Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: Book: "Effortless Combat Throws", by Tim Cartmell

  1. #16
    MarkF Guest

    Default

    The truth is that we train to be able to fight - We don't fight in training so that we can fight in the street. If you're fighting for training, then you're either going to eliminate yourself the first time you train with someone better than you, or you're going to run out of practice partners very quick (if you're very good), or your going to introduce rules/limits to your practice fighting. At any rate, you're not likely to make much progress beyond your present level, because you'll just do what you already know in order to win and/or survive the training.


    Brently,
    And, this is different how? The only difference I see is that y'all have agreed to train in repetive motion, you've agreed from the get-go that any other kind of training is out, and you've also agreed that everyone else is fighting to train. You train to fight. Frankly, this is the same stuff from a couple of years ago which was basically an argument about the value of differing training styles, and not much more.

    I won't let myself get into it with the "troll" Dan started but other than doing kata training only or perhaps two person kata or kumi-uchi, it is somehow a superior training method than any type of resistence practice? All sorts of limits are put on every type of training, in the case of all non-resistive training you have agreed not to resist.

    I agree with you concerning certain types of tanking just as there are many different manner of randori. It can be an exchange of technique with little or no resistence just as it can be a fully resisting one. It isn't held to nage waza, either, as randori can easily switch to katame waza randori, or tai sabaki (feinting) and Low kicking and striking definitively becomes a part of randori.

    But this is something which has been argued many times. The only difference I see is what we all agree to. Geez, even a street fight has rules, you just have to find them. A knife produced changes the rule of the fight just as much as your surroundings, your attacker, and what you can come up with in the seconds or fractions thereof one has to practice to be able to do.

    While Dan may be correct when he states (well, he doesn't actually state an opinion, he says it is fact) that a match can be an exercise of the chessSword type, that doesn't say anything about the proverbial street. Sometimes, chess or games like it teach conditioned response, strategy, just as a game of blind attack drills teaches one to feel in a different way. All the "feeling" in the world is not going to teach one to "feel" as one would blind, or rather non-seeing. Most sighted people are "blind" and always will be, but that's another discussion.

    Anyway, I'm a professional student and love to learn new things I have found agains after a long break from seminars. I won't deny any claims anymore because it is fruitless, I just wanted to straighten out a grossly over-simplified belief about any kind of fighting/grappling or weapons play. Each one of these one introduces changes the game, but it in no way changes what is. We all agree to certain conditions in training, in the dojo setting, but no one will ever know what, exactly, will get you through until it is over.

    It's like grabbing the blade of a knife and cutting your hand badly rather than letting it slash something more inportant to you. It isn't a choice, it is a reflex, or it should be. If you can parry it fine, but no matter what is introduced in training, it is an agreement. No one has the corner on that.


    Mark

  2. #17
    MarkF Guest

    Default

    The truth is that we train to be able to fight - We don't fight in training so that we can fight in the street. If you're fighting for training, then you're either going to eliminate yourself the first time you train with someone better than you, or you're going to run out of practice partners very quick (if you're very good), or your going to introduce rules/limits to your practice fighting. At any rate, you're not likely to make much progress beyond your present level, because you'll just do what you already know in order to win and/or survive the training.


    Brently,
    And, this is different how? The only difference I see is that y'all have agreed to train in repetive motion, you've agreed from the get-go that any other kind of training is out, and you've also agreed that everyone else is fighting to train. You train to fight. Frankly, this is the same stuff from a couple of years ago which was basically an argument about the value of differing training styles, and not much more.

    I won't let myself get into it with the "troll" Dan started but other than doing kata training only or perhaps two person kata or kumi-uchi, it is somehow a superior training method than any type of resistence practice? All sorts of limits are put on every type of training, in the case of all non-resistive training you have agreed not to resist.

    I agree with you concerning certain types of tanking just as there are many different manner of randori. It can be an exchange of technique with little or no resistence just as it can be a fully resisting one. It isn't held to nage waza, either, as randori can easily switch to katame waza randori, or tai sabaki (feinting) and Low kicking and striking definitively becomes a part of randori.

    But this is something which has been argued many times. The only difference I see is what we all agree to. Geez, even a street fight has rules, you just have a lot less time to find them. A knife produced changes the rule of the fight just as much as your surroundings, your attacker, and what you can come up with in the seconds or fractions there of one has to practice to be able to do and agree to (Butch's description of a knife fight noted).

    While Dan may be correct when he states (well, he doesn't actually state an opinion, he says it is fact) that a match can be an exercise of the chess type, that doesn't negate anthings about the proverbial street. Sometimes, chess or games like it teach conditioned responses, strategy, and just as a game of blind attack drills teaches one to feel in a different way, chess may help to sieze on the correct tactics and strategy. All the "feeling" in the world is not going to teach one to "feel" as one would blind, or rather non-seeing. Most sighted people are "blind" and always will be, but that's another discussion.

    Anyway, I'm a professional student and love to learn new things I have found again after a long break from seminars. I won't deny any claims anymore because it is fruitless, I just wanted to straighten out a grossly over-simplified belief about any kind of fighting/grappling or weapons play. Each one of these one introduces changes the game, but it in no way changes what is. We all agree to certain conditions in training, in the dojo setting, but no one will ever know what, exactly, will get you through the the fight until it is over, and yes, that includes good shiai. Even in DR AJJ, the muscles most used are the shoulders and the hips but after training so long, one learns how much and when. After some time studying any type of grappling, the less muscle activity one needs or uses.

    It's like grabbing the blade of a knife and cutting your hand badly rather than letting it slash something more important to you. It isn't a choice, it is a reflex, or it should be. If you can parry it fine, but no matter what is introduced in training, it is an agreement. No one has the corner on that. I agreed recently to have some one use a live blade on my neck while learning to turn out of it. The agreement was that the live part was still sheathed. One of those showing me that principle had scars on his neck from doing it. I'm still not that comfortable with it. I hope I never am, but I'd love to learn more of it sometime.


    Mark

    BTW: Dan, no offense meant, but it was a troll post whether purposeful or not.

  3. #18
    Dan Harden Guest

    Post

    Mark
    No troll meant-your right though I can see where it could go there. You know I love Judo I was trying to define a purely fighting venue vs dojo training-which we all do. And Judo has much to offer. I do like smaller movements and judo offers them as well. Hows that?
    I don't like ticking you off-you get so surely

    Dan

  4. #19
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Hey Mark
    To further that thought along-remember where we were talking about artificial response or lets cal them "feed back loops?"
    I was using Judo as an example of a chess match? Let me add this to the "Judo as capable art" argument- that I would make on any other day.
    The artifial feedback loop of judo (no strikes or kicks per se) and with the opponent knowing what you will try to do- does not detract from some other excellent response training that is within the Judo paradigm-having to throw someone who is full intent on preventing that very thing! Thats a hell of alot better than someone cooperating.
    And as for small movements I know a guy that will do you up just fine with the smallest O-Goshi you ever saw, just a cheek sneak and WHAM!

    Told ya I wasn't kidding-or trolling. My writing just sucks

    see ya bud

    Dan

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Long Beach,CA
    Posts
    32
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Effortless Combat Throws is a great book. I think you should all look beyond the samples demonstrated in the book and read deeper into it's content. Tim said a lot of very important concepts, principles and theories in that book that should not be overlooked by any martial artist. IMO Tim's techniques have more Aiki like quality than most people that post here. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, but that's my opinion based on my experiences with Tim Cartmell and Don Angier. My Teachers.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA USA
    Posts
    2,570
    Likes (received)
    44

    Default

    [Post deleted by user]
    Last edited by Nathan Scott; 28th March 2014 at 18:38.
    Nathan Scott
    Nichigetsukai

    "Put strength into your practice, and avoid conceit. It is easy enough to understand a strategy and guard against it after the matter has already been settled, but the reason an opponent becomes defeated is because they didn't learn of it ahead of time. This is the nature of secret matters. That which is kept hidden is what we call the Flower."

    - Zeami Motokiyo, 1418 (Fūshikaden)

  7. #22
    Guest

    Default

    Nathan,

    Amen!

    Tobs

  8. #23
    INFINOO Guest

    Default

    I have been lurking on this thread/ forum for some time. My background in Aiki type arts goes back some 11 years. Before that I was involved in western grappling arts and for the lack of a better word street fighting. At present I own/operate my own combative company Rogalsky Combatives internatioal(RCI).
    I offer this bakground to feel that I have somthing to offer to this discussion as I have been on the floor with both Soke Don Angeir who I lucky enough to take Ukemi for at a seminar in Calgary several years as well having the oppertunity Dennis Rovere who is a chinese military stylest. My interst in chinese systems where mostly edged weapon based knife/bayonet but I did have a chance to slog my way through about 3/4 of the Yang long form in Tai-chi, complete with applications, not all the applications mind you(its not like I didnt try) which Im sure would be infinite. So with this out of the way I will offer my 3.75 cents Canadian convert that to US funds, 2 cents.
    Aiki arts, western combtives and the chinese systems all have different training meathodologies. In my experience the most rewarding part of trying to learn and experience differnt combat arts first hand is not what they do, but how they do what they do . When they do what they do, and why they do what they do and most importantly how they train to do what they do.
    From personal experience I can say if your want to experience the application of other combat arts(have tech done on you) then one must take steps to insure your own survival. Many teachers along my path would say stuff like I could show you the throw but the fall would kill you. The breif time spent taking Ukemi for Soke Angier gave me a clear map for the quality of Ukemi I wanted to make my own.. Soft gental landing while holding weapons have been a great asset in staying alive in many training situations since than. For instance not every where I trained had soft mats to train on , many times it was hard dirt ground, hardwood floors and concreate (Tai-chi,).
    The word "tanking" has been brought up. From my own experiences the skill of taking soft Ukemi with or without weapons is a great asset. The fact that many teachers didnt break my arm or neck first(And I felt they could have on many occasions) before they threw me to the ground didnt hurt either.
    I wanted to post more about the science of throwing and i will later , but a migrane that feels like an ice pick behind my eye is telling me to get some down time.

    Regards
    Gregory Rogalsky
    Rogalsky Combatives International

  9. #24
    INFINOO Guest

    Default

    There is a common "quality" of movement that is universal to those that incorperate effective throwing into there art. I would also say that while arts like Tai-chi and Aiki type arts share the same quality the way that the way two differnt arts get the other guy on the ground is clearly differnt. Somtimes clearly people dont know or understand what they are lookin at, so they say things like "thats just like we do it". However, when the two tech are under closer scrutiny, they are clearly differnt. Im not suggesting one is better than the other, only differnt. If any art appears to be working "to hard" than there are things that could be changed to make the tech more effecient. For instance some of my major progress in understanding the throwing arts were made after studing Tai-chi for some time and changing my stance a little here and adjusting foot work there. This didnt change my core beleifs about the importance about (head controll,elbow controll, triangulation, and attacking on the pull )that I learned from Aiki and wrestling. It just made them work a little more effecient and harder for the other guy to counter. And isnt that what we all want? So from my perspective effortless combat throws are possible but to get to that point in training and in a fight, somtimes require lots of hard work to make it look easy.

    Regards

    Gregory Rogalsky
    Rogalsky Combtives International
    Calgary Alberta Canada

  10. #25
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Colo Spgs, CO USA
    Posts
    377
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Nathan wrote:

    "Wow, quite a controversial book."

    I don't think the book is all that controversial - I just disagreed with the premise of the original post on this thread - and that is that the book in question might be useful for helping to understand the differences between jujutsu and aikijujutsu.

    1) Hey we agree!!

    2) (I) wrote: "How does a book about Chinese throwing arts help to illustrate the difference between jujutsu and aikijujutsu methodologies? I find almost everyone of the principles mentioned to be jujutsu principles."

    Nathan responded: "I don't know. The book was written by a Chinese stylist, but as he explains, the principles of throwing are based on universal physics, and reading through the text I found a lot of familiar principles that were explained rather well."

    The principles are universal. I think that's why they're "familiar", not because they are "aiki-principles". If Cartmell explains these principles rather well, then that speaks rather well for him and his book, if he likewise gives Don credit for his ideas, then he also has more class than many other people do.

    There are many people in Jujutsu and Judo that focus on breaking/sweeping the foundation out from under the opponent to throw or that focus on techniques involving picking up or displacing the opponent's center directly (like "Koshinage" or Judo's "Ogoshi") rather than connecting to the opponent's center externally by using various methods of levering/connecting to the center indirectly (if that makes sense).

    My comment was geared towards these people, since many of the principles described in this book relate to indirect center connection (c), and though this idea is included in many throwing arts, is rarely understood or felt by exponents."


    That actually makes a lot of sense Nathan. In fact, I would say these observations are quite astute, and I agree whole-heartedly with what you're saying there.

    "My experience has been that those that excel in indirect center connecting tend to be those in the aiki arts, and aiki relationships..."

    I'm not arguing with that.

    "... (and aiki relationships) seem to be most commonly established through this method."

    It's often said that with aiki, "what you see is not what you get", I would simply add that what "seems to be" may or may not in fact be the case. So it's also how they're going about "connecting" and what it is they're connecting to that makes them excel. In other words, aiki relationships may "seem" to be commonly established via these principles, when in actuality (or at least in my experience, I should say) they may or may not.

    "Therefore, understanding these principles (double weighting, etc.) will, in many cases, help the reader better understand methods commonly used in establishing aiki relationships with an opponent. But, that is not to say that most of these principles cannot be found in jujutsu as well (depending largely on the style)."

    Here is where things get sticky, and I find myself needing to draw more distinctions. Universal principles (like double weighting, etc...) are just that universal - so yes, you can find them jujutsu as well as in all sort of arts including Chinese ones. The problem comes when we equate aiki with certain principles, and the use of certain principles (as is done in some popular tapes). IMO, aiki does not equal principles nor do principles equal aiki. Aiki may be based on principles and principles can be used to explain how aiki works, but they are not the same thing. Aikijujutsu will often make use of principles like double weighting, but it accomplishes the double weighting with aiki - not leverage. Therein lies a crucial difference between jujutsu and aiki. Both use principles, but often in different ways, and often they'll also use different principles altogether.

    One person uses skeletal locking or levers (jujutsu) to accomplish double weighting and uses the double weighting to set up and accomplish his throw and/or finishing move - popular opinion might call that "aikijujutsu", but as I've been trying to say all this time, in Daito-ryu a distiction is made between jujutsu and aiki. In Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, "aiki" generally needs to be applied to establish an "aiki relationship". As a side note: this isn't a new Roppokai modification BTW - in the mokuroku it states often to "apply aiki"... when describing various techniques.

    To follow the above example, aiki might be used to double weight the opponent, and thus accomplish the throw. In another situation though, jujutsu might also be used to double weight the opponent, but then aiki might be applied at some other point to either finish the throw/takedown, or to otherwise immobilize the opponent with a pin. Both these examples, having applied aiki along with jujutsu cover what I'd call aikijujutsu.

    "As James Williams has pointed out, arts like Shishin Takuma ryu Jujutsu, as taught by the Kuroda family, clearly employ aiki principles, but they do not choose to term the methods as anything but good "jujutsu". I would recommend watching any of the many Japanese language video tapes he has available for reference."

    I brought a bunch of his tapes home with me from Japan in '94 and I showed them to James shortly after that. Little did I know that a few years later James would be inviting him here for seminars! And I think that's really great, although I respectfully disagree with James, on the use of the term "aiki principles", and instead agree with Kuroda sensei that what he teaches is jujutsu. I don't disagree about the similarities or the characteristic's that he says the two arts share, only that I don't think that it's ajj. You guys seem to be saying that a rose by any other name is still a rose - when I think we're all using the same term "a rose", but some of us are talking about another kind flower altogether. Semantics yes, but it's important if we're going to understand each other better.

    Back to Kuroda, the principles in common are certainly shared, but what makes them belong to "aiki" or "aikijujutsu"? I simply classify them differently. I would say that among those principles (and perhaps some other things) that Kuroda sensei's arts share with ajj is primarily a very soft, relaxed (ju) approach and application of techniques - he also shares an uncanny sort of speed & timing. These things make his jujutsu appear very aiki-like and perhaps even makes them quite compatible. I won't even bother getting into other characteristics of his jujutsu that are clearly different from (Daito-ryu) aikijujutsu. I think think there are a number of Kuroda sensei's former and current students who've also trained in Daito-ryu that would agree with my distinctions though. Likewise, I know a few koryu practitioners that think jujutsu was always (and still is) supposed to be done softly, more like Kuroda sensei does. But it's still jujutsu not aiki.

    3) "Brently, as usual you are the only one that is stating with authority what is and is not "DR Aiki". I did not say anything about how the material written about in this book relates to DR Aiki, and in fact did not mention Daito ryu at all.

    First off, I have no "authority" whatsoever. I'm a nobody, I know a few things, but I'm not very good. My opinions are my own, based on what I was taught and what I've learned and experienced. In your first post though, this is what you said:

    "My reason for introducing this book in the AJJ forum is that a great deal of the principles covered in this book are necessary for performing AJJ-type "aiki techniques"... <snip>

    Those curious about Aikido, Jujutsu or Aikijujutsu would be well served to have a look at this book, IMO. Hopefully, a lot of confusion, like what the difference in methodology between aikijujutsu and jujutsu is, will be answered."


    So while you did not say "Daito-ryu" you did say "aiki" and "aikijujutsu". When you say "aikijujutsu", you've got to know that most people are thinking of Daito-ryu, the predecessor of aikido or Yanagi-ryu. Granted some folks might think of R.D. or G.L. or some other phony baloney, but that's beside the point - I don't think you were referring to those. Now I make the distinction of Daito-ryu Aiki/AJJ simply in order to separate what I'm talking about from other legitimate ajj like Yanagi-ryu which I'm not really qualified to comment at a length about, or aikido, and aikido related arts, and all the other so called ajj that is out there. I make this distinction, because we have never been able to agree on this board (or any other) about the definition of "aiki". Since the understanding of aiki in Daito-ryu differs significantly from the common or popular understanding of aiki - in aikido and other arts, I choose to say "Daito-ryu Aiki" for clarity, in order to be better understood.

    If some people think I say "Daito-ryu" aiki in order to be arrogant or to lend more "authority" to my posts - whatever. My intent is simply to be as clear as I can be, granting that clarity is severly restricted by the constraint of words and language written on a screen. Hence another oft-repeated mantra of us Daito-ryu practitioners - is that these sort of distinctions are always better shown in person than conveyed in writing. Still most of us are separated by long distance and time zones so we enjoy meeting here on the www to discuss topics of shared interest - we have to do the best we can.

    Now while I certainly learned from Okamoto sensei in the Roppokai, and was active in running a dojo in California, and did represent the Roppokai as a member and shibu-cho, I'm not actively teaching now, due to other personal obligations. So please let me clarify again that I do not officially represent the Roppokai or Okamoto sensei in anyway when I post on this board - I have often stated that my opinions are my own. I have however, taken seriously my teacher's admonition to me to only teach that which I know. Such is not only the limit of what I can teach, but also in a practical sense, the limit of what I can truthfully talk about in a forum such as this. In other words, I don't make a habit of "theorizing" on the boards about things that I haven't already discovered myself in training, and taught in class.

    "Incorporating such principles will not "give you or make aiki" automatically - no. But if you are studying aiki under a qualified instructor, then the explanations and terminology used by Angier Sensei and books like this may be quite useful..."

    Sure, explanations from YOUR qualified aiki instructor should be helpful. Explanations from other instructors may or may not be helpful - depending on the instructor and their respective style and it's similarity to your style. There's no disagreement here from me, except that the usefulness of this particular book is limited to it's general usefulness regarding throwing (in general), not aikijujutsu in particular.

    It was not my intention to imply that you could learn "aiki" from this or any other book! Obviously, this would be impossible. Anyone that would try to use a few catch phrases and tricks while selling themselves as doing "aiki" would be a fool and hopefully proven as such eventually.

    Ah Nathan, you let the cat out of the bag... all this time I was thinking you were hoping to spawn more self-made ajj masters just so you all could have more tapes (ala R.D.) to watch at the next aiki expo. Seriously though, you did say you thought the book might be helpful for improving one's ajj-like throws and ansering some of the confusion surrounding aikijujutsu and jujutsu.

    5) While the book does not seem to make mention of aiki, I would disagree that such principles will not improve Aikijujutsu, based on my own experience.

    However, in order to discuss "aiki", we would of course have to define it, which has been attempted on this list to great lengths in the past. Without this common ground, it is very difficult to share intelligent debate over the subject.


    Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this, because obviously our experiences differ, as do our definitions of aiki. But then again, that's why I've been choosing to clarify all my opinions and posts by referring to "Daito-ryu" aiki/aikijujutsu in particular. Unless someone can come up with a better way to differentiate between the different views, then I'll need to continue to attempt to make myself more clear by delineating what kind of aiki/aikijujutsu I'm talking about.

    By the way Nathan, no offense has been taken from ya, nor intended in return - as tiring as these discussions can be for some folks, I think they're helpful for others, so I carry on. I feel a real sense of gratitude and wonder towards Daito-ryu AJJ and my teacher - I only hope I can give back to the art as much as I've gained from it.

    To Tobs and Meynard: I hear ya. You guys are just too cool!

    Gregory, I'm out of time today, but I think you made some rather good observations. More later.

    Brently Keen
    Last edited by Brently Keen; 6th July 2002 at 03:40.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA USA
    Posts
    2,570
    Likes (received)
    44

    Default

    [Post deleted by user]
    Last edited by Nathan Scott; 28th March 2014 at 18:43.
    Nathan Scott
    Nichigetsukai

    "Put strength into your practice, and avoid conceit. It is easy enough to understand a strategy and guard against it after the matter has already been settled, but the reason an opponent becomes defeated is because they didn't learn of it ahead of time. This is the nature of secret matters. That which is kept hidden is what we call the Flower."

    - Zeami Motokiyo, 1418 (Fūshikaden)

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    455
    Likes (received)
    9

    Default

    Originally posted by Nathan Scott
    the same way as DR Kodokai, or if the DR Kodokai defines it the same way as the DR Roppokai, or if the DR Roppokai defines it the same way as the DR Sagawa dojo? Is the aiki performed the same way between these DR groups?

    Depends who you talk to - but some of the people in the groups above would say definitely NOT, so YMMV.

    Best,

    Chris

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    280
    Likes (received)
    0

    Post

    Nathan,

    Sooner or later I just knew you would try and pull us out of the wood work on this I've been trying to resist. I'm still waiting for one of Dan's infamous "deleted" posts, where I can only wonder at the content of a post he completely deleted.

    Anyway, in response to your question,

    I still wonder if the DR Mainline defines aiki the same way as DR Kodokai, or if the DR Kodokai defines it the same way as the DR Roppokai, or if the DR Roppokai defines it the same way as the DR Sagawa dojo? Is the aiki performed the same way between these DR groups?

    my understanding of what I have learned so far in the mainline school (which isn't very much, I'd like to qualify), is yes, there are differences big and small, depending on the branch you are comparing the mainline with.

    At the most basic and introductory level, but upon which all other "aiki principles" build upon, is Kondo Sensei's maxim that the moment you come into contact, or the moment just before contact, with your opponent, you must immediately unbalance him/her. "Aiki" represents the varying levels of subtlety in accomplishing this task. Of course the big question is, "Well, just how is this different than jujutsu?" I can only respond that the difference in aiki-unbalancing lies in the peculiar method of application. These "methods of aiki-application" are comprised of varying levels of subtlety and difficulty. One would have to practice or experience the technique to understand how it is different than jujutsu kuzushi - and I won't go into any details about these methods.

    A major difference you might have noticed in earlier discussions on this topic is the "scope" of aiki in the varying schools. For example, Kondo Sensei teaches that one must have the highest grasp of aiki-principles in order to adequately perform the techniques in the hiden mokuroku, especially the ikkajo. Other schools appear to maintain that the hiden mokuroku are comprised primarily, if not entirely, of Daito ryu jujutsu techniques; in other words, no aiki. For this school of thought, aiki only appears in the higher level techniques, or is applied differently than the manner in which the techniques of the hiden mokuroku are performed.

    In the mainline tradition, however, one could perform the ikkajo using just DR jujutsu, or one could perform the ikkajo using DR ajj -Kondo Sensei clearly believes that the ikkajo (as well as the hiden mokuroku as a whole) cannot be done properly utilizing only jujutsu. Most beginners start learing the hiden mokuroku using only DR jujutsu principles. Only later do students start to learn how to do the hiden mokuroku kata using DR ajj principles. Some, you might guess, never learn the DR ajj principles.

    So while some aiki techniques are very subtle, and others are not so subtle, the scope of aiki in the mainline school is not as restricted in definition as in other schools. One need only watch practitioners of different schools perform kata from the hiden mokuroku, or even just ippon dori, to see a difference in the teachings. Furthermore, even an untrained eye will notice the more jujutsu type from the ajj type, even if he doesn't know why they look different.

    I would like to add here that I don't want to make any claims on the validity of the mainline interpretation vs. other branches. Nor do I wish to denigrate any other branch's interpretation. I am more than happy to "agree to disagree." But I did want to offer some thoughts on Nathan's question regarding what little I have learned studying the mainline school.

    Respectfully,

    Arman Partamian
    Daito ryu Study Group
    Maryland

  14. #29
    Tim Cartmell Guest

    Default

    First of all, I'd like to thank Nathan for recommending my book.

    I'd like to take the time to clear up a couple of points. I finished writing the book while I was still living in the Republic of China, before I met Soke Angier. I met him shortly after returning to the States and he was gracious enough to spend some time with me showing me his art and explaining its principles. My thanks to him in the foreward of the book was in gratitude for the time he spent with me. I have no formal training in the Aiki based arts, and any shortcomings in the material should not reflect on Soke Angier.

    The ideas and principles in my book are based on my own training in the Chinese martial arts as I learned them from my Chinese teachers. My intent was to present some of the principles of body use and throwing strategies (as I understand them) in a unified format, hopefully so that practitioners of different arts could find something of use. I chose the simplest techniques I could think of to illustrate the principles outlined in the book, and principles of body use and throwing are the focus of the work. Some of you who decided the value of the book after glancing at the pictures may find reading the text more worthwhile.

    Regards,

    Tim

  15. #30
    Kit LeBlanc Guest

    Default

    Tim,

    Good to see you here.

    I think it should also be noted that Tim has had the courage to test the principles of his internal arts practice under pressure: he won two full contact fighting tournaments in Taiwan in 1986.

    Tournaments in Taiwan are NOTORIOUS for their roughness. Some time in the 80's there was a big expose in one of the rags on an international Taiwanese tournament due to the rough tactics and the injuries they produced in the participants. Despite what non-combatant practitioners and non-competitors may like to think, this kind of thing is in many ways a realistic measure of practical ability.

    Tim has also embraced the study of Brazilian jujutsu since returning to the States and is a brown belt in that art (probably equivalent to a Judo 3d dan in relative terms of time in art/demonstrated skill vs. others of similar background), and recently won that division in a tournament in California.

    Tim has always maintained that there is great deal of commonality between internal MA principles and the non-resistance, soft fluidity and understanding of angles, point of contact and control over the opponents body in good BJJ, which as anyone who has practiced BJJ and Japaanese jujutsu knows, are simply "jujutsu" principles.

    We would do well to hear him out.

    Now back to the nascent Aiki War III (or is it IV?).

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mugai Ryu book revisited + history update
    By Seishin in forum Sword Arts
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24th January 2003, 00:08
  2. Book FAQ
    By John Lindsey in forum Passing the Guard
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th October 2002, 05:23
  3. Charles Nelson's Red Book
    By Phil Matthews in forum Close Quarter Combatives
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21st August 2001, 20:34

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •