PDA

View Full Version : Which Are The Current Gendai Budo Arts??



RobNyc
17th June 2002, 22:57
I was curious to know which are the Gendai Budo Arts currently?

Post them & would you study them? why or why not?

Mike Mules
18th June 2002, 04:43
Originally posted by RobNyc


Aikido is derived from Daito-ryu but Ueshiba took out the Footwork Daito-ryu Sokaku's version had.

Out of interest, what is your source for this statement? Also, could you expand on what footwork has been removed?

Yours in anticipation,

RobNyc
18th June 2002, 04:57
cant' give any statements on footwork
just read ueshiba took out all the footwork.
i'll try to look again and see if i find anything

Chuck Clark
18th June 2002, 05:21
Something that I've learned over the years...

Don't believe everything you read in a book. Do more research and find as many views as possible about the subject.

Regards,

RobNyc
18th June 2002, 05:44
i didn't read it on a book.

Jerry Johnson
18th June 2002, 16:28
I have been reading allot of the Aikido newsgroups and I have come across many different view points of what is and isn't Aikido in relation to Daito Ryu. I would bet Sturgeonís Law is in effect ( 99% of everything your read, write and hear is BS) concerning the composition of Aikido. This is based on the vast number of debates and arguments I have read in various Aikido newsgroups.


I say this is because there seem to be two schools of thought with many Aikidoka in general. One is acceptance of Daito Ryu. That Daito Ryu is Aikido roots, and exploring Daito Ryu is beneficial. The other is resistance to Daito Ryu. That Daito Ryu had little influence and exploring Daito Ryu is of little or no interest as there is no benefit. This polarity generates heated debates, therefore, I can see Sturgeonís Law come into play. I have read some debates that produce allot of misinformation.

I am not expert in either art, but some basic research from solid sources, reasonable knowledge of Japanese martial arts, and common sense ( avoiding the romanticism of the arts ) can easily indicate what information is affected by Sturgeonís Law.

With all due respect, based on my limited understanding ( not being an expert) and basic understanding of the two arts via research, I would have to say that in some style's of Aikido foot work may have been altered from the original Aikido.

It is plausible, that the founder never changed the Daito Ryu technically, as most of us think of as change. What we is as technical change is adaptation to a modern world. And the progression of skill like any other martial artist does when they train over a life time. I would agree the two arts are different in approach, application, and philosophy. I am sure many others differences in the abstract exists. Aikido is a modern adaptation of a traditional art. But technically it's structure is only portion of Daito Ryu curriculum.

My understanding is Ueshiba studied under Takeda for a shorter period of time then other Daito Ryu 'kas such a Hisa Takuma who received a Menkyo Kiadan (sp). Ueshiba received an introductory teaching rank and then taught Daito Ryu under the supervision of Takeda for many years until Ueshiba split with his teacher for reasons that are still being debated.

Therefore, I would conclude in my limited scope that foot work deletion is more likely found in the branches of Aikido, then in Aikido itself. Ueshiba's foot work ( seen on tapes ) is a result of technical progression based on the fundamentals of the Daito Ryu he was taught. And that what also seems to be change in footwork is the result of Ueshiba's build and body type. No one does anything exactly like another, or looks the same. i.e. note the differences in movement and application between two Judoka or Karateka of different body frames and skill levels in application and performance. The last point, something already discussed here in general terms, is that maybe that Takeda being a traditional martial artist and such mentality didn't teach Ueshiba everything or precisely. This is a factor because of the Daito Ryu being popular, it is readily available on video tape, thus, comparisons can be made and such conclusions are possible.

Budoka 34
18th June 2002, 19:50
I believe OSensei also studied several styles of Ken-Jitsu as well as the Chinese arts of Ba-Gua(Pa-Kua)and Chi-Kung(Chi-Gung).
Anyone know more about this?



:smilejapa

RobNyc
18th June 2002, 23:32
I read Ueshiba studied with Takeda like for 20yrs

Chris Li
18th June 2002, 23:59
Originally posted by Jerry Johnson
My understanding is Ueshiba studied under Takeda for a shorter period of time then other Daito Ryu 'kas such a Hisa Takuma who received a Menkyo Kiadan (sp). Ueshiba received an introductory teaching rank and then taught Daito Ryu under the supervision of Takeda for many years until Ueshiba split with his teacher for reasons that are still being debated.

Who studied for how long is tricky where Takeda is concerned. Takeda never had a dojo of his own, he'd travel around and teach mostly seminar style. People might train with him (for example) for ten years, but the actual time they spent training with him during those ten years may actually have been quite short.

Ueshiba actually lived with Takeda for two years. If you look at the actual amount of time spent physically training with Takeda it's possible that Ueshiba had more than anybody else, certainly more, IMO, than Takuma had. Kodo Horikawa and Yukiyoshi Sagawa would be the other competitors for time in, but it's really anybody's guess at this point. Of course, whether or not that means anything is another issue...

Best,

Chris

MarkF
19th June 2002, 10:35
Who studied for how long is tricky where Takeda is concerned. Takeda never had a dojo of his own, he'd travel around and teach mostly seminar style. People might train with him (for example) for ten years, but the actual time they spent training with him during those ten years may actually have been quite short.


Isn't it even more true today? If I took my thirty-nine years and rearranged it according to days and hours, it would probably be a lot less, too.

When on the road, Takeda charged per technique.

I thought Takeda did have a dojo at one time. BTW, If you are going to use that static year of 1868 as a time line, DR AJJ is actually gendai. In that year, Takeda Sokaku would have been eight or nine, depending on what part of the year.

In fact, there are many koryu which are actually gendai, using that as the end of one and the beginning of another, so the whole koryu/gendai timeline is pretty much invalid. IOW, it doesn't matter.


Mark

RobNyc
19th June 2002, 13:54
In A Way DR AJJ is Koryu Bujutsu in the other hand is also Gendai.

But the founder of DR AJJ is
Shinra Saburo Minamoto Yoshimitsu (1056-1127)

But they also put Sokaku as the founder but he wasn't really the founder.
Sokaku (Sogaku?) Takeda (1853-1943)

DR AJJ Kodokai*
Kodo Horikawa (1894-1980)

DR AJJ Roppokai*
Seigo Okamoto (1925-)

DR AJJ Sagawa (less known)
Yuikiyoshi Sagawa (1902-?)

DR AJJ Takumakai*
Takuma Hisa (1896-1980)

DR AJJ Bokuyokan
YONEZAWA, KATSUMI
ē1937Ė1999


This is but one art. It might be called a dozen different names, but it is the same art derived from the great leaders of the Minamoto and Aizu clans over 1200 years of evolution. All the followers or students of these different branches are not the followers or students of the current leaders or teachers, but the followers of historical traditions established by the various families who took part in the refinement and continuity of this great Japanese fighting system we generalize as " Daito - Ryu Aiki Bujutsu "..
Never forget that a branch ( call it what you chose !) is just that : "A BRANCH ", never the " TREE " . And all the different branches, regardless of who heads them, are not DAITO-RYU , but merely a temporary segment of practitioners who are teaching a part of the 1200-year old art of the Minamoto and Aizu fighting system .
Nobody ( regardless of how talented they are ) can master all the different techniques of Daito-Ryu ! Some master certain aspects, others master other segments, and they add their own signatures and pass it on to their followers . It has been like that for 1200 years

Saigo Ha Takeda-Ryu (daito-Ryu)

Chris Li
19th June 2002, 13:55
Originally posted by MarkF


Isn't it even more true today? If I took my thirty-nine years and rearranged it according to days and hours, it would probably be a lot less, too.

But not like with Takeda. For example, I might go to a dojo three times a week and train with a certain instructor. In a year I might have (roughly) 150 actual contacts with that instructor. In contrast, the number of times that a person would have actual contact with Takeda would have been far less - maybe 10 times, maybe less (probably less). Ueshiba spent time actually living with Takeda, so he got an unusual amount of exposure - Sagawa also spent about the same amount of time living with Takeda, but I get the impression that he didn't spend all that time training (although he later traveled with Takeda quite a bit).



When on the road, Takeda charged per technique.

On the road he mostly taught seminar style. The usual pattern would be that he would come into town and then send his son or one of his students around looking for people interested in a one or two day seminar. Apparently the seminars were quite expensive and he'd take only people wealthy enough to pay the fees, or people of some importance (for the status, I assume). He seems to have taught at a lot of police departments.



I thought Takeda did have a dojo at one time. BTW, If you are going to use that static year of 1868 as a time line, DR AJJ is actually gendai. In that year, Takeda Sokaku would have been eight or nine, depending on what part of the year.

Although some people built dojo for him to teach in AFAIK he never had a dojo of his own. The status of Daito-ryu as a koryu is fairly fuzzy. Strictly speaking it would probably be classed as a gendai budo, but mostly it seems to have a kind of quasi-koryu status in Japan.

Best,

Chris

RobNyc
19th June 2002, 14:06
Cool.

This stuff is interesting,
you guys know what you are talking about at least ;)

Chris Li
19th June 2002, 14:08
Originally posted by RobNyc
In A Way DR AJJ is Koryu Bujutsu in the other hand is also Gendai.

But the founder of DR AJJ is
Shinra Saburo Minamoto Yoshimitsu (1056-1127)

But they also put Sokaku as the founder but he wasn't really the founder.
Sokaku (Sogaku?) Takeda (1853-1943)

Takeda is usually called the "reviver" of Daito-ryu. However, the historical lineage of Daito-ryu is almost completely unproven, and whether there's any truth to it or not is really anybody's guess.

Takeda certainly did these things:

1) Renamed the art.
2) Reorganized the art.
3) Added things from other arts/mixed a number of different arts.

In my book that's enough to call him a "founder", but YMMV.



This is but one art. It might be called a dozen different names, but it is the same art derived from the great leaders of the Minamoto and Aizu clans over 1200 years of evolution.

The oldest recognized koryu in Japan are around 500 years old. Daito-ryu has roots in older arts, but so does Judo or, for that matter, Aikido.



Saigo Ha Takeda-Ryu (daito-Ryu)

I'd take a look at:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000013.html

and

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1856

If I were you.

Best,

Chris

RobNyc
19th June 2002, 14:11
Good Info there.

Are you a AJJ practitioner?

Chris Li
19th June 2002, 14:14
Originally posted by RobNyc
Good Info there.

Are you a AJJ practitioner?

Mainly I'm an Aikido guy, although I've trained Daito-ryu in the past. I still train with a Daito-ryu group once a week, but I wouldn't really call myself a Daito-ryu student.

Best,

Chris

RobNyc
19th June 2002, 15:03
Originally posted by Chris Li


Mainly I'm an Aikido guy, although I've trained Daito-ryu in the past. I still train with a Daito-ryu group once a week, but I wouldn't really call myself a Daito-ryu student.

Best,

Chris

Thanks ;)

MarkF
20th June 2002, 09:02
Hi, Chris,
Well, that was kind of the point I was trying to make, but I guess I took a short cut, but yes, I agree.


But they also put Sokaku as the founder but he wasn't really the founder.
Sokaku (Sogaku?) Takeda (1853-1943)


I believe Sokaku (or yes, Sogaku is correct as I understand romaji which isn't all that great) was born in October, 1959?

The point was, and I was trying to put the fact (or fiction) of the division of koryu and gendai was that I don't think a division exists. Since S. Takeka didn't really found DR AJJ until the turn of the twentieth century, some would have to admit it is gendai, if only for the date. I disagree with both and simply understand that DR is a modern art with basically good lineage. But to cloud its history even further was Tokimune T.-sensei changing the menjo to dan-I, so as it becomes even more modern, and with so many later dispensing their versions, even with the acceptance of Katsuyuki Kondo as "Mainline" kaicho it becomes a little more muddled, and we haven't really brought in all those who make claims to having a school which teaches DR AJJ. If we were to include them, why we would have to include Rod Sacharnoski as he makes claims, also.

Finally, with Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu as the oldest extant ryu, dating DR back that that far, even if one could prove that the basics of a fighting system are that old, it still wouldn't be true as the ryuha didn't exist until the time period Chris puts at about five-hundred years, and perhaps a little less than that.

I also just reread Wil Bodiford's essay which is now available on http://koryu.com , and he pretty much agreed that the only school in MA that comes close to soke/iemoto is Kodokan Judo. If so, then the period would have to be adjusted again (but like him, I wouldn't say on a bet that the Kodokan is "soke," no matter how interesting that would be);)

My point is only that it is independent thinking which pretty much indiscriminately puts martial flavors into koryu or gendai. Pretty soon (in historical time) there will be, either an intermediate time period of budo, and a much newer, or post-modern period which would include those which are not in the modern period.

I should live so long.:)


Mark

Jerry Johnson
20th June 2002, 18:42
I just want to say I have been keeping up with this interesting thread. But as someone who isn't so well versed on what is or isn't a koryu, I need to ask the following. What weight does it carry if a legit art thought to be a koryu isn't or visa a versa?

I can argue Aikido is a koryu. But by Japanese standards and noted experts as dicated in a previous thread that dicussed this topic it isn't based on date of creation. According to all the legit Daito ryu pages I read, Daito ryu it is a Koyru that went through name changes. And other well known experts stay Aikido techniques are Daito ryu. And the only thing that makes Ueshiba stand apart in the field of Daito ryu is his choice of religion and the way he taught technique. i.e. adjusting the techniques to less injurious and fatal. Making Aikido an art that would comply with the modern laws of civility. And it was the fact that Ueshiba split from his teacher and respectfully denoted his art as being a different art. The two art are so similar that when I first seen a Daito ryu tape it was hard for me to believe it was another art. I wasn't like watching judo and jujutsu. Point being if Ueshiba didn't split, and stayed under Takeda, and Ueshiba still followed Omoto (sp) religion and adjust the techniques Aikido would be daito ryu. Just as Takumakai is Daito Ryu. That being so, then if Daito Ryu is a koryu based lost and destroyed records then so is Aikido. All that separates Aikido from Daito Ryu is politics. Which now I believe is changing, that is Daito Ryu and Aikido are mending their political spat and unifiy. So Aikido can be Koryu, as there is no proof to Daito Ryu being or being Koryu based on a dateline.

The point being what is the significance of minute details, politics, man made date lines that dictate whatis a koryu and what isn't. It is more significate and valuable to delinate and differenciate what is a martial art sport and what isn't. Reason being a matter of life-style and choice. my 15 years kid most likely will not join my sword class, he is more likely to do Judo ( sport side ) or TDK ( the sport side). It is important to know that Kava Maga (sp) is a recent development out of Isreal and not a feudal combat system out of India. Kava Maga deals with today's situations and not those of a thousand years ago. The playing fields are different. It is important to know Aikido stress it's safety mechanism and guards. And Daito Ryu doesn't as much. That is in Aikido you don't have to worry about having your back broken over someone's knee. And you, more then likey, will not break the other guys back over your knee, may it be your training partner or an attacker. In both arts you will simiarly control the other person to differ degrees. It more important to know the arts origin, background, and purpose. Then what date it started as to lable it a koryu or not. Clearly, if some one is B.S. and saying their art is a 1000 years old as part of a sales pitch to get you to sign on the dotted line then I agree knowing when the art started is important for the sake of legitamacy. Is there any real benefit to saying ok, people anything prior to this day it is all koryu? If you know anything about Japanese calenders accuracy isn't a stong point.

Just a thought.

RobNyc
20th June 2002, 23:08
Aikido was formed & found after the 1900s where and how is Aikido koryu? Only koryu roots yes

Jerry Johnson
22nd June 2002, 15:50
If Ueshiba didn't split with Takeda over on technical issues. The body of Aikido is no different of a deviation of Daito Ryu then say Takumai Kai is. If Ueshiba's split from Takeda from what I can gather it wasn't due to a technical brainstorm Of Ueshiba's who thought Daito Ryu was technically inferior. It was do to ( lack of a better word ) Political/philosophical differences.

I read Hisa studied under Ueshiba for a very long time, and Takumai kai is or can be considered a branch of Aikido. Point being Takumai kai is heavly Aikido influenced and yet do to Hisa's commitment to Takeda is daito ryu. Therefore, Daito ryu must consider Takumai kai not to be an Orange but an Apple likes itself. Therefore, we can reason this is true for Aikido.

There is no documented proof that Daito Ryu is or isn't a koryu. Daito Ryu now has a oral tradition. There is no reason I have read that leads me to think Daito Ryu is a fraudulant organization who would gain from BSing it's lineage. Whether Daito ryu is a koryu or not is based on a cut-off date. And this is based on the ambiguity of who originate the art.

Therefore, Aikido could be a Koryu i.e. a part of a ancient martial art. The only thing that makes it a modern art because of a split based on political/philosophical differences.

Just food for thougnt. I mean this is went through my head when I was reading up on this stuff.

fifthchamber
27th June 2002, 15:47
Hi all,
Very interesting comments made here on Aikido especially and Daito Ryu also. The history of both schools is far more complex than can be easily sorted out here but it is good to find such a wide ranging discussion on it here.
This is a little late but earlier someone asked about the various arts that Ueshiba Morihei had studied and about the possible arts that influenced his art of Aikido. I have heard that Ueshiba had studied Kukishin Ryu for a time also and owned several scrolls of Kukishin Tenshin Hyoho. He had been introduced to Kuki Takaharu through his interests in the Omoto Kyo sect around 1918 in Tokyo and maintained a strong connection to the Kuki family for the rest of his life. His interest seems to have been focussed on the Shinto teachings of the Kuki house and his interest in 'koshinto' (Old Shinto teachings) was also a base for his influences in Aikido. He founded 'Takemuso Aikido' with the support of Kuki Takaharu but after Ueshiba's death the families lost contact.
Of course, none of this means that Kukishin Ryu is THE major influence of Aikido but like Daito Ryu and the Omoto Kyo groups ideas could have been taken up by Ueshiba and influenced the way that he viewed both what he was teaching and what he believed in spiritually....Undoubtedly there are more subtle influences here that have not been mentioned but the Kuki connection may have been quite strong so....
HTH.
Abayo

RobNyc
27th June 2002, 17:28
Originally posted by Jerry Johnson
If Ueshiba didn't split with Takeda over on technical issues. The body of Aikido is no different of a deviation of Daito Ryu then say Takumai Kai is. If Ueshiba's split from Takeda from what I can gather it wasn't due to a technical brainstorm Of Ueshiba's who thought Daito Ryu was technically inferior. It was do to ( lack of a better word ) Political/philosophical differences.

I read Hisa studied under Ueshiba for a very long time, and Takumai kai is or can be considered a branch of Aikido. Point being Takumai kai is heavly Aikido influenced and yet do to Hisa's commitment to Takeda is daito ryu. Therefore, Daito ryu must consider Takumai kai not to be an Orange but an Apple likes itself. Therefore, we can reason this is true for Aikido.

There is no documented proof that Daito Ryu is or isn't a koryu. Daito Ryu now has a oral tradition. There is no reason I have read that leads me to think Daito Ryu is a fraudulant organization who would gain from BSing it's lineage. Whether Daito ryu is a koryu or not is based on a cut-off date. And this is based on the ambiguity of who originate the art.

Therefore, Aikido could be a Koryu i.e. a part of a ancient martial art. The only thing that makes it a modern art because of a split based on political/philosophical differences.

Just food for thougnt. I mean this is went through my head when I was reading up on this stuff.

Very right. I also read in a Seibukan Jujutsu site about Ueshiba splitting, but that nobody didn't know really why/

RobNyc
20th July 2002, 01:35
Originally posted by Mike Mules


Out of interest, what is your source for this statement? Also, could you expand on what footwork has been removed?

Yours in anticipation,

Ueshiba didn't use the Daito-Ryu Aiki Jujutsu footwork,
He instead used the Kendo, Judo, footwork he learned.

RobNyc
20th July 2002, 02:17
well yea then...

But the development of Aikido was influence by Kenjutsu, not sure if Kendo is in the list, Judo is, Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu was the biggest influence, and his religion.

RobNyc
20th July 2002, 03:20
Originally posted by Enfield
Actually hanmi no kamae in kendo are done with the right foot straight forward, the left pointing out to the side, and the body turned 45 degrees to the left. The accompanying irimi movements are very much like what I was taught in aikido. That being said, hanmi isn't used much outside the three kodachi kata.

Oh, and current kendo footwork is very different from what it was in the 30s and 40s, anyway.

I am not sure if kendo footwork, or something is included.

I know Kenjutsu, Judo, Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, and his religion.,
Were the influences.