I'm a nurse, a martial artist and a baker. I called this Nobody's Home as I am too low ranked for any serious martial artist to bother paying attention to me, nor am I a chef. I just like getting on my soapbox anyway.
Blogs I love to read:
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Tandoku Challenge Post (from out of left field).
This is an ongoing Tandoku Challenge post, but it started as a letter to the editor on an unrelated subject.
Stanley Pranin has made his point that his personal teacher was one of O Sensei's finest and longest serving students. I will concede that point. Saito Sensei seems to have also criticized O Sensei's teaching method and tried to improve on it, as did Tohei, Kisshomaru, Tomiki and others.
Why do I even care that another system exists? Why bother to look at another person's ideas? Have I mastered all my own lessons I was given? H--- NO!
Recently, the Aikido Journal forum is about who developed Iriminage, how it was performed, and then that all other innovations are less historically derived from the source. A long time intended blog entry on this one technique started to come out. It's not on Tandoku, but it does touch on why I even care that Tandoku exists:
I’m not against your thesis, in fact I agree and I approve of this forum and this discussion. We should know our history, and we should explore what we think we know.
When I go to my copy of Budo, the first step does show Uke brought leaning forward as pic #1, then transitions to the pics you posted. The text refers to hitting Uke in the face, then entering. This would cause the Uke to straighten up, and this elicited reflex that gets followed is the emphasis of some types of Iriminage.
The difference between the generations is not the movement, but the degree of exaggeration. I have no concern about exaggerating an idea as a means to learning.
I have not been focused on trying to do only one singular version of Iriminage. The Dokka talk about a strategy based on natural patterns and an unlimited number of responses. So, rather than argue about who is right, I have no problem that Shin Shin Toitsu Do calls this Kokyunage – they do a lead and cut (at the one school I briefly attended), rather than cause kuzushi and respond to the Uke’s correction.
I like Shirata Sensei’s system of Sankaku Irimi, En no Irimi and Chokusen no Irimi with Omote and Ura but I think some other teachers like Akira Tohei did a better job of showing En no Irimi by expressing the circle more completely, and I tend to separate Chokusen no Irimi from variations found in Shodokan Atemi waza. I see several teachers showing a wide variety of receiving, leading and cutting.
I prefer to think of Yoshinkan’s Sokumen Iriminage rather than the increasingly vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness use of Kokyunage used to describe the identical technique and a million others that have nothing in common.
I think too little attention is paid to Ki No Nagare versus Kihon.
I only learned Gedan, Chudan and Jodan handwork explicitly in the CAF.
Our language needs a huge overhaul. I try to use the most specific names when I teach, even if that name is Shodokan, Aikikai, Shin Shin Toitsu Do, Yoshinkan, Iwama…
We need a way to communicate the different ideas beyond specific dojo. There are amazing ideas that deserve codification and dissemination. Overly focused on who is “correct” to the exclusion of all others – it’s not my approach. My Sensei was clear there were many right ways, just many, many more wrong ways. I don’t think attempted regurgitation of still life photos is the correct approach to accurately define “correct” for all time. Iriminage is supposed to be able to adapt to different weapons, different terrain, different sizes of attackers, different numbers of attackers. That means the form must change and be adaptable, not rigidly judged and forced into one external shape.
My final comment on the version being criticized – this large lead down works well in Hamni Handachi, which is great for learning to deal with attackers who are taller and have larger strides and reach. Sort of like a Japanese wartime student who suddenly found the country full of American soldiers, or teachers deployed overseas. This might have been a wartime innovation.
I like being unlimited. Sometimes that means paying attention.
As time goes on, I will probably edit this far beyond the scope of the original comment on Aikido Journal, so please bear with the discrepancies. After the original tirade, I have come to realize that this is an example of Stanley Pranin's work as a historian. We are ignorant of our roots. Not merely ignorant of our uncles and cousins in the art, but of the Founder and his actual contributions. Our shared art has been reinvented and redefined multiple times. As our various political bodies drift further apart, we become more ignorant of our own shared history. O Sensei should be correctly depicted, as should the historical art. This does not preclude innovation.
This is an ongoing Tandoku Challenge post, but it started as a letter to the editor on an unrelated subject.
Stanley Pranin has made his point that his personal teacher was one of O Sensei's finest and longest serving students. I will concede that point. Saito Sensei seems to have also criticized O Sensei's teaching method and tried to improve on it, as did Tohei, Kisshomaru, Tomiki and others.
Why do I even care that another system exists? Why bother to look at another person's ideas? Have I mastered all my own lessons I was given? H--- NO!
Recently, the Aikido Journal forum is about who developed Iriminage, how it was performed, and then that all other innovations are less historically derived from the source. A long time intended blog entry on this one technique started to come out. It's not on Tandoku, but it does touch on why I even care that Tandoku exists:
I’m not against your thesis, in fact I agree and I approve of this forum and this discussion. We should know our history, and we should explore what we think we know.
When I go to my copy of Budo, the first step does show Uke brought leaning forward as pic #1, then transitions to the pics you posted. The text refers to hitting Uke in the face, then entering. This would cause the Uke to straighten up, and this elicited reflex that gets followed is the emphasis of some types of Iriminage.
The difference between the generations is not the movement, but the degree of exaggeration. I have no concern about exaggerating an idea as a means to learning.
I have not been focused on trying to do only one singular version of Iriminage. The Dokka talk about a strategy based on natural patterns and an unlimited number of responses. So, rather than argue about who is right, I have no problem that Shin Shin Toitsu Do calls this Kokyunage – they do a lead and cut (at the one school I briefly attended), rather than cause kuzushi and respond to the Uke’s correction.
I like Shirata Sensei’s system of Sankaku Irimi, En no Irimi and Chokusen no Irimi with Omote and Ura but I think some other teachers like Akira Tohei did a better job of showing En no Irimi by expressing the circle more completely, and I tend to separate Chokusen no Irimi from variations found in Shodokan Atemi waza. I see several teachers showing a wide variety of receiving, leading and cutting.
I prefer to think of Yoshinkan’s Sokumen Iriminage rather than the increasingly vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness use of Kokyunage used to describe the identical technique and a million others that have nothing in common.
I think too little attention is paid to Ki No Nagare versus Kihon.
I only learned Gedan, Chudan and Jodan handwork explicitly in the CAF.
Our language needs a huge overhaul. I try to use the most specific names when I teach, even if that name is Shodokan, Aikikai, Shin Shin Toitsu Do, Yoshinkan, Iwama…
We need a way to communicate the different ideas beyond specific dojo. There are amazing ideas that deserve codification and dissemination. Overly focused on who is “correct” to the exclusion of all others – it’s not my approach. My Sensei was clear there were many right ways, just many, many more wrong ways. I don’t think attempted regurgitation of still life photos is the correct approach to accurately define “correct” for all time. Iriminage is supposed to be able to adapt to different weapons, different terrain, different sizes of attackers, different numbers of attackers. That means the form must change and be adaptable, not rigidly judged and forced into one external shape.
My final comment on the version being criticized – this large lead down works well in Hamni Handachi, which is great for learning to deal with attackers who are taller and have larger strides and reach. Sort of like a Japanese wartime student who suddenly found the country full of American soldiers, or teachers deployed overseas. This might have been a wartime innovation.
I like being unlimited. Sometimes that means paying attention.
As time goes on, I will probably edit this far beyond the scope of the original comment on Aikido Journal, so please bear with the discrepancies. After the original tirade, I have come to realize that this is an example of Stanley Pranin's work as a historian. We are ignorant of our roots. Not merely ignorant of our uncles and cousins in the art, but of the Founder and his actual contributions. Our shared art has been reinvented and redefined multiple times. As our various political bodies drift further apart, we become more ignorant of our own shared history. O Sensei should be correctly depicted, as should the historical art. This does not preclude innovation.