Effectiveness of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu

[Mark Jakabcsin]

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

mark

Hey guys,

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

“Hello Toby san,

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

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


My response to his e mail:

____________________________________________________________

Jiro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Toby Threadgill

____________________________________________________________

[Brently Keen]

Toby-san,

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

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

Brently Keen

[Richard Elias]

Mark,
Thank you very much.

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

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

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

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Richard wrote: "But one thing I think gets overlooked sometimes is that not all styles do things, or view things, the same way. Even if they call it the same thing. "

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

mark

[Neil Yamamoto]

Hi Richard, nice to see posts from you!

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

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

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

Whadda think?

[MarkF]

Originally posted by Richard Elias:

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

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

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

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

[Richard Elias]

Mark F.,

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

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

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

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

[Yamantaka]

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


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

Toby Threadgill

____________________________________________________________

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

[Dan Harden]

Toby Writes:

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

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

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

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


My response to his e mail:

Jiro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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



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


Dan

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

[MarkF]

Originally posted by Dan Harden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MarkF]

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

[Dan Harden]

Mark
"Oh no, I have no idea who you meant, Dan, but I have some advice for the kata "dancers."
Why don't you practice on each other?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Dan


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

Hello Dan,

Are you smokin' Dannyboy

You posted:

____________________________________________________________
Toby Writes:

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

Dan,

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

____________________________________________________________

Dan posted:

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

____________________________________________________________

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

Dan Posted:

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

____________________________________________________________

ROCK FU TOO! Gotta love it

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

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

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


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

God I crack myself up

Tobs

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

[Walker]

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