User talk:Grahamwild

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Grahamwild, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RE: Yoseikan article

Hi Graham,

Let me start off by saying that I like your Yoseikan Aikido article and its content.

Shortly before you posted it we were handling what perceived to be a double entry issue under Yoseikan and Yoseikan Budo and so merged the two.(see discussion section.)

I'm wondering what your thinking was behind adding a new section on Yoseikan aikido which I would think would come under the blanket term Yoseikan Budo? To me it would we like having separate sections for Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto ryu and TSKSR iaijutsu.

But perhaps this is not fair. What's your thinking on this?--Mateo2006 17:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Yoseikan article

Hi,

To me Yoseikan Aikido is very different to Yoseikan Budo. Yoseikan Aikido is a school (style) of Aikido, and Yoseikan Budo is Sogo Budo, or complete martial art. If you ask most high level Yoseikan Aikidoka, they would make the statement that Yoseikan Budo (as it is today) is the creation of Hiroo Mochizuki (as sensei's Auge and Sugiyama do), and they learnt Aikido, Judo and Kobudo as separate, but intertwined arts from Mochizuki, and were graded separately in them. Aiki is considered a section of Yoseikan Budo, and the Wado Ryu Karate influence is very apparent, this and the influence of boxing and kick boxing has completely changed the stand up and fight methods of Yoseikan Budo, which is following modern trends in mixed martial arts.

The idea that Yoseikan Aikido is a subsection of Yoseikan Budo is very wrong, That would be like saying Kito Ryu is a subsection of Judo, now it is no longer taught, and only exists in the kata of Judo. Yes high level Judoka practice kata from Kito Ryu, but does that mean they truly understand Kito Ryu, since they have not spent countless years training (in full armour). I would have to say not. The primary art that they have spent that time on is judo, and that is why they are at the level to learn those kata. This is the same as a Yoseikan Budoka's Aiki component.

Simply put the fundamental goals and approaches are different, and I feel this is also true of Yoseikan Ryu Karate (which is fundamentally an offshoot of Shotakan and looks nothing like Yoseikan Budo), and why I have invited them to submit an article.

That's my thinking on the topic. Graham

Hi Graham,

Thanks for giving me the feedback on your perspective of which I find no fault with the main ideas. I'll leave you to develop things there though I don't think they'll leave a dead link to Yoseikan karate for very long. :)

I trained very briefly at the Yoseikan hombu in Shizuoka under Mochizuki-sensei back in 1991. He definitely used the term 'Yoseikan Budo' to refer to his art at that time but not necessarily as an institutionized term. There were even released videos of his art in the early 90s using the term if I'm not mistaken ('Yoseikan Sogo Budo'). But since Mochizuki Hiroo is more closely associated with the term 'Yoseikan Budo', perhaps coined it and is now using it to refer solely to his interpretation of the art it makes sense to make the differentiation.

People at the hombu did train separately in judo, kendo, karate (even weight lifting and boxing) at the hombu at that time. Mochizuki-sensei would send people out to study at colleagues dojos as well. The line between judo and aikido often seem to blur during aikido practise though and that was my favourite part. Irimi nage could end in kata hajime and jujigatame could get pulled out of the hat on someone struggling with a pin, never mind the sutemi waza which were so incredible. We didn't have separate classes in karate or Katori Shinto ryu while I was there. They were just parts of the general budo practise and were part of the same class. That they may have been formally separate parts of the curriculum may be true but they were not taught separately while I was there.

Auge-sensei was definitely felt to represent the particular mix of the hombu's budo at that time as well and his name was spoken of with great respect at the dojo.

Those were great times for me.

Best--Mateo2006 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Mochizuki Sensei used the term budo, as far as I have learnt the ideals of Budo were very important to him. The term was also very strong with O'sensei, as it continuously occurs in his doka, and Jigoro Kano, who insisted Judo was Budo and should never be an olympic sport. He also claimed that Aikido was true budo, and hence sent Mochizuki to train with O'sensei. But we all approach Budo from a different path, Mochizuki sensei had his Aikido and Judo, Hiroo has the Wadoryu/Modern flare. Personally, I am pure Aikido, but to advance I have to accept that Judo is a part of Yoseikan Aikido, which I have, and I feel that the only thing I can guarantee will be effective right now with my limited training are sacrifice throws. I do however feel that with constant training, my reliance on those and other judo techniques will decline in a real world situation. That is were Aikido approach is fundamentally different to Modern Yoseikan Budo, my goal is to train to reach that polished state, over time, I don't plan to fight of compete, so I don't need simple punches and kicks that will enable me to "win". I like the life long aspect, not the 3 years to black belt (not that that is what the Yoseikan Budo is doing, I just read an article about Zendokai, and they were talking about an average of a year or two), the idea of a 20 year technique is intriguing to me, and at 20 years I guess I will know if I need more time ore not :-)

BTW I am working on the Karate article, I have email the relevant people. Grahamwild 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Graham,

That all sounds great. Who is your aikido teacher?

just in terms of the use of the term here is a video that Mochizuki-sensei released in the early 90 with his use of the term "Yoseikan Sogo Budo' on the cover.

http://www.budovideos.com/shop/customer/search.php?substring=mochizuki

The budo portrayed here was completely consistant what was going on in the dojo at the time I was there. Well worth picking up (if you haven't already) as a snap shot of practise from that era. Patric Auge is also in evidence there.--Mateo2006 23:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed have them (it was a 2 DVD set). My teacher here in Perth is Hans de Jong. He was a student of the late Yoshiaki Unno. Out website is Hans de Jong if you want to have a look. I have also trained in LA with Auge Sensei, and I am hoping to return in the middle of the year. I don't know exactly what Auge Sensei's opinion is, but he uses the terms Yoseikan Budo, and Yoseikan Aikido interchangeably on his website, something that the group affiliated with Hiroo Mochizuki would not do. Those DVD's represent exactly what I did in LA, but there is an Aikido book from Mochizuki Sensei in Frence, called Ma Methods d' Aikido Jiu-jitsu, and this represents what we do here in Australia perfectly. The book is from 1957 or 1958. Grahamwild 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting additions to Yoseikan karate. Good work there!--Mateo2006 23:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

There's unfortunately no way to add/edit the summary for a previous edit, and I know what you mean about putting it off. Don't worry, though. No one will pound you over the head for not doing it, since too many people don't leave one (or not leave a good one), so just be careful next time. I myself found mathbot to be the thing that finally motivated me to do a good job there. Happy editing! Xiner (talk, email) 14:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just read your message again, and I think you might be confusing "signing your message" (which is done with ~~~~) with the edit summary, which is a separate box right above the Save page button when you're editing. Hope that clears it up. Xiner (talk, email) 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. That's great. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equation size

It's the "\," at the end. This is a "feature" of Wikipedia's equation handling. Wikipedia can display equations in two ways: for simple equations, it generates an html version. For more complex equations, it generates an image file containing the equation. The two display modes end up with slightly different fonts and sizes. The \, theoretically just tells WP to insert a narrow space in the equation, but it also forces the equation to be displayed as an image, like the other equations in the article. Equation display can also be set in your user preferences: there is a setting there to force it to always give you the image version. I believe the developers plan to introduce an improved equation handler someday, that will resolve these annoying formatting discrepancies.--Srleffler 13:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing tips

Hi. It looks like you're off to a great start on the Fiber Bragg grating article. You mentioned you have lots of references to add, so I wanted to give you some tips. Wikipedia has some features to help with referencing. Some make it easier, some just help to organize the information better and make it easier to index and sort later.

The most important is auto-numbering. If you number your references manually, they will inevitably get mixed up as other people edit the article. Wikipedia solves this with the autonumbering reference system. To add a reference, just enclose the text of the reference between the tags "<ref>" and "</ref>". Put this in the body of the article, where you want the citation to the reference to be, not in the reference section. I've put the tag "<references/>". In the references section. This tells the Wiki to collect all the references and display them there, automatically numbered. They also have clicky links so readers can click on the citation to jump directly to the reference, and vice-versa. If you need to do fancy things like referring to the same reference twice, read the instructions.

The other useful feature is the citation templates. These apply standardized formatting, so all references come out looking the same. You just fill in the bibliographic details, and it takes care of the rest. The most common one is probably the one for journal articles:

{{cite journal |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |month= |title= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |url= |accessdate= }}

Full instructions on what to put in each field are at Template:Cite journal, and more specialized fields are described there. Any fields you don't need can just be omitted. You can cut and paste the blank version above into an article, and then just fill in the blanks to save typing.

The last thing to note is that there are several fields that create links from the final reference to external sources. The url= field is used if you have a web address where the article can be found. The doi= field provides a more permanent link. Most journals now assign a digital object identifier (doi) to each article. The doi is used to produce a permanent link to that article. Even if the publisher reorganizes their site and puts the article at a different web address, the doi will still link to the correct article. It's fine to have both a doi and a url in a reference.

I edited the reference you added. Take a look and see how it works in practice.--Srleffler 05:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

I realize that (the rookie thing) but the articles you are writting are contributing in a postive way so I thought I'd help. Wiki-links - yes they want more - links to as many existing articles as possible - but usually once per article. Titles - I am talking about O-sensei, sensei, master, grandmaster and all the variations from all the martial arts found (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino) - it can be really confusing. The point was made in the guidelines I linked to. You weren't excessive (you should see some of the Filipino martial art articles) but I thought I'd mention why I trimmed them. Dojo - either or was fine (don't know why I mentioned it). Dojo can be classed as a loan word and therefore can be altered.Peter Rehse 09:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Can I suggest moving the discussion on your user page to this talk page.Peter Rehse 09:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mateo2006 just started writing on the other page and I didn't mind, I had just started. I am on track with the titles thing now I guess it is just habit.

[edit] Yoseikan aikido

Wow! I'm glad that people decided to let you flesh out the Yoseikan aikido and karate articles separately from the Yoseikan Budo page as you've developed things quite nicely there. Well done.--Mateo2006 04:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shodokan Techniques

If you mean like the Aikikai nikkyo then the name is kote mawashi. As far as irimi-nage all of the first five atemi waza are irimi-nage. Shomen-ate, aigamae-ate, gykugamae-ate, gedan-ate and ushiro-ate. No kata garuma in the syllabus.Peter Rehse 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tomiki was big on classification not so much individual names for variations. Techniques 2 and 4 I would call Aigamae-ate ura -where the hand is is irrelevant - more which arm you use.

Also kotemawashi and the hyperflexing wristlock are variations of kotegeishi (wrist return). The alternate wrist movement we call kotehineri (wrist twist) which is like sankyo but includes a number of variations including a type of ikkyo (confused yet?)

I've seen and done the kannuki gatame ude hishige technique or something similar but have no idea about the name. Sorry I can't be more help.Peter Rehse 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The keeping of Judo and Aikido separate sounds like something I wrote - it was a central part of my counter argument to the heathens that said Shodokan Aikido was just judo. Not that there is anything wrong with Judo.

Both Mochizuki and Tomiki were big on classification but I think their approach was different enough that it is hard to pair techniques up. Basically wrist techniques were divided into kotegeishi and kotehineri (the type of twist); aigamae and gykugamae (the hand doing the grabbing, same and opposite, respectively) and junte and gyaku-dori (the grip, regular and reverse, respectively). That works to 16 in total. Kotemawashi would be gykugame gyaku-dori kotegeishi with the name reflecting a grip rather than an actual technique. That grip can also be used for an ikkyo like technique.Peter Rehse 05:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/User_talk%7EGrahamwild_61ca.html"