Hi aikimac In too many aikido classes there is no sense of danger because of the "givens". It is understood that the aikidoka shall stand there and receive an attack usually one he has specified. The "attacker" EXPECTS to be thown and at worse participates in the execution of the technique. Below Derek has moved into the maai that would allow him to attack me. I do not wait for the attack and mount an attack of my own. If he blocks I may use the block to effect a counter or his blocking may leave an opening for an atemi. There is so much more to aikido than is being taught in many dojos. regards koyo
It is not uncommon even as the instructor to have your technique countered.Derek managed to block by then I was really close to him and being so tall he simply grabbed me around the neck. So I had to react instinctively.And yes if I had paused he would have applied a strangle.
Let's accept that for the sake of discussion. Let's accept that the original lessons were rougher than what one typically sees today. I'm still confused, though, over the difference between aiki-JJ (particularly, Daito Ryu) and the old aikido. The 1st generation didn't spread "aiki-jj" around the world. They spread "aikido." Tohei didn't write a book called "This Is Aiki-Jujitsu." He wrote a book called "This Is Aikido." Certainly there had to be something different in order to warrant a different name for the thing spread around the world even by that first generation. What was different? I cannot believe that OSensei would create a new name for the same old art. That just does not compute in my head.
I don't find that surprising in the least. Aikido was Ueshiba's collected learning condensed into a unified system. The fact that Daito Ryu formed the core of this learning should be a comfort not an shock. The principles of martial arts are the same for ALL martial systems. I have trained in numberous martial systems. One of the most closely related arts to Aikido I have found is Wudang style Tai Chi, there are small differences in technique but the underlying principles are the same. The is the same between daito ryu and aikido. The problem with modern Aikido is than too many have focussed on the art and not enough on the martial. I have attended far too many classes where fit athletic people roll around and dance but there is nothing martial in what they do. It is Aikirobics. Aikirobics is fine if that is what you want but it isn't really Aikido. Just like doing forms in the parks isn't really Tai Chi. The Bear P.S. Hey Koyo, you know bear baiting is illegal?
Like many of the modern arts the difference was in "intent". daito Ryu under Sokaku Takeda could be seen as an art the intention of which was to kill.(even in Daito ryu I do not think that is the intention today"personal oppinion")Much has been written about Takeda as an "old style samurai" in fact a very dangerous man. O Sensei put forward the principle that the severe and disciplined training was better used to develop the character of the participant.Therefor jutsu (technique) became do (way of life) If we look at the techniques there is little difference it is the intent and application that is different. What I find is that many have taken to training in a most unrealistic manner. Why would O Sensei change the name and keep the techniques? For the same reason there are a great number of different karate schools. All with different emphasis but using the same or fundamentally similar techniques and principles. O Sensei was not developing aikido for the public so the "nature" of the art would change so mirror his personality, I think that many are changing the nature of techniques to mirror the wishes of those who wish to train in their comfort zone and to create at worse a "new age pacifist martial art." It is the severity and sincerity of the training that develops character and I feel this is being lost.I do not say that ALL aikidoka train in this manner but it more nad more becoming the norm. regards koyo bear I cannot find anything in writing that says bear baiting is illegal in scotland but I could direct you to some clubs where they do bear dancing.
This turned out to be a fascinating thread. Much of it confirming what I'd gathered over reading and training. I don't think any but the foolhardy would've undersestimated the toughness of the early practitioners of DRAJJ and Aikido. By and large a very different era.. with completely different notions of what a man was and what honor was. I guess this is why I'm always so baffled how Aikido seems to attract so many that would be better off in Yoga-lite classes.
There are major differences between aikido and Daito-ryu aikijujutsu. Modern aikido, principles and approaches are open to the interpretation of the teacher in charge. In Kobudo, this is not so. One of the main differences is Daito-ryu's preference to do technqiues in a rather linear fashion with the exception of shiho nage, etc. Note that Ikkajo is done in angles, rather than circles. Daito-ryu aikijujutsu demonstration in Japan Kondo Katsuyuki - Current headmaster of the mainline of Daito-ryu Takeda Tokimune & Kondo Katsuyuki demonstrating Daito-ryu
Aikido appeals the to spiritual tourists on so many levels. They can pretend to be "manly" while preaching philosposhical "peace". They get to dress-up in a nice wee oufit and buy designer weapons. Hang a katana on the wall of their house and pretend they have an idea of how to use it. They get like minded people who confirm their ideas of Aikido and massage each others ego until they believe their own hype. The Bear. Kogusoku, Form the video you posted it looks very similar Koyo's Aikido.
Exactly and I do not feel that they should be. The influence of many teachers is to attract as many students as possible.This addresses your first point. Your second point and one of the most fundamental differences I shall address with Saito shihan's words. The secret of aikido lies in the TRIANGLES. Learning this had a great emphasis in my training. One of my own. The attacker mts be caused to spin, circle or spiral around the aikidoka NOT THE OPPOSITE. It is with reluctance that I agree entirely with this post.This is the reason that I post on MAP.Aikido must not lose the martial efficacy it had when first brought out of japan. regards koyo Edit Kogusoku You used the words modern aikido. Again I agree but the manner in which aikido is promoted today (modern) is far removed from the manner in which I was taught and much the less for this. Rather like someone buying an iaito and swinging it around and claiming to do Iai some need only spin around a mat and claim to do aikido.You must have seen them.
Which is exactly why I used the term 'modern'. One of my koryu teachers studied directly under Ueshiba Morihei sensei in the early 1950's. He trained in aikido and koryu until the 1980's and then just decided to keep on with koryu. Why? Aikido in the 1980's was too far removed from what was taught when he started. He quit aikido at 7th dan and just kept on with Koryu bujutsu. He was a stickler for tradition too, if you did aikido footwork or related movements in koryu bujutsu class, you got a bollocking.
Hey Kogusoku, I'm been told that older writings passed down did not contain detailed techniques but instead listed principles to be learned. The details of technique were passed down by word of mouth and in practice to those deemed worthy of the teachings. Is there a difference in which principles are emphasized between Aikido and Aiki-jutsu? As for differences in techniques, it has been my experience that Aikido technique is more generic (less detailed) than Aiki-jutsu. I know that my Aikido teacher would call it Jujutsu when she added particularly effective and painful details to techniques. It seemed the case that this more severe technique exists in Aikido but is not taught to most. Although I learned it from other arts and cross-training, whereas she learned hers from her Aikido instructor. I can see how if Aikido black belts were never taught it from their teacher or through cross-training, then their Aikido would look much different than that of Aiki-jutsu.
Which addresses the fact that aikido is (should be) a triangular art entering triangularly using sword principle of dominating the spirit of the opponent decisive and pragmatic body alignment (triangularly).An example would be the atemi used in aikido (dropped my some schools) addressed the fact that the katana cuts on the "pull or push" so any strike would be done in that manner lon inpact it "pushes" to a kuzushi or "pulls" to a kuzushi. Now atemu if used at all are token. Aaaaaaargh! I am beginning to growl :bang: regards koyo It is sad but more and more I have to look out of aikido circles (oops!) to find others to train with. regards koyo
Hi Rebel While I wait for Kogusoku's reply here is mine. There are three approaches to studying aikido Keiko where we study the techniques and principles. Renshu where we apply effective techniques without thought or pause Ara waza severe techniques applied when demanded much faster than basic . Ara waza include the applications that you speak of. I am beginning to think that we must differenciate between aikido and modern aikido :bang: regards koyo
Rebel, If we're talking aikido, highly likely. If we're talking koryu bujutsu, I'll be forced to say case by case, since every koryu ryuha has it's own individual method of disseminating knowledge. (e.g. In the densho of one of the ryuha I train and teach, there are no finishes. It leaves it up to the trainee to do what he/she will, providing it's tactically logical.) Look at the clips again, they show various examples of what principles are used in Daito-ryu. You see atemi used to weaken an enemy. You see angled entry for the application of ikkajo. You see the extension of the arm in aiki age, so that connection is made with the enemy's spinal column, via the arm to facilitate kuzushi. We have to remember that aikido, like Kodokan judo is a modern interpretation of jujutsu. Certain elements are taken and emphasized. Look at this clip of Ueshiba Morihei demonstrating in 1935 on the reel of film from 1935, you'll see sutemi waza, atemi and various elements from Daito-ryu and other jujutsu ryuha. Yoshinkan aikido is pretty much like that in some cases. I saw some prime examples of that at Nagoya Castle last year. Very nice stuff. At a basic level, it looks very simple and doesn't contain much of the 'spicy' additions, however at higher levels, a lot of atemi and other kansetsu waza were used.
Kogusoku. It is my understanding that Takeda Sokaku was a master of the itto ryu style of swordsmanship.This I feel would suit him as Itto Ittosai who founded the school was a master who refuted any philosphical connotations to swordsmanship stating "One cut one kill." My question is. Is there any swordsmanship training in modern (I hate that word) daito ryu, and if so what style?. regards koyo
Ya, I too have sampled from a large buffet table, and I see a huge amount of overlap across martial arts, BUT -- I could still point out distinct differences between any two arts, such that we are warranted in using different names for those arts. And that makes sense to me. I'm okay with overlap because we have the same arms and legs and joints. I'm okay with differences because in spite of the same joints and limbs we have different heights, weights, speed, muscles, emotions, and jobs. I too have seen non-combative aikido. That's why I said somewhere recently that I was interested in switching to Yoshinkan for the purpose, and hope, of getting more martial-ness into my "martial arts" training. Same move, different intent. From -jutsu to -do. Okay, I'll buy that. It fits well with that little yellow book "The Art of Peace."
Hi Aikimac Same move different intent. Here is tenchi nage ara waza (severe technique) It is done to toughen the trainee, to show him the effectiveness of the technique and equip him for the time he may need to fight on the street. (ALL benefits for him.) The strike should have struck the karotid artery but since he was seriously unbalanced a strike high on the chest was used.I am sure Daito ryu would use a similar technique in training also modifying it so as not to injure. Same technique different intent. regards koyo Edit The philosophy is needed because of the effectiveness of the technique. Or as Chiba shihan states more directly The ability to kill and choosing not to is the mark of a true martial artist. :Angel:
I think the students own approach to training is far more important than the larger organisation. Where i trained previously would definitely have been considered "soft" in many respects in comparison to the Yoshinkan for example. However every student I trained with knew when I made atemi, it would connect if they didn't do something about it. And equally they knew that I expected the same from them. Same move. Different intent. I think the real cancer in martial arts is the idolisation of teachers. Two things I've always said when people have talked about how much they respect and revere someone. "They're human, made of flesh and blood the same as you and me. Put someone up on a pedestal and they're guaranteed to fall". That's not to say we shouldn't show our respect. Respect simply shouldn't become worship.
The idolisation of teachers. I agree 100% Chiba shihan and many more said I am not your teacher if you wish join me in the study of the art. They were more of an example that YOU strove for retaining your own individuality.Idolising a teacher means you "follow" him even if his direction is wrong. The training is more important than any individual including the teacher.Modesty and sincerity is a prerequisite for all students PARTICULARLY teachers. Respect overdone was looked upon as insolence. REGARDS KOYO
