PDA

View Full Version : Effectiveness of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu



Lil Dave
16th July 2000, 09:41
I have read that aikijujutsu is superior to jujutsu. What makes aikijujutsu so good? How is it different from jujutsu, and what types of techniques are involved (immobilization, atemi, etc.)? I'm not asking this in a comtemptuous tone, I'm honestly wanting to know. Thank you for any assistance that may be rendered concerning this.

David Buck

16th July 2000, 18:13
Dave,

As a longtime practitioner of both arts I think you are mistaken in your perceptions here. Aikijujutsu is not really superior to jujutsu. It simply operates on a more intricate and sophisticated level of priciples. This is good and bad. It requires much less physical exertion and strength but also requires much greater precision and infinitely longer training time for practical execution. Extreme subtlety is the name of the game in genuine aikijujutsu.

My own opinion is that for most practitioners a lifetime of study will still not give them the tools to actually apply pure aiki jujutsu in a street confrontation. This does not mean that the art is lacking but that those of us who are normal humans are. The art requires almost superhuman martial ability to master and just as most of us could never be a concert pianist regardless of how much we practice, most of us will never really master high level aikijujutsu either. Where I think exposure to aikijujutsu really shines is in helping an advanced student of another art more deeply understand the principles that drive the art he is currently familiar with. Although I dont believe I will ever master aikijujutsu, my training in aikijujutsu has forever changed and improved the way I approach the other arts I have spent so much time training in. I will continue to train in aikijujutsu treating it sort of like avanced education. It martially improves everything I do. But if accosted on the street The Wado ryu and Shindo Yoshin ryu that form my martial foundation will be what I call upon to meet that challenge, ..... again enhanced and improved by those aiki elerments that have crept into and effected my overall martial understanding.

I hope this makes some sense.

[Edited by Toby Threadgill on 07-16-2000 at 12:15 PM]

TommyK
16th July 2000, 22:41
Greetings Dave,

The quality of Mr. Threadgil's reply is outstanding. I could not agree with him more. By the way, there are some interesting photos of Mr. Threadgil in the latest issue of Aikido Journal. This is a publication I highly recommend and which may shed more light on the history, techniques and qualities of Aikijujutsu, which you seem to be looking for.

Regards,
TommyK

Aaron Fields
17th July 2000, 20:17
As a ju-jutsu guy (limited exposure to aiki-jujutsu)my two cents worth is focus. Ju-jutsu is a blanket term with great varience between the focus of individual ryu-ha. I always cringe with "this better than that" debates. I agree with Toby that aikijujutsu on the whole (excuse the generality) seems to be more esoteric. I am not meaning to imply inefficient, just a larger focus on the ki elements of the practice. In regards to precision of technique, I'm not sure that ju-jutsu waza always or inherently require more muscle. Refinement of technique is the overall goal of all budo/bu-jutsu, and for that matter everything in life. I believe that the question as usual comes down to the individual.

Lil Dave
18th July 2000, 03:27
Just so you guys know, I read that aikijujutsu was better than jujutsu in a book, so I was stating what I had read, but had no basis for accepting or refuting. I do appreciate this clarification. So, am I to understand that aikijujutsu is within the 'blanket term' of jujutsu as far as techniques, but it is how the techniques are actually performed that differentiates it them(or, in other words, one's mental focus when performing the movements is different).

Brently Keen
18th July 2000, 09:42
Dave,

In Daito-ryu, jujutsu techniques are basic techniques and aiki techniques are advanced techniques. They actually are completely different. Aiki techniques can be added to jujutsu techniques to make them more effective. Thus we have aiki + jujutsu = aikijujutsu.

How the techniques are actually performed does differentiate them, but the distinctives are not purely mental. I disagree that there is a larger emphasis on the "ki" elements in aikijujutsu. Toby is correct when he says that aikijujutsu is very subtle and requires much more precision. I always say that aikijujutsu is easy to do (it requires almost no effort), but is very difficult to learn (because it requires a lot of effort).

However, I'm not convinced that it takes "infinitely" longer to learn, nor am I convinced that only super-humans can master it. It does require a serious dedication, and a good teacher. But I think that anyone who has a qualified teacher and willingness to learn can achieve proficiency with proper training and practice.

While aikijujutsu is esoteric (known by only a few), it is not a not a mystical art, but is rather quite rational. And although the techniques sometimes appear to be super-human or magical, they are based on sound principles of physics, physiology, and psychology among other (secret) things. ;)

A simple description of jujutsu techniques would include primarily skeletal locking techniques using simple leverage, to control or throw the opponent, choking techniques, and with the exception of various striking techniques, jujutsu generally requires that you somehow grab or take hold of your opponent in order to execute the technique.

Aiki techniques do not rely on skeletal locking (kansetsu waza), or grabbing hold of the opponent in order to control or throw the opponent. Aiki techniques use small circular motions to effect subtle and complex levers, along with the opponents natural (and predictable) reactions to manipulate the opponent into defeating himself. There's much more than that, but that's the simple description.

Hope that helps.

Brently Keen

Walker
18th July 2000, 19:14
Toby and Brently’s posts reinforce the feeling that I have had that one should have a depth of options at one’s disposal especially if we are aficionados of the aiki arts. At the top I would put aiki applications that can dominate an individual with a minimum of effort and a maximum of skill. But rather than aiki as the only option there should also be options ranging through jujutsu on to striking and down to biting gouging and general thrashing about. Of course if you end up biting and gouging there is nothing to be proud of, but one still needs to know how to do it if it is needed. A well rounded artist would have layers to their technique ranging from the gross physical through refined leverage to rarefied aiki.
Sometimes I notice a tendency in class to stop and restart a technique in practice if it is not working and uke is nice and backs off. I think it would be good from time to time to practice shifting levels - you blow the technique move to another technique and/or switch levels of force/finesse on the continuum.

Mark Jakabcsin
18th July 2000, 21:43
Doug wrote: "Sometimes I notice a tendency in class to stop and restart a technique in practice if it is not working and uke is nice and backs off. I think it would be good from time to time to practice shifting levels - you blow the technique move to another technique and/or switch levels of force/finesse on the continuum."

Absolutely, Doug. While we don't do the practice you discribe with beginners we sure do it with more advanced people. During the randori type training uke can counter attack if tori's technique is flawed. Now the key is to keep it from becoming a competition between uke and tori. Once the attack speed is set both parties should stay with in that realm of training, i.e. uke counters and is successful it should be simply because he speed up, it should because he properly matched his training to the situation. Even this can be open for debate between an uke and tori that train alot together and have alot of trust with their partner (also both have to be willing to accept the occasional accident). When both parties realize that regardless of who does the finishing technique they BOTH learn, it becomes a valuable training tool.

As far as not taking pride in bitting and gouging, I suppose not, but then there isn't alot of pride in fighting today. Fighting kinda means you failed at something else, like de-escalation techniques, situational awareness, etc. Personally I have always taken a very survival first outlook, while I know others wish to view fighting in a more noble light. To each his own. I wish to expand on this but think I better stop, one never knows when their words might be taken out of context and read before a jury. Peace.

mark

20th July 2000, 15:17
Brently,

I agree with your statement here with an addendum:

You stated:

"However, I'm not convinced that it takes "infinitely" longer to learn, nor am I convinced that only super-humans can master it. It does require a serious dedication, and a good teacher. But I think that anyone who has a qualified teacher and willingness to learn can achieve proficiency with proper training and practice. "

If you go back and read my post my differentiation between aikijujutsu and jujutsu included "to actually apply pure aiki jujutsu in a street confrontation"

To "learn" aiki no waza and execute it successfully ( even extremely well) in the dojo is one thing. To actually apply pure aiki no waza in a violent street confrontation is something else entirely. A vast minority of individuals involved in aiki training have any exposure to the psychochemical stress responses experienced in a violent street encounter. One of the first things you lose when under psychochemical stress is the fine motor skill & coordination absolutely required in the execution of high level aiki. Each of us training in aiki needs to ask ourselves if we could actually apply pure aikijujutsu with a 230lb goon bearing down on us, possibly armed!

The complexity of aiki is one reason simple joint locking and rather elementary principles of leverage were taught and used more commonly during battlefield engagement in koryu jujutsu. The simplicity of jujutsu is what makes it so attractive in application. I'll again say the study of high level aiki principles have improved everything I do but I doubt that I'll live long enough to be able to master pure aiki at a level that would allow me to physically engage in a violent street confrontation and walk away unscathed.

Lil Dave
20th July 2000, 21:16
I understand where you are coming from, but I have to say that I don't think learning aikijujutsu any better will help you become prepared to use aiki techniques. Isn't this the same problem that the bushi had, being able to handle temselves in (potentially) life and death situations? Once one learns to maintain mental stability in the face of your entire body screaming, "KICK HIM OR RUN!" wouldn't any level of aikijujutsu be applicable? The question is whether higher level aikijujutsu will help train you to do that, or if you must train some other way.
How could you train yourself to be calm in the midst of all this? You can't reasonably put your life in danger (upwards of) dozens of times on purpose just for training. Is anyone aware of how the bushi trained for this, or was it a 'sink or swim' deal?

Dave Buck

Brently Keen
21st July 2000, 10:20
Toby wrote:

If you go back and read my post my differentiation
between aikijujutsu and jujutsu included "to actually
apply pure aiki jujutsu in a street confrontation"
______________________________________________________

Toby-san,

With all due respect, I did read your previous excellent post carefully, and I meant what I said in that context. I am still convinced that anyone with a "qualified teacher and willingness to learn can achieve proficiency with proper training and practice."

I would emphasize these points: "a qualified teacher",
"a beginner’s mindset", "proper training and diligent practice".

I would also agree with you that application of aikijujutsu techniques in the dojo, and application in a violent street confrontation are very different things. But there is also a significant difference between kata training and real combat on the battlefield as well.

The vast majority of koryu bujutsu founders felt the kata training method was the most effective method of training and preparing for actual battlefield conditions. And the focus of these systems was more often than not on the development of the proper mindset and psychological attributes necessary for battle. Techniques were secondary to principles, and the effectiveness of the kata method for instilling these principles into the attributes of the samurai has been demonstrated throughout Japanese history.

Contrary to some popular opinions these days, Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu is a koryu bujutsu. And the training method that was transmitted from Sokaku Takeda, while lacking in a formal structure, did have specifically designed purposes ingrained into both the training method and the techniques themselves. These purposes are the same as the explicit omote, and implicit ura teachings contained in kata training methods utilized by other koryu bujutsu systems. The so called secret "okuden" nature of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu is systematically transmitted from teacher to student (as in all living koryu) not through the contents of the densho, but through hands-on training and experience, isshin denshin, and kuden.

I also agree that : "A vast minority of individuals involved in aiki training have had any exposure to the psychochemical stress responses experienced in a violent street encounter." But, I would add that a vast minority of individuals involved in ANY kind of training have had much experience with the kind of psychochemical stress you're talking about.

As I said above, the koryu bujutsu were created for this very purpose; preparing samurai for "lethal force engagements" to use more modern terminology. These systems were designed for close quarter combat with weapons, and Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu is no different in this regard except that aikijujutsu is more subtle and sophisticated than most other systems. The softness, sophistication and subtlety of aikijujutsu however, grew out of practical necessity. I suggest a rereading of James Williams' excellent article in Aikido Journal, "Martial Aiki Past and Present" for an excellent presentation of this subject.

"One of the first things you lose when under
psychochemical stress is the fine motor skill &
coordination absolutely required in the execution of
high level aiki."

I agree that fine motor skills and coordination are impaired when under psychochemical stress, and the execution of aiki requires a precision that is only possible with a calm and emotionally detached mindset that is not impaired by such stress. BUT, proper Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu training is designed to facilitate the attributes (proper mindset) necessary to render the effects of psychochemical stress as negligible. That is among its primary purposes and objectives.

One of the first things you will become able to do as you become proficient in aikijujutsu is to remain confident, calm and relaxed even while under duress. It is a characteristic side effect of training in aikijujutsu. The adept aikijujutsu practitioner is trained in such a way that prepares him to not be adversly effected psychochemically by stress.

"The complexity of aiki is one reason simple joint
locking and rather elementary principles of leverage
were taught and used more commonly during battlefield
engagement in koryu jujutsu."

I beg to differ, I think that the reasons most systems resort to simplicity is because they are trying to compensate, adjust and react to effects of psychochemical stress. It is because of the effects of psychochemical stress that simple techniques and systems are prefered over complex systems, not because of the complexity of aiki. It is also felt that complex techniques take too long to learn, and if the exponent has not trained in methods to handle stress, and is not prepared mentally and emotionally for the realities of combat then they will lose the fine motor skills and coordination necessary to execute complex movements. Therefore simplicity is prefered by many systems.

However, the reason aiki is practiced is to be able to prevail against skilled opponents, even those who are bigger and stronger than us. This requires more sophisticated and subtle methods as well as a confident, calm, and detached mindset. It doesn’t concern me if they are possibly armed. Imagine my opponents surprise when he discovers (too late) that I'm armed as well!

I'm under no illusion however, that I will walk away from any violent street encounter unscathed, but my training in aikijujutsu has prepared me for the possibility. I'm still relatively young, and I don't believe that I'm particularly gifted, I've certainly a long ways to go before I master aiki, but I've reached a level of proficiency in which I'm confident enough to accomplish my objectives (not just in the dojo), and if I (a very normal guy) can do it, and teach others as well, then I think just about anyone with the right teacher, and a willingness to learn can become proficient with proper training and enough practice.

This was something that was strongly impressed on me by Okamoto sensei, and that was that he felt if he could do it then so could I. Gambatte ne!

Respectfully,

Brently Keen


[Edited by Brently Keen on 07-21-2000 at 04:36 AM]

Jeff Cook
21st July 2000, 15:52
Excellent posts from all! I learn a lot from you folks.

Getting back to Dave's original question, I would have to ask "better for what?" Fishing? Needlepoint? Making love? Tournament competition? Bar fights? Close-quarters combat? Greater spiritual insight?

I will put this idea out there: aikijujutsu is jujutsu. The comparison-question, as stated, is irrelevant. Just like asking, "Which one is superior: Goju Ryu or karate?" Goju is a style of karate. Aikijujutsu is a style of jujutsu.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Brently Keen
21st July 2000, 19:07
Jeff,

In Daito-ryu, jujutsu and aikijujutsu are two very different things. Aiki is not a subset or style of jujutsu. Likewise jujutsu is not a subset or style of aikijujutsu. Aikijujutsu is most definitely not jujutsu. They are apples and oranges.

Brently Keen

Aaron Fields
21st July 2000, 19:10
Another point (just to stir the pot, though my post is a bit off the original thread),
The koryu of the past that rely on completely on kata training in the dojo had real application practice on the battlefield. If they learned their lessons in the dojo and on the field they lived, if not.. As has been stated in this thread, most people involved with budo/bujutsu do not have use of force experience (thankfully.) Therefore, it seems that today, people with "kata only" training are missing a component of training which the "kata trained only" of the past had.



[Edited by Aaron Fields on 07-21-2000 at 01:37 PM]

Jeff Cook
21st July 2000, 19:31
Brentley,

I could be convinced of your point of view. Can you elaborate, both in a historical context and a nuts-and-bolts context?

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Richard Elias
22nd July 2000, 02:37
Toby and Brently,

In my humble opinion, based on my limited experience, I would have to say that I agree with you both...to an extent.

In regards to the pycho-cemical stress. I know that in our school, from the begining, we go through a progression of "fear break-down" training. First by learning rolls and falls to get over fear of the ground, on up to fears of being grabbed, punched, choked, held down, pinned against a wall, struck with sticks, knives, swords...etc, by singular and muliple attackers. The situations can be quite stressful (especially when live weapons are involved, I personally have been cut-still didn't drop my sword though:))
What we strive for is the elimination of the stress responce.
I don't believe that, for the most part, just anybody is cut out for this(no punn intended)or the "higher level" aikijujutsu. I've seen those that, regardless of the "qualified teacher, a willingness to learn, proper training and practice" will never really be able to use aikijujutsu to defend themselves in a real situation, or have the level of bodily control to do them. Some people just have fears that they can't get over.

In regards to using the simplest techniques on the street. Well, your going to use intsictivly those techniques you've practiced the most. Basics.
I know in our school we practice basic technique far more than the adavanced aiki techniques.
I spent six years as a bouncer,in situations that involved multiple attackers and weapons, and I never HAD to use anything but the most basic techniques. The situation just never required it. This was before I began training with Don, but my training none-the-less made everything seem as though it were in slow motion.
Besides, I think it really depends on what kind of aiki techniques your talking about. There are very simple distractions, on up to throwing without touching. In our school Aiki techniques are those that mess with the attackers senses.I think that the advanced techniques, in some cases, are really for the lessons they teach and the skills you aquire in learning them, than for practical application.

Incidently, those who have attended Don's seminars really haven't seen any of the basics we practice. He really only demonstrates the advanced stuff, and rarely are we allowed to play with it. There is a much harder-less aiki form of jujutsu, including striking and kansetsu waza that we don't get to show.
Also, in our school anyway, you have to go through training in "lower level" techniques, which often include aiki principles, before learning "higher level" techniques. More often than not the "higher level" stuff is just a different application of the basics.

In regards to the the original question.
The main difference, physically anyway, between jujutsu and aikijujutsu is that in aiki you try to take control of the opponents center right away. This allows you control of the whole body. I've often seen, and experienced, jujutsu techniques that only control the limb, and try to use pain to control the attacker.

Aiki does achieve this through skeletal locking, though they are much more subtle, less overt, connections that don't always feel like locks. Some cause the opponent
to "tense-up", causing the opponent to flex his muscles, thus holding or "locking" the bones in place, giving a connection to the center. Others achieve this through extension, "taking the slack out" of the body between the point of contact and the opponent's center. Still others simply lock the bones so subtley that you hardly notice it happening until your on the ground.

Well that was far more than I was originally going to say so I'll stop now, besides it's just my humble opinion.:)

Brently Keen
22nd July 2000, 08:43
Richard,

Any time you want throw your opinion in the mix, I welcome you to do so, I'm sure Toby will agree with me on that too. :)

"What we strive for is the elimination of the stress
responce."

Yes, I agree. It is the same in Daito-ryu.

"I don't believe that, for the most part, just anybody is
cut out for this (no punn intended) or the "higher
level" aikijujutsu. I've seen those that, regardless of
the "qualified teacher, a willingness to learn, proper
training and practice" will never really be able to use
aikijujutsu to defend themselves in a real situation, or
have the level of bodily control to do them. Some people
just have fears that they can't get over."

We might be splitting hairs on this one. I think you and Toby are right to an extent. I know for example some of my seniors who have been training for 10-15 years who still don't seem to really get it. However, I would argue that although they attend and participate in Okamoto sensei's classes, they're not really "training properly". And although they want to learn, they are either not "willing to learn" in some way, or they don't believe they will ever be able to really get it.

The willingness to learn that I am talking about is related to the ideas of the beginners mind, and having an empty cup. I'm not sure if it's that "some people just have fears that they can't get over", or whether they're just not interested in dealing with them. For some people it's not fear as much as it is prejudice, or previously concieved ideas and notions of reality and potential that they are unable to let go of. I wonder if they're really unable or just unwilling?

One other consideration is the instructor. One may also have a "qualified instructor" who is not willing to individually tailor their teaching according to individual needs to produce the highest level of proficiency in each individual. They may favor some individuals over others for whatever reasons. They may be looking for something in the student whether it be an attitude, initiative, maturity, persistance, humility, or whatever. To a certain extent one also has to teach yourself also how to learn what the teacher is teaching.

I absolutely agree that you're most likely to use the techniques that you've practiced the most. Which are usually basics. The basic jujutsu techniques/kata we have in Daito-ryu (ikkajo series - from the hiden mokuroku) however, are not the techniques we practice most in the Roppokai. Even the "so called" 15-20 or so most basic techniques of the Roppokai (and Kodokai) are not practiced the most. Instead we practice more advanced techniques the most. These have in effect become our new basics.

Execution of these advanced techniques requires solid kihon skills. However, we do not practice basic techniques (very much) in order to master these basic skills. Instead we practice a variety of advanced techniques, while emphasizing the basic (kihon) elements. This is the way principles are ingrained into the consciousness of the student, and basic skills/abilities are transmitted in the Roppokai.

After briefly trying a more standardized, basic kata-like approach for while, Okamoto sensei returned to this method because it was much more effective. It is the same way that he learned from Horikawa sensei, and that Horikawa sensei learned from Sokaku Takeda.

In the longer run this method has proven much more effective for Okamoto sensei. However, a student who has no other basic martial arts experience will have a difficult time applying these more advanced techniques before he has mastered the basics. Those with other experience will naturally resort to other techniques/skills in a real situation, until they become more confident with their aiki. This happened for me after about 4-5 years. And that's not really that long.

So I still think I'm not all that special. I'm pretty normal, except that I have a lot of determination and high level of commitment to apply myself diligently to my training, so that I can absorb the skills and abilities of my teacher and what he has to teach me. If I can reach a level of proficiency in a relatively short amount of time, then I think others can too.

Will everyone who studies aikijujutsu become proficient enough to use it in a lethal force confrontation on the street or battlefield? Of course not. But I think most people are capable of it, if they were to believe it, and devote themselves diligently to the task.

Gambatte ne!

Brently Keen

[Edited by Brently Keen on 07-22-2000 at 02:47 AM]

Brently Keen
22nd July 2000, 09:34
Richard wrote:

"In regards to the the original question.
The main difference, physically anyway, between jujutsu and aikijujutsu is that in aiki you try to take control of the opponents center right away. This allows you control of the whole body. I've often seen, and experienced, jujutsu techniques that only control the limb, and try to use pain to control the attacker."

I would agree with this, although even in basic Daito-ryu jujutsu techniques (when done properly) we control or attack the physical center-line and/or center of gravity right away too. Although many jujutsu schools teach techniques which only control the limb or use pain, I don't think these are very good jujutsu techniques. The distinction in my mind is between good and bad jujutsu, not between aikijujutsu and jujutsu.

Like you said in Yanagi-ryu, you start with basic techniques that include "aiki principles", in Daito-ryu the jujutsu techniques also include these principles, however in my view the application of these principles differs in aikijujutsu techniques.

"Aiki does achieve this through skeletal locking, though they are much more subtle, less overt, connections that don't always feel like locks. Some cause the opponent to "tense-up", causing the opponent to flex his muscles, thus holding or "locking" the bones in place, giving a connection to the center. Others achieve this through extension, "taking the slack out" of the body between the point of contact and the opponent's center. Still others simply lock the bones so subtley that you hardly notice it happening until your on the ground."

Again we have a slightly different understanding of what constitutes aiki. And it is only a slight (but perhaps significant) difference. These distinctives perhaps attest to the respective unique qualities of our traditions, so I don't wish to convince anyone of my point of view, as much as just clarify my perspective as a Daito-ryu practitioner.

I agree that aiki techniques are techniques that attack the senses. I also agree that there are many techniques in both Daito-ryu and Yanagi-ryu that achieve the results you describe. A big difference between aiki and jujutsu in Daito-ryu is how we go about achieving those results.

But, the primary or most obvious difference in Daito-ryu between aiki and jujutsu is that jujutsu generally relies on skeletal locking and leverage to accomplish it's connection with the opponent's bone structure and center of gravity. Sometimes it's subtle and other times it's more blatant, but jujutsu generally uses kansetsu waza.

Daito-ryu aiki techniques however, do not rely on skeletal locking or kansetsu waza. Sometimes slight or overt skeletal locking will occur, but it is only a side effect. The technique does not rely on it, nor is it accomplished by it. Any skeletal locking that occurs in the execution of an aiki technique is not the means or cause of accomplishing the technique, but is rather an end or effect of the technique. Daito-ryu aiki waza are fundamentally and essentially different in how they work. The details of which are still secrets of our tradition. :)

Regards,

Brently Keen

[Edited by Brently Keen on 07-22-2000 at 03:41 AM]

Jeff Cook
22nd July 2000, 15:06
Brentley and others,

Thanks for the detailed replies, but Brentley, I am a bit more confused than ever!:) Whether you know it or not, you just described the difference between Shindo Yoshin jujitsu and Hakko Ryu jujitsu.

Also, you seem to imply that there is Daito Ryu jujitsu and Daito Ryu aikijujitsu: "...although even in basic Daito-ryu jujutsu techniques..." and "...in Daito-ryu the jujutsu techniques also include these principles, however in my view the application of these principles differs in aikijujutsu techniques."

?

I'm wondering if the difference may be more of a historical one and less to do with differences of technique/application. I understand that Daito Ryu aikijujutsu was based upon oshikiuchi, a system of self-defense for use within the palace, and jujitsu systems were developed primarily for battlefield usage, outside the palace. What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I have heard mentioned that the Aizu clan had considerable influence on some of the Okinawan royalty (they allegedly taught their art to them), and that Okinawan ti was a close derivative of Daito Ryu aikijujutsu. The "ti" arts of Okinawa I have heard described as being "some strange form of aikido." Any connection there?

I appreciate your time in helping me understand and furthering my education!

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Richard Elias
22nd July 2000, 21:54
Brently,

Thanx for the invite:)

But perhaps I don't understand what you are meaning by a skeletal lock. Though I have yet to have the pleasure of experiencing Okamoto sensei's technique personally, from what I've felt, from yourself and others, and what I've seen on videos, there is very much skeletal locking to the center. I reviewed the tapes I have and can see the connections taking place. Now, I don't mean the overt twisting and locking techniques as in a typical nikyo or kote gaeshi, but very lite minimal locking just setting the bones and joints in place to create a connection to the center. Okamoto sensei appears to achieve this at the very moment of contact. In our school we call this "Commutive Locking"is still defined as a skeletal lock even though you can't feel it and the movements are very very small.

Please keep in mind I do not do Daito ryu, and can only speak from my limited expierence in Yanagi ryu. I did make a point in my previous post that my opinions are based on "my expierence" in "our school" I do not presume to define all of aikijujutsu. I was only offering another point of view. Daito ryu is different than Yanagi ryu and, I would venture to say, that Roppokai is different than main stream Daito ryu. None the less, it is interesting to learn about how other styles work and view their own techniques. I'm not trying to imply anything whatsoever but in our school we have no "secrets", as my teacher has stated publicly many times. If you want to know how something works, just ask. You might not like the answer, but you can ask. How our techniques work is there for all to see, if you have the eye to see them with. We use no mistique, smoke or mirrors, and hide nothing behind the veil of aiki. Nor do we presume that ours is the only way. I am always eager to learn more, and to share what I have learned.

[Edited by Richard Elias on 07-23-2000 at 05:21 AM]

Brently Keen
25th July 2000, 09:19
Jeff,

You bring up some interesting questions. I had hoped that that I would be clarifying my position(s) more - rather than confusing the issue. Sorry, if I've not been helping too much.

I am quite familiar with Hakko-ryu Jujutsu, but I really know very little about Shindo Yoshin-ryu, so I can't really comment on that comparision.

Hakko-ryu Jujutsu is actually quite comparable to Daito-ryu Jujutsu. Many Hakko-ryu techniques are almost exact copies of Daito-ryu Jujutsu techniques. There are several techniques in Hakko-ryu that make reference to aiki, however the techniques I have seen and experienced from a number of menkyo kaiden holder's do not include aiki as defined by and practiced in Daito-ryu. The difference between Daito-ryu Jujutsu and Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu that I have been talking about is the same difference between Hakko-ryu Jujutsu and Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu.

This is actually my understanding of why Ryuho Okuyama named his art Hakko-ryu Jujutsu instead of Hakko-ryu Aikijujutsu. It seems that the shodai soke knew the difference, having trained and studied under Sokaku Takeda. Incidentally, Okuyama had a kyoju dairi in Daito-ryu. He also was a shiatsu practitioner and incorporated his knowledge of tsubo points and meridian theory into the curriculum of his Hakko-ryu Jujutsu system.

I don't want "to imply" that Daito-ryu has jujutsu & aikijujutsu. Rather, I have been trying to emphatically state the for the record, that Daito-ryu contains both a jujutsu curriculum AND an aikijujutsu curriculum. This is the reason I believe for much of the misunderstanding and confusion about Daito-ryu in particular and aikijujutsu in general, and it's why I have stated often both BC and PC (before crash and post crash) that the two, jujutsu and aikijujutsu are completely different.

The (aiki) principles that I said also existed in Daito-ryu jujutsu were the principles that Richard was talking about with reference to skeletal locking in various ways. These are principles that Don Angier has popularized through his seminars and video tapes produced by Tony Annesi. These principles have come to be commonly known as "principles of aiki" although more correctly they are just general or universal principles. Even Don has said this.

Therefore if these principles are "universal" then they will exist in jujutsu as well as in aikijujutsu, as well as in kenjutsu, and other arts. That does not mean that all arts include or use these principles. Nor are they necessarily used in the same way.

It has recently become my understanding that it is not these principles or the application of these principles that define aiki (in Daito-ryu). Aiki in Daito-ryu is defined by other characteristics that distinguish it from jujutsu. One of the most obvious differences is that jujutsu primarily utilizes skeletal locking and leverage to accomplish it's results. Whereas aiki does not rely on skeletal locking or leverage to accomplish it's results. The difference is WHAT is accomplishing the results, and HOW it is accomplishing the results.

There may be some historical difference as you say. I've talked about this in passing (BC) before. It is believed by many that aikijujutsu techniques derive from the oshikiuchi and that jujutsu techniques were from the battlefield. I tend to take this view as well, although it's somewhat of an over-simplification.

The historical difference is not so much a distinction that describes or defines the difference of the two, but rather how the two more likely developed. One on the battlefield and the other inside the castle and/or courtyard, presumably in the near vacinity of the shogun or lord. The Takeda clan was in service to the shogun as bodyguards and/or trainers of the royal family and their closest retainers. It was in and around the very formal context of ettiquette surrounding the shogun, that the oshikiuchi techniques were developed.

The difference between jujutsu and aiki can be attributed to some (perhaps a large) extent to the difference in the contexts in which they were developed. This at least would account for the very different operating systems. One was developed for the battlefield which has certain "realities" and objectives and the other was developed for protecting the shogun within his castle, which has certain other "realities".

My belief however, is that those developing the oshikiuchi were also steeped in the realities of the battlefied, they were bushi by both birth and trade, and they certainly brought their developments inside the castle with them outside to the battlefield as well.

Likewise lessons learned on the battlefield, were brought into the castle too. It's just that battlefield techniques were not always (or hardly ever) appropriate or directly applicable inside, within the confines of the castle walls and the formal ettiquette that was strictly enforced there. The lessons brought from battlefield experience then had to be strategic lessons and principles. The techniques themselves, their operating and delivery systems then had to fit within the context of the "palace reality". Since battlefield techniques wouldn't fit properly, something new had to be developed and those became known as oshikiuchi.

So the theory is that the essence of aiki was born and developed in this context, one with altogether different rules and allowable options, that forced a letting go of preconceived notions, because this world surrounding the shogun was a very different world. In order to accomplish the objectives within that world, a complete reexamination of what was possible had to take place. Like battlefield techniques, aiki techniques were also born of necessity. And out of that necessity was born the unique methods of aikijujutsu that later proved to be equally effective outside of the castle on the battlefield as well.

Jeff asked:

"I'm wondering if the difference may be more of a historical one and less to do with differences of technique/application... {snip} What are your thoughts on this?"

So to answer your question, I think the difference between jujutsu and aikijujutsu is both a historical/developmental difference, and a technical/application difference. Although the technical/application differences may very well derive from the historical/developmental differences, in my mind however, the primary differences are technical/application differences. And the historical differences are contextual or background differences that contributed to the development of the technical/application differences.

Wow, I had to reread that to myself several times to make sure I was saying it right. Does that make sense?

I don't know about any Aizu clan influence on Ryu Kyu (Okinawan) royalty. There may have been some connection to a Minamoto though. But most all of the Okinawan arts are almost completely derived from Chinese sources.

However, the Motobu-ryu Udon de (te) of Sekichi Uehara which is supposed to be an Okinawan royal tradition may have some link to one rather prominent Minamoto (I forgot which one). There may be some similar aspects to Daito-ryu, just as I believe there are some similar aspects between Kashima-Shinryu and Daito-ryu. Also possibly due to the common Minamoto family orgins. A lot of Udon De does look very similar to aikido, and some of it looks a lot like Wally Jay's Small Circle Jujutsu. Some of the weapons techniques do look like Daito-ryu techniques. The timing appears to be exactly like "ippon dori", or like an Itto-ryu sort of timing. This timing is what some schools refer to as "aiki". Although Uehara sensei's techniques are quite impressive they do not seem to share all the characteristics that make Daito-ryu aiki distinctive.

As we saw BC in the so called "great aiki debates", the whole subject of aiki and the difference between it and jujutsu (and other arts) is very hard to describe in writing. It is best explained through hands on experience and in the course of training with a qualified instructor. Only then can the distinctions be made clear by demonstration in the context of proper training and practice.

Hope that helps,

Brently Keen

25th July 2000, 22:30
Dang,

Go off on a job to Denver/Colorado Springs and the posts go into overdrive. LOL

Brently, are you chained to your computer. Interesting posts by the way but god I'd have carpel tunnel by now. :)

I agree in principle with everything you are saying but reality and principle are often different things. Let me explain.....
___________________________________________________________
You stated:

“I agree that fine motor skills and coordination are impaired when under psychochemical stress, and the execution of aiki requires a precision that is only possible with a calm and emotionally detached mindset that is not impaired by such stress. BUT, proper Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu training is designed to facilitate the attributes (proper mindset) necessary to render the effects of psychochemical stress as negligible. That is among its primary purposes and objectives.”

&

“One of the first things you will become able to do as you become proficient in aikijujutsu is to remain confident, calm and relaxed even while under duress. It is a characteristic side effect of training in aikijujutsu. The adept aikijujutsu practitioner is trained in such a way that prepares him to not be adversly effected psychochemically by stress.”
__________________________________________________________________


Brently, that sounds great but......unmentioned is the fact that samurai were indoctrinated with the reality of death in combat from the beginning of their training ( often late childhood). They were spiritually and psychologically prepared for death in ways totally foreign to modern christians in a post feudal era. Dying wasn’t some spiritual abstraction or faroff eventuality to them. The inevitable reality of death and dying in war was all around them in their society and religious indoctrination. As warriors it permeated their being in a way that the average modern martial artist cannot begin to relate to. The type of training pursued in a classical dojo reflected a psychological mindset and societal reality that is virtualy non-existent today in the west. It is almost exclusively modern military veterans who have served in combat, or metropolitan police that have any realistic exposure to the level of psychochemical stress familiar to a feudal era samurai. This reality is why Takamura Yukiyoshi abandon the purely classical methods of teaching Shindo Yoshin ryu jujutsu and modified its curriculum. His aim was first and foremost modern street practical self defense taught in a classical dojo environment. Achieving this aim required a significant curriculum change that addressed the environmental realities and psychological make up of the society he was aiming to teach. He did not change the curriculum of his ancestors martial traditions frivolously. Five to ten years of intense investigation and study were implemented before this decision was finally formalized.

To imagine that the “average” martial arts student of today trained ONLY in a classical Daito ryu dojo would be able to survive a violent street encounted is in my experience unrealistic. Especially if he is only allowed to use aiki no waza techniques. It was interesting that you quoted my close friend James Williams in response to my position. We have discussed this topic inside and out. If you ask him this question straight, he will side with me. Ask Ken Good at the Surefire Institute. He will side with me as well because we covered this very topic in discussion only several weeks ago.

Surely you are familiar with Peyton Quinn. Ask him what he thinks. I wonder how well a student only classically trained in Daito ryu would fare against “The Bulletman” . It would be an enlightening experience regardless of the outcome, I promise.

I’m not trying to be petulant and I’m not knocking Daito ryu. You know I have only the highest admiration for Daito ryu and its instructors like Okamoto Sensei and Kondo Sensei. ( Remember earlier that I said the problem wasn’t with aikijujutsu but with the humans trying to learn it.) You see, this topic is very passionate with me. I know first hand what a violent attack is like psychologically and physically. Any violent attack is a life altering ordeal. To underestimate the skill and training required to meet it can be the omega of your life.

Please remember that I am also talking about “the average” student out there and this from the perspective of a teacher. There are always those gifted or exceptionally talented that break all the rules. I have several of these in my dojo as students. But this discussion is not about them. As an instructor of both jujutsu and aikijujutsu it is my responsability to consider the person of average talent and above average motivation as my benchmark.

____________________________________________________________

Richard Elias wrote:

I don't believe that, for the most part, just anybody is cut out for this (no punn intended) or the "higher level" aikijujutsu. I've seen those that, regardless of the "qualified teacher, a willingness to learn, proper training and practice" will never really be able to use aikijujutsu to defend themselves in a real situation, or have the level of bodily control to do them. Some people just have fears that they can't get over.”

____________________________________________________________

I liked Richard Elias’s post’s and agree overall with his observations, especially the one above. I also might add that we are good friends and frequent training partners. ( He is a student of mine in SYR and he my sempai in Yanagi ryu. ) Richard is no average student. He is in fact one of the most talented martial artists I have ever met. In fact, several of Don Angiers students easily fit this discription. No offense Rich but if I judged you, John, Joe, Nick etc.. as the average student, it would raise the bar so high for everyone else that I'd never find any students.

____________________________________________________________

I might be mistaken but I believe it was Hirokazu Kanazawa of JKA fame that was asked this question about his hitherto unknown training in Tai Chi:

"Sensei. Which art do believe is superior, Karate or Tai chi?"

He responded:

"Karate is one of the finest martial arts for human beings to study. After studying Tai Chi I think maybe it is a martial art for super human beings"


Respectfully,

[Edited by Toby Threadgill on 07-25-2000 at 04:45 PM]

Walker
25th July 2000, 23:48
Garsh, y’all speak so good and so smart like too.

Hey Toby - have any luck with that question I asked a wile ago about changes in SYR? Just askin’....

Jeff Cook
26th July 2000, 04:00
Brentley,

Thank you VERY much for taking the time to explain that to me! It does clear up a lot of confusion for me. I find the topic fascinating.

Thanks again. I will have additional questions in the next few days - no time right now to get into them (just brought my wife home from the hospital today from surgery - she's going to be fine - and am also hosting a visiting master at my dojo this week. Time is at a premium).

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Gil Gillespie
26th July 2000, 04:05
Aye, Doug----right y'are. This is some serious contemplative stuff! When I was a young up-n-comin basketball boy I never got the satisfaction of rainin on the lesser guys that I did from having my ass kicked by the real boys. They were the ones who raised my game,who brought me "more high." Same moreso in budo. My respectful compliments both literary and budo technically to the gentlemen above---Brentley, Richard, Toby, Jeff, et al.

Great thread! Great reading. Thank you all!

Brently Keen
27th July 2000, 08:59
Toby-san,

I'm not so much interested in debating this with you, as I stated before, my intentions are simply to state and clarify my views as a Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu pratitioner. We clearly have different perspectives based on our respective experience, the unique traditions we study and teachers we've trained under.

While it's true that the samurai were raised and indoctrinated in a different time and culture, I don't believe it's pertinent to what I was saying. I was talking about proper Daito-ryu training and instruction as practiced nowadays by modern martial artists.

My own experience as well as the experience of many of my fellow Roppokai members is that the Daito-ryu training method is such that any normal person who dedicates themselves to diligently training in the Daito-ryu system can develop certain skills and attributes - including the ability to remain calm and resolute even while under extreme duress. It is just as much a characteristic of aikijujutsu today as it was during the feudal era. It is something that is a fundamental part of our tradition that has been handed down.

Toby wrote:

"To imagine that the “average” martial arts student of today trained ONLY in a classical Daito ryu dojo would be able to survive a violent street encounted is in my experience unrealistic."

Why?

I am not imagining anything about what I've said. Nor does it make any difference to me if a Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu practitioner studies ONLY Daito-ryu or if he's studied other arts. Either way, my original assertion stands that it doesn't take an infinitely long time to become proficient enough to use aiki in a real situation, nor does it take a super human. It only requires a serious dedication, a good qualified teacher, a willingness to learn (and believing you can learn), and proper training and practice.

"Especially if he is only allowed to use aiki no waza techniques."

Huh? You lost me on this one, Toby. Why would anyone only be allowed to use aiki no waza in a violent street encounter? In a street situation there are no rules - surely you know this. I'll repeat myself here merely for emphasis (and perhaps others who are reading): Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu as system includes both jujutsu and aiki. Daito-ryu as a system includes both jujutsu and aikijujutsu.

Any Daito-ryu practitioner would be foolish if he limited himself only to aiki no jutsu waza in a violent street situation. He has to do whatever is most appropriate.

I've been talking all this time about aikijujutsu. Please let me emphasize the meaning of "ju" in aikijujutsu, it means soft and flexible. This is true of the application of strategy and technique as well as of the techniques themselves. In any encounter whether it be in the dojo or on the street, in life or relationships, in business or in politics or war. We have to do what is most appropriate for the specific situation. Every situation is different, and if we do something other than what is appropriate, then surely we'll experience the consequences.

In the Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu training method that I am familiar with, there is an emphasis on "oyo waza", oyo waza are applied techniques. Training in oyo waza is specifically designed to develop the skills and abilities to be flexible according to the specific situation.

"It was interesting that you quoted my close friend James Williams in response to my position. We have discussed this topic inside and out."

No, I did not quote James in response to your position.

I was talking about the purpose of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu being designed for close quarter combat with weapons. And that it was no different from other other koryu bujutsu in this regard except that aikijujutsu tended to be more subtle and sophisticated. I simply cited James' article as one that speaks well about that subject (as well as the historical development of aikijujutsu, and it's practical effectiveness in an edged weapons environment).

Again Toby, I'm not trying to argue with you on this, I don't need to bring in other "experts", both of whom I also know and have trained with to "side with me" or validate my experience and perspective as a Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu practitioner.

Respectfully,

Brently Keen



[Edited by Brently Keen on 07-27-2000 at 03:05 AM]

Brently Keen
27th July 2000, 09:16
Tai Chi might be for super humans, I've no idea. But whether it is or not, it doesn't matter. Aikijujutsu is quite different from Tai Chi.

I still insist that proficiency in Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu does not require super human qualities or capabilities, even if it does eventually develop them. :D

Brently Keen

27th July 2000, 17:54
Brently,

I appreciate your opinions. I really do. We can simply agree to disagree here.

I am extremely passionate about individual safety and the realistic application of martial training in a dangerous confrontation. I speak from actual experience, experience that is supported by others with greater practical knowledge than myself. It is up to the individual readers here to examine these posts and either form an opinion based on these or hopefully seek out further information on this topic.

This is a very serious topic as ultimately it is each individual reader whose neck is potentially hanging in the balance here, not yours or mine.

Sincerely,

Nathan Scott
27th July 2000, 20:38
[Post deleted by user]

Richard Elias
28th July 2000, 05:41
I don't mean to complicate things more...
But I thought I would throw out a more clear cut definition of aikijujutsu. I realize that it is defined differently by different schools. This is how we view it at our school.

Aikijujutsu as defined in our school is "creating a jujutsu situation through the use of aiki technique or principle" With, as I stated on an earlier post, aiki in our school being defined as "those methods or techniques that decieve or effect the opponent's senses". And jujutsu being the physical techniques used to nullify the attack and subdue the opponent.

To elaborate. Where aiki effects the mind and therefore the body, jujutsu is applied physical technique to the body alone. Aikijujutsu, then, is using a technique to effect the senses, so as to set up a physical defence technique. Some of the techniques used to effect the opponent are done physically. We have within our system, aiki technique that alone can disrupt or influence the opponent enough to cause him to fall, throw himself to the ground, or nullify the attack. Some without touching the opponent. The physical techniques can also be done without the mental ones.

So, in our school, there are aiki techniques, there are jujutsu techniques, and they are brought together in aikijujutsu. These are not necessarily taught as seperate arts, rather, the physical and mental are taught progressively as the students ability and understanding evolves.

Some of the aiki techniques in our system absolutely require that the opponent is giving a dedicated, full speed, realistic attack. Needless to say this makes them difficult, and somtimes dangerous, to practice (especially when weapons are involved). The opponent will also adjust mentally to some of the aiki techniques, making the number of times you can practice it limited.

I have no idea if this gels at all with what other schools teach.

Bently,
With all due respect, if someone does have "serious dedication, a good qualified teacher, a willingness to learn (and believing you can learn), and proper training and practice." and has gone through the trouble of finding such a teacher, and taking on such challenges he is by comparison above "average". That includes you. The average martial arts student doesn't move or won't commute great distances to train will a particular teacher. Nor would they travel to another country, or arrange for a teacher come to their country, just to train with them. Such dedication to anything is above the average. Think what you want of yourself, but you are not average- no insult intended. I think in this respect we are talking about the difference between a martial artist and one who does martial arts. I have, in my twenty years of persuing the martial arts, seen many "average" students. Very few ever evolve to becoming a martial artist. That's not to say they can't, but they don't. For many the infection we call martial arts just doesn't take. For the rest of us there's no cure.

Mark Jakabcsin
28th July 2000, 14:30
Richard,
I have been watching this thread for sometime and I must say that your posts have been excellent. I appreciate you sharing your insight and perspective. I haven't posted much since e-budo came back up, not sure why, but I have enjoyed reading numberous threads. I am tempted to restart the 'great aiki debates' just so I can read your input and pick your brain. While many have stated it is worthless to discuss aiki because you have to learn it on the mat, I have always felt that a good discussion can help a student understand what they were learning on the mat AND give them new avenues to explore the next time they are on the mat. Certainly learning only occurs while training but I have found new ideas and perspectives learned through discussion to be valuable in focusing different areas of my training. Anyway, I got of the track there for a moment. Thanks to everyone for a good thread.

mark

28th July 2000, 18:22
Hey guys,

I got a great question via E-mail from a Japanese Daito ryu guy who lurks on e budo. I met this guy several years ago. Below is posted his E mail to me.

“Hello Toby san,

I hope all finds you well. I have followed the discussions on E budo concerning aikijujutsu for some time. They have challenged me greatly. I understand your position on the great difficulty of executing these techniques in a dangerous environment. I generally concur with your assessment. I cannot imagine trying to apply the Daito ryu techniques I have learned in a pride competition here in Japan. It would get me killed. But I do have a genuine question. Given that aikijujutsu is so difficult to apply during a realistic threat why did the art survive down to today and why was it embraced by the ancient warrior class of Japan? If it was too difficult to learn it seems the warrior class would have abandon it as impractical. ”

What a great question! This is the best question posed on this forum in a long time.


My response to his e mail:

____________________________________________________________

Jiro,

The general perception is that the “aiki principles” are predominantly applicable and most effectively applied in the various taijutsu arts such as aikido, jujutsu, aikibudo etc... I believe this is incorrect and there are several reasons why this misconception is so common.

The truth of the matter is that all aiki related taijutsu arts ultimately borrowed or adapted these principles from their root art of kenjutsu. In reality aiki is much more practical when applied in an edged weapon art like kenjutsu. In the taijutsu arts the gap and control gained through the effective application of aiki can occasionally be overcome, countered, or just plain survived because jujutsu by it’s very nature is less deadly. Obviously an adept of aiki & jujutsu can use aiki to enter to a jujutsu technique that would allow him to kill his adversary on the battlefield or during an lethal encounter in a castle or during court. But this would not be his first choice. He would have preferred to use aiki to enter into a tanto or sword technique. Remember that all taijutsu arts were of secondary importance to the weapon arts. Aiki as a combat principle really shows its stuff when the gap or momentary control gained by its subtle application immediately results in an opponent receiving a mortal wound from an edged weapon.

This reality was really driven home once during a kenjutsu training session with Don Angier. His subtle application of aiki with a razor sharp katana in his hand forever changed my appreciation of the art. I became clearly aware after this experience of the importance of kenjutsu training in improving my aikijujutsu. The two arts are really symbiotic. The tactile control and feedback afforded by static grabs in jujutsu training is a great teaching tool for learning the subtle body dynamics associated with the successful execution of aiki technique. The precision and increased difficulty of applying aiki through your grip and then through a bladed weapon adds a dimension and subtlety to your learning process that is in my opinion ultimately mandatory.

Sokaku Takeda was forced by history to focus his training on Daito ryu aikijujutsu because the era of the sword had ended in Japan. His adopting the name aikijujutsu to describe the style of jujutsu he taught inadvertently led the the wholesale impression that “aiki” does not exist in similar capacity in other traditions. This is simply not true and demonstrates a level of ignorance concerning the various weapon systems that were the roots of almost all the taijutsu traditions decended from the warrior class of Japan.

During conversations with various instructors over the years I have discussed this topic. I know for a fact that Shinkage ryu, Yagyu Shinkage ryu, Jikishinkage ryu and various ryuha of Itto ryu employ almost identicle principles to those found in aikijujutsu. Extremely detailed descriptions of these principles are included in the okuden and kuden of these sogobujutsu.

As the modern era sped forward many of these “aiki” principles were modified or customized to more specifically address jujutsu waza. This probably occurred to a certain degree in Daito ryu and then definitely in Aikido. But “aiki”, that most misunderstood and difficult to define term existed first in the weapon traditions that embraced bladed weapons and not empty hands. This is why I find the study of Yanagi ryu so stimulating and fascinating.

P.S. Jiro, quit lurking and enter the discussions on E Budo. Judging from your excellent question, your perspective would be appreciated greatly!


Toby Threadgill

____________________________________________________________

Brently Keen
28th July 2000, 18:43
Toby-san,

Excellent post! Surprise or not, I agree almost completely with your response to Jiro-san's question. I would like to expand on a few points later, when I have more time.

Once again, very well put by both Jiro and Toby - read and learn folks!

Brently Keen

Richard Elias
28th July 2000, 22:35
Mark,
Thank you very much.

I used to be one who just came on E-budo and read the threads, but never posted. I was prompted to start posting by a certain friend of mine from Texas. To be honest, and some might think this a bad thing, for the most part I don't really care much about what goes on in the rest of the martial arts community. It doesn't effect my training. But I think there is alot of misunderstanding and misinformation going on at times. Especially towards the style I come from. Toby has done a commendable job (which he'll be punished for later:)) but I thought I would come and help. He and I are pretty much on the same page. And, as with most things, once you get yourself involved it's hard to stop. I've learned alot from the people here, and thought that maybe I had something worthwhile to contribute.

I do think discussion of the arts is good. Besides I like a good heated debate :) I enjoy seeing the different perspectives. It allows me to view my own training differently. But one thing I think gets overlooked sometimes is that not all styles do things, or view things, the same way. Even if they call it the same thing. It's like, how many different ways can kote gaeshi be done? Each school might do it a little differently, but that doesn't make any one of them "wrong", just different. Some don't even call it by the same name. I think that such things have to be taken into account when discussing the arts with people from other schools. No one style, regardless of thier lineage or connections, has a monopoly on any aspect of the arts. Especially when it comes to the concept of aiki. It has existed in many arts, particularly sword arts, and in many forms. Long before Takeda Sokaku chose the term to describe his art.
But there I go rambling again.

[Edited by Richard Elias on 07-28-2000 at 04:45 PM]

Mark Jakabcsin
29th July 2000, 12:50
Richard wrote: "But one thing I think gets overlooked sometimes is that not all styles do things, or view things, the same way. Even if they call it the same thing. "

Very true and also the spice of life. While often times these differences lead to conflict I personally try to enjoy the differences. This March when I visited Toby and got to meet Don Angier for the first time I was, and still am, fascinated by his approach. On the surface his approach to aiki seems very different than what I learned from Okamoto, however, the more I replay what he did in my head the more similarities I see. The approach they take in explaining things is very different even if the moves are very similiar. I really look forward to being able to train with him in the future and experiencing more. I have been thinking about starting some threads questioning some of the differences/similarities that I saw this spring. I hesitate because I don't want to start a flame war, although those can be......interesting.

mark

Neil Yamamoto
29th July 2000, 18:50
Hi Richard, nice to see posts from you!

Mark, I have been thinking the same as you as to a thread comparing similarities but stopped myself since as you state, it brings out flames.

While I don't think that's a bad thing all the time, I have found when you get these same people on the mat together, they tend to have a lot of fun and are rational about the subject while comparing their arts.

So, at the next workshop where ever that may be, I suggest some play time to exchange ideas. Besides, meeting e-budoka is kind of interesting since you can put a face to a post.

Whadda think?

MarkF
30th July 2000, 10:00
Originally posted by Richard Elias:

I used to be one who just came on E-budo and read the threads, but never posted. I was prompted to start posting by a certain friend of mine from Texas. To be honest, and some might think this a bad thing, for the most part I don't really care much about what goes on in the rest of the martial arts community. It doesn't effect my training.

When I first signed on, I posted on just one forum, and the one which explicitly speaks of what I do. That has changed, and it has even given a certain freshness to how I apply what I learn and teach. I have even brought a few questions from this forum into the dojo, and while not wanting to take up too much time, they were "discussed" on the mat. I did, however, have to read and accept certain fundamentals and refocus on things which were new to me, and some forgotten ones, as well.

Richard,
I would urge you to be a bit more accepting, as you never know where the pearls of wisdom come. Mark J. is hesitating right now, but I think he will post what needs to be aired. That is, after all, how the "great aiki debates" started off, and I, for one, would like to see more practitioners of all styles contributing. Kote gaeshi having more than one term or meaning? You bet!

Hi, Mark,
Well, let slip the dogs! I can hardly wait. What constitutes a flame may even teach an old dog something. BRAVO!:redhot:

Richard Elias
30th July 2000, 11:30
Mark F.,

Actually I feel I've been very accepting. Maybe you misunderstand me.

I have gained a wide variety of experience in many different marial arts over the years, in my search for the art that is right for me. I have never been exposed to an art that I didn't learn something from. In the current thread, I have been very explicit that I am speaking only of my expierence in the art of which I am currently a part. In regards to my comments towards other's posts, I am 1)trying to understand where they're coming from, and 2)offering another point of view. I have made several references in acknowledging that there are other ways of viewing or interpreting the arts. In my most recent post I have also stated that "I enjoy seeing the different perspectives. It allows me to view my own training differently. But one thing I think gets overlooked sometimes is that not all styles do things, or view things, the same way." and in an earlier post "it is interesting to learn about how other styles work and view their own techniques." and "Nor do we presume that ours is the only way. I am always eager to learn more, and to share what I have learned.". When I said "how many different ways can kote gaeshi be done?" it was a rhetorical question to make a point about the fact that we all, regardless of style, have something in common.

Now please don't think that I am taking this all personally,and being defensive. I simply don't want to be misunderstood. I am very open minded when it comes to other arts, or other styles of the same art. When I said that I don't really care about what goes on in the rest of the martial arts community, I mostly mean their opinions and politics. I started posting to share and understand, not to condemn. I've seen several negative (and positive) comments towards our art. Some question it's validity, it's history, it's effectiveness. These are the types of things I don't care about. Though I know you didn't imply it, I'm not on any crusade to prove the worthiness of our art. I'm just here to learn and share what our art has to offer.

Please don't hate me, I just want to be loved :)

Yamantaka
30th July 2000, 14:33
The truth of the matter is that all aiki related taijutsu arts ultimately borrowed or adapted these principles from their root art of kenjutsu. In reality aiki is much more practical when applied in an edged weapon art like kenjutsu. In the taijutsu arts the gap and control gained through the effective application of aiki can occasionally be overcome, countered, or just plain survived because jujutsu by it’s very nature is less deadly. But this would not be his first choice. He would have preferred to use aiki to enter into a tanto or sword technique. Remember that all taijutsu arts were of secondary importance to the weapon arts.


Sokaku Takeda was forced by history to focus his training on Daito ryu aikijujutsu because the era of the sword had ended in Japan. His adopting the name aikijujutsu to describe the style of jujutsu he taught inadvertently led the the wholesale impression that “aiki” does not exist in similar capacity in other traditionsDuring conversations with various instructors over the years I have discussed this topic. I know for a fact that Shinkage ryu, Yagyu Shinkage ryu, Jikishinkage ryu and various ryuha of Itto ryu employ almost identicle principles to those found in aikijujutsu.
But “aiki”, that most misunderstood and difficult to define term existed first in the weapon traditions that embraced bladed weapons and not empty hands. This is why I find the study of Yanagi ryu so stimulating and fascinating.

Toby Threadgill

____________________________________________________________

Excellent post, Toby! There's nothing I can add to it, except that I sincerely envy the opportunities you had to train with Angier Sensei, whom I've find to be an educated and generous man. Also a fantastic martial artist!
Best
Yamantaka

Dan Harden
31st July 2000, 04:49
Toby Writes:

I hope all finds you well. I have followed the discussions on E budo concerning aikijujutsu for some time. They have challenged me greatly. I understand your position on the great difficulty of executing these techniques in a dangerous environment. I generally concur with your assessment. I cannot imagine trying to apply the Daito ryu techniques I have learned in a pride competition here in Japan. It would get me killed. But I do have a genuine question. Given that aikijujutsu is so difficult to apply during a realistic threat why did the art survive down to today and why was it embraced by the ancient warrior class of Japan? If it was too difficult to learn it seems the warrior class would have abandon it as impractical. ”

**************
I find that the question limits itself to the use of straight Daito Ryu Kata TECHNQUES.
In keeping with Kata of almost any Ryu, they are a construct in which one learns principle, maai, (distance timing etc, to in depth to go into here) technique and hopefully the ability to see beyond such things. If we allow ourselves to be captured mentally by Kata and in so doing, limit our outlook. Then what we see is all we will ever see.
If we still practice techniques in a stiff form with Yokomen and shomen attacks, and all we ever do is perform Ippon-Dori with the typical Tsubo point grab and knife thrust followed by the (simulated) kick and spear thrust to his side “finish”, then so be it. However, we should not be surprised to find others bringing Daito Ryu into the twenty first Century.
It is my opinion that the principals of Daito ryu are as vital and alive today as they were years ago. Both the Jujutsu and the Aiki are valid and work today if practiced with the deadly intent they are capable of. If you have not practiced Daito ryu technique in Randori with people of other arts, I encourage you to do so. You will change, and the functionary application of your art will change with you. It will still be Daito ryu, both in application and principal but it will no longer look like the stiff Kata you were trained with.
All of this wrist grabbing and Gi grabbing has been designed to bring us to a place where our hands and center are co-joined. Once that was inculcated into our bodies we began to learn the connection necessary to develop Aiki with our opponent and feel his locking up. Try exploring that connection in “other” venues then what you do in Kata. Try using Aiki sage with the resultant weight dropping as a direct attack against a dedicated boxers jab, or as an attack against an opponents hips ( I have dropped collegiate wrestlers with that techique.) Try Aiki age as a direct attack against the carotid sinus. Further, try both Aiki age and Aiki sage in a neutral grip on someone’s neck in a bare choke while grappling on the ground. ). I believe that in time you will find effective principles within your prior experience .
I believe the “perceived” functionary failures of Daito ryu are more the result of inexperienced “office worker” type people getting involved in the art and slavishly following whatever they are told without having the wherewithall to challenge themselves and set up confrontational scenarios with other arts and artist. This phenomenon is not isolated to Daito ryu. it is extent in all arts.

***************************************

What a great question! This is the best question posed on this forum in a long time.


My response to his e mail:

Jiro,

The general perception is that the “aiki principles” are predominantly applicable and most effectively applied in the various taijutsu arts such as aikido, jujutsu, aikibudo etc... I believe this is incorrect and there are several reasons why this misconception is so common.

The truth of the matter is that all aiki related taijutsu arts ultimately borrowed or adapted these principles from their root art of kenjutsu. In reality aiki is much more practical when applied in an edged weapon art like kenjutsu.

***************************************
I always find this fascinating. If you read the writings of the occidentals who have studied the combative history of Japan, a common thread shines through. The Warriors of Japan rarely if ever used their swords in combat. In fact they were almost never used. It seems studies of actual combat sites showed the skeletal scars of arrows, and hand thrown rocks in far greater abundance than any other weapons. Yet here we sit in the twenty first century prattling on about the nuance of sword.

That being said, while I agree that Aiki is effective in its use in Kenjutsu, I find no failure in its translation to a body art for practical "street application". A connection is a connection, period. Whether it be connecting your monouchi to his Mune or shinogi, and manipulating his blade to effect his shoulder and his left grip in order to control his blade to your counter. Or, whether it be connecting to his arm and controlling his humorous, scapular and ultimatly his center (with the plethora of resultant technique) should be one and the same. I am quite surprised to be hearing this doubt and apparent lack of experience in “ramped up” encounters. My God! Take the skirts off boys and go fight someone somewhere. Find out what you are made of. Gees, at least take on some good Judoka and Boxers and learn how to make Aiki work in the real world. (No single person in mind here, just folling around :-))
The experience of sword, with its distinctive maai, and fast interaction, should result in a heightened immediacy to Tai jutsu not an encounter wrought with self doubt about your abilities.

***************************************************************

Toby again
“In the taijutsu arts the gap and control gained through the effective application of aiki can occasionally be overcome, countered, or just plain survived because jujutsu by it’s very nature is less deadly. Obviously an adept of aiki & jujutsu can use aiki to enter to a jujutsu technique that would allow him to kill his adversary on the battlefield or during an lethal encounter in a castle or during court. But this would not be his first choice. He would have preferred to use aiki to enter into a tanto or sword technique. Remember that all taijutsu arts were of secondary importance to the weapon arts.

*****************************************8
Again, it would appear that history proves this to be untrue. To paraphrase the interview with one of your teachers he found the U.S to be far more potentially dangerous to his person than Japan. Add to this, the above stated historical perspective of PHD’s who have studied the combative history of the Japanese culture and found little use of sword work and actual need for Jujutsu and it leaves one to wonder. Further, when one considers that several pre-eminent arts were supposedly founded by the adept’s encounter with a wood sprite (Tengu) or an encounter with an animist God, it leaves one to wonder whether any of it has experiential merit. Of course the obvious counter is that the warriors developed it from battlefield “experience.” But, then we go back to those “battlefield” studies which show little, if any, evidentiary injuries resultant from either sword or hand to hand combat.

**************************

Aiki as a combat principle really shows its stuff when the gap or momentary control gained by its subtle application immediately results in an opponent receiving a mortal wound from an edged weapon.”

********************************
I agree with this in principal, but the application of Aiki which leads to a controlled situation in order to use an edged weapon can be modified (in many cases) and the resultant controls are effective in restraining and submission. Others are simply ineffective as pins when a killing blow with an edge weapon is removed from the picture. More to the point though, it is the combative “instant on” that leads to Kuzushi in the opponent that is a characteristic of the art that has been underutilized IMHO. The “evasive” twirly maneuvering of some arts aside, I find the potential of direct immediate control of the opponent in Daito ryu to be a fundamental characteristic of the art, in fact, a defining characteristic.

In the previous discussions much was said of the gross motor skills that were predominate in a stressful encounter. This is undoubtedly true. However, the body can be trained to act in an automatic response scenario that was previously “alien” to the adept. Doubt it? Go train with spec ops. I have. To assume that that Aiki is a “fine motor skill” that will fail under stress is wrong. As one poster noted, he was placed in stressful live encounter and he used previous training. I have been in two encounters where Aiki (one where Aiki sage was applied in a connection to a jab that placed the antagonist in an immediate kuzushi which lead to a choke) was a natural response from me.
Most who have stayed with Daito ryu know that part of the training is to re-educate your body to what it previously forgot “how to relax.” Moreover, what to do with that relaxation! A motto I have is “As you do, so shall you do” (under stress the body goes on auto pilot). Training your body to move in a relaxed form that enables you to establish a connection that captures your opponents center can become as natural to you as breathing. Continuing in that training in increasing levels of heightened encounters is your choice. In the same vain as “live fire” military exercises you need to mix it up. Fight free style with some talented and dedicated people. Challenge yourself. You will find that Daito ryu Aiki does work, and works well
Others are not interested in that at all. Point of fact is that they prefer a “safe” environment to train in. If that means that all you do is practice in the Dojo, in Hakama, with pre-arranged attacks in a stylized form (simulated sword strikes). Then that is all you will ever get out of your art. Perhaps it is no wonder that you are wondering about your art?



*****************************************************
This reality was really driven home once during a kenjutsu training session with Don Angier. His subtle application of aiki with a razor sharp katana in his hand forever changed my appreciation of the art. I became clearly aware after this experience of the importance of kenjutsu training in improving my aikijujutsu. The two arts are really symbiotic. The tactile control and feedback afforded by static grabs in jujutsu training is a great teaching tool for learning the subtle body dynamics associated with the successful execution of aiki technique. The precision and increased difficulty of applying aiki through your grip and then through a bladed weapon adds a dimension and subtlety to your learning process that is in my opinion ultimately mandatory.


As the modern era sped forward many of these “aiki” principles were modified or customized to more specifically address jujutsu waza. This probably occurred to a certain degree in Daito ryu and then definitely in Aikido. But “aiki”, that most misunderstood and difficult to define term existed first in the weapon traditions that embraced bladed weapons and not empty hands. This is why I find the study of Yanagi ryu so stimulating and fascinating.



The question remains as to whether any new frontiers will be forged with “Aiki” being used in a decidedly modern form of hand to hand instead of stylized Kata training. Only time will tell


Dan

[Edited by Dan Harden on 07-30-2000 at 10:56 PM]

MarkF
31st July 2000, 10:50
Originally posted by Dan Harden:

I always find this fascinating. If you read the writings of the occidentals who have studied the combative history of Japan, a common thread shines through. The Warriors of Japan rarely if ever used their swords in combat. In fact they were almost never used. It seems studies of actual combat sites showed the skeletal scars of arrows, and hand thrown rocks in far greater abundance than any other weapons. Yet here we sit in the twenty first century prattling on about the nuance of sword.


Of course there will be less dead from battle by other means. But it doesn't have any strange and mysterious reason for it. The idea in any battle is to kill as many as possible from a safe distance, well before anyone must charge in and use his "sidearm" or taijutsu technique. This is true of all wars, and it is true today. If you count those who were killed using the mass descruction weapons of the time, then compare those killed from medium distances (arrows), then compare those with the dead from the sword or an H2H battle you would get then same percentages as you would today. Count those dead from bombs with those killed by medium range land weapons to those killed by nortars and mines, to those killed by sidearms, to H2H. This is in no way different, except for the precision of today's weapons. Still, I think this is what Toby, or anyone else means when they speak of the ancient battle field. Watch the movie Patton. It speaks of this as Patton was learned in the way of battles and he could "smell" a battlefield from five centuries, or more ago. Of course the sword is the last to be used in killing the enemy. If you are using it, then the original plan failed in wome way. It is the same today. I think you would have to think of it this way as a constant. Certainly, no one is comparing the number of dead from a mass of arrows shot compared to sword to sword battles.[/quote][/b]




My God! Take the skirts off boys and go fight someone somewhere. Find out what you are made of. Gees, at least take on some good Judoka and Boxers and learn how to make Aiki work in the real world. (No single person in mind here, just folling around :-))


Oh no, I have no idea whow you meant, Dan, but I have some advice for the kata "dancers." Why don't you practice on each other? I find the "go out and fight judoka" just a little bit humorous, as you readily admit to no randori which means there are two legal ways of finding out just how good you really are: Fight a judo player, or fight each other. But I keep forgetting what judoka are for:) It is for others of differing styles to try what they have learned on someone who may fight back. Another would be to go out and start a fight somewhere. It wasn't too long ago when we were discussing people of other talents who told students to get in fights to try out what they learned or to make mistakes and discuss how to improve. I would think a little hard randori against others of aiki styles would be ideal. Don't forget. All ryu of jujutsu, in ancient Japan did just that. But I have to remember this is AIKI jujtsu. The one which the protectors of retainers and those who were the personal guards of the castle or even directly, the emperor. No, to fight would be to admit that aiki jj is the same as other ryu of jujutsu, so to avoid these situations, kata only, but it is OK to find a boxer, or judoka to try out your aikijutsu. No, randori would be to sink to new levels.

Nice to hear from you again Dan :wave: I have no idea who you could be refering to here. You were just having fun, right?:burnup:




In the previous discussions much was said of the gross motor skills that were predominate in a stressful encounter. This is undoubtedly true. However, the body can be trained to act in an automatic response scenario that was previously “alien” to the adept. Doubt it? Go train with spec ops. I have. To assume that that Aiki is a “fine motor skill” that will fail under stress is wrong. As one poster noted, he was placed in stressful live encounter and he used previous training. I have been in two encounters where Aiki (one where Aiki sage was applied in a connection to a jab that placed the antagonist in an immediate kuzushi which lead to a choke) was a natural response from me.


Hmmmm. I think the term may be "conditioned reflex?" Your description of your encounter sounds mighty similar to what non-aiki jujutsu practitioners may face, and conditioned reflex means you are on automatic, or at least, that is what would be in one's best interest. I think most practitioners of any taijutsu art (boxers and judoka, too) would need to posess this conditioned reflex if one is fighting for survival. Over time, I have had exactly one encounter where I thought my life was in imminent danger, and you know what? I cannot tell you what happened. I don't know what I did, but I was the one on top at the end. But what got me there? Conditioned reflex, is my guess.:)




Others are not interested in that at all. Point of fact is that they prefer a “safe” environment to train in. If that means that all you do is practice in the Dojo, in Hakama, with pre-arranged attacks in a stylized form (simulated sword strikes). Then that is all you will ever get out of your art. Perhaps it is no wonder that you are wondering about your art?


Well, I suppose most aiki jj practitioners will only get this out of their practice. After all, it is serious work, and there is no time to play, IE, fight each other. No, it is kata and prearranged attack drills and demonstrations. You're absolutely right, Dan. But wouldn't it be best to see what your particular style of aiki jj does, say, against another styles of aiki JJ first, before venturing out until you find the one judoka out of millions that you could defeat? No, that is time consuming and wasteful energy spent. Since you've no idea who you can or can't beat by going out to find someone who would take you up on such a challenge (of course, you could get out the old judogi, walk into a judo dojo, and then find out in randori what you can and can't do, but this would be wrong;) ), why don't you open up your jutsu to others of, say, the Roppokai first? This seems to be the best bet. Doens't it just make sense to do this before you challenge those down and dirty-type jujutsu-type ryu, or heaven forbid, judoka?

BTW: I don't have any idea to whom you were referring in your original post on this thread. Nope, none at all.:kiss:

MarkF
31st July 2000, 11:10
Hi, Richard,
Well, I have to admit, when I see a comment that is rather explicit, I respond. That's my nature, and my only reason for the repsonse was your comment "To be honest, and some might think this a bad thing, for the most part I don't really care much about what goes on in the rest of the martial arts community. It doesn't effect my training." I didn't take it personally, but rather I was passing on what myself and others have learned. Ask anyone who has done other arts such as judo, besides Aiki JJ and I think they would say the same thing. But you did say that "some may think this a bad thing." I do, but not in the way I think you think I think you think.:laugh: No, most who know me know I am very interested in the aiki arts, and I do apply what I can when appropriate. I said the same thing you were saying, at first, and that was the reason for my response. I appreciate the time you took. Besides, I was really trying to give a shove to someone who I have known on this board for a while; Mark J. I like a good debate, be it a debate, flame, claim, or politics, and no matter what, everyone has an agenda, even though one may say h/she does not.

Dan Harden
31st July 2000, 14:45
Mark
"Oh no, I have no idea who you meant, Dan, but I have some advice for the kata "dancers."
Why don't you practice on each other?

I do and always have and have included others from different arts.
***********
mark:
I find the "go out and fight judoka" just a little bit humorous, as you readily admit to no randori

Not I, not now, not ever. We do go through periods where we don't. Kata training affords you a breeding ground of technique to perfect before you challenge it with randori. The paradox of Kata is counter balanced by the praradox of randori.

"Without Kata, you will never learn the depth of technique. Without randori, you will never learn the application of technique."

Many arts have shown the truth of this. An art without Kata as the training ground will suffer degrading technique.
If I had to do only one, (which I do not have to do)I would take the Kata training method. It affords a more in depth study and preparatory period in which you can ramp up the response time and attack levels.

*****************************
Mark:
which means there are two legal ways of finding out just how good you really are: Fight a judo player, or fight each other.

Well Mark, as I have previously stated I taught in a Judo club. I have always respected good Judo. So recomending Judo style randori has always been a staple of mine. However, do not get caught in the reverse trap IE: thinking Judo resembles a fight. It most assuredly does not. (I just deleted an anectdote to spare us all the boredom) Suffice to say you can just as easliy surprise a Judoka with ramped up fighting.
I have to say the toughest people I have encountered were not Judo people. The toughest one was an excon. Real hardcore truly unlikable fellow but man could he fight. I also played with a Shorin Ryu cat who simply knew how to use what he knew "outside the box."

****************************

Mark
"But I keep forgetting what judoka are for It is for others of differing styles to try what they have learned on someone who may fight back. Another would be to go out and start a fight somewhere."

You kill me, you really do. I used to take you to seriously until I saw through much of your "tongue in cheek" sarcasm.

I don't know about others, and don't much care. I have had an interesting time both in my Dojo outside my Dojo and in others. What I have learned is that the Aiki of Daito ryu works, and works very well. Again, it is my belief that the failure is in the artist not the art. When you see people responding in a pretty, stand up, Kata form (reminiscent of Kabuki theater) to an all out attack, simply because "As you do, so shall you do," you are seeing a personal failure of someone never challenging themselves, not an arts failure to work. The principles are valid.
Not all engineers are good engineers, nor all chemists equal. Same school, same teachers, different results

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant though Mark. I specifically mean to say that Daito ryu principle and technique does work. In fact, I consider it highly effective and adaptable. It is just that not all practioners (of any art) are as adaptable as the art would allow. In other words, "More people fail their arts, then their arts fail them."
There are people in every art, Judo included, who simply do not know how to function outside of their arts parameters. More to the point, most people can fight. But, how many can do so in a controled enough fashion to even broach the suggestion of "art." For most it would just appear like a brawl with no discernable technique. The only way to get that far is through trial.

Your other points about Kata training being somehow unworthy and Aikijujutsu being the same as jujutsu I have to respectfully disagree with. True Aikijujutsu is very hard to find and when you do find it, it most assuredly is not the same as a jujutsu approach. I have studied a few types including an older Koryu jujutsu. There is no way to confuse the two.
It will be a shame to see Aiki-no-jutsu go the way of many arts handed over to those with no interest in challenging themselves or their art. But it is the inevitable result of the age we live in. It is no coincidence that the men we speak of in the past who founded many of these arts had experiences where they challenged themselves. People speak of it often.


Your comments on Kata I think are to simplistic calling it "Kata dancing." You do not allow for the depth it is capable of
When you see the Kata form of training and talk it down That is just as ignorant as someone slamming randori as simply "playing." The subject is far more complex than that

Anyway............

Just some verbal banter to liven up a Monday at the office

Dan


[Edited by Dan Harden on 07-31-2000 at 08:51 AM]

31st July 2000, 21:33
Hello Dan,

Are you smokin' Dannyboy

You posted:

____________________________________________________________
Toby Writes:

I hope all finds you well. I have followed the discussions on E budo concerning aikijujutsu for some time. They have challenged me greatly. I understand your position on the great difficulty of executing these techniques in a dangerous environment. I generally concur with your assessment. I cannot imagine trying to apply the Daito ryu techniques I have learned in a pride competition here in Japan. It would get me killed. But I do have a genuine question. Given that aikijujutsu is so difficult to apply during a realistic threat why did the art survive down to today and why was it embraced by the ancient warrior class of Japan? If it was too difficult to learn it seems the warrior class would have abandon it as impractical. ”
____________________________________________________________

Dan,

I did not write that statement. One of your fellow Daito ryu yudansha wrote that. I was just quoting him which is obvious from my post.

____________________________________________________________

Dan posted:

The Warriors of Japan rarely if ever used their swords in combat. In fact they were almost never used.

____________________________________________________________

Pardon me Dan, but thats the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Let me see, that explains why swords were produced in a ratio of 30/1 to 50/1 over other bladed weapons (excepting tanto) during the Warring States Era.
Oh , I see, they never used them. That explains all the fascination and obsession with swordsmanship. Maybe the Japanese swordmakers were actually pasfists and purposely making weapons that were " almost never used " to discourage warfare Hummmm. I wonder how the Japanese were able to amass the knowledge required to create the finest edged weapon in the world 700 years ago if they never actually used them? And the mention of the Japanese swords devestating effectiveness by the mongols... must have been because they looked so scary I guess. ( Shudder, Shudder )
____________________________________________________________

Dan Posted:

"It seems studies of actual combat sites showed the skeletal scars of arrows, and hand thrown rocks in far greater abundance than any other weapons."

____________________________________________________________

ROCK FU TOO! Gotta love it

Even if this were true it would conclusively prove nothing to support your contention that " swords were almost never used in combat " Find me a pathologist that claims to be able to consistently recognize a 700 year old bone wound from a steel sword and a 700 year old bone wound from an steel arrowhead and I'll present a pathologist that says your guy’s full of B.S.
And then, even if swords were "almost never used in combat" how does that dispute the fact that aiki principles were originally principles of swordsmanship.

I suppose following your train of thought, battlefield death would have to have been fought principly emptyhanded and won in an aikijujutsu battlefield encounter to be relevent here! I can just see it now. Hoards of archers clashing together for an aikijujutsu WWF rumble after they've run out of arrows. Quick! Where's Kurosawa when you need him :)

Dan this is just silliness. Are you being contrary for the heck of it?
____________________________________________________________


The bottomline Dan, is a majority of classical koryu taught multiple weapons including naginata, yari, swords, archery and jujutsu etc... but the focus of virtually all these classical schools was on the sword. The strategy which formed the core of these schools was based on the principles
associated with swordsmanship but was applicable to all these various weapons and included principles associated with aiki. To deny this fact is to simply deny historical fact. Ask practitioners of Katori Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shinto Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu or any of the other koryu and try to make your case. I don't think you'll have a leg to stand on.

God I crack myself up :)

Tobs

[Edited by Toby Threadgill on 07-31-2000 at 06:14 PM]

Walker
31st July 2000, 23:08
Ok, that done, why is it that the aiki jj arts have been divorced from the sword. I have heard the traditional answers bla bla bla, but if sword is the exemplar of aiki, then you would think that there would be more of it preserved in the aiki arts rather than just sword lip service (ie. Aikido).

Dan Harden
31st July 2000, 23:34
I figured After the last go round pushin buttons regarding Daito ryu and Aiki. I would push back a little....... :-)

It is by far....
Easier to get your goat then mine


Dan

P.S. the info on the "lack of" battlefield sword use came from Karl Friday...... he was qouting recent findings. It got much play on the Iai list. In all seriousness I consider it to be ridiculous. Though the fellows there are quite sincere. I just couldn't resist the illogic it sets up.


1. The tengu taught him to fight?..hmmm

Ok that can't be true

2. So, he learned it from his battlefield experience

oops..our history guru's say they didn't use them much

3. So,He made the whole thing up. Which of course means anyone can and be considered valid.

Does that mean these arts have no basis in experiental facts. That they are all simply theory?

Facinating stuff


deep breaths Toby...deep breaths

I am going back to trimming my prairie style vaulted ceiling
with the loveliest quarter sawn oak...
nighty night


[Edited by Dan Harden on 07-31-2000 at 05:45 PM]

Richard Elias
31st July 2000, 23:40
Mark F.

"I was passing on what myself and others have learned. Ask anyone who has done other arts such as judo, besides Aiki JJ and I think they would say the same thing."

Just to clarify, as I stated in my response, in my seach for the art that's right for me I have had a wide variety of experience in different martial arts including but not confined to Tae kwon do, kook sul won, kali/escrima, muay thai, kung fu, 2-styles of ninjujutsu, jujutsu, naginata, capoeira, aikido...the list goes on. Though I've been persuing the arts for 20yrs, I've actually only been studying aikijujutsu formally for 5yrs.

I used to be more involved with the martial arts "community" but I guess I've gotten kinda jaded over the years. Or maybe I was always like that and just dicided not to play with the other kids anymore. I know that sounds real negative, but it's not intended that way. My only motivation is training and learning, and right now I am very focused. Everything outside of that falls short of interesting me. And besides, if I was really not "accepting" I wouldn't be posting at all. My only "agenda", as far as I know, is to share and learn. There have been those that try to maintain a false mystique about the arts, eluding to secrets or privileged knowledge that, quite frankly, just isn't there. This kinda bugs me a little. I make no excuses for the way I am, or how I view the arts. As I stated before everything I say is "In my humble opinion, based on my limited experience".

Respectfully and not too seriously,

31st July 2000, 23:42
Danny,

Illogic? So that's why you study aiki jujutsu.

Yuck, yuck, yuck. I don't own any goats?

Tobs



[Edited by Toby Threadgill on 07-31-2000 at 06:18 PM]

Nathan Scott
1st August 2000, 00:14
[Post deleted by user]

Richard Elias
1st August 2000, 00:39
I can't speak for the other styles, but in our school sword work is VERY domninant, and is an integral part of the empty hand system. Most of our major techniques have a kenjutsu application. Some have thier origin as a sword technique, especially the aiki. It could be said that ours is predominatly a sword school, but the jujutsu is what gets shown and requested the most.

Dan Harden
1st August 2000, 05:04
Ditto here

All kidding aside. Sword is prerequisite to all training with me. It is first and foremost both in its place in weekly training and in our overall outlook. It would be a mistake to overlook its effects and benefits on taijutsu.
I cannot help but to say that Koryu is the place to start sword training and any version of Aikido type "Aiki"-ken the last.


Dan

MarkF
1st August 2000, 11:16
And to think I was attempting to inject some humor here. All seriousness aside, it was a mawkish attempt at your little stab in your original post, and aside with the comments concerning the battlefield (which I think I said I agreed), it was meant to be humorous. I injected an answer to your own bit, Dan. How you mistook what I said for serious stuff, especially after the "great aiki wars," I woudn't hazard to guess, and I certainly was making no comparisons, just being my usual self, sarcastic and full of cynicism. Nothing more. But, since you like to play judo once in a while, it does seem to be a good place to attempt aiki techniques, even if it is the rigid stuff. I teach kata to anyone who wants it, and to those who don't. I do teach atemi, kyusho, kata ate, etc., so you surmise all judo clubs the same, well they are not. Remember from your judo days the name John Cornish? He studied kata with Kyuzo Mifune and Sumiyuki Kotani, both 10dans. Even here you will have to admit Mifune's center "jumps" out at you, even in photographs, and he was said to be "an empty uwagi" to those who trained with him. One would not have been surprised to do a technique repeatedly more than one hundred times, because you didn't "center."

Anyway, I am sorry you did't see my replay as it was meant.

Sincerely,

MarkF
1st August 2000, 11:40
Originally posted by Richard Elias:


There have been those that try to maintain a false mystique about the arts, eluding to secrets or privileged knowledge that, quite frankly, just isn't there. This kinda bugs me a little.

Richard,
I couldn't agree more on this particular view some take on aiki. My background is judo, and there is thrity-seven years of that, and I wouldn't change a thing, with a small exception. I wish I had approached it with a more mature take on it, but that's what happens when you are a kid. I grew up on shiai, and then when I could not do it anymore, I looked for more, and you know what? It was there all the time. I just had to push the envelope a little. Although age has a lot to so with what one does, it does not mean I can't learn, and I have. I approach it much differently than I used to. Even my vocabulary has changed, and what I convey to a student concerning breathing, centering, and relaxing has taken on new purpose, and that I can thank one or two here for. At least, I can approach things with a bigger purpose.

Dan Harden
1st August 2000, 14:24
Ok, no kidding

I think Mifune exhibited what could be called "Aiki" wouldn't you? While it may not be manifested in the same way as other arts, on its own level his relaxed centeredness and ability to connect and manipulate was wonderful to watch. The fact that he utilized it "oustide" of Kata was a testement to his great skill.

As far as thinking that "all Judo clubs are the same" does not apply here. No way, not even close. Just look at these views on Aiki. You have several people who have been involved in Aikijujutsu for 10-15 years maybe longer (before it was a "fad") and we can't agree on several points.

BTW
I did take your post in your usual (but not always) sarcastic cynical self. Truly I think that many here are cynical and Jaded. It is why several people come across strongly at times. I am sure we have all have seen too little, in too many "artists" to think much of anything we hear. I would say that goes for dozens of people here. It is why things can get heated. You have several people who have found something that works, something that is deep and they try to convey that. Put together dozens of opions like that and it gets lively.
Add to that the fact that several people here are in arts that are decidedly edgy, that is, they DO care about effectiveness (of course not only that)and they are decidedly uninterested in fluff. Which narrows the focus a bit.
Toby, myself, Nathan and whom ever may be lurking are quite interested in the making, using, and testing of a sword to our and it's utmost potential. This goes beyond the way many people who pick up the sword view it today. This in turn creates a certain "view" in the way we see the arts. A view that is not always shared by those in the sword arts.
If you read between the lines you find a balance of healthy self confidance, and cyniscism, balanced with a tentative searching and openess eitherwise we wouldn't be here.

So, I happen to respect the place your cyniscism is coming from. A place called "experience"

Dan




[Edited by Dan Harden on 08-01-2000 at 08:27 AM]

MarkF
2nd August 2000, 10:19
Well, thanks for understnading. Age has a funny way of affecting what you read. Mifune did have something which may have been aiki, and so did many others. There is much being lost today, and I feel for the average judoka who does not know there is more than three waza and the Dai Nippon Judo Championships out there. The work it would take, to learn anew is just not in my future so I do take what many say here to heart, at times. I spoke with someone a few months ago who does know you and says you have good technique. On the whole of it, that is enough as I trust this person's word. I have been attempting to find a way to bring Kano's kenjutsu back into the syllabus, as it never truly left, but almost all left it. Yes, you're right. Not all aiki styles are the same, and that is true, dojo to dojo. It certainly is true of judo, although sometimes you wonder if anyone knows anything besides nagewaza.

Lance
11th August 2000, 02:48
I am majoring in Criminal Justice and probably will be entering some form of law enforcement in the future. Meanwhile I am searching for a martial art while I am finishing out my education.
Now that the background has been stated, here is the question. Is Aiki Jujitsu effective in a sense that it could help me survive in an unarmed struggle on the street? I am about 5'9" and 135lbs. so I need some type of tool to offset the balance.

Thanks,
Lance Clanton

MarkF
11th August 2000, 08:26
Welcome to E-budo, Lance.
I suppose it depends on just how serious you are, but I do not know what is availabe over your way. Probably the best thing to do is to find an instructor with whom to train, and not a martial art. Many things play into this such as time constraints, commuting, and what is available in your area. Aiki jujutsu is hard to find, although someone will have more info than I do. Since your background will be in LE, judo and jujtsu are things to consider. Anything with grappling involved is a must in any LEO's career.

But the answer to your question of aikijutsu is yes. It has everything you need and some you don't, but it is hard to find a "good" school, and it takes more time to learn than the two I have mentioned. But if it gets down to availability, judo and jujutsu are generally easy to find.

Lance
11th August 2000, 16:08
I plan to go to Japan in a couple of years after I get my degree with the JET program hopefully. That is why I am considering this hard to find art. I will hopefully be in the area that offers it and will have the opportunity to learn it there. I plan to stay about 4-5 years to learn it. Are there any other opinions?

Lance Clanton

[Edited by Lance on 08-11-2000 at 10:13 AM]

Nathan Scott
11th August 2000, 19:34
[Post deleted by user]

Lance
12th August 2000, 19:19
Thanks for your replies. The information is truly needed.

Lance Clanton

Kit LeBlanc
13th August 2000, 06:49
LANCE,

As an LEO and martial artist, I think I can give you some advice. MARKF said it right, some form of grappling art is a necessity. Arts that are kick/punch are limited in application, though a grappling art that icludes atemi is ideal. A grappling art which also makes allowances for the fact that the opponent (suspect) may have a weapon is even better.

I remember reading in HE Davey's Aiki jujutsu book that one of the Takeda's said that police will be using "jujutsu" when arresting suspects, based on the dynamic involved in seizing and arresting a subject. They seemed to specifically say that this is not "Aiki."

Though my training is in submission grappling and koryu torite, from what I have experienced on the street I think that Aikijujutsu, as has been previously described in this forum, would be a good art for law enforcement. It contains subtle aspects (more Aiki oriented) which may come in handy for less resistive suspects, and jujutsu methods which may come into play with seriously motivated and aggressive suspects. It seems that it may be adapatable to varying levels of force (as most jujutsu should be.)

I don't know how much Aikijujutsu focusses on groundwork, but as an LEO your primary goal in non-lethal uses of force will be to get the bad guy off his feet and controlled on the ground. I personally see a subejct on his stomach on the ground and you pinning with a knee to the small of his back as "groundfighting," some do not. Still, you will nees relaible methods for controlling someone on his stomach on the ground, on his back on the ground, on his knees on the ground, etc.

Hope this helps to point you in the right direction.

KIT LEBLANC

Feel free to E mail me at kitleblanc@aol.com if you have further questions.

Yojimbo558
13th August 2000, 07:52
Hi Lance,

As others have indicated, a grappling style for your intended career is essential.

I would recommend that you look at anything from Aikijujutsu, Jujutsu, Bujinkan, or Genbukan while you are in Japan.

Stay away from sportive styles, while Karate & Judo have excellent pieces, they also have problems, in that if you pick Karate you learn striking but not grappling...which when it comes to arresting is a must! As for Judo, striking ( while atemi waza is apart of Judo...is not largely taught ), as a result you ( if you get into competition ) could be come programmed not to strike since in competition you are not allowed to do so...as a result blocking strikes is also less likely to be successful on your part ( since in competition doesn't allow it ).

Aikido ( there are some deviations ) should be avoided since it utilizes alot of co-operation. Unless you have access to Yoshinkan Aikido which would also serve you needs, as this depends less on co-operation.

The styles I recommended in the beginning, all teach striking in combination with grappling. Also these styles will teach you how to defend against numberous weapons as well as in their use.

I feel in my own biased opinion that any of these styles would be a great investment in your ability to go home alive at the end of your shift.

Eric Bookin

Kit LeBlanc
14th August 2000, 04:50
NATHAN,

I would like to respond to your post RE: adrenalin dump, I agree and disagree.

First off, I do not think that ANYONE, experienced combatant or budoka, even a "serious" budoka, is immune to surprise. I honestly believe that to think so is to be complacent. Anyone can be caught with their pants down, the idea is to be aware of that and try to avoid it. The other is to be able shorten your recovery time from surprise, but that will only occur with experience. You can and will be surprised, especially if you think you cannot be. Taking it to its illogoical conclusion and believing one is "un-surprisable" due to "extensive training," can getyou killed without even a warning. Every day I have been to work I critique what I do in dangerous situations, and sometimes I have to be honest and say "if that guy had wanted me, he would have had me." THAT is how I try to beat the odds, not by thinking that the odds won't beat me.


Also, you SHOULD ALWAYS get the adrenalin dump in a combatively stressful situation. That is a biological adaptation which ocurs in all healthy humans. Controlling the effects can be developed with training and moreso with experience(which is what you are saying). My personal opinion is that dojo budo training, ANY dojo budo training, rarely fully prepares someone for an actual encounter. Even the "serious" budoka. Serious training helps, but training for the thing and the thing itself are very different. The operative factor in the actual combative encounter is motivated interpersonal aggression, which simply does not occur to the same level in training, even with a guy you hate! If you are interested in this you have I am sure read On Killing by Grossman. Facing real, potentially lethal interpersonal human aggression does weird things to those exposed.

Last, my take is that the high dump stress spikes at the beginning of the encounter, then fades where more subtlety can come into play. You are there in the encounter, !BANG! the heart rate goes up, you draw your weapon and assess, THEN things plateau and you react according to the situation. This can occur in a milisecond's time, where you shoot/don't shoot, realize that he has a gun/knife but just dropped it,is not attacking, etc.

Realize that above I am referring to immediately lethal force encounters. Not all encounters develop from non-confrontational (say, moving the drunk along) to confrontational, many go the reverse. Aiki certainly will be of help in the non-confrontational/semi-confrontational encounters, less so in the immediate explosively violent ones.

Now if the encounter starts turning against you, you spike again. "Oh man, this guy wants to kill me!" and then plateau while you deal with that eventuality. Each new event/turn of events is dealt with as a new spike until the mind assesses what is occurring and realizes it has training files to deal with it. Panic is a short circuit and you can't access those files. With experience, the pathways become smoother and assessing takes less time.

We cannot know what this is like until we have faced it. I think with experience, or with the help of those with experience, we can develop SOME genuine confidence in our training. But the vitally important empirical confidence in ourselves comes from training AND experience.

For these reasons, I personally believe that the ideal path for a budoka is in a service where they face interpersonal human aggression and potentially lethal situations as a professional. That is the best way to refine one's budo for its originally intended purpose. It also provides repeat and ongoing validation and adaptation of training and theory to actual application. Non-professional "combatant" serious budoka are to be lauded for their efforts and accomplishments, but that does not mean they are in fact experienced combatants. The two used to be the same but have been divorced for some time.

Kit LeBlanc

Eric Montes
14th August 2000, 06:53
Lance,
I normally don't cruise this forum since I tend to concentrate on weapon arts, but I think Kit is right on regarding one's response in a crisis situation.

I primarily wanted to respond as a former JET who practiced in Japan.

You are able to request an area where you would like to be assigned but that is no guarantee that you will get it. But this a topic for separate forum. Email me privately if you have any questions.

Eric

Lance
14th August 2000, 15:30
Thanks agains guys. I appreciated the information.

Nathan Scott
14th August 2000, 20:09
[Post deleted by user]

Kit LeBlanc
14th August 2000, 23:53
Nathan,

Still I disagree. I admit some advantage can be gained thru proper training and development of zanshin, but I personally doubt that even "instructor level" budoka (this is not a valid designation. Instructor level can mean very different things in different dojo)will ever develop it purely thru dojo training. Remember the bushi trained in the dojo THEN tested and refined it on the battlefied to a far greater extent than we do today, even those of us in the field in law enforcement, whatever.

Even when fully developed, no one maintains zanshin at all times. Fatigue, senory overload, stress, etc. all play a major part in what happens in the real world. It is a very different thing to comprehend these concepts and work at them in the dojo, and when one is out and about in daily life as a civilian trying to avoid confrontations, than it is when you are armed and uniformed and your job is going in to deal specifically with confrontations. You would think that the latter people would have it perfected to a far greater degree than dojo budoka. But after 13 years in budo and nearly four in law enforcement, I still noticed where and when I have had "openings" in my zanshin that may have been fatal if the circumstances had been different.

As an accomplished budoka and experienced professional in handling confrontations, one's zanshin may be developed far beyond the rank and file budo practitioners, even your idea of "serious" budoka (again, I have a problem with that designation...). You can still be had, and you had better always be aware of that and be honest with yourself when you were caught wih the proverbial pants down.(Which mindset will further develop zanshin.)

Kit LeBlanc

Nathan Scott
15th August 2000, 00:42
[Post deleted by user]

Nathan Scott
15th August 2000, 01:46
[Post deleted by user]

Kit LeBlanc
15th August 2000, 03:22
Nathan,

Please call me Kit, unless I am being too forward in usig your first name. I just realized you are the moderator here and don't want to step on any toes.

I think we do agree more than disagree. I understand what you are saying, and have seen it/experienced it myself in many situations.

I guess where I come from is that zanshin, true zanshin as you described it, comes from a combination of training and actual experience. Budoka without extensive "live" experience of this in a regular and recurring format(i.e. not just a few bar fights...) will not develop it to the same degree as will one with both training and experience.

I am also very interested in this subject and would love to discuss it more via e-mail. I understand you train with some LEO's and would like to hear their take as well.

Kit LeBlanc

Brently Keen
15th August 2000, 04:17
Nathan wrote:

"I realized that I do not always get the adrenaline dump when confronted with danger, or when 'ambushed' by roommates/classmates. It is usually when I can see a combatively stressful situation developing, or after it has already developed and is unresolved."

I've found this to be true in my own experience. Especially when I can see it developing and my mind starts to play with the possibilities - and I'm not talking about fear either, just excitement or anticipation. We're talking a classic case of nerves here.

"I think that a serious budoka can achieve a state where they are not open to being startled, and can remain calm during an initial surprise attack... <snip> I also think that mushin (no mind)/fudoshin (immovable, unperturbable mind) can be kept while initiating an attack/ambush that is not entirely expected by the opponent."

Agreed. Certainly everyone can be caught off-guard sometimes. But for the serious/experienced budoka it's not going to be as often or likely. It's not that they can't be surprised either, it's just that they'll remain relatively unperturbed by the surprise, it's not going to have the same psychostress induced response. When someone surprises me I usually smile and think, "good, that was good. I wasn't expecting that" and/or I'll thank them mentally for showing me something, but I'll remain unbothered by whatever it was. For me this is a classic example of the mind being flexible like the "ju" in aikijujutsu, and like a guourd floating on the water.

"However, should the contact continue past the initial engagement, or the danger be seen in advance so that the mind has time to evaluate the threat level properly, I would guess this would be when anyone would expect an adrenaline dump..."

In my experience, the 2nd half of this is actually more true. It's when the danger can be seen in advance and you have time to think about it that the adrenalin is going to kick in more. In my view, as contact continues or escalates past the initial engagement, the body actually recovers somewhat from the initial shock/nerves (assuming you survive it) and then proceeds more or less automatically as one's training kicks in. You do what needs to be done. For me it seems to be a question of what is more compelling, my situation or my objective?

For any endeavor to be successful you must focus on your objective. Your mindset is all important. Prior to an engagement you cannot be anticipating, worrying, imagining, watching in horror, or whatever, because then your mind will be captured by all that, and you'll have difficulty responding appropriately. You must stay focused on a present objective.

"In conclusion, assuming that others find this evaluation reasonable, it might be said that during an initial self defense engagement, it should be possible to use the refined subtle movements of Aikijujutsu/Aiki no jutsu. But during combat/sustained high threat engagements the exponent will
need to fall back on more gross, fundamental Jujutsu techniques and strikes."

I find your evaluation quite reasonable. If you don't have time to think, and you have trained to a sufficient level, I see no problem using the refined subtle movements of aikijujutsu. Aiki is primarily a defensive art - it was made for and excells in these types of situations. In my mind, the only time an exponent needs to "fall back" on more gross, fundamental jujutsu techniques and strikes is when he is not sufficiently skilled in the first place to use aiki.

In a combat situation or sustained high threat engagement, falling back on aikijujutsu seems to me to be a much more practical alternative. Since the stakes are higher, I cannot afford to give my opponent any opportunity to counter any gross, fundamental jujutsu techniques. In a prolonged engagement I also need to be as efficient as possible by not wasting energy.

The rule is to do and use whatever is more appropriate for the situation at hand. In some instances, jujutsu may be more appropriate. Sometimes aiki may not appropriate, needed, or necessary. But even then, I will not resort to "gross fundamental jujutsu". Rather I will resort to more refined basic/fundamental jujutsu. I figure I still cannot afford to give my opponent any opportunities, and I still need to be as efficient as possible. You can't be too simple and/or gross and expect to get away with it.

To quote a maxim of Sokaku Takeda: "Even an expert can be defeated by a layman if the expert is negligent." I take this to mean I can defeat an expert as well as be defeated by someone of lesser skill. Gross, to me implies negligence, over-extension, and inappropriateness.

"For instance, I'm sure that LEO's become less prone to adrenaline dumps during similar threat level confrontations the more they gain (hopefully) successful experience in handling them."

Agreed.

Brently Keen

[Edited by Brently Keen on 08-15-2000 at 12:07 AM]

MarkF
15th August 2000, 11:01
Originally posted by Brently Keen

I take this to mean I can defeat an expert as well as be defeated by someone of lesser skill. Gross, to me implies negligence, over-extension, and inappropriateness.



I agree with Brently here an with Kit as well. Condition your reflexes all you want but there is going to be something which may defeat this "condtioning." Frankly, the term "instructor level" means nothing. It only means one is instructing in controlled situations.

I won't pretend to have completely conditioned mind/body to easily react to even the most overt, similar event, but I think if someone like Kit, who does this everyday, still feels the adrenaline dump even after repeated situations of "surprise," than surely, no matter what level you are at, at sometime, you will feel it, but you will also hope to bottle up the surprise and do a workman like job of, well, the job. It is far safer to know you don't have all the answers than think you do. No one is that good.

Regards,
Mark

Nathan Scott
15th August 2000, 18:57
[Post deleted by user]

KIT
15th August 2000, 19:19
Mark F,

Thanks for underscoring my point.

I do believe that training and experience will mitigate the effects of adrenalin, even in a fast moving situation. Just this week I had a man start to pull a gun on me from a holster contraption he had. I credit my budo and LE training with being able to see this happening like it was slo-mo, drop my baton, which I had deployed because initially I was going into an active Domestic Violence situation that sounded very heated, and get my muzzle on him.

In this case I was on him quicker than he was able to get his weapon out. I also credit my budo training with NOT shooting him where he stood (which would have been legally justified), because he never fully produced the weapon and never raised it.

You bet I got an adrenalin dump! But I was able to control it and make the correct TACTICAL decision, NOT react out of "adrenalin intoxication" and fear that I was going to get shot. The same thing has occurred before with other subjects and other weapons (knives, even a sword once...). I get the adrenal response, but I can control it better through having had such experiences repeatedly.

And experience is key here. I worked in hotel security for several years before entering law enforcement, and had several occasions to engage in physical confrontations (one of them the worst fight of my life, period!). When I was even several years into that job, I always got the dump before and felt the effects after fights. My hands shook, my breathing and heart rate went up, knees felt weak and I moved faster and hit harder than I have ever done in training.

Nowadays, even after the gun incident described above, I don't really get it so much anymore. It has been a long time since I felt the effects strongly. This is a normal adaptation to experience.

My experience has sort of grown along with my training (I had about 3 years in martial arts when I started at the hotel job). But to be honest, when I became an officer I had nine years in martial arts and I started getting the dump strongly again when I hit the streets.

Why? Performance anxiety in front of my brother and sister officers, for one , especially my training officer, plus the fact that now these weren't just drunks I was fighting with but REAL BAD GUYS, guys who had done prison time, killed people, etc. And a lot of these guys were carrying weapons. In scientific terms the "pucker factor" went way up.

I think my chief disagreement with Nathan is that budo training alone, I don't care how "serious," will produce the same effect. In my experience I do feel that training with wooden weapons in koryu kata has been more stressful than grappling and Chinese boxing was, but not anywhere close to anything I have faced in actual circumstances, particularly not when REAL knives and firearms have been involved. What is lacking is aggression, I mean the palpable feeling of antipathy or crazed motivation, not a training partner attacking "really hard."

I would encourage people in martial arts to challenge what they think they know about confrontational dynamics and zanshin to go on a few ride-alongs with their local police agency. They will see that they completely miss things that the officer catches on to as a matter of course when simply driving down the street. They will also be surprised at the way confrontations and physical altercations develop.

Both Nathan and Brently mention experience in potentially lethal encounters, so I think they may be above the rank and file martial artist in terms of experience. But most "combative" martial artists will be in for a lot of surprises, and I think much learning.

Does that make it more clear?

Kit LeBlanc

Nathan Scott
15th August 2000, 20:11
[Post deleted by user]

Nathan Scott
15th August 2000, 20:41
[Post deleted by user]

Neil Yamamoto
15th August 2000, 23:34
Hi all. Hey Nathan, another serious post from Neil. Twice in a lifetime event.

This thread got me to thinking about what Bernie Lau Sensei started developing in the late 70’s as part of his martial arts and LEO work. From here on I’ll just call him “Bernie” to save typing.

I was a lab rat for a lot of what Bernie worked on in this. Bernie liked using me as a lab rat since I was young and recovered fast, was stupid enough to let him experiment on me, and have a high pain tolerance level. What we discovered had several factors involved but still came down to the individual and their experiences in actual high stress situations which involved physical threat or danger as to being able to maintain the right mental state to be able to do what we called, the “aiki mind set”.

Some of what we discovered were the following.

Lack of training
When there was little or no training, control over your – (pick one: uke, partner, opponent, scum bag, perp), what ever you want to call them, went out the window. It came back to trying to muscle and force techniques. No aiki in that at all. Even when there was a good background of training, there had to be repeated practice and sharpening of skills in order to maintain an edge in applying the techniques.

Unfortunately, most of the people who came around, wanted a technique they could learn in ten minutes, worked every time regardless of situation, and they would never have to practice. Most left rather quickly when they discovered it involved sweat, pain, and commitment to training. The higher the training level, the sooner the personal experience would help develop this control over the adrenaline rush and maintain better motor control. As a side note, the bigger the ego, the harder it was to develop this attitude.

Experience
Kit hits it on the head with this. Experience is crucial to developing the right state of mind to avoid anxiety and panic setting in. The adrenaline dump will still occur but the side effects will usually not be apparent until after the situation is over. This is when the loss of motor control, bad taste in your mouth, etc.. set in.

How this experience is gained is where people on this thread seem to differ. Nathan believes this can be gained in a dojo to a large extant, Kit feels otherwise. I think there has to be some sort of outside the dojo experience to make what you learn in the dojo more useful in confrontations. Now, this effect can be gained to some extent by training with other schools in areas where you have no experience, in short, going outside your comfort zone to get better. Getting in fights with bigger people then you are will help this. Lucky for me, almost everyone is bigger then I am.

As to some of Richard’s comments, one thing to note is all of the people at Sensei Don Angier’s dojo all have extensive experience in martial arts prior to joining the Yanagi Ryu dojo and usually have had enough outside experience to have this mind set developed to varying degrees. The training as Richard describes just enhances this mindset.

One thing Bernie and I and the others involved with this training discovered that it was essential to have the person being trained perceive a threat to personal safety of some sort in order to sharpen their awareness. The student will learn to control their mental and emotional reactions as they progress. With weapons in play, the effect is very much heightened. As Richard commented about Angier Sensei using a live blade to enhance concentration, there is nothing like a sharp blade at your throat to encourage correct technique. Sensei Angier did this to me when I first visited his dojo. Really works well from my point of view.

Bernie used very similar methods on occasion. This ranged from:
Using a tessen to wake you up in practice.
Cutting at you with a katana or bokken and stopping the cut extremely close to you to help you learn to control fear reactions.
Lights out practice during which the tessen would be used extensively to keep you alert.
Practicing with a kitchen knife which had the edge taped but the point exposed.
Surprising you by stepping out from behind a post and sticking a shotgun in your face when you arrived at the dojo.

Correct reactions showed your development nicely. Proper reactions were disarming Bernie or not getting caught off guard, evading and/or blocking, depending on the weapon. Improper reaction was freezing up, panic attacks, or in one case losing bladder control when confronted with the shotgun. (Not me, I took the shotgun away but got caught by tessen many times.)

In visiting one karate dojo to teach a class on self-defense tactics, the dojo’s senior student, a pretty highly ranked regional competition player, fainted from the shotgun being stuck in his face in class. We didn’t get invited back for some reason.

Personality
As I mentioned above, Big ego’s get in the way. Some people’s ego simply will not let themselves admit anything negative about them selves. One of the traits I believe anyone who is good at aiki type arts has is a sense of humor about them selves and is able to not worry about how they look to others.

This is a debatable point, but however you define aiki, one of the components of aiki is you have to be able to let go of your concerns about your personal being at higher levels of the art and simply perform the techniques. I am not phrasing this well and this is one of those intangible points you can argue back and forth endlessly so I am not putting a lot into this part. Suffice to say, it takes a certain frame of mind to maintain the right perspective and use aiki - in a physical or a psychological sense - in a confrontation.

Conclusions
Hell, I don’t really have any good conclusions. This probably opened more of a can of worms then reached any conclusion. My opinion is we all have more in common in this then not and we can argue until the sun goes around the moon and we will not agree on how we define aiki.

Training, experience, and our own personal beliefs can control the physical/fear/ mental reactions we all have. The aiki in this is simply there when you do it right and use what you know to control the situation.

Let the criticism begin…

Nathan Scott
16th August 2000, 00:17
[Post deleted by user]

Neil Yamamoto
16th August 2000, 04:55
Hi Nathan-San

You merit politness since you are the lord of what we read here in the realm of aikijujutsu.
;)

I maybe overstated in my post since LEO perosonnel were the people we were working with the most at that time. Controlling what you do in reaction to being startled and developing the ability to not be startled is possible through training and experience.

The reflex of being startled is the start of any reaction leading to chemical change which is what an adrenaline dump is or so I learned. Developing a better awareness helps to inure one to being startled and that was the main thrust of the post I guess I was making.

At any rate, your post sums it up nicely as to the scenarios. I think we all agree training and experience make the difference here. Where any disagreement comes in is in how this experience is gained.

Great thread so far.

Joseph Svinth
16th August 2000, 11:07
One reaction to startle that is not mentioned in the typology is freezing like a jacklit deer. Sometimes this is a good response, other times it's not, but it does happen.

Also, people sometimes forget that Murphy was an optimist, and as a result forget that something that worked the last 99 times without a hitch can still fail miserably today. No, you can't let that stop you from trying Plan A, but if Plan A doesn't work, and fast, then Plans B through Z had better kick into gear even faster.

Yes, experience helps enormously when taking them wing shots, but even in tournament sparring you routinely see folks who, after kicking Mr. Elbow with one foot, respond by kicking Mr. Elbow with the other foot, too...

Just some Average Joe thoughts... :o

Nathan Scott
16th August 2000, 17:35
[Post deleted by user]

Neil Yamamoto
16th August 2000, 20:51
Along the lines of this topic I just found a book at Half Priced books that I may buy but it goes way beyond what we are talking about here.

It's called "BOO" - by R. Simons, and examines the startle reflex in terms of culture, experience, and society.

Not a bad book but probably too much detail for what any of us are talking about.

Nathan Scott
16th August 2000, 21:07
[Post deleted by user]

Kit LeBlanc
17th August 2000, 18:01
Sorry I'm a little late jumping back in on this guys,

Nathan, sorry, but I guess that the way I read your post, I though you WERE saying that serious Budo training resulted in such abilities.

Admittedly second beef I had was probably more what I READ INTO it. Based on my experiences with some budoka who expound on "the nature of combative encounters," without benefit of actual experience, I look askance when people start claiming "powers" such as not being able to be surprised etc. and assuming that because it works in the dojo, with cooperative training partners, it works for real. I am not saying that I am placing you in this category, but my "flinch" reaction to this (heh heh) is as I have described.

As far as flinching, Tony Blauer, a martial arts guy who is getting into training the tactical community and LEO's (thats where the bucks are)has a system which is predicated on taking advantage of the natural flinch reflex.

Kit LeBlanc

MarkF
18th August 2000, 09:12
I am not sure, Kit, if it is the same guy, but whatever Blauer's method is, there was a discussion about it in the judo forum BC. It had a name made with initials but damn if I can remeber it, but it definitely is based on the same thing. I remember shiai in which two big BBs would tangle, and no one would make a move because any movement sigals an action and these guys would stand like that for thirty seconds sometimes, waiting on the other guy to flinch (forget about it in today's shiai. You will be disqualified well before that for "passivity." Apparently, some do not recognize/approve of the "passive agression" going on in these things):redhot:

Anyway, the Flinch method works both ways.

budocat
26th November 2005, 18:54
Hi

This is my first thread and I'm looking forward to some meaningful, insightful input from all the other post-ers out there.

As a self defence instructor, I use techniques from several martial art disciplines including aikido, judo, chin na, Chinese wrestling, and I'm always looking to enhance the technique part of the class. The key for me is keeping the techniques straightforward and simple for my students.

With all that said, I recently came across a too brief article on Daito Ryu and another on jujutsu. Knowing nothing about these disciplines, I'm hoping someone out there can tell me their opinions about how effective these martial arts would be a street attack situation, and why.

Thanks!
Jim Johnson

GTO
26th November 2005, 23:39
Well, looking at Daito-ryu masters such as Takeda Sokaku, it seems to be that, properly learned, it'd be a self-defense art par excellence. ;)

Dan Harden seems to be the resident DR commentator, so if he doesn't reply to this thread forthwith, you could probably PM him for information.

yoj
26th November 2005, 23:45
Well, to be honest what you are doing now is probably right, the daito derived stuff has a severe learning curve, hardly conducive to rapid learning, however, one usefull bit would be irimi, entering hard, most p&k stuff train to trade blows, you want to finish it.

Cady Goldfield
27th November 2005, 00:32
IMO -- Depending on the school of Daito-ryu, the learning curve can be as basic as that in chin-na and its counterparts in fundamental jujutsu, or as steep as that in genuine, unmodernized taiji-chuan with all its internal work. The latter is all but unknown in the West and only well-known in enclaves surviving in modern China and Taiwan... a parallel to certain Daito-ryu branches.

Mark Jakabcsin
28th November 2005, 18:20
As a self defence instructor, I use techniques from several martial art disciplines including aikido, judo, chin na, Chinese wrestling, and I'm always looking to enhance the technique part of the class. The key for me is keeping the techniques straightforward and simple for my students.



Jim,
Daito ryu is a system and to really understand it's value one must buy into that system and train it with dedication. Can the system be viable in a physical conflict, sure, but one must be experienced. From your quote above I don't believe you would get much from Daito-ryu in your search for techniques to add to your program. DR has lots of techniques but it's real strength is in learning and understanding the system, which eventually makes the techniques irrelevant. Best of luck.

Mark J.

gr455h0pp3r
11th January 2006, 06:11
I have done some Karate and some Wing Chun, I have been in some aggressor type situations, some worked out ok, some not so good. Honestly I need to train more.
I am visiting a Daito Ryu Dojo of the Takumakai branch in early Feburary.
If things work out I might become a student.
I have just read quite a large thread on secrecy in Daito Ryu, and even in other styles - If you have read this also, you might see my concern, hearing things like "some people work hard for many years and never "get it" and "some people are never "given it" etc.
Will Daito Ryu help me defend myself or could it be a wasted endeavour?
Also does anybody know if the Takumakai branch of Australia practices any other arts other than Aikijujutsu like Jittejutsu or Bojutsu ?
Thankyou - Ryan Doherty.

Nathan Scott
11th January 2006, 20:25
[Post deleted by user]

gr455h0pp3r
12th January 2006, 04:23
Ok great. Ill go along and see what comes of it.
I believe this branch's seniors travels to Japan every now and then and the training is quite intense. Thanks for your input.

Phil Farmer
13th January 2006, 19:54
Hi Ryan,

I am not sure where you are in Australia but I have fellow instructor in Yoseikan that lives in Perth. Yoseikan Budo is an old offshoot of aikido and very much uses the aikijutsu, hard sorts of locks and throws. Roy Hebden is the Australian Director for the Yoseikan World Federation. The advantage for you would be that Yoseikan incorporates atemi throughout the system and uses punches and kicks to set up the throws and joint locks. Sorry, I don't know the more specific geography of Australia.

Finny
15th January 2006, 04:15
FWIW, Phil, Geelong is on the East Coast of Australia, Perth is in the West.

I'm in Perth, but unfortunately my plate is full.

DarkThrone
15th January 2006, 14:06
Hello,

The Takumakai appears to have a pretty nice foundation of jujutsu techniques in their curriculum, that would surely be useful in self-defense. Aiki techniques take a bit longer to develop and apply in self-defense, so the Takumakai would probably be a good option for you. As far as aiki goes, I suppose your ability to "get it" depends on your physical access to instructors who can effectively apply it, the amount of sacrifice (time, money, effort, patience) you are willing to put into it, and your own degree of natural talent/ability to comprehend. Failure to meet any one of these above factors is more than likely the reason most in the aiki arts don't "get it". But even if that's you, it doesn't mean you won't learn some solid jujutsu in the meantime.

In the spirit of "The Blues Brothers", we got aiki AND jujutsu!

PS. I modified the thread title to enhance search results.

Regards,

Nathan summed this up very nicely. The beggining instruction in Daito Ryu (where I still find myself) will teach the "jujutsu" versions of the techniques, and then build upon them by introducing the "aiki" concepts as you progress. Also, like Doc said about Yoshinkan, Daito Ryu should have plenty of atemi included in its curriculum. If it is a legitament branch, deffinately go for it!

azaikijutsujudo
28th June 2006, 20:59
Good post, with some interesting points Neil-san.

However, I do not claim that you can learn to control adrenaline dumps from serious dojo training in any way comparable to that of an experienced LEO. I'm referring to controlling a startle reflex. Two different situations and reactions.

Maybe this will help (or not!)...

The way I see it, we're discussing three basic scenarios:

1) a regular Joe (sorry Mr. Svinth) with no training or real life experience in High Threat Encounters (HTE), when confronted with the following scenarios may be expected to:

A) if surprised (ambushed or attacked from behind) be startled, and will likely react physically by jumping and/or pulling back, combined with an adrenaline rush.

B) if given time to evaluate an overwhelming HTE, or in combat, likely have a substantial adrenaline dump, fear, lack of decisiveness, and possibly other ill effects.

2) a serious Budoka who has opted to follow "defensive physical guidlines" and remains mentally alert as much as possible (zanshin) but with little to no significant real life experience in HTE, when confronted with the following scenarios may be expected to:

A) if surprised, likely not be startled, and as a result not suffer a physical reaction like jumping or pulling away, but rather react immediately with whatever training they had been conditioned with in a relatively calm, controlled fashion (perhaps aiki, if practiced).

B) if given time to evaluate an overwhelming HTE, or in combat, possibly react with less of an adrenaline dump than someone with no training or experience, but also the intensity of their training and their previous experience if any with HTE would also be taken into account (using Jujutsu, if practiced).

3) a LEO, Personal Security Professional or serviceman with extensive HTE/CQC experience, when confronted with the following scenarios may be expected to:

A) if surprised while on duty likely not be startled, and as a result will not suffer a physical reaction like jumping or pulling away, but rather react immediately with whatever training they have been conditioned with (basic training or perhaps Budo). However, while off duty they may or may not experience a startlement and reaction to being surprised, depending on the mentallity and continued mental awarenees of the person.

B) if given time to evaluate an overwhelming HTE, or in combat, likely react with much less (if any) of an adrenaline dump than someone from example 2, or at least in controlable levels as stated by Kit. This conditioned response would be developed through repeated successful exposure in HTE/CQC.

Hope this helps,


[Edited by Nathan Scott on 08-15-2000 at 06:24 PM]

My Sensei was speaking about realism in training the other day. He was commenting that, he can teach a person all the techniques under the sun, and still not teach them to be combat effective. He said nothing prepares someone for the shock of getting attacked, and especially being punched, kicked, choked, etc. We try to make our training realistic, but in the end, no one know's how they will react in a real fight, until they face one. Hopefully your training and Waza will be such that you can keep your wits about you, and still come out safe

No1'sShowMonkey
9th January 2007, 09:26
After reading the thread Effectiveness of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32352&highlight=effectiveness+aikijujutsu) my mind was set into motion. This thread galvanized my thoughts into an essay, of sorts. What began as a response became a beast of its own. Its a whale and I apologize. Thank you in advance if you actually read the whole thing. I may just use this thread as a continued journal for my thoughts on the subject of jujutsu, aiki and strategy depending on responses. If the thread takes on a life of its own, then off it goes. Otherwise, if no one objects, I may continue to post on this thread other observations and opinions on the subject.

**Thoughts on Effectiveness of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu**

I would like to preface this post with the statement that I am a practitioner of gendaibudo jujutsu, a form of goshin ryu to be more precise. [Note: forthwith in this post when I say “jujutsu” I mean “my jujutsu” or “my school’s jujutsu” though there are bound to be (a lot) of overlaps with other schools] As such, I have no direct experience of Daito ryu and can not really comment on the thread’s main question of the Daito ryu’s efficacy. I can, however, review my personal training, experiences and thoughts on the subject of jujutsu, aiki and combative theory.

In the particular form of jujutsu (and from what I understand, jujutsu in general) the techniques learned are straight forward, relatively simple, but moreover effective. The basis of my training is first and foremost effectiveness. Some underlying principles are sophisticated and complex, good food for theory. Others are very straightforward, indeed basic. Remembering Sun Tzu, one should always strike their opponent where they are at their weakest; perhaps the most basic of combative axioms. A groin kick or eye gouge fits the bill nicely. All of the principles underlying jujutsu maintain the thrust of effectiveness, which is to say that they are designed to quickly incapacitate an opponent in the most efficient way available. As such, their approaches are very basic, relying on leverage and basic anatomy. I always tell students that our art is not terribly concerned with theory or thought experiments but in what works and is reproducible. I want techniques to work right now, in ten minutes, in France, in the rain and in Spanish. The techniques themselves are, one could say, a “blunt instrument”. When I want to hammer a nail, I get a hammer. When I want to break someone’s body, I look to jujutsu.

On the topic of aikijujutsu, and by extension aiki in general, I can not claim to have had jen-you-wine aikijujutsu or aiki no jutsu performed on my person. I have, however, been at the martial arts a good while (over a decade, a drop in the bucket for most but I’m young!) and been beat up by a lot of people in a lot of ways. Maybe one of them got beat up by someone using aikijujutsu and got a little on their dogi and then rubbed it on me, you know, for luck… I have no idea. The closest I have come is training a bit in aikido (which was utterly fantastic).

It is my contention that there are no dangerous weapons and only dangerous men. A sword itself wills to violence, but without a hand to wield it, the sword remains a (beautiful) lump of metal. A firearm without human hands to load and operate it is a paperweight. Martial arts techniques (and I choose the wording of techniques because these are the most basic components that we learn in) without a warrior to enact them remain a dance or physical curiosity. A student can learn all the physical techniques in a system of combat, but without the proper education of the will (mind and spirit), those techniques will remain impotent and inert. As noted earlier by Toby, the Japanese during the feudal period had a social context in which the warrior ethos was instilled in young men born into a fighting caste. This is not particular to the Japanese, but to a Feudal system on the whole, but I digress. For the most part, their systems (aiki or otherwise) of combat could assume a general level of mental preparedness for taking life and personal risk of injury or death as a matter of course.

A combatant's ability to fight effectively (which is to say, able to use technique rather than flailing) is mitigated by fear, anxiety, adrenaline and many other complicating factors which this thread has termed “psychochemical stress”. It is also generally agreed that a combatant will, above all, react. The proper training of instincts is imperative as instinctual muscle memory is what will be brought to bear against one’s opponent in the first moments of an explosive, violent encounter. Should a combatant become overwhelmed mentally by fear or anxiety, being surprised etc. they will find it nearly impossible to employ anything but the grossest of maneuvers. As such, it is presupposed that a combatant must maintain control of their mind and body to be able to employ effectively the teachings of their martial art and/or their martial art must equip their basic instincts in such fashion as to buy them time or resolve the conflict immediately. So, if the mind is overwhelmed, the practitioner loses probably somewhere around 90 to 95% of their combat effectiveness, if not more. It would seem that the education of the will is the providence of an effective martial art (as it requires a strong will to remain calm and thereby be able to even use what one knows). Experience, above all, educates the will (and thereby teaches the calm).

So with this one can see the development of jujutsu. When the chips are down and you need to break an arm right now and you are hopped up on adrenaline, it will be the basic principles of jujutsu in action. Jujutsu is a tactical martial art and is concerned with the immediate overwhelming of the opponent through (often direct) motions. Jujutsu is reliable, the knowledge that I have gained from training can and will work when I am exhausted, when my opponent is larger than me, smaller or faster than me etc. A Ford Taurus is a very reliable vehicle, and though it lacks aggressive styling or a large engine, it will get me to where I need to go with a low failure rate. This does not mean, however, that the Ford Taurus can bring out the best driving potential in me. A NASCAR driver in a Ford Taurus might drive a sloppy suspension’ed v6 sedan to its limits, but these limits include going and getting groceries or going to soccer practice. Luckily most everyone needs groceries and the like. Basically, what I am getting at is that jujutsu is mostly concerned with the most basic and direct responses for the most common problems a combatant can face. Jujutsu will respond adequately, in fact admirably and with great aplomb, to these problems. I love jujutsu. Jujutsu is practical.

I consider myself quite good at it. I do not want to sound arrogant, but I consider this my craft. I state that I am good at it for a reason to be developed: I studied some aikido recently and a few interesting things happened to me. In the instance of interest, I was working on ushiro-dori kokyu-ho. While doing the technique I found that my basic martial instincts (rather strong and pretty well honed) were leading my directly into the clutches of tori. As they turned to open up their arms and project me, I was stepping back slightly and creating an arch in my own back; the very arch the technique makes for itself physically and is inherent to the technique’s success. My own instincts were turned against me and I was literally giving myself to tori. Regardless of the (questionable) combat effectiveness of aikido, the art did develop (at least in part) from daito ryu, and I am going to assume that Ueshiba distilled his main principles from Daito ryu and left nearly all of the martial applications out. What remained was basically just theory.
All the same, I was training specifically my sensitivity to uke to find those points in executing the technique where in uke would “give himself” to me, and become my supplicant by his own maneuvers. Now, I have to say I was taken aback. It takes a great deal to catch me off guard once, but this phenomenon happened several times on several different techniques. I pride myself on being able to find weaknesses in my technique and utterly destroy and remove them… This was a case of my natural instincts leading me astray. By way of subtle deception, I was drawn into a position that was entirely disadvantageous. Tori had used strategy from the moment I touched him and as a tactical martial artist I was outclassed and left knowing “I was a deadman”.

The comparison between Strategy and Tactics is an important one. Strategy is a “big picture” understanding of a given conflict; its limits are on the macro scale, it has a larger periodicity and term. Tactics are micro scale, have a staccato tempo and are based far more on reflex than careful reflection and meticulous planning. All conflicts boil down to tactical concerns, one must actually go out and destroy the enemy, maneuver is not enough. Strategic conflicts are thus made up of many smaller instances of tactical decisions but tactical decisions do not necessitate strategy. It is a common and deserved claim that the backbone of an armed force is the noncommissioned officer corps (tactical level). The primary goal of strategy is the seizing, retaining and exploitation of initiative while maintaining freedom of action. Initiative being the ability to, by direct or indirect action, forcing an opponent to react to your own decisions.

The Japanese budo are directly concerned with Initiative. Aiki arts in particular. Toby’s analysis that the aiki arts (and in my case, jujutsu) are most clearly elucidated by training with the sword is very apt. No other kind of training educates the senses to such a heightened state where any mistake, any loss of the initiative is meted out a decisive (deadly) sword blow. The subtle tricks and tactics used to seize and maintain the initiative (a strategic goal) are trained into a combatant very directly. It is here that one can see the inherent requirement of strategy on the part of the practitioner that wishes to survive. If seizing the initiative can give the edge long enough to even touch the opponent with just the tip of the sword, the sword will cut. The transfer to open hand where combat is a great deal more forgiving makes their application far more difficult. Difficult but still entirely possible. What is distilled in bladed weapons theory works first and foremost and when put into practice in the open hand arts will work but not necessarily as well or as completely.

What struck me about aikido was that as I looked closely at what I was training in I began to notice that there was a distinct strategy to the art. There was an understanding of what the basic instincts of my opponent were, of their psychology and physiology. By learning to move in certain ways and react in certain ways I could, with a high degree of reliability, produce certain results. This is basic science. What more demanding a test series is there than armed combat? As soon as uke touched me, I started to find ways that they would be dead. Soon I began to wonder at their movement, or guess their intentions and find ways to produce their death before they touched me or even attacked. This was all in my mind, of course, but intent is an integral part of any aiki (and good jujutsu, for that matter). When I came back to my jujutsu school I was a changed man. I am not entirely sure how to explain the differences in examples, as I could not observe myself before and after… But suffice it to say that I began to develop in earnest (where I was initially stumbling about trying to understand) my ability to influence my opponent long before they touched me. Subtlety, deception… strategy. Sun Tzu was ringing in my ears.

Suppose an attacker jumps out and suddenly accosts someone. What happens? The tori is surprised and freezes up, perhaps. Let us say that they respond, for sake of argument. Their response is driven by fear and surprise, probably an initial reaction of protecting themselves by backing away and/or throwing up their hands to protect their face. Fight or flight is and will continue to kick in. If it leads to combat, the uke has the initiative and will most likely win having achieved surprise. The same situation occurs with someone trained in jujutsu who has good awareness (zanshin). Their intial reaction (especially if grabbed) will be to produce one of their most basic techniques; in our school probably an o-soto gari. Their reaction loop will be of surprise followed by immediate and overwhelming force and through tactical excellence they will seize the initiative. Not relying on any (well developed) method of strategy, they will throw themselves headlong into whatever is most present in muscle memory. If they train well, hard and earnestly, they might pull it off and will be in position to fight well.

Now for the aiki trained combatant. Let us assume that their general understanding of strategy (heiho) and zanshin (skills recognized and earnestly cultivated in most aikijujutsu arts as far as I know) is relatively good. At the last moment they may see the attack coming and where the jujutsu trained practitioner responds with overwhelming force, the aiki practitioner has several options available. Through sensitivity they can choose which is most appropriate. It may be as simple as a subtle pivot of the waist, a hand movement that through body language screams imminent threat to uke, it could just be a look where they project a condition of utter control and deadliness… Any of the above cases would work, and uke is sent slightly off balance. They are made to extend a bit to far, or they pull back suddenly and off balance themselves. The aiki combatant has completely seized the initiative (and uke’s balance for that matter) without even the slightest touch. I do just this regularly to students in class with me, though not on a 220 pound assailant who is hellbent on caving my skull in. Regardless the seizure of the initiative gives tori just a moment’s time, perhaps only a heartbeat or two, in which they can take control of the situation. It seems entirely logical that the majority of daito ryu techniques are controlling pins. If a combatant can so utterly dominate their opponent even for a moment, they must immediately exploit the seizure of the initiative to secure victory. This leaves little time, or necessity if you are lucky and or good, for sword drawing. Restraining the opponent is not only (often times) faster but also is a far more humane and enlightened response. Mr. Leblanc’s anecdote on the other thread about drawing his firearm on a perp who was attempting to produce their own is an excellent example. We do not train ourselves this hard to waste ourselves (morally, especially) by the needless taking of human life.

Jujutsu has a certain amount of strategy in it, but generally in the products of tactical excellence. Tactical excellence is simply not enough. The German Heer of the Second World War was the finest tactical military machine in the war to a nearly unfair point. In situations outnumbered 3:1 they produced 4.5:1 casualty ratios even when undersupplied and surrounded. The blitzkrieg, when in motion, was nearly inexorable. Germany did, however, lose the war. The Russians on the other hand had been developing since the Great War a strategic doctrine based around the seizure and exploitation of the initiative. Their doctrine called for massing firepower on specific key points of a battle line to such an extent that victory in those areas was anything but a forgone conclusion. They would not rely on the heroism of outright performance of their troops, but that which would reliably work even if it was raining, in France, backwards, forwards and in Spanish (Russian?). Once the holes were made in the opposing battle line, the Russians would commit a large force dedicated to exploiting these gaps into the hole and go to town in the rear sectors of the enemy, hitting rear echelon command and logistics units, throwing the entire battle line into chaos. The problem they kept on running into was the timing of these exploitation forces, to soon and they would take part in the general battle of blowing a hole in the enemy’s line… Too slowly and even the most timit of opponents can muster reserves to bog down your “lightning” exploitation into a general slugfest (where tactical excellence can shine).

This bit of military science and history is particularly informative. Timing, anticipation, deception… These are at the core of all martial matters (see earlier statement of tactical elements necessarily present in strategic elements). Jujutsu revels in a straight slugfest. When going toe to toe with someone, there is little that works better. It is, simply put, one of the most efficient unarmed means to incapacitate the human body. As the scope of martial arts tend to be singular armed or unarmed combat, the scope is indeed a tactical one. However, if one can seize the initiative, maintain their advantage, and the exploit that advantage, the tactical excellence (or bumbling) of an opponent is a moot point. They are, in effect, by way of deception, indirect or direct action, already defeated. I was dead as soon as I grabbed tori’s wrists for ushiro-dori kokyu-ho. When done right it feels incredible. I was baffled for the first time in ages.

So in conclusion Jujutsu (as far as I see it) is concerned with tactical excellence by means of direct (generally overwhelming force) application of technique to subdue and incapacitate the opponent. Strategically, jujutsu is reliable and very sound, if rather predictable (and, daresay, effective).

Aikijujutsu transcends the simple nature of breaking someone and concerns itself with seizure of the initiative on both the tactical and more important, the strategic level. Aikijujutsu considers heiho an indelible part of the teachings and as such reaps physical benefits from the most basic tactical level of organization (minor joint / skeleton manipulations to achieve a subtle locking of uke’s body) to those profoundly strategic (throwing an opponent without touching them).

The difficult thing to teach (and learn!), in my experience, is strategy. Learning instincts that are not robotic but sensitive enough to allow a combatant to feel as well as fight is incredibly challenging. Jujutsu, as I have been taught it, is a warrior’s skill set. These are the skills necessary to be combat effective, if one is even capable of applying them. In my experience, a scant minority are capable of even coming close. This was mentioned and agreed with by nearly everyone on the previous thread.

I consider it a necessary trait for the serious practitioner of the budo, of the modern combative arts or student of military science to understand and seek excellence in both the tactical and strategic. To completely dominate the topic of combat to a point where combat itself is a moot point, that the situation diffuses itself or is resolved with extreme expedience, is (was?) the goal of the warrior class. In personal experience, aiki implies that the understanding of strategy is so pervasive in the art that its whole is “enlightened” so to speak, and resonates a certain harmony.

Martial arts require effectiveness. If the art was not effective, the practitioner died. This is the legacy that we inherit. Piecing it all together, however, is a sincere challenge.

I apologize for the length. Thank you.

- Chris McGaw

Nathan Scott
8th April 2008, 19:20
[Post deleted by user]

Dan Harden
8th April 2008, 22:59
Hi Nathan
Actually I was addressing a series of discussion pre-crash, ealier than this. After which I left Ebudo for a while-which was why someone in this thread in 2000 was glad to see me back. I recognized then that certain folks to their training and inderstanding were unable to have this discussion with me- at that time. Interestingly, I think that I had just got back from a long private training weekend in DR. I agree it is interesting to reread this stuff. It is worth noting that of my few contribution in that long thread-on page 3 and 4-then, as now, I was polite and remained on point.
Cheers
Dan

ctec9
8th December 2009, 03:48
I know you guys have been doing this much longer than I have, but I don't mind saying concerning Aikido Jujitsu and the Daitoryu it depends a lot on the individual and how he or she is trained, and has to do more so with the individual. some teachers teach a broken down system for real world applications, some teachers teach the old method, or traditional system where the attack is with what we call a shoto hand, or sword hand attack, and yes that will get you killed, it fun to do on the mat, but no body attacks like that in real life. I love all three systems, again its how you are trained.
I have worked in the security field for several years, and I have seen a lots of fights, I would never attempt a hip throw, and never, ever go to the ground with one. 99% of the time a weapon is involved...... I feel that after the Japanese surrendered back in, what was it in 1945 most of the true ryu Ha have been systematically watered down.
you might want to study some Army history on this one, or do some research on MacArthur in Japan.
I don't care for the Do arts much any more, I still love to play the game. I will always love the Aiki Arts.

Have A Blessed Day

Nathan Scott
12th December 2009, 05:29
[Post deleted by user]

Cat Nap
20th December 2009, 16:27
Just a quick question, is anyone familiar with Jim Dana who teaches this art in Massachusetts?

MichaelZ
8th October 2011, 15:19
Mr. Scott,

Your explanation to Mr. Clark was very well stated.


The problems are with instructors deeply understanding how to teach traditionally (not Western-style), and with students conducting themselves like "students". If these two aspects aren't in line, then the method will not work well.

I would be grateful if you would expand on your views in this regard with some examples.

Many of those I know like me, who started training in the 1970's with Japanese instructors, see a vast difference between our experiences then and those offered in most dojos today. While the training was more difficult in many ways, it was very rewarding and created a far greater cohesion among the participants than I typically see today.

Best regards,

Micharel Zartman

Nathan Scott
13th October 2011, 19:53
[Post deleted by user]

Hissho
13th October 2011, 21:50
It seems to me that there were other avenues - that the method of learning in the strict soke-sensei-student, Shu-Ha-Ri may be more a modern way to pass on "traditional" arts?

I note that researchers have written how time-in-tutelage grew considerably in modern times, that previously it was much less time months or a few years, before licenses were given, even menkyo kaiden.

Also, I'd have to check Friday but was in Kamiizumi that gave out a certificate to a peer after a very short time of study? This makes sense - fellow experienced warriors sharing knowledge, picking things up from each other, or perhaps one as the elder brother and the other the younger, and the teaching of the elder more a "finishing school" or rounding out of a total education. Very different from the sensei-student relationship portrayed today.

The story of Yagyu Munenori(? or another....) giving the certificate to the guy with NO training based on his assessment of the man's attainment in the mental aspect of the "Way"...

Or Musashi's having "no teacher?" While clearly not exactly true, certainly in his writings much more of a focus on personal training,insight, and understanding rather than devotion to the words of a teacher....

Kendoguy9
14th October 2011, 02:29
Most of Kamiizumi sensei's students only had a year or two time in with him before her graduated them. They all had seen combat before and he was more of a finishing school. If memory serves (and it seldom does) in Yagyu Shinkage-ryu they used to teach Empi no kata first because it was the core of the ryu. Each of the sets after that extrapolated a core concept from Empi. However as samurai got soft having not seen combat they needed to teach basic sword handling and cutting and the Sangaku got moved to the front because it taught basic cutting and good solid sword use. Other arts like Jikishinkage-ryu used the Hojo to build the stamina, kiai and proper mental conditioning in the student and taught a lot of the sword handling in later kata (Hojo is pretty much just straight cuts).
In some ways I think shu ha ri makes more sense in today’s world for most civilian students. It’s the police and military that would benefit more from the older pre-Edo methods.

Hissho
14th October 2011, 17:49
Kinda what I was thinking, Chris- as they got more "art" and less martial, and I guess more commercial, or that a teacher relied on teaching more than a stipend or service to a lord, that makes sense.

Probably a topic for a different thread, not to derail this one....

J.Canon
16th October 2011, 17:14
I by no means consider myself a historical or scholarly expert on Koryu. Through the years of reading boards like this and discussions similar, here, it seems to be one of the places where people have serious knowledge, as well, a those of inexperience. Through the years of reading so much of it, and the result of topics recycled and being talked to death has killed the forums on which they are posted, and the lack of interest due to other current popular fighting methods. Therefore, I wish, in the dimming twilight of Koryu discussions, offer the following observance.

Koryu, as per this discussion, it seems and to reason, and due to Koryu is a demarcation, Koryu practices where not set in stone, and varied wildly at an individual's discretion, and no coherence over-time. There was no unification or universality of practice. The common thread was cultural practices of the time, that even differed from period to period. All of which lacks that well defined, categorical distinction that lends to neat little boxes things are put into. It is also compounded by individual Koryu Head's personalities, believes, whims and other such things that shape a particular Koryu. And not to mention Koryu fashion and trends as well of the related period of time the Koryu existed. Koryu practices as related to the discussion are a messy indistinct affair, catering to anyone and everyone's individual opinion of what is and isn't Koryu. Hence the bane of historical knowledge.

The messy affair of not having denotative definitions, and relying on connotative interpretations creates allot of misinformation, and confusion to what truly is and isn't. For example, the discussion of when a license is given, months vs. years. Then the entrepreneur-ish martial artist sees an opportunity to capital from confusion and misinformation. Thereby, furthering obscuring and twisting historical knowledge to their advantage messing things up more. Then there are those, who interpret Koryu practices as they see fit, to their benefit. Because they are sucked into the rank /title game. They want short cuts, the fast track, to recognition. Usually without putting in their dues or the time into it. Granted when a Koryu art the philosophy dictates the process over the completeness/competence where no goal is set or achieved. The mindset of always are training and refining, with the attitude of you never stop or reach a level of completeness/competence. That can be difficult for some who disagree with this process, and require the reward via a title, rank or recognition.

These discussion then eventually ends up between two schools of thought of the practices of Koryu. One, is what I like to call "Taking the freeway." And in relation of not relating to the usual logical comparison the "Polishing the sword." Reflecting the two views on practicing Koryu. In my opinion based on observations of life, and experiences of myself and others, you don't appreciate anything that comes to you too quick and easy. If you really love and respect something your perspective and attitude reflects patience, determination, where you continually aspire to be better. You adhere strongly to the idea, creating lasting motivation, you can always get better. Never satisfied, hungry to know or learn more, as there is room for improving. That has greater value personally I think. Than the quick and easy way. Noble as it sounds, it an individual choice that is an approach to Koryu practices. In my opinion, reflects the character of a person, the willingness to stick it out because you loving it for what it is. And not what you can get from it.

Basically, these are my thoughts upon reading these threads.

Nathan Scott
20th October 2011, 22:20
[Post deleted by user]

Hissho
22nd October 2011, 00:14
At the risk of extending the thread drift, I would clarify that we may be speaking of different eras - so not modern, but certainly post-early Edo as opposed to Sengoku era....

For the warrior working for a lord, training at a domain school, I would think the idea would be to train him with a bit more practicality, and rapidity in mind: I don't mean the rank and file spearmen or gunners, but more the men of status that would be their "team leaders" and the like.

I would opine that agreed upon, one-on-one challenges were their functional equivalent of sport....regardless of the serious consequences - earlier on with shinken, later bokuto and shinai... as seen differently from battlefield or exigent combat. Skill at one - though valuable - is not necessarily skill at the others.

Even that changed....pretty early on it seems that traditions like Katori Shinto ryu and Takeuchi ryu forbid students without full licenses to entertain challenge matches. Even as early as Musashi's time the results of some of this seclusion seems to have been criticized. By him, at least.

This would also serve to place students under more control - a student from the previous generation that could pretty readily trounce other swordsmen/grapplers would quickly establish a reputation of his own rather than one attached to a specific school - seems that was how schools were founded.

In a way, didn't Takeda Sokaku do that, much later? He might be another good example of going outside the conventional system?

Nathan Scott
22nd October 2011, 16:38
[Post deleted by user]

Hissho
22nd October 2011, 19:05
Yep, just thinking out loud -

I think the idea that a sport is defined by "not resulting in death or injury" is problematic. One, that may be how we in martial arts and conditioned to think of it today - but ascribing that to another time and culture may not be accurate. Even today, there are sports where potentially serious injury and death are a recognized and realized (at least enough of the time to be a reality) part of the package. Mountain climbing for one.

Duels/challenges are on their face an artificial test of skill versus a tactical or combative engagement, in that latter the test of skill is to be avoided. I would say that challenges were a part and parcel of musha shugyo, not something different.

I agree, I think it is/was absolutely about a school's reputation that challenges were forbidden: especially when teachers grew more concerned that their students might lose to commoners who were practicing more "fighting."

A major question also arises as to how one can develop skill over years, but not have yet got to important elements that pertain to real fights? If one is training students with an idea of preparing them in some way to handle combat psychologically, physically, and ethically, why does it take so long to get to some things? I think this is a luxury of later times, and our current time, when we can rest pretty confident in the fact that most students will have little need for any practical application.

It is fascinating to read some critique of how swordsmanship changed to kenjutsu - only,as things like iai and jujutsu and other weapons arts fell away, though these latter were once all considered a necessity for the combative swordsman.

That overspecialization is a result of the lack of necessity. Perhaps, too, the development of waiting years before teaching real fighting aspects to students.

Nathan Scott
26th October 2011, 23:53
[Post deleted by user]