The Scope of Jujutsu?

[Jon S.]

This topic is a tangent from the thread, "Aiki or Small Circle", located here: http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/show...5&pagenumber=1

To review, Brently Keen wrote:

"So, ajj is more sophisticated than jujutsu, not less. And it is that subtlety and sophistication that makes it more effective."

I objected and asked to know precisely what it is that makes aiki more effective. It was recommended that I read the old threads and start a new one, as the topic was a tangent.

After an exhausting 22 pages of old threads, and reviewing the book Samurai Aikijutsu by Toshishiro Obata, I've developed my ideas on the matter and thought I'd continue the topic.


Brently,

You seem to have lots of insight into Daito-ryu jujutsu and aiki-jujutsu. If I may say though, from my perspective you define Jujutsu as an art that relys on leverage, grabbing, pushing, striking, and expending more than minimal energy to cause forces on an enemy. While these are characteristics of much of what is jujutsu, the definition is incomplete by comparison to mine (especially since it doesn't seem to define the acme of jujutsu) which would include the sorts of techniques that aren't confined by those criteria, those that I expect you would define as aiki (though I don't think they exist to the same extent in jujutsu, either in breadth or depth - jujutsu's price for being so encompassing). Now, I'm not asserting that ajj and jj are the same. Rather, I think ajj as an art in and of itself represents a pinnacle of what is jujutsu. Same as the way judo represents a pinnacle of jujutsu (and is more sophisticated then jujutsu at what it does). The difference of course being that aiki is more like a sibling and judo an offspring. Though having developed separately, I can't fathom that both arts weren't significantly influenced by one another, or that jujutsu failed to comprehend and integrate the idea of aiki.

What's more is that practically everything I've heard as being what distinguishes aiki from jujutsu I look at and think: it sounds like jujutsu to me. For example: "3 elements - circular motion, controlled breathing, conditioned response", and "Aiki-Jujutsu utilizes the attackers mind against him to make techniques more effective. Aiki-Jujutsu utilizes involuntary responses, uses tricks that affect your vision" (not your quote). All this sounds like well-developed Jujutsu from my point of view.

So, regarding your original comment, I don't agree that aiki-jujutsu is superior to jujutsu, perhaps it is superior jujutsu since it epitomizes a facet of jujutsu at its highest levels (I'd say the same of judo too, just in a different way). IOW, I think that Daito-ryu seems to make a clear distinction between the jujutsu that doesn't best represent aiki and that which does, but outside that system I believe many jujutsu systems have a significant degree of aiki techniques, just no distinction is made so it is all considered jujutsu. Of course, I recognize that most jujutsuka won't achieve the degree of proficiency that an aiki-jujutsuka would with such types of techniques, just like they won't master throwing to the degree that a talented judoka will.

Furthermore, I think aiki exists more on a conceptual level and can therefore manifest itself in most of what is jujutsu, including the judo aspects. The more one can empty their mind of their own art and look at the other facets of jujutsu, the more one can see this. For example: take the judoka. He is skilled at throwing, but he is accustomed to grabbing. If he practices his throws without a gi top, he'll still grab, just that he'll grab body parts instead of a gi; but he is forced to use better technique and less strength. With more and more practice at this, I believe he'd find that he often doesn't need to grab at all, but rather just blend with the kuzushi his opponent gives to him, and execute his throw from the core of his body with just subtle technique to make uke fall - this would perhaps be more akin to aiki wouldn't you think? At what point is it Aiki-jujutsu instead of Judo?

Part of the problem today though, I think, is that the judoka is becoming more conditioned to initiate the attacks so as not to make for a seemingly boring match; thus he creates the kuzushi with his own force, and to do this is not in accordance with aiki. If patience is a greater part of the equation, I think that one can better develop at just taking whatever kuzushi uke gives you, thus the technique will happen at a higher level. This is more aiki like, I think.

So perhaps what defines aiki is superb technique; and where aiki is more applicable in some techniques than others, Aiki-jujutsu would seem to be an art of those techniques which can best represent the principle of aiki.

Looking at what is described in Samurai Aikijutsu , techniques such as sankkyu aren't anything I don't see in Jujutsu. I expect these are more basic level techniques of ajj, but still, the method at which one arrives at such a lock (forcing it, or letting it happen) is what you might define as the difference between using "aiki" and not using aiki. I would define the exact same thing as the difference between outstanding jujutsu technique and less than outstanding jujutsu technique.

Examining your assertion further, consider this: you have stated your support for the idea that if the enemy is drugged or psychotic, or the aiki-jujutsuka is dealing with adrenalin, then aiki is nearly impossible to apply (another assertion I will dispute) and that in such cases one would have to fall back on plain old ordinary jujutsu. From this it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that (the inferior) jujutsu is, therefore, more practical and thus more effective.

If someone is psychotic or enraged, then it reasons that he will attack without control. I would think it would be easier to apply aiki under these circumstances. If someone is drunk or drugged, his balance is worse or his senses are distorted. Again, I think it would be easier to apply aiki. If someone tells me that it wouldn't because he wouldn't react to the subtleties the way he's 'supposed' to, my response is that they have developed a fantasy perception of how techniques work that fails to take reality into account. It's not about how they are 'supposed' to work, it's about making the necessary adjustments to compensate when they don't.

As for the adrenalin issue. First, of what seems to be the more advanced aiki techniques (those that don't involve grabbing at all), big arm and entire body movements would seem to be the necessary characteristics. If that's not taking a lot of fine motor skills out of the equation, I don't know what is. If it is about applying the subtleties in conjunction with such techniques, this, I think, is where muscle memory comes into play - regardless of the amount of adrenalin in the body, one's muscles should be so accustomed to reacting in a particular fashion that they function on their own accord. If this doesn't happen, the same result should still be there because the techniques should still be applicable, it would just require more strength to compensate for inferior execution of technique, I think (and strength would be more available given the adrenalin level).

I'm more inclined to prescribe to the idea that one should seek to train their mind to remain calm though, so as to not have to deal with the inhibitions that fear causes. Just what is so valuable about actual street experience? Does it make our technique better? I don't think so, practice does that. The value comes in that we can learn to remain calmer in nasty situations, because we become more acclimatized so to speak, IMO.

I continue to hold the belief that there is nothing special in aiki-jujutsu that can't be found and developed in other arts (but I will keep an open mind, at least until I've had a chance to experience it first-hand), but I think it is a specialized art that's speciality is perfection. Frankly, it's strong connection to kenjutsu would be the best argument for one choosing to herald it as superior, since I think that by breaking down the barrier between armed and unarmed techniques, one can gain a deeper understanding of principle, aiki, and strategy - in any art.

One thing you did say particularly interested me though: "instead of working off of or against the opponent's skeletal structure, aiki works off of the body's nervous system (among other things)." Could you expand on this? Please also, correct me if I've drawn any false conclusions about anything pertaining to aiki-jujutsu.


Overall, my conclusion is that I would agree that aiki-jujutsu is more effective than jujutsu just like judo is more effective than jujutsu. More effective at its realm of expertise, that is.

I suppose it all comes down to definitions.

My apologies for the length, thanks for your patience. Twenty-two pages of reading brings up a lot of thoughts; and thank you for being mildly arrogant (no offense meant) as it has caused me to delve into this topic further. I feel like I've learned a lot this weekend.

I welcome any responses from anyone.



(Disclaimer: this topic is posted without any intent to start another aiki war. It's only intent is for self-development, productive discussion, and to call it like I see it)

[Brently Keen]

With all due respect, "Samurai Aikijutsu" is not about Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu (or "samurai" aikijutsu for that matter). Rather, I think the book is about Obata sensei's personal approach to aikido (Yoshinkan aikido).

It does include some of the history of aikido and Daito-ryu, but it is not a scholarly work, nor is it all that accurate with regard to facts. In all fairness to Obata sensei, it did pretty much represent what little was publically known about Daito-ryu at the time it was written. I also understand that the title (and some of the content too?) may have been arbitrarily selected by the publishers, and the finished product was not fully within Obata sensei's control. I invite Nathan or any of Obata sensei's other students to feel free to chime in and clarify about this.

None of the techniques in the book are illustrative of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu as I've learned it - but rather of standard aikido (and jujutsu) techniques. Therefore it would not be a good source or reference for this discussion (especially with regard to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu). On the other hand, setting aside it's inaccuracies, it's not a bad book at all for aikidoka who are looking for a more "martial" technical and philosophical approach to aikido - I'd even recommend it for that.

Respectfully,

BK

[Brently Keen]

Having said the above, I will try to address some of your comments and questions, as I have time. Jon wrote:

"To review, Brently Keen wrote:

"So, ajj is more sophisticated than jujutsu, not less. And it is that subtlety and sophistication that makes it more effective."

I objected and asked to know precisely what it is that makes aiki more effective. It was recommended that I read the old threads and start a new one, as the topic was a tangent."

I know that Jon was referencing the other thread about 'small circle jujutsu and aiki', so before we get started - I would like make sure that my above quoted comment is understood within it's context. I was making a contrast between many modern systems of jujutsu and aikijujutsu. The former tend to base both their overall approach and their claims of effectiveness on the KISS principle, or the whole idea that less is more (or better). For example systems that were created by stripping away what were seen as unessential elements from the over-all jujutsu repertoire to a fewer basic effective moves and principles - the whole idea being simplification in contrast with aikijujutsu which adds aiki to the over-all jujutsu repertoire making it more sophisticated/complex not less. And the contrasting view that the addition of that complexity (aiki) makes it more effective.

When Jon objected to my comment, he wanted to know what it was that made "aiki" more effective than jujutsu - when what I was saying was that "aikijujutsu" was more effective than jujutsu, because of the addition of aiki (and it's sophistication), as opposed to the opposite approach of many modern systems which claim their increased effectiveness is the result of a subtractive or simplification process.

To expand on that, comparing aiki by itself to jujutsu by itself is to me, comparing apples and oranges - two very different fruits. Which one I will use in a given situation depends much on the situation itself and the appropriateness of one or the other (or any combination thereof) for that situation. One way to look at it is that one is not the pinnacle of the other, but that aikijujutsu is the pinnacle of both. Contrasting aiki with jujutsu however, aiki is more difficult/sophisticated technically, like eating a orange is more difficult than eating a apple - because you have to peel the orange first. Which one (an apple or an orange) tastes better is only an opinion.

Which one (aiki or jujutsu) is more effective, really depends on 1.) the particular situation in question and 2.) the practitioner(s) skills and abilities with each. If we assume competent skill with aiki, then aikijujutsu (the addition or infusion of aiki into jujutsu) will in most cases, that I can think of, be more effective than either by itself. That's because aiki, like I said - in the other thread - sort of changes the 'rules' and opens up another whole paradigm of possibilities, and in doing so, creates a decisive advantage.

Obviously aikijujutsu contains a broad spectrum of ratios of aiki to jujutsu & jujutsu to aiki, and there will also still be some instances or situations that require more of one than the other, as well as some situations that may not need the other at all - in which case only aiki (aiki no jutsu), or only jujutsu may be all that's neccessary or appropriate.

From my perspective, the addition or inclusion of the "concept" or "idea" of aiki to jujutsu does not equal or constitute aikijujutsu. I've tried in numerous posts to belabor this point and to explain the difference between the "concept(s)" and the techniques/skills of aiki.

In Daito-ryu, aiki is understood more as a substantive and specific subset of techniques/skills rather than merely as an abstract "concept" or "idea". Many schools of jujutsu, kenjutsu, aikido, judo etc... do utilize the abstract concept or idea of aiki, and some even embrace so called "principles of aiki", but to my knowledge only Daito-ryu has contained the "techniques of aiki" or 'aiki no jutsu', and it is these specific applicable skills/techniques that constitute the distinctions. A concept or idea may guide one's approach, or even serve as an operating principle, but such are still abstract notions. My view of aiki (in Daito-ryu) is primarily as a specific and concrete means of approaching situations and applying techniques. It is principle based and driven, but it is not merely principles, nor is it primarily an abstract or conceptual approach to situations and applying techniques.

Our basic method of training inherited from Sokaku Takeda is (after basic techniques/kihon waza, which incidentally includes most jujutsu) oyo waza (literally applied techniques). So we practice applying aiki-techniques, and using such 'aiki no jutsu' waza to apply other jujutsu techniques (hence the aiki-jujutsu appellation).

Jon wrote:

The difference of course being that aiki is more like a sibling and judo an offspring. Though having developed separately, I can't fathom that both arts weren't significantly influenced by one another, or that jujutsu failed to comprehend and integrate the idea of aiki.

This may be a fair assessment, certainly within Daito-ryu, aiki influenced jujutsu, and jujutsu was coupled with aiki (and exists within ajj). But again I make a distinction between the concept or "idea" of aiki and what we think of as aiki itself.

For example, of the many derivitive schools of Daito-ryu (and even among some of it's direct branches) what we see is primarily Daito-ryu's jujutsu influence - not aiki influence. So I would argue that even among those jujutsu schools that did have direct and/or extensive exposure to Daito-ryu aiki, few (count them on one hand) comprehended and/or integrated that distinctive aiki into their curriculums. While many adopted the concept/idea of aiki and also borrowed the term, they did not bring with it the same, or full meaning or interpretation. Hence much of the confusion and mystery today surrounding the general term, as well as the character and techniques of Daito-ryu in general. I'd rather not get into whether it was a "failure" of those schools to comprehend it, or a systematic secrecy that obscured their access and comprehension of it, or a combination of both - that's another whole subject.

"What's more is that practically everything I've heard as being what distinguishes aiki from jujutsu I look at and think: it sounds like jujutsu to me. For example: "3 elements - circular motion, controlled breathing, conditioned response", and "Aiki-Jujutsu utilizes the attackers mind against him to make techniques more effective. Aiki-Jujutsu utilizes involuntary responses, uses tricks that affect your vision" (not your quote). All this sounds like well-developed Jujutsu from my point of view."

This is why we ajj practitioners always say that discussion of these distinctives in writing or on a forum like this is frustrating. It's best all explained in person, in the context of training, where you can see, feel and experience what we mean. But again, it's not just circular motion, it's how and why we apply our circular motions (en undo), it's not just controlled breathing, but a method of breathing and/breath control (kokyu-ho), and it's conditioned reflexes, autonomic nervous reflexes (joken hansha), not conditioned responses. Even by clarifying those three points, it's still not clear in writing what we really mean by those terms, because what most people understand by those terms is again not what we're talking about - at least not in the same way. Again, it's best explained in person in the context of training.

It may "sound like" well-developed jujutsu in this forum (in written form), but there are quite a few well-developed, highly-skilled and experienced jujutsu practitioner's who have encountered Daito-ryu aikijujutsu over the years that can now attest to the distinctions I'm always trying to make, as well as it's effectiveness.

"I think aiki exists more on a conceptual level and can therefore manifest itself in most of what is jujutsu, including the judo aspects...

Once again, herein lies the difference in our understanding of what is aiki. We're talking about completely different things, so naturally it's difficult for us to have understanding much less agreement.

With more and more practice at this, I believe he'd find that he often doesn't need to grab at all, but rather just blend with the kuzushi his opponent gives to him, and execute his throw from the core of his body with just subtle technique to make uke fall - this would perhaps be more akin to aiki wouldn't you think?"

Nope. What you've described may appear to the casual observer to be similar to aikijujutsu, but is not aikijujutsu (imo), just very slick judo or perhaps aikido. Both of which fall within my general conception of what is jujutsu, but neither of which contain much or any aiki (imo). You may think I'm being bold and arrogant again, but I'm not really, it's just that we're operating with completely different understandings of the subject and terms at hand. Our perspectives differ because the vantage point(s) from which we're standing (and commenting) are completely different.

"At what point is it Aiki-jujutsu instead of Judo?"

From my perspective, at no point, unless the guy actually add's "aiki".

"This is more aiki like, I think.

So perhaps what defines aiki is superb technique; and where aiki is more applicable in some techniques than others, Aiki-jujutsu would seem to be an art of those techniques which can best represent the principle of aiki."

Some people might think of aiki and aikijujutsu that way, but some might not. I don't. If it's Daito-ryu aiki that we're talking about, then I think it would make sense to let experienced Daito-ryu practitioners, teachers define what it is. Sokaku Takeda taught both jujutsu and aikijujutsu - he taught them separately and made distinctions between them - those students who learned those distinctions in turn have passed down their understanding to the present generation(s). I don't think of aiki as simply superb techniques of any sort - rather they are a specific sort of techniques, which are incidentally superb, but their being superb does not make them fall into the catagory of aiki rather they are aiki techniques because they exhibit the characteristics and nature of aiki techniques - if they fall within the definition of aiki then they're aiki techniques. If they fall within the definition or scope of jujutsu techniques then regardless of how superb or exquisite they are they're still jujutsu techniques.

"I suppose it all comes down to definitions."

Perhaps, but it's not just different definitions of terms that we're talking about - simply agreeing on definitions won't completely clarify things, because there are also ontological differences. Since we're applying common terms to totally different things, the confusion and potential for misunderstanding is more complex.

After two hours typing all this, I still don't know that I'll have accomplished much, by way of clarifying anything. I concede that Daito-ryu always has been sort of mysterious, especially to those outside of it. Maybe it's better that way, who knows? But I suppose if I've stirred up some interest in authentic ajj, then I've contributed in a small way back to it.

Brently Keen

[Jon S.]

Hi Brently,

That was a lot to digest. I appreciate you're taking the time to help me understand. I agree that one can't gain a thorough understanding of an art until they study it, and for that matter, the understanding will be different from every teacher. Still, every little bit of insight is always good for development, I think.

Originally posted by Brently Keen
Having said the above, I will try to address some of your comments and questions, as I have time. Jon wrote:

"To review, Brently Keen wrote:

"So, ajj is more sophisticated than jujutsu, not less. And it is that subtlety and sophistication that makes it more effective."

I objected and asked to know precisely what it is that makes aiki more effective. It was recommended that I read the old threads and start a new one, as the topic was a tangent."

I know that Jon was referencing the other thread about 'small circle jujutsu and aiki', so before we get started - I would like make sure that my above quoted comment is understood within it's context. I was making a contrast between many modern systems of jujutsu and aikijujutsu. The former tend to base both their overall approach and their claims of effectiveness on the KISS principle, or the whole idea that less is more (or better). For example systems that were created by stripping away what were seen as unessential elements from the over-all jujutsu repertoire to a fewer basic effective moves and principles - the whole idea being simplification in contrast with aikijujutsu which adds aiki to the over-all jujutsu repertoire making it more sophisticated/complex not less. And the contrasting view that the addition of that complexity (aiki) makes it more effective.

When Jon objected to my comment, he wanted to know what it was that made "aiki" more effective than jujutsu - when what I was saying was that "aikijujutsu" was more effective than jujutsu, because of the addition of aiki (and it's sophistication), as opposed to the opposite approach of many modern systems which claim their increased effectiveness is the result of a subtractive or simplification process.

I think we are misunderstanding each other's intent. When you say: "...as opposed to the opposite approach of MANY modern systems...", do you intend for "many" to mean "most"? I rhetorically ask because your response in the "Small Circle" thread, when I concluded that you must have been referring to Small Circle Jujutsu with your original statement, was:

While the discussion was about Small Circle Jujutsu and aiki, my comments about aikijujutsu being more sophisticated than jujutsu were intended to refer to jujutsu in general. I meant exactly what I wrote.

To me, "in general" is more akin to "most", and "many", though it can mean most, can also mean only a small fraction. As the varieties of Jujutsu are as widespread as its teachers, I can only guess at the truth of the matter, but I don't think that most jujutsu systems have been streamlined, and you seem to think so. What is the truth? Who can say. In any case, let's not waste our time debating this as it is merely a matter of opinion.

In all likelyhood, my understanding of your intent was off when I took exception to your blanket statement. Possibly you were slightly arrogant without intending to be, this perhaps stemming from the pride of knowing that you study a quality system - understandable. Either way, it's a trivial issue and I've formed no grudge, so unless you have, let's get beyond it.


In the interest of space and time, rather than address your points specifically, let me just say that I basically follow most of what you've stated (I think). I do want to address a couple things and pose a few questions for you.


Okay, my overall impression of what you wrote is that, for the most part, it is the actual techniques of ajj that give it the edge. So, without getting into details, first let's focus on that.

If you don't mind sharing, precisely what types of waza are most characteristic of aiki-jujutsu? (Throws, striking, footwork, joint locks, etc.)

Under what type of circumstances are these techniques executed? IOW, are they typically pre-emptive attacks, or defenses against attacks from uke? If the latter, what sort of attacks are they generally designed to defend against?

You refer to it's sophistication. Is this in terms of how elaborate the techniques are, such as complicated defenses that involve counter-attacks, possible counters to those counter attacks, and counters to the counters of the counter-attacks, etc.?

Or is it more in terms of subtleties involved. In other words, techniques that are very much like regular Jujutsu techniques, but that maybe involve a slight push or pull or visual distraction to mislead uke into positions that leave him vulnerable?

Also do they involve weapons, and if so, in what way? That is, unarmed defenses against armed attacks, armed defenses against unarmed attacks, or armed defenses against armed attacks.


As I'm trying to completely drop any pre-conceived notions about ajj, I figure these questions are a good place to start.


Thank you for your time.

[Aaron Fields]

Jon...
My advice, for what it is worth, leave it alone. This conversation comes around every year or so in some way, shape, or form. Let sleeping dogs sleep.....please..

Jon,

I'm with Aaron here. I'm very familiar with Daito ryu, study Yanagi ryu and am licensed in Shindo Yoshin ryu Jujutsu. My disagreements with Brently on this subject are ....uh....well documented.

(BTW. I disagree with your implication that a Judoka is necessarily better at throwing than a jujutsuka. Generalizations like that illustrate a lack of experience from which we can discuss topics like this. Remember, there may be only one Judo (Kodakan) but there are many divergent styles of jujutsu out there. How many of them are you keenly familiar with?

Regrettably this topic was dead before you started because the really knowlegable and experienced practitioners on this subject won't touch this one anymore.

Toby Threadgill

[Jon S.]

Originally posted by Toby Threadgill
(BTW. I disagree with your implication that a Judoka is necessarily better at throwing than a jujutsuka. Generalizations like that illustrate a lack of experience from which we can discuss topics like this.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Still, in terms of exclusively throwing without involving other waza, and with all other factors equal (time of study, etc.), though there may be exceptions, nobody can convince me that Judoka haven't developed throwing to a greater degree of proficiency than Jujutsuka - in general. I'm a Jujutsuka with a keen knowledge of only one style, and a basic insight of some others which I have observed; but I give credit where it is due. As I see it, Judoka are the masters of throwing if the context of the situation is only about throwing.

Regrettably this topic was dead before you started because the really knowlegable and experienced practitioners on this subject won't touch this one anymore.

Toby Threadgill

You speak for them all? If what you say is the truth, then it's sad.

There are definitely some intriguing points that Brently has brought up (mainly, the "opens up another whole paradigm of possibilities" point). My mind is definately open to this. Over the last decade, BJJ has illustrated another whole paradigm too, so I'm hardly willing to dismiss Brently's assertion as being ludicrous (only a fool dismisses that which he knows practically nothing about). As I often feel humbled in the company of my fellow e-budoka, I'm frequently reminded that I will always remain just a student of martial arts. To that end I seek to learn; which is why, with my last post, I brought the discussion back to a basic level, as it seemed to me that I had previously operated on my pre-conceived notions about what ajj is.

So, that being said, if the predominant attitude is to sweep the topic under the rug (a topic which, I might add, is quite integral to ajj), then I don't want to be one to go against the flow - so, though I may find it regrettable, I'm perfectly willing to let it drop.

Good luck to you all in your quest for the truth.



(BTW, my PM is open. If anyone would like to share their thoughts on the subject, I welcome them)

Jon,

You Stated:

" Still, in terms of exclusively throwing without involving other waza, and with all other factors equal (time of study, etc.), though there may be exceptions, nobody can convince me that Judoka haven't developed throwing to a greater degree of proficiency than Jujutsuka - in general."

What about all the throws that are illegal in Judo? I reserve only the highest respect for competent Judoka. Judo is a great martial art but its sporting aspect limits its curriculum and its broader application of throwing outside a rather narrow paradigm. A good friend of mine is a past Olympic Judo Coach from eastern Europe. He would debate this subject with you just as I am. He trained with us to broaden his perspective and knowledge of throwing. Can he do a Uchimata better than I can? Yep! Can I do a Hiji Kujiki Nage better than he can? Yep! I guess maybe we need to define what you mean by "throw".

And:

"So, that being said, if the predominant attitude is to sweep the topic under the rug (a topic which, I might add, is quite integral to ajj), then I don't want to be one to go against the flow - so, though I may find it regrettable, I'm perfectly willing to let it drop."

You obviously misunderstand what Aaron and I are saying. Nobody is trying to sweep anything under the rug. It's just that this topic has been covered over ..and over...and over. If you go look in the e-budo archives you can probably find a wealth of info on this topic.

Good Luck

Toby

[Arman]

Jon,

Part of the problem is that this topic has been covered so many times with no satisfactory conclusion that many just don't want to rehash it.

Another issue (and I'm sure Brently would agree) is that even amongst the various DR styles, there is an evident disagreement at what aiki is and how it is used. As a student of the mainline DR, under Katsuyuki Kondo Sensei, I would be able to explain what Kondo Sensei considers to be aiki and how it is used (to the extent that he has taught us), but I promise you that Brently and others would find much to disagree with (coming from different branches of DR). Rather than argue to no avail with each other, and others, prudence seems to dictate that we all just agree to disagree.

If you want my perspective on it, FWIW, you can pm me.

With respect,
Arman Partamian
Daito ryu Study Group
Maryland

[Jon S.]

Sorry to be so slow to respond, I've been rather busy lately.

Toby, you wrote:

"What about all the throws that are illegal in Judo? I reserve only the highest respect for competent Judoka. Judo is a great martial art but its sporting aspect limits its curriculum and its broader application of throwing outside a rather narrow paradigm. A good friend of mine is a past Olympic Judo Coach from eastern Europe. He would debate this subject with you just as I am. He trained with us to broaden his perspective and knowledge of throwing. Can he do a Uchimata better than I can? Yep! Can I do a Hiji Kujiki Nage better than he can? Yep! I guess maybe we need to define what you mean by "throw"."

Not being familiar with the name "Hiji Kujiki Nage", I don't know what type of throw you're referring to. I do get your point though, and I agree that I was speaking in a somewhat "narrow paradigm". The key point of my statemant was "in terms of exclusively throwing without involving other waza". Wrist locks, for example, can be throws too, but they aren't something I would usually put in the category of throwing techniques as they are primarily joint locking techniques. So, when one starts to involve other waza (such as atemi) to aid in or cause kuzushi, throwing techniques take on a whole new meaning.

Regardless, your original objection ("BTW. I disagree with your implication that a Judoka is necessarily better at throwing than a jujutsuka. Generalizations like that illustrate a lack of experience from which we can discuss topics like this.") must have stemmed from the following statement I made:

"...just like judo is more effective than jujutsu. More effective at its realm of expertise, that is."

So, you see, I wasn't saying that "a Judoka is necessarily better at throwing than a Jujutsuka", as you seem to think. I clearly defined that such was (generally) the case only in the context of Judo.


Also:

"You obviously misunderstand what Aaron and I are saying. Nobody is trying to sweep anything under the rug. It's just that this topic has been covered over ..and over...and over. If you go look in the e-budo archives you can probably find a wealth of info on this topic."


Actually, I've already spent a lot of time going through the old threads but I didn't find a whole lot that was particularly enlightening. Like Arman says, there isn't any "satisfactory conclusion". So, while there was a lot of interesting reading (and a couple of hilarious threads), there wasn't really anything that could be considered definitive in terms of answers. Truthfully, I'm really starting to develop an agnostic-like attitude to the subject, at least in so far as it can be discussed. So, with that, I apologize for my poor choice of words, and I recognize that peoples' reluctance to discuss the topic stems from the fact that it is like chasing a will-o' the-wisp.

Arman,

Thank you for sharing that. I certainly welcome anybody's perspective if they want to share it, so you may PM with yours if you'd like.

[MarkF]

Jon S.,
Unfortunately, the original and some of the best of the so-called aiki wars were lost in a hard drive crash, and when the web site came back online, it was empty. They were never able to salvage any threads from that time, so some of us have been through it long before the earliest dates of memberships here. I logged on in September, 1999 and shortly after, "it" commenced. That's the problem.
******

Toby, come on! "What about the illegal throws?" What about them? I've not played in any dojo which didn't include them in randori, some not even from the Kodokan syllabus, eg. kube nage. Throws such as dakiage, kani basami, and many others not normally practiced in a fully resisting style randori are, nevertheless, still practiced. I I can't remember a dojo where more than a small percentage of players competed, and when they did, it was for the experience of participation. Very few break through to the slime at the top. Judo is certainly more refined in its use of nage waza, no matter what the use is going to be. There was a point which changed the approach of nage waza forever, and while there is dissent that Kano wasn't the only one, and that Sokaku Takeda also taught these principles, but then it is said they were friends.

Jujutsu of the day the Kodokan came on the scene practiced very few nage waza because the idea of strength and only the strongest being able to do nage waza which was shattered with Kano's studies of jujutsu and the ability to do linear, more refined nage waza because he found something: Kuzushi/Tsukuri. It seemed, before then, one couldn't fathom doing (horror) a throw off one foot, nevermind splitting the feet front to back. I know it is different, but sometimes, and in this case, different does mean better.

That predates SYR, and most other styles until others learned and incorporated it. It seems people forget that, and believe it came along their lineage of jujutsu masters before Kano. It didn't, and thats why the gokyo no waza and the post 1920 shinmeisho no waza are far superior than most throws of jujutsu styles of that day. I would be a fool to include weapons use, one, because it was limited to the defense to such attacks, and because it was a nice thought, but realistically, well... And those which ARE superior, have also been refined to include Kano's ideas or schools were completely aborbed by the superior Kano Judo. The place was rampant with "stealing waza" and since there were no barriers in place, people caught on.

I think that is the point Jon was making, but no I won't go for the aiki stuff, not on a bet (well, it depends on what bet and how much), but no, illegal in shiai or not, doesn't preclude nage waza from being practiced, and practiced rather roughly at times. I can still feel my lungs hitting the floor from a well-timed dakiage (It is a koshiwaza, BTW).

BTW: Uchi mata is not the same throw it used to be. Things change. It has become more of a ballet on (icy) tatami today. The uchi mata I learned in the sixties was nearly the throw Mikonosuke Kawaishi said it was: a Koshiwaza. The Kodokan maintained it as an ashi-waza, and it is in shiai today, but at one time, Kawaishi-sensei had a point.


Mark


PS: Your European judo coach friend teaches, at most, seven nage waza, so of course he agrees. The question of Olympic judo coaches finding that kata was unnecessary to the competitor was posed to John Cornish, former Judo Kata Champion (from the Budokwai in London), and now teacher and coach to kata competitors and those who just want to learn or specialize, something old judo guys like to do. He claims that one's tokui-waza could only come from kata, specifically the nage no kata and other nagewaza done as kata to include the "illegal throws." He also includes the Katas compet de Judo as well.

Nothing is ever as it seems.

Hiya Mark,

Did you attend the Bluming seminar again this year? Unfortunately I missed it.

You posted:

"Toby, come on! "What about the illegal throws?" What about them? I've not played in any dojo which didn't include them in randori, some not even from the Kodokan syllabus, eg. kube nage."

You're sort of making my point for me aren't you Mark? If certain techniques practised in a Judo dojo are not even from the Kodakan syllabus can they properly be identified as "Judo waza"? I don't mean to be a stickler but I guess this all boils down to a difference of semantics. (BTW...a great number of Takamura Sensei's students were also practising Judoka) In my book if you cause someone to lose their balance and hit the floor with a resounding "thud", it's a throw....kansetsu waza or not. If I use a tanto, sword, or torinawa to the same result....its still a jujutsu throw if it is within our jujutsu syllabus. Bukinage are well outside the syllabus of Judo as are many taijutsu techniques still taught today in most traditional Jujutsu dojo's. Are there Judo dojo's that regularly practise techniques outside the competitive boundaries? Sure there are but they are not embraced in the number or with the fervor of those allowed in competition. You must also agree that most Judo done today is a far cry from that exhibited by someone like Kyuzo Mifune. If he'd been Jon's example of Judo's superiority at throwing I might have agreed with him. Mifune was simply one of the best damn MA technicians I've ever seen...simply fantastic.

Heck...one of the best judoka I've seen in a long time is Chuck Clark Sensei. His ashi barai is sweet!

(An interesting aside...I saw some interesting guys doing "Old Judo" in Europe last year..."Zen Judo" Good Stuff!)

Mark, You take it easy down there in Albuquerque. After I get moved up to Colorado maybe we can get together again.

Tobs

[stoker]

Toby, you are 100% correct about Chuck Clark Sensei! Very sweet ashi-waza. My first encounter with him was to see his hiza garuma where I thought he had sent his uke on a short supersonic flight!

All the discussion about legal versus illegal Judo techniques is missing the point. I can not use kani basami in shiai but I do know the throw (katame no kata has a nice hip lock you can not in competition execrpt for competing in that kata). Baseball pitchers are not allowed

[stoker]

Toby, you are 100% correct about Chuck Clark Sensei! Very sweet ashi-waza. My first encounter with him was to see his hiza garuma where I thought he had sent his uke on a short supersonic flight!

All the discussion about legal versus illegal Judo techniques is missing the point. I can not use kani basami in shiai but I do know the throw (katame no kata has a nice hip lock you can not in competition execept for competing in that kata). Baseball pitchers are not allowed to use spit balls but Gaylord Perry made a good living. Hang around any Judo dojo for a long time and you'll get the old timers showing you lots of stuff that won't be seen in the Olympics.

And just because it ain't in the syllabus or outlawed in the rules does not mean that it does not get used. Bicycle racing had it's first drug scandal in the 1890's and they just booted riders out of the Italian Tour. Anyone ever have a wrist locked up and hidden from the refs during matt work?

There is a difference in knowing how to cheat and cheating.

Coaches working on skills for competition will skip non-essentials skills. Mario Andretti was a very fast race car driver but he could still have non-essential car skills like the ability to parallel park. If the goal is shiai, the coach is not going to cover goshin jitsu no kata.

Sorry to spout off for so long!

Dave,

"There is a difference in knowing how to cheat and cheating"

LOL..... I'll give you that one.

_______________________


Like I said earlier this discussion really is semantics... I think Jon and I sort of understand where one another are coming from on this topic.

Tobs