:
"
Glenn put forth a hypothetical that Ueshiba, not actually taking Ukemi for 40 years,
was therefore not actually doing Aikido, and
both Dancingalone and myself said that ukemi was part of his Aikido training, so
Glenn's premise was incorrect and invalid."
So perhaps he is the one who is lingering in the theoretical.... gotta love that he agreed and thanked you, though. You basically said that his entire stance was based in not actually knowing what he's talking about.
Gotta say, I love that...
When I lived in Minnesota, one of the senior black belts under my teacher's teacher opened a dojang at the Courage Center. He taught the art of Tang Soo Do to people with physical and developmental disabilities and modified everything so that it could be done with braces or even wheel chairs. He helped his students design self defense moves that fit the student's condition and roughly followed the principles of the art. He even taught them how to spar.
I remember when he would take his dojang to the regional tournaments that our dojang hosted. His students competed in a modified way in their own division and he would walk all of the judges through the criteria that each event would be judged with. As a new shodan, I loved judging for the modified division. I remember a young man who struggled with a muscular disorder and walked with braces. He plodded his way through a modified version of Bassai. Some of the moves he couldn't do, but the basic kata was still evident. I remember two students, both in wheel chairs, who sparred. They would try to outmaneuver each other and get to the point where they could score a point with a hand technique. It was fun to watch and I loved judging for it!
I always left these tournaments feeling inspired. I think the experience was overwhelmingly positive for everyone involved and I don't think it denigrated the art in anyway. They were still practicing Tang Soo Do. They were challenging their limits. They were personalizing an art form for themselves. Isn't that what all artists do anyways?
Here's the thing, though, this basically says that there are a number of immutable aspects needed for it to be Tang Soo Do, and in order to maintain them, adaptations have been made. There's never been an argument that things can't be altered, just that certain things are needed in each art for it to actually be that art. You list here that the adaptations "followed the principles of the art... the basic kata was still evident... he even taught them how to spar... etc". So what you're saying is that the instructor maintained all the immutable aspects that make the system what it is, even though the exact performance of such aspects needed to be adapted. Okay, but which argument are you trying to make? That any art can be adapted, while remaining true to the structure/core/principles of said art to fit a student? Okay, sure. But the thrust of the question is if the sparring, and the kata were removed entirely, never taught to the student, is it still Tang Soo Do? Or if the self defence techniques were removed along with the sparring, and only kata was taught, is it still Tang Soo Do?
Personalizing to a students abilities is one thing, but not having the key components present in the first place is really what's being discussed here. And your story, yes, a very good instructor, and an inspiring one, supports that those key components are needed.