Yes, I'm sure you believe you know more about BJJ, korean martial arts, japanese martial arts, all martial arts really, than I do.
At what point does accomodation of a student remove them from practicing the actual art?
- Thread starter Daniel Sullivan
- Start date
Yes, I'm sure you believe you know more about BJJ, korean martial arts, japanese martial arts, all martial arts really, than I do.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Based on your posts, yeah. Specific histories of some Korean systems I'd defer to you, but overall, yeah.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
The catch is, my position is supported by both my posts and yours. But how about we drop this, it's not going anywhere good.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
i'm talking about my posts above that which were directed at dancingalone to which you chose to personally attack me about in a hot pursuit fashion. the posts you are talking about you agreed with and took as further opportunity to personally attack me.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Point out the attacks. I don't think there are any, and I think you'll be very hard pressed to find one. What you'll find are answers to questions you posed, and that's it.
And it's hardly hot pursuit when my contention is referenced in the OP, and I have three posts on the first page before you came into it.
And it's hardly hot pursuit when my contention is referenced in the OP, and I have three posts on the first page before you came into it.
You and I discussed that (the premise) over in the other thread and I had said that Dancingalone would have to clarify that. Since he hasn't indicated to Glenn in any of their exchanges that his premise was about the training methodology and not about the individual, I assume that he was speaking about the individual practitioner. Again, he would have to clarify that.
Either way, this thread is about the individual practitioner. If you and/or others wish to explore removal of elements from the curriculum, feel free, though that topic probably deserves its own thread.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
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?
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.
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?
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?
Exactly.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
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.
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...
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.
Apologies if I have misunderstood. I am guilty of not reading everything and jumping in at one post. Sorry
fyi, from the many stories told to me by my shihan who was schooled among the latter cohort of students in the latter years of Ueshiba, three things are pertinent to this aspect of the discussion: O'Sensei practiced ukemi until the end though the vigour of his practice was mitigated by his physical condition - he ADAPTED his ukemi and would perform the movements with less "excess", less speed, no tanking and more caution. Secondly, the role that O'Sensei naturally placed himself in was as nage and not uke which diminished the need for ukemi besides display of ukemi in the later course of his teaching. And there was also the other notion that he espoused of being so firmly grounded as to render himself almost un-throwable.
As I had mentioned, removal of a section of a syllabus - ukemi in the case you are all discussing - IS possible and does not NECESSARILY render the practice non-Aikido PROVIDED it is compensated for through alternatives or adapting. On the other hand, dropping a core practice with no compensation and no alternative deployment of technique implies that what is being practiced is something like Aikido and but it is not Aikido per se.
The original question that DA asked, which prompted this thread, was 'can you do karate without kata, can you do kendo without sparring and can you do aikido without ukemi?' Thus far, he has not clarified further what he means.
You each see the premise differently, thus it is not 'Glenn's' premise, but the difference between his and your interpretation DA's question. Personally, I saw it the way that Glenn did, but answered your perspective over in the other thread as well.
I'm not going to speculate further about the nature of the question; I've made the premise of this thread clearly enough and will be happy to clarify further if anyone wishes me to.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hmm, honestly, Daniel, I'd still disagree. Dancingalone's original comment implied "training karate but never training in kata, training in Aikido but never training in ukemi, training in Kendo but never sparring". And the way you phrased the OP, it reads as if you were following the same concept. Glenn, on the other hand, has put forth a hypothetical where Ueshiba trained in ukemi when he was younger, but stopped for the last 40 years. It's that premise that I'm questioning, as it goes against what Dancingalone put forth, as well as what you've continued here. That's why both Dancingalone and I turned around and stated that, in DA's words, "But he HAS done ukemi. That's the difference. He HAS experienced the full art." Hence, yeah, that was Glenn's premise (the hypothetical Ueshiba construct).
If circumstances change for yourself later, and you need to modify aspects of your training (the removal of high kicks for clfsean), but still retain all the core training ideals and methodologies, it's still the art. If you remove aspects, or remove emphasis on them (such as ukemi later in your career, as in the hypothetical Ueshiba construct), provided they remain a core concept (present) in your training, even if you aren't physically still going through them, it's still the art. If the art needs to be modified from the get-go (as in makalakuma's example of the Tang Soo Do instructor), but stays as true to the art as possible, including retaining all the core aspects of the art (the kata, the self defence concepts, the sparring), then it's still the art. But if you never include one or more of those key aspects, it's a different (but very similar) system. If you remove an aspect because you don't want to have it as part of your training anymore (such as K-Man's hypothetical 4th Dan removing kata training), then you're no longer training in that system. You've moved off to do your own thing.
I think that covers pretty much all possibilities for what we're discussing, yeah?
If circumstances change for yourself later, and you need to modify aspects of your training (the removal of high kicks for clfsean), but still retain all the core training ideals and methodologies, it's still the art. If you remove aspects, or remove emphasis on them (such as ukemi later in your career, as in the hypothetical Ueshiba construct), provided they remain a core concept (present) in your training, even if you aren't physically still going through them, it's still the art. If the art needs to be modified from the get-go (as in makalakuma's example of the Tang Soo Do instructor), but stays as true to the art as possible, including retaining all the core aspects of the art (the kata, the self defence concepts, the sparring), then it's still the art. But if you never include one or more of those key aspects, it's a different (but very similar) system. If you remove an aspect because you don't want to have it as part of your training anymore (such as K-Man's hypothetical 4th Dan removing kata training), then you're no longer training in that system. You've moved off to do your own thing.
I think that covers pretty much all possibilities for what we're discussing, yeah?
My OP assumes accommodating a new student, but regarding accommodation of students or practitioners who may have at one point experienced the full art but no longer can or choose not to participate in a particular aspect, for whatever reason, are they still doing the art? It isn't a question of 'is he an aikido/taekwondo/kendo/whatever-ist; the question is are you practicing the art at that point? Be it at the outset or later.
By your logic, a retired football player is playing football every time he picks up a football simply because he played at one time, which I would disagree with. If a retired football player is playing catch with his grandson, he's just playing catch.
Yes, I think Ueshiba was still doing aikido even if he hadn't done ukemi in years. But, whether or not he had experienced the full art is not why I think that.
Kind of depends on what element is being dropped and why.
All that I can think of at present.
Similar threads
