Ron,
Your post confuses me a bit. You mention that Rinjiro Shirata's Aikido is what John Stevens refers to as classical Aikido, yet refer to Yoshinkan as something different. In a way. In your view, how is Rinjiro Shirata's and Gozo Shioda's Aikido different? I mean, they are both pre and post was students of O'Sensei and maintained their ties to O'Sensei and the Ueshiba family.
Other that Shirta dabbling in the Omoto, I can't see how you can not define the Aikido of Shioda as classical.
~steven
Originally posted by Ron Tisdale
Steven Miranda sent me an email asking how I would differentiate between what is taught at the Yoshinkan and what Stevens Sensei is teaching...how one could be "classical" and the other "not". Here is my response.
Hi Steven,
You can post your question to the thread, and I'll post my answer as well. I believe the differences are on the one hand, not worth quibbling about, as the word classical could of course be used to define the aikido of Gozo Shioda (and some others). One of the definitions listed for classical at dictionary.com is:
Standard and authoritative rather than new or experimental: classical methods of navigation.
Another is:
adj 1: (fine arts) of or characteristic of a form or system felt to be of first significance before modern times [ant: nonclassical] 2: of recognized authority or excellence; "the definitive work on Greece"; "classical methods of navigation" [syn: authoritative, definitive]
I think both the traditions of Gozo Shioda and Rinjiro Shirata fit these definitions to at least some extent.
For the first definition I've listed, John Stevens has spoken of the lack of form in some aikido today, and how its separation from the sword has indeed introduced "new methods", to make up for a lack of form. Some tout extensive cross-training in other arts (not necessarily a bad thing), some tout stronger attacks (again not a bad thing) to make up for this separation. The yoshinkan uses basic movements to reinforce the structure that good form gives to aikido. These are all good methods, in my opinion, and they serve the students of these organizations well. But the result today often seems to be something different from what Ueshiba and his "first line" of students often produced. There are notable exceptions here (as in anything) such as Mochizuki Sensei and Tomiki Sensei. But a strong arguement could be made that while the systems they produced definately fit under an umbrella of aikido, they definately added quite a bit of material from other places. I would say that the Yoshinkan fits this definition very well, except that the place of the sword in daily training seems to be (for the most part) relegated to a very low level.
For the second definition, we see a demarkation between modern and something that preceeded it. Any of the prewar styles could definately lay claim to that. Here is where I (at least) see the crucial differences:
a) The careful and explicit inclusion of the use of the sword in training, from day one.
Here, we see that Ueshiba himself often refers to aikido coming from the sword. Classical aikido maintains this connection strongly, where few other prewar systems that I know of do. And when you do see systems such as Korindo Aikido and the aikido of Nishio Sensei and some others, what they are doing seems to be a bit different from the sword as Ueshiba Sensei practised it. Again, we see classical swordsmanship grafted onto the syllibus, rather than the sword of aikido (not that there's anything wrong with that...its just different). In my opinion, even though there are some individual teachers in the yoshinkan that do teach more sword than the hombu, there is still some question as to where those kata come from. And they do not recieve the same emphasis as the sword in the Classical Aikido I have seen.
b) The depth of the link maintained to the Ueshiba family and the Aikikai.
While the Yoshinkan has always maintained good relationships with the family and the Aikikai, there is still a separation. I don't think there can be any question about this...the Yoshinkan is a separate organization. Rinjiro Shirata and John Stevens are a part of the Aikikai. I believe that Rinjiro Shirata continued training with Ueshiba at least occationally after the Yoshinkan was formed. I'll bet Peter Goldsbury could comment on this point, since I'm going on guesswork here.
c) The ongoing relationship with the spiritual practises, at least partially defined by the founders relationship with Omoto-kyo teachings.
Again, I don't see how this could be debated...the Yoshinkan has gone to pretty fair lengths to divorce itself from this side of aikido (and frankly, I'm glad they did; having this option is of great benefit to potential aikidoka who don't want to participate in this side of things).
So, based on these points, I do see a difference between Classical Aikido, and the training at the Yoshinkan. Not that one is better, and the other is worse. I will always practise Yoshinkan Aikido (I try not to abandon those that raised me). But I also believe that there is something very valuable in the aikido in other traditions...and specifically, in the traditions of Rinjiro Shirata. Again, I will continue to try to answer questions as best I can, but please understand that I am not the "spokesman", just an enthusiatic participant from several seminars.
Ron