PDA

View Full Version : Tandoku Renshu



R Erman
3rd December 2000, 22:32
Where do the Tandoku Renshu, Ni Ju Ni and San Ju Ichi, come from? I've heard them often referred to as kata by most Aikidoka, which according to D. Lowry they are not. Are they exclusive to Aikido or do they hail from older sources? I don't know if this has been asked before, but I was unable to find an answer on any older thread. If I missed one let me know.

Thanks,

RDeppe
4th December 2000, 01:35
This is a good question (as in I'm not sure about my answers). If we are talking about the same solo kata, the 22 step one came from Tomiki Sensei, and the 31 step one comes from Saito Sensei. I can't find my "Dynamic Sphere" book-- I think the 22 step kata is in it (not sure, does any one else have it handy?).

I know Saotome Sensei frowns when ever he sees one of his students doing the 31 step kata, so I hope it didn't come from their teacher :).

R Erman
4th December 2000, 04:04
Yeah, Ni Ju Ni is in Dynamic Sphere. But there is no history given on it, except that it is widely practiced in Aikido dojo across the world. Interesting about Saotome frowning on "31". I would have sworn that he borrowed heavily from it after seeing his Jo video. Many of the movements looked like they came directly from it.

Interesting little side note; I remember learning a form called Aiki Bo Go Rei at a seminar from a Japanese aikidoka from Kansas City(can't remember the name but he is the 2IC of Oyata's karate organization, also). What I can remember of the form was almost identical to San Ju Ichi, except it was a Bo kata, obviously.

Dream True,

[Edited by R Erman on 12-03-2000 at 10:07 PM]

Jack B
7th December 2000, 17:17
I've never heard of Tomiki sensei being involved with the 22 jo kata. Can anyone confirm this?

Jack Bieler
The Dojo of Traditional Japanese Martial Arts
Denton, Texas

Timo
11th December 2000, 08:18
Isn't Tandoku Renshu a training methode.
Training with a imaginary partner?!

Timo

Tony Peters
11th December 2000, 19:45
Originally posted by Timo
Isn't Tandoku Renshu a training methode.
Training with a imaginary partner?!

Timo

This is what out sensei refers to our practice of the Kihon waza at the begining of Jodo class. Yes it is practicing against an imaginary person.

Meik Skoss
12th December 2000, 22:00
T. Peters wrote" This is what out sensei refers to our practice of the kihon waza at the begining of jodo class. Yes it is practicing against an imaginary person.

(The original question by Timo-something...: "Isn't tandoku renshu a training method? Training with an imaginary partner?")

That really depends on just what one is doing. In jodo, at least with kihon waza, these terms, literally (and merely) mean "individual practice/training" (tandoku renshu" and "paired/partnered practice/training" (sotai renshu) and do not carry any implication about "opponents," whether actual or imaginary. One trains to improve the performance of the movements, by oneself or with a partner, but they're really more idealized forms, not practical techniques. At least in kihon waza.

When one is doing hitori geiko (i.e., tandoku renshu) with kata, it is (or can be) a different story. There, one can imagine an opponent/enemy and hack 'n thwack, and/or slice 'n dice, all one wants. But with proper technique, please!

I think, though, if people think *too* much about all that deadly stuff and/or how they're smiting their enemies, that it'll lead to some serious idiocy and a lot of interference in both their technical and spiritual development as far as budo is concerned. Sure, train for effect, but go overboard and it becomes either idiotic or psychotic (or both). Best to try to keep a sense of perspective, huh?

And a couple of questions for you aiki-types: since when is it a 22-movement kata? When Tohei showed it to us, back in the mid-'60s, it was nijuichi no jo, not nijuni. Where did the extra movement come in, and what is it? Oh, yeah, and what happened with Saito's jusan no jo? Is that now passe? Or what?

R Erman
13th December 2000, 01:09
First off, the name of the Japanese gentleman that I mrentioned teaching the Bo form is Shintaku. Don't know his first name.

Now onto this tandoku renshu discussion. I have no idea why, or if, the names have changed. Maybe the exercises were modified to include extra movements. It would be kind of dumb to continue to call them a certain number, if, in fact, that number is no longer correct. Also, I've met few people who could pinpoint exactly which moves in the form are the numbered movements. Even in ..Dynamic Sphere they have two number 17 strikes. Now that book is not the end authority on nijuni, but it is probably the most widely read book dealing with nijuni. The version that I was taught has so many subtle movements that could easily be strikes that I could easily count over 21 or 22.

As to Jusan, I guess that is sanjuichi, I don't know why it isn't as popular as 22. You might ask D Lowry since he focussed on it in his Jo book. Heck, unless you were just being flippant and really do know the answers to the questions you asked, Mr Lowry may know the answers himself. Why don't you ask him?

Now, you mentioned that doing hitori geiko with kata is different than doing them in the kihon fashion, would exploring application with these exercises make them kata? Or are they still considered tandoku renshu?

Cheers,

Earl Hartman
13th December 2000, 05:39
Strictly from the perspective of the Japanese language, tandoku renshu just means solo practice. You can practice either the kihon (basic techniques and movements) or kata (or anything else for that matter). If you`re practicing alone, you are doing tandoku renshu. If you are practcing with a partner you are doing sotai renshu.

Diane Skoss
13th December 2000, 17:16
I realize that you all know this, but just in case there's a lurker or two out there... Beyond the question of language (tandoku renshu meaning solo practice), different people are talking about two entirely different sorts of jo. If you want to know about aiki jo kata (the numbered kata referred to in various posts above), perhaps the aikido forum would be a better place to inquire. The purpose of tandoku renshu in SMR jo is quite different than in aiki jo, so answers pertaining to SMR (i.e. what you might get in this forum) won't necessarily be particularly relevant to aiki jo.

To the best of my knowledge the jo movement patterns in aikido were developed in this century by Ueshiba and Tohei and Tomiki (and Saito?--my memory's not what it used to be), and while there may be echoes of bayonet/spear, they are not connected explicitly to any older tradition. They are most definitely exclusive to aikido.

Meik Skoss
13th December 2000, 17:40
R. Erman wrote: "As to Jusan [no jo], I guess that is Sanjuichi [no jo], I don't know why it isn't as popular as 22. You might ask D. Lowry since he focussed on it in his jo book. Heck, unless you're just being flippant and really do know the answers to the questions you asked, Mr. Lowry may know the answers himself. Why don't you ask him?"

Mr. Erman, I really have better things to do than sandbag people with leading questions. Give me some credit, huh? My question was in earnest: I recall doing Jusan no jo as well as Sanjuichi no jo back in the distant past, when I was still an aiki bunny, and of late I haven't heard anything from any of the Saito-types I know about the 13-movement sequence.

In any event, jusan means 13 and sanjuichi means 31. Maybe you are doing some sort of New Math ("Truth is Relative"?), but I reckon there's at least junana (hon) in between them. But, then, that'd be Tomiki-style, right? (*Now* I'm being flippant. If that's okay with you?)

R Erman
13th December 2000, 18:56
Mr Skoss,

At the risk of being a little flippant, sardonic, and sarcastic, myself, did I just make an enemy? Or are you just showing that "koryu snobbery" that runs rampant amongst some people on this forum?

I understand more than a little(not near as much as you, I concede) about japanese. And I understand the difference between 13[no jo] and 31[no jo]. I had, however, never heard of a 13 movement practice and was trying to find out what you were talking about, since this thread was primarily about 22 and 31[both no jo], and only generally about tandoku renshu. My time hopping as an "aiki-bunny" hasn't exposed me to a 13 movement form.

Sorry if my somewhat joking statement offended your cultured and erudite sensibilities. Perhaps I should go to my cave and conduct a seance, so that I might contact August F Mobius, or Pythagoras to work on that "new math"(which, incidentally, is a phrase that I've used numerous times. Alas, turnabout is fair play).

Dream True,

[Edited by R Erman on 12-13-2000 at 01:00 PM]

Diane Skoss
14th December 2000, 21:54
Dear Mr. Erman,

Meik was trying to be funny with some gentle twitting. It doesn't come off well in this media (which in fact is true of many of the subtlties of communication).

To all--please do be aware of the incredible limitations of bulletin board communications and try to cast your contributions accordingly.

Thanks!

R Erman
15th December 2000, 01:14
To all,

At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to excuse my actions...I've been a little under the weather lately, so I may not be as gracious as normal. I apologize if I took improper offense, and indirectly heightened any tension. The bottom line is, I came to this forum with my question precisely because of the Skoss's knowledge in the subject matter.

Harmless nettling is part and parcel of any discussion group, and as I kinda hinted in my last post, in parens, Meik's post may be a form of karma, as I've been guilty of the same before.

No Hard Feelings,

[Edited by R Erman on 12-14-2000 at 07:18 PM]

john mark
15th December 2000, 13:05
Originally posted by R Erman
My time hopping as an "aiki-bunny" hasn't exposed me to a 13 movement form.

From my limited Aikido experience, I am under the impression that the 13 jo kata was part of the Aikikai syllabus; at least that kata is taught in the Hong Kong and New Jersey schools that I am familiar with.

If you can't find someone who's familiar with the kata, check out Saito's aiki news jo tape.

Best,

autrelle
20th February 2001, 22:26
the last time i checked, the jusan kata is still a very integral part of the Iwama jo curriculum. i attended a seminar just last year where Sensei Stephanie Yap gave a very detailed instruction on the solo adn paired practice of jusan. she said (as i best remember) that the jusan paired practiced can be practiced wiht up to four partners, or, with slightly modified footwork (no turn on hasso no gaeshi), can be practiced with a single partner. it was very clear from this seminar that jusan hasn't gone anywhere and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

to the moderator: you made very interesting statements in a previous post saying that aikijo and aikiken lack certain elements to make it as readily applicable as most koryu jodo/jojutsu or kenjutsu. if i did understand that correctly to be your point, would you be so kind as to reiterate what you said? also, how much of aikijo/aikiken do you personally feel would be effective as learning koryu jo or ken? if a person such as myself (who has no one in his area doing koryu) wanted to get a better idea of teh differences between aikido bukiwaza and koryu bukiwaza, what would you suggest?

sorry to pester...

truly

Meik Skoss
21st February 2001, 15:33
A. Holland wrote: "to the moderator: you made very interesting statements in a previous post saying that aikijo and aikiken lack certain elements to make it as readily applicable as most koryu jodo/jojutsu or kenjutsu. if i did understand that correctly to be your point, would you be so kind as to reiterate what you said?"

My wife has asked me to respond, since I'm a bit more familiar with Ueshiba-style aikido than she (her training was in Tomiki-style and Jiyushinkai aikido).

I can't reiterate her points exactly w/ re: jo or speak for her, of course , but in talking over her post and yours, it seems clear that she was referring to the fact that most (if not all) aikido weapons technique starts and ends at a distance that is within uchima (striking distance), and that there is little/no attention directed to approaching or closing with the aite (enemy/opponent). That's to say that, in the standard paired practice in Ueshiba, Tomiki, and Shioda styles of aikido, training partners start from issoku no ma and proceed to do their thing.

That's something that is very rare in koryu bujutsu, that being a reflection of the realities of combat. Actually, it's an odd inversion of reality, because, in aikido taijutsu, a technique begins with uke approaching tori to "attack," thereby giving tori the opportunity to perform/practise a technique. This rather odd lack in weapons practice (in aikido) causes a very serious technical deficiency (from a koryu point of view). I'm speaking from my personal experience in aiki, having trained (since 1966) with many senior teachers in the Ueshiba system: Ueshiba, Shirata, Tohei, Hikitsuchi, and Saito, as well as having observed a fair amount of Tomiki technique and a bit of Shioda-style.

Holland continues, "also, how much of aikijo/aikiken do you personally feel would be effective as learning koryu jo or ken? if a person such as myself (who has no one in his area doing koryu) wanted to get a better idea of teh differences between aikido bukiwaza and koryu bukiwaza, what would you suggest?"

How much aiki weapons training would be as effective as studying a koryu? That's hard to say, because there are so many mitigating factors. Given the way (and the purpose for which) so many Ueshiba-style aiki students train, I'd have to say... NONE. Since most training in the art is really not directed toward developing any ability in combat, it's really comparing apples to oranges. Aikido's generally practiced as a form of seishin shuyo (spiritual cultivation) and shinshin tanren (physical and spiritual training). It provides its students an excellent system of self-defense, PROVIDED ONE TRAINS RATIONALLY, but is generally not all that concerned with practicality/reality.

Koryu bujutsu, on the other hand, are very different. To be sure, people train now for purposes other than their eminent utility in close combat (the aforementioned physical, mental, and spiritual training), but they retain their original nature. Done improperly, they are just as much a dance as too much modern aikido is. Done right, though, and you can march right out to the battlefield and go to work. (Indeed, that's being looked at very carefully now by the U.S. Marine Corps; a friend of mine is heading the program. They are developing a system that mimics the way koryu bujutsu were set up, with an overall doctrine [riai], training exercises [kata], and gear [dogu]. It's pretty exciting stuff.)

To get a better idea of the differences between training with weapons in aikido and the koryu, it would/will be necessary for you to visit/talk with qualified teachers of one of the koryu kenjutsu or jojutsu systems still extant, observe their practice and draw your own conclusions.

I hope this helps answer your question(s).

autrelle
21st February 2001, 19:46
thanks very much. your reply was very insightful for a dilletante like myself.

truly,

p.s. what you wrote about in reply to my query would make a great topic for further reading. is there a title you could recommend? if not, i'm sure that it would be a great essay topic or even book material (hint hint).

thanks again.

chizikunbo
28th August 2005, 04:15
First off, the name of the Japanese gentleman that I mrentioned teaching the Bo form is Shintaku. Don't know his first name.

Cheers,
its "Shiro" ( his first name) the form with almost complete certainty can be attributed to have been taught to Shiro Shintaku by Hikitsuchi Michio(sp)-hanshi (10th dan) and he probably got it from O'Sensei Ueshiba :-)
--joshua

R Erman
28th August 2005, 05:50
Wow, what a blast from the past.

I think this was one of the first threads I ever posted on--it was quite odd to get a topic reply notification.

Thank you for the information. So, out of curiosity, are you familiar with the bo kata Mr Shintaku taught(aiki bo go rei)? If so, can you confirm its connection to san ju ichi?