PDA

View Full Version : Aikijujutsu vs Aikido



Earl Hartman
31st August 2000, 00:12
I know that [Ellis Amdur] has aikido experience, quite a lot, no doubt, but I have heard him say, with his characteristic bluntness, that he believes that Aikido is useless for fighting.

Just FYI.

Earl

Ellis Amdur
31st August 2000, 22:53
I may have said that, at one point or another, depending on the context, but it doesn't really reflect my far more complex opinion of aikido and Daito Ryu, for that matter. Golf isn't for fighting, but if you expanded the Octogon a bit, so as to get a full backswing, I wonder how Shamrock or Sakuraba or Miletich would do against Tiger Woods, armed with a Big Bertha metal driver.

So, if I said "useless" . . . I take it back - that doesn't well reflect my opinion. It is my opinion that all the "aiki" arts are just a very very long way around to learn how to fight, (Street or Combat) and in the end would not provide nearly the tools that a tight combative art, be it koryu (Shibukawa Ryu, for example) or gendai (BJJ or catch wrestling) would, and in the process, if over-focused on that narrow subject, all the myriad benefits of an aiki training, be it aikido or Daito Ryu may be neglected or lost.

I am sure that a partisan of one of these disciplines (and I do have a near 30 year history of various forms of aikido so I'm not just speaking from the outside here) may name one or another formidible fighter - either, "X sensei defeated seventeen gangsters in a street brawl" or the standard "if you don't think aikido/jutsu is so tough, come to Tucumcari or Tehachipi or Tonapa and try my teacher!" But for me it's simple - if my kid was going to prison, if he were going to go to the battlefield, if he were going to live in the South Bronx or Airin (in Osaka), I would definitely teach him aiki type principles in dealing with people. But aikido and Daito Ryu would be very very far down on my personal list of things to impart regarding survival in hand-to-hand combat.

If, on the other hand, my son is interested in a full life, part of which is being more effective in a number of situations which might possibly include a rather rare possibility of physical confrontation, then I'd have no trouble supporting him in pursuing an "aiki" art if it suited his fancy.

Best

Ellis Amdur



[Edited by Ellis Amdur on 08-31-2000 at 04:55 PM]

Tom Campbell
31st August 2000, 23:10
Well, now . . . I wouldn't dispute the general tenor of your observations, Mr. Amdur, fortunately not having been in a lot of fights. I do think it's appropriate to talk about different hand-to-hand fighting ranges or settings, and certainly groundfighting is not a strong element in any aikido or aikijujutsu training that I've seen or done. On the other hand, there are people who have demonstrated effective "aiki" technique both in fights and in control/arrest situations. But I am not in a position to credibly support or detract from the effectiveness of the aiki arts in "combat" (love that word) situations, so I won't go there ;-] .

Mr. Amdur, if you do have the time and inclination to comment, I'd appreciate hearing your opinion(s) on the Chinese arts (xingyiquan, Chen style taijiquan) that you've cross-trained in when compared with the Japanese arts . . . again, for a modern-day hand-to-hand situation . . . say, in the Hilltop or Stadium neighborhoods of Tacoma, or in your favorite part of Osaka, Japan, or down with the big guys in Walla Walla State Penitentiary.

Actually, don't be too concerned about replying. This kind of armchair brawling can't possibly account for the individual's training, physical condition, mindset and control of his/her own fear, regardless of the art.

Earl Hartman
31st August 2000, 23:12
Ellis:

I didn't mean to misrepresent your opinion of aikido, so I apologize if I have caused any unintended offense. As I recall, the comment was in the nature of a response to a question as to whether modern aikido as it is usually taught (not Daito Ryu or "aiki principles") was a true martial art in the sense that it taught techniques for fighting that would be useful in a violent confrontation. As I recall, your reply was negative. That is all I meant to convey.

Again, I apologize for any confusion my comments may have caused.

Yours,
Earl

Nathan Scott
31st August 2000, 23:27
[Post deleted by user]

Ellis Amdur
1st September 2000, 01:46
Mr. Campbell -

Hong I-hsiang, (see Smilth's: Chinese Boxers), quickly picking up on my interest/obsession with "combat," said to me, "If you want to learn how to be a really strong fighter in six months, go to Thailand and study Muay Thai. If you want to be as strong or stronger, and you want to be able to be healthy through your old age, give me ten years and study with me." (I ended up studying both muay thai and hsing i, tho' neither in nearly enough depth).

In my experience, "internal martial arts" make 95% of us, healthy, more agile, more flexible, and conceivably somewhat better to take care of oneself in the relevant situations. Then there is is "leap" that a few people take (in my personal experience, Wang Shu Chin, Hong I-hsiang, Su Deng Chen and Fhen Zhi Jiang) where one can be as good, body to body as anyone on the planet.

As far as areas of Tacoma go, seeing as there are a lot of guns on the street, context is everything, isn't it? Just the other day, eight kids beat to death a man with feet, fists and sticks, however, and if it had been me and I was unarmed, and I had a choice of a sudden skills/method transplant I would rather have the skill and method of one of the four men I mentioned than it's equivalent in aikido/jutsu. I'm not claiming I would survive. I'm just saying that, given a choice between those options, I know what I'd rather have on my side. Walla walla? Since one usually gets stabbed from behind or in a crowd, again - context is everything. But in this armchair speculative question, given what I have personally trained in, observed, learned, IF one could attain the skills of the very few that I've seen in "internal arts," and I had no weapon, AND, it is a melee, so I'd have to stay on my feet, then I'd be very happy to have Su's, for example, skills. Because, altho' I agree, in some respects, with the "it's the man, not the method," idea, the method can be paramount, be it Phalanx against the Persian 10,000 Immortals, Roman Legions against Phalanx or BJJ against stand-up karate in a closed ring.


What I personally prefer about Chinese internal arts to aiki arts is although the movements seem sophisticated and elaborate, they are interwoven with a few very general principles which train specifically in the development of efficient use of power, AND the ability to make micro-shifts in lead/reaction to the enemy's balance points. To my mind, the unifying principles of the various aiki systems, regarding coordination, grounding, fluid movement, micro-adjustments are far less unified, have far less coordination.

AND Mr. Scott -

AS I said, I speak from a perspective both "inside" and "outside" the aiki arts, and the problem I have has to do with complexity - at least if one is trying to develop effective skills for the specific purpose of fighting (in whatever context we imagine). My viewpoint, certainly open to disagreement, is that Daito Ryu has far too many elaborations of minutiae - and that in training for rough-and-tumble, it's not a very efficient way to learn, makes far too many assumptions about what people will do in attacking you (thereby not training in fluid response) and it neglects certain parameters.

A lot of koryu are, as you say, focused only on archaic situations - but as for Shibukawa Ryu, I've done some great cross training with a guy who also has years of Greco-Roman, and he makes things work! (Not kata here - rolling).

What I want to make clear here is that I am not comparing myself to so-and-so, whoever someone might think could beat me six ways to Sunday, be it aikido, aikijutsu, or O-Sensei Tiger Woods himself. Maybe so, maybe not, so what. I love aikido and profoundly respect it. That's why I've written a whole book on the subject, considering all the myriad values it offers, beyond combat, but that would NOT exist as values if combat was still not a question. Aikido and its values (and to a lesser degree, Daito Ryu) rests on the question of combat, whatever other elaborations lie beyond it.

But in simply in attempting to address Earl's quote, I am really discussing that, to the best of my 33 years of martial experience, IF combative ability, in certain contexts is my goal, what training do I think will help me or my sons achieve that, what limitations would it have, how long would it take.

It really comes down to this, however. A friend of mine, who was truly one of the scariest people I've ever known empty-handed or with small weapons in hand went to an unnamed country and participated in some action with indigenous people in the jungle. I asked him if he did any sparring with them, as these folks had their own "combative traditions." He laughed kind of ruefully, and said, "yeah, one night we all smoked a little of the local herb and we tried a few things. I had absolutely no problem with any of them. They are little guys, and their hand-to-hand stuff is pretty limited. So the next day we went out on patrol, and suddenly, I'm all alone. I can hear giggles coming from one bush or another, someone threw a pebble and hit me on the back of the head, then silence. I have no idea where I am. They let me wait about fifteen minutes and then, there they all were - laughing. I got the message who knew how to fight."

Best

Ellis Amdur

Nathan Scott
1st September 2000, 01:56
[Post deleted by user]

Tom Campbell
1st September 2000, 17:25
Thanks for your responses, everyone. And thanks in particular to Mr. Amdur, who has a wealth/breadth of experience that's always interesting to hear about. I'd love to hear more about Wang Shu Chin and his visit(s) to Japan some time. I recall C.W. Nichol's account of waking up in Donn Draeger's Tokyo house feeling the house shake from Wang punching the posts. But that's best left for another thread . . .

shinja
23rd October 2000, 17:56
I've got something I would like to bounce off of you guys.

These are my observations:

It would seem that the popularity enjoyed by aikijujutsu in the US was more or less spearheaded by the interest Segal genterated in aikido through his movies. As folks investigated this "new" martial art (aikido) they found that much of aikido was derived from Daito ryu.

Was it not Takeda who specifically applied the term aiki to the term jujutsu which gives us aikijujutsu? If this is then the case, would it not be fair to say that anyone claiming to teach aikijujusu would have to be able to show some sort of direct link to Takeda and Daito Ryu? (and not some crudely executed aikido)

I'm not going to point at any one particular person or school. It just seems that there has been an explosion of aikijujutsu sytems croping up in the US.

What are your thoughts?

Cady Goldfield
23rd October 2000, 18:21
As far as I'm concerned, if the art doesn't contain those 17 herbs and spices, it ain't the Colonel's secret recipe. A lot of people seem to be trying to backtrack from an aikido education, to see if they can pick up the original principles that were lost or altered from aikido's ancestral system. But they won't find them unless they train in a classical system that still contains those principles.

And unlike KFC's chicken recipe, it's not as easy to "crack the code" and self-discover what the ingredients are. You have to get them from someone who has them and can and will impart them, but most of those guys are a pretty closed bunch! At least, the ones who really *do* have the ingredients. A few will demonstrate and give seminars, but they won't impart in you what you really need to know -- just give you a taste of the Colonel's secret herbs 'n' spices. :)

Cady

szczepan
24th October 2000, 03:01
this is very known story, he learned it from a book some of his uchideshi read him for a while.
Not all of us are O'senseis yet, but if one develop very good sense of observation&good level in MA, I'd say he will see "Original Principles which are Lost".

As far as possibility to execute techniques without "Original Principles" - I don't believe it is possible.So everyone who gives a public demo, he presents these principles anyway.
Why we think they are hidden in a shadow? Cos our level is not high enough to see them.


regardz

Brently Keen
24th October 2000, 05:17
Nice analogy Cady. I think you make a good point. I'm sure that you'll agree that it's a simplification though.

Discovering and reproducing real aikijujutsu is substantially more difficult than just getting a hold of the "secret" ingredients in the recipe. Just being able to recite or even explain the "principles" means nothing if you haven't got (a clue about) aiki to start with.

Some of these folks think they have the recipe, secret ingredients and all, but they're not even frying chicken. They think they've got the "principles" of aiki learned from attending a few seminars and watching tapes, but what they're serving is a lot more like a flock of crow, than the Colonel's famous chicken.

* * * * *

While Seagal's movies have certainly made the general public more aware of aikido, and maybe even contributed some to it's recent growth and popularity, I think it's fair to say that aikido was already growing steadily here in the USA for 15+ years before 'Above the Law' even came out. Certainly many aikidoka have learned about Daito-ryu from reading about the history of aikido. We can all thank Stanley Pranin for his efforts in this area.

Whether or not Sokaku Takeda actually coined the term "aikijujutsu" is still up for debate though. He certainly popularlized it. Oral tradition in Daito-ryu maintains that the terms aiki and aikijujutsu (as well as the fundamental techniques), were both part of the tradition prior to Sokaku Takeda.

Because the earliest surviving documents (hiden mokuroku) issued by Sokaku Takeda contain the kanji for "Daito-ryu Jujutsu", and more recent scrolls refer to "Aikijujutsu" it is believed by many that it was Sokaku who coined and/or added the term "aiki". However, while that may be true, another (perhaps more accurate) interpretation is that the terms "jujutsu" in the earlier mokuroku refer to the content of the scroll's curriculum (techniques) rather than to the art or tradition as a whole.

In other words, we could interpret the earlier hiden mokuroku scrolls to simply refer to the "jujutsu" curriculum of Daito-ryu, which comprise the entry level techniques of the greater Daito-ryu tradition.

This perspective is consistent with the clearly stated fact (by all the top Daito-ryu masters) that Daito-ryu as a tradition contains both jujutsu and aiki (or aikijujutsu). And that aiki and jujutsu are two distinctly different things. The techniques contained in the hiden mokuroku scroll are clearly comprised of jujutsu techniques. The earlier scrolls simply described the techniques contained in the hiden mokuroku (accurately) as 'Daito-ryu Jujutsu', as opposed to describing (inaccurately) the whole art of Daito-ryu as 'Jujutsu'.

Later, the hiden mokuroku was changed to reflect the opinion that because the term "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu" was already being used by Sokaku, and it more accurately described the art (tradition) as a whole, that it should also be indicated as such on all the scrolls.

Oral tradition claims that it was Kotaro Yoshida who made this suggestion to Sokaku Takeda. My own guess is that he probably made this suggestion when he was copying a scroll for Sokaku to give to someone else (it's known that both Kotaro Yoshida and Kodo Horikawa frequently copied scrolls and wrote for Sokaku). My own guess is that Sokaku probably didn't care too much one way or the other since he basically held writing in disdain and reportedly couldn't write much more than his own name (while he was a swordsman extraordinaire, he didn't subscribe to the dual way of the pen and the sword as stressed by his father and ancestors).

We do know however that Sokaku believed aiki was the pinnacle and very essence of the tradition that he taught, and whether he created aiki himself or just developed it to the next level, he certainly defined it as we now know it. And so I think it's probably safe to say that if it can't be traced directly to Sokaku Takeda through one of his senior students then it's probably safe to say it's not authentic aikijujutsu.

Tracing an art through Morihei Ueshiba's Aikido is certainly respectable, but it does not qualify as "aikijujutsu" IMO. Athough Ueshiba received a kyoju dairi certification, Sokaku clearly stated that he hadn't finished teaching him, before he struck off on his own. Although Ueshiba did teach "Daito-ryu" for some years before the war and even issued some "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu" certificates, these were "hiden mokuroku" scrolls and thus only contained the first 118 entry level 'jujutsu' techniques of Daito-ryu.

So again, I believe the kanji for "Aikijujutsu" on these scrolls reflect the later change describing the 'art of Daito-ryu' as opposed to the 'Daito-ryu techniques' actually described in the mokuroku. Furthermore, I think the existing photo's, films, student notebooks, and Ueshiba's own book "Budo" all clearly describe the techniques being practiced and taught as shoden and chuden level techniques and variations derived primarily from the 118 jujutsu kata contained in the hiden mokuroku scroll. Ueshiba borrowed many concepts from Daito-ryu, but (IMHO) he did not teach "aikijujutsu". He taught aikido which was his own slightly modified form of jujutsu.

Brently Keen

[Edited by Brently Keen on 10-23-2000 at 11:33 PM]

Nathan Scott
24th October 2000, 20:38
[Post deleted by user]

shinja
25th October 2000, 17:19
I was wondering if there are other legitimate Japanese arts NOT conected with Daito Ryu that refer to themselves as an "aiki" art.

Nathan Scott
25th October 2000, 18:41
[Post deleted by user]

Brently Keen
26th October 2000, 09:52
Nathan-san,

Fair question.

I don't have my source right in front of me, but as I recall, when Sokaku Takeda arrived uninvited at the Asahi newspaper dojo where Ueshiba was teaching. He said something to the effect of: "Although you've been learning from Ueshiba, I haven't finished teaching him." I think he also insisted that if they really wanted to learn, they should train with Sokaku from then on.

I remember some of my seniors in Japan talking about this at a restaurant one night after training. They were arguing about Ueshiba and whether or not he had aiki or something to that effect. I'd made a note about it back in 92 or 93.

I believe this is also mentioned in Stanley's book in both Tokimune's and/or Hakaru Mori's interviews. And I'm not sure, but I may have seen something about it somewhere else too. I'll have to check.

But, judging from Ueshiba's response to hearing that Sokaku had arrived, it seems to me he had a guilty conscience and that perhaps he was teaching what he knew wasn't his to teach. I mean the guy turned pale, ran off and disappeared for some time. His students were all standing around wondering what happened to him. This episode raises a lot of questions and one is: If Sokaku had really asked Ueshiba to be his successor, would he have run off like that?

I think it's fairly typical for Daito-ryu masters to be extremely courteous. It's part of the tradition of reigi and respect derived from oshikiuchi. This is contrary to behavior exhibited by most other martial arts masters today. Tokimune's demeanor towards Ueshiba and aikido in general also seem to stem sincerely from his "nice guy" character.

I think Tokimune's comments showed 1.) goodwill and depth of character; 2.) emotional detachment, no hard feelings or held grudges; 3.) confidence in his own position, stature and abilities - Ueshiba and/or aikido posed no threat to him or his legitimacy. I mean, if Ueshiba was indeed once intended to be a successor to Sokaku, or if he had learned all the curriculum, wouldn't it be natural for Tokimune to see Ueshiba as a 'illegitimate' rival? Instead Tokimune reaches out to the aikido community, compliments Ueshiba and politely shares much about Daito-ryu, and his father who played a pivotal role in Ueshiba's life as a martial artist. Tokimune displayed statesmanship and diplomacy, another kind of application of aiki, IMO.

Kondo sensei also spoke flatteringly of Ueshiba and IMO exaggerated the actual time Ueshiba spent training w/Sokaku. From his introduction to Sokaku around 1915 to 1936-7 when he seems to have ceased teaching Daito-ryu, he did not spend all those years training w/ Sokaku. If you look at the actual time they were together, it wasn't really that much.

Nathan wrote: "I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Takeda did not speak favorably of Ueshiba if it was based on things said after they had a falling out."

Contrary to Sokaku's "unfavorable" reputation, I don't think there's anything to indicate that Sokaku ever spoke much ill about Ueshiba. If he did, I think Tokimune would've felt likewise (especially considering who's responsible for most of his father's "unfavorable" reputation). Instead when Sokaku said he hadn't taught Ueshiba much, he wasn't disparaging Ueshiba, he was simply stating the truth. The amount that Ueshiba trained with him is recorded. I wouldn't be surprised if Sokaku had only said nice things to Tokimune about Ueshiba.

I think Sokaku has been painted with a bad rep, and given who's done most of the painting, Tokimune dispayed real class by not being offended, or retaliating in kind and disparaging Ueshiba in front of his students (Stanley's audience). This is a case of classic Japanese good manners, and seamless integration of life and budo.

What is long overdue IMO, is credit for this kind of teaching of respect by example, and generous modelling of exemplary virtues for all students of Daito-ryu and Aikido alike to follow. Ironically, it takes an opinionated gaijin who lacks the same humility to point this out.

Brently Keen







[Edited by Brently Keen on 10-26-2000 at 04:11 AM]

Cady Goldfield
26th October 2000, 14:03
Brently,
While Stanley Pranin cites one such instance where Ueshiba fled after hearing That Sokaku Takeda was in town, I've heard that such an event occurred at least several times. The "Asahi Occurance" is the best documented, thanks to Stanley.

Seeing what an important role honor and loyalty play in Japanese tradition, it is understandable why Takeda would be incensed at any sign of disloyalty, disobedience and disrespect regarding the transmittal of an art.

It doesn't appear, on the surface, that the Furies pursued Ueshiba for the rest of his days, so my conjecture is that he rationalized his behavior for the purpose of self-aquittal, while stopping the transmittal of aikijujutsu as Takeda had taught it to him, for the purpose of self-preservation against the "Wrath of Takeda"! :)

Cady
"Headin' for the bunkers..."

glad2bhere
26th October 2000, 14:42
Dear Shinja:

For a new member with just 9 contributions you sure have jumped into the deep end of the pool! I'm guessing just about every person reading your contribution knows exactly what you are talking about. I titled this little missive "oh yeah, me too!" because thats the venue I see most often especially in the more traditional MA. The protocol is some like a situation as follows. A person teaches, say WXYZ art and grappling becomes popular ans suddenly WXYZ art has a range of grappling techniques. Or the media plays up JKD, TKD, HKD and guess what--- WXYZ art has equivalent techniques NBR (never before revealed).

When I was a subscriber to the old AIKI NEWS (now AIKIDO JOURNAL) Daito-ryu was just being revealed in its relationship to Aikido. There was one person, I believe his name was Yonazawa (sp) who was making appearances and doing seminars on Daito-ryu here in the States. S Loveret was talking about it in limited ways in his publication THE BUJIN. Do you remember the JKD fad some years back? How about the Ninjitsu fad after that? In my art, Hapkido, every TKD school that teaches a shoulder throw advertises that they teach Hapkido as well. Well, Daito-ryu is going through the same thing, except that most of the legitimate schools and instructors can be identified as the lineage is pretty well documented. (Unfortunately in Hapkido, we have been so fractioned that tracking peoples' bonafides is all but impossible.)

You are right on the money, Shinja. I have much more respect for an instructor who lays out the limits of their art up front and deals with it, than with someone who tries to live off the reflected authority of an established lineage.

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Ron Tisdale
26th October 2000, 15:41
Actually, I had heard that a lot of the problems between Ueshiba and Sokaku stemmed from the non payment of instructors fees. Sokaku wanted his due share, and Ueshiba wasn't comming accross. I'll see if I can find a reference.

Ron Tisdale

PS Brently, so you noticed the "irony" too?
RT

Cady Goldfield
26th October 2000, 15:53
Originally posted by Ron Tisdale
Actually, I had heard that a lot of the problems between Ueshiba and Sokaku stemmed from the non payment of instructors fees. Sokaku wanted his due share, and Ueshiba wasn't comming accross. I'll see if I can find a reference.
RT

I'd heard that as well, and think it's all part of a more complex issue full of nuance. I do remember reading that, for many of the old-time MAs, the sum of money per student requested by a system's leader (for each student trained in a seminar or class by one of the students, such as Ueshiba as a student of Takeda) was not all that great, and was more likely for the "principle of the thing" than it was for any sort of monetary gain. As a student, you were showing respect for your teacher and the privilege he was extending to you (to teach the art he'd given you) by setting aside this honorary tithe, so to speak. So, in the case of Ueshiba withholding payments to Takeda, a hard-core artist -- not a businessman -- it would have been an act of utter disrespect by Ueshiba toward his teacher, not a banal "money matter."

That's just conjecture, of course. What the heck do I know?! It would be good to hear from those more learned in the subject, as well as in the nuance of Japanese culture and interrelationships.

Cady

Nathan Scott
26th October 2000, 17:50
[Post deleted by user]

Cady Goldfield
26th October 2000, 18:00
Originally posted by Nathan Scott
I'm also coming around to Cady's theory that DR Aiki does not seem to have been taught in Aikido (although Ueshiba surely used it himself), which may be another reason why Daito ryu was willing to let things alone. He seems to have withheld teaching the inner principles of DR to his students.

Do you suppose that might also be why Ueshiba seemed so magical to his students, seemingly performing physical feats that even his seniormost students could not replicate? I'm not talking about stopping bullets :rolleyes: but, rather the incredible power such a small (and, late in life, frail) man was able to generate with so little effort.

Hey, does Ellis Amdur's new book talk about this at all?

Cady

Walker
26th October 2000, 19:11
In certain aspects O Sensei was a selfish man.
In Stanley’s Two Pillars lecture one gets an impression that O Sensei was a bit of dilettante. He never held a proper job and was largely supported by his family in early life. Much of his teaching also has the feeling of his own practice and his students were there to do ukemi for him and if they got anything out of it then great. I think that a lot of today’s aikido is inspired by O Sensei, but formulated by Doshu, Tohei and others. That would explain statements by deshi to the effect that we were doing aikido, but O Sensei was doing something beyond that.
On the other hand Stanley states that whenever they were together and without exception Ueshiba always behaved like a devoted student toward Takeda and personally looked after him. Interestingly the same has been reported in connection with Onisaburo at the Omoto. There are anecdotes of aikido students being embarrassed by O Sensei’s devoted behavior on visits to Omoto centers.
Well for what that is all worth.

Cady Goldfield
26th October 2000, 19:41
Good comments, Doug. Particularly your observations regarding how Ueshiba trained vs. how he taught. Many "pure artists" are mainly concerned with their own refinement and technique development, and not with teaching the art to others. I suspect you may have hit on a truth that Ueshiba was mostly interested in having a steady supply of uke for his practice. :)

As far as his treatment of his teachers (including his Omotokyo people) is concerned, if he were being a dutiful Japanese student, he would have done everything expected and required of him by his culture and societal upbringing.

However, the act of carrying out duty and obligation doesn't mean that he couldn't have contradictory feelings. There can be a big, big difference between how Ueshiba M. might have behaved in the presence of his teacher, and how he might have behaved behind his teacher's back.

Perhaps his later behavior was not so much out of malice, as it was out of self-centeredness that managed to break free of Japanese class/societal convention and duties. But in reading the various accounts, it sure comes across that there was a selfishness, and perhaps a downright lack of honor in Ueshiba.

Nathan Scott
26th October 2000, 22:14
[Post deleted by user]

glad2bhere
26th October 2000, 23:15
Dear Mr Scott:

You just tossed me a curve, though perhaps I'm the only one who was thrown. From your Sig block its plain that you practice Shinkendo, and I understand the relationship with S Obata. Real quick, can I get a brief overview of his/your relationship to Aikido? I think where I am confused is with the title of S Obatas' book SAMURAI AIKIJITSU. Sorry to intrude but if I don't get things asked when they occur I have a senior moment. My students will tell you its not pretty :-).

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

Nathan Scott
26th October 2000, 23:56
[Post deleted by user]

Nathan Scott
27th October 2000, 00:36
[Post deleted by user]

glad2bhere
27th October 2000, 04:12
Dear Mr. Scott:

As always, clear, clean and to the point. Thanks again and I will check out the web site when things are up and running.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled mayhem.

Bruce

Ron Tisdale
27th October 2000, 14:41
Nathan-san,

Good posts, all of them. I hope you know of our appreciation for keeping this one of the best forums on E-Budo. This is not meant as a slight to anyone, just congrats on an excellent job. I also like the simplicity of your title definitions. I don't think I've ever heard them explained so well. When is your first book coming out? :)

Ron Tisdale

Nathan Scott
27th October 2000, 18:09
[Post deleted by user]

rsamurai
6th June 2001, 22:18
with respect to this forum, i am a student of jujutsu/judo i studied tomiki ryu akido for 6 months before my ex wife put the kabosh on it. i also read "akido and the dynamic sphere". will someone please tell me the difference between akijutsu and akijujutsu?

thank you in advance.

Justin Campbell
7th June 2001, 00:14
To put is simply (and therefore neglecting the finer points) here is my shot at it:

Aikijujutsu is using Aiki to do a jujutsu throw, etc.
Aikijutsu is using pure Aiki... Aiki technique.

Daito-ryu has three parts... Daito-ryu Jujutsu, Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu and Daito-ryu Aiki no Jutsu (Aikijutsu).

Did that help? The short, sweet version.:toast:

Michael Morning
26th September 2001, 19:10
Dear friends,

I'm new to this particular thread (I'm usually over in the Member's Lounge or Ninpo threads) and have a serious question:

Can anyone answer the difference(s) between traditional Aikido and traditional Aikijujutsu?

I don't want to start any type of flame war or anything (I read through the Jujutsu vs. Akijujutsu thread - don't want to go there!).

It was always my understanding that Aikido sprang from Aikijujutsu (as possibly did Hapkido) and was something of a departure from those teachings. After reading the Jujutsu/Aikijujutsu thread, Aikijujutsu doesn't sound much different from Aikido.

Can anyone explain some differences?

Also, is it ever proper to say "Aikijutsu"?


Thanks much!

Brently Keen
26th September 2001, 20:29
You should re-read through some of the older threads, because this topic has reared it's head time and time again. Still the myth persists. But without going into all the details again, the short answer is aikido has much more in common with jujutsu than it does aikijujutsu.

The reason for much of the misunderstanding surrounding this subject is because the name aikido obviously substitutes "do" for "jujutsu", BUT - aikido itself is derived primarily from Daito-ryu Jujutsu not from Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu. Nearly the all of the aikido syllabus can be found in Daito-ryu's first level 118 jujutsu techniques (hiden mokuroku). In Daito-ryu we make a clear distinction between jujutsu and aiki or aikijujutsu techniques.

It's probably best to think of aikido as a modified form of jujutsu.

Brently Keen

Arman
26th September 2001, 22:54
Sorry to disagree just a little, but if the basics of aikido can be found in the 118 tech. of the hiden mokuroku (I agree, a lot of them are in there), how is this jujutsu and not aikijujutsu?

It seems to me, (and please, those with more or better information, please correct me - I am always looking for the most accurate info) that "aiki" principles are in fact the most important ingredient of many of the hiden mokuroku techniques. In fact, the entire first set, the ikkajo, are grounded in aiki principles - and it is the ikkajo which forms the basis for all the other techniques. Thus, if aikido has its origin in Daito-ryu (which I believe Mr. Pranin has demonstrated with his excellent research), I fail to understand how this is from Daito-ryu jujutsu and not aikijujutsu?

I have read that Sokaku Takeda made a distinction between Daito-ryu jujutsu and Daito-ryu aikijujutsu, depending on the technique and on the person he was teaching. On the other hand, there is evidence that there was not a clean separation between the Daito-ryu aikijujutsu and jujutsu forms. Note, for instance, that Sokaku Takeda often referred to aiki principles as integral to the art long before he actually changed the name from Daito-ryu jujutsu to aikijujutsu.

Anyway, to the original post's main point, I would agree that you should check out some of the older threads, and also look into Mr. Pranin's supberb research on the matter (at www.aikidojournal.com). Perhaps the main difference between aikido and Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu is the application of the techniques. Daito-ryu techniques tend to be commonly referred to as "harder" than aikido. An interesting comparison to examine is the difference between Daito-ryu shiho nage and aikido shiho nage. The fundamental difference is in the entry, where in Daito-ryu, the uke is immediately raised onto his toes and immobilized before the technique is carried out (usually from a static position, i.e. a wrist grab, etc.). In aikido, typically, the uke presents himself for the technique by attacking with a yokumenuchi strike, by which the nage merely flows with the attacker's strike into the technique. There are many other techniques in aikido whose root is found in the Daito-ryu curriculum. One really only needs to watch the techniques performed by each group to notice a distinct difference. Thus, in a gross generalization, Daito-ryu is considered a harder form, aikido a softer form.

Hope this helps,
Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Baltimore, MD

Chris Li
27th September 2001, 00:34
Originally posted by Brently Keen
You should re-read through some of the older threads, because this topic has reared it's head time and time again. Still the myth persists. But without going into all the details again, the short answer is aikido has much more in common with jujutsu than it does aikijujutsu.


Which jujutsu? Jujutsu is a very common generic term that really refers to any type of unarmed combat.



The reason for much of the misunderstanding surrounding this subject is because the name aikido obviously substitutes "do" for "jujutsu", BUT - aikido itself is derived primarily from Daito-ryu Jujutsu not from Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu. Nearly the all of the aikido syllabus can be found in Daito-ryu's first level 118 jujutsu techniques (hiden mokuroku). In Daito-ryu we make a clear distinction between jujutsu and aiki or aikijujutsu techniques.

It's probably best to think of aikido as a modified form of jujutsu.

Brently Keen

Mainline Daito-ryu is basically divided into jujutsu, aikijujutsu, and aiki no jutsu. Aiki no jutsu is basically a seperate set of techniques. As I understand it, Jujutsu and aikijujutsu are essentially the same techniques with the primary difference being that aikijujutsu places more emphasis on the "aiki" concepts.

Does Aikido use "aiki"? Well, some people think so :) .

Best,

Chris

Brently Keen
27th September 2001, 00:35
With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more Partamian-san.

The 118 hiden mokuroku techniques are jujutsu techniques, not aikijujutsu techniques.

Ikkajo consist of the 30 most basic jujutsu techniques in the Daito-ryu curriculum. I'm not sure what principles you're referring to, but they are more than likely either jujutsu principles or universal constructs/concepts of the martial arts. I would agree that some elements of aiki are present in the ikkajo techniques, but they are elements only in isolated form, whereas in aikijujutsu techniques they would not be isolated, but would have to all be present working together.

In addition, I would also make a distinction between aiki as a concept, aiki principles and aiki itself. Aiki as a concept exists in many martial arts including kenjutsu, jujutsu, and aikido (of which the concept of aiki is the foundation, not the actual techniques of aiki - hence all of my contention :) ). Many if not all of the hiden mokuroku (jujutsu techniques) employ the "concept of aiki" or blending to some extent, but they are not aikijujutsu techniques themselves, they are jujutsu techniques. Why?

Because Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu is defined by the application or inclusion of one of Daito-ryu's "aiki no jutsu" techniques. Aiki is obviously the most important ingredient in these techniques. No aiki - no aikijujutsu. Hence aiki is also the most important ingredient in Daito-ryu.

However aiki is not the only ingredient in Daito-ryu. Daito-ryu contains among other things, both jujutsu and aiki. I've explained all this before many times. Some schools and branches do emphasize one more than the other. Failure to make the distinction however, (imho) demonstrates one of the following:

1.) an incomplete understanding of aiki and/or the distinction between it and jujutsu, or...
2.) understanding the distinctions, but not admitting or teaching them (traditional Daito-ryu secrecy), or...
3.) changing and/or modifying the tradition as handed down by Sokaku Takeda into something different or new.

Finally, I think the characterization of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu techniques as being harder than aikido is also a misnomer, and is the result of comparing aikido to Daito-ryu Jujutsu (not aikijujutsu). The misnomer is calling jujutsu techniques aikijujutsu techniques. Aikijujutsu is in fact characterized by softness in it's application, and the harder you try to do them the less effective they become - the results however, may be hard or soft depending as much on uke's attack and response as to shite's intention. Incidentally every style of aikido I have ever practiced was harder than the aikijujutsu I have learned.

Harder does not necessarily mean more effective either. IMO and experience, harder is much easier to counter. Softness and subtlety on the other hand, makes for much more efficient results.

Pardon me for giving so much more than my two cents worth on this topic, I really should let it rest. Since you are apparently part of the Baltimore study group, you really should inquire of Kondo sensei for an explanation of all this, and as long as you're training under him, defer to whatever he says.

Sincerely,

Brently Keen

Arman
27th September 2001, 05:09
Very interesting, Keen-san. I didn't realize that the hiden mokuroku were not considered aikijujutsu. Perhaps part of the confusion I am experiencing is the distinction you make between techniques employing "the concept of aiki", vs. aiki techniques. Thus, the 118 hiden mokuroku tech. vs. the 53 aiki no jutsu tech. Well, what are the hiden ogi, hiogi, kaishaku soden and kaiden techniques? Now that we have this distinction, are these aikijujutsu or jujutsu?

Also, I did some research on your post, and I did find proof of your claims. For instance, in one interview, Kondo Sensei does state, "We have and continue to use both terms, Daito-ryu jujutsu and Daito-ryu aikijujutsu, depending on the techniques taught." [See Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu: Conversations with Daito-ryu Masters, p. 157]. Although in the same interview Kondo states that only five techniques of the hiden mokuroku were included in aikido. [p. 157].

Of course, one of the intractable problems is that Ueshiba learned from Sokaku Takeda, who generally didn't teach Daito-ryu in kata form. It was Sokaku's son, Tokimune, that established the current curriculum. Thus, Tokimune's classifications may have little to do with the classification of techniques taught to Ueshiba that were eventually used as the basis for aikido, since they didn't formally exist at the time as they do now. Were they aikijujutsu or jujutsu techniques? It seems they would have to be both.

Thank you for the information, and your attention to detail. Next time I have a chance to talk with Kondo Sensei, I would like to delve into this matter more deeply.

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Baltimore, MD

Brently Keen
27th September 2001, 19:00
The reason for the confusion may be in the reputed name change of the art (from Daito-ryu Jujutsu to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu). There are a number of theories surrounding the name change, and not a lot of documented facts. A few of the older hiden mokuroku do indicate the name of the art as Daito-ryu Jujutsu, while subsequent scrolls referred to the art as Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu.

The point I would like to make is: whatever one choses to call the art or tradition, it does not change the nature of the contents of the hiden mokuroku.

One way to look at it is that the Daito-tradition contains both jujutsu and aikijujutsu (among other things), and the hiden mokuroku is the first catalog of jujutsu techniques within the Daito-ryu school. If I can use a collegiate analogy - traditionally, these jujutsu techniques were basically equivalent to prerequisites or undergraduate studies. However, the secret and supreme essence of Daito-ryu was according to Sokaku, aiki. Sokaku's mastery of that aiki is what made him such an outstanding and formidable martial artist. That being the case, one could fairly say the ultimate expression of Daito-ryu then, would be "aikijujutsu".

In my humble opinion, that was the more likely reasoning behind the name change. The term "aikijujutsu" (as opposed to jujutsu) just more accurately describes what the Daito-ryu practitioner is really aspiring to "major" in.

At any rate, the theoretical distinctions between aikijujutsu and jujutsu, and between actual aiki techniques and the "concept of aiki" become increasingly more clear as you actually start practicing these things and applying them to various situations, as opposed to just reading about and discussing them.

As for the content of the other catalogs and certificates being either jujutsu or aikijujutsu, I think it it would be more appropriate for Kondo sensei to answer that question for his branch (it likely varies from branch to branch anyway).

I think it's great that you've questioned and researched into what I've said. Stanley's book and Aiki News/Journal are great resources and references in English. But even though I think the book may validate my views, it's important to realize that I didn't arrive at my opinions just because I read them somewhere. The "proof" for me became evident through my experiences learning the art directly from my teacher, who learned directly from his teacher, who learned directly from Sokaku Takeda, and then practicing and sharing what I've discovered in the process.

It is true that Sokaku did not teach kata per se, nor did he teach systematically from the densho. Tokimune sensei apparently did organize and standardize his Daito-ryu curriculum according to his understanding of the densho. So it is fair to say that his classifications may have little to do with what Sokaku taught to Ueshiba and the others. However, Tokimune sensei himself also made clear distinctions between aikijujutsu and jujutsu - although he apparently favored and/or emphasized jujutsu in his own teaching/training (perhaps because he was a police officer).

Obviously there were more than five techniques from the hiden mokuroku included in aikido, I think what Kondo sensei was referring to was the terminology of aikido's ikkyo-gokyo being derived from the hiden mokuroku which is, as you know, also divided into five sections (or lessons if you will) ikkajo - gokajo.

"Were they aikijujutsu or jujutsu techniques? It seems they would have to be both."

We could speculate forever on whether Ueshiba actually learned aikijujutsu or just jujutsu from Sokaku, or which was the "basis" for his aikido. Sokaku did say that he had not finished teaching Ueshiba the techniques. But whether he did or not, the aikido syllabus speaks for itself, as do films of Ueshiba and his senior students. They all clearly show more resemblence to Daito-ryu jujutsu than to aikijujutsu.

Respectfully,

Brently Keen

Michael Morning
27th September 2001, 19:57
This is all very interesting to an outsider looking in.

How old is Daito ryu Aikijujutsu? I know Aikido is relatively new (1950's?) in so far as the art being founded by Ueshiba, but how old are its derivatives?

Am I reading correctly that there is also a Daito ryu Jujutsu?

Is there any "Aikijujutsu" that is not Daito ryu?

Thanks again for all the information!
:)

Arman
28th September 2001, 15:16
Ah, I bet this discussion looks like we're splitting fine hairs to those not involved with the art :) In a way, I guess we are, because whether or not aikido has more similarity to the jujutsu tech. or the aikijujutsu tech., both are included in the overall Daito-ryu curriculum. Also, as you you state in your post:

*"I think it's great that you've questioned and researched into what I've said. Stanley's book and Aiki News/Journal are great resources and references in English. But even though I think the book may validate my views, it's important to realize that I didn't arrive at my opinions just because I read them somewhere. The "proof" for me became evident through my experiences learning the art directly from my teacher, who learned directly from his teacher, who learned directly from Sokaku Takeda, and then practicing and sharing what I've discovered in the process."*

I would never presume of anyone that they received their opinions only from a book. I don't, however, as a general rule accept what someone tells me as true without 1) knowing the person and trusting their veracity [especially on a BB], and 2) researching the topic myself. Since I don't know you, and I have access to research material, I decided to check the facts for myself. Thus, I meant no offense to you, nor did I mean to impute that your knowledge comes from a single source. One of the major problems with the martial arts is the tendency for everyone to claim "true" knowledge based on what their art is, who their teacher is, or what their lineage is. If someone wants to talk about the application of a particular tech., well, then you can't really argue about it without physically demonstrating it. But when a discussion centers around history, or historical influence, it is really irrelevant to historical accuracy what one person, or group thinks or says. That is why I thought it was important that the source I cited supported your position (where mainline and Roppokai tend to agree, well, we may be getting somewhere :) ). I think with all the bogus martial arts history out there, it is a disservice to serious students not to attempt to verify claims from as many reliable sources as possible.

Next, you state in your post:

*"We could speculate forever on whether Ueshiba actually learned aikijujutsu or just jujutsu from Sokaku, or which was the "basis" for his aikido. Sokaku did say that he had not finished teaching Ueshiba the techniques. But whether he did or not, the aikido syllabus speaks for itself, as do films of Ueshiba and his senior students. They all clearly show more resemblence to Daito-ryu jujutsu than to aikijujutsu."*

An arguable position, and may or may not be true. You may be correct. Before I can discuss this element further, however, I need to do more research.

Now, to Mr. Morning's question.
How old is Daito-ryu? This is another contentious issue. Tradition claims that Daito-ryu goes back to Emperor Seiwa, ca. 850-881, that his youngest grandson Shinra Saburo Yoshimitsu helped form the art when he moved to Oshu [and stayed in a house called "Daito"], and eventually passed it down through the Takeda family and the Aizu samurai! Tokimune Sensei claimed the record of this history is kept at the Ise Shrine where viewing is restricted to Shinto priests. He also claimed to have been permitted to view these records. For modern historians, however, the earliest records we have go back only as far as Sokaku Takeda (1859-1943) and his enrollment books. Furthermore, even if one accepts that Sokaku learned Daito-ryu as an art passed down through the family, there is the issue of the contributions made by Sokaku to Daito-ryu. For instance, it is well known that Sokaku was well-learned in many martial forms, including sumo! Sokaku also was an expert swordsman, and incorporated Ona-ha Ito-ryu kenjutsu into the art. There is also the issue of the inclusion of techniques called oshikiuchi [incorporated prior to Sokaku]. Whether these are secret Daito-ryu techniqes, idori tech., or merely forms of etiquette to be used in the palace of a lord is unresolved. (Oshikiuchi is commonly translated as "inside the threshold", but also "inside ceremony.") So while I think we can say that Daito-ryu in some form was passed down through the Takeda family, we must also say that Sokaku made significant contributions to Daito-ryu. Thus, most martial art historians do not signify Daito-ryu as a koryu, seeing it rather as a classically-based art whose current form was founded by Sokaku Takeda in the early Meiji period.

Finally, yes, there are many other arts that use the term aikijujutsu. Most, if not all, tend to be modern forms with no relationship to Daito-ryu. One note, however, is that there are several recognized branches of Daito-ryu. There is the mainline (headed by Kondo Sensei), the Takumakai, the Kodokai, and the Roppokai. There was also the Sagawa dojo in Kodaira City, but Sagawa sensei only allowed a small number of students into the dojo, and did not accept foreigners. I don't know if the Sagawa dojo still operates (as Sagawa sensei was older and not in the best of health last I read about him - 1996, I think). Any other schools calling themselves Daito-ryu are bogus (not to put too fine a point on it).

Hope this answers some of your questions.

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Baltimore, MD


:) :) :) :)

Chris Li
28th September 2001, 22:41
Originally posted by Arman
One note, however, is that there are several recognized branches of Daito-ryu. There is the mainline (headed by Kondo Sensei), the Takumakai, the Kodokai, and the Roppokai. There was also the Sagawa dojo in Kodaira City, but Sagawa sensei only allowed a small number of students into the dojo, and did not accept foreigners. I don't know if the Sagawa dojo still operates (as Sagawa sensei was older and not in the best of health last I read about him - 1996, I think). Any other schools calling themselves Daito-ryu are bogus (not to put too fine a point on it).

Sagawa's no longer around, but the dojo still operates and is more open now (takes foreigners, I hear). While Sagawa was alive even other Japanese Daito-ryu practitioners had a hard time arranging a meeting!

Best,

Chris

dinengurth
6th October 2001, 04:49
I am relatively new in the wonderful world of aikido and I would just like to thank everyone at e-budo for the plethera of information. It is greatly appreciated!!

Nathan Scott
8th October 2001, 23:42
[Post deleted by user]

dinengurth
12th October 2001, 05:02
I am quite new to the world of aikido and other martial arts. Not to start a war, I would like some input about the differences in effectiveness between aikido and daito-ryu. Any info is greatly appreciated.

Thanx,
Dinengurth :cool:

Nathan Scott
12th October 2001, 06:41
[Post deleted by user]

Chris Li
12th October 2001, 07:23
Originally posted by Nathan Scott
According to Stanley Pranin in Kondo sensei's book "HM/Ikkajo" (pg.39/40):

"The successor's of Sagawa are Tatsuo Kimura and Ken Takahashi"

Haven't heard much about the Sagawa dojo other than that since Sagawa sensei's passing.


Kimura, at least, is still teaching at Sagawa dojo, don't know too much more than that...

Best,

Chris

kusanku
13th October 2001, 06:41
So, Anyone knowledgeable, did Tokimune Takeda really say that the definition of Aiki is push when pulled and pull when pushed, and is this then the concept of aiki that makes the arts of Aikijiujitsu etc, so mysteriously effective?

Isn't this the same foundation that jiujitsu and judo are supposed to be based on?

Or is it more highly refined than that?

And how long does it take someone to learn, not master but learn, this concepot such that it can be effectively applied in practice, I mean as in dojo practice?

Thanks in advance for answers.
That's all from me for the time being.
Regards,

Nathan Scott
13th October 2001, 08:31
[Post deleted by user]

kusanku
14th October 2001, 02:44
Thank you, Nathan. Actually, the answer which you provided is very helpful to me, gives me some perspective from which to view things.

I have been following your thread on what Ueshiba really knew, with great interest.As you know, having been exposed to some Flocquet Aikidbudo as Daitoryu, I have had some confusion as to what the real daitoryu uses as core priciples.

Knowing that I don't know, is a good start. This way, I am not under false apprehensions. I see your explanation as particularly helpful from an insider's (yours)standpoint, I understand about some things not being taught to outsider's, and for very good reasons.

I was also interested in someone's statements about Yoshinkan Aikido having Daito ryu stuff in it, as I was told by a Godan in Yoshinkan who had opportunity to study some Daito ryu in Japan, that there was little similarity betwen the two.He said that while Yoshinkan is a combat style of Aikido, and it is,that Daito Ryu has a radically different approach and its thinking is completely different.Not to mention its techniques, though I am sure, a few are similar at least outwardly.What he actually told me I will not repeat here, because it says something about Daitoryu, I wouldn't want to publicly repeat, not defining aiki or anything, but as to its actual pragmatic purpose and how that is viewed.Also it may only be his perspective so I wouldn't want to present it as a daito Ryu one, when it may not be. It was good though.

But it seems, Uyeshiba said, aiki was turn when pushed and enter when pulled, as quoted in an article on one of your webpages which are very informative as well.While I am sure this is not Daito ryu Aiki either, but rather Uyeshiba aiki, if that,it surprised me that Tokimune s. gave the jujitsu definition, until your explanation,coupled with Uyehiba's comment ,shed some light.

Basically then, Daito Ryu Aiki is a heiho, secret principle, and I understand and respect that .In my mind, that is a very good thing to know.

Like saying that nuclear power is more than rubbing two styicks together, if before, one did not know that.An analogy perhaps more truth than fiction.This does not make one eager necessarily to understand nuclear power, but it indicates the existence of a far greater concept underlying an art or science.In itselkf this is valuable knowledge."That isn't just fire, be very careful!"

Other arts do exist that have secret principles, so I have some way of comparison.

Finishing the kata where it started, again, thanks Nathan, your willingness to answer the question, shows volumes about your budo.I appreciate this.I know some may think, hey, he didn't say much, but as explained, to me , you did.

Regards,

Dan Harden
14th October 2001, 09:19
John
An idea of how it is expressed in different arts is in the model of roots and branches.

Aiki
Trying to desribe it in terms like "pull when pushed," or "turn when pushed" doesn't even begin to cover it. You may see things happening to misdirect an opponents energy that have no relevence to the popular Judo or Aikido quotes? Done differently enough that you may say "Where's the blending?"
And capturing energy is the penultimate of blending- but it doesn't look much like blending at all.

Anyway
If you were to feel the Aiki of
The mainline
Roppokai
Kodokai
Sagawa Dojo
Takumakai
You would quickly see that they do not all have the same "feel," yet they have the same source; Sokaku.

The Roppokai and Kodokai are a good example in that they are only one (step) apart. Not even a generation, just a step.
With Sagawa Dojo you could use the Monty Python refrain
"And now for something; completely different."
and in his case- most would say that meant better.

You won't get a Daito ryu guy to talk about technique; much less Aiki, any more than you would stumble upon a TSKSR guy yaking about kata Or a Yagyu guy saying "here come and read this, I'll explain it all to you". And I don't believe you will ever find a true and detailed written explanation of Daito ryu Aiki available anywhere either. There is a tacit agreement made among everyone who has practiced the art-you don't talk about that. Not that a detailed explanation would help much anyway. Twenty to thirty years of sweat will though.

Of the available sources in writing; the most open by far is Okomoto Sensei in his book-but he does little to expand a readers knowledge of Daito ryu's Aiki, unless you are already an experienced practitioner. Everything else out there; books or videos, is mokuroku based, and it takes all of ten minutes to see the differences in execution of technique. Watching Kondo do ikkajo sets, then watching the SAD group do the same is a good example of this-right from the start their ippon-dori is world apart. Different approach to the center line, even different wrist grab and turn to the spear thrust portion.
Same teacher though......Tokimune.

Yoshinkan
Your questions would have to be answered by them I guess- if its answerable at all. Shioda trained in Daito ryu with Horikawa Kodo-and never talked about it. Whether just "he" had it and took it with him to the grave like Ueshiba I wouldn't know. His technique had a different flavor from typical Aikido, others will have to talk about his Aiki skills and whether or not they pass on down the line.
again same teacher.....but augmented later by a whole different source.

Main line Aikido
Your disussion of Ueshibas quotes on blending are correct-go watch his tapes see if you "see" it applied.
With both him and Shioda there is a capturing that is not in keeping with turned when pushed.....
Uehsiba and Shioda's style of Aikido......same teacher; Daito ryu

Your mentioned other arts........
Another example of roots and branches would be Sugino and Otake of TSKSR.
Watch them perform the exact same Kata on tape; you know they are both doing the same Kata. Lets use "Kasumi- no- tachi," for example- their execution is so different, that its startling. Its recognizable, but the indiviual interpretation that each uses is quite something.
Their Iai even more so. In Happo-ken one cuts down and turns as if in a narrow space, the other cuts to the side and clears his right side in a sweeping arc.
Yet; same source.
Granted the differences may not be "AS" apparent if you don't know the techniques, but they're different enough for most people to pick it up.

Otakes books are another example of non-information to an outside reader. The kata series have so many missing pieces that you couldnt possibly pick contiguous Kata up- they are a prompt for memory as a quick study guide if you have a teacher. And that's just the Kata. The correct maai, kill strikes, power generation, what to look for to advance etc...aren't even in the books at all. They are not a learning tool for the unkowing.

And I agree with Nathans guess as to what Tokimune's comments could have meant. Kondo has said similar things in interviews. He was answering a question once about a difficult topic. So he says
"I see Aikido and Daito ryu as the same."
Its not what he was really trying to convey
His next line was his real point
"They both begin, and end, with rei"

Why did he say it? He was responding to a direct question about the violence in Daito ryu. Yet I have seen people quote him as if he were saying the arts are identical-in everything.
If you spent any time in both arts you would know that is rather comical.

Dan

Nathan Scott
14th October 2001, 19:33
[Post deleted by user]

kusanku
15th October 2001, 08:35
Dan, Nathan,
Thanks! You guys are great!

Very interesting, and informative, very good advice, hints as to what to look at strive for, and do.

I think I know what you mean, Nathan , about Yoshinkan, there is one particular thing they ought to lose.:-)

As to making ones own art or arts work effectively., my own humble observations,are that this is the way to go. I like to look around of course, see what the other ones are doing as much as I can,without crossing boundaries of course.One can sometimes learn a lot from observing the besic level techniques of someone else's arts, as they may be the secrets of one's own.:-)

Consider judo and karate,throwing and locking are some of the highest secrets of karate, and striking vital points, the highest secrets of judo.Yet in basic training each does at beginning, the principles at least, at a basic level, of the highest secrets of the other.

Aikido and Aikijutsu are perhaps very interesting seen from the POV of, say, a Chinese Kungfu practitioner who does chin na, or an Okinawa Karate exponent who does, say, tuite , kyushojutsu, kata applications, and so forth.

Its really kind of like, the other arts have different ways of achieving similar goals, a broadening experience , sorta.

In some of the above mentioned arts, too, there are things not commonly taught, especially to those outside the art. One reason for this is that, to make the advnced techniques truly work well, one must in fact spend some time practicing.As it requires ten years to learn a syllabus of any of those arts, then ten more to perfect the joint techniques relatively, then ten more for the kyusho atemi,thirty years is about right.

Obviously one cannot achieve expertise in all arts, it would take too long. One can however, acwquirte some basic understanding enabling one to better understand ones own art.

As you correctly perceive, I do like Yoshinkan Aikido, but as a practitioner of certain other arts,I do see some holes in the training methods.

Yet Yoshinkan's strength is in its systematized training, as I have felt at the hands of some fairly good skilled folks who have trained at the Hombu and are appropriately graded.

I realize, that their training methods are not how to use it in a real thing, but then, they are not supposed to be.

I have experienced also, some other schools of Aikido and one Aikibudo,slightly.Yes, I have seen Uyeshiba and Shioda, on tape, from easrly to late. They were both amazing.

The interesting thing to me is watching Shioda, I see some things that look familar from others I have also witrnessed, and some from whom I experienced, yet they were not Aiki peopole at all.

I fully agree that the sign of acquiring whatever Aiki may be, is that ones techniques become more efficient, more effective and more painful with less effort.

I am learning a great deal from this discussion, and really am enjoying it. Thanks again, fellows!

MarkF
15th October 2001, 11:19
People in Judo refer to this fundamental principle by saying "use the opponent's weight, power and energy against them" - at least they did back when I was training. As most people know, Kano sensei (founder of Judo) observed a practice (or possibly demo, I forget) of Ueshiba sensei (founder of aikido) and was deeply impressed, saying "this is true judo".


It is rather basic a principle, but I had begun to hear it as "Make the opponent use his strengths as his weakness."

I don't see the principle, as discussed or as discussed in the past change that. For all the aiki in the world, that is "The principle."

The Kano quote went a little further, but it is close enough, and is hardly worth mentioning. You can find it every other day in the judo forum (we are so bored)!

Even with aiki practiced as a jutsu, it still will not have an outcome distinct from that. I can't think of a single art of taijutsu which doesn't simply come down to it when you simply "get down." The difference is in how we arrive there, but you still get on different trains and arrive at the same city.

Peace.

Mark

kusanku
17th October 2001, 00:09
Mark-
Hi .Judo contains many things that would be high level Kano Aiki secrets, did we not make them openly know to beginners on the first day, and every day thereafter.Botom line,is, judo is quite effective in the day to day world.

But it isn't a secret why.In some other arts, it is.That may be one reason why consistency is rarely found in some arts, from one person, school or generation to another, someone kept some secrets.

I understand Kano deliberately excluded fro the judo syllabus mention of ki, aiki and such things, possibly because he aimed for universal acceptance of judo and felt the West might not accept all that stuff.

Or maybe not. That he knew of it is certain,and that he, Mifune and some others, has refined control of everyhting they di, is obvious from film clips.

Regards,
John

Jon S.
21st October 2001, 02:12
I agree with John, truth is truth and there is no one way. Judo and Jujutsu call it Ju, Aikijutsu and Aikido call it Aiki. Fundamentally, the difference comes down to the way in which the concept is applied.

Jon Small

:)

Dan Harden
21st October 2001, 06:43
Funny that you never hear this "sameness" idea coming from Daito ryu people...only from people outside it. They consider it different. Perhaps you need to spend time in Aikido, Judo, and jujutsu-then discover Daito ryu-since that is quite commonly the path people have taken to get there.
Whatta ya think- Daito ryu people are all brainwashed? :)

Discussion is fine, most here are polite about this subject-not out of obligation to "be polite" but because they share a common knowledge, and therefore respect, of Judo, Aikido and jujutsu. But of those that have wandered into Daito ryu with those very same arts behind them; all seem to unilaterally agree that what they discovered in Daito ryu was different. I guess being repeatedly given a first hand "hands on" description of;
"Judo this way"
"Jujutsu that way"
Then "Daito ryu this way." Tends to end the conversation rather abruptly....
And those arts are similar enough in approach to compare and realize they are still "different." Modern Aikido is cut from a whole different cloth.

I don't care to discuss someones notion of what effectiveness is either. That isn't the nature of the discussion. Good practioners of any of the above arts are "good enough" for most of what life will throw at them. But some arts have more depth then others. That is a whole different discussion then effectiveness. An art doesn't have to have depth to be effective.There are very effective "in your face" arts, that you learn rather quickly, others that take a decade, but some are deep enough that you can spend the rest of your life exploring their principles and refining your movements using them, and actually getting better as you age...Daito ryu is one of those.

Marks idea of -"different trains arriving at the same station." is correct. Some trains are a faster, more efficient way, others are older but offer more in culture and finesse, and still others require a longer ride to get there, but proved to be the neatest way to that very same station- maybe due to the conductor- or maybe its the general makeup of the train itself.

Dan

kusanku
29th October 2001, 05:21
I do not doubt the difference of Daito Ryu's way, as all arts have different ways.

I do not doubt that some arts are deeper, more detailed, more intricate, and more efficient than others, as distinct from more effective, since as pointed out, judo is as effective as it needs to be for instance.

I do not doubt this because of certain personal encounters with such efficient arts, Daito Ryu apparently not being among them however.

I do appreciate all you guys help and descriptions of the concepts of Daito Ryu and other arts.I have no issue here at all.

I do not know Daito Ryu and absent an instructor appearing near me, no immediate possibillities of learning any.

Fortunately, I have been very lucky in my instructors of the arts which have come my way, or upon which I have chanced, or which I have searched out and in which for some reason, have been given some instruction in, not all being commercially taught arts.

Judo, been very very good, to meah:D, and then karate including Okinawan varieties of Kenpo and Shorin ryu, also have.In the latter two, the depth is more than many would at first suspect.At fairly advanced levels, if one is fortunate, one may be instructed in certain arts of body mechanics and movement, dynamics of motion enabling very efficient usage of throws, joint manipulation and shall we say, nerve control techniques.

As there seems to be some relation to some ancient Japanese arts and Okinawan karate, on the one hand, and Chinese boxing, on the other, as well as documented evidence of a connection between Japanese arts and Chinese boxing arts, I have often wondered if there were not a connection between Okinawan Udundi or Palace Hand, said to derive perhaps partially or wholly from the Jigen Ryu and other Japanese arts of Go Ten Te or Palace Hand, and maybe even Oshikiuchi or indoor techniques, both said to be among the forerunners of Daito Ryu, and these Okinawan arts related to the inner meanings and applications of Okinawan karate katas.Or at least, sometimes utilized as such.

Its a confusing area, actiually, as this connection would go back many years, include both sumo and its predecessor sumai and its Okinawan variant called tegumi, possibly brought over by the Japanese warrior Tametomo to Okinawa long ago, and on the other hand, the jigen ryu arts brough over much later by the Satsuma or Kyushu Samurai when they took over the island.

The confusion is compounded when one also realizes that certain Chinese skills of wrestling or shuai chiao were actually imported to Japan in book form and became the predecessor of moderrn Judo via Kito Ryu and other Jiujitsu.Other being , for instance, tenshin shin'yo ryu jiujitsu using tai sabaki, shikko and kansetsu waza plus atemi waza, from which judo gets its mat and striking skills, but which may bear remoter ancestry as well to Daito Ryu.

This stuff didn't get created in a vacuum.And there is relatioin between Japanese, Okinawan and Chinese arts. For instance, many Kung Fu styles , have a section known as chin na or seize control techniques.These may have given direct birth to Japanese jiujitsu.But it is clear also, that sword technique played major part in the birth of Aiki technique, and that the Ono Ha Itto Ryu in particular had to do with this.In particular the muto dori section of that and similar Japanese Sword arts.

It is very confusing indeed.More so when one sees some Daito Ryu waza in books, that resembles some aplications from Okinawan karate katas complete with horse rifding stance and ashi waza.Of course , the fact that Okinawan karate was not developed by peasants but by Peichin, Okinawan samurai equivalents who sometimes went to Japan and received menkyo in for instance Jigen Ryu kenjutsu and jiujitsu and other arts, as did Matsumura of Okinawan karate,as well as studying arts that were only one generation removed from China,indicates that the connection was neither superficial nor coincidental.

But still, it is a matter for curiosity alone, as far as my interest is concerned.After about thirty six years studying and teaching some arts as above mentioned which however do not include Daito Ryu, and hearing of its great efficiency, I was only wanting some insight, which has indeed been given, into its underlying premise of Aiki, which is of course different from those of Aikido and other dojo of Aikijiujitsu.

Anyway, thanks , guys, for all the help.

Regards,

Carl Elder
18th December 2001, 19:35
I was wondering what is the difference between akijujutsu and aikido? I havent taken either so I have no idea. I have seen a few aikido demonstrations, and it looks reall interesting, but there are now aikido school around here. I take jujutsu, and it seems somewhat similar, more strikes and a little rougher. At lease so it seems to me. Thanks in advance :karatekid

Neil Yamamoto
18th December 2001, 20:35
Hello Carl,

First, welcome to e-budo.

Second, I'm not dismissing your question, but this has been covered to a nauseating extent. Please take a look in the older posts, as well as on other forums such as Bugei.com and budoseek.net. You will find this discussed in many many threads.

You may have some problems getting into the older posts here on e-budo, some software upgrade issues John is having at the moment.

Good luck on finding your answers, there are many different ones to your question.

Cady Goldfield
18th December 2001, 21:12
Hi Carl,

Welcome to e-budo and the world of people who have an unhealthy fascination and obsession for the martial arts. I see from your website that you study jujutsu and have trained briefly in TKD. Good for you, for having the curiosity to pursue the arts further by asking questions on this forum.

Don't take this seriously, but...

... I'm predicting that tonight you will be visited by three spirits who inhabit E-Budo. These fearsome three shall be:

Brently
Nathan
Dan

Do not fear these visitors, for they will open your eyes to the Truth.

As the clock strikes midnight, Brently, the blithe Spirit of Aiki Past, will appear to you. He will reveal the primordial existance of aikijujutsu and aiki-no-jutsu in the Daito-ryu of Sokaku Takeda and Takeda's transmission thereof to erstwhile prodigy-student Morihei Ueshiba, who would later be the founder of aikido. He will also recount the legend of the subsequent schizm that grew between the two men and their approaches to bujutsu, and the later removal by Ueshiba of the key physical/mechanical and anatomical/skeletal principles of aikijujutsu that make it a more direct, shocky, controlling methodology that contrasts with the largely circular, tenkan-away, evasive qualities of aikido. Brently will leave you just as the clock strikes one in the antemeridian, to be replaced by...

...Nathan, Spirit of Aikido and Aikijujutsu Present. This jovial spirit will guide you to enlightenment in the difference between aikido and aikijujutsu principles, most notably pointing out that Ueshiba adapted the considerable principle-based syllabus of Daito-ryu aikijujutsu to a more manageable handful of techniques (e.g. ikkyo, nikkyo, sankkyo...), and also removed the combative elements and strategies of the ancestral art in order to suit Ueshiba's more spiritual and meditative pursuits. Good Spirit Nathan will depart as the clock strikes two, to be followed by the grim, shadowy figure of...

...Dan, the dark Spirit of Aiki Future. This foreboding, uncharacteristically (trust me on this) silent shade, clad in faded black hakama and wielding the Grim Reaper's scythe (which will look suspiciously like a machete jury-rigged onto a jo with an old keiko-gi obi), will wordlessly, voicelessly lead you to a startling revelation, which while terrifying, will guide you to your salvation: a copy of Stanley Pranin's book, "Daito-ryu: Interviews with the Masters." Then, before vanishing in a puff of smoke, leaving you sobbing on the tatami of an isolated dojo in a deep, dark forest, Spirit Dan will point sternly to a gravestone on which these words are carved:

"We all gonna die
Don't matter what we do
So you take Sally
'n' I'll take Sue"

Bongggg....Bongggggg.....Bongggggg......

Walker
19th December 2001, 01:54
:smokin: Cady, dude.... you smokin’?:smokin:

Cady Goldfield
19th December 2001, 02:01
Nope. But I've been known to enjoy a shot of sake from time to time. Not this time, though, so I dunno where that post came from!:kiss:

Ron Tisdale
19th December 2001, 15:11
Kewl, Cady...Good job!....

You had me chuckling the whole way through.

Ron (no such talent here) Tisdale

Brently Keen
20th December 2001, 00:28
That was great Cady, I think the people all throughout the hotel where I'm working heard me LOL when I read that piece by "Darles Chickens".

All I have to say is beware of the many false aiki spirits who also may visit from time to time, claiming to also have or speak the truth.

But in the interest of others who may also be lurking with the same sort of questions I present the following advice in broad daylight for all to see - in the blithe and generous spirit of this Christmas as well as in the spirit of Aiki Past for which Darles Chickens (aka Cady) says my own spirit speaks.

Do thineself a favor and buy the book by Stanley Pranin that Dan, the "dark spirit of Aiki Future" recommends. While no book is free of error (except the Holy Bible), that is the standard reference work, and is the best starting point in English. An excellent read aa well as reference for aikido is "Aikido Masters: Prewar Students of Morihei Ueshiba" also by Stanley Pranin.

Then search the archives here at e-budo like Neil suggested, as well as at www.swordforumbugei.com and at www.aikidojournal.com for previous discussions and threads dealing with these. These contain many different viewpoints and arguments for and against each, read them all carefully, particularly those which represent the views of experienced practitioners and instructors. I'm sure that our moderator Nathan (or his spirit of aikido and aikijujutsu present) can help point you towards the more pertinent threads, if you ask him nicely.

Finally you should also purchase some videos to see for yourself the more obvious external/physical differences. I recommend one of the Friendship Demos from Aiki News www.aikidojournal.com for a good view of some of the best aikido, and then I'd also recommend the Sokaku Takeda 50th commemorative Daito-ryu demo which includes demos of both jujutsu and aikijujutsu by many senior Daito-ryu instructors including Kondo (mainline), Mori (Takumakai), and Inoue (Kodokai), as well as many others, then I also highly recommend you purchase some tapes of Okamoto sensei (Roppokai) for some more advanced aikijujutsu, these and other fine tapes are also available from Bugei Trading Co. www.bugei.com or from www.keenmedia.com

To discover the truth, one must learn to always exercise discernment, and balance a healthy skepticism with an equally healthy empty cup and sincere heart. In addition to reading books, articles or discussions and observing videos you should seek some personal experience (more the better), but realize that your own experiences however extensive, will always be limited - thus they ought not to be the final arbiter of truth, one also ought to learn from the experiences of others. Finally throw in a dash of reasonable faith (never blind), that is either based on or supported by evidence, and then weighing all that together you'll probably wind up with a pretty good picture, and you should be able to note the differences fairly well for yourself.

Brently

kusanku
20th December 2001, 04:23
And from a spirit of one who thinks aikijujitsu is a fasncinating subject but is outside looking in, I thank the Brently spirit for the informative places to find out more.:-)

Best wishes to all and to all a good night,
Santa Vengel aka Vengel Claus

Kit LeBlanc
20th December 2001, 22:01
For something completely OT..

Maybe its just me but I have noticed that "dude" seems to be becoming a gender neutral term...anyone else notice this?

The Daito-ryu book is fascinating, a great read in my opinion for all judo/jujutsuka because it represents a slice of the Japanese "jujutsu world" during a very important time in jujutsu history.

Carl Elder
20th December 2001, 23:15
Thanks for all the infomation, and the links to other sites. But this has spawned a new question, sorry if this has already been asked, but I cant get any threads older than 30 days on this forum :( My question is, so what is the difference between Aikijujutsu and jujutsu? Are they the same, just like a differnt ryu or completely diffrent arts?

Cady, what did you think of my web page?

Thanks again for the info.

Cady Goldfield
21st December 2001, 00:46
Carl,

Jujutsu is the beginning point for studying aikijujutsu. We learn angles and vectors of attack and basic mechanical principles. The "aiki" part is something extra -- an additional set of principles that go beyond basic joint and bone manipulation, and more deeply exploit human body mechanics, momentum and neuromuscular response.

Jujutsu by itself is powerful and effective. With aiki, it is absolutely devastating.

Cady
P.S. I like your website. Good collection of quotes, concepts and budo-related information. Don't forget to add Stanley Pranin's book to your booklist... ;)

Neil Yamamoto
21st December 2001, 04:50
Carl, like I said, you may have trouble accessing older posts due to a software problem John Lindsey, who owns and runs the board, is having at the moment with an upgrade in progress.

Start with Bugei and read through the posts, you will find answers to your question from many points of view. The same on budoseek. By the time you get done with those, hopefully John will have the upgrade done and you can access the forums here.

Mark Jakabcsin
21st December 2001, 05:51
Don't forget the Aikijujutsu section of the Aikido Journal forum as well. There have been a few decent threads there as well.

mark

Ron Tisdale
21st December 2001, 16:46
And, if you edit your profile, you can set your default display for 60, 120 or more days, so that older posts show up automatically. I believe you can also use the search feature and search on the term aikijujutsu.
Ron Tisdale

Nathan Scott
28th December 2001, 06:47
[Post deleted by user]

Dan Harden
28th December 2001, 15:31
Nathan writes

****************
Dan, can I be the dark and forboding spirit next time? That sounds like fun. Maybe you and I can switch the "good cop/bad cop" thing for a day. That would be good for a laugh:

(Me as Dan) "What are you - a moron? If you try to use that magic 'ki power' crap on ME, I'll put me foot up your bum!! You friggin aiki-bunnies are all the same. Why don't you go study some more of that senseless 'aikiken' ya'll like so much".

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

OUCH!!
Heyyyy...Whats up with that??
I'm a sweetheart

Thats just Cady's opinion......er.....I think.

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

Nathan writes

(Dan as me) "I appreciate the sincerity of your quest for knowledge, however, I should like to direct your attention to the following threads, of which I have just wasted thirty minutes of my own time searching for on your behalf. Thanks so much for your inquiry".

Yuck yuck yuck.

Anyway, Happy Holidays!

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



Hey, Can I help it if you sound like a Friggin librarian or stewardess?...HAH!


Nathan in the dojo:

"I should like to direct your attention to this wooden facsimile of an Ancient Japanese weapon coming at your head. This is not to be confused with a European construct of similar proportions..well, we will save that for your dissertation upon graduation.
Now, the imminent approach of this object- in and of itself- poses an interesting dilemma to the prospects of both your continued survival on this material plane, and your pursuit of the archaic arts of Japanese culture, what you need to do.....


And.....Yes yes!
Shomen Sho--men.... Now, move your body this way.................



Dan in the Dojo:

When I swing this thing at your head full speed.....MOVE!!
no no, not AWAY.....MOVE in and strike "AT" me.....Control me.....NOW!!

and....What the hell is that? SHOW --ME what??
Let me show you a direct jab and uppercut...and how to deal with that.


yuk yuk
Just kidding bud
Merry Christmas (from my view) and happy holidays to all


Dan
The spell check and edit, re-edit king

Nathan Scott
29th December 2001, 08:13
H[Post deleted by user]

J.Goldschmidt
23rd January 2003, 09:44
Whats The Difference between Aikijujutsu and Aikido?

i know there are differences but im a new martial Artist and im taking ninjitsu and thats all i know about, but i was told by a experienced friend to try one of these arts as well at the same time.. so anyone shed some light?

Cady Goldfield
23rd January 2003, 18:07
Hi Joshua,

It's not a stupid question, but it is one that has been asked before on this forum. :)

Aikijujutsu is part of a curriculum for some koryu systems. Morihei Ueshiba, founder of aikido, studied a system called Daito-ryu, of which aikijujutsu comprises a large part of the curriculum. He adapted the curriculum and used it as a model for aikido, but made quite a few changes to the techniques. Later, his son Kisshomoru further adapted it. So now, aikijujutsu and aikido are two very different animals. But, they share a common heritage.

Why not do a search through the Aikido and Aikijujutsu archives and see what you can dig up.

Eric Joyce
25th January 2003, 18:14
I was curious. I have been reading many forums and discussing the various similarities (for some disimilarities) between aikido and aikijujutsu. The discussions have ranged from the underlying philosophies to technical applications from practical applications of self defense to harmonization and spirituality. The question I pose is...if given a choice to practice aikido or aikijujutsu, which one would you choose. If this discussion item has been done to death, please forgive me. I would be interested in the reasons why one would choose one over the other. I will pose this same question in the aikijujutsu forum as well. Thanks.

Walker
26th January 2003, 07:21
Choose what is available.
If both are available choose the instructor or group.
In the end it will be about what you become and can do rather than what you study.

Richard Elias
27th January 2003, 01:36
"In the end it will be about what you become and can do rather than what you study."

Doug?...

Is that you?

:confused:

Walker
27th January 2003, 16:57
What? Am I being too “California”?

I’m OK, you smell. :p

Be Here Mostly. :rolleyes:

Born Domesticated. :mad:

Free to be, just like me. :eek:

Tune In, Sit Around, Try Not To Nap! :nw:

Green_Dreads
30th April 2004, 18:48
I have been practising jujutsu for 4 years, took up aikido about a month ago, and am curious as to the differences between aikijujutsu and aikido as martial arts?

I understand there are simularities such as creating a hole for your opponent to fall in, working with rather than against their force, etc. Now I'm just curious as to the actual differences in techniques and such.

There's plenty of information on the internet about aikido and places to see those techniques, but not so many for aikijujutsu, so its hard to see for myself without somehow reaching the only aikijujutsu dojo I have access too - which happens to be beyond bus distance. -_-

Ron Tisdale
30th April 2004, 19:01
Try reading the posts in this forum, going back at least six months. That should give a pretty good clue...

Some of the articles on aikido journal might also help, as well as some of the posts in the Daito ryu forum there.

I think if you do some of that reading carefully, then come back and ask pointed questions, you'll probably get better responses.

Good luck,

Ron

Nathan Scott
30th April 2004, 19:31
[Post deleted by user]

Zen Kempo Ryu
14th May 2004, 22:14
Hi,

I have just read this forum posting and I don't think that Ellis understands the true nature of Aiki as a fighting form!

Yeah it's complex!

Yeah it's Slow and doesn't look like it would work!

But that is because people are just viewing the techniques, they are not looking deeper into the true beauty of the aiki system. You try and dispatch an attacker without understanding the aiki system then yeah it will not work.

90% of aiki/aikido is Kyusho based and the utilisation of these point's prior to executing a throw renders an attacker useless and unable to defend against the impending throw/counter.

Regards

Dave

Richard Elias
14th May 2004, 23:51
I suppose you might have that contention given that your instructor specialized in pressure point systems. Not to take away from what you've learned or your teacher at all, but don't confuse a modern system calling itself Aikijujutsu with a traditional system. The content and emphasis is most likely not the same.

We have a complete striking system with our repetior, but I would not say that ours or any of the other traditional systems I've seen or experienced are Kyusho based.

Ellis, BTW, is quite an experienced practioner of martial arts and knows what he's talking about.

Green_Dreads
23rd May 2004, 21:49
Isn't the concept of 'atemi', striking the vital points, central to all jujutsu? I know atemi exists in aikido too, but not in judo, or so I've read, since this would make randori rather leathal.

I've read a good few definitions of the pre-fix 'aiki' in various books that I read prior to beginning my study of aikido. To call it a system based on striking the vital points before the throw doesn't seem accurate.

As for Gendai aikijujutsu, the common opinion is that this is not true aikijujutsu, right? Well I'll defend it in definition only:

Tomiki aikido was not considered aikido at all by the aikikai, who requested that Tomiki sensei use some other name for his system. In this sense even Tomiki aikido could be seen as aikijujutsu, since by the founders definition it wasn't aikido. What strictly means that a sensei cannot call his system 'aikijujutsu'?

Richard Elias
23rd May 2004, 23:10
Just because something isn't Aikido doesn't automatically make it aikijujutsu.

In my post at anyrate, I did make a distinction about "traditional system" as opposed to a modern one. I was referring to an art that has been passed on from one generation to the next as an "aiki" system, an established tradition, as opposed to one that had been created recently and adopted the name aikijujutsu.

Ron Tisdale
24th May 2004, 15:59
Originally posted by Green_Dreads
Isn't the concept of 'atemi', striking the vital points, central to all jujutsu? I know atemi exists in aikido too, but not in judo, or so I've read, since this would make randori rather leathal.

Cough... 'rather lethal'?? I wouldn't think the inclusion of pressure point striking would make judo randori 'rather lethal'. It could definately add quite a bit of pain, if used properly. Atemi is taught in traditional judo, but not used in randori, as the idea there is to combine maximizing saftey and testing technique against a resisting opponant. Daito ryu makes use of certain kyusho, but I've yet to come out of practice dead, even when its rough practice. :)


I've read a good few definitions of the pre-fix 'aiki' in various books that I read prior to beginning my study of aikido. To call it {aiki?} a system based on striking the vital points before the throw doesn't seem accurate.

Subset check. Atemi is contained within most systems of 'aiki' but I know of no system of 'aiki' that is strictly composed of atemi.


As for Gendai aikijujutsu, the common opinion is that this is not true aikijujutsu, right? Well I'll defend it in definition only:

Tomiki aikido was not considered aikido at all by the aikikai, who requested that Tomiki sensei use some other name for his system. In this sense even Tomiki aikido could be seen as aikijujutsu, since by the founders definition it wasn't aikido. What strictly means that a sensei cannot call his system 'aikijujutsu'?

Just because the aikikai doesn't like the choice of names, it doesn't logically follow that the name 'aikijujutsu' should be used.

I think this term (aikijujutsu) has been popularized to the extent where many people use it just for its cache. I know people who teach karate and basic bjj grappling, throw in some pressure points, and call what they do 'aikijujutsu'. They themselves and many of their students may (or may not) be really great fighters. In my opinion, that does not make what they do 'aikijujutsu'.

Your own personal milage may vary greatly.

Ron

Green_Dreads
24th May 2004, 17:43
Mr Tisdale,

Perhaps these sensei would be more honest if they called their system 'jujutsu'? Jujutsu, as the moderator of the Jujutsu forum has told me, is a fairly generic term, whereas aikijujutsu would appear to be a more specific term? Just working with the linguistics here, since, to be frank, I don't know what I'm talking about. That is, aikijujutsu. Its just that I would assume 'aikijujutsu' met some certain criteria, therefore allowing modern schools of aikijujutsu to develop genuinely?

Its a very rare art as it is. I'm lucky to be as close to an aikijujutsu dojo as I am, and in my case its two towns drive away.

Arman
24th May 2004, 18:11
Mr. Lewin,

Let's forget for the moment the issue of "modern" aikijujutsu systems. Aiki practitioners are like economists: they can't even agree on the common fundamental principles of their system. What one Daito ryu group considers aiki, another considers jujutsu. What one might consider aiki, another considers !!!!!!!!. Some see aiki as a general term signifying a specific category of unbalancing techniques. Others see aiki as a highly specific term signifying a unique and specialized application of force/energy/physics. Some consider it a bit of both.

As for historical lineage, this is just as contentious. Nobody really knows the historical lineage of aikijujutsu. Some believe its old as dirt, others that its fairly concurrent with the origination of judo.

Now, if you reflect on these things, you will see your question as somewhat ludicrous. The one thing aiki systems have going for them is that they have a verifiable lineage at least going back to the late 19th century, and they have a coherent, viable system that can be distinguished from other systems. It is perhaps this last point that might help you out. One can see, and feel, aikijujutsu, as opposed to pure jujutsu. As one Supreme Court justice said about pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Thus, the high suspicion and raised eyebrows by those who hear about "modern" aikijujutsu systems. In other words, somebody just mixed a bunch of martial arts together and made up his own style and decided to call it aikijujutsu.

As for your comments regarding Mr. Amdur, perhaps you are not aware that he has been involved with aiki arts (among others) for a long, long time?

Regards,
Arman Partamian

Neil Yamamoto
24th May 2004, 19:23
Well, I fit right into the middle of this question.

I’m tied to Bernie Lau’s Icho Ryu as most people know. Bernie named his stuff Icho Ryu Aikijujutsu.
Why? Because given the time period, and his efforts to try and develop something that would not just be branded as more aikido, using aikijujutsu made sense. The techniques were more akin to jujutsu, but there were elements of aiki as Bernie understood it in the curriculum. Bernie’s idea of aiki never fit in with most aikido so with the definitions of the distinctions between ‘Jutsu’ and ‘Do’ that Bernie used, it just fell into place to use aikijujutsu.

There is no tie to DRAJJ or other Japanese schools of AJJ except for Bernie communicating with Takeda Tokimune, a few visitors from Japan who were DRAJJ students, but nothing more than that. Now one of Bernie’s less bright students went about telling every one that there were ties to DRAJJ to try and make himself look good, but it just ain’t true. So, it’s a modern art derived from a Japanese art, created by a French guy, who was adopted by a Chinese family, and who was raised in Hawaii. Real good basis for traditional.

Now how does that impact the little Icho group? Good question. I have long considered what I do as something that doesn’t fit any precise labeling attempt. I’m sure not an aikidoka, (despite Chris Moses deciding to call what we practice at the Bad budo club- “Yamamoto-ha Fluffy Aiki Bunny Ryu) but I’m also influenced by AJJ from Yanagi Ryu courtesy of Don Angier helping me to clarify what I do. I don’t claim to teach Yanagi Ryu, so no smart !!! comments and no contacting me about learning Yanagi Ryu unless you want to be insulted for being stupid.

What Bernie did, and what I’m trying to do, and to my surprise have been somewhat successful at doing, is become what I’ve been called by some of my traditional martial arts peers “A martial artist and teacher who respects tradition while avoiding “blinders” in regards to it.”

Bernie has decided that he likes the idea of calling it Icho Ryu aikibudo more than any thing now. Fine with me, I don’t really care what to call it despite my supposed to be running it. Though not a Japanese traditional art, Bernie kept some of the trappings of Japanese culture because, like another e-budoka says “I like the Japanese thingy.” Cool! Isn’t that why most of us are here?

No, I’m not really continuing a tradition, or even really trying to develop one. I've realized that will happen no matter what I want. All I'm trying to do is honor Bernie by making sure at least a few students learn well and learn to teach well.

I’m not looking to spread the word of Icho with more students personally, except I could use 2 or 3 more to help pay the rent. I’ll even admit to doing what I can to avoid contact by having little tolerance for most people unless referred to me by someone I know well and respect. That has earned me what one well-known aikidoka up here calls “a bad attitude”.

So, whether people want to call what I do JJ or AJJ, or even aikido doesn’t really matter. What I intend to do is say I do jujutsu to people who ask cause it’s easier. My girlfriend tells people I do aikido cause it’s easier for her than to try and explain. I’ll continue to teach and learn with the losers, er I mean, people I like enough to want to train with as friends and students, and not worry about how I’m labeled. Yes, I’ve got a bad attitude as the obi I have with “Ki is crap” and “666” embroidered on it clearly shows.

So, if you are like me, and you fall into this ‘modern,gendai,’ or ‘traditional,koryu’ origins and authenticity discussion, just don’t lie about the history of what you do, and be happy you have something you like doing, and work to be better at it.

Sorry no deep thoughts, but just my little point of view.

ghp
25th May 2004, 06:49
Geez, Neil!

I almost love you, man!


:D
--Guy
(errrr .... but not in that manly, sweaty, prison-love way)

Ellis Amdur
25th May 2004, 07:25
The only old school jujutsu school I ever ran across that really centered around atemijutsu (aside from it's weaponry - sword, naginata and kamayari) was Kasumi Shin-ryu. Its last instructor, a gnarly old fish monger told me it was a "keidomyaku bujutsu", meaning that it attacked the arteries. He told me that his instructor used to thrust his fingertips repetitively into hanging sides of beef (pre-Rocky obviously).

He did some things to me with his fingers at points on my neck and under my collar bone - that hurt a lot. A real lot.

Never saw or experienced anything else like it in Japanese circles. Close range stabs and grabs with fingers like clawed dowels. Did I mention how much it hurt? Like if your rolfer suddenly slipped the rails and decided to take you apart rather than smooth out the rough spots. That ANNGRY pain that makes you want to rip someone's face off except you have to move into the pain, which is manifesting real damage, not just painful feelings, to accomplish any counterattacks.

He refused to teach anyone. I tried, but he was obsessed with his low social standing and I approached him with too much respect. I would have done better to simply have said, "I'm gonna drop by your house sometime. Show me some more of that stuff." But giving him respect was in direct conflict with his low-class job and "honor" dictated he refuse any such marks of respect to maintain his own masochistic self-respect. (Every time you think you figured Japan out, you get another slider right over the inside corner). The ryu is now extinct.

Ellis Amdur
www.ellisamdur.com

Aikijutsu Arts
26th February 2006, 15:33
As a student of Aikijutsu, long ago I weighed the odds of taking Aikijutsu and Akido. What I gathered from all my research was that Aikido was derived from Aikijutsu. After WWII, our military (US) made the Japanese discontinue the teaching of Aikijutsu.

Morihei Ueshiba (A.K.A.-O' Sensei) then took 12 of the basic throws from Aikijutsu and elaborated to form Aikido. He spoke saying that, "(Paraphrase) The offensive arts in Aikijutsu were not fit for this modern day world." However, most (if not all) of the arts in Aikido are also in Aikijutsu. Which brings me to my question for all of you...

...why take Aikido when Aikijutsu is available to learn? It would appear to me that taking Aikido over Aikijutsu is a rip off. You are not learning all that is offered.

(However, it is clearly understandable to take Aikido over Aikijutsu if wish to be purely pacifist)

Thanks for your time,
-Nick

Howard Thiery
26th February 2006, 16:12
This one has been done many times before but here is a short summary of at least one side frequently presented.

You have oversimplified the roots of Aikido and certainly where it went after that. Your logic would suggest that no art is worth pursuing because the parent/root/older art is always preferable. By that logic Koryu Jujuts u may very well be superior to the more "modern"Aikijujutsu. Aikido is certainly at this point a cousin of Aikijujutsu but they are also very different. People will pursue the one they feel offers them something because each has something different to offer.This extends beyond the pacifist slap you threw in at the end which really holds no water since if effectiveness in combat is all you are interested in then get thee to a pistol range.
The other aspect that always puzzles me about this line of reasonong when it crops up is the assumption that real Aikijujutsu is ubiquitious. It is actualy quite uncommmon and while you may have found a place to study it most will not have the opportunity.

H

don
26th February 2006, 17:15
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1

Welcome to the board, Mr. Lakin.

Have you done a search of the board for previous threads along the lines of your question? As Mr. Thiery pointed out, there have been many threads on this topic. If you're truly interested in the attitudes of players in both camps, use the search function:

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/search.php?

Some years ago (right after a bunch of AJJ players took their SHODANs), there was huge controversy over at

http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/index.php

This might be a more productive place to look for your topic. Their search function is at

http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/search.php

Happy surfing.

Dan Harden
26th February 2006, 18:12
I will add to that .....a question.

Do you think that Takeda Sokaku is worth listening too?

Think he may know a thing or two about Aikijujutsu?

If you do........ It might be worth noting that he said Daitoryu is de-ffensive in nature not off-ensive.

And..........If you are under the mistaken assumption that the people in DR are any more statistically potent or able than those in Aikido you haven't been around much. As a true fan of Daito ryu and a supporter of it on the net..I none-the-less have a favorite saying.

Most of these Aiki-wars can be resolved in the hands of a good Judoka.

I think you will find that thee..common root that is the essence of power in Daito ryu and Aikido is; internal skills, not technique. And...I suggest you will discover that it is extremely rare in both arts. And I would never...go braggin on Daito ryu technique in the presence of some of the skilled men you will find here anyway. But thats just me. In the mean time I suggest instead of braggin on what some teachers or masters did or can do.....turn inward and go grab some jujutsuka, Judoka, Muay tai, Systema and MMA guys. When you get to the point that they can't handle you too easily write back. In the mean time take a seat on the budo bus and get over your art. See it in balance.

I'll give ya aheads up...if you're are on the ten years dance of learning the pretzle logic before you get to the real core of what will stop most men in their tracks...bully for you.But I'll tell you one thing. There are other serious men in Budo..and yes.....even in Aikido.

Dan

Aikijutsu Arts
26th February 2006, 18:37
To Don,
My many thanks.

To Howard and Dan,
Please understand that I am not slamming Aikido in any way. I took it for quite some time before Aikijutsu was offered here. I understand that there are certain differences in both. Furthermore, there are more SIMULARITIES than differences.

And please note that I was not making a "slap" to anyone with my pacifist comment. I have a friend who for that very reason takes Aikido over Aikijutsu. So please note that I am not slamming Aikido in any way. Moreover, I am only asking for oppinions.

The philosopher Plato once said, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." Thus is my search for everyones OPPINION.

Thank you,
-Nick

don
26th February 2006, 19:53
Most of these Aiki-wars can be resolved in the hands of a good Judoka.

Coke in the nostrils.

Again.

Geez, i gotta stop reading these boards.

Thanks for this, Dan.

Ron Tisdale
27th February 2006, 14:18
Huh? Oh....THAT kind of coke...

Best,
Ron (before coffee on monday morning...) ;)

cxt
27th February 2006, 15:59
Swat

As you say "your not learning all that is offered."

For just another viewpoint---I have had a simliar arguement with a buddy of mine.
Different art but appox the same situation.

I asked him more of less the same question--and he aked me the following.

1-Whats make you think your learning all there is with your current art?

The "whole" teaching is passed down to only a very, very few people. So "most" students never get it all.

So its "really" a question of percentage--and how do you establish exactly what that percentage is going to be??

2-How much do you need to know to do what you need it to do?

By this he meant if say self-defense was your goal--then how much/many techniqes do you actually NEED?
Many systems of fighting do not depend on 100's and 100's of techniques in order to be effective.
Western boxing/Thai boxing only has a "handfull" compared to other systems and nobody seems to feel that either is ineffective for self defense.

3-How many techniques do you use personally??

By this he meant that even though I "knew" and trained with many techniques, I "really" used very few of them in randori/sparring.

I had some answers of course--problem is that they are really good questions, and even thinking about how to answer them helped my to see another perspective.

On a strictly personal note, I hold to the idea that martial system are almost utterly driven by the individuals that use them.

I mean you can't take say wing chuan and aikido and have them "fight"---a system is just a collection of techniques, training and combative philosophy, and THOSE fight nobody.

Its people that fight--and people have a vast range of abilities and skills.

I often think of martial arts as being in school---you all go to more or less the same classes, same teachers, same textbooks, at the same time of day, etc.
But not everyone is a "A" student.
What you get is a "range from "F" to "A"--with a lot of in between--in fact, statistically speaking, MOST folks are going to end up "in between" no matter what art they take.


Chris Thomas

don
27th February 2006, 16:06
Huh? Oh....THAT kind of coke...

Ha!

On a teacher's salary?! Dream on.

My intoxicants of choice remain classes well-taught, beautiful women, Jon Stewart's commentary, Maureen Dowd's acid tongue, and the occasional beer, not necessarily in order.

Blackwood
27th February 2006, 16:28
I coodinated a multi-style demonstration. One of the individuals was ranked in both Aikido and Aikijutsu.

His description of the difference brought out an excellent differentiation:

Aikido = Policeman - to serve and protect - There is concern for the well being of the other party.
Aikijutsu = Soldier - to kill

Dan Harden
27th February 2006, 16:58
Thats simply ridiculous

Most all of the Aikijujutsu techniques are defensive in nature. And are, by nature; control techniques.
There are also a sub set of self-defense (by definition) techniques.
Further, much of the distancing and methods of practice do not relate to battlefield attacks, weaponry and tactics.
Moreover, there are next to no techniques relevent to a koryu battlefield (your soldiering) art.

If you care to address modern battelfield application the "discussion " is a non-starter.
And last....there are probably -statistically anyway- as many Aiki bunnies in Aikijujutsu as in Aikido....compared to able, and ready to kick_____ men.

I've seen much rougher techniques in Takenouchi and Sho-sho ryu (Koryu systems).
Hell, I was taught more damaging ways to treat a human-both in set-ups and execution- from ex-con bikers than I have seen in many budo halls. I think many-if not most- martial artists would have to leave the martial arts all together to become really able fighters.

gees......
Dan

Aikijutsu Arts
27th February 2006, 17:21
Aikido = Policeman - to serve and protect - There is concern for the well being of the other party.
Aikijutsu = Soldier - to kill

This seems to be a somewhat accurate description to me. Aikijutsu was formed and used as the unarmed combat system for Emperial Samurai. Tho Aikijutsu IS more defensive in nature, it IS offensive and used to inflict damage upon an opponent.

Keep in mind that this was used if the Samurai was without his sword so it would HAVE to be more defensive in nature. Thus his goal being to stay alive.

Raff
27th February 2006, 17:24
Most all of the Aikijujutsu techniques are defensive in nature. And are, by nature; control techniques.
There are also a sub set of self-defense (by definition) techniques

I must say that I disagree, Daito-Ryu is based on Kansetsu Waza (breaking techniques) and has very few Osae Waza (control techniques).

It is also true that depending on which branch you study, differences are very important.

I really understand it now, Daito-Ryu is very different from one branch to another, at the Daitokai, we use real punches and real kicks while practising, the Keiko can be very rough sometimes. I do not know if you have watched the link posted by Giacomo, Larry Kwolek went to a seminar a couple of years ago and wrote an essay which describes very good the way we work but I agree that there are important differences and different teatching methodologies and it's just fine.

For my money, I like it when it's rough and rumble but I can understand that others also look for some differents methodologies.

Cady Goldfield
27th February 2006, 17:47
Baseball is supposed to be a peaceful sport, but you could brain someone with the bat. Heck, a game of cards is about as mild as you can get, but in the wrong hands, a playing card can slice an artery.

Aikijujutsu (note -- "Aikijutsu" means just the practice of "aiki" techniques, not jujutsu combined with the aiki element) is meant for self-defense. S. Takeda stressed that himself and said it is an art that "women and children" could learn. But like with anything, the practitioner can decide to cause harm with it or not. Aikido can be brutal too. I've seen people seriously injured at the hands of their partner on the tatami in aikido dojo Aikijutsu, by the same reckoning, can be breathtakingly gentle. I have been pinned to the mat, painlessly and with only one finger holding me in place;l I've had my punch gently redirected in a way that found me wrapped up in the arms of the defender, who could have chosen to cause damage but instead just tweaked my nose with a grin. And I have done these things to others.

It's all in the intent of the individual practitioner. If an art is said to be for self-defense only, and not intended for killing, that is the way it should be interpreted.

Dan Harden
27th February 2006, 18:09
Fellas
This is probably a waste of my time but I'll try to get through. I am not downing Daito ryu.
Please get that right up front.

But rather debating or stating where it "fits" in time, in a Japanese Koryu frame of reference of *Battlefield* art. Thats it. OK?
Battlefield Koryu?
Civilian Koryu?
I can't keep talking in circles.

Please don't jump around and talk about "battlefields, and unarmed samurai and then bring in punching and kicking. You two guys are all over the map.
a. A samurai is going to have some sort of weapon; even a knife or broken haft of a spear (bo training) if he is theoretically sans everything else. Hence most many Battlefield era Koryu haev kumi-uchi, kogusoku, Koshi marui (knife) techniques; involving vastly different distancing and methods than DR.
b. You aint going to go far talking about that erstwhile samueye decked out in his laced armor and making a case for you training to fight him on a battlefield cause you "use realistic kicks and punches" in your dojo. Here kick this garbage can see where ya end up.
c. Many/most of the wraps and controls to break were not, would not, be used on an armored guy in the first place.
d. Many of the controls would not work to even get kuzushi on an armored foe. Their bodies would not articulate that way in response.
e. If it were a battlefield Koryu art (there are koryu jujutsu for civilians fellas) Where are the weapons trianing? Spear, Sword, naginata, knife, Bo,... Other than that borrowed from Takedas training ...elsewhere?

Talk one way or the other.
Civilian Control: if you cannot control you cannot break-hence control technique are the essence of the movements.

Medievil Battlefield control:
A fella being found on one without ANY weapons ...which in itself is an extraordinarilly ridiculous assumption.. will require a vastly different response, as the other guy will be armed. Your first arguement should have Ippon-dori. As improbable and suicidal as it is- at least it goes more to your point and there are a few techniques like that. There are some other things that are relavent as well. But the few, do not negate the whole of my argument outlined above.

But keep punching and kicking "realistically." I have no trouble with that..puts you miles above the frey! It also proves you are practicing a form of really good civilian jujutsu art -Koryu or not.
There are better ways to argue your side. Give me a while and I could make a probable argument for your side...even though I still disagree. But what you two are saying aint it.

Dan

Ron Tisdale
27th February 2006, 18:17
Hi Dan...

It 'strikes' me that there is more than a little hyperbole in this thread. What say you?

Best,
Ron

Mark Murray
27th February 2006, 18:43
As a student of Aikijutsu, long ago I weighed the odds of taking Aikijutsu and Akido. What I gathered from all my research was that Aikido was derived from Aikijutsu. After WWII, our military (US) made the Japanese discontinue the teaching of Aikijutsu.

Morihei Ueshiba (A.K.A.-O' Sensei) then took 12 of the basic throws from Aikijutsu and elaborated to form Aikido. He spoke saying that, "(Paraphrase) The offensive arts in Aikijutsu were not fit for this modern day world." However, most (if not all) of the arts in Aikido are also in Aikijutsu. Which brings me to my question for all of you...

...why take Aikido when Aikijutsu is available to learn? It would appear to me that taking Aikido over Aikijutsu is a rip off. You are not learning all that is offered.

(However, it is clearly understandable to take Aikido over Aikijutsu if wish to be purely pacifist)

Thanks for your time,
-Nick

I don't know aikijutsu. Don't know Daito ryu. Heck, I'd even go so far as saying I don't really know Aikido. But I am studying Aikido. I've seen several schools of Aikido and each one is different. So, just saying why take Aikijutsu over Aikido is like saying why take a truck over an SUV? Sheesh. Each person will decide which vehicle they like and don't like. They'll sometimes test drive one or the other, they'll have one for a few years and then switch. Not only all of that, but even if you get a group together that all picked the same vehicle, every one of them will use that vehicle differently. Some will use it off road every day, some will off-road every once in a while. Some will baby it and wash it every day and wax it to make it look pretty. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

If you really want to go with the pros and cons of the situation, then take a specific Aikijutsu school and a specific Aikido school and maybe we can narrow down some things.

Thanks,

kimiwane
27th February 2006, 18:49
Do you think that Takeda Sokaku is worth listening too?

Think he may know a thing or two about Aikijujutsu?

If you do........ It might be worth noting that he said Daitoryu is de-ffensive in nature not off-ensive.

One of my favorite quotes is (supposedly) by Sokaku sama: "The art of aiki is to overcome the opponent mentally, at a glance, and win without fighting."

When Ellis Amdur looked at my posts on "Aikido Comes from Babies," he suggested that maybe aikido does use areas of the brain that are not related to fighting. And I think that's true, though it doesn't preclude getting a grip at the end of a non-fighting avoidance to ensure that the "attacker" doesn't keep trying to fight.

Actually, I have thought a lot about Sokaku's statement in light of Ueshiba's statement that aikido ends the encounter "with a single blow". I think they're talking about the same thing, as much "non-fighting" as that can be. In short, I think if you know what Ueshib was talking about, and you're ready to let the attacker have it (and you won't even feel bad about it afterward), the opponent subconsciously "reads" this intention in your "single glance" and decides to leave you alone, which means you "win without fighting" (assuming your "winning" means being left alone).



Most of these Aiki-wars can be resolved in the hands of a good Judoka.

Ain't that the truth?

Arman
27th February 2006, 21:50
Are we really having this discussion? I think this must have been covered before. . .SOMEWHERE. . .in some thread??

I mean, "aikijutsu=soldier=kill"??

Come on.
Move along.
These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Arman Partamian

cxt
27th February 2006, 22:01
Arman

:) :) :)


Chris Thomas

R.D_03
28th February 2006, 03:38
I would actually feel embarrassed to post stuff like this. For some reason I'm very touchy on the subject of DR on the internet. I (as I believe the fellow brandishing the "swat" picture is) am a new student to DRAJ. The first thing I did when finishing class was make sure I made it to the next one. I have my 8th class tonight and I really shouldnt be reading this stuff, let alone contributing to it. Atleast thats how I feel. :)

Aikijutsu Arts
28th February 2006, 05:19
I think Murray hit it when he used the car analogy. Nice post. That makes ALOT of sense.

And to the man above me, I am new to Aikijutsu. I felt it would make an excellent addition to my line of work. I feel that it would help me to subdue a suspect if I ever found myself unarmed or taken hostage by way of knife or gun to the head (something close quarters). Therefore, I intend to master it as best as I am able.

Thanks for all your time,
-Nick

MarkF
28th February 2006, 06:50
I admit to being a little confused as to the topic post. Is this "aikijutsu," aikijujutsu," and "aikido" being discussed (which not for a minute would I make any assumptions on what aikido really is when compared to AJJ or aikijutsu). Does the original post refer to aiki no jutsu or does he consider that that aikijutsu is a kind of misnomer, most likely not intended)? I have always (well, not always, I had to learn something first) made a distinction between for example, aikijutsu, which many agree does not really exist by itself, or aiki no jutsu, a collection of technique from which DR is formed around within a circle (no pun) of a larger picture, DR jujutsu or DR aikibudo which does seem to be the encompassing art surrounding all technique of aiki. I expect, to a lesser degree that aikido is not a larger picture of aiki as it, too, must be a large collection of jujutsu-like technique where aiki if more of a descriptive form from which it takes the name. I need to learn a lot more to even attempt to make any definitive statements so perhaps I should back up a bit.


Are we really having this discussion? I think this must have been covered before. . .SOMEWHERE. . .in some thread??

I mean, "aikijutsu=soldier=kill"??

Come on.
Move along.
These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Arman Partamian



Arman has a point but I do not think the question posed by the topic poster is all that repetitive, but perhaps one from which to learn a little something. Just in his use of "aikijutsu" as a "civilian fighting style on its own will, perhaps lead into a bit of an education for some of us" is what I was thinking, because at first, I wasn't sure he hadn't simply misspelled "aikijujutsu." There will not be a discussion of how-to and differences,but pehaps he may be questioning this "aikijutsu" to solidify his martial activity but is not really sure what any of the basic arts truly are, ie, aikijujutsu or aikido.

[quote=David Orange, Jr.]When Ellis Amdur looked at my posts on "Aikido Comes from Babies," he suggested that maybe aikido does use areas of the brain that are not related to fighting. And I think that's true, though it doesn't preclude getting a grip at the end of a non-fighting avoidance to ensure that the "attacker" doesn't keep trying to fight.


Not to say "wrong" but more of a "duh" in what Ellis was saying. Most, if not all, would have to use areas of the brain not related to fightiing, no matter the kind or situation s/he finds himself. I am truly not say saying that what he said was in the "duh" category because he is right but because he brought up something true not mentioned on this forum or other aiki fora. IOW, it is most likely perfectly true, it just is not a subject brought up much because to many it simply, well, is (sort of like President Clinton said in his deposition from the White House when asked by the Grand Jury something similar to this: "Mr. President are you having an affair with Ms. Lewinsky right now?" Answer by Clinton: "It depends on what your definition of IS...is." Only a lawyer would have come back with such a response and is in no way a Clintonism but an attorneyism) sort of understood.

I expected a similar, basic answer from Clinton which was a clever ploy as is what Ellis Amdur said, though I also admit that I am taking David's word for it, as I didn't read it on Ellis' post but in David's quote of Ellis. Nor do I doubt David would quote someone without being sure he said it, or, at least said something like that is a paraphrase.

As to the comment concerning letting judoka give the physical answer, I agree and not because I am judoka, or more precisely, "only judoka," a term I have heard most of my adult life in judo. I have read so many different stories on Takeda Sokaku "beating up a bunch of judoka" that this original statement being the first I had read on the subject though I have since read it said in different ways, but the standard story is one of showing disdain by this group of judoka at a seminar/demonstration due to Takeda's rapidly aging and shrinking body not to mention the tattered hakama. I read the story of incredibly stupid and unnecessary egoism (provided the story went this way) of five or six judoka, who attacked Takeda, first one, with a "chop" to the forehead in which Sokaku not only avoided it, but in the haste of the judo player (someone who actually would do something like tha cannot be called a "judoka), he, Takeda side stepped the attack, with the adept move everyone should have said to themselves (this guy is goooood!), but then the second judoka steps up and tries to land the same atemi to the same area, and he too ended up on the floor in a pile, while a third did the exact same thing, Takeda noting what was obvious, that the judoka were not going to give up on that same attack. He did this in answer to each and every attack brought by the same judo players, which surprised me, actually, by the second attack. If something does not work, try something else, I said to myself, but to no avail. Stupidity and ego did.

But as much as the judo players proved how much they had been playing instead of working on alternate attacks, they certainly did not deserve the descriptive "judoka" especially at that time. I don't care whether or not they wer go-kyu or godan, you just do not check your respect at the door, and if someone shows up that perhaps, at the least, give the old man kudos for just being there.


Anyway, I digress, but I rarely feel I have something to contribute to this forum, perhaps this is the thread in which I can "say" something, contributory or not.


Thanks for reading,



Mark F.

Raff
28th February 2006, 07:51
Dan,

I must admit that your english is far too sophisticated for me and that I only understand very little what you are trying to express.

Anyway, I don't remember talking about samourai in any way, I'm more than convinced that Daito-Ryu as it is taught today has nothing to do with battlefields grapplings and so do all do all the Koryu (is Daito-Ryu a Koryu, don't know and it has very little importance) generally speaking.


Talk one way or the other.
Civilian Control: if you cannot control you cannot break-hence control technique are the essence of the movements.

I would say the contrary, if you do not know how to apply the hard way, there is no way in this world you can learn how to control effectively an opponent.


Medievil Battlefield control:
A fella being found on one without ANY weapons ...which in itself is an extraordinarilly ridiculous assumption.. will require a vastly different response, as the other guy will be armed. Your first arguement should have Ippon-dori. As improbable and suicidal as it is- at least it goes more to your point and there are a few techniques like that. There are some other things that are relavent as well. But the few, do not negate the whole of my argument outlined above.

Well, the chances that you get cut or wounded against an armed opponent are 100%, I do not see your point here, the best and only solution is to escape, if this is impossible and if the guy is reaalu intent on damaging you, the risk that you won't see the light next day are more than important.


But keep punching and kicking "realistically." I have no trouble with that..puts you miles above the frey! It also proves you are practicing a form of really good civilian jujutsu art -Koryu or not

Yes, I do and this is just fine, I'm no Samurai or willing to become one.

I might have totally missunderstood your post as the level of english on this board is very high, so do not get mad at me

judasith
28th February 2006, 08:08
Hi to all!

Just a question: why everyone likes to talk about Daitoryu, about what Takeda Sokaku ate for lunch, about samurais and killer guys with energy pouring from fingertips, and no one practices it??? We always say that Daitoryu is the most talked about and least practiced martial art in the world...

Having said that, just two clarifying points:

1. Daitoryu has a lot of henka (variations), most of them also recorded and transmitted in the curriculum. It is true that most of the jujutsu techniques taught today are modified versions from the original ones, adapted for modern days. But it is not true there are no battlefield techniques: they have more of an historical value nowadays though. For instance there are many techniques from the upper levels, and some henka from the lower levels (even from Ikkajo!) that end keeping the enemy on you knee, while standing, and finishing him there, usually with empiuchi. These techniques are originally for armour use. So you can say something was kept of the original battlefield art.

2.Since everyone wants to say how peaceful and defensive Daitoryu is (I bet most of these never actually practiced it!), I'd like to remember that for Takeda Tokimune the essence of Daitoryu is to grab your opponent's hair and cut his throat... not that peaceful looking to me. OF COURSE today is almost completely defensive, though there are many techniques that use sen no sen and even sen sen as opposed to go no sen (this means they actually attack at the same time with the opponent or even anticipate him just before he makes the attack,)

Regards!

Dan Harden
28th February 2006, 14:45
Mr Merello

I am the one who responded quoting Takeda about the defensive nature of its use...go argue with him!


Since, I am the one who responded to counter these killer/soldier/samurai guys..and tried to give them more of a balance between battlefield and street, am I to assume your comments about not understanding its offensive aspects are directed at me?
I don't know anything about energy coming out fingertips as I don't believe in KI.
Anyway, if you are reffering to me, I might have an entirely different response.

cheers
Dan

Cady Goldfield
28th February 2006, 14:51
As to the comment concerning letting judoka give the physical answer, I agree and not because I am judoka, or more precisely, "only judoka," a term I have heard most of my adult life in judo. I have read so many different stories on Takeda Sokaku "beating up a bunch of judoka" that this original statement being the first I had read on the subject though I have since read it said in different ways, but the standard story is one of showing disdain by this group of judoka at a seminar/demonstration due to Takeda's rapidly aging and shrinking body not to mention the tattered hakama. I read the story of incredibly stupid and unnecessary egoism (provided the story went this way) of five or six judoka, who attacked Takeda, first one, with a "chop" to the forehead in which Sokaku not only avoided it, but in the haste of the judo player (someone who actually would do something like tha cannot be called a "judoka), he, Takeda side stepped the attack, with the adept move everyone should have said to themselves (this guy is goooood!), but then the second judoka steps up and tries to land the same atemi to the same area, and he too ended up on the floor in a pile, while a third did the exact same thing, Takeda noting what was obvious, that the judoka were not going to give up on that same attack. He did this in answer to each and every attack brought by the same judo players, which surprised me, actually, by the second attack. If something does not work, try something else, I said to myself, but to no avail. Stupidity and ego did.

But as much as the judo players proved how much they had been playing instead of working on alternate attacks, they certainly did not deserve the descriptive "judoka" especially at that time. I don't care whether or not they wer go-kyu or godan, you just do not check your respect at the door, and if someone shows up that perhaps, at the least, give the old man kudos for just being there. Thanks for reading,

Mark F.

One of the main reasons why judoka can "provide the answer" is because they mix it up with lots of different opponents (shiai, etc.) and don't just "inbreed" in the dojo - getting into esoterica with partners they train with every day. The reality of effective training is that you must take on unfamiliar opponents and learn to respond on your feet. This can't happen when your partner is so familiar to you that you know what he will do before the practice begins.

Takeda "trashed" judoka and other folks -- good fighters -- because he knew this truth and had practiced his skills against all comers all his life. He simply rocked. ;) That's not the case with a lot of dojo in which members intellectualize and "do the dance" with each other -- and no one else -- month after month, year after year.

This is also why you will learn more about real fighting from self-taught street scrappers with no discernable technique.

Let's make the distinction between "art as intellectual/creative exercise" and pragamatic survival skills. And let's face it. Most of us practice the former. Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't start believing that you're doing the latter.

judasith
28th February 2006, 15:04
Dear Dan,

No one wanted to argue with nobody. Just telling how in Daitoryu the word "defensive" has a different meaning than in most modern Budo. Takeda's "defensive" attitude is much more "offensive" than Aikido one! It's the person who is different, Daitoryu is not an art for bloodthirsty guys who search for a fight, and it is so BECAUSE it's quite hard and bloody for a koryu.
I said for a koryu! I agree with some of the posts here: don't fool yourselves, maybe with 20 years of practice and great determination you can one day achieve a fraction of the old ability these guys had, if not for else, just for the sheer amount of time they dedicated to training. Even the more dedicated of us are little more than amateurs.

Then again, I guess we should train more in Daitoryu before talking about it, this said both for people who support and those who don't the art.

TEA
28th February 2006, 15:10
There has been a lot of talk about the Japanese battlefield and the martial arts in this thread that I'd like to respond to but don't want to hijack this thread. Therefore, I'm going to be posting some of my thoughts down in the general History and Tradition forum WRT Japanese history and budo.

Aikijutsu Arts
28th February 2006, 20:56
This is also why you will learn more about real fighting from self-taught street scrappers with no discernable technique.


Nice post Cady! That comment is the brass tack. A fight with these "street fighters" is one of the only ways to tell if your art is being learnt. In training or structured fights, there is a sense of organization, whereas these street fights are unorganized and chaotic. When engaged in one of these unorganized fights, your defense is habitual and you are unable to think it through. These are the times when what you have truly learnt will come into play. Afterwards, if you find yourself thinking I should've done this or that, you know what you need to learn...

Thanks,
-Nick

Mark Jakabcsin
1st March 2006, 03:05
Sorry to interrupt folks but has there been a rule change? Maybe I missed a post about not having to supply full real names. I have always felt this to be the most important rule on E-budo and I am hoping it hasn't changed. RD-03 and Aikijujutsu Arts, even if the rules have changed please do the correct thing and post your full real name. Have the courage to stand behind your words or at least slink away quietly. Thank you.

Now back to your regularly scheduled banter.

Mark J.

Aikijutsu Arts
1st March 2006, 03:45
Mark,
Certainly it isnt a great deal about last names. Mine is on my profile anywho, but if people want to remain anonymous, so be it. It's not a matter of cowardice, but rather privacy. God knows its (privacy) fleeting quickly in todays society. But I assure you there will be no "slinking away" of my opinions.

Just for you Mark,
Nick Lakin

Mark Murray
1st March 2006, 12:12
Mark,
Certainly it isnt a great deal about last names. Mine is on my profile anywho, but if people want to remain anonymous, so be it. It's not a matter of cowardice, but rather privacy. God knows its (privacy) fleeting quickly in todays society. But I assure you there will be no "slinking away" of my opinions.

Just for you Mark,
Nick Lakin

Nick, it actually is a great deal on e-budo. If you don't sign your full name to each post, you can be banned. The rules are posted in each fora under announcement.
The rule is:
1. You will need to sign your full name on every post. You will only get three warnings from any E-Budo member.

If you go to User CP, you can edit your signature to include your full name so you won't have to remember adding it to each of your posts.

Thanks,

MarkF
1st March 2006, 12:34
Mr. Lakin,

People with privacy problems do not have to post, then, if they cannot post a full, real name. It may have been my fault as I had noticed that you have not used your name before, and let it go because it was in your profile, but both Marks are correct, it has been a rule here since I began posing here in summer of 1999.


Mark j. makes a proper point of why the rule is there so it isn't "just for mark" or "for the moderators," it is out of trust and just that little bit of a description about you may lead to a lot more discussion with you involved.

Since a moderator hadn't warned you, and you have put it in the signature editor, let it slide, but it it no joke, post without it three times after a moderator has warned you of it, you will receive a forced vacation.

Otherwise, we look forward to what you have to contribute.


Mark

Aikijutsu Arts
1st March 2006, 16:31
My uttermost appologies then to all of you. I thought if your full name was in your profile then it would be fine. Once again, I appologize and will post my full name on each post from now on.

Thanks,
-Nick Lakin

mikesigman@eart
3rd March 2006, 03:43
It may have been my fault as I had noticed that you have not used your name before, and let it go because it was in your profile, but both Marks are correct, it has been a rule here since I began posing here in summer of 1999. This is a setup, right, Mark? ;)

jdw
10th March 2006, 02:37
Isn't this where someone says Shut up and train

James Wilson

Takeso
21st June 2006, 03:14
greetings,

from your perspective, wath is the diference between aikido and aikijujutsu?

sorry if this question had been made before.

thanks.

don
21st June 2006, 03:46
from your perspective, wath is the diference between aikido and aikijujutsu?

Where have you researched this question before?


sorry if this question had been made before.

It has. Many times. See for yourself: http://www.e-budo.com/forum/search.php?

Takeso
22nd June 2006, 05:14
well did it in warriorsport.com like a year ago but no one responded.
i asked to an aikido practitioner but he said very litle.

my main arts are ninjutsu and kenjutsu but i also practice aikijujutsu, and have my own opinion.

i ask for the pesonal point of view.

thanks.

cguzik
22nd June 2006, 15:06
One of the best summaries on this topic I have read is the FAQ article by Toby Threadgill on the Bugei forum:

http://www.swordforumbugei.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1202

SteffenG
17th December 2006, 21:53
Looking at Yoshinkan aikido, you can see basics that were incorporated, but not entirely applied correctly. Some of these basics work well within the context and operating system of Daito ryu aiki, but do not work as well the way Yoshinkan employs them. Quite frankly, I think if Yoshinkan wanted to perform/incorporate aiki the way that Daito ryu does, they would have to change one of the most characteristic elements of their art. It would no longer look like Yoshinkan aikido, but Daito ryu aikijujutsu - which is not what it looks like.

Hello Mr. Scott,

I am very curious as to what would have to be changed and why.
Since I am currently trying to wrap my brain around the concept of aiki and because I am practicing Yoshinkan Aikido I hope getting an answer to this question will help me in understanding.


best regards,
Steffen Glückselig

SoldierNurse
18th December 2006, 08:28
As a student of Aikijutsu, long ago I weighed the odds of taking Aikijutsu and Akido. What I gathered from all my research was that Aikido was derived from Aikijutsu. After WWII, our military (US) made the Japanese discontinue the teaching of Aikijutsu.

Morihei Ueshiba (A.K.A.-O' Sensei) then took 12 of the basic throws from Aikijutsu and elaborated to form Aikido. He spoke saying that, "(Paraphrase) The offensive arts in Aikijutsu were not fit for this modern day world." However, most (if not all) of the arts in Aikido are also in Aikijutsu. Which brings me to my question for all of you...

...why take Aikido when Aikijutsu is available to learn? It would appear to me that taking Aikido over Aikijutsu is a rip off. You are not learning all that is offered.

(However, it is clearly understandable to take Aikido over Aikijutsu if wish to be purely pacifist)

Thanks for your time,
-Nick
Nick - I agree with you 101%... why take Aikido if Aikijutsu is available, which is the truest combat art.

SoldierNurse
18th December 2006, 08:34
I coodinated a multi-style demonstration. One of the individuals was ranked in both Aikido and Aikijutsu.

His description of the difference brought out an excellent differentiation:

Aikido = Policeman - to serve and protect - There is concern for the well being of the other party.
Aikijutsu = Soldier - to kill
Excellent example!

Cady Goldfield
27th December 2006, 19:33
Dunno. Maybe the original purpose of aikijujutsu was for lethal stuff, but that is obsolete now. Really, both arts are to "stop the spear." Aikijujutsu just gives you more to do it with, it seems. But to say that it is meant (now) to kill is irresponsible, in my opinion.

SoldierNurse
28th December 2006, 06:50
Dunno. Maybe the original purpose of aikijujutsu was for lethal stuff, but that is obsolete now. Really, both arts are to "stop the spear." Aikijujutsu just gives you more to do it with, it seems. But to say that it is meant (now) to kill is irresponsible, in my opinion.
Irresponsible?

Brently Keen
28th December 2006, 12:43
Originally Posted by Blackwood
I coodinated a multi-style demonstration. One of the individuals was ranked in both Aikido and Aikijutsu.

His description of the difference brought out an excellent differentiation:

Aikido = Policeman - to serve and protect - There is concern for the well being of the other party.
Aikijutsu = Soldier - to kill


Excellent example!

:rolleyes:
Please, this subject is so dated - I thought we'd long ago dealt with these general misconceptions. To put it bluntly, the facts are not consistent with the above example, so how could it be an "excellent example"??

Consider the following:

~ Aikido was developed by Ueshiba who was himself a soldier, who saw and engaged in combat. Early Pre-war aikido was also taught extensively to the military. Many of Aikido's senior, first, generation instructors also had military combat experience. Ueshiba like many of his contemporaries and students were also deeply affected by Japan's defeat in WWII and this too influenced the eventual direction of aikido.

~ Sokaku Takeda was raised as a samurai, his father, grandfather, uncle and instructors were all samurai who were involved in military conflicts, however it's interesting to note that they were also particularly known for being excellent bodyguards (that is they had reputations for being good at protecting/defending VIP's) among other things.

~ Sokaku grew up as child witnessing the Aizu Boshin War up close, but did not participate - he was too young. He tried to enlist with Takamori Saigo in his revolt against Meiji gov't but was deterred from doing so. Although Sokaku was a martial genius and was involved in numerous incidents where he used his martial arts for real, and he also taught a number of distinguished military officers, as well as Army divisions - he was not a soldier, nor did he to my recollection have any military combat experience. Sokaku did however get a reputation as a bodyguard and also taught police officers quite extensively.

While Daito-ryu has many characterisitics and techniques that were derived from older "battlefield" techniques, and it was for all original intents and purposes created for a weapons based environment. I believe that it was primarily a strategy based system that adapted military strategy for self defense and protection purposes. A good chunk of it's curriculum is rather self defense oriented with significant portions based on non-battlefield oshikiuchi, and practical self-defense methods.

~ Sokaku himself said the art was for self defense (goshin jutsu), and that a characteristic of it, is that it's not used to hit, kick or kill. Furthermore he said even women and children could learn it.

So much for the killer, combat, aikijutsu soldiers myth huh?

BTW as side note: If your "aikijutsu" art includes large amounts of hitting, kicking, or so called "killing" techniques, along with your throws and joint locks, you're probably not doing anything resembling authentic Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu. Real aikijujutsu tends to be a lot softer and more subtle than you probably ever imagined.

~ Sokaku's son, Tokimune Takeda, the late headmaster of the "mainline branch" served in the army a few years, but was also a police officer who taught police quite extensively for many more years than he was in enlisted service.

Whether aikijujutsu is used by police for arresting, military for combat, bodyguards for executive protection, or civilians for self defense, Cady is right, the ideal of "staying/stopping the spear" is a much more fitting description.

I think that even in a military combat situation where the application of aikijujutsu might be used in a way that results in killing the enemy - either with swords as in the fuedal era, or with modern weapons today - the application would be one that uses a higher strategy of winning without fighting or contesting. Such strategy naturally uses among other things, deception, surprise & subtle manipulation in order to control the opponent from the outset (staying the spear). The tactic would be to prevent him from deploying/using his weapon(s) effectively, making it possible then to finish with whatever technique(s) are appropriate to the situation.

In any case, whether on a feudal or modern battlefield, on the streets, inside a castle, a train station, an airplane, or in church; [ B]aikijujutsu is not meant to kill.[/B] It's meant to protect and preserve life - it does so by neutralizing the opponent's power [weapon(s) and/or intent] and rendering it harmless or ineffective if only for a moment in which one can decide & complete your objective without resistance.

Aikijujutsu is not for killing, rather it's a means for determining victory in the here and now - rather than waiting for, and perhaps missing the moment/opportunity in which to seize the advantage in a conflict. Aikijujutsu is a sort of technical means by which such a moment is created and even suspended for a time - so that we determine (by exercise of our will) the victory, rather than cede to our opponents will, or to chance, the outcome.

In any case your objective or intent should rightfully be what is appropriate for the situation - whatever you decide to do in that moment where you have control of your opponent, is what YOU intend to do. That is the extra luxury if you will, that aiki affords the aikijujutsu practitioner - however, the responsibility is also yours to act appropriately in the exercise of your will over another. To do otherwise is irresponsible. Not only that, but it would also violate the principles of REI, which are foundational to the art's orgins as well as to it's practice.

Personally, I think it would be more appropriate in a discussion comparing aikido to aikijujutsu to simply say that aikijujutsu is meant for anyone who require's more options (or the freedom to exercise different options) in otherwise limited or disadvantaged situations. It is equally useful for law enforcement, military or civilian applications. In and of itself it is neither moral or immoral, it is 'jutsu' oriented, IOW it's a practical, technical method of "staying the spear" - of using higher strategies in conflict in order to win without fighting or resistance.

It may be said that aikido is no different in this latter respect of aiming for victory without a battle and I agree, but it is different with regard to the previous point about creating options/freedom in limited situations (imho).

I'd rather not comment on further on aikido at this time, except to say that it too provides it's practitioners with various options - however it's philosophical intents and purposes are reflected in the technical modifications that Ueshiba made to DR Jujutsu waza - therefore the technical options it presents to "stop or stay the spear" are quite different and/or limited to some degree (imo). The responsibility of aikido practitioners to act responsibly according to the situation at hand is no different though.

Respectfully,

Brently Keen

don
29th December 2006, 16:48
:rolleyes: etc.Nice post.

Nathan Scott
30th December 2006, 05:00
[Post deleted by user]

Brently Keen
30th December 2006, 20:09
Nathan et al,

Just for clarification:

That DR contains various methods for killing is not in dispute here. It is well known that mainline instructors like Tokimune & Kondo both have said things like, "the technique is not finished until the opponent's head has been severed", as you described. I believe Tokimune also said that "they use real swords for real combat" or something to that effect. Likewise I'm sure that each and every branch of DR has preserved and continues to practice various techniques that are capable of killing.

My point was simply to echo Cady's opinion that Aikijujutsu is not MEANT for killing - as a previous poster had quoted some supposed aikido/aikijutsu instructor as giving the following excellent example on the difference between aikido and aikijujutsu:


Aikido = Policeman - to serve and protect - There is concern for the well being of the other party.
Aikijutsu = Soldier - to kill

I have long been a proponent of the practical as well as combative aspects of DR practice, but I don't think they can be so easily separated from the other more defensive, controlling, softer or more humane aspects of the art. IOW as has been frequently discussed in the past there doesn't seem to be the black & white distinction between bujutsu and budo - the ideal of staying/stopping the spear is in the character "bu" is it not? The classical intent and justification for the arts of war and killing, is in stopping evil.

Come to think of it I'm not sure aiki was "meant for" anything - it is what it is. I believe the purpose and intent of "aiki" is as I said, in the application of higher strategies/tactics in order to win without fighting or contesting. IOW the purpose or intent really resides in the practitioner, not in aiki or aikijutsu. Aiki itself is just a tool/tactic for harmonizing disparate/conflicting wills and obtaining victory without the struggle (or costs) of a battle. In this regard, it's purpose (if it has one), is not all that different in either DR or aikido; that is ultimately, it's for bringing about harmony or coordination through some sort of strategic movement(s), because such power is deemed more efficient than direct force or even applied leverage - concern for well-being or killing isn't really (or shouldn't be) a factor so much as practical efficiency is.

Setting aside the philosophical and/or moral emphases of the propagators and practitioners of the two arts, the whole difference between aikijujutsu and aikido (imo) actually resides in the different ways that they move and try to bring about the state of harmony or coordination. IOW, in the different tactics and forms of power they use to "stay the spear" or otherwise try to win efficiently without fighting or contesting by using force against force.

If we get down to it, I suppose an argument could also be made that the "battlefield" decapitation techniques and such preserved in DR would generally be considered part of the jujutsu (or perhaps more accurately in this case, called yoroi kumi uchi/kogusoku) curriculum and not part of the aiki or aiki (no) jutsu curriculum anyway.

Whether or not every branch of DR makes these same distinctions today (between aiki and jujutsu), historically there is ample evidence that Sokaku did. I personally think it's rather obvious that within the application of aiki techniques there is always the potential for killing - it is after all martial arts - I just don't think that "potential" necessarily = "purpose" or "meant for" in this case.

So to summarize, I agree much as Cady said, that to think aikijujutsu is meant for killing today, is irresponsible. It wasn't until the other poster wrote,
"Irresponsible?" that I felt compelled to respond, with a "YES, IRRESPONSIBLE!".

Respectfully,

Brently Keen

aikihazen
30th December 2006, 21:23
There are branches of the Aikido and our Iaido (Aiki-Toho-Iai) that feature the "kill shot" (so to speak) especially ours. In fact having visited one E-Budo's member's Aikido/Aikijujitsu Dojo where he teaches both Aikido and Aikijujitsu I did not see much of a technical differance except when it came to the sword where they incorporate Randori and we do not... with perhaps the small exception of a few Bokken Randori.

Not too many people in the US have spent serious time with Shoji Nishio Shihan's form of Aikido but I can tell you we measure our Aikido by how effective it is against other Martial Arts and have a strong emphasis on Budo.

Blanket generalities aside we IMO are alll branches of the same tree and in our case are strongly attached to the tree trunk of Daito Ryu and the Founders version of Aikido. So.. I am not too sure that using the example stated here is more a technical differance than a philisophical one and even then there are strong exceptions to this "rule."

Happy New Year Folks!!! :)

Now who here is getting up before dawn to bring in the New Year with a thousand Sword/Bokken cuts??? :)

William Hazen

NathanielG1
27th December 2008, 21:03
I am trying to research information to help me select a good dojo to study at. I would like to study Daito Ryu Jujutsu, but have not been able to find any dojos in the state of Washington, so I am trying to find the next best thing in looking for a dojo that teaches pre-war Aikido- which from the posts I have read on this website seems to be pretty closely related to Daito Ryu Jujutsu and has been referred to as almost an offshoot style of Daito Ryu Jujutsu. From what I have read online, Tomiki Ryu Aikido is "pre-war" Aikido and appears to be the style with the most robust syllabus. I have had the opportunity to see several styles of Aikido demonstrated, including Tomiki Ryu Aikido several years ago, but never have had the opportunity to attend a Daito Ryu demonstration to have a frame of reference to be able to compare the Aikido I see to Daito Ryu Jujutsu. Would someone who studies Daito Ryu Jujutsu or any of the offshoots from mainline Daito Ryu Jujutsu be willing to compare the syllabus taught in Tomiki Ryu Aikido to the syllabus taught in any of the groups of Daito Ryu Jujutsu. How closely does Tomiki Ryu Aikido compare technically to Daito Ryu Jujutsu, and how much of the current Daito Ryu syllubus is included in the Tomiki traditions? I did try to search for a previous link online before I posted this. If I missed it, and this has been discussed previously into the ground, I would be grateful if someone would point me in the right direction via a link. I did find commentary on e-budo that indicated that the Yoshinkan Aikido syllabus (another "pre-war" style of Aikido) is mostly from the "Hiden Morokuru", and I found on Aikiweb an article stating that the Aikikai syllabus includes close to 90% of the Hiden Morukoru, as well as some principles techniques from what was assumed to be higher lists. I like the philosophy of Aikido and the idea of a martial art that heavily emphasizes peaceful living and very defensive oriented strategies of self defense.

I would like to find a school that teaches the technical aspects of Aikido in such a way that I could also use what I learn for self-defense. I have visited a couple of dojos. Thus far, the manner in which the principles, techniques, and strategies of Aikido are drilled in the schools that I have visited don't seem to be structured in a way that would teach a person what they need to successfully defend themselves from anything other than various graps. The striking attacks don't seem realistic, and there seems to be little (actually no) emphasis on kicking or dealing with someone who kicks.

Any information would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Nathaniel Gullion

K Keckeisen
28th December 2008, 04:21
My 5 cents worth. One of my passions is comparing pre-war styles (Tomiki,Yoshinkan,Aikibujutsu), and Daito Ryu to form a kind of "best practices" for myself.
It seems your goals may be at ends with each other. From my personal reaserch Daito Ryu is not so much concerned with defendinging against realistic attacks and kicks as it is concerned with preserving archaic techniques exactly as they were handed down to the current teachers.
For example techniques for defending yourself while holding your lord's suitcases are still taught as relavant. I find it funny, because at one time such techniques were inovative and useful to the warrior class. Then at a certain time the sylabus became "frozen" and the emphasis was no longer on techniques useful to the warriors of the time but preserving exactly the techniques of the past. So if you are looking for practical self defense in the 21st century Daito Ryu may not be what you are looking for.
Having said that the princaples taught in Daito Ryu are very sound and can be applied to any attack. However, plan on a minumim 10 years of instruction to reach that level of profenciency. Also there are probably less than 10 legit Daito Ryu Dojos in the US so plan on lots of extended stay trips to Japan (if you are alowed to visit a Japanese dojo in the 1st place).
Tomiki teaches defenses against kicks and other more realistic attacks. I think their strength is in their randori / shiai. The techniques you learn have to work against a person who is actually fighting against you. This will greatly increase the speed in which you become proficent in protecting yourself. You may not know the entire sylabus but in a few months you will know a hand full of techniques you can "pull" in a self defense situation.
I am not a Tomiki guy but I have "stolen" some of their training methodes and applied them to my Yoshinkan training (another pre war style) - see my first statement about best practices. Another avenue you may want to consider is Obata Sensei's Aikibujutsu. Pre war Aikido (very early Yoshinkan when Shioda was teaching Aikijujutsu to his uchi deshi) with a very strong emphsis on practical application.
I got a little long winded there so lets wrap it up. If you are interested in Traditional Budo taught as it was in the Meji era than Daito Ryu is the way to go. If you are interested in practical self defense and Aikido philsophy, a pre-war Aikido style that trains against resisting oponents is the way to go.

Kasey Keckeisen

wagnerphysed
29th December 2008, 14:20
I think you may find another form of martial arts more suited to self defense. Either Aikido or Daito-ryu, I don't practice the former...but from what I've seen and read..., you will need to put in significant time to reach a level were you can apply the arts with the proficiency needed to defend yourself in a physical conflict.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying. Both arts are worth your time and effort in pursuing. But if your goal is self-defense, your time would be better focused on something or some combination that include kicking and punching and grappling. I understand Krav-Mgaw (sic?) has a pretty effective teaching structure for dealing with stress and defense. Also, BJJ has some pretty effective grappling techniques that seem to be easily learned and put to use by beginner level practitioners.

My advice (as DDAFTUS would say, it's most likely worth exactly what you are paying for it.), is to satisfy your goal of self-defense first and then move on to satisfying a different purpose if you are still interested in studying Aikido or Daito-ryu.

Also, you can get a good view of much of the public aspects of Daito-ryu on youtube.

Finally, there are plenty of legitimate daito-ryu dojo in the US. Check out not only Main-line Daito-ryu, but also, Takumakai, and Kodokai dojos. There is also Ropokai and others for you to investigate. I'm not sure of what is on the west coast, but I think there is some Kodokai out there.
:)
Good luck!

TimothyKleinert
29th December 2008, 15:40
[T]here are probably less than 10 legit Daito Ryu Dojos in the US so plan on lots of extended stay trips to Japan...
Actually, I would guess there's more like 25-35 split between the various branches. But it's hard to know 'cause not all the branches publicly list their dojos, and even then, sometimes members run informal study groups that aren't included as "official" dojos.

Nathaniel, if you haven't already, I would try contacting a representative from each of the branches, to double-check that aren't any in your area. It's the only way to know for sure. If that doesn't pan out, you can try looking into Yanagi-ryu & Nami-Ryu. While they aren't technically Daito-ryu, they do have a historical link to Sokaku Takeda, and are the only other arts that can rightfully call themselves "aiki-jujutsu".

On the Tomiki front, while Tomiki himself may have had a certain "Daito-ryu"-ness, I am not sure that quality has really been passed on. It's also obvious that Tomiki mixed his Aikido with something else---namely, judo and some of his own ideas---so even if certain features of his branch are more DR-like, other things are less. Thus I would argue with the idea that the Shodokan is any "more" like DR than any other branch of Aikido.

Really, the idea that any Aikido branch is "more" like DR than any other is one of my pet peeves. Each branch has certain features that resemble Daito-ryu, and other features that don't. Most of these types of claims are made for political reasons, or are based on mis-information.

Also, if you're interested in Aikido and self-defense, you might want to look at cross-training in Russian Systema. Systema has some very aiki-like principles that reportedly blends well with Aikido.

A.J. Bryant
29th December 2008, 22:39
If that doesn't pan out, you can try looking into Yanagi-ryu & Nami-Ryu. While they aren't technically Daito-ryu, they do have a historical link to Sokaku Takeda, and are the only other arts that can rightfully call themselves "aiki-jujutsu".

You'd have to include Hakko-ryu and recent off-shoots in there as well.;)

K Keckeisen
30th December 2008, 16:21
Krav Maga, Systema, And Sambo are all very practical martial arts. But none of them are original arts onto themselves. What I mean by that is these arts are the results of a need. Different people / governments saw the need for solid martial art to protect the people of their nation or to enhance their country's military. They picked and chose the best other martial arts had to offer. Created a basic skill set, then drilled these skills in realistic situations. From what I've seen of Krav Maga, and Sambo they use alot of Aikido / Aiki JuJutsu techniques. They just train them in a way that is practical. So if you want to learn Aikido self defense I would suggest (call me crazy) training in Aikido. Having said that unfortunatly Aikido Dojos that train that way may be more rare then "25" dojos teaching legit Daito Ryu in the entire US

Kasey Keckeisen

Nathan Scott
31st December 2008, 02:14
[Post deleted by user]

Nathan Scott
31st December 2008, 02:35
[Post deleted by user]

Brian Owens
2nd January 2009, 02:12
I believe this to be so important, and so often not understood, that I think it bears repeating.


...The thing to keep in mind is that the kata is nothing more than a learning structure, not simulated combat or necessarily realistic scenarios.

Too many people want to "learn a few moves" or "learn some tricks" for self defense; they then look at kata training and dismiss it as "not practical" or "not relevent to modern needs."

Kata, however, are far more than "tricks" -- they are the living textbooks of our arts, and they not only contain the building blocks from which an infinite number of scenarios can be constructed, but are also priceless intangible cultural artifacts.

john_lord_b3
2nd January 2009, 06:27
You'd have to include Hakko-ryu and recent off-shoots in there as well.;)

Amen to that brother! :)

Hakko-ryu and its derivatives (Hakko Denshin-ryu, Kokodo, Dentokan etc) still has Katas which are 80%-90% similar to the ones practiced in Daito-ryu.

Flintstone
2nd January 2009, 10:01
Hakko-ryu and its derivatives (Hakko Denshin-ryu, Kokodo, Dentokan etc) still has Katas which are 80%-90% similar to the ones practiced in Daito-ryu.
Just like Aikido?

wagnerphysed
3rd January 2009, 12:20
I know someone somewhere on E-Budo has already posted this link to Koryu-Books and Dr. Hall's article on Kata. Despite that, it seems appropriate to post here in this thread.

http://www.koryu.com/library/dhall1.html

There seems to be a misunderstanding about Kata's role in training. To further muddy the waters, looking at attacks as realistic or archaic is really just indicative of looking in the wrong direction when it comes to techniques and their underlying purpose.

My purpose in posting this link is to highlight the underlying purpose of kata and in the process point to the right direction for viewing these techniques...not just in Daito-ryu, but in any of the so called archaic arts that use this method of transmission.

Good luck!

K Keckeisen
5th January 2009, 00:17
I weighed in to answer a gentleman’s question about using a form of pre war Aikido for self defense. The discussion has turned / been merged with an old school / new school thread. So here is my additional 5 cents worth.

I’m not against kata, in fact I belief kata is an integral part of training. However, I believe that the skills learned in kata have to be applied to attacks a person is likely to encounter. For example if you have been trained through kata form techniques against shomenuchi eventually you need to use these skills against say a jab / straight cross of a boxer. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. This should be done in the dojo . You don’t won’t the first time you experience this cross over effect to be vs. a former golden gloves who doesn’t like the way you looked at his girlfriend J

I also advocate a Prof Kano type approach of using kata and randori together. All too often you see students training in kata with no idea of what the motions are for. Training against a resisting opponent will change that - improve knowledge learned in kata. For Koryu purists I believe before randori there was a practice of uke countering if the kata was incorrect or the technique ineffective.

My point being that there is no reason time tested training techniques cannot be used against modern attacks, isn’t that how these katas started any way? - This is how I was attacked on the battle field, this is how I survived. I should pass this on to the other fellas in case they are in a similar situation.

To make my point let me play devil’s advocate. Many scholars with much more historical knowledge than me have discussed the big Old Ju Jutsu vs. New Judo competition. The topic many times being Saigo - a key factor to both Judo and Aiki Jujutsu won for the Kodokan using a Daito Ryu technique - Yama Arashi.

My argument is that Saigo won not because he was classically trained in an excellent ryu-ha Daito Ryu, nor because he was trained using Kano’s new methods, but both. I feel (feel don’t know) that Saigo won because he had a great skill base from Daito Ryu which he then trained against resisting opponents at the Kodokan. This gave him a great advantage against the other ju jutsu schools that trained in kata only. Kodokan adapted to the times and was victorious. Other schools did not and survive today only because of the hard work and dedication of teachers and students trying to preserve their arts.

Kasey Keckeisen

Nathan Scott
5th January 2009, 04:52
[Post deleted by user]

john_lord_b3
5th January 2009, 10:55
Just like Aikido?

Hakko-ryu is very much Formal Kata-based, somewhat like mainline Daito-ryu. And some of the Katas are very noticeably looks like Daito-ryu katas. Something like Tomiki-ryu Aikido Koryu no Kata. So yes, there are similar techniques between mainline Daito-ryu, Tomiki-ryu and Hakko-ryu. But Aikikai Aikido (current Aikikai-Aikido) is different in that it is not Formal Kata-based and the circle of movement are much bigger.

Mark Jakabcsin
5th January 2009, 13:42
1) Since the koryu were developed within specific historical contexts, largely by a warrior class of people that are long extinct, part of the interest and "charm" they offer is that of providing a living history of times long past, along with their associated tradition and old-school Japanese culture. It would be hard to maintain the culture and tradition if the kata are "updated".

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't a part of the koryu culture back in the day continuous "updating" and innovation to maintain or gain the advantage against other possible opponents from different koryu? How can one stay true to the culture and not change?

Of course this brings up the question on whether any koryu can actually 'maintain the culture' as modern society has nothing to do with edo period Japan. Can we take one small part of that historical society out of the context of the whole and really feel like we have maintained anything?

Take care,

Mark J.

Ellis Amdur
5th January 2009, 16:26
there is no evidence that Saigo Shiro, a teenager had any "aikijutsu" training. In Kano Jigoro's recently published diary, he describes maintaining a dojo at one point, and mentions Saigo as one of the youths who he had watch the place and teach while he was unavailable. I'm writing this on the run, but essentially Kano says, "He wasn't very skilled at that time." Saigo was a product of being a) a really talented kid b) training among top level young men. Think of Nogueira, who was at the top of the world at 21 years old, beating Mario Sperry, then in his thirties, who was one of his mentors.
Best

Flintstone
5th January 2009, 17:02
Selamat sore, Pak.


Hakko-ryu is very much Formal Kata-based, somewhat like mainline Daito-ryu. And some of the Katas are very noticeably looks like Daito-ryu katas. Something like Tomiki-ryu Aikido Koryu no Kata. So yes, there are similar techniques between mainline Daito-ryu, Tomiki-ryu and Hakko-ryu. But Aikikai Aikido (current Aikikai-Aikido) is different in that it is not Formal Kata-based and the circle of movement are much bigger.
Agree on that. However, even inside the Aikikai, each "line" has a very concrete way of doing things. Think shomen uchi ikkyo. It's pretty standard "inside" the line, even when it varies hugely between styles.

After all, DR also has different ways of performing the same technique, even in the same branch. But I see you point clearly. Thanks :) .

Eric Joyce
6th January 2009, 18:45
Not all kata purists are concerned with practical ability, but there are many kata purists that find it possible to train in practical ways without engaging in randori or competitions.

Hi Nathan,

How can kata purists tell if the way they are training is practical without doing something along the lines of randori to determine martial efficacy? I too believe kata is an important tool, and it should be used along with a training tool like randori. However, at some point shouldn't the kata purists move beyond theory and try it in application. Yes, practical in a dojo setting with someone who is familiar with what you are about to do, but against a resisting opponent who is "not going to cooperate" with you is a different matter. I'm not being disrespectful, I'm just trying to figure out how can kata purists say they are training in practical ways without actually trying it out in the context of randori or shiai?

Hissho
6th January 2009, 19:15
there is no evidence that Saigo Shiro, a teenager had any "aikijutsu" training. In Kano Jigoro's recently published diary, he describes maintaining a dojo at one point, and mentions Saigo as one of the youths who he had watch the place and teach while he was unavailable. I'm writing this on the run, but essentially Kano says, "He wasn't very skilled at that time." Saigo was a product of being a) a really talented kid b) training among top level young men. Think of Nogueira, who was at the top of the world at 21 years old, beating Mario Sperry, then in his thirties, who was one of his mentors.
Best

He also mentions that they frequently had to stop because young Saigo would tire easily.

Saigo's skill was directly a product of training with Kano, and no doubt eventually the caliber of his fellow Kodokan judo training partners.

K Keckeisen
6th January 2009, 20:47
Just to throw gas on the fire....Of course it dosen't mention anything about about Saigos previous training (if there was any)in Kano's dairy. What would his dairy entry say? Wow this Saigo kid is awesome, he in no way needs to train with me or benifit from my new training methodes :)

On the flip side the other dairy entry kinda helps my kata / randori together argument. If for sake of argument Saigo had AJJ training through kata form and tried easily in Judo training dosen't that show that randori (resistive) style training is needed for martial effenciancy?

I don't care how sharp your kata is if you are to gassed to pull the techniques

Nathan Scott
6th January 2009, 22:56
[Post deleted by user]

john_lord_b3
7th January 2009, 08:36
Selamat sore, Pak.

Buenos Tardes amigo :)



Agree on that. However, even inside the Aikikai, each "line" has a very concrete way of doing things. Think shomen uchi ikkyo. It's pretty standard "inside" the line, even when it varies hugely between styles.

After all, DR also has different ways of performing the same technique, even in the same branch. But I see you point clearly. Thanks :) .

Yeah, I got your point too, thank you very much my friend :). I guess our point is that diversity instead of unity is the main feature of many arts descended from Takeda Sokaku today.

wagnerphysed
9th January 2009, 00:17
Hey, just thought I would pop in and offer my two cents once again.

I agree very much with what Nathan has posted regarding the role of kata and the problems with changing it. We can see in arts like Yagyu shinkageryu where kata has been added but whole sections, have for the most part, been left alone. As Nathan detailed, sections were added while older sections were maintained.

Also, outside of the Yagyu example, I have been told that kata is only a small part of a koryu. Even more important in koryu are the traditions and knowledge maintained by the ryu. Kata is important. Maintaining the traditions and teachings of a ryu are another piece to the koryu. If you are invested in a koryu art, these cannot be separated.

Finally, kata is not an end in itself. It is only an instructional method. The lesson you learn and walk away with is entirely up to your thoroughness and diligence, or lack there of, in learning what exists within the kata. Practicing with resistance and changes in the attacks might very well be included in this.

No1'sShowMonkey
30th January 2009, 16:01
While the kata of some koryu were likely updated regularly to benefit from experience and changes in the trends of warfare or materials of war, whence this adaptive drive from regular warfare ceased so did the organic growth. Mr. Hall writes in his essay of the three types of kata and the break off of the Tokugawa shogunate and later. What this can be interpreted to mean is that classical kata are a snapshot of warfare of a time and place long forgotten to the rest of the world. What that snapshot contains, however, is the distilled martial truth learned in hard lessons.

Mr. Scott has already spoken about the risks of updating kata. That would freak me out, personally. I tend to trust in generations of toil and blood, that their work was meaningful and truthful, and lacking the context of lethal combat with edged weapons I have very little to add and only a great deal to detract from the quality of a kata.

I have a background that includes randori as a general practice in class and I know that I learned a great deal from it. Putting concepts learned in kata into practice against a live opponent is an eye opening thing.
It is my understanding that koryu kata develop eventually into a more free form method. See Teaching Shu-Ha-Ri (http://shinyokai.com/Essays_TeachingShuHaRi.htm) for an essay on the subject by Yukio Takamura. Many have come before us and some bled testing the limits of safety and efficacy of kata. While kata teach principle, they still hold to very basic martial laws and beneath the surface you can see a great deal of violence.

So I guess what I am getting at is that the classical kata provide a window into a particular time and place and method of fighting befitting context. The value of that context is open for debate. Contemporary fighting methods seem to be exactly that - methods. They are concerned first and foremost with the technical demands of their operators: how to shoot well, deal with weapon failures, basic tactics for fixing, flanking and destroying etc. The obsession with the practical and contextual to modern fighting, however, may not put as much emphasis on the same skills developed and demanded in koryu kata. I think that in this way the koryu kata are preserving elements of the combative mindset and method which may be passed over or by more modern methods.

TimB99
25th April 2010, 11:51
So I've been wandering a bit through these forums lately, and I've gotten to the point where I've started to wonder what the exact differences (and maybe the similarities) between daito-ryu aikijujutsu (or whatever you like to call it, I've seen it being referred to in different ways, and because I'm not in any way affiliated with their teachings, I'm in no position to judge&stuffs).

Anyhow.. In order to keep things positive and constructive, in stead of starting off in a flame-war, a blame-war or any other negative way, I'll phrase the questions as such:

In your experience (either through observation or participation):

What does daito-ryu have that aikido hasn't? If there is a difference at all.

What does aikido have that daito-ryu doesn't have? If there is a difference at all.

What might aikidoka learn from daito-ryu that they might not learn in aikido? If any?

What might daito-ryu folks (no disrespect intended, obviously) learn from aikido that they might not learn in their own school? If any?

What could instructors, again, from both ends learn from each other that might skyrocket their transmission?

What would be an absolute must to teach, again on both ends?


Feel free to answer any question you'd want, and any amount of questions you want. Feel free to add to the discussion in any way you please. Feel free to add anything that might be considered beneficial to the discussion.

Hope to learn alot ^^

-Tim Bergman


Oh! And just for funsies: if you were to teach one thing to me, or if you were to train with me and wanted to experiment with something, what would it be? :p

DDATFUS
25th April 2010, 20:00
So I've been wandering a bit through these forums lately, and I've gotten to the point where I've started to wonder what the exact differences (and maybe the similarities) between daito-ryu aikijujutsu (or whatever you like to call it, I've seen it being referred to in different ways, and because I'm not in any way affiliated with their teachings, I'm in no position to judge&stuffs).

I'm pretty sure that this isn't the first time this question has been asked. If you use the search function, you'll probably find quite a few threads on the topic (many of them including answers from people who no longer post on e-budo or are so sick of this topic that they will no longer answer this type of post). I'm not saying this to criticize you or your post-- I think that you pose interesting questions. I'm just alerting you to the fact that some answers are out there already and that some potential answer-ers are unlikely to respond.



What does daito-ryu have that aikido hasn't? If there is a difference at all.

What does aikido have that daito-ryu doesn't have? If there is a difference at all.

Too many answers to this, and quite a few of the answers depend on which aikido guys and which Daito Ryu guys you are talking about. Neither aikido nor Daito Ryu is a single monolithic entity, after all.

Some people might come along and post their thoughts, and I think that you could find some interesting clues in old interviews over at Aikido Journal. At the end of the day, though, the only way to answer your question is to get out there and feel both arts, preferably from a variety of sources.

Also, one warning for when people start posting their answers to this: in my experience, the more qualified a person is to answer this question, the less likely they are to have anything to say about it online. I am, of course, a prime example of this-- my post count exceeds my knowledge by more than a hundredfold.


What might aikidoka learn from daito-ryu that they might not learn in aikido? If any?

Sorry if this sounds like a flippant answer, but from Daito Ryu, an aikidoka could learn to do Daito Ryu. Daito Ryu isn't something you train in to supplement your aikido or to get better at a specific skill set. It is Daito Ryu; either take it for what it is or leave it be.

There are clearly tons of similarities between the two arts and aikido is clearly a descendant of Daito Ryu, but it is also clear that Ueshiba, at some point in his career, started doing his own thing. If there is anything that a very smart aikidoka could learn from Daito Ryu, it might be what aikido isn't.

Nathan Scott
26th April 2010, 21:20
[Post deleted by user]

Cliff Judge
26th April 2010, 22:22
As an Aikido guy, I am sure I can teach any Daito Ryu person how to begin class by bowing to a picture of a bearded old man.

hypnotortoise
12th May 2010, 03:17
Hi all,

I am slowly working my way through this rather large thread, however to state the obvious (which has probably already been stated more than once)....

There are no superior martial arts, only superior martial artists.

Regards,
Will Murray.

Rev
12th May 2010, 03:23
only superior martial artits.



sorry, had to... Who are these artits? And are they aiki-artits.

hypnotortoise
12th May 2010, 03:25
sorry, had to... Who are these artits? And are they aiki-artits.

Lol, yeah would have done the same had I seen it from someone else, I was hoping that no one would notice before I did the edit :)

Will

Nathan Scott
9th September 2010, 21:57
[Post deleted by user]

P Goldsbury
10th September 2010, 02:40
Cleaning out stacks of saved paperwork and magazines, I came across the following quote of interest, published in Aikido Today Magazine 1994/1995, #37, Page 17; "Interview with Yoshimitsu Yamada Sensei", by Susan Perry:



Regards,

Hello Nathan,

I think this ties in with Ellis Amdur's discussion in Hidden in Plain Sight about Ueshiba reducing the number of waza in aikido. The received opinion has been that it was Kisshomaru who did this, in Tokyo, while Dad was doing his aiki-farming etc in Iwama.

Best wishes,

PAG

Nathan Scott
12th September 2010, 03:40
Hi Peter-san,

Yeah, could be. Apparently the deshi in Iwama would also drop and practice suwariwaza when they heard Ueshiba Sensei approaching the dojo too. Suwariwaza are, IMO, a valuable set of training methods that are largely overlooked these days (in Japan as well as internationally) due to students disliking them. Too bad. My students have never complained about them.

I think the reality is that you can't teach a massive curriculum of sophisticated techniques through a large and quickly expanding international organization structure. Perhaps Kisshomaru Sensei was forward enough thinking at that time to realize that, and narrow down a small set of universal fundamentals instead. His father, on the other hand, was more or less teaching to a limited amount of direct students, and may have been in a better position to foster the more traditional teacher-student relationships, and thereby was able to retain more of the detailed methods he was teaching earlier. It could be as simple as circumstances. I know that for myself, I teach in different ways based on the circumstance. For regular students, I give little corrections, instead favoring supervised kata repetition (with myself mixed in). For distance students, or those I rarely see, I give much more in the way of corrections with less repetitions, so they will have enough homework to hold them over until the next time I see them. Teaching in a room with mirrors is different than teaching in a room without, etc.

In any event, I believe it is clear that Ueshiba Sensei viewed his teachings as different from Daito-ryu, if not more evolved. Like most founders of their own arts, they tend to not appreciate it when their students gloss over what they are teaching in favor of researching their root arts.

Regards,

Nathan Scott
27th September 2012, 01:01
I just came across an old interview translated into English with Shioda Gozo Sensei of Yoshinkan Aikido in Vol. 1, No. 1 of the Aikido Yoshinkan International newsletter (June 1990). I found the following interesting:


Q: What is the difference between Daito-ryu and Aikido?

S: Aikido has used the techniques of Daito-ryu as a base, however, Ueshiba Sensei through his own personal search 'shugyo' and his own spiritual enlightenment has added a great deal of original understanding to the Daito-ryu techniques. That is to say, he added the concept and methods for suppression of resistant intentions. If we can follow natural movement we will be able to move together with the opponent and control him. This is the way of thinking in Aikido.

Nathan Scott
30th May 2013, 21:38
There is an interesting Takumakai article online that may be worth reading:

Interview with Kobayashi Kiyohiro, Manager of the Takumakai

Following are excerpts comparing Daito-ryu Takumakai and Yoshinkan Aikido (in particular).


Hisa Takuma Sensei was a student of Ueshiba Sensei and Takeda Sensei. That being said, Takuma Sensei started training under Ueshiba Sensei in a discipline that corresponds to today's Yoshinkan Aikido ... I was also a university student so I had the opportunity to open an Aikido club ... From that I also went to follow classes at the Yoshinkan and at the Aikikai. I got a letter of introduction from Takuma Sensei around March 1966 so that I could meet Ueshiba Sensei, Takuma Sensei's former teacher ... There is no incompatibility [between aikido and Daito-ryu]. Whether they are Ueshiba's or Takeda's techniques, there is no profound disagreement because very naturally, Daito-ryu techniques evolve into Aikido techniques. For these Sensei, there is no doubt that Daito-ryu led to Aikido. For me it was the same, in Tokyo, because I had obtained an introduction letter to train with Ueshiba Sensei and Shioda Sensei, I could train both morning classes and the evening class at the Honbu Dojo, and the the lunch class at the Yoshinkan.

Shioda Sensei's students [were the ones teaching at the Yoshinkan at that time], mister Kushida and Inoue. But Shioda Sensei did not teach anymore, I was too important. There were also other black belt instructors whose names I have forgotten. This is where I learnt. In fact, Yoshinkan techniques really looked like Hisa Takuma Sensei's techniques. The techniques taught at the Asahi newspaper conformed to those taught in Tokyo at the Yoshinkan Iidabashi dojo. At the Aikikai however, it was a bit different.

The comparisons between Yoshinkan and Daito-ryu have been made before, but this is one being made by a senior instructor of Takumakai who trained at both Yoshinkan and Aikikai. Sounds like valuable feedback - at least in regards to the Takumakai and Yoshinkan in particular.

Shioda Sensei began training in "aikijujutsu" under Ueshiba Sensei at his Kobukan Dojo starting in May of 1932, and later received a scroll from Ueshiba Sensei that is said to be identical to the Daito-ryu Hiden Mokuroku. Hisa Takuma did not begin training in Daito-ryu based methods (then referred to as "Asahi-ryu jujutsu" at the Asahi Newspaper Company) under Ueshiba Sensei until 1933. At that time Ueshiba had already founded his Kobukan Dojo in Tokyo, and Shioda was actually senior to Hisa in the art, studying the same teachings at roughly the same time. So Hisa did not get enrolled or taught orhodox "Daito-ryu" until 1936 when Takeda Sokaku arrived and took the dojo over. So if you look at things from this perspective it makes sense that Yoshinkan and at least the Takumakai techniques that were taught by Ueshiba would be the same.

Regards,
Last edited by Nathan Scott; 05-30-2013 at 17:12.