Learning
(Extracted from Aikido-L)
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:49:43 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Question of the day...
Would it be fair to say that you can only learn a technique as nage, and
you can only understand a technique as uke?
-- Mike "just a random thought I had while reading the kotegaeshi thread"
Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:40:19 -0400
From: Don Tedesco
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Mike,
Yes, I think that's a pretty good way of expressing what I've experienced.
I don't feel I truly understand a technique until I feel it as uke.
Don Tedesco
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:40:39 -0700
From: michael hacker
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
I think it's a fair question. I don't think it's true, though.
> Would it be fair to say that you can only learn a technique as nage, and
> you can only understand a technique as uke?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:14:55 -0400
From: Charles Yeomans
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
No, I don't think so. Sometimes it's useful to feel a technique as
uke, but I learn more by throwing.
Charles Yeomans
At 9:49 AM -0400 4/19/2002, Mike Bartman wrote:
>Would it be fair to say that you can only learn a technique as nage, and
>you can only understand a technique as uke?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:27:16 -0400
From: Jon C Strauss
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Howdy,
> Would it be fair to say that you can only learn
> a technique as nage, and you can only understand
> a technique as uke?
Tenchinage: I know what a good one feels like when I'm
uke, but I'll be gosh-darned if I can translate that
into doing it well as nage.
With most other throws, the feedback I get as uke usually
helps--but it's hard to beat being nage for a throw if
you want to learn/understand it.
Peace,
JCS
RMKS at CSU
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:40:47 -0600
From: Jun Akiyama
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Mike Bartman:
> > Would it be fair to say that you can only learn
> > a technique as nage, and you can only understand
> > a technique as uke?
Does one ever fully "learn" a technique? What's the difference in
learning an aikido technique and understanding it?
Jon C Strauss wrote:
> Tenchinage: I know what a good one feels like when I'm
> uke, but I'll be gosh-darned if I can translate that
> into doing it well as nage.
> With most other throws, the feedback I get as uke usually
> helps--but it's hard to beat being nage for a throw if
> you want to learn/understand it.
Can one fully "master" (whatever that means) a technique by just doing
its nage portion or just its uke portion? My magic eight ball returns
a "no" answer.
NonObOTStuff: An exercise people might want to keep in their minds as
they post things which might be considered off-topic by some is to
think, "How does this relate to aikido? What can I write to make this
relate to aikido?", and proceed to write down the answer to the second
question...
Jun
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:10:48 -0400
From: Jon C Strauss
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Howdy,
> Can one fully "master" (whatever that means) a technique
To be able to do a technique without like, totally sucking at it?
> by just doing its nage portion or just its uke portion?
> My magic eight ball returns a "no" answer.
There are absolutely no absolutes, right?
My magic eleven ball says that you would be better of practicing that which
you are trying to do well. Sure, taking ukemi may provide you with some
kinesthetic details that you might not be able to pick up by watching some
shihan do a throw. However, practicing the throw (correctly and...with a
little experimentation) will yield the best results.
That's what I'm hoping for anyway.
If you want to learn to hit a baseball well, you're better off going to
batting practice than you are practicing pitching or catching.
Peace,
JCS
RMKS at CSU
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:27:41 -0400
From: Jake Jacobe
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Jon C Strauss wrote:
>If you want to learn to hit a baseball well, you're better off going to
>batting practice than you are practicing pitching or catching.
The proof of your statement being that pitchers are usually among the worst
batters on the team.
By the way, Brother Jon, if you wish, I will teach you tenchinage the next
time we are together.
Jun Akiyama wrote:
>NonObOTStuff: An exercise people might want to keep in their minds as
>they post things which might be considered off-topic by some is to
>think, "How does this relate to aikido? What can I write to make this
>relate to aikido?", and proceed to write down the answer to the second
>question...
I don't get it, Jun. This seems to be the MOST on-topic thread in a long
time.
But, ok, let's see ... Another question: from a teaching perspective, can
you better teach someone how to do a throw by throwing them well or by
taking perfect ukemi for them as they attempt to throw you? Or is it a
combination of both?
Jake
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:46:41 -0400
From: Jon C Strauss
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
[ * Moderator : Cut * ]
> But, ok, let's see ... Another question: from a teaching
> perspective, can you better teach someone how to do a
> throw by throwing them well or by taking perfect ukemi for
> them as they attempt to throw you?
Depends on your ego.
> Or is it a combination of both?
I think if you like to take falls, you're probably better at
using ukemi as a teaching tool. Or you can just grab on to
a student and hive/her move you and see if they've got the
right idea--all without actually taking ukemi.
But I like to take ukemi anyway.
Peace,
JCS
RMKS at CSU
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:55:22 -0600
From: Jun Akiyama
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Jake Jacobe wrote:
> Jon C Strauss wrote:
> >If you want to learn to hit a baseball well, you're better off going to
> >batting practice than you are practicing pitching or catching.
>
> The proof of your statement being that pitchers are usually among the worst
> batters on the team.
So, if you could join an aikido dojo that just had you practicing only
as nage and never as uke, would you?
> But, ok, let's see ... Another question: from a teaching perspective, can
> you better teach someone how to do a throw by throwing them well or by
> taking perfect ukemi for them as they attempt to throw you? Or is it a
> combination of both?
Depends on the circumstances and the level of the person throwing.
For beginners, I'll sometimes take "shadow ukemi" as uke and form
myself into the shape of the technique; more often than not, I've
found that many beginners who don't have any clue about the basic
shape of the technique don't get much out of being thrown. For people
with more experience, throwing them seems to let them get a better
grasp for a technique. Feeling the technique and actually noticing
how the technique affects my body has been some of the best ways I've
learned how certain things "work" in aikido.
I dare say that the people with the best nage abilities that I have
seen have correspondingly developed ukemi skills as well. As I've
said before, I don't think there's any difference in the principles
behind good ukemi and good nagemi (for the lack of a better word)...
Jun
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:57:04 -0400
From: Jon C Strauss
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Howdy,
> So, if you could join an aikido dojo that just
> had you practicing only as nage and never as uke,
> would you?
I think I can answer "no" to that without perjuring
my earlier statements.
I learn how to do techniques *mostly* by doing and
feeling the techniques.
I continue go to the dojo because I have fun doing
ukemi.
> I dare say that the people with the best nage
> abilities that I have seen have correspondingly
> developed ukemi skills as well.
Spot on.
> As I've said before, I don't think there's any
> difference in the principles behind good ukemi
> and good nagemi (for the lack of a better word)...
Well, what else would you call it?
If it's not a word, why isn't it?
Peace,
JCS
RMKS at CSU
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:02:15 -0400
From: Jake Jacobe
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Jun Akiyama wrote:
>So, if you could join an aikido dojo that just had you practicing only
>as nage and never as uke, would you?
No way ... half the fun of aikido is getting thrown. I think it is
essential to do both to really learn the technique. I've seen several
students over the years who, for health reasons, could not take full
ukemi. I think, in most cases, their aikido development suffered as a
result. Of course, some times one can only do what one can do.
>Depends on the circumstances and the level of the person throwing.
>For beginners, I'll sometimes take "shadow ukemi" as uke and form
>myself into the shape of the technique; more often than not, I've
>found that many beginners who don't have any clue about the basic
>shape of the technique don't get much out of being thrown. For people
>with more experience, throwing them seems to let them get a better
>grasp for a technique. Feeling the technique and actually noticing
>how the technique affects my body has been some of the best ways I've
>learned how certain things "work" in aikido.
That's my take on it as well. Uke and nage are both essential roles.
Beginners benefit from ukemi that leads them into the right nagemi. At a
more advanced stage, just getting thrown usually makes the throw more
understandable.
Which is why I have volunteered to teach tenchinage to Mr. Strauss, even if
it means I have to throw him for hours non-stop. :-)
Jake
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:35:25 -0700
From: David Monahan-Lesseps
Subject: Re: Kotegaeshi (translation)
>From: Jun Akiyama
>Actually, personally I pretty much never send uke into a breakfall for
>kotegaeshi...
Why is that? Is it out of preferance, or is it because of how you execute
kotegaeshi? How about your instructor and dojomates?
David "curious" M-L
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:09:00 -0700
From: A J Garcia
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Jake Jacobe wrote:
> >So, if you could join an aikido dojo that just had you practicing only
> >as nage and never as uke, would you?
Jun Akiyama replied:
> No way ... half the fun of aikido is getting thrown. I think it is
> essential to do both to really learn the technique. I've seen several
> students over the years who, for health reasons, could not take full
> ukemi. I think, in most cases, their aikido development suffered as a
> result. Of course, some times one can only do what one can do.
Well, to comment from personal experience...those of you on list
who know my situation vis a vis not taking ukemi also know how
hard I've found it. It's difficult to really understand the
technique when you're the one always throwing. That is finally
changing for me--I'm overcoming the physical challenges and
starting to take some falls--but it's still a PITA to not have
the flexibility of movement I'd like.
Which is not to say I don't appreciate the concern sempai sensei
and others have for my health, and their advice and guidance. I
have no intention of quitting or allowing this to limit my aikido
permanently.
As you always say, Jun, it's MY aikido!
Al
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:43:20 -0600
From: Jun Akiyama
Subject: Uke/Nage/Watching
Cindy wrote:
> I like the original question, too, but on reflection I'd have to
> say there's three elements for me in learning something: seeing it
> done, having it done on me, and then doing it on someone else.
So, a follow-up question.
Pretend that some twist of space-time caused there to be three
alternate universes while destroying your current one.
The first (alternate aikido universe "Nagemi") has dojo where you
never have to take ukemi.
The second (alternate aikido universe "Ukemi") has dojo where you
never have to be nage.
The third (alternate aikido universe "Watching") has dojo where you
never get to see as a "third person observer" how a technique is done.
You might just want to think of yourself as being blind (Chris?).
If you had to choose _two_ of these universes in which to continue
your aikido training, which two would you choose?
And (of course), what if you had to choose _one_ of these universes?
(There is a rumor of a fourth alternate aikido universe D where all
people do is sit in front of a computer and exchange bytes of
information (mostly) about aikido, but we'll leave that one on the
side.)
Jun
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:52:43 -0400
From: Jake Jacobe
Subject: Re: Uke/Nage/Watching
Jun Akiyama wrote:
>If you had to choose _two_ of these universes in which to continue
>your aikido training, which two would you choose?
>
>And (of course), what if you had to choose _one_ of these universes?
I guess it comes down to what you most look for in your practice.
If you are looking for a way to release tension at the end of the day and
maybe improve your physical fitness a bit, "Ukemi" universe would do it.
If you are looking to acquire self defense skills, "Nagemi" universe would
be best.
If you seek a beautiful art form that you can watch in awestruck
wonder, "Watching" universe would be ideal.
So, if I absolutely had to pick just one universe, it would be Nagemi.
Let me pick two and I would pick both Nagemi and Ukemi (because I think
they complement each other and I sometimes practice blindfolded aikido
anyway, so I guess I could get by without the watching).
Luckily, of course, we get to experience all three and that is just fine
with me.
Jake
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:31:38 -0400
From: "Tilles, Eric A."
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Cindy wrote:
> I like the original question, too, but on reflection I'd have to
> say there's three elements for me in learning something: seeing it
> done, having it done on me, and then doing it on someone else.
I would add one more -- trying to teach it.
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:20:28 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
So where is there disagreement that causes you to say "no, I don't think
so"? I said you learn as nage...
-- Mike "are you just saying that undderstanding isn't important? Or what?"
Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:25:37 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
At 01:27 PM 4/19/02 -0400, Jon C Strauss wrote:
>helps--but it's hard to beat being nage for a throw if
>you want to learn/understand it.
You seem to be bluring the "learn" and "understand" line. To me they are
very different things. I can do some things without understanding why they
work, and I can understand even more things, without being able to do them.
Learning and understanding seem to be two different things, at least in
this context.
"Grab here, hold like this, step here...uke falls down." Ok, I do that,
and uke falls down...but why? I've learned the technique, but I don't
understand it.
I get grabbed, held, and fall down..."Aha! *That's* why!"
Without understanding I'm not likely to be able to improve my
technique...all I can do is copy what I was taught...and hope that all
situations are just like the example.
-- Mike "that's they way it looks to me at the moment anyway" Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:59:42 -0500
From: Peter Claussen
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
>At 01:27 PM 4/19/02 -0400, Jon C Strauss wrote:
>
>>helps--but it's hard to beat being nage for a throw if
>>you want to learn/understand it.
>
>You seem to be bluring the "learn" and "understand" line. To me they are
>very different things.
Why should that be? Seems to me, if you don't understand something, you
haven't learned that thing; at best you can be said to mimic.
Peter Claussen
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:50:52 -0500
From: Peter Claussen
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
>At 11:59 PM 4/19/02 -0500, Peter Claussen wrote:
>
>You seem to be blurring the distinction too...
>
>-- Mike "if you can mimic it, you have learned it...but you may still not
>understand it" Bartman --
There's the non-distinction I'm trying to make; being able to mimic is not
the same as having learned.
You may be able to recite Lincoln's Gettysburg address (i.e. you can mimic the
words) but that does not imply an understanding of Lincoln's message
(i.e. you may not have learned the meaning of the words you mimic).
Maybe we're differing on semantics, but I don't consider rote memorization
the same as learning.
Peter Claussen
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:01:31 -0700
From: David Monahan-Lesseps
Subject: Re: Uke/Nage/Watching
>From: Jun Akiyama
>So, a follow-up question.
>
>Pretend that some twist of space-time caused there to be three
>alternate universes while destroying your current one.
>
>The first (alternate aikido universe "Nagemi") has dojo where you
>never have to take ukemi.
>
>The second (alternate aikido universe "Ukemi") has dojo where you
>never have to be nage.
>
>The third (alternate aikido universe "Watching") has dojo where you
>never get to see as a "third person observer" how a technique is done.
>You might just want to think of yourself as being blind (Chris?).
>
>If you had to choose _two_ of these universes in which to continue
>your aikido training, which two would you choose?
>
>And (of course), what if you had to choose _one_ of these universes?
Well, If I could do the 1st and 2nd with the person I usually watch in the
3rd, I would be pretty happy with that situation.
If I had to pick only one, well, then I would probably take up Tai Chi.
David M-L
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:06:39 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
At 05:50 PM 4/20/02 -0500, Peter Claussen wrote:
>>-- Mike "if you can mimic it, you have learned it...but you may still not
>>understand it" Bartman --
>
>There's the non-distinction I'm trying to make; being able to mimic is not
>the same as having learned.
If I couldn't do it before, and I can mimic it now, haven't I learned
something?
>You may be able to recite Lincoln's Gettysburg address (i.e. you can mimic
the
>words) but that does not imply an understanding of Lincoln's message
>(i.e. you may not have learned the meaning of the words you mimic).
Exactly...I've learned the address, but I don't understand it...i.e.
learning and understanding are two different things. That's what I've been
saying...
>Maybe we're differing on semantics, but I don't consider rote memorization
>the same as learning.
When it comes to physical skills like dancing, Aikido techniques, karate
katas, jo katas, or juggling, being able to mimic your teacher means you've
learned it. You may or may not understand it yet, but you've learned it.
With other things, like making music or raising kids, learning and
understanding may be more intimately related. We are talking Aikido here
though.
If you've learned, but not understood, all you can do is mimic. Once you
understand you have a chance to improvise, extend and improve.
-- Mike "it is semantics, but I don'tt think we're differing even there"
Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:19:10 -0700
From: Cindy
Subject: Re: Uke/Nage/Watching
Jun Akiyama writes:
>Pretend that some twist of space-time caused there to be three
>alternate universes while destroying your current one.
>
>The first (alternate aikido universe "Nagemi") has dojo where you
>never have to take ukemi.
>
>The second (alternate aikido universe "Ukemi") has dojo where you
>never have to be nage.
>
>The third (alternate aikido universe "Watching") has dojo where you
>never get to see as a "third person observer" how a technique is done.
>You might just want to think of yourself as being blind (Chris?).
>
>If you had to choose _two_ of these universes in which to continue
>your aikido training, which two would you choose?
>
>And (of course), what if you had to choose _one_ of these universes?
Yikes...
The visual component is pretty important to me -- I'm very visually
oriented, and I know I pick up many things from "eye waza". But to
actually learn the techniques, I'd probably have to pick out nagemi
and ukemi. And if only one, nagemi. But my rate of learning would
slow down for each scenario.
--Cindy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:40:09 +0100
From: Simon Watkins
Subject: Re: Question of the day...
Monkey see, monkey do. Nope thats not aikido. if knowledge is
assimulated information. Then your knowledge is not yet gained.
When you can respond naturally to an attack that you have not
seen demonstrated then it is assimulated.only then can you say you
know that technique. One coin two faces. If you know only the head
how can you produce a coin? If you only know the cherry in
blossom do you really understand a what a cherry tree is?
Simon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:58:12 -0300
From: Terry Lane
Subject: Re: question of the day
I liked Carol Schifflet's book section related to this especially the
section about novices attempting to resist or counter techniques. If a
fundamental tenet of aikido is blending then the nage/uke distinction is
needed for instruction but less useful as a means of thinking about
learning. At one level, it's as if you were asking which is the best side of
a coin, heads or tails?
Terry
------------------------------
Last updated on 13 Sep 2002