Response: Step-by-step v. Flowing

Balanced brings up a good issue here, and one which has ramifications in a few areas. I will discuss the topic as to how it pertains to teaching method(s). For background, at our dojo it is commonplace to teach beginners step-by-step motions when introducing them to kata: "You move at a 45 degree angle relative to uke this way with unbendable arm..." This example is rigorously detailed, but true to form in that the logic behind it is to teach small, accurate motions that together coalesce into a full technique.

This method of instruction is used in other martial arts and in non-martial fields of study as well. The problem with it in Aikido is a conceptual as well as practical one, as Aikido is inherently a "flowing" art. Constantly we hear/preach that "we don't care what uke does, we're just going to get off the line of attack and flow with him." This becomes a kind of axiom from which all of the particular motions stem from, a direct contrast in style and logic from the step-by-step method.

The question remains as to which is more effective. For beginners, just getting them to move somewhat correctly across the mat is of utmost importance, so the step-by-step method is a great jumping off point. Its simple and easy to say and illustrate "move from A to B." That being said, if we do not teach what the motions add up to--the "why" behind the technique--then we are in danger of teaching a great deal of nothing; for what do the particulars mean without context?

Maybe Balanced can infer or deduce something on that subject...

-Headlong-