This article is the first of a series written by Cyril Lagrasta, head instructor of the Dublin Aikikai Aikido. It is a great opportunity for all of us to complete our understanding of his teaching on the mat with more in depth concepts and personal reflections. The first of this series deals with the different processes of learning Aikido, in particular, the differences between a dynamic and static pedagogy.

Through my different experiences I found that techniques practiced in a static manner could be useful for beginners. It tends to strengthen their basic positions and enhance their understanding of being blocked by one or several partners. It also allows, at some stage, to develop the notion of kokyu and to be able to use it whatever the size or strength of the person they are facing.

That being said, and even if I just gave positive judgement on the matter, I am personally dubious on the long term benefit of working statically. Also, I would like to clearly define it as a positive thing on the condition of it being done in an intelligent manner (which I will explain later in this article).

Watching the practice of students who have learnt through a static way always bemuses me. Most of them end up totally locked into positions that are only efficient if praticing with the same type of students. By this I mean that when facing someone moving or creating some flowing synergy, these students often happen to feel totally threatened and they will eventually tend to lock themselves even more than they were before. Worse, sometimes, some are being taugth to protect themselves with one hand while attacking with the other which seriously diminish the power and focus that they should invest in their attack.

On the other hand, if a student makes a point staying mobile, he will remain freer and as a result, his static opponent (that we could almost call "human object") will not be a major issue for a long time.

What bothers me most is that if we are to learn statically and remain this way for several years, I find difficult to see the exact link with Aikido as a flowing martial art. Moreover, a static student will not develop committed, effective attacks and will always work without having the possibility of releasing any type of energy.

The purpose of Aikido is to have a person attacking you who is fully committed and who does not work in permanent fear. Going back to people attacking with one hand and protecting with the other, I fail to comprehend the benefit of such work but maybe I don't get the point... The attack looses its momentum, the hips become frozen and Tori is not any longer any real danger. He is however expected to still try applying his technique on Uke... When attacking one should fully believe he will reach his partner and his commitment should be 100%. Protecting himself while attacking means that he is simply not attacking at all and is blows have absolutely no effect. Attacks should not be stiff and robotical, they have to have life and power to the point of shacking the partner's attitude. Unfortunately, currently, in many Aikido dojos, attacks are very poor and in the rare cases when they are done properly, people feel surprised, or even threatened...

There is only an interest in working statically if a flowing way is also being developed in parallel. Both concept must be studied together. I would tend to think that if we had to choose one at the beginning it should be the flowing one. Through my experiences it has always been easier to shift from a moving Aikido to a static one than the opposit. Practicing statically, for it to be beneficial, has to be done intelligently.

For example, on Katate Ryote Dori (Morote Dori) the kokyu exercices can be developped if Uke gives a firm grip being well positioned and trying to control Tori's centre. If Uke is just gripping for gripping with all his strength and the rest of his body is frozen, then he is more in danger of being smacked than anything else. Why bother applying a technique on someone just blocking in such a way when a good atemi would released the grip or enable to apply a technique? Especially when facing someone twice one's size, then there is no chance one will be successful in applying his kokyu. I have seen this happening frequently, even with very skilled people. Coping with that game means that you have to play the dumb arse, trying to apply a technique that you know is not going to work at least not in agreement with the spirit and principles of Aikido. Responding by a strike would be taken the wrong way by Uke, a bit like a punishment (however how necessary it seems to be). These are frustrating moment that we all face at some point, particularly when travelling and facing students from other schools. This reminds me of Philippe Gouttard's words "when you practice you give your best to your partner for him to become better than you and not the opposit", " If I face a Shodan I become a Shodan, if I face a 5^th kyu I become a 5^th kyu". The simple reason is to blend with our partner and of course create positive challenge and difficulty but no mental blocking or rejection. This is what I am looking for in Aikido and what I am trying to teach.

Why is motion useful? Clearly, when we see people sparing in other martial arts, they are always mobile, even when facing a Sumotori type of person (actually, I would say especially when facing a Sumotori like person). Motion will allow them to escape, absorb, and avoid any type of attacks and grips in most cases. Why would it be different in Aikido, in particular since we have no weight categories, it definitely helps to avoid ending up locked by a 100 kg partner.