Energy, Improvement, and Training

The only thing that comes to mind lately is that I have a bit more energy when I have to work and only take four classes a day. It makes a big difference in the last sprint of the day when there are three classes back to back. I have the energy to sink down lower take big steps and basically move from my center. It is also easier to pick up on the technique when I am not exhausted and wishing I could lay down somewhere. Don’t get me wrong, training when you are dead tired has many benefits, most of which are not obvious at the time of training, such as: training your muscles to remember certain a series of movements, and learning to be tough and enduring.

I’ve noticed in my 4 1/2 years of training that one hits plateaus, and then, suddenly, when you feel like your Aikido really sucks, your throws and falls feel smoother and more powerful than you last remembered or someone who hasn’t seen you in awhile compliments your progress. In my mind it is easy to acknowledge that I must be improving, but with all the criticism I receive it is hard to see past all the mistakes and exhaustion. Part of being an uchi deshi is to be tired so I’m okay with it for the moment.

I think once I am done with the apprenticeship program here, I will try to take 3 hours of Aikido most days of the week no matter where I end up. Hopefully this will be feasable. I may have to attend a few dojos at one time to get that amount of training outside NYC. I don’t want to be one of those uchi-deshi that forget Aikido when they move out and are never seen on the mat again.

On the subject of training. I think one must see the benefits of training with every type of person out there. There are the slow heavy partners, the awkward beginners, the zippy fast partner, and the sempai belts.

The slow heavy partners can be frustrating, but I find that if I am not too tired I can manage a class or two a day with this type. One must be technical and really move the whole body as a unit to get this person to move. You can’t train quickly with these people but somehow you are still tired at the end of class anyway. One really learns where the weak points are in their technique when training with this person.

Awkward begginners teach you how to break things down into simple language. It is pointless to tell most beginners to “move thier center” when they don’t even know what or where it is. It is better to say “ut your foot there turn your hand like this” and then let them do it over and over again until they are comfortable enough to stop looking at their feet. Then and only then can you focus on esoteric things and give them other details that make the technique effective.

If you want to sweat a zippy partner that is quick and light on their feet is a good choice. You really learn timing and movement when with these partners. You also learn how fast is too fast, because usually at some point someone gets sloppy (trips,steps on your foot, or misses the grip) and has to slow down a bit to regain control. Sometimes these partners become slippery targets because the sweat makes grips difficult. It is also notable to mention that it is highly important to have short even nails so you don’t scratch anyone.

Your senior belts can fit into any one of the before catagories (excluding beginners). The difference is you are not allowed to correct them, and you must (based on how high of a rank) listen to what they and attempt to do it. I don’t want to offend any readers, but if you pick an older black belt(much older), especially one with lots of injuries, don’t expect a very exciting class. You can learn a lot from them, but sometimes its hard to apply it because they cannot take the ukemi.

The only people I recommend avoiding are those that incite you to no end. Fights on the mat are bad. If you want a good workout avoid close friends who will tempt you into having conversations on the mat.

Sorry for the long intervals between posts, I’ve been busy working and planning my vacation to see all of you.

Published By
Categorized as Aikido

108 comments

  1. I think everyone is taking the whole superman thing a little too litteral. Every one keeps refering to superman as if he is some kind of weapon. As Jerry can tell you, he is actually a pretty deep character. The thing about superman, in every part and portion of his character, being, and life he is better than any other person in the world in whatever he chooses to do. He can move faster than a person can perceive, he can not be hurt (except via kryptonite), he is stronger than the biggest and greatest engine, he can see anything he wants to (except through lead), he can go anywhere almost instantainiously (flight). Think about what this means if you apply it to a career… He could build a city in a day, without any equitment or tools, he could (and does in a few of the comics) do work that would take a normal person a week or 2 in a few seconds, at any area of his life he is better than any other person in any situation no matter what it is or who he is replacing. The only way to beat him at all is to cheat, which is what Lex does. Their conflict is taken to its logical extreem to make it entertaining, but in the end, all Lex is doing is cheating to try to knock the best guy down a peg.

    I look at kendo as I would look at wressling or boxing, it is a recreation activity… it just sounds fun. No rhyme or reason to it. It probably wouldn’t be practical at all.

  3. Meh… drop the superman thing. We can’t go on a date without it being discussed. We’ve philosophized the hell out of it so far. My heart will explode in my chest if I hear anymore superman arguments. *cries out of desperation*

    Jerry, Thanks for the support. I’m lacking a lot of confidence for my test. 🙁

  4. grasshopper, I think the argument Lex has always had is to prove that the worth of the mortal man. The old Carnegie gusto! If a man sets his mind to it he can do anything… even defeat a god. I find the mid set highly ego driven, and immoral for those reasons. Pride is immoral, Lex’s mind set starts with pride, thus he is the antagonist by default.

  8. To expand a bit.

    Are you cheating your potential? (i.e. Would Batman cheat? Perhaps a Kimber .45 cal with kryptonite bullets? Maybe.)

    Are you cheating your immanent self? (i.e. For grassHopper. Does it even belong to you, to cheat? Or to a higher authority?)

    Are you cheating your ego? (i.e. Should we as aikidoka even look at this as winning or losing? Isn’t there another way?)

    Are you cheating Superman? (i.e. What if everyone acted as Luther does? If an act is ethically permissible for one person, shouldn’t it be permissible for everyone, without exception? Would you want to live in a world filled with Luthors? *shudder*)

    MM, just reread your post. (You DID attend a Catholic high school!) Assuming a priori your statement that all pride is immoral, are you certain you can attribute Luthor’s actions to pride? Why isn’t Superman a false idol?

  9. Aah, brushing on morality, and perhaps, a touch of religion, are we?

    Potential No, you’re not cheating. If you found a way to kill Superman, how is that cheating?

    Self Cheating doesn’t belong to me, but it doesn’t “belong” to the “higher authority” either. But, then, it depends on what higher authority are you referring to? The religious authority, the government authority, the Supernatural authority? Which?

    Superman It depends on whose ethical standard you are following. For instance, if you are, say, a Christian, your morals differ from that of the world because of the Christian’s “Higher Authority”. Abortion is an example of this.

    Ego As an aikidoka, why are you competing?

  11. Self By self, I mean your “nobler” self, or that part of you that is (perhaps?) entrusted to you by the Divine. Some Christian theologians have argued that a persons soul ultimately belongs to God. By acting immorally, or contrary to God’s will, we are cheating that gift, or in essence, ourselves.

    Then again, how can we cheat ourselves if that part of us belongs to another?

    Superman You don’t need to look to theology to find moral absolutes. You can start with Plato and his conception of ontological law. But I see your point.

    Ego The question is, should incogneto justify Luthor’s acts on the basis that Luthor acts on behalf of (non-superpowered) humanity, when incogneto should pillory him because he has utterly failed to see the world through Superman’s eyes, and failed to bring some sort of balance to the harm he perceives Superman has caused.

    Of course, isn’t Superman guilty of the same thing?

  12. I forgot what It says about non-Christians, but a Christians entire life is God’s. Whether or not he follows through with his “calling” is his choice.

    It’s not cheating ourselves; God sees it as flat out disobedience when we do anything wrong. Call Him sensitive, but, hey, I guess that’s what makes Him perfect.

    You’re right-we can’t cheat ourselves if it doesn’t belong to us in the first place.

    Where did morals come from? Where did Plato say morals came from?

  13. man deep stuff, jerry is posting links to topics that kept me up at night when I was in philosophy class.

    Batman wouldnt use a kimber, he hates/fears guns. Are my ethics situational? Yes…I will not commit murder, I will not push the button, pull the plug, or insert the needle into even the most evil of persons. But When everything is on the line, when that bullet flies past my ear, or when that fatal attack is coming at me, what most define as morality goes out the window…

    Also cheating, like morality is a point of view. How is doing all that i can to promote the existence and continuation of myself cheating?

    how can you cheat against a Superman, or God who (for the sake of my argument) are beings perseived to be omnipotent?

    two aikidoka training together on the mat can see and view the world as harmoneous and refrain from thinking of things as win or loss, however, you wont encounter an aikidoka in a dark alley…

  14. By cheating, I mean Kryptonite. It the one thing in all the universe that can turn superman, the supreemly powerful being, into an absolutely powerless one. Once you have kryptonite, superman is powerless (this varies depending on which superman you read, but let’s say it is like in the orginal version and he is weaker than a normal person after he gets a shot of the green stuff). Attacking superman while you have kryptonite is as unfair as superman attacking you without it. Both are seemingly impossible situations to recover from.

    This leads me to my next point… Is it cheating that Clark Kent has a job? He could do anything he wanted, do a better job than any one else who could do it, and even replace the work force of entire cities if he so desired. This is what I think Lex finds so threatening. If super man wanted to (and was the kind of person to do it) he could dominate any perfession without any need for anything more than basic tools. He could be a better sculptor with his finger than Rapheal with his tools and legions of understudies. He could put out more statues in a day than he did in his life time. He could make them more beautiful and lifelike than anything this artist could ever dream possible. This would make all of Rapheal’s acomplishments worthless to a materalistic man like Lex (who I keep trying to write this in the veiwpoint of). I think Lex is goal driven therefore, superman’s perfection is unacceptable because of this inability to surpass or even rival.

    A lot of people say they don’t think about things in terms of winning or loosing, but everyone does to some degree. It is human nature. Would any one care to take the position that it does not irritate them when they are with a partner who they can not throw? That situation could be seen as winning or loosing in this context because it has the same feeling of inferiority that comes with it. Most people who start out get frustrated when in a situation like this. I remember I hated it when I found myself in this situation, and I remember a few other people having similar reactions to this sort of situation when they started out too (don’t make me name names). Even if there is no one actively competing against you, you have expectations of how you should perform and if you fail to meet them, you loose. You meet them, you win. This is how people who are goal oriented thing. Not nessicarily wrong or right, just the way they think.

  16. If you are goal oriented, then by deffinition you look at things in terms of did I or you succeed or fail to meet my or your goal. That can be interperted as “winning” or “losing” in this context. That is the terminology most of the goal oriented people I know use, but this is dependent upon my personal experiance. The biggest insult you can give to such a person is “loser”, which is used quite frequently outside of any kind of competative situation. Therefore, I think this is evidence of the fact that this is how a lot of goal oriented people think, if not “loser” has no meaning within the context because the result is meaningless.

    Let me be clear on cheating. It is only cheating if one is at a direct disadvantage to another party during a competative event. I meant to say that superman VS anyone without kryptonite is as unfair as Mike Tyson going 12 rounds with a new born child. There is less than 0% chance that the child could win, so it is unfair. Would you consider it cheating if the New England Patriots played a game of tackle football against an elemetry school for the deaf and blind?

    Jerry, is the basis of law in the US centered around the idea of what society at large considers fair, right, or other?

  21. “It is only cheating if one is at a direct disadvantage to another party during a competative event”

    So, since I have done martial arts since I was seven, when I am on the mat or in a sparring situation with someone who only has a beginner level…is that still cheating?

    Pats vs Jags…statisticall Pats are a better team, so if they win…was it cheating?

  22. If you got on the mat with a day one beginer and decided to take their teeth, yes. The Jags and Pats are in the same league (literally). They do not put the patriots against the the tomcats… partially because they do not exist any more, but they aren’t as good as an NFL team. It is not seen as fair, so they don’t compete with them. That is why boxers and wresslers have weight classes, sports have professional leagues, and they have amature events in anything.

  23. MM cheated…no matter how many years of my life I have spent learning Martial Arts…groin shots are not cool…

    Edit (Jerry): Cleaned up the language….

  24. MM would have cheated if the strike was intended.

    As it was, the real issue was balance (i.e. keeping your own center balanced so that when uke falls, nage is not relying on him or her to stay upright).

    For anyone testing, slow your technique down so that at any point you can stop and stand without falling. You should perform the technique at that speed.

    As your own balance improves, you can speed the technique up. Only worry about off balancing your partner at about 3rd kyu.

    (Again, these are my thoughts, not Sensei’s….)

  27. First off, everyone is crotch level to me… I’m a bloody midget.

    Second, Jerry is correct. From an objective Kantian view the act of cheating is self sustaining in it’s immorality.
    It is warped view of morality in my opinion when evil is only considered evil in the presence of good. (or vise versa) That is duality when evil is defined by the presence of good. And good is only considered good when evil is around. However, a more Kantian philosophy considers a concept like “good” to be completely objective. Right is right even without the existence of such a thing as evil. An immoral action is immoral even if the circumstances seemingly are without a morality to offend upon.The sky is blue, even if you aren’t in a position to see it. Good exists independently of circumstance therefore any evil action within itself lends itself in opposition to the assumed morality. Therefore it is false to claim that good and evil are defined according to each other’s existence. Therefore in the absence of one the other is void. In a universe where that law 100% persisted we would live in a constant state of amorality.
    If you remember my post on the stages of moral development you will recall that the higher levels are based around that concept that one does good for goodness sake, therefore in human morality good exists for it’s own sake, and evil is separate from it.

    Thus, if Lex chose to cheat, it is still cheating even if voided of an apparent opposition. Objectively, he cheated, thus he is a cheat… take it for what it i worth.

  28. MM, I wonder…do your stages of moral development correspond to an historical view of moral philosophy?

    Nietschze came after Kant, and I’d guess he’d rank pretty low on your scale. Heck, is it even *possible* to have an objective moral philosophy given the reality of uncertainty?

    Are our philosophies quaint?

  30. I like Kohlberg, he developed the stages of moral development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

    I never liked Nietschze. I like Kant. I can relate to his world views. I find a lot of Kant’s ideas to be timeless. It is repeated in the views of Chesterton and the essays of C.S. Lewis,to name just two dudes off the top of my head.

    I’m moderately an objectivist. I don’t take it to it’s inhuman, apathetic absurdity; but I do tend to simplify philosophical problems. (On the Mayers Brigg I’m an INTJ which most likely is why I simplify problems.)
    Basically I believe there is a right and a wrong. Ends do not justify means. If it sits even a little bit in a grey area I disregard it’s importance. Either it is right or wrong. If it is grey than it is not white, that’s all I need to know. This view basically is created as a safe guard system for making moral choices. One rotten apple spoils the basket: one shred of immorality in your actions makes your actions immoral. Moral actions must be purely moral from all sides.
    Objectivism states: Just because you think the sky is red it doesn’t make it a shade less blue.

    Even with uncertainty in play; 1+1= 2… fundamentally. Uncertainty doesn’t really change the equation I think, it just alters the angle it is being sighted from. It is still slave to the fundamental principles, whether those principles are mathematic, or are self inflicting. It still has its own set of confines, rules, orders. Like a Monet: Up close it is all messed up… take a step back there is a rhyme a reason and order. Chaos has perceivable order, even if it is humanly unimaginable.

    However where personal interest and circumstance collide, it is hard to deduce what is moral at times. That is the place the objectivist view fails. It is a moral code better performed by a robot, vulcan.. or Christ Himself…. no human can be an objectivist without contradicting themselves from time to time. ( so maybe Nietzsche is right lol) Objective thought is a sister to idealism, only less fluffy and emotionally employed. So no human can live by it completely in every way, but certainly trying couldn’t hurt.

    We are just cute little specks on a cute little blue planet anyways; who says we have to know it all anyways? 🙂

  35. err, link takes you to wrong spot , look at comic character, im not cool enough to link posts with a word underlined 😛

  42. LOL When I was like 6 years old I used to sing that Monty Python song to my dad.. then I’d ask why Idol wore pink… that’s a girl’s color!!

  43. Well, let’s take matters into our own hands. We all wish this blog was more active.

    For Pete’s sake, it takes like, what, ten minutes to write a quick paragraph? Really, it’s ridiculous.

    Tonya gave me permission to submit guest posts. Of course, we all are here to read about Tonya in NYA…but enough’s enough.

    What say ye?

  47. Tonya, since this concerns your blog, I’d imagine you’d want to comment….(hint, hint).

    (Really, though, how difficult is it to write more than one freakin’ post every month??) 😡

    Some proposed topics, for your consideration:

    Dark Night – Aikido from the perspective of a Tang Soo Do black belt.

    grassHopper – Our recent camping trip.

    MM – Preparing for my first Aikido test. Challenges and successes.

    p.s. Apologies, Tonya, if I seem a bit frustrated. We are all very grateful for the window you are giving us into New York Aikikai. We all look forward to reading your next post, whenever that will happen.

    We just want a bit more activity, (or if you are too busy, at least tell us that), so that your posts don’t accumulate 100 comments. We really do appreciate you!

  49. I know. Right, spam sucks stinks.

    Edit (Jerry): Sigh… Cleaning up. Moved posts into one comment. Fixed grammar. Fixed language.

Comments are closed.