From: sasso@flounder.phy.anl.gov (John F. Sasso)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Crush and maim (was: How to choose...)
Keywords: Crunch, Break, Ow!
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:03:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: mcs.1992Apr14.160346.934
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

In article <scq9mINN6es@agate.berkeley.edu> upload@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.155027.17426@mcs.anl.gov> sasso@flounder.phy.anl.gov (John F. Sasso) writes:
>>In article <sb600INN1m6@agate.berkeley.edu> I, Michael Robinson, write:
>>>"But we could hurt people if we wanted too!" they say.
>>>
>>>First of all, one cannot deny that what aikidoka spend almost all their energy
>>>doing is training techniques designed for use against one or a small group 
>>>of essentially untrained assailants, with the intention of preventing medical
>>>and/or legal action all around.
>>
>>Well I can deny this!
>
>See what I mean?  It's obvious even to me that Judo and Aikido are completely
>different, even though both are derived from the same arts, and both have
>been modified to make them "safe".  The question, then, becomes:  why, how,
>and under what circumstances.
>
>Looked at from this perspective, I believe my point becomes clear.

Please explain this.  I really don't have the foggiest idea...?

>
>>>But more importantly, what difference does it make?  Even if every aikido
>>>technique were certified 100% harmless, would this in any way devalue the
>>>art?  Or somehow make it inferior to more ICU-oriented arts?
>>
>>Only a few of the techniques can be made 100% harmless.  All of the
>>throws are meant to cause severe harm.  Several of the locks can
>>be applied in a non-damaging way, but only vs a non-martial-artist.
>
>And here it is again.  Even speaking hypothetically, Aikidoka seem to lack
>the courage of their convictions.  You'll note my (very serious) question 
>goes unanswered.
>
I didn't think it was a question, but more of an aside comment.
Making every Aikido technique 100% harmless would not only devalue the
art, it would destroy it.  Aikido is a martial art.  It is not a 
dance; it is not aerobics.

The peace and non violence of Aikido does not come from the techniques,
but from the philosophy.  It is how the techniques are applied that
makes the difference.  It is the choice of technique to apply that
makes the difference.  An Aikidoist never wants to break bones.

The concept of "Inferiority" does not apply.  It's apples and oranges
again.  In terms of self defense, I would put my money on a 1 year
karate student over a 1 year Aikido student to defend himself.
Does this make Aikido "inferior"?  I think not.  

There are many Martial Arts, with different emphasises.  
Aikido is a slow road, similar to Tai Chi.  It takes years to just
learn basic body movement.  However, everything that is learned is
geared toward personal self defense.


>If the issue is self-defense, it seems to me the only relevant question is
>can you defend yourself.  If you can, why would you need to inflict more harm
>than necessary in the process?  And why do Aikidoka feel compelled to point
>out that they could if they wanted to?
>
I have never heard an Aikidoka say that he could maim or mulilate if
he wanted to.  I've heard Aikidoka say that they could maim or mutilate
if they HAD to.  Oh, this is a huge difference!

We are proud of the fact that we are training to defend ourselves with
as little aggression and violence as possible.  And an experienced
Aikidoka can do just that.

However, we would like the respect that we believe any true martial
art deserves.

I detect a distinct lack of respect for my art in your postings.
I feel compelled to respond to that, yes.


							John F Sasso



-- 
"The only way to true inspiration is the study of TedDo.  And lots
of MauMau, of course."  The Elvis Lectures
"I am not the False Bob, I am a free man."  The Book of FalseBobs
"Since the introduction of MauMau, HP sales have skyrocketed." Book of MauMau