View Full Version : Aikijujutsu technique: Handcuff Hold?

the Khazar Kid
13th July 2002, 18:12
After the great thread on the book "Effortless Combat Throws" and Aikijujutsu principles in non-Aikijujutsu arts, I thought about this. I do not practice Aikijujutsu nor even Aikido, so please excuse me if this question only shows stupidity and ignorance:


No. 15 The Handcuff Hold

I have heard one of the main principles that distinguishes Daito-ryu from modern aikido and other martial arts is that instead of just blending with the opponent, you also off-balance them from contact. This certainly does that (nice arm drag!), then spins through like the reverse (going inside instead of outside) of Shiho-Nage to a lock.

Would you consider this an Aikijujutsu technique?

If not, how could you modify it to make it an Aikijutsu technique?

Jesse Peters

13th July 2002, 20:35

I don't know what it is called in Daito-ryu, but in aikido it is called sankyo (maybe some yonkyo mixed in?). It is not aikijujutsu because it lacks aiki and does not create off balance, or at least it doesn't appear to create any off balance (it is a sketch). So to make it aikijujutsu you would have to add aiki and to do that you'd have to come train in an aikijujutsu class (or several hundred) :) . As for the Shihonage post yes we do have it in Daito-ryu, if you want to see it you may want to buy the aikijujutsu tapes made by Kondo Katsuyuki sensei. You can order them from Aikido Journal and they are worth the money.


the Khazar Kid
14th July 2002, 04:24
"Make a dive at his right wrist...jerking it violently downwards...This will produce a considerable shock, amounting almost to a knockout blow..."

In my Aikignorance I assumed this referred to off-balancing. How is the real high art of off-balancing different and/or superior to this initial arm drag?

In other words, what would you or another skilled Aikika (?is that a word?) physically use instead of this arm drag to create initial off-balance before, let's say, a spinning sankyo or yonkyo sort of like this?

Jesse Peters

Nathan Scott
16th July 2002, 08:27
[Post deleted by user]

16th July 2002, 09:52
But don't look for aiki or aikijujutsu in military techniques such as this. The methods shown in those pages share similarities with jujutsu, although on a crude level, but they are not "gifted" methods.

Hi, Nathan,
Are you saying the methods are crude, or the drawings of the technique on that page are crude representations of jujutsu technique?

If the former, that is not only unfair, but the technique used in any given situation serve or do not serve. Hopefully, they will. Further, those are judo technique so I can understand your frustration in finding anything of value in those drawings.

If it is the drawing which you reference as "crude" to jujutsu, then don't read my first comment. As Gilda Radner used to say "Never Mind."

For some reason there is this perception that Military hand-to-hand methods are the most secret and devastating of all arts. However, I think you'll find that a VERY small amount of over all training time is alloted for CQC training to those in the Military - even those in SpecOp capacities. They simply have very little need for it, and as such, the methods taught tend to be very simple and raw so that they can be taught very quickly.

The reason for such perception is that in the Military, the technique learned generally becomes "kill or be killed" situation so if in such a position, as on that page, surely the perceptions become exaggerations, but not by those who need them. I don't have to tell you there are hundreds, even more than that, variations just on the sketches shown. Like any self-defense situation, the technique must be quick and neat, and as in the tokui-waza, "You use what you know." If it has become a conditioned response, something Fairbairn was very familiar with, they are not necessarily "simple and raw (whatever that means)" but were/are generally practiced to near perfection. Isn't that the goal in what you do? That is why the *perception* is what it is. They don't attempt to learn an entire syllabus of judo, jujutsu, aiji JJ or any other SD system, they "use what they know." What you call "simple" is not someone else's "simple." Again, "Use what you know." In a relatively short time, most practical technique can be learned, but must be tested against all sorts of opposition. H2H, while I'll agree is so rare today that another perception is that it is not necessary, that too would be a mistake.

As far as any aiki is concerned, a question was asked. You could be wrong, after all, the drawings are "crude" or are very poor representations of some "jujutsu technique." It's the Shiro Saigo argument all over again. Lots of speculation and little to no proof of anything.

Anyway, I couldn't draw "aiki" if I tried. I can draw Woody Woodpecker, though.;)


Ken Good
17th July 2002, 06:50
As with Nathan, I do not intend to take anything away from Mr. Applegate. A boot smash to the groin, grab the opponent’s head and smash your knee into the face works for me.

But as I say in my tactics classes….

I am not an art critic, but I do know bad art when I see it.

Was the opponent taken off balance? Was he put into a triangulation point? Etc. etc.
But I can say the same thing about a flying Tae Kwan Do kick to the side of the head, after I connect and the opponent is knocked to the ground.

Clearly from taking the entire book in context, it is not representing what would be considered an Aikijujitsu framework or viewpoint. The emphasis and core operating system is clearly different. Making a couple of minor adjustments to the techniques shown would no more make it Aikijujitsu than putting new doors on a Chevy Mailbu would make it a Porche 911.

Soldiers given X amount of time need X type of training. Having a simple plan and the commitment to execute the plan is a whole lot better than facing the situation without any tools.

But then again I got an “F” on my first kindergarten art project….

Ken Good
17th July 2002, 07:52
A thousand pardons. I had Applegate on the brain.......it's Fairbairn

Sort of like Pee Wee Herman..."I meant to do that!"

17th July 2002, 17:04
Fairbairn studied Judo in Shanghai and Japan. If you look at the progression of his teaching through his various works you see Judo methods that become more and more streamlined over time. Scientific Self Defense has a lot of techniques and was written at a time when Fairbairn was training police. Get Tough was written for the home guard in England when they expected to be invaded at any moment and having left a good part of their arsenal on the beaches of Europe and having a gunless society were fixing to meet the Germans with pitchforks. It has fewer techniques and more striking. Even later when he was tasked to train special soldiers and spys, the syllabus had become very streamlined and was almost completely strike oriented while still being identifiable as Japanese jujutsu based (not karate, kungfu, or boxing). Many even referred to it as ”dirty judo.” Not much time spent training so it had to be simple plus Fairbairn explicitly states that the unarmed portion is for “those who have been FOOLISH and caught unarmed.”

Just look at the titles used by the various manuals - Get Tough, Kill or Get Killed, Do or Die, Hit Em Hard, etc. Not much aiki there, but plenty of kiai. Ground and pound. Spirit of the bayonet and all that.

17th July 2002, 17:22
One more thought.

If you look at the various editions of Applegate’s Kill or Get Killed you see the opposite effect. In 1943 it has 175 pages. In 1951 it’s up to 316. And in the current edition of 1976 there are 421 pages. The book doubles in size as we move farther and farther away from the war and more stuff gets added in to address different tasks especially police issues.