PDA

View Full Version : origins of aiki-jo



Ulf Lehmann
10th July 2000, 20:38
Hi,
first of all, I´m not so familiar with the art of Aikido... Any Aikido dojo train with weapons like swords and staffs. Mostly, the swordmanship in this art have a traditional background, like the Kashima shin ryu or others. Maybe, there is the same with the Aikido-staff-system? Does anyone have infos about the origins or the influences of old ryu to the art of Aiki-jo. To my mind, the technics are so different to good old Muso ryu...

Regards, Ulf

Kendoguy9
11th July 2000, 14:21
i have read that Ueshiba sensei might have trained in Kukishin-ryu bo, jo and hanbo. the jo kata i have seen in aikido do look a lot like the Kukishin-ryu kata a Jininkan (ninpo) friend of mine does. i think he learned it when was with the Bujinkan.

gambatte!!!
Chris :)

Meik Skoss
15th July 2000, 15:34
There were/are a number of influences on weapons training that people in aikido do. It differs between teachers and systems.

In Ueshiba-style aikido, the stuff taught by Saito Morihiro is mainly derived from Kashima Shinto-ryu (sword), which is probably a result of his study of that system. The stick in Saito's training is some sort of syncretic system, although its origins of that are rather uncertain. It certainly has no resemblance to anything in koryu that I have ever seen.

Hikitsuchi Michio's Shochikubai swordsmanship, however, has a lot of similarity to Yagyu Shinkage-ryu, with admixtures from the iai that the Duke has done. His bo is *different* from Saito's jo and is rather more comprehensive in several ways. It comes from the menkyo kaiden Hikitsuchi was given by Ueshiba.

The sword done by Shirata Rinjiro is again quite different. As was Iwata Hajime's bojutsu. And Sunadomari Kanshu's ken and jo. It's pretty clear that the most senior teachers got all different stuff from the old man. They all have or had different backgrounds and it seems clear Ueshiba taught 'em the sort of stuff they'd be able to use most efficiently.

I can't really speak too much re: Tomiki-style buki waza. Oba (Tomiki's assistant) did a bit of training in sword, bayonet, and glaive (Tomiki didn't). From what I've seen of their swordwork, it appears to be heavily influenced by the Itto-ryu, probably that of the Ono-ha line.

Shioda-style aikido swordwork is definitely influenced by Yagyu Shinkage-ryu. We (Yagyukai folk) used to train at the Yoshinkan Dojo, and the live-in students would work on some of the more basic sets with us (sangakuen [toriage zukai], airaito [hasseiho] and chudan [jusan seiho]). I don't know what they do with jo. Their tanto exercises are also rather interesting, but I've no idea as to where that comes from.

Tohei-style stick "technique" (and I use the term loosely) appears to be something similar to a mix of Hikitsuchi's and Saito's respective bo and jo waza, but done in a manner even less congruent with reality than either of the others' technique. (I may be doing them an injustice, but I trained in that stuff for a fairly long time and promptly forgot it all when I saw what classical swordsmanship and stick/staff arts were really like.) Suffice to say that there does not appear to be much concern with whether or not the technique works in reality. Maybe that's a sign of "-do" or ...?

There is no evidence that Ueshiba Morihei ever studied the Hozoin-ryu in any formal sense and nothing I've seen of any of the aikido staff/stick technique bears *any* resemblance to Hozoin-ryu waza. I do see evidence of juken waza, most especially in the makiotoshi and blocking movements, which makes sense since Ueshiba is said to have been rather good with the bayonet during his army service.

Hirai's Korindo weapons techniques probably come from his background in the classical arts (Togun-ryu, I think), but I don't know much about it. From what I've seen of it over the years, it is gradually becoming somewhat watered down, which is probably a result of becoming inbred. Gotta keep those bloodlines fresh, donchaknow?!

And that's all I know about it. If people are interested in weapons, they probably ought to train in a classical system *and* the related modern art -- that gives 'em a chance to farm and ranch both, be AC/DC in their practice. Or, to put it in other words, they get the best of both worlds.

szczepan
15th July 2000, 18:37
Could origin of jo in aikido be a practice with a spear? Any system practice spear today?

regardz

pboylan
16th July 2000, 03:02
Sczcpan,

Hello there! I didn't realize you hung out here.

From what I have seen of aikijo, it is certainly not based on any spear style that I have seen practiced. I'd have to agree with Meik's theory on the bayonet (jukendo), although the aikijo I've seen in North America looks like it has drifted a long way from whatever it's origins were.

Peter "the Budo Bum" Boylan

Tony Peters
16th July 2000, 04:40
Originally posted by pboylan
Sczcpan,


From what I have seen of aikijo, it is certainly not based on any spear style that I have seen practiced. I'd have to agree with Meik's theory on the bayonet (jukendo), although the aikijo I've seen in North America looks like it has drifted a long way from whatever it's origins were.

Peter "the Budo Bum" Boylan

Now Now Peter just because you've seen how bright Koryu light bulbs are doesn't mean you need to show how dim the gendai bulbs are. That said I've a feeling that what ever Aikijo came from it was likely meant for training not for fighting.

pboylan
16th July 2000, 22:20
Hi Tony,

I wasn't suggesting anythingabout th quality of aikijo. I was just saying that it has moved a long way from wherever it started at (though I do think they would gain quite a bit of understanding about what they're doing from a little koryu practice of some kine ;-)

Peter "the Budo Bum" Boylan

szczepan
16th July 2000, 23:06
Originally posted by pboylan
Sczcpan,

Hello there! I didn't realize you hung out here.

From what I have seen of aikijo, it is certainly not based on any spear style that I have seen practiced. I'd have to agree with Meik's theory on the bayonet (jukendo), although the aikijo I've seen in North America looks like it has drifted a long way from whatever it's origins were.

Peter "the Budo Bum" Boylan

Hi Peter B-Bum!

I appreciate very much e-budo.com.Many seriouse old timers here.
Why origins of aiki-jo are important to discover, coz we don't know in what spirit we must practice it....
Just play the game(ballet?) or some martial applications?

regardz

Tony Peters
16th July 2000, 23:13
Originally posted by szczepan
Why origins of aiki-jo are important to discover, coz we don't know in what spirit we must practice it....
Just play the game(ballet?) or some martial applications?

regardz [/B]

Sorry to but in, however I agree whole heartedly...as it stands right now many seem to play at it as a game, thinking that it has martial applications.

Brently Keen
18th July 2000, 08:39
I used to wonder about the Kukishin-ryu connection. But after seeing some Kukishin-ryu stick work, I don't see any relationship to aikido's aiki-jo.

Saito sensei admitted that the aiki-ken he learned was primarily influenced by Kashima Shinto-ryu. But he also said that he did not know the orgins of the aiki-jo he learned from Ueshiba. Meik is correct about Hikitsuchi sensei's bo being different from Saito's Iwama-style. I learned his bo ikkyo and nikkyo from Holiday sensei who was a student of Hikitsuchi sensei for a number of years in the 70's. But although the kata are different, a number of the movements do seem similar to me. However, I'm sure Meik knows much more about their applications than I do.

I have also seen some similarity between Ueshiba's aiki-ken, Hikitsuchi's Shochikubai ken, Shioda's aiki-ken, and Daito-ryu's aiki-ken. My understanding is that Daito-ryu contained some sword techniques (aiki-ken) that were distinct from Itto-ryu kenjutsu. In addition, it is said that techniques from Jikishinkage-ryu and Kyoshin Meichi-ryu have also been transmitted, but I'm not sure which techniques derive from which school, or whether they were original techniques created by Sokaku Takeda. I would speculate that Ueshiba probably did not learn very much sword from Sokaku, but that he may have tried to emulate some of Sokaku's sword techniques in his demonstrations.

I can't really say where aikido's kumi-jo and various jo kata's come from either, except that I believe the influence of juken is certainly likely. But I do believe that aikido's jo-dori techniques may have their orgins in Daito-ryu's aiki-jo techniques. A number of Saito's jo-dori techniques are very similar in form to the basic jo-dori techniques in Daito-ryu. However, the application of "aiki" in Daito-ryu waza does not seem to be present in the jo-dori techniques of aikido, making them difficult to apply in reality. Daito-ryu's jo waza have very rarely been seen in public even today.

Unlike most koryu weapons systems, aikido weapons techniques are basically not designed to defeat other weapons or practitioners of other arts, but are for the purpose of facilitating the development of the aikidoka's taijutsu skills. Thus the effectiveness of aikido's weapons training must be taken into the context of the purpose of that training. Against other weapons arts whose purpose was defeating their skilled opponents on the battlefield, aikido's weapons training is not going to prove very effective, but in the context of aikido training it may very well serve a useful purpose.

Just my (somewhat speculative) two cents worth,

Brently Keen



[Edited by Brently Keen on 07-18-2000 at 02:48 AM]

Ulf Lehmann
18th July 2000, 20:54
Hi,

thank you for the informations about the origins of Aiki-jo. I know - most Aikido teachers use sword and stick to give there students a better understanding of empty hand technics and a better feeling for movements. It´s interesting to know the different influences - thank you...

regards,

Ulf Lehmann

Ron Tisdale
18th July 2000, 22:13
Originally posted by Meik Skoss

Shioda-style aikido swordwork is definitely influenced by Yagyu Shinkage-ryu. We (Yagyukai folk) used to train at the Yoshinkan Dojo, and the live-in students would work on some of the more basic sets with us (sangakuen [toriage zukai], airaito [hasseiho] and chudan [jusan seiho]). I don't know what they do with jo. Their tanto exercises are also rather interesting, but I've no idea as to where that comes from.

Thank you for a very informative post Mr. Skoss! I have been hearing about the Yagyu Shinkage ryu connection to the Yoshinkan for some time, but this is the first time a non-Yoshinkan authority has stated it that I know of. Knowing next to nothing of the official YSR curriculum, I had no way of judging the accuracy of certain statements until now.

I also found the tanto work different, but my exposure to other styles is no where near as great as yours. Any comments on the usefullness of the tanto exercises? I really have a hard time judging the quality of the weapons work due to my own lack of experience in that area.

One question: almost all of the aiki-jo that I had seen until Yoshinkan was very flowing, not much emphasis placed on specific stances, grips, etc. (more variety between practitioners, even in the same dojo). The Yoshinkan jo that I have seen and learned so far is just the opposite: The transitions from stance to stance seem very marked, the hand positions are strongly stressed and fairly uniform. There is definitely a right and wrong way to hold, strike, block, and transition with the jo. The focus seems more precise to me as well (I was such a beginner with the other styles of aiki-jo as to make any comment of mine almost ridiculous, but I'll try anyway). Is there any formal jo work in the YSR curriculum (other than paired kata with the bokuto, which I kind of assume would be there)? Would the paired kata with bokuto be enough to explain what I see as a marked difference? I haven't heard of any other styles influencing Yoshinkan aiki-jo yet, but I'm still looking....have you seen or heard anything?
Thanks again,

Ron Tisdale

[Edited by Ron Tisdale on 07-18-2000 at 04:19 PM]

Tony Peters
19th July 2000, 00:37
Originally posted by Ron Tisdale

One question: almost all of the aiki-jo that I had seen until Yoshinkan was very flowing, not much emphasis placed on specific stances, grips, etc. (more variety between practitioners, even in the same dojo). The Yoshinkan jo that I have seen and learned so far is just the opposite: The transitions from stance to stance seem very marked, the hand positions are strongly stressed and fairly uniform. There is definitely a right and wrong way to hold, strike, block, and transition with the jo. The focus seems more precise to me as well (I was such a beginner with the other styles of aiki-jo as to make any comment of mine almost ridiculous, but I'll try anyway). Is there any formal jo work in the YSR curriculum (other than paired kata with the bokuto, which I kind of assume would be there)? Would the paired kata with bokuto be enough to explain what I see as a marked difference? I haven't heard of any other styles influencing Yoshinkan aiki-jo yet, but I'm still looking....have you seen or heard anything?
Thanks again,

Ron Tisdale

[Edited by Ron Tisdale on 07-18-2000 at 04:19 PM] [/B]

My own aiki weapons experience is/was with Iwama and Tohei influenced weapons systems. The Tohei weapons that I've done is very flowing and almost entirely related to Taijutsu, The Iwama weapons that I've done is more regmented/disiplined requiring a fairly strict adherence to form. Grips and stances were emphasised however the stances were not very aggressive. It was still fairly related to the Taijutsu not as a weapon to weapon system. IMHO the big thing about aiki jo is the joining together priciples behind it verses the attack/defend priciples of the the koryu arts.

Meik Skoss
19th July 2000, 13:19
Mr. Peters has opined that he thinks the difference between weapons training in aikido and koryu is "joining together," as opposed to attack and defense. I think he's simplifying the matter in a way that begs the question. There's a great deal of emphasis on "blending" and "harmonizing" in any and all budo (whether gendai or koryu); if there were not, how would people be able to train? Or improve their skill level or understanding of the intangible aspects of close combat?

The major point, really, is that one needs to be able to harmonize one's actions and mental state to train well in a martial art. Whether that state of harmony is the goal or a means to an end is another question entirely. Indeed, and this is something one can know *only* by becoming a member of a classical system along with training in the modern arts, there is no real difference "at the end of the day."

szczepan
19th July 2000, 15:39
Originally posted by Meik Skoss
Mr. Peters has opined that he thinks the difference between weapons training in aikido and koryu is "joining together," as opposed to attack and defense. I think he's simplifying the matter in a way that begs the question. There's a great deal of emphasis on "blending" and "harmonizing" in any and all budo (whether gendai or koryu); if there were not, how would people be able to train? Or improve their skill level or understanding of the intangible aspects of close combat?

The major point, really, is that one needs to be able to harmonize one's actions and mental state to train well in a martial art. Whether that state of harmony is the goal or a means to an end is another question entirely. Indeed, and this is something one can know *only* by becoming a member of a classical system along with training in the modern arts, there is no real difference "at the end of the day."

M.Skoss,

Regarding you great experience in both, are you saing there is no difference between aikido and koryu?

regardz

Tony Peters
19th July 2000, 18:20
Originally posted by szczepan

Originally posted by Meik Skoss
Mr. Peters has opined that he thinks the difference between weapons training in aikido and koryu is "joining together," as opposed to attack and defense. I think he's simplifying the matter in a way that begs the question. There's a great deal of emphasis on "blending" and "harmonizing" in any and all budo (whether gendai or koryu); if there were not, how would people be able to train? Or improve their skill level or understanding of the intangible aspects of close combat?

The major point, really, is that one needs to be able to harmonize one's actions and mental state to train well in a martial art. Whether that state of harmony is the goal or a means to an end is another question entirely. Indeed, and this is something one can know *only* by becoming a member of a classical system along with training in the modern arts, there is no real difference "at the end of the day."

M.Skoss,

Regarding you great experience in both, are you saing there is no difference between aikido and koryu?

regardz

Ok I'm guilty of simplifiing things just a bit, that comes from working in the military, short and sweet. I agree that blending is present in both Koryu and Aikido and that it is indeed just a case of whether the blending is a tool or an end. Blending as an end seems a bit dangerous if the person receiving the blending (where is my Osterizer when I need it) doesn't realize that he has been spared. I found major differences betwixted Koryu and Aikido. In the "End" my SMR skills made it dangerous to my partner in aikido and my Aikido skills made me a hazard to myself in SMR Jodo. Strangely (or maybe not so) the practice of a Koryu Jujutsu though completely differant than Jodo has not affected my safety or that of my partners at all. For me the realism of Koryu is what makes it easier to practice safely, Conversely the blending and protecting of Aikido has lead to most of my martial arts injuries. In the end both Koryu and Gendai made lead to the same place but the road is vastly differant and the skills learned along the way are only superficially similar. Of Course this is just my opinion

Meik Skoss
19th July 2000, 18:50
In a post to this forum, Mr. Janczuk asks, "Regarding your great experience in both, are you saing there is no difference between aikido and koryu?"

I think that I stated that, "at the end of the day," there is no essential difference between classical systems and modern arts. I meant that, as a form of austere personal training, budo, be it gendai or koryu, is pretty much the same. It doesn't matter whether it's "modern" judo, kendo, kyudo, or the "older" arts of jujutsu, kenjutsu, or kyujutsu, the end result is the same: a life of training and discipline. It's to be hoped that such endeavors lead to the development of personal character and moral probity along with physical health and technical skill.

Is aikido any different? In some ways, yes, and in others, no. Technically, aikido resembles jujutsu most closely, but it isn't usually practised in the same way (to be blunt, I think it lacks any semblance of reality) and there's a difference in what I'll call "personality-type" between people in the respective arts. There's a taste of moral superiority some aiki-types display (wholly unjustified, in my opinion) and it really detracts from the value and rigor of the art. Not to say an art (aikido or koryu bujutsu) is better or worse, just an observation of some differences in style or flavor. To reiterate, I think that the ultimate goal is the same: a life spent in training oneself (oneSelf?) is a life lived well. That's about all one can say, as I understand it.

burp
20th July 2000, 22:10
Howdy!

My background is pretty much 'nil in koryu and aiki weapons practice. The connection I could even pretend to have would be suburi practice.

My questions that may reflect my ignorance ... :

Was Morihei Ueshiba greatly skilled with a Sword and Jo (as various outsiders have supposively said he was)? The comment has been made that aikijo and aikiken in general has no basis in reality ... . If Morihei Ueshiba's skill and ken/jo usage (regardless of orgin) was based in reality, what changed in the transmission of his teachings? Did he simply understand something from his background in koryu, etc. that simply could not be handed down in the gendai art of Aikido?

Anyway ... Enjoy!

mikehansen

MarkF
21st July 2000, 08:08
The answer to that questions lies in his students. Rarely, can anything be notable of the teacher that isn't in how the student perceives the instruction, and then extends that knowledge over time. What is understood today is far removed from the teacher, and I believe he would agree. The story becomes much more pragmatic over time, and is far more esoteric when it comes from the teacher, or others of that time. No, it wasn't that long ago, but it does not take long for the esoteric lessons learned to become more reality based. I think Mr. Skoss' meaning in his post reflects that.

Yamantaka
21st July 2000, 10:56
[QUOTE]Originally posted by burp
[B]"Howdy!
Was Morihei Ueshiba greatly skilled with a Sword and Jo (as various outsiders have supposively said he was)? The comment has been made that aikijo and aikiken in general has no basis in reality ... . If Morihei Ueshiba's skill and ken/jo usage (regardless of orgin) was based in reality, what changed in the transmission of his teachings? "

Howdy!

First of all, I believe Ueshiba's practice in weapons is a little bit "hazy" and little documented. He didn't get any menkyo or equivalent certificates and, for the most part of his time, he didn't teach weapons to his students. They learn what they could, either copying his movements that they saw or learning from some koryu. Even Saito Sensei, which is considered by many as "the guardian of O-Sensei's teachings" and perhaps the only one to learn weapons directly from O-Sensei, has a weapons syllabus that's heavily influenced by Kashima Shinto Ryu's sword practice.I guess that's why Aiki weapons are so haphazard (some teachers use it, some don't; some are reasonably good at it, some are pretty bad...)
IMHO
Yamantaka

phil
22nd July 2000, 03:44
I am new to this website but noticed the discussion of the jo. In the Yoseikan style of Mochizuki Minoru, the jo and most of the other weapons used have their foundation in Katori Shinto Ryu. Master Mochizuki was an early student of Ueshiba and was one of two men originally sent by Jigor Kano to study the, then, new art. One of Mochizuki's contemporaries was Sugino Sensei who recently died after being the head of Katori Shinto Ryu. This complex martial arts style is one of the very oldest in Japan. It reflects, as do the techniques of Yoseikan, the pre-War influences and Mochizuki's strong desire to keep techniques that were very powerful and very effective.

ghp
23rd July 2000, 19:28
http://www.trifox.com/aux/kenshinkan/photos/suginoyoshio141192.jpg

Phil,


Sugino Sensei who recently died after being the head of Katori Shinto Ryu.

"Warnining Will Robinson, Warning" <scene of robot frantically waving arms up and down>

Sugino sensei was not the head of Katori Shinto Ryu. He had menkyo from the previous soke, and he taught Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu -- but he never was its head.

The current head of TSKSR is Iizasa Yoshisada, 20th headmaster; the current Shihan is Otake Risuke sensei.

I was honored to briefly meet Sugino sensei in 1992 -- he attended my teacher's 80th birthday celebration.

Regards,
Guy

George Ledyard
2nd August 2000, 07:44
Originally posted by Brently Keen

Meik is correct about Hikitsuchi sensei's bo being different from Saito's Iwama-style. I learned his bo ikkyo and nikkyo from Holiday sensei who was a student of Hikitsuchi sensei for a number of years in the 70's. But although the kata are different, a number of the movements do seem similar to me. However, I'm sure Meik knows much more about their applications than I do.
[Edited by Brently Keen on 07-18-2000 at 02:48 AM]
I trained for a number of years at a dojo in which the Shingu Bo Ikkyo and Bo Nikkyo were the only weapons taught. I got to see a number of people practicing the forms. It is my opinion that almost none of the people doing the forms knew what the movements really were. They had all learned their bo as solo forms with no actual practice of paired movement. Quite a lot of Aikido weapons work is like that. People go through the motions without really understanding what the movements are supposed to be. Some exposure to classical training would help that immensely but I think that even without that benefit people could do a much better job if they really put some extensive analysis into their weapons work.

Aiki-jo is certainly a mix of stylistic influence. The thrusting movements I was taught by Saotome sensei seem to be most closely related to the Jukendo work I have seen. The blocking and striking movements have a lot in common with the Shingu bo if you allow for some difference due to requirements of length. But in the case of Saotome Sensei I believe that a good portion of what we did was his own interpretation of how the movements and energy of the staff correspond with and make clearer for us the use of the hands in empty hand technique. That has always been his primary interest, to tie the weapons and empty hand together. We often say that the sword was the source for much of Aikido empty hand but actually I think the jo with its two ends and the possibility of each end (and each hand) having a separate action in a technique is closer to the way you really use your hands. I think that's why Saotome Sensei eventually developed his Two Sword Forms. They are much closer to the manner we use our hands than in single sword. So I would definitely agree with Meik Skoss in that Aikido jo influences are very eclectic and each teacher seems to have combined those varied influences in a different manner.

George Ledyard
2nd August 2000, 07:54
In the "End" my SMR skills made it dangerous to my partner in aikido and my Aikido skills made me a hazard to myself in SMR Jodo.
[/B]
I am interested in this statement. Could you explain this in more detail for me. I did some koryu training and I didn't find that it effected my training from a safety standpoint. Maybe our Aiki weapons backgrounds were different. Anyway I am quite interested in your perspective. Thanks.

George Ledyard
2nd August 2000, 08:08
[i]
for the most part of his time, he didn't teach weapons to his students. They learn what they could, either copying his movements that they saw or learning from some koryu.
Yamantaka [/B]
From what I have heard from Saotome Sensei much of what O-sensei taught was done oustide of class on the basis of what you were interested in learning. Sensei said that he was always asking O-sensei questions and more often than not O-Sensei would grab a weapon off the rack whip off a move or two by way of explanation and then off he'd go leaving Saotome Sensei to work things out for himself. The different deshi got instruction in these things if they took the initiative to ask or if O-Sensei saw them trying to work on the area.

Since fighting is really about openings which in the end come down to connection and concentration, O-Sensei probably was as good as he was billed. Does that mean he was a swordsman in the way that the classical swordsmen mean it, probaly not. Does that mean that a classical swordsman could cut him with a sword, probably not.

Meik Skoss
2nd August 2000, 09:07
Brently Keen and George Ledyard have stated some very valid points in their recent posts. The techniques taught by both Hikitsuchi Michio and Saito Morihiro are, indeed, similar in several ways, in that blocking, parrying, thrusting, and striking movements resemble one another rather closely. The major difference seems (to me, anyway) to be the sequence of movements, and the posture/quality of movement of both of these teachers, rather than a difference in kind.

I've seen the e-maki that Hikitsuchi was awarded by Ueshiba and it seems clear to me that there's a lot we don't know about what it contains. Probably the best informed person on this score is Clint George, an aikido teacher in Helena, Montana, as he spent the longest time with Hikitsuchi and's probably the most skillful exponent of the "Shingu style" of training. I understand that he received lots of training in bo, whereas people like Jack Wada, Linda Hultgren and I did more work with sword.

To the best of my knowledge, Ueshiba's work with weapons drew on a number of technical sources, but was primarily a rather idiosyncratic style that he employed for personal training rather than an organized system. He'd demonstrate a number of applications from time to time, but that was to illustrate the principles of the art rather than to "teach" buki waza per se. For the most part, by all accounts, most of Ueshiba's post-war students did not receive systematic instruction in sword, staff, or stick. Amongst his students of pre-WWII vintage, probably Shirata Rinjiro (sword) and Iwata Hajime (staff) are probably the premier examples. After WWII, Hikitsuchi and Saito stand out as well-grounded in weapons training. Other teachers, such as Tamura, Chiba, Kanai, and Saotome appear to have gotten most of their buki waza from other sources.

My personal opinion (remember, personal opinions are a lot like a**holes -- we've all got 'em) is that there are some very nifty things contained within Hikitsuchi's and Saito's buki techniques, but that the current method of training in them is not conducive to a realistic appreciation of what they are really all about. Generally speaking, there's very poor understanding of distancing, timing, or targeting, not to mention the more intangible psychological aspects of combat one finds in koryu training. That's in keeping with Ueshiba's post-war approach to training in aikido as a budo of "love," of course, but it's an important distinction to make. Withal, if average trainees enjoy what they do, that is good enough.

Yamantaka
2nd August 2000, 18:15
[QUOTE]Originally posted by George Ledyard
[B][QUOTE]"From what I have heard from Saotome Sensei much of what O-sensei taught was done oustide of class on the basis of what you were interested in learning. Sensei said that he was always asking O-sensei questions and more often than not O-Sensei would grab a weapon off the rack whip off a move or two by way of explanation and then off he'd go leaving Saotome Sensei to work things out for himself. The different deshi got instruction in these things if they took the initiative to ask or if O-Sensei saw them trying to work on the area."

YAMANTAKA : Hello, Ledyard-Sama! That's more or less what I was saying. O-Sensei was one of the old-time teachers and he teached the ancient way - by example. The burden of learning was on his students. But in Buki matters he was even worse. He definitely didn't like to teach.

"Since fighting is really about openings which in the end come down to connection and concentration, O-Sensei probably was as good as he was billed. Does that mean he was a swordsman in the way that the classical swordsmen mean it, probaly not. Does that mean that a classical swordsman could cut him with a sword, probably not."

YAMANTAKA : I agree with you. But I would like to point out something our good friend, Meik Skoss, has put on this list :
"To the best of my knowledge, Ueshiba's work with weapons drew on a number of technical sources, but was primarily a rather idiosyncratic style that he employed for personal training rather than an organized system. He'd demonstrate a number of applications from time to time, but that was to illustrate the principles of the art rather than to "teach" buki waza per se. For the most part, by all accounts, most of Ueshiba's post-war students did not receive systematic instruction in sword, staff, or stick. Amongst his students of pre-WWII vintage, probably Shirata Rinjiro (sword) and Iwata Hajime (staff) are probably the premier examples. After WWII, Hikitsuchi and Saito stand out as well-grounded in weapons training. Other teachers, such as Tamura, Chiba, Kanai, and Saotome appear to have gotten most of their buki waza from other sources.
My personal opinion (remember, personal opinions are a lot like a**holes -- we've all got 'em) is that there are some very nifty things contained within Hikitsuchi's and Saito's buki techniques, but that the current method of training in them is not conducive to a realistic appreciation of what they are really all about. Generally speaking, there's very poor understanding of distancing, timing, or targeting, not to mention the more intangible psychological aspects of combat one finds in koryu training. That's in keeping with Ueshiba's post-war approach to training in aikido as a budo of "love," of course, but it's an important distinction to make. Withal, if average trainees enjoy what they do, that is good enough.
Meik Skoss
Koryu.com"

I couldn't state it better. Consider it my own words.
Best regards and good keiko
Yamantaka

burp
3rd September 2000, 07:39
Howdy!

Ubaldo, George, and Meik ... Thanks for the replies! Very helpful!

Enjoy!

mikehansen

R Erman
3rd December 2000, 22:17
I know this is an older thread but thought I'd ask something. Saotome sensei was mentioned a couple of times. I'm curious as to how his aiki-jo compares to some of the koryu systems? I'm speaking in terms of mechanics and application. I've seen Saotome's and Ikeda's jo work and thought them both pretty impressive. Any comments?

Dream True,

Meik Skoss
3rd December 2000, 23:24
R. Erman wrote: "I know this is an older thread but thought I'd ask something. Saotome sensei was mentioned a couple of times. I'm curious as to how his aiki-jo compares to some of the koryu systems? I'm speaking in terms of mechanics and application. I've seen Saotome's and Ikeda's jo work and thought them both pretty impressive. Any comments?"

Not having seen either Saotome's or Ikeda's technique for a good 16~20 years, I can't really offer a comment. I believe Saotome pretty much made up his nito toho out of bits and pieces of this 'n that (probably with things he had seen of Niten Ichi-ryu and/or Shingyoto-ryu [if he ever saw that] as a foundation), but that it has no relationship to any koryu. I know that Saotome's also seen a lot of the Shinto Muso-ryu (Shimizu Takaji was a friend of Ueshiba's), but it's hard to say -- since I haven't seen his jo waza -- if there's any resemblance. I can say with some certainty that the bo technique Iwata Hajime and Hikitsuchi Michio do owes a *lot* to Meiji period jukenjutsu (NOT Hozoin-ryu) so it's possible that Ueshiba taught something or other to Saotome, who then expanded upon that.

The directly observable koryu influences I've seen in what is now done for bukiho in aikido are in swordwork: Kashima Shinto-ryu in Saito Morihiro's kumitachi and Yagyu Shinkage-ryu in Hikitsuchi Michio's Shochikubai no ken.

Hope that helps.

Tony Peters
3rd December 2000, 23:33
Aiki-jo is a teaching tool...a good one but still a teaching tool...not an offensive weapons system. I have had a few years of Aiki-jo and a year of SMR Jodo. Jodo is a much more useful weapons system. My father, who is a serious Aiki-jo practicianer, saw the differance as well as the martial feel of Jodo in the first five minutes of observing a SMR Jodo class. Our (SMR) ma-ai is one of the greatest differences. We stop at contact, hard with the stick, soft with the body, but contact none the less. Where Aiki-jo uses piviots and turns SMR is alway advencing or steping off the line and advancing. Hips are always facing the opponant/partner. It has taken me a while to unlearn a lot of aiki-jo and it's open ma-ai. There really isn't any comparison between the two except that they both use a similar stick. BYW this is not meant in any way to put down the Aiki weapons systems...they just aren't the same as Koryu weapons systems...but then they weren't designed to be either.

[Edited by Tony Peters on 12-03-2000 at 05:38 PM]

RDeppe
4th December 2000, 01:08
Saotome Senseo's weapons haven't changed a lot-- little details for sure but overall they have the same look & feel. I've been training with Saotome Sensei for a about six years and since Saotome Sensei himself says that he made alot of it up I've always assumed the weapons kata probably went thru major revisions-- but a saw a tape from the seventies just recently and was amazed at how unchanged they are. So, take that for what that's worth? I also do SMR jo and a don't see a lot of similarities; although Saotome Sensei has definitely seen it and is aware of it-- I didn't know Shimizu Sensei & Ueshiba Sensei knew each other. Thanks for the trivia. It's neat to know. On the otherhand, I think Ikeda Sensei has made some explicit changes in his weapons kata that he has made up(?) to bring his jo much more in line with SMR jo-- just my theory. No facts to support it.

As an aside, a find Saotome Sensei's two sword to the technically best weapons he does. As compared to his sword & jo (I am only speaking technically here if you decide to flame me for this :)).

IMHO.

R Erman
4th December 2000, 03:53
Thanks for all the replies. I would agree, with what little I've seen, that Ikeda's Aiki-jo is much more...on the mark. An emphasis on technique and precision done at a much faster pace than alot of the "play-time" speed I see most aikidoka using(not an insult, just an observation).


Anyway, thanks again.

Jack B
7th December 2000, 17:54
I have found that Tomiki Aikido as I have been taught is not at all incompatible with classical budo. I was originally attracted to Eishin-ryu because I recognized the same principles that I had been taught in aikido-- control of centerline, maai, body mechanics. There is a related thread on another list concerning the thesis that Tomiki did not inject the heavily spiritual element into his aikido because he was trained very early in Ueshiba's career, before O-sensei's emphasis changed.

The buki-waza in Tomiki's katas is pretty sketchy, mainly outlining the basic principles that are possible. I was explicitly taught that the sword takeaways are NOT practical against a trained swordsman, and that even an untrained opponent would probably cut you bad. Same would have to apply to the other weapons work (knife, jo/spear), though to a lesser extent due to the sword just being intrinsically more dangerous.

Meik, your esteemed spouse has reported that Oba adapted the sword vs sword work from the Kendo kata and Itto-ryu. These 8 waza are a study of timing, distance and response. Only the last two involve any weapon to weapon contact. Perhaps there is little interference because there is so little emphasis on it. :)

Tony, perhaps our Aikido is different from what you have studied, but we have found that Jodo (seitei as well as the little koryu I have trained in) complements Aikido very well. We have had no problem with injury, outside of what normally is expected in a vigourous contact art. The maai and timing in koryu jodo is a little closer, there's more power and speed, and greater precision is needed, but we haven't experienced the kinds of problems you mention. Could you provide some examples?

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

Tony Peters
7th December 2000, 18:54
Originally posted by Jack B

Tony, perhaps our Aikido is different from what you have studied, but we have found that Jodo (seitei as well as the little koryu I have trained in) complements Aikido very well. We have had no problem with injury, outside of what normally is expected in a vigourous contact art. The maai and timing in koryu jodo is a little closer, there's more power and speed, and greater precision is needed, but we haven't experienced the kinds of problems you mention. Could you provide some examples?

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


Having never done any seitei Jodo I can't speak for that we are only doing the Koryu. What I noticed is that the adjustments in ma-ai from Jodo affected my partner in Aiki-Jo. Where I was used to the closness he/she was not and spent most of class retreating or pulling techniques. Mind you this wasn't just junior folks. I guess George asked me the same question back in august but at the time I was in Japan (working mostly) and didn't see it. Koryu training allowed me to move in a more disiplined manner and as such I was somewhat unforgiving manner. Therefore the slop that aikido allows on the ukes part was leaving me with little to work with. This was my problem as much as my ukes however I didn't like it and I wasn't interested in changing to become "less" precise. My injuries in Aikido were entirely related to folks who were sloppy or lazy in their execution. To the point that I dreaded class because I didn't know what I was going to hurt next. This has never been a problem in Koryu mostly (IMO) because of the regimented style used. I have yet to see an Aikido Dojo that operated this way. As far as weapons alone was concerned the general thought that I've seen with Aiki weapons is that it is thought to be real but most folks seem to "Play" it. When in fact it isn't very realistic and that attitude isn't healthy or safe. I didn't find much in the way of similarity between Aiki-jo and SMR lots of turning in in aiki-jo almost none in SMR. As well as the differences in Kamae/hamni. In all honesty I prefer SMR to Aikiweapons mostly because it is much more realistic and the attitude of the folks I train with is better.

paco
26th March 2003, 21:19
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Meik Skoss
[B]There were/are a number of influences on weapons training that people in aikido do. It differs between teachers and systems.


Hirai's Korindo weapons techniques probably come from his background in the classical arts (Togun-ryu, I think), but I don't know much about it. From what I've seen of it over the years, it is gradually becoming somewhat watered down, which is probably a result of becoming inbred. Gotta keep those bloodlines fresh, donchaknow?!


I know this is an old thead Mr. Skoss, but can you explain more why Korindo weapons techniques are watered down, English is not my lenguage so I don't understand what you meant.

Francisco Pérez.

Jason W
15th December 2003, 12:15
I just got a copy of the new Takamatsu DVD, and couldn't help noticing that his bo work was very similar in many ways to M. Saito Sensei's Aiki Jo. I think it strengthens the argument for Kukishin Ryu being a possible influence on Ueshiba Sensei's Jo.

Many of his bo movements are recognisable suburi's for Iwama style jo, as are the way inwhich they are combined . Very interesting, I think.

cheers,

Jason Wotherspoon
Takemusu Aiki Association of Australia

PRehse
16th December 2003, 01:28
Originally posted by Jack B
The buki-waza in Tomiki's katas is pretty sketchy, mainly outlining the basic principles that are possible. I was explicitly taught that the sword takeaways are NOT practical against a trained swordsman, and that even an untrained opponent would probably cut you bad. Same would have to apply to the other weapons work (knife, jo/spear), though to a lesser extent due to the sword just being intrinsically more dangerous.

Meik, your esteemed spouse has reported that Oba adapted the sword vs sword work from the Kendo kata and Itto-ryu. These 8 waza are a study of timing, distance and response. Only the last two involve any weapon to weapon contact. Perhaps there is little interference because there is so little emphasis on it. :)
Hi Jack;

Couple of comments. In the Kumitachi I count four where there is weapon to weapon contact but you are right (of course) that they are meant to be an introduction. You want more you go train with a specialist. Nariyama, at the very least when he was uchideshi to Kobayashi, did just that. Tomiki and Ohba worked togeather to develope pretty well all the kata including the weapons. I only mention this because I asked a student of both these men about the idea that the tachi techniques came only from Ohba and he laughed and told me that both men were Kendo hachidan and the situation was no different. Where Ohba differed substantially from Tomiki was with the Naginata although Ohba does have a reputation for being very good with the sword.

As for the take aways. It is understood that all avenues should be exhausted before taking that little path BUT they are no more unrealistic than I have seen in various Koryu demonstrations here in Japan. Rule number 1 - if you have a sword, don't lose it.

rupert
16th December 2003, 07:28
Originally posted by Meik Skoss
Generally speaking, there's very poor understanding of distancing, timing, or targeting, not to mention the more intangible psychological aspects of combat one finds in koryu training. That's in keeping with Ueshiba's post-war approach to training in aikido as a budo of "love," of course, but it's an important distinction to make.

I could not agree more. Personally, for some time I have been disregarding / forgetting a lot of what I have been taught (Aiki-jo/Ken) and for want of an alternative, am struggling to reformulate it - just for myself - maybe one day I'll find a good school, but until then... I have had the chance to meet the odd student of Katori Shinto Ryu and asked all sorts of questions and found that I am, partly, on the right track, but with a long way to go.

Stabbing in the dark,

Rupert Atkinson

rupert
19th December 2003, 00:33
It is known that Ueshiba was a Juken (bayonet) instructor in the military. Thinking about it, the way we use a jo is more akin to a rifle than a spear. I have tried using a longer jo and it strikes the ground in many techniques. Maybe, just maybe the jo techs we do come from Ueshiba's Jukendo stint. What do you think?

I have a mate who is 5th dan Jukendo, 3rd dan Aikido - I'll have to ask him ...

Rupert Atkinson

PRehse
19th December 2003, 02:05
Hi Rupert;

Ueshiba M. made his reputation when he trained a bunch of religious types to hold off the imperial army with bamboo spears. The base might have been bayonet practice but he was known as a yari man. As you know in Tomiki Aikido the Koryu Goshin no Kata does not have any Jo techniques but Yari. Of course what we use looks like a Jo - lots of quibble room there. We also have a solo Jo kata but I think that came from Nariyama's training with Kobayashi who got that from Ueshiba M. (not absolutely sure about that).

Jack B
19th December 2003, 16:51
The solo jo kata does not exist in the US branches of Tomiki style (through Miyake, Inoue and Geis). I also have never heard of it in England (through Yamada, Ohba and Inoue). So I would tend to agree with that development in Shodokan through Nariyama.

PRehse
20th December 2003, 08:33
I will be asking this week-end specifically about the origin of the solo jo - at least if the opprotunity presents itself. It will be busy. Although we have been operating over a year this Sunday is our first grading at the Honbu dojo.

rupert
22nd December 2003, 05:11
Originally posted by PRehse
Hi Rupert;

Ueshiba M. made his reputation when he trained a bunch of religious types to hold off the imperial army with bamboo spears. The base might have been bayonet practice but he was known as a yari man.

Yeah - that's what every one says - but the more I think about it, it looks decidedly like bayonet style to me. Sure there's the odd Jo tech that you switch around the jo and hold it the other way - but that could be a rifle butt. I just wonder ... maybe there is more of his juken in the jo than there is yari...

Rupert

Diane Skoss
22nd December 2003, 15:18
Hi all,

I've done the solo jo kata in Tomiki aikido (when in Japan--hm, maybe I did it in the States too?) and it is indeed closely related to one of the Ueshiba jo kata (can't remember which one though). We all did it in Tokyo, so I wonder if the source might not have been Tomiki S. or Ohba S, rather than Nariyama S.

I also have experience in both jukendo (5th dan) and JAA aikido (4th dan). There's no question, in my opinion, that the yari/jo techniques are derived from bayonet. In fact, I asked Shishida S. about it one time and he confirmed that he had been told that (by Ohba S.? by Tomiki S?--it's undoubtedly in my notes somewhere). I was also told that the choice of yari, for the Tomiki kata, was due to the fact that a spear (or jo) was more politically correct than a mokuju/bayonet. If you've got access to a mokuju, just try the techniques and see how much more sense the distancing makes.

Ueshiba S. was also known as a bayonet man in his early days--see the photos in "Budo" (I think Aiki News has a reprint, annotated by M. Saito, available). Yari and bayonet are related (and so have technical similarities), in that the morphology of the weapon is similar (pointy ended stick); also although bayonet was primarily based on French bayonet fencing, the techniques were modified and amplified by techniques from several tradition Japanese ryu.

Hope this helps! Happy holidays to all!

Diane Skoss

PRehse
23rd December 2003, 03:26
Originally posted by Diane Skoss
I've done the solo jo kata in Tomiki aikido (when in Japan--hm, maybe I did it in the States too?) and it is indeed closely related to one of the Ueshiba jo kata (can't remember which one though). We all did it in Tokyo, so I wonder if the source might not have been Tomiki S. or Ohba S, rather than Nariyama S.
The similarity to Ueshiba Jo kata was the only reason I thought that is might have come through Kobayashi Shihan - a slighter more recent deshi than Tomiki K.. I failed in my mission to ask Nariyama Shihan directly about this. We had a long conversation at the Bonenkai but it mostly revolved around the Himeji group and I've never been able to manage the Japanese version of "and by the way". The solo jo kata is not part of the grading curriculum but quite a few people know it. I will try again when training resumes.

Thanks for the insight by the way. I also didn't consider the idea of political correctness of yari versus bayonet. Strange that one sharp pointing killing thing should be more acceptable than another of the same - but I see your point (yes that's a pun). I will think about the relationship but I would think that how toshu grips the yari at the point of contact and through the technique would not work to well with bayonet. I of course know nothing about jukendo and am only marginally comfortable with the yari techniques.

PRehse
24th December 2003, 02:26
PS to the above - I watched Jukendo practice yesterday. Got to say besides looking like great fun it really does not look like any of the yari techniques. That does not negate your opinion which is based on more extensive experience than me spending a 30 minutes watching. Most of what I saw was the randori in kendo armor.

Cheers

Diane Skoss
24th December 2003, 18:47
Hi Peter,

Keep in mind that I learned the Tomiki jo/yari techniques beginning in the mid-80s; they have not stayed entirely the same. When I learned them there was a characteristic raising and pushing forward of the hands/arms--this is almost identical to the basic thrust in jukendo. During my years in Tokyo, the jo/yari techniques were in the process of being modified somewhat. I haven't seen the current versions in some time, so they may have evolved away from the forms as they were originally developed. That's why I say that the techniques were based on, or derived from, jukendo. They aren't the same as jukendo techniques.

In watching modern jukendo shiai/randori, it would have been difficult to see the "pure" kihon form of the technique, since there are very few practitioners skilled enough to maintain their form in shiai. Also, there may be very little of the jukendo influence remaining the techniques as currently practiced within the JAA. So your assessment makes sense. I can state categorically, however, that fifteen to a dozen or so years ago, there was a pronounced technical similarity, at least in Tokyo (I was practicing both arts at the time).

Cheers!

Diane Skoss

PRehse
25th December 2003, 01:55
Thanks for that - food for thought.

Jason W
5th February 2004, 02:03
Aaah...E-Budo, gotta love it!

I love it how in a discussion on the origins of Aiki-jo, I raise a point about the possibility of Kukishin Ryu being an influence on O-Sensei's Aiki-jobased upon a newly released video of a Kukishin Ryu master demonstrating techniques that are clearly similar to Aiki-Jo (well, Saito Morihiro's Aiki-Jo), and everyone just politely ignores my post and continues on discussing....the origins of Aiki-jo.

What's the matter guys...does the possibility shake your world too much to accept? Or is no-one qualified to comment on Kukishin Ryu? No-one qualified on Saito's Aiki Jo? Or no-one gives a damn? Or is it that I have no credentials to comment...? C'mon, this looks less like a case of "Koryu snobbery, and more like "E-Budo snobbery".

cheers,
Jason Wotherspoon
Iwama Aikido, Brisbane

PRehse
5th February 2004, 03:13
Probably a case of no one knowing anything about Kukishin Ryu or its effect on Ueshiba M. if there was one.

The name certainly doesn't come up in any of the biographies.

Jason W
5th February 2004, 05:57
Thanks for your reply Daniel, I have much to comment on what you write, but I think I will leave it for a while, until you have seen some Aiki-jo footage.

If you would like to pm me with a mailing address for you, and I'll send you all the Aiki-jo footage I can.
best regards

Jason
Brisbane

JasonW
6th February 2006, 12:49
Is this getting any clearer...?

Iwama style jo
1st technique of the Ken Jo no Riai (http://www.aikidojournal.com/download_media.php?media=video&id=21)

Kukishin Ryu yari
4th technique of the Yari Omote Gata (http://www.aikidoaus.com.au/dojo/yari_omote_gata_4.avi)

Right click 'em, and Save Link to Disk.

cheers,

Jason Wotherspoon
Ipswich Aikido Club - Iwama style