From: toman@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (joseph toman)
Subject: Re: Aikido teaching styles
Organization: /local/lib/rn/organization
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:03:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.183636.8864@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
>
>>In <1992Apr15.214545.23522@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>
>>>My own observationof "touchy-feely" teachers has nothing to do with Ki
>>>Society or Tohei Sensei but with Americans (Californians, in large part)
>>>whose interpretation of aikido does not include teaching a solid
>>>functional background but instead a sort of New Age psychobabble.
>
>>I must take exception to this, as an American, Californian, and
>>Aikidoka...our dojo does not engage in "New Age psychobabble" and a
>>good number of other dojos in the area do not either...I believe that
>>Chiba for one is in San Diego.  There is also Sensei Toms of Aiki-kai
>>in San Diego as well, who is a close disciple of Saito Sensei -- a
>
>Oooh, I _knew_ this was going to set off some Californians.  I shouldn't
>have included that parenthetical remark, I know.  (blush)  You will
>note, however, that I said "my own observation" and I stick by that.  My
>training was in California, where I was exposed to a lot of different
>dojos in which that attitude existed.  I didn't say -- or imply -- that
>_all_ Californians or _all_ Americans, for that matter, suffered from
>it.
>
>I do contend, however, that dojos closely linked to Japanese teachers
>are much less likely to wander off on this path (duck! she's got a
>brick!).  You mention both Chiba Sensei and Saito Sensei yourself.  The
>"touchy-feely" stuff _does_ seem in large part restricted (if not to
>Americans) to non-Japanese teachers.
>

I must take exception to this, as a student whose parent dojo is
located in California, not closely linked to any Japanese teacher,
and headed by Americans who occasionally delve into New Age psychobabble.
(Whew !)

Strange New Age stuff certainly does not preclude one from having
a solid background in the fundamentals.

>
>>Yes, there are dojos that take a less than solid approach, that do not
>>emphasize what we think of as the basics.  Some of them are
>>nevertheless very good dojos.  Others fall into the category of
>>"touchy-feely".  But they are found all over.  We have had students in
>>our dojo from other places and countries, and some of them were
>>clearly taught with different standards where their 2nd or 1st kyu was
>>more equivalent to our 3rd kyu levels.  The worst was one woman from
>>Oregon or Washington who sported a brown belt and would have barely
>>qualified for our 5th kyu.
>
>Well, she couldn't _possibly_ have been from Oregon. :-)

Here,here ! Uh, no, wait, There there ! Yeah that's it ! :-)

>
>
>>In any case, arguing over this, and in particular making
>>generalizations about this, really strikes me as an exercise in
>>futility...

No comment. :-)

>
>>Regards,
>>--Cindy
>
>I don't think discussing differences in approach _is_ an exercise
>in futility.  I think the quality of teaching is the _root_ of martial
>arts training.
>
>--Jeff Frane
>  Multnomah Aikikai (in Oregon! :-) )
>

					J. Toman
				U of O Aikido Club (Also in Oregon! :-) )
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts