PDA

View Full Version : Article: "Aikido and Aikijutsu" by F. Lovret



Anthroman
20th March 2002, 06:33
Hello all,
I posted this article on the aikido part of this board and was curious if anyone who may read just the aikijujutsu messages might have thoughts on this article by Fredrick Lovret and his opinion on the differences between Aikido and Aikijutsu.
http://www.dallasbudokai.com/artseds/Art_Aikido.htm

Aaron Miller

Mark Jakabcsin
20th March 2002, 12:18
Personally I would be more interested in an article by Freddy Kruger than Fred Lovret.....but hey that's just me.

mark

:saw:

MarkF
20th March 2002, 13:00
No, it ain't just you, mark. I did suggest to Aaron he do a forum search, when he had just posted the question in the Aikido forum, but hey, that's just us!

Mark

BTW: The search button is at the top of the page with all the other buttons. If you want to shorten the search, do a single forum search in the Bad Budo forum.

Anthroman
20th March 2002, 16:23
Mark (MarkF),
I did a forum search on Lovret and did not come up with anything substantial or particularly revealing.
Aaron Miller

Ron Tisdale
20th March 2002, 16:29
Hmm, I came up with over 100 posts across about 8 or 9 threads...

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=72050&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

You can also search using google on fa.iaido and get a wealth of information on the subject. TSKSR is a good search term there.

Ron Tisdale

Anthroman
20th March 2002, 16:45
Ron,
I came up with the same results, its not the number that isn't particularly revealing or substantial, its the content concerning Lovret.
Aaron Miller

Nathan Scott
20th March 2002, 21:53
[Post deleted by user]

Brently Keen
21st March 2002, 00:47
Frankly, I think a good case could probably be made to nominate Mr. Lovret as the "Father of American Home-Brewed Aikijutsu Ryu".

I'm starting to think it's best not to split hairs and counter all their preposterous statements with detailed clarifications. Despite good intentions of refuting the errors and slaying the many myths - these home-brewed soke's and their like, are all starting to read these boards. Anything to glean more info and to bolster their egos, some are even learning how to look and sound more bonafide, even if their techniques and lineages clearly aren't.

Brently Keen

Arman
21st March 2002, 14:32
Without getting into the details (as per Brently's concern), I noticed quite a few errors in Mr. Lovret's technical descriptions.

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

Chris Li
21st March 2002, 23:16
Originally posted by Nathan Scott
FWIW, the basic shihonage taught in pre-war branches like Yoshinkan matches the description Lovret gave for an Aikijutsu application.

I've always found it interesting that Yoshinkan and Shodokan (Tomiki) are often characterized as "pre-war" styles, even though both of them were formulated post-war. Not only were the formal beginnings well post-war (1955 for Yoshinkan and 1967? for Shodokan), but all the things that makes them unique styles were formulated and codified well after the war.

OTOH, M. Saito often carries "the book" around with him when teaching so that he can point out how the techniques he is teaching are virtually identical to those M. Ueshiba taught pre-war :) .

Best,

Chris

Nathan Scott
22nd March 2002, 00:47
[Post deleted by user]

Chris Li
22nd March 2002, 01:17
Originally posted by Nathan Scott
Hi Chris,

As I'm sure you realize, terms like "post-war", "pre-war", "hard-style" and "soft-style" are all slang terms, as opposed to formal titles.

True, but as with "hard-style" and "soft-style", I think that the "post-war" and "pre-war" designations are largely inaccurate, since all of the major styles were formulated (and went through major changes) post-war.



Anyone looking at Yoshinkan aikido will see that the attitude and way in which techniques are performed more closely reflect instruction Shioda s. received before the war than that of what Ueshiba s. was teaching after the war.


Hmm...

M. Ueshiba mostly taught at Iwama after the war, and I would say that the techniques from there much more closely resemble what M. Ueshiba published in his 1938 training manual than what I do with the Yoshinkan folks.

Gozo Shioda most definitely put his own twists on what goes on in Yoshinkan. Just as certain is the fact that this happened after the war, not before. Same with Shodokan and Aikikai.

Best,

Chris

Nathan Scott
22nd March 2002, 07:59
[Post deleted by user]

Chris Li
22nd March 2002, 08:17
Originally posted by Nathan Scott
You missed my point, which was that post-war and pre-war may not necessarily be used in respect to the date in which a given branch was founded, but rather the methodology and attitude of the branch of aikido being taught. I brought up my own line because it is relatively new, but we follow a more pre-war curriculum and approach.

I see what you mean, but why call something "pre-war" if it isn't actually from before the war? It seems to me to be somewhat misleading. What would you say the differences are between pre and post war curriculums and approaches?

Best,

Chris