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

[puunui]

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.

Did you do well on the reading comprehension portion of the SAT?

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

Hmm, no, my logic doesn't say that at all, really. If you're not doing the art, you're not doing the art. By my reasoning, the only way to say you're playing football is to be playing football. Now, if the retired footballer is playing a game with only four people a side, that's still playing football, as the core elements of the game are all there.

In terms of what point it no longer is the art, well, that's really something individual to the art... but once one or more of the key components (whatever they are according to the system itself) is removed (not just moved past, actually removed, as in K-Man's hypothetical of the karate 4th dan removing kata), then it's no longer that art. Basically, it is until it isn't. And it isn't until it is. Clear, right?

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.

What is your reason, then?

Kind of depends on what element is being dropped and why.

Hmm, thought that was kinda what I was saying.

All that I can think of at present.

Same.

 

[puunui]

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.

What if you are the punter. Are you still doing football if all you do is punt, and not run, pass, block, catch, tackle, carry the ball, catch the ball, sack the quarterback, etc.?

 

[K-man]

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.

Jenna, just a couple of questions. Have you any reference for Ueshiba Sensei using "grounding"? What is your understanding of "grounding" in relation to Aikido? :asian:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Did you do well on the reading comprehension portion of the SAT?

Reasonably. Why?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

What if you are the punter. Are you still doing football if all you do is punt, and not run, pass, block, catch, tackle, carry the ball, catch the ball, sack the quarterback, etc.?

Sure. Its all done within the context of playing football. And if the football player playing catch with his grandson wants to call it football, I am not bothered by it.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Hmm, no, my logic doesn't say that at all, really. If you're not doing the art, you're not doing the art. By my reasoning, the only way to say you're playing football is to be playing football. Now, if the retired footballer is playing a game with only four people a side, that's still playing football, as the core elements of the game are all there.

Sure.

In terms of what point it no longer is the art, well, that's really something individual to the art... but once one or more of the key components (whatever they are according to the system itself) is removed (not just moved past, actually removed, as in K-Man's hypothetical of the karate 4th dan removing kata), then it's no longer that art. Basically, it is until it isn't. And it isn't until it is. Clear, right?

Again, I think that it depends upon what is being removed and why. If it is removed from the curriculum (thus is not available to the student), then you have a separate circumstance from that of the student simply hasn't learned it or started it or the student is unable to do it (thus the accommodation).

In this thread, the premise is the latter. With regards to the former, you're getting into whether or not something is a variant of an existing art or a separate art altogether.

What is your reason, then?

I'm not an aikido practitioner, so take my answer for what its worth. I see ukemi as something that is done so that the art of aikido can be practiced safely. Ukemi, or whatever else you want to call it, of some kind is part of a lot of arts. If you're throwing your partner, or doing any one of a number of other things with a partner, the partner will need to practice ukemi in order to not be injured in the course of practicing the art. Aikido has core principles, not all of which are physical and which do not preordain the specific technical content of the art.

We do ukemi (though we don't call it that) in hapkido so that we can train without injury and so that we can avoid injury outside of the dojang, be it in self defense or simply breaking a fall from slipping. We also have joint locks, joint manipulation, striking (hands, feet, knees, elbows), throwing, and weapon work. None of which makes hapkido particularly unique, as some ryus of karate likely have the same features, and I'm certain that a number of CMA do as well.

But the principles of hapkido, hwa , weon, and yu (harmony/nonresistance, circular motion, and flow), arewhat make hapkido hapkido and not simply taekwondo with joint locks, which I have experienced. So long as those principles are there, you're 'doing' hapkido whether you are doing nak beop and gureugi (falling and rolling respectively) or not.

I believe (and any aikidoka here, feel free to correct me) that aikido has similar principles.

Hmm, thought that was kinda what I was saying.

In general, it is, but your posts get very specific (which is fine) and very definitive with regards to 'this without this cannot be this.'

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm not an aikido practitioner, so take my answer for what its worth. I see ukemi as something that is done so that the art of aikido can be practiced safely. Ukemi, or whatever else you want to call it, of some kind is part of a lot of arts. If you're throwing your partner, or doing any one of a number of other things with a partner, the partner will need to practice ukemi in order to not be injured in the course of practicing the art. Aikido has core principles, not all of which are physical and which do not preordain the specific technical content of the art.

We do ukemi (though we don't call it that) in hapkido so that we can train without injury. We also have joint locks, joint manipulation, striking (hands, feet, knees, elbows), throwing, and weapon work. None of which makes hapkido particularly unique, as some ryus of karate likely have the same features, and I'm certain that a number of CMA do as well.

But the principles of hapkido, hwa , weon, and yu (harmony/nonresistance, circular motion, and flow), arewhat make hapkido hapkido and not simply taekwondo with joint locks, which I have experienced. So long as those principles are there, you're 'doing' hapkido whether you are doing nak beop and gureugi (falling and rolling respectively) or not.

I believe (and any aikidoka here, feel free to correct me) that aikido has similar principles.

Hey Daniel,

Ha, considering the claimed origins of Hapkido (and the more likely origins), finding that the principles for falling would be similar wouldn't really surprise me in the slightest!

To take it back to the top of this quote, though, yeah, that's a good generic reasoning for ukemi, however for it to be Aikido, it needs to be Aikido Ukemi... which is different to other forms out there. For instance, one of the big issues I had during some Aikido classes I've taken is that the ukemi is so different to ours. Both are ukemi, both are designed (more or less) to protect you when you fall/get thrown, but they are almost completely opposite. And if you are teaching our form of ukemi in an Aikido class, again I'd say that you're not really doing Aikido. I would completely disagree, though, that any of the core principles of Aikido (or any art, really) exist without leading to the specific technical content. In fact, I'd say that Aikido's ukemi is done the way it is specifically because of those underlying principles... and ours is so different for much the same reason.

With your list of the contents of Hapkido, no, none of those elements are unique, but the approach to them, the application, and the combination that make it Hapkido are.

In general, it is, but your posts get very specific (which is fine) and very definitive with regards to 'this without this cannot be this.'

Ha, yeah. But the specificity is only in terms of specific examples, looking at each in turn. One single criteria can't be applied across the board, which I think I've said from the outset.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Ha, considering the claimed origins of Hapkido (and the more likely origins), finding that the principles for falling would be similar wouldn't really surprise me in the slightest!

It wouldn't surprise me either. We had an aikido practitioner (mudansha) come to our HKD school when I was still training there and he indicated that our falling and rolling weren't all that different from what he learned. In fact, a lot of what we did wasn't all that different from what he had learned according to him.

To take it back to the top of this quote, though, yeah, that's a good generic reasoning for ukemi, however for it to be Aikido, it needs to be Aikido Ukemi... which is different to other forms out there. For instance, one of the big issues I had during some Aikido classes I've taken is that the ukemi is so different to ours. Both are ukemi, both are designed (more or less) to protect you when you fall/get thrown, but they are almost completely opposite. And if you are teaching our form of ukemi in an Aikido class, again I'd say that you're not really doing Aikido. I would completely disagree, though, that any of the core principles of Aikido (or any art, really) exist without leading to the specific technical content. In fact, I'd say that Aikido's ukemi is done the way it is specifically because of those underlying principles... and ours is so different for much the same reason.

Which leads me back to the underlying principles being more of a defining factor in an art than the specific technical content.

There are underlying principles in kendo that are evident in the way that one manipulates the sword and moves that mark it as kendo. Even without ever donning bogu and participating in any sort of sparring, if those principles are evident in what the student is doing, then in my opinion, it is still kendo. Perhaps a very basic level of kendo, but still kendo nonetheless.

With your list of the contents of Hapkido, no, none of those elements are unique, but the approach to them, the application, and the combination that make it Hapkido are.

I would actually say that the approach and application are what make it hapkido, as the combination is fairly generic.

I occasionally hear fellow hapkidoists comment that when they see people rolling on the ground and doing ground fighting in a hapkido class that 'that's not hapkido.' Personally, I disagree. So long as the principles are there, it is still hapkido in my opinion.

If a new student is unable to do falls and rolls or high kicking due to medical reasons or age, but the core principles of hapkido are evident in the parts of the art that he or she can do, then it is hapkido in my opinion.

 

[Chris Parker]

It wouldn't surprise me either. We had an aikido practitioner (mudansha) come to our HKD school when I was still training there and he indicated that our falling and rolling weren't all that different from what he learned. In fact, a lot of what we did wasn't all that different from what he had learned according to him.

Ha, yep! In fact, I'd probably suggest that an Aikido practitioner joining in a Hapkido class will see a lot more similarities to their art than, say, a Daito Ryu practitioner....

Which leads me back to the underlying principles being more of a defining factor in an art than the specific technical content.

I'd say they're intrinsically joined, the principles (combined with the context) giving the specific technical content. In fact, I'd say that the technical aspects are a result of the principles, the history, and the context... so they can't really be separated that way.

There are underlying principles in kendo that are evident in the way that one manipulates the sword and moves that mark it as kendo. Even without ever donning bogu and participating in any sort of sparring, if those principles are evident in what the student is doing, then in my opinion, it is still kendo. Perhaps a very basic level of kendo, but still kendo nonetheless.

Hmm, while I agree that there are a number of technical traits, I don't know that they necessarily define it as Kendo. Instead, they are more like identifying markers. And if your Kendo training never involves sparring, in fact, never works towards sparring, then you are contravening the principles that genuinely do make Kendo Kendo. So I'd say that without sparring (in Kendo), there isn't any Kendo there. Just some mechanical actions and methods taken from Kendo.

I would actually say that the approach and application are what make it hapkido, as the combination is fairly generic.

The specific combination, I'd say, is unique.

I occasionally hear fellow hapkidoists comment that when they see people rolling on the ground and doing ground fighting in a hapkido class that 'that's not hapkido.' Personally, I disagree. So long as the principles are there, it is still hapkido in my opinion.

If a new student is unable to do falls and rolls or high kicking due to medical reasons or age, but the core principles of hapkido are evident in the parts of the art that he or she can do, then it is hapkido in my opinion.

Provided all of the core principles and essential elements are included, yep. But as soon as you start "messing with the formula", by removing aspects, for instance, you move away from it.

 

[Jenna]

Jenna, just a couple of questions. Have you any reference for Ueshiba Sensei using "grounding"? What is your understanding of "grounding" in relation to Aikido? :asian:

Yes, briefly to avoid irritating these people here, one example is the widely quoted interview that confirms the mindset of O'Sensei being that to properly know Aikido is to render oneself unthrowable. You have probably already read this I am sure.. http://www.aikidofaq.com/interviews/interviews.html

Scroll down to the part where Ueshiba describes being advisor to the Shimbuden in Manchuria and meets Tenryu.. "There was a handsome looking man at the party and many people prodding him on with such comments as, "This Sensei has tremendous strength. How about testing yourself against him?" I asked someone at my side who this person was. It was explained to me that he was the famous Tenryu who had withdrawn from the Sumo Wrestler's Association. I was then introduced to him. Finally, we ended up pitting our strength against each other. I sat down and said to Tenryu, "Please try to push me over. Push hard, there's no need to hold back." Since I knew the secret of Aikido, I could not be moved an inch. Even Tenryu seemed surprised at this. As a result of that experience he became a student of Aikido. He was a good man."

My interpretation specifically on the matter would need another thread so I do not get shouted at by unforbearing people

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Ha, yep! In fact, I'd probably suggest that an Aikido practitioner joining in a Hapkido class will see a lot more similarities to their art than, say, a Daito Ryu practitioner....

I would love to actually study DRAJ. It would be very interesting to study as a hapkidoist, given the stated origin of hapkido.

I'd say they're intrinsically joined, the principles (combined with the context) giving the specific technical content. In fact, I'd say that the technical aspects are a result of the principles, the history, and the context... so they can't really be separated that way.

Yes, I agree that the technical elements are a result of the principles, but I don't believe that the principles automatically presuppose a specific technical content.

Hmm, while I agree that there are a number of technical traits, I don't know that they necessarily define it as Kendo. Instead, they are more like identifying markers. And if your Kendo training never involves sparring, in fact, never works towards sparring, then you are contravening the principles that genuinely do make Kendo Kendo. So I'd say that without sparring (in Kendo), there isn't any Kendo there. Just some mechanical actions and methods taken from Kendo.

Again, I disagree with you; there is kendo there, but only at a very basic level.

The specific combination, I'd say, is unique.

Striking, joint locks, falling and some weapons? Hardly. Joint locks, sparring, and some weapons practiced with the principles of hapkido? That is more unique.

Provided all of the core principles and essential elements are included, yep. But as soon as you start "messing with the formula", by removing aspects, for instance, you move away from it.

That's one way to look at it. I view it more as each art has a circle that it fits within, and there is a certain amount of space between the hub and the rim. Thus far, all of the specific examples that have been discussed fall within that space, not outside of it.

 

[Chris Parker]

I would love to actually study DRAJ. It would be very interesting to study as a hapkidoist, given the stated origin of hapkido.

Ha, could be interesting for you... you may find yourself questioning the claimed story....

Yes, I agree that the technical elements are a result of the principles, but I don't believe that the principles automatically presuppose a specific technical content.

In a way, they are. What they principles give you are the parameters that the technical aspects have to comply to. And in that sense, they do presuppose specific technical content.

Again, I disagree with you; there is kendo there, but only at a very basic level.

Ha, yeah, we're probably at an impasse here.... I'd say that there are methods taken from Kendo, but it isn't Kendo. While it sounds like semantics, it's really not.

Striking, joint locks, falling and some weapons? Hardly. Joint locks, sparring, and some weapons practiced with the principles of hapkido? That is more unique.

Yeah, that's part of what I was getting at when I said "the specific combination".

That's one way to look at it. I view it more as each art has a circle that it fits within, and there is a certain amount of space between the hub and the rim. Thus far, all of the specific examples that have been discussed fall within that space, not outside of it.

Yeah, I'd see them more as a geometric shape... take one side off a square, and you get a triangle. Still an enclosed shape, still made of lines of the same dimensions, but not the same thing at all.

 

[Steve]

What if you are the punter. Are you still doing football if all you do is punt, and not run, pass, block, catch, tackle, carry the ball, catch the ball, sack the quarterback, etc.?

Most football players would argue that the punter is actually not a real football player. Usually.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Ha, could be interesting for you... you may find yourself questioning the claimed story....

Doubtful; I'm not all that zealous about the claimed story. The notion that Sul trained in DRAJ does not require the art that he constructed to be Korean DRAJ. Also, hapkido developed quite a bit from what Sul originally taught, with a lot of influence from people who have made no claim of DRAJ roots.

In a way, they are. What they principles give you are the parameters that the technical aspects have to comply to. And in that sense, they do presuppose specific technical content.

I'd say that they presuppose the way in which the technical content is applied and perhaps some general parameters, but not the specific content. The principles of hapkido could be practiced with only the locks locks and throws or only the strikes. In fact, a pretty complete curriculum could be constructed around just the strikes while still retaining the principles. One could apply the principles of kendo to a technical set that does not include the sword. It wouldn't be kendo, but kendo principles can certainly be put to use without a weapon.

Ha, yeah, we're probably at an impasse here.... I'd say that there are methods taken from Kendo, but it isn't Kendo. While it sounds like semantics, it's really not.

I don't think it sounds like semantics at all, which is why I disagree with you.

Yeah, that's part of what I was getting at when I said "the specific combination".

In which case it is the principles that are setting it apart, not the technical content.

Yeah, I'd see them more as a geometric shape... take one side off a square, and you get a triangle. Still an enclosed shape, still made of lines of the same dimensions, but not the same thing at all.

That is the difference: you see it as altering the essential shape while I view an art as being contained within said shape. Kind of like a bucket of water. If I remove two thirds of the water, it's still a bucket of water; the water simply doesn't go as far.

 

[Chris Parker]

Doubtful; I'm not all that zealous about the claimed story. The notion that Sul trained in DRAJ does not require the art that he constructed to be Korean DRAJ. Also, hapkido developed quite a bit from what Sul originally taught, with a lot of influence from people who have made no claim of DRAJ roots.

Yeah, I was more referring to the amount that he claimed to have trained in it... but agreed with everything else.

I'd say that they presuppose the way in which the technical content is applied and perhaps some general parameters, but not the specific content. The principles of hapkido could be practiced with only the locks locks and throws or only the strikes. In fact, a pretty complete curriculum could be constructed around just the strikes while still retaining the principles. One could apply the principles of kendo to a technical set that does not include the sword. It wouldn't be kendo, but kendo principles can certainly be put to use without a weapon.

Well, that's the thing. As you said yourself "It wouldn't be kendo". And I'd argue the same with the hypothetical Hapkido curriculum.

I don't think it sounds like semantics at all, which is why I disagree with you.

Ha, cool.

In which case it is the principles that are setting it apart, not the technical content.

As I said, I don't think you can really separate them. The way the joint locks are done, for instance, is the technical content, but comes from the underlying principles.

That is the difference: you see it as altering the essential shape while I view an art as being contained within said shape. Kind of like a bucket of water. If I remove two thirds of the water, it's still a bucket of water; the water simply doesn't go as far.

I'd see it more like removing one of the hydrogen molecules, or the oxygen.

 

[Steve]

While I still believe that the root of the original post is grounded in simply whether a person could do, will do or can't do, the conversation seems to have devolved to a matter of perspective. The football/punter joke is a good example. Is a punter a football player? The answer is that it depends on who you ask. If you ask the punter, I'd say he'd answer yes without hesitation. The kicker might also agree.

In a similar way, I had a discussion with punuui regarding BJJ. His experience with BJJ is Relson Gracie guys over in Hawaii. Relson is well known for his self defense, practical approach to BJJ. Would a Relson guy think that someone like Caio Terra is a legit BJJ practitioner? I don't know. I'd guess that the philosophies involved are different. Caio Terra has a very high level, successful approach that involves a lot of inversion and working from the bottom. I'd say both are top tier, but they might disagree. Similarly, guys who only train in a gi... are they training BJJ? Well, I guess it would depend upon the person answering the question.

I guess I'm suggesting that maybe this is a matter of opinion, and there is more than one legitimate, reasonable position.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yeah, I was more referring to the amount that he claimed to have trained in it... but agreed with everything else.

Yes, I stay out of the debate about Sul Dojunim's DRAJ training. Taekwondo origins and definition of a black belt fill my controversial topic plate quite nicely. No need for a side course.

Well, that's the thing. As you said yourself "It wouldn't be kendo". And I'd argue the same with the hypothetical Hapkido curriculum.

Agreed, but it wasn't a hypothetical hapkido curriculum; it was a hypothetical curriculum that could be put together with the strikes found in hapkido and utilizing the principles that underpin hapkido. My point was that that the principles do not presuppose the technical content. You could put together a weapon art based on the principles that underpin hapkido as well.

As I said, I don't think you can really separate them. The way the joint locks are done, for instance, is the technical content, but comes from the underlying principles.

Its not a question of separating them. The principles exist without the art. A martial art is an expression of the principles, but principles are not limited to one expression.

I'd see it more like removing one of the hydrogen molecules, or the oxygen.

Nothing wrong with how you see it, but we definitely see it differently.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

While I still believe that the root of the original post is grounded in simply whether a person could do, will do or can't do, the conversation seems to have devolved to a matter of perspective.

To say that it devolved to a matter of perspective is inaccurate; it began as a matter of perspective.

Just to clarify, when I say 'accommodate', I mean it in the most general sense.

If you, in the pink of health with no medical limitations whatsoever came to my kendo class for a good workout and lifestyle benefits and never purchase bogu, I am happy to accommodate you and as far as I am concerned, you are doing kendo.

Likewise, if you come to my kendo class with a strong desire to practice kendo, but have some medical condition that precludes sparring, I am happy to accommodate you and as far as I am concerned, you are doing kendo.

In a similar way, I had a discussion with punuui regarding BJJ. His experience with BJJ is Relson Gracie guys over in Hawaii. Relson is well known for his self defense, practical approach to BJJ. Would a Relson guy think that someone like Caio Terra is a legit BJJ practitioner? I don't know. I'd guess that the philosophies involved are different. Caio Terra has a very high level, successful approach that involves a lot of inversion and working from the bottom. I'd say both are top tier, but they might disagree. Similarly, guys who only train in a gi... are they training BJJ? Well, I guess it would depend upon the person answering the question.

Pretty much every question posed on MT draws a variety of responses for precisely that reason: it depends on who you ask. The beauty of such discussions is that each respondent gives a perspective that is shaped by his or her own training experience.

I did not intend to actually arrive at a decisive answer in this discussion.

I guess I'm suggesting that maybe this is a matter of opinion, and there is more than one legitimate, reasonable position.

Most assuredly.

 

[dancingalone]

My head hurts trying to keep up with the posts since I've last participated in this thread. Did we come to some consensus or, more likely, not?