PDA

View Full Version : AIKIDO DOES IT WORK?



TIM BURTON
30th December 2000, 15:42
Kenji TOMIKI born 15th March 1900 the eldest son of Shosuke and Tatsu Tomiki. He began training with a Bokken from the age of about six and at the age of about ten he joined the Kakunodate Judo club. In 1919 he received his Shodan in Judo.
Tomiki then was bed ridden by an illness for Three and a half years. After which he entered the Waseda University and joined the Waseda Judo club. He then took up training under Ueshiba which later became known as Aikido.
However Tomiki had been greatly influenced by Kano and veiwed Aikido “with a Judo mind”. He wanted to create a system of Aikido that would rank alongside Kendo and Judo in the educational system and he went about it by restructuring what he had learnt from Ueshiba.
Tomiki looked into how Kendo and Judo had evolved into what they were and he saw that Aikido fitted between the two. Kendo was now based on fencing using specialised techniques in order to allow freeplay/competition, but these techniques were not the same as the old martial ways of Kenjutsu. Judo now employed speacilised techniques distilled from the old systems of Jujutsu in order that freeplay/competition could take place. Both systems preserved the old ways in the form of Kata.
Tomiki took his Aikido and created a competitive set of techniques using Kendo and Judo theory to glue it together. He renamed these techniques in a fashion that describes the physical action, for example Shiho Nage became Tenkai Kote Gaeshi. What he could not safely use in Randori he preserved in Kata form, these he called the Koryu.
One can see the intergration of Judo and Kendo concepts into Tomiki’s Aikido model by way of the terminolgy he used. Whenever possible he used Judo terminology but when having to deal with a system that has a seperated Ma-ai he found terminology in the Kendo system that was better suited to describe what he wanted to achieve.
Tomiki shaved down the reaction time of his system and allowed Sen to be a guiding factor, which meant that, players could attack if they felt they were about to receive an attack. This of course meant that the system began to drift apart from traditional Aikido. He also maintained that using his system one should be able to perform it wearing one’s normal attire.
As Randori became a practiced discipline within Tomiki’s Aikido so the techniques performed changed in their application, becoming more concise and tighter to cope with an opponent who knows what’s about to come and is going to do their level best to resist or escape from it.
I have only been exposed to traditional Aikido through the Koryu kata’s I have been taught and against the more to the point Randori techniques of Tomiki Akido. I cannot see how they can work in the small or crowded spaces we occupy today. I can for example apply Shomen Ate with my right hand whilst hugging an aggressor in with my left hand at the base of their spine and put them down on the spot.
Come on people tell me different, my shoulders are big and I am always ready to eat humble pie.

Tim Burton Taiho Jutsu, Shodokan Aikido.

autrelle
30th December 2000, 17:58
http://www.aikidojournal.com/ubb/Forum20/HTML/000027.html

http://www.aikidojournal.com/ubb/Forum20/HTML/000032.html

TIM BURTON
30th December 2000, 19:24
I was directed to a forum discussing actual use of Aikido in real situations which was very interesting and informative. As nothing else was mentioned I assume autrelle wants to know my experiences of actual combat. I am a police officer in the UK and have twenty two years in the job. I have had live experiences against many situations empty handed against one, two and more attackers. I have faced people armed with weapons, (usually Knives, sometimes bottles and blunt instruments) sometimes these attacks have been unforeseen and I have had to react spontaneously. Other times they have been telegraphed and I have been able to access the use of a weapon, in the early days of my service this was only a truncheon. In the latter days of my time in the job this has been the PR24 baton, Casco baton, Kwik Kuffs and most recently CS incapacitant spray. As a member of my forces Tactical Firearms Unit I have only been shot at once by an armed subject. On this occasion I wish I could have dug a hole in the wall I was pressing against with my butt. Not an experience I wish to repeat.
Really I have only had two major encounters that occurred before I changed my opinion on self preservation. One occurred whilst on lone patrol when I made an arrest of a drunk who had broken a shop window, whilst trying to get him into the panda car. I was not aware of the approach of his associates, the first I knew was the blow to the back of my head that dropped me to my knees. Kicks and punches followed and it was then that I decided that I would not go down and exploded into an attacking motion, mainly Kyokushinkai I think. I cannot to this day tell you the specifics of this fight, only that I was found dazed and bleeding by my colleagues with two out of how many attacked me unconscious by my side. My prisoner had escaped (never did find out who he was). The most vivid memory of that night was being pulled to my feet by other officers and hearing the cheers and calls from a chip shop across the street. There I saw at least six unconnected men who had witnessed the whole event. None had even thought to come to my aid.
My next encounter came a few years later when I gave chase to persons we had disturbed breaking into a shop in the early hours, I ran after one up the street and my partner chased the other. Again all I can remember is that he stopped and turned. The next memory is that I have him restrained and have taken a steak knife from him, don’t know how to this day.
After this I have had a few encounters but have chosen to stop them by more preemptive techniques, taking control of the situation before it becomes to hard and dangerous to handle.
It is my use of preemptive techniques including Aiki, which prompted me to ask my original question.

Tim Burton Taiho Jutsu

autrelle
30th December 2000, 20:04
sorry mate, i really wasn't inquiring about your past or prowess. those links that i posted are just my own personal testimonials.

happy new year's

truly

TIM BURTON
31st December 2000, 19:27
No offence taken or meant, I really am interested in which Aikido techniques have been found to work without the room to move very well?
And you have a Good new year yourself, stay safe.
Tim Burton

autrelle
31st December 2000, 20:42
techniques that work well in small places: from my own altercations: various kokyunage that i actually employed aggressively from a static postion, certain forms of koshinage, variations of the arm holds.

kusanku
31st December 2000, 22:25
Ikkyo locking shoulder out and pushing up and away into a corner or wall, then takedown.

irimi nage, sokumen irimi age .

Shomen ate.

Shiho nage with long unbalance to a forty five first.

Use atemi with all these.

Sokumen irimi nage IS atemi.

Kusanku

kusanku
31st December 2000, 22:27
Lapel or wrist grab begs for tai sabaki with atemi, and nikkyo straight down.

Dennis Hooker
3rd January 2001, 18:50
By “Aikido in a real situation” I assume a reference is being made to an offensive or defensive response to a physical attack outside the dojo. This a common question and one that often comes up when Aikido is compared to some other budo or bujutsu. I have a hard time with this because it assumes that the Aikidoka will do something different given that situation, and that inherently Aikido is unacceptable or at least ineffective in it’s taught form.

I have been taught, and I teach that Aikido is a wholly functional art and is restricted only by the ability of the practitioner not the limitations of the art. Furthermore what sets Aikido apart is a matter of the heart and not the technique. It is a matter of passion for the art being tempered with compassion for the human condition. Now I know there are several folks out there that are going to say all budo has compassion for the human condition, and all I can say to that is “not in my experience” of which I have a smidgen.

Now I base my opinions of Aikido on my own personal experience and by my perception of the wisdom of my teachers. My principle Aikido teacher being Mitsugi Saotome Sensei for the last 20 something years. My opinion regarding other budo and bujutsu is based on my personal experience as well.

Dennis Hooker
http://www.shindai.com

TommyK
3rd January 2001, 20:52
Greetings,

We practice Korean Karate and Self-Defense, which includes elements of Yoshinkan and Tomiki Aikido. In our school we practice a defense against an assault in a crowded subway car. The idea of it is to deal with the attacker WITHOUT spinning, bouncing, or moving into anyone else. We combine severe atemi with a wrist move to accomplish this. It Works!!! As does a variety of other Aikido related defenses we have practiced on the mats. I have used subtle redirection to 'stifle' out of control reactions on the basketball court and they have worked, also.

A number of our members are members of the NYPD and they have related many training stories to me. Here in the 'Peoples Republic' of New York City, the Police are given about 40 hours of firearms instruction in the academy and then they must qualify with their 9mm 16 shot pistol 2x a year for the rest of their 20 year careers. (ALL NYPD officers carry firearms, on and off duty, and the great majority serve only 20 years, as it is not financally condusive to serve longer. They get 1/2 pay pensions after 20 years.)

Conversely, they (the members of the NYPD) receive maybe 20 hours of 'mat' time during their 6 months in the Police Academy, including maybe 30 minutes of hands-on on the mat in that time. After the academy they are NEVER required to qualify, or practice hands on again, in self-defense, no weapons! Most officers do study somewhere, but it is not offically encouraged. However, the new Police Commissioner does have a Tae Kwon DO 1st dan earned while in the military and seems to encourage martial arts, but not with $$$.

Then we wonder why automatic weapons unleash 41 rounds at a mistaken perp. We need more hands on, I wonder what the hands-on situation is elsewhere?

Regards,
TommyK

MarkF
4th January 2001, 09:20
Originally posted by Dennis Hooker
By “Aikido in a real situation” I assume a reference is being made to an offensive or defensive response to a physical attack outside the dojo. This a common question and one that often comes up when Aikido is compared to some other budo or bujutsu. I have a hard time with this because it assumes that the Aikidoka will do something different given that situation, and that inherently Aikido is unacceptable or at least ineffective in it’s taught form.

I have been taught, and I teach that Aikido is a wholly functional art and is restricted only by the ability of the practitioner not the limitations of the art.



Dennis Hooker
http://www.shindai.com




Hi, Dennis,
I've been saying this since forever until I realized its unimportance. Aikido is in the "New Age Philosophy" section in the neighborhood book store, and judo is in the "Sports" section. Attempting verbally to convince others of it without one experiencing it themselves, is about as successful as convincing others that the founders never set out to build a sport, or a philosophy. It has one, but this too is understood only by the individual.

The funny thing is, that when those with a judo background and presently do aiki arts, without a doubt, they will say "my judo comes out" during attack drills.

This is as personal a thing as it gets.

Mark

Goon Jhuen Weng
4th January 2001, 13:07
I don't have any experience in aikido (a 6 week course doesn't count for anything) but I do like to add a few comments. I was told that when in the dojo, a student learns the principles of the art but the principles are not actually fighting/self-defense techniques in themselves. The actual fighting experience is the application of the principles that were learnt. The problem is that Aikido techniques are so subtle that it takes years to be able to effectively apply them in a real situation, according to Forrest E. Morgan in his book, Living the Martial Way. I believe he's right. I also believe that Aikido has a potential to be effective but it does require a lot of time, patience and intuition on the practitioner's part though.

MarkF:

It is kind of sad to see most Judo books on the sports and wierd to see Aikido books in the new age philosophy section. Personally, I fail to understand what "New Age" means, especially when it is applied to Budo. I guess there's still a lot of people who see Budo as some strange, mystical, instant zen enlightenment, meditative...etc, etc, etc...:laugh: On the flip side, it is a sad to see Judo being delegated entirely to the sports section. I guess there's not that many people like you who can see past its sporting side anymore.

Chuck Clark
4th January 2001, 15:40
Originally posted by Goon Jhuen Weng
I don't have any experience in aikido (a 6 week course doesn't count for anything) but I do like to add a few comments. I was told that when in the dojo, a student learns the principles of the art but the principles are not actually fighting/self-defense techniques in themselves. The actual fighting experience is the application of the principles that were learnt. The problem is that Aikido techniques are so subtle that it takes years to be able to effectively apply them in a real situation, according to Forrest E. Morgan in his book, Living the Martial Way. I believe he's right. I also believe that Aikido has a potential to be effective but it does require a lot of time, patience and intuition on the practitioner's part though.

There are lots of sweeping statements being made about when and if an art is effective by people who do not practice the art in question. You certainly haven't met or had "hands on" experience with everyone who practices aikido. Mr. Morgan makes lots of statements about how "..a modern warrior should think." In fact, it's how HE thinks.

Grab hold of Dennis Hooker with some intent (or his senior students) and you can get instant experience and then talk about that.

Sorry for the rant, but I see students who are capable of "effectively applying aikido principles in a real situation", and they often get that way in way less time than you imply.

Daniel Pokorny
4th January 2001, 20:13
[/B][/QUOTE]
There are lots of sweeping statements being made about when and if an art is effective by people who do not practice the art in question. You certainly haven't met or had "hands on" experience with everyone who practices aikido. Mr. Morgan makes lots of statements about how "..a modern warrior should think." In fact, it's how HE thinks.

Grab hold of Dennis Hooker with some intent (or his senior students) and you can get instant experience and then talk about that.

Sorry for the rant, but I see students who are capable of "effectively applying aikido principles in a real situation", and they often get that way in way less time than you imply.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Clark Sensei!,

How true your words ring. I would like to also add that once I had the great fortune of finding Shindai and Hooker sensei, I realized that I was already using some "Aikido type" techniques prior to ANY Aikido training. I just didn't know they had names!

But hey, don't tell anyone, we might be giving out a great Aikido mystic secret or something.....he-he-he!

btw.... I got some of that "instant experience" while grabbing you when you were down here last as well! I hope your holidays were good!

Regards,

DCP - Mongo

Mike Collins
5th January 2001, 01:06
Aikido does not work in a fight.

But then again, what do I want with a fight? I want to be able to handle aggression appropriately without fighting.

The principles I've learned allow me to be safe while doing only that damage dictated by an aggressor. (unless he's better trained or conditioned than me, in which case I get beaten up or killed).

The time it took me to learn how to do this was going to elapse anyway. I could have spent it at a bar, or a topless club, or on the internet, or in a soup kitchen volunteering. I chose to spend the time learning some techniques to teach me some principles. In the proces I've learned some stuff about myself, and maybe the universe. I think I made an okay choice.

If self defense is really the primary reason to study martial arts, I submit that any art is a waste of time. Simply develop the ability to act without conscience, and all will be well. This sounds a bit simplistic, but I've been on both sides of the fence, and I prefer my current choices.

A police officer should be able to learn enough Aikido technique in a few weeks or certainly months to help him in his work. But as with any other method, if nothing is invested in practice, no benefit is afforded. You have to use anything to be effective with it. There is nothing you can learn quickly, which will be effective without practice. Even a gun requires practice to be effective, huh?

MarkF
5th January 2001, 11:51
Not if it is a Tommy gun. Show them how to hold it and where the trigger is at, and I'm pretty sure principles will be dealt with.;)

But actually, isn't that the point? In the last few posts, I haven't seen a lot of patience or willingness to share what these principles, and the resulting techniques are. In fact, I think they are deeply rooted in all budo, and one does not hold itself above another. But neither can it be done in this medium, and I will gladly let those who know the thing, explain the thing.

I can rant until the keyboard turns to dust, in my passion to help those understand what I do is not what you see, necessarily, on the evening sports channels (of course, this is not the case in the US where judo doesn't rate even that much, so, so much for the sports page)

But rather than slap down someone who, BTW, trains in kendo and iai, and is still attempting to find what suits him.

Judo was explained very well, by a learned academic, but by the 1930s, some were saying "this isn't my judo." Aikido prinicples were explained by a well-meaning, deeply principled person, and today, most still don't know what he was talking about, even this man's translators to an English speaking audience, but he is O-sensei.

It does prove one thing, though. No matter how much someone says s/he doesn't do the "my art is better than your art" it is there, not in the words themselves, but in the manner they are conveyed.

Ahem..Hi, Weng. Nice to hear from you. Nothing is ever quite what it seems, I'm afraid, and it is true of judo and aikido, but this is the business world saying they know more than the practitioner what we should concede to them. We can only do what we can, but principles should be ingrained, and I too, believe this is something which does take more than a little time to understand IF, we ever get there.

Best regards,

Mark

autrelle
5th January 2001, 12:46
i think that one way to talk about the "effectiveness" of aikido i sto remember that all of the arts are concepts and ideas to be PRACTICED. by that i mean to say that if no one in the world at all is doing aikido (just try to imagine it), then how could it even really exist? i think it's more the idea that effective PEOPLE are practicing and applying the principles. confucius said (lit., no pun here) that it is man who makes the art great, and not vice-versa; man is the measure of man. so i believe simply that it is the individual participant's choice to make their training as "effective" as possible.

and as far as those who go on to say that they have an understanding of the principles to avoid fighting-that's great for you. hoorah. i applaud it. let's just hope you or your loved one are never accosted without provocation, or that you never encounter someone without the skill that you have, who may need you to intervene on their behalf.

personally, i would rather see a person who has a great understanding of the physical application, who has tempered it with the ability to tone it down in practice and outside of the dojo, than someone who trains in a casual manner and then convinces themselves that they will be able to "rise to the occasion" if the need should ever arise. but that's just me and i am admittedly very closed mindedd.

in the end, people should train as it suits them, and hope that they never have to be concerned about the effectiveness of their technique.

truly

Mike Collins
5th January 2001, 15:43
Maybe my point wasn't clear. I'll try again.

It is useful to examine whether or not my understanding of technique is effective in most cases. It is important to train well so that that effectiveness level continues to rise. The main point of the post was, simply, that the most well trained person will win in an altercation.

Also, I truly believe that Aikido is ineffective in a fight, simply because it was never intended to be used in a fight. It was intended to end a physical altercation immediately, rather than to "engage" an opponent.

Few Aikidoists, using only Aikido principles will be effective against someone who wants to jab, feint, score, and make contact in a less than comitted manner. But are those really attacks, or annoyances? Aikido is intended to be effective against full, committed attacks, the kind which are intended to inflict immediate and catastrophic damage. I think it is useful to consider that Osensei required a sincere, full bore attack from his trainees in demo situations, because he was concerned about hurting them otherwise (bad attacks screw up my timing, I know that) It is possible to mix Aikido principles and techniques with more "sparring" types of arts and be devastatingly effective, but that isn't what we're talking about when discussing "real world" scenarios.

The truth about MOST real world attacks is that they are brought on by someone with very little or no discipline in anything, much less martial arts. If I am ever attacked by a trained, effective martial artist, I am at risk for a beating, depending on our relative levels of martial understanding and physical conditioning. It is less a question of the arts we study than who we are. Realistically though, if I am attacked by a good street fighter who believes he's found a pigeon, I will more likely than not end it quickly. If I'm attacked by a drunk who is pissed off cause his wife hates him and his boss is a jerk, I'll be just fine.

As to which techniques/principles are effective/useful- well in my humble opinion, all of them are useful and effective, if they are practiced dilligently. In my case all of them are effective at a very low level, cause I'm too lazy to train hard and make the progress I'd like but am not truly committed to make.

If my earlier post seemed brusque and rude, I apologize. I was attempting to be succinct and make my opinion known, but apparently it came accross differently than I intended.

Jeff
5th January 2001, 17:49
There is an old Roman saying,
"If you want peace prepare for war!"
All martial arts in their basic forms are doing just this, preparing for war. It is in anticipating that we can avoid or even win battles, and aikido is a strong proponent of anticipating and adapting. Therefore with the correct application of tsukuri (positioning), kuzushi (unbalancing), and kake (application) one can make aikido a very effective tool againts both physical and non-physical situations.

Scott
5th January 2001, 21:12
Aikido is one of my favorite arts. I love training in it. The techniques are not too numerous, nor are they complicated. The tai sabaki I have found to be unique. I have not found such balanced and effective tai sabaki (body movements) in any other art I have studied. The difficulty in learning Aikido is in the timing and the teaching method.

Timing:

In order for the techniques to be performed “effortlessly” there must be momentum present in the attack. The fully committed attack mentioned in the above post is a form of attack characteristic of the Japanese culture, but not that common in the western world (At least among educated fighters). I say among educated fighters, because the “hay baler” is one of the most common forms of attack among the uneducated or undisciplined fighter. The “hay baler” will create ample momentum for the Aikidoka and is nearly identical to the “yokomenuchi” attack. In Aikido, the aggressor’s momentum is manipulated to create greater momentum. This momentum is then directed away from the Aikidoka. If the defender is attacked in a manner that does not provide momentum, the Aikidoka must create momentum through his own response. This can be effected through use of atemi and/or the physical shifting the aggressors center. There are techniques available to make this possible. To explain the execution of some of these techniques in writing would be a bit complicated. A relatively easy method of unbalancing a centered opponent, say, someone who is bobbing and jabbing in a boxing manner is:

Create an opening in your guard to draw an attack, When the aggressor attacks, parry the attack if necessary and enter to his rear. (This is using your tai sabaki to move behind the aggressor.) Once behind the aggressor put one hand on each of his shoulders. From this position, it is relatively easy to shift his center in a number of directions regardless of his size. If the aggressor attempts to compensate for the shifting of his weight, the Aikidoka does not fight the movement, but joins with it to shift the weight in the direction of the aggressor’s compensating movement. The aggressor’s compensation assists the Aikidoka in the execution of his technique.

The difficulty of timing comes in learning how to respond to varying types of attacks and opponents in a controlled yet fluid manner. The manipulation of the opponents momentum must be in a manner that is neither too leading nor too far behind the momentum curve. Either of the extremes creates effort on the part of the Aikidoka. If the Aikidoka’s center is too far behind the momentum curve, it gives the opponent something to resist against and therefore, regain his center. If the Aikidoka’s center leads too far, the momentum curve can unbalance the Aikidoka. As if this wasn’t enough to learn, the Aikidoka also must learn to sense the opponent’s subtle changes in reaction to being manipulated. Aikido’s teaching method is to have students train with each of the other students in turn to provide experiences with varying body structures and personalities. Different personalities respond in different ways to the unsettling of the center of balance. Learning to unify with and respond to another’s momentum is what takes time and experience.

It is also important to remember that not all techniques work under the same circumstances. The size, strength, flexibility, and movement of the aggressor relative to the defender will affect the technique. One of the benefits of Aikido is the way each technique can move seamlessly into another. An aggressor’s resistant movement can be joined and manipulated into another technique. I have observed my Aikido instructor, on numerous occasions, move effortlessly through 3-5 techniques when his uke was responding in unusual ways to the technique he was attempting to execute.

My experience in Aikido is with an Aikikai school so I am making an assumption that most or nearly all schools follow the same teaching protocol.

Teaching:

One of the difficulties in learning Aikido is the teaching method. The manner of demonstrating a technique and then leaving the student to figure out what he has seen is decidedly difficult. The benefit is that the student will learn the technique from the inside out. The technique is understood on a holistic level and becomes internalized knowledge. The student understands the technique on a physical level if not intellectual level. In China and Japan, this understanding of the “essence” of a technique is preferable to objective technical knowledge. It is the heart of Zen. In the western world, we tend to be more analytical of the technical aspects of an art. We want to know things in their linear progression. This too has its benefits. It is a quick way of learning the gross aspects of an art. One will be able to apply defensive techniques sooner if the techniques are learned in a linear fashion rather than a holistic manner. Aikido techniques become closer to jujutsu techniques when they are learned in this manner. There is nothing inherently wrong with learning techniques linearly. A student can learn the essence of the techniques later. In some cases, it is necessary to learn techniques quickly as in military and law enforcement professions.

Sincerely,

TIM BURTON
6th January 2001, 10:04
Hi Everyone,
It seems to me that the one thing no one seems to be talking about is atemi. Do not most Aikido techniques start with one? Did not Uyeshiba say that 90% of Aikido is atemi? In a self preservation situation would not a blow between the eyes or to the ribs be considered first?
Tim Burton

MarkF
6th January 2001, 11:17
Somehow, I get the feeling that aikido is alone in this, and that some, such as koryu jujutsu or judo, is not particularly effective in using the attacker's momentum in a similar way. Aren't they really the same thing, with the same chance, as Mike said, of putting down an aggressive attack, before it is out of hand?

The principle of "ju" is no different in this, and in effect, judo and aikido are the same thing.

Tim, I think the lack of talk about atemi, is that it is simply expected that this is another road to kuzushi, and possibly so effective, that it is becoming an assumption. This may be bad or good, but to be ninety per cent atemi, the narrow description of it, would have to be changed. Throwing someone through the ground is great atemi, I've found. And I'm sure Ueshiba sensei meant the same if he did indeed, say that.;)

Mark

Scott
6th January 2001, 19:31
Mark,

I am not sure what you meant by your comment:

"The principle of "ju" is no different in this, and in effect, judo and aikido are the same thing."

If you mean the meaning of the names, Judo, means “the gentle or flexible way,” while Aikido means, “the way of harmonizing ki”

Judo and jujutsu do unbalance the aggressor before attempting a throw, however, in Aikido it is achieved through different means.

Tim,

I agree Aikido techniques are generally begun with an atemi. The purpose is to elicit a response from the aggressor that will either create a “zuki,”--break in concentration, or a compensating response that will unbalance the aggressor. For example, a strike to the face will commonly cause a person to lean away from the strike, causing them to be off center. A strike to the ribs would cause them to bend over towards the impact area again causing them to move off center. My understanding is that in Aikido, atemi’s purpose is to create this off center response rather than damage.

autrelle
7th January 2001, 04:06
atemi is very important in aikido. i was always taught that atemi can be inserted at any point during the execution of technique, and that when you are doing the technique correctly, there is always atemi available. atemi comes into play in actual fighting and is the more dangerous part of aikido practice. for example, atemi allows you to take the offensive against "annoyances" such as jabs and non-committal attacks. just because an attacker doesn't commit physically doesn't mean that he isn't committed mentally. in actual application against aggressive opponnents, i feel one should liberally apply atemi to get the job done. there are inherent atemi in all of the waza, some more obvious than others.

R Erman
7th January 2001, 05:18
This was mentioned earlier by Mark, and subsequently discounted by another member. The fact is they are essentially the same, yet they do use different means.

Aikido techniques are often taught only in an "ideal phase", where you have total commitment of the attacker, and little exploration into resistance training.

Judo is a distillation of classical jujutsu, but with the sporting aspect. This aspect gives judoka the ability to test their techniques with resistant opponents. A distinct advantage in learning application.

Although the difference is obvious, I think Mark was probably talking about both arts coming from jujutsu forms, and having a grounding in the principle of Ju No Ri. Which is basically the doctrine of using blending/pliancy/suppleness when countering aggression. I remember reading an interview with Saito-sensei where he stated that Ueshiba initially was altering the waza of Daito-ryu so that nage could remain centered and in balance throughout the entire execution of the technique. This may be what originally started the change from a jujutsu art to what Aikido is today.

My .02,

MarkF
7th January 2001, 10:25
Thank you, Rob.:o

You "distilled" what I was trying to say, but more eloquently. That is exactly what I meant, that basically, they are the same, as taijutsu, or jujutsu, or ju no ri. I thought it was fairly evident that the two are, basically, the same thing.

After thirty-eight years of supporting what my ideals in judo really are, I also know enough to know the terminology, and the differences.

As a side note, Shodokan aikido, does have, as was mentioned before, a program of randori, and more recently tanto randori, and also shiai. While I have no problem whatsoever with the sporting aspects of either, neither do I think that judo, nor aikido, is soley the function of randori. There is a renewed ambition in judo, to protect and practice traditional judo, and to maintain the principles of its kata, randori no kata being one. Jigoro Kano, being an academic, thought a curriculum in specific order, was the only way to attempt to master judo. Kenji Tomiki, being nanadan in Kodokan judo, could not help but create his style along similar principles, thus my great admiration for him, and in shodokan, my exposure to aikido.

Again, thanks.

Mark

BTW: I know that probably everyone here has read his book, but "Judo and Aikido" by Tomiki Sensei is a great book (My thanks go to Mark Jakabscin).




[Edited by MarkF on 01-07-2001 at 04:28 AM]

Scott
7th January 2001, 20:58
Mark,

I did not have the intention of questioning your experience. As, until you posted it, I had no idea what it was. I merely did not understand your point.

Rob,

Thank you for your help clearing up my confusion. I agree that "some," maybe even most,Aikido classes do not involve resistance from opponents, but not all of them.

Sincerely,

Mike Collins
8th January 2001, 15:15
Just a thought:

If I atemi, and the opponent (in a real world situation) doesn't back off and get his balance taken, I'll continue on with my atemi and hopefully end things with that. I think that some of the throws we learn, we learn to use in the event that our atemi is ineffective because our opponent has "read" it and adjusted their posture, the throws are then opportunistic towards that adjustment. If they don't "read" the strike, I hit them, and if I can do that properly and frequently enough, it's over.

My teacher tells us to utilize strong irimi first, and ura waza or tenkan only when irimi isn't possible. We obviously practice both equally, but he says simply that irimi is the most simple approach, and therefor probably the best, when it is possible. Atemi is just one form of irimi.

Bridger Dyson-Smith
8th January 2001, 19:29
Hello, all.
I realize this is a little late, but Mr. Collins wrote:
"I think it is useful to consider that Osensei required a sincere, full bore attack from his trainees in demo situations, because he was concerned about hurting them otherwise"
I was under the impression that Osensei didn't necessarily require full bore attacks from anyone. Didn't he accept challenges from anyone, including judoka, kenjutsuka and western-style wrestlers and boxers (many of whom fought subtly)?
Is the difference in the concern for the possibility of injuring them (Osensei's students or challengers)?
Or, do I just have my head in the sand :D? That's the question answered easiest, I bet. Have a good one.
Thanks for your time and attention.

Bridger Dyson-Smith

Ron Tisdale
8th January 2001, 20:42
I'm not sure of how this applies in the current context, but I have read a story by Shioda S. about the time he and another uke went to demonstrate with Ueshiba for the emperor. Apparently, the first uke was overly concerned about Ueshiba's health at the time, so didn't commit to the attack. He was injured right off the bat. Shioda S. had to take ukemi for about 45 minutes. By himself. Can't imagine doing that for my own sensei, let alone Ueshiba. Course, I'm no Shioda, either. :)

Ron Tisdale

Mike Collins
8th January 2001, 20:57
That story is where the context came from. If challenged, I think Osensei left the fate(s) of his challengers up to their karma based on their own attacks to some extent. He had an interest in preventing injury to his students. I could be wrong, but that's what makes sense for me.

As to fighting with subtlety, I still believe that an attack is an attack, and a jabbing, feinting "score" type of mantality doesn't produce a real attack. You gotta be willing to commit in order to be making a true attack. Feints are okay, but they are only a precursor to an attack. They should not be confused with a true attack.

[Edited by Mike Collins on 01-08-2001 at 02:59 PM]

Bridger Dyson-Smith
8th January 2001, 21:44
Thanks for the prompt responses.

Mr. Tisdale,
I've read the same story, I think in one of Shioda Sensei's books. They all had to spend a night in the hospital, I think.

Mr. Collins,
Do you suppose that it would have mattered *when* Osensei was challenged? For example, if challenged during the pre-war years, he might have had less regard for his challenger's welfare? Perhaps after the war, when aikido was becoming more aikido and less aikibudo, Osensei would have been just as gentle with a challenger as he would have with a student. I'm not suggesting that Osensei was "gentle" but he responded the same, physically, to either.
Is this nit-picking the issue?
Just curious what everyone's thoughts might be.
Thanks.

Bridger Dyson-Smith

MarkF
10th January 2001, 10:27
As to whether he accepted challenges or not, I don't know, but when O-sensei was approached (along with his son) by Donn Draeger and Jon Bluming to be uke for them as they were interested in the technique, he first said no, no, it would be far too dangerous. When it was explained what experience they had to K. Ueshiba, he said "We'll see." a polite manner of saying no.

They wanted to be uke for O-sensei. For whom was the danger?

Mark

Ron Tisdale
10th January 2001, 15:10
Well, I sure as heck don't know. But I think the danger would be for an aggressive attacker who is well trained in whipping butt. Trying to protect someone like that would be almost impossible, I think. For my money, you'd just have to let the chips fall where they may. I'm not sure thats the image Ueshiba S. wanted to project at that time.

Ron (but it would have been awful nice to see) Tisdale

BC
10th January 2001, 15:51
Originally posted by MarkF
As to whether he accepted challenges or not, I don't know, but when O-sensei was approached (along with his son) by Donn Draeger and Jon Bluming to be uke for them as they were interested in the technique, he first said no, no, it would be far too dangerous. When it was explained what experience they had to K. Ueshiba, he said "We'll see." a polite manner of saying no.

They wanted to be uke for O-sensei. For whom was the danger?

Mark



I think it may be important to note that Both O Sensei and Doshu K. Ueshiba only had very experienced aikidoka take ukemi for them in demonstrations, and even then, they sometimes were injured (my sensei included). Also, a large majority of the uchi deshi of Hombu Dojo back then usually came to aikido after some significant experience in other martial arts. Even so, they still had to gain some significant experience in aikido before they were allowed to act as uke during demonstrations. My guess that the answer to your question would be that the danger was still for Bluming Sensei and Draeger Sensei, since, despite their significant experience in other martial arts, they would still have been unfamiliar with the techniques and styles of both O Sensei and Doshu to the point that they might not have developed the sensitivity necessary to take safe ukemi from them. IMHO

Chuck Clark
10th January 2001, 17:08
It was their "questioning" spirit that they didn't want to deal with, I suspect.

Both of those men were known to give good, committed attacks and could take ukemi from anybody in the world. They were also known to not "cooperate" with a partner who left them options to still stand up. They believed in "testing" everyone's technique.

MarkF
11th January 2001, 10:27
Hi, Chuck,
I would have loved to be the fly on the wall, but the story is so old as to not know what may have been the reasons. In the way I heard, it was Sensei Ueshiba M. who did reply that it would be two dangerous for them, Bluming and Draeger. The younger of them could have been watching out for his father's well-being. On the other hand, it may just have been as you described. Who knows?

I know what Mr. Bluming may have thought, but I am not too sure of Mr. Draeger. The point was that Sensei Ueshiba M. was a difficult man to understand, thus why he is seen with so many different eyes.

Mark

Chuck Clark
12th January 2001, 00:18
Mark,

I have no doubts that Uyeshiba K. (RIP) was indeed looking after his father's interests. Ueshiba M. had much to lose if he came off in any way losing face in an engagement with either of these men. There's no way he could say, "Whoops, that didn't work, did it?!!"

It's rather the same when certain individuals claim to have such strong ki that their technique works from distances that make experienced budoka look away with amusement. I know of two instances when their technique didn't work and they said, "Of course it wasn't successful, it's your fault because you're not 'sensitive' to my ki."

If you're not willing to admit failure once and awhile, it's best to only accept challenges from those who show signs of not giving you problems.

kukai
12th January 2001, 09:19
Aikido does not work by itself, nor does any other art. Everything depends on a person, his mindset, motivation, knowledge and proficiency. Uyeshiba Morihei was not only a brilliant teacher, he also had a lot of hands-on knowledge and understanding of a fight gained from Takeda Sokaku plus personal experience that we weekend warriors only can envy. His later versions of aikido were not ment to be combat systems first, but means for personal development. When somebody defends him/herself using aikido it's about how s/he interpretes the principles. Arts don't fight,nor techniques, men do. Aikido is a vast complex ideas which I, though I'm not an aikido practitioner, have find very useful. Limiting the aikido conceps only to those of wide circular movements severely distorts the art, there are other means of defence,too, so you dont need a committed attacker to make moves work. Understanding the principles of the fight is what counts,not some odd move. And your minset, of course.
Just my 02 cents...Be well, my brothers

Sven Salumets

szczepan
12th January 2001, 15:32
Originally posted by MarkF
Hi, Chuck,
I would have loved to be the fly on the wall, but the story is so old as to not know what may have been the reasons. In the way I heard, it was Sensei Ueshiba M. who did reply that it would be two dangerous for them, Bluming and Draeger
Mark



If so, how it would be in aikido context of protecting attacker?
Most of us can`t do that but we could expect it from O`sensei himself? If this concept isn`t realisable, what is difference between aikido and others school of JJ?

Mike Collins
12th January 2001, 15:49
Seems to me that in refusing them, he did just that. He protected them from themselves. No fight, Aikido realized. All good.

Any questions?

Chuck Clark
12th January 2001, 17:15
Testing waza is not a "fight." These guys came from judo where kata is prearranged (even though prearranged, kata at it's best uke cooperates only by giving a good attack. If the waza isn't successful, it shows a suki that needs to be worked on. This is not a fight.) As far as randori goes, it can be that uke is giving attacks with no intent to counter (I call this "having an easy center") or it can be a real test of whether technique works and continue with kaeshi waza as "problem solving" to educate both partners.

Aikido practitioners believe that they are working together to make the technique right. This should be true, but there are different ways to interpret it. I want people to help me make my waza better by always testing me.

Give a committed attack full of intent. It doesn't need to be full of momentum. Give some intent and the resulting kuzushi (if done right) will cause uke to create whatever energy is necessary to make the waza. It is tori/nage's job to fit to the attack and recovery attempts for balance and have the sente and direct uke's energy into throwing themselves. If this is not done well enough and uke gets their center back, etc. then uke should not fall down. Of course there are different levels of this when working with beginners.

Some aikido students I have worked with feel that if you do not cooperate and fall down at the right time (whether they have really taken your center or not) then you are "fighting" or being competitive. That's not budo, that's aikidance. Noro sensei, in France, a highly respected uchideshi of Ueyesiba Morihei sensei formed his own group called Ki no Michi which practices this way. They made a decision to train this way. Many do this without knowing the difference.

I suspect Draeger and Bluming were both wanting to feel the old man's waza (for real) and were not there to purposely fight or cause him to lose face.

Regards,

Dennis Hooker
12th January 2001, 19:18
Aikido and the fight! This seems to me to be a paradox. To fight is to lose, if not now then eventually. To fight one must be forced into conflict and out of balance with their natural state. That is, I must allow my antagonist to enter my mind and dictate my mind state of being. Now to be in a state of Aiki is to be in control. I think any definition regarding Aiki must have at it essence control of oneself and situations. Now the “way” to control the situation, that is the “do” of the situation. If we let someone else control it then it’s not Aikido we are doing, even if we win the confrontation. However it is possible (although in my opinion not advisable or desirable) to lose the confrontation and be doing perfect Aikido.

The definition and precepts I was given regarding Aikido years ago and reinforced over more than a quarter century of study do not reflect the current combative attitude of many of it’s followers today. Some see it merely as just another martial art and some see it as quasi religion.

For me there is so much difference between Aikido and fighting. I was taught to fight one way as a soldier and combatant, another in karate, another way in judo, another way in kenjutsu, and in the use of knife and street fighting techniques yet other ways to fight. Only Aikido offered a way not to fight. I’m a fairly good fighter and a damn good survivor but I’m proud to say I’m a better Aikidoka. My family is happy for that as are my students and the society I live in. I think they are much happier than when I was just a good fighter. I believe I’m still as effective a force for peace as ever and I am at peace within myself. I believe I can effectively defend my home, my community, my dojo and my honor without fighting. It is not the external appearances that define Aikido but the internal state of mind. Is it possible to do Aikido without ever being actively involved in the art of M. Ueshiba Sensei? I believe yes, of course it is. I think it is the true purpose of budo. You don’t ever have to win anything, you just never need to lose. For all those poeple that want to fight and prove their martial ability. Well hell there are wars all over earth, pick one and take your bad self there. Some of here fought our war (wars) were not looking to fight anymore.
Dennis Hooker
http://www.shindai.com







Originally posted by kukai
Aikido does not work by itself, nor does any other art. Everything depends on a person, his mindset, motivation, knowledge and proficiency. Uyeshiba Morihei was not only a brilliant teacher, he also had a lot of hands-on knowledge and understanding of a fight gained from Takeda Sokaku plus personal experience that we weekend warriors only can envy. His later versions of aikido were not ment to be combat systems first, but means for personal development. When somebody defends him/herself using aikido it's about how s/he interpretes the principles. Arts don't fight,nor techniques, men do. Aikido is a vast complex ideas which I, though I'm not an aikido practitioner, have find very useful. Limiting the aikido conceps only to those of wide circular movements severely distorts the art, there are other means of defence,too, so you dont need a committed attacker to make moves work. Understanding the principles of the fight is what counts,not some odd move. And your minset, of course.
Just my 02 cents...Be well, my brothers

Sven Salumets

Mike Collins
12th January 2001, 19:41
Is testing technique synonymous with experiencing it and determining the validity of it, or is it synonymous with resisting it?

I ask because I am often faced with someone who simply chooses not to react to my fist thrust towards their face, and I am forced to choose between hitting them and hurting them (thereby providing them an object lesson that my hand is not necessarily not effective if it is proffered, it may be an act of kindness and willingness to let them take the time they need to learn to react), and not hitting, giving them and, to some extent me, the feeling that the technique is ineffective.

I cant tell you how many times I've done ikkyo, sumi otoshi, or some other technique, effectively I think taken their center and been faced with the choice to plant a face into the mat, as their butt is sticking 90 degrees from their head, or to choose to pull them slowly forward leaving us both with the impression that this stuff only works when there is some physical force used (or simply let them up, and move on).

Aikido doesn't lend itself to a cretain kind of skepticism. If someone really wants this stuff to not work it won't, unless the person doing it chooses to inflict damage. But if it is stifled, the person doing the stifling will also probably not be providing sincere attacking energy. It is impossible to attack while thrusting my butt in the opposite direction of an attack.

I think that Aikido is based on a kind of implied assumption of martial common sense and a sincere attack. If I stand there and let you gradually stick a big ham hand in my face, and your technique doesnt work, you haven't failed, I have. That gradual hand could just as easily have been a sharp knife, brought into play quickly, and I have been dim enough to let you stick me with the implied weapon.

This is not to say that Jon Bluming and/or Donn Draeger were coming from the kind of perspective that would have had them attacking stupidly, but I can see where Osensei would have been reluctant to go along with anyone wanting to "test" his technique. Had they come, asked to watch his technique, then asked for a lesson or more respectfully, to become his student(s), they probably would have been given a more open reception. But then I wasn't there, and I could be completely full of crap.

Scott
12th January 2001, 21:14
Has anyone considered that the alleged request was turned down, because O Sensei perceived a less than pure intention from Dreager et.al. I would not allow someone to train in my school if I perceived they were there for ego-centric reasons.

Sincerely,

Duke343
12th January 2001, 21:51
Perhaps you need a better teacher or more practice if you can't make the techinques work.

Brown belt women have been able to defend themselves effectively when taught properly.

I practice Tomiki aikido. It irks me a little when people write "I don't have any experience in aikido " and proceed to lecture on the subject.

As for "Aikido does not work in a fight." , I don't think I ever got your point. I do guarantee that an elbow WILL break if a lock is applied to it. If you mean your attacker won't run around you like a 5 year old with a sugar buzz, there is nothing like that in Tomiki aikido. I get into more fights than I want to, but I have never had a problem "pacifying" the guy.

Duke Lewis

Mike Collins
12th January 2001, 22:07
Point is, if you end it quickly, the fight is over, hence no fight. If your timing is better and you end it before a fight breaks out, no fight. If you're doing technique in a struggle, it ain't aikido.

Aikido is the art of non resistance. Not pacifism. Non resistance.

Techniques will work. I may, however, choose not to complete a technique if someone is too stupid to know that it is already over.

Chuck Clark
15th January 2001, 05:15
Originally posted by Scott
I would not allow someone to train in my school if I perceived they were there for ego-centric reasons.


That must be some group of folks you train with...or your perceptions aren't as sensitive as you would like to think. It seems to me that most of us do most everything we do out of basically selfish reasons. Happily, those reasons often turn out to not be dangerous to others.

Scott
15th January 2001, 22:55
Chuck,

It seems you to me you may have missed the point of my post.

1) The discussion I was responding to was in relation to Draeger et al being refused their request to take ukemi with O Sensei. Others were speculating on the reasons for the refusal. I suggested that O Sensei possibly perceived egocentric reasons for the request. In other words, "POSSIBLY," Draeger and his pals had an attitude of, "Let's show these Aikido guys a real martial art." Or something along those lines. If this were the case, O Sensei would have perceived it and probably refused the request based on the fact that they were not there to share and learn, but to make a spectacle, which is not in the spirit of Aikido.

2) It also seems to me that you have drawn quite a few assumptions from a two-sentence post. Obviously, my "perceptions" are not up to those of a person who is able to characterize another person's experiences from two sentences.

3) If you have never had an experience with a student who believed he knew more than his instructors then either you have been very lucky, or you haven't instructed much. In many arts, the student is given a gentle, but firm come-uppance. In Aikido, this can cause injury, so it is best to avoid such circumstances altogether if possible.

4) I used the term egocentric and not selfish. While egocentric has as one of its connotations "selfish,” it is not the one I was using. I was referring to a person who has the NEED to prove himself better than others or at least prove others not as good as himself. This is generally considered childish and self-centered. It is not advisable to engage with these types of people in “friendly” training, as their ego needs can and have escalated the “friendly” training into something less than appropriate.

Sincerely,

szczepan
16th January 2001, 12:13
Originally posted by Mike Collins
Seems to me that in refusing them, he did just that. He protected them from themselves. No fight, Aikido realized. All good.

Any questions?

Excellent post!!!
This is straight way to enter in fantasy land, mythology and creating legends....
Following your thinking if someone attack you in a way too difficult for your present level, you'll say: hey, in order to protect you, you can't be my uke.... otherwise I'll have to hurt or may be even kill you!! :D
And I'm talking here about DOJO practice, not fight.
I personaly heard many aikidokas using this kind of argumentation to refuse difficult ,dedicating practice...(I don't talk here about you Mike).What's cheap excuse!
That's why in present days aikido seems to be on the way to degenerate into a health gymnastics or thai bo?

To protect you from yourself I refuse to hear any more arguments from you Mike!!!!










no, I'm actually kidding....... :D

regardz

Mike Collins
16th January 2001, 15:48
Szczepan,

The clarity, brevity and succinctness of your post was truly remarkable. You sir, are a true wordsmith. Yet again, you have managed in just a few words to convey who and what you actually are!!

Bravo sir, Bravo.

I do, however take exception to your comparing me with Osensei. He was a martial master, where I am only one who aspires. He was sincerely interested in protecting others from themselves, where I am quite content, when I find a persons motivation to be malevolent to allow them to hurt themselves on their own stupidity (see response to previous post, above).

I did my share of time hurting other people for fun, and if I am to be honest, I can still get quite a kick out of it when confronted by small, ignominious, angry little people who insist that they and only they, know what is truly martial. In fact they are usually the most fun to hurt, because they take it so personally. You see, if all they value is effectiveness, to come across a 300# man who can move well and can do technique better than they, it causes them to rethink their priorities. I suspect though, that they usually just refuse to think about it and dismiss the experience as a fluke.

This is, I recognize , a character flaw, but like my weight- I'm working on it.

Have a nice day :)

Chuck Clark
16th January 2001, 21:28
Originally posted by Scott
Chuck,

It seems you to me you may have missed the point of my post.

1) The discussion I was responding to was in relation to Draeger et al being refused their request to take ukemi with O Sensei. Others were speculating on the reasons for the refusal. I suggested that O Sensei possibly perceived egocentric reasons for the request. In other words, "POSSIBLY," Draeger and his pals had an attitude of, "Let's show these Aikido guys a real martial art." Or something along those lines. If this were the case, O Sensei would have perceived it and probably refused the request based on the fact that they were not there to share and learn, but to make a spectacle, which is not in the spirit of Aikido.


I don't think I missed the point. As far as making assumptions, you seem to not mind giving qualities to the intent of "Draeger and his pals." I have some experience with those men and don't remember them that way. True, Jon Bluming ain't no choirboy, but he, and others, did go around sincerely wanting to feel the waza of anyone of repute. No putdowns, just wanted to feel the reality of it.

I have had quite a lot of experience with different types in dojos in lots of places. Sorry you took offense.

Cheers,

Scott
17th January 2001, 01:21
Chuck,

You did in fact miss the point. I was just being polite when I said, "It seems to me you may have missed the point of my post."

I anticipated your response would imply that I was making assumptions about Draeger and his pals. CAREFUL reading of my second post will reveal the use of the qualifier "POSSIBLY" twice in the post.

"I suggested that O Sensei possibly perceived egocentric reasons for the request. In other words, "POSSIBLY," Draeger and his pals had an attitude of.."

I would agree that my first post did not use any quailifers, however I assumed it was clear to all readers that since none of us were actually there, we were all obviouly speculating.

At best all of us are merely speculating on what we "THINK" "MAY" have occurred. None of us can be sure. You may have more insight do to your personal knowledge of Draeger and Bluming. All that means is that you can make an educate guess, rather than a blind guess like the rest of us. You however, took the liberty to "SPECULATE" on what you think the reasons were for O Sensei to turn down the request when you wrote,

"I have no doubts that Uyeshiba K. (RIP) was indeed looking after his father's interests. Ueshiba M. had much to lose if he came off in any way losing face in an engagement with either of these men. There's no way he could say, "Whoops, that didn't work, did it?!!"

You know about as much about why O Sensei turned Draeger down as I do about the character of Draeger.

I always welcome constructive criticism when it is offered in a humble and friendly manner, under such circumstances it can only help me grow, however I do get offended when I am criticized for the mote in my eye when the critic is blind to the beam in his own.

Sincerely,

MarkF
17th January 2001, 12:27
Just a note to agree with Chuck, and to give the bigger picture of what it really was.

This was an appointement made well in advance, and was not just a couple of guys walking up to Sensei Ueshiba and simply asking. There apparently was much discussion which ended with a question, more or less, on how a certain technique, or technique in general, was done. When neither of them could understand what both Ueshiba were trying to explain, one asked if it could be shown.

This was when it became a question of bodily injury, or that it was too dangerous.

No, Jon Bluming is lots of things, but "choir boy" would not be one of them. I'm pretty sure Sensei Draeger did most of the talking.

Here are two questions which may make for conversation here concerning this appointment: What could either Ueshiba Sensei show that would not be of danger, assuming it would have been something which would elevate them from the ground, and what particular technique would be too dangerous for two judoka, both with iai training of some kind (dan grades for both), koryu with sensei Draeger, and Sensei Bluming with his experience in kyokushinkaikan karate, not to mention kendo?

It was too dangerous. What was too dangerous? I'm just curious as to what the possible technique would have been.

Mark

Chuck Clark
17th January 2001, 14:37
Mr. Brown,

You called it. No one really knows what happened there except for those who were there that are still alive, and all they really "know" is their own interpretation.

Each of us "defends" the ideas we have about this sort of thing (even while admitting other possibilities exist), and our ideas all carry lots of pre-existing stuff. That's natural and okay.

I think we should agree to respect our rights to disagree.

Sincerely,

Scott
17th January 2001, 17:26
Chuck,

I agree.

Sincerely,