Aikijujutsu vs Aikido

[Hissho]

there is no evidence that Saigo Shiro, a teenager had any "aikijutsu" training. In Kano Jigoro's recently published diary, he describes maintaining a dojo at one point, and mentions Saigo as one of the youths who he had watch the place and teach while he was unavailable. I'm writing this on the run, but essentially Kano says, "He wasn't very skilled at that time." Saigo was a product of being a) a really talented kid b) training among top level young men. Think of Nogueira, who was at the top of the world at 21 years old, beating Mario Sperry, then in his thirties, who was one of his mentors.
Best

He also mentions that they frequently had to stop because young Saigo would tire easily.

Saigo's skill was directly a product of training with Kano, and no doubt eventually the caliber of his fellow Kodokan judo training partners.

[K Keckeisen]

Just to throw gas on the fire....Of course it dosen't mention anything about about Saigos previous training (if there was any)in Kano's dairy. What would his dairy entry say? Wow this Saigo kid is awesome, he in no way needs to train with me or benifit from my new training methodes

On the flip side the other dairy entry kinda helps my kata / randori together argument. If for sake of argument Saigo had AJJ training through kata form and tried easily in Judo training dosen't that show that randori (resistive) style training is needed for martial effenciancy?

I don't care how sharp your kata is if you are to gassed to pull the techniques

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[john_lord_b3]

Selamat sore, Pak.

Buenos Tardes amigo

Agree on that. However, even inside the Aikikai, each "line" has a very concrete way of doing things. Think shomen uchi ikkyo. It's pretty standard "inside" the line, even when it varies hugely between styles.

After all, DR also has different ways of performing the same technique, even in the same branch. But I see you point clearly. Thanks .

Yeah, I got your point too, thank you very much my friend . I guess our point is that diversity instead of unity is the main feature of many arts descended from Takeda Sokaku today.

[wagnerphysed]

Hey, just thought I would pop in and offer my two cents once again.

I agree very much with what Nathan has posted regarding the role of kata and the problems with changing it. We can see in arts like Yagyu shinkageryu where kata has been added but whole sections, have for the most part, been left alone. As Nathan detailed, sections were added while older sections were maintained.

Also, outside of the Yagyu example, I have been told that kata is only a small part of a koryu. Even more important in koryu are the traditions and knowledge maintained by the ryu. Kata is important. Maintaining the traditions and teachings of a ryu are another piece to the koryu. If you are invested in a koryu art, these cannot be separated.

Finally, kata is not an end in itself. It is only an instructional method. The lesson you learn and walk away with is entirely up to your thoroughness and diligence, or lack there of, in learning what exists within the kata. Practicing with resistance and changes in the attacks might very well be included in this.

[No1'sShowMonkey]

While the kata of some koryu were likely updated regularly to benefit from experience and changes in the trends of warfare or materials of war, whence this adaptive drive from regular warfare ceased so did the organic growth. Mr. Hall writes in his essay of the three types of kata and the break off of the Tokugawa shogunate and later. What this can be interpreted to mean is that classical kata are a snapshot of warfare of a time and place long forgotten to the rest of the world. What that snapshot contains, however, is the distilled martial truth learned in hard lessons.

Mr. Scott has already spoken about the risks of updating kata. That would freak me out, personally. I tend to trust in generations of toil and blood, that their work was meaningful and truthful, and lacking the context of lethal combat with edged weapons I have very little to add and only a great deal to detract from the quality of a kata.

I have a background that includes randori as a general practice in class and I know that I learned a great deal from it. Putting concepts learned in kata into practice against a live opponent is an eye opening thing.
It is my understanding that koryu kata develop eventually into a more free form method. See Teaching Shu-Ha-Ri for an essay on the subject by Yukio Takamura. Many have come before us and some bled testing the limits of safety and efficacy of kata. While kata teach principle, they still hold to very basic martial laws and beneath the surface you can see a great deal of violence.

So I guess what I am getting at is that the classical kata provide a window into a particular time and place and method of fighting befitting context. The value of that context is open for debate. Contemporary fighting methods seem to be exactly that - methods. They are concerned first and foremost with the technical demands of their operators: how to shoot well, deal with weapon failures, basic tactics for fixing, flanking and destroying etc. The obsession with the practical and contextual to modern fighting, however, may not put as much emphasis on the same skills developed and demanded in koryu kata. I think that in this way the koryu kata are preserving elements of the combative mindset and method which may be passed over or by more modern methods.

[TimB99]

So I've been wandering a bit through these forums lately, and I've gotten to the point where I've started to wonder what the exact differences (and maybe the similarities) between daito-ryu aikijujutsu (or whatever you like to call it, I've seen it being referred to in different ways, and because I'm not in any way affiliated with their teachings, I'm in no position to judge&stuffs).

Anyhow.. In order to keep things positive and constructive, in stead of starting off in a flame-war, a blame-war or any other negative way, I'll phrase the questions as such:

In your experience (either through observation or participation):

What does daito-ryu have that aikido hasn't? If there is a difference at all.

What does aikido have that daito-ryu doesn't have? If there is a difference at all.

What might aikidoka learn from daito-ryu that they might not learn in aikido? If any?

What might daito-ryu folks (no disrespect intended, obviously) learn from aikido that they might not learn in their own school? If any?

What could instructors, again, from both ends learn from each other that might skyrocket their transmission?

What would be an absolute must to teach, again on both ends?


Feel free to answer any question you'd want, and any amount of questions you want. Feel free to add to the discussion in any way you please. Feel free to add anything that might be considered beneficial to the discussion.

Hope to learn alot ^^

-Tim Bergman


Oh! And just for funsies: if you were to teach one thing to me, or if you were to train with me and wanted to experiment with something, what would it be?

[DDATFUS]

So I've been wandering a bit through these forums lately, and I've gotten to the point where I've started to wonder what the exact differences (and maybe the similarities) between daito-ryu aikijujutsu (or whatever you like to call it, I've seen it being referred to in different ways, and because I'm not in any way affiliated with their teachings, I'm in no position to judge&stuffs).

I'm pretty sure that this isn't the first time this question has been asked. If you use the search function, you'll probably find quite a few threads on the topic (many of them including answers from people who no longer post on e-budo or are so sick of this topic that they will no longer answer this type of post). I'm not saying this to criticize you or your post-- I think that you pose interesting questions. I'm just alerting you to the fact that some answers are out there already and that some potential answer-ers are unlikely to respond.

What does daito-ryu have that aikido hasn't? If there is a difference at all.

What does aikido have that daito-ryu doesn't have? If there is a difference at all.

Too many answers to this, and quite a few of the answers depend on which aikido guys and which Daito Ryu guys you are talking about. Neither aikido nor Daito Ryu is a single monolithic entity, after all.

Some people might come along and post their thoughts, and I think that you could find some interesting clues in old interviews over at Aikido Journal. At the end of the day, though, the only way to answer your question is to get out there and feel both arts, preferably from a variety of sources.

Also, one warning for when people start posting their answers to this: in my experience, the more qualified a person is to answer this question, the less likely they are to have anything to say about it online. I am, of course, a prime example of this-- my post count exceeds my knowledge by more than a hundredfold.

What might aikidoka learn from daito-ryu that they might not learn in aikido? If any?

Sorry if this sounds like a flippant answer, but from Daito Ryu, an aikidoka could learn to do Daito Ryu. Daito Ryu isn't something you train in to supplement your aikido or to get better at a specific skill set. It is Daito Ryu; either take it for what it is or leave it be.

There are clearly tons of similarities between the two arts and aikido is clearly a descendant of Daito Ryu, but it is also clear that Ueshiba, at some point in his career, started doing his own thing. If there is anything that a very smart aikidoka could learn from Daito Ryu, it might be what aikido isn't.

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Cliff Judge]

As an Aikido guy, I am sure I can teach any Daito Ryu person how to begin class by bowing to a picture of a bearded old man.

[hypnotortoise]

Hi all,

I am slowly working my way through this rather large thread, however to state the obvious (which has probably already been stated more than once)....

There are no superior martial arts, only superior martial artists.

Regards,
Will Murray.

[Rev]

only superior martial artits.

sorry, had to... Who are these artits? And are they aiki-artits.

[hypnotortoise]

sorry, had to... Who are these artits? And are they aiki-artits.

Lol, yeah would have done the same had I seen it from someone else, I was hoping that no one would notice before I did the edit

Will

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[P Goldsbury]

Cleaning out stacks of saved paperwork and magazines, I came across the following quote of interest, published in Aikido Today Magazine 1994/1995, #37, Page 17; "Interview with Yoshimitsu Yamada Sensei", by Susan Perry:



Regards,

Hello Nathan,

I think this ties in with Ellis Amdur's discussion in Hidden in Plain Sight about Ueshiba reducing the number of waza in aikido. The received opinion has been that it was Kisshomaru who did this, in Tokyo, while Dad was doing his aiki-farming etc in Iwama.

Best wishes,

PAG