PDA

View Full Version : aiki- arts



All-in fighting
04-23-2005, 05:48 PM
the topic of these often brings up problems and debates on the value of these systems . lets approach it from a different angle . lets ask roundeye to to distinquish the different systems and evaluate them . one , traditional aikido 1]a] uyeshiba b]tomiki c] yoshinkan -----2] modern aiki-jitsu [ aikido that has more strikes added to it from karate or other systems like dan ivan's style , yoseikan , richard bowe's style , david dye's etc 3] aiki jiu jitsu [ real koryu or ryus like daito etc 4] offshoots [ shorinji kempo , hapkido ]----now i think this could be very interesting and roundeye has good knowledge of this topic---it can be done as good research topic, giving people an idea what they might like , and open some eyes to the differences of each style , so there is no confusing them ---gabe would this be ok? discussed like adults , of course:)--ralph

All-in fighting
04-23-2005, 05:55 PM
my first question . what is the difference beteen uyeshiba , tomiki, yoshinkan aikido? the founders? their reason on the changes and legit instructors in these methods?--regards, ralph

DSE
04-23-2005, 07:59 PM
G'day Ralph,
I am not Roundeye so I hope that you don't mind my reply. I have had the pleasure in training, for a relatively short period, in Yoseikan Budo, as interpreted by Shihan Jan de Jong.
The history of Yoseikan lends it to be a more practical and combative adaptation of Aikido principals. Note that I didn't say it was an offshoot of Aikido, as I feel Judo, Boxing and Wrestling have had equal if not greater influence on Mochizuki's creation of Yoseikan Budo.
It is my understanding that Mochizuki went to europe with his Aikido and realised that the principals of Aikido alone were not enough to dispatch the opponents in europe who were trained in wrestling and boxing. This inspired him to create an art which incorporated his exensive training in Karate, Jujitsu, and Judo along with his Aikido, which might I add was already the "hard" style pre WWII Aiki-Jujitsu not the pacified post WWII Aikido.
Basically this guy was a hard man with many Dan grades in many arts and incorporated them all into a complex, technical yet still practically combative system.

If anyone is interested in any more detail or specifics it is a good idea to Google the words "Mochizuki Aikido"

Dale S. Elsdon

All-in fighting
04-23-2005, 08:04 PM
good start! are there any clips of this style? it would be great to compare!or even a photo sequence? well, if this man studied at that time period , he must have studied with the greats of judo, jiu jitsu etc----ralph

RES
04-24-2005, 02:05 AM
Sure thing, Ralph.

Yoseikan budo has already been covered well (thanks DSE)- I don't think I could be more precise about it, without filling several pages.

In terms of Aikikai, Yoshinkan, and Tomiki-

The first thing which must be said, is that Ueshiba Morihei didn't teach "a style". He trained thousands of students in his Hombu Dojo, but what he taught to each person varied wildly. Hence, there are a multitude of styles of aikido which, rather than being "changes" to the original, are merely the original as its founder remembers it being taught by O'sensei.

Yoshinkan is a good example of this- Gozo Shioda maintained that the harder style of aikido that he taught, was aikido exactly as O'sensei had taught to him. Likewise, the Yoshinkan practice of numbering the initial techniques "ikkajo", "nikkajo", "sankajo", and so forth, rather than "ikkyo", "nikkyo", "sankyo", etc., weren't a "renaming of the techniques", but they were the terms O'sensei used at the time he was training Shioda.

Tomiki-ryu aikido isn't really aikido, in the same way that judo isn't really jujutsu. Kenji Tomiki, the founder of the method, held menkyo kaiden in judo, awarded by Jigoro Kano, who then sent him to train with Ueshiba in the (then-new) art of aikido. Tomiki later spent three years in solitary confinement (as a prisoner of war), and during this time, he devised a "sporterized" version of aikido, very much like judo was for jujutsu. This is Tomiki-ryu.

As DSE pointed out, the pre-war variants of aikido are much more robust than the post-war methods- this includes Yoshinkan, Yoseikan, and Tomiki to a lesser extent.

It should be noted that Yoshinkan is no longer 'one' style- there have been branches of Yoshinkan. All but one of these branches maintain the same training routine as original Yoshinkan- the one detractor being Chudokai aikido (which refers to itself as "Yoshinkan" rather than the appropriate "Chudokai"). Chudokai is, essentially, a softened form of Yoshinkan more suited to mass consumption. The way to distinguish between these branches, is that original Yoshinkan school will often refer to themselves as "Yoshinkai".

As far as differences between Yoshinkan and Yoseikan, the only significant difference is the heavy Karate and Judo influence. Hence, there are some more strikes and large throws, and a few kicks as well. Simply put, Yoshinkan is conceptual aiki, applied through "standard" aiki technique; Yoseikan is conceptual aiki, applied through Karate and Judo technique.

In regards to "aikijutsu" (note, one "ju")- this term is essentially an American invention to describe a method of jointlocking. Frequently, aikijutsu schools are Karate instructors who have some judo training. They devised a set of jointlocking techniques, added judo throws, and called it "aikijutsu", taught in addition to their Karate. It really isn't a "method", in the sense of being an integrated set of skills, it's often just a random hodge-podge of little tricks picked up over time.

There are, of course, Japanese references to aikijutsu, but they are extremely rare.

There ya go Ralph, hope I answered the first set of questions to your liking LOL! Fire away with whatever you've got next. :D

All-in fighting
04-24-2005, 05:34 AM
gents, this is good information, now when someone talks about aikido here, he may know to start with, systems, technical differences etc!roundeye and others, would o'sensei ever teach according to body type or was it a change in years [ time period alone] that made the difference? is there only one koryu aiki jiu jitsu ? for example in new york state --you have george parulski , don angier , henry vilare [forgive spellings] that claim to teach authentic aiki jiu jitsu---if i was a beginner , how would i know or tell if it is real lineage [ this not does not mean it cannot be "real" , just not koryu]---?---i think getting this info out is helpful--ralph

Special Brew
04-24-2005, 06:03 AM
Gentlemen,

Is this Tomiki Aikido in competition?

http://www10.ocn.ne.jp/~siba/index11.htm

All-in fighting
04-24-2005, 06:07 AM
brew, good job !--looks like judo!---roudeye is this tomiki?--ralph

RES
04-24-2005, 08:13 AM
OK, I'll do this one question at a time LOL:

O'sensei- His teaching method varied based on any number of attributes, but I doubt any of them were as superficial (by his standards) as body type. I think the differences amongst aikidoka who trained with him at a given point in time, were differences in their interpretation of his teachings. Being that aikido is, foremostly, a concept, it can mean different things to different people, and this is reflected in the different methods put forth by sensei who all trained with O'sensei and, despite the differences, all very much believe it was being taught as it was taught to them.

Stylistically, there was a very distinct difference between the pre-WW2 aikido and the post-WW2 aikido- there was a change in terminology (from "ikkajo", "nikkajo", etc. to "ikkyo", "nikkyo", etc.), which is the most apparent change. There was also a significant change in O'sensei's demeanor about the martial arts- specifically, his belief that, after the war, that what the Japanese people needed, was something they could use to recover from the devestation of WW2. Hence, aikido became less of a combative discipline and more of a "post-combat" discipline (my own term).

Koryu- There is, actually, a Japanese government-sponsored governing body which defines which ryuha constitute koryu schools, and which don't. There are quite a few criteria for this- one of them being, that the Japanese government has to know the method is still in existence, and its hombu dojo is located in Japan.

By these standards, Daito-Ryu (aiki) Jujutsu is the only *recognized* koryu school of aikijujutsu. However, there two others which are equally old, but are not located in Japan and, thus, are not recognized- Nami-ryu and Yanagi-ryu. There is another, Shishin Takuma-ryu, but it's soke, Kuroda Tetsuzan, prefers not to use the term "aiki". The existence of other schools has not been fully ascertained, due to significant difficulties in verifying the credentials and training lineages of their current soke.

Don Angier- Angier is the current soke of Yanagi-ryu aikijujutsu and learned it as a teenager in Utica, NY- however, his school is, and has always been, in California. As a teenager in Utica, he trained with Kenji Yoshida, who has moved to Utica from Manzanar (the internment camp) at the end of WW2. Utica was about as far as he could move from Manzanar and still find work (in his own words). Angier inherited the ryuha when the last of the Yoshida family (Kenji) died.

Determining lineages- This is a problem which is so prevalent in Japan, that the Japanese government has a bureau devoted solely to maintaining the integrity of martial arts claims. Such a thing would not be possible here in the US, unless you wanted to start licensing martial arts instructors, establishing a new Federal bureaucracy, and having the opinions of historians be the model for the creation of new laws. Personally, I can put up with the chore of debunking fraudulent instructors, over that nightmare.

As far as educating beginners- well, I have a belief that the serious practicioners will, eventually, discover the fraudulency, and the casual practicioners aren't really worth trying to educate (if they were, they'd be serious practiconers). Pardon me if that sounds a little offhanded.

Tomiki- yes, the video clips are of Tomiki-ryu. If you look at the top of that page, you'll see "Japan Aikido Association" named- that is Tomiki-ryu. Another name they go by, is "Shodokan".

OK, I'm ready for the next round of questions! :D

All-in fighting
04-24-2005, 09:06 AM
ok, lets keep the info coming ! roundeye, i disagree about the beginner thing a little , i think posts like these can help someone dertermine 1] is aikido for me ?2] what type of aikido is for me ? 3] an overview of which school is traditional and does it matter?----also the tomiki school, mmas may say that this is an attempt to make aikido "live" [ a term that is used often] . also, lets look at some of the mixed systems , which ones would you recommend? --ralph

RES
04-24-2005, 09:33 AM
Beginners- I'm referring to not being able to provide a comprehensive guide to who is legitimate and who isn't. As far as making a general statement about styles, yeah, that's easy enough.

Tomiki- Stylistically, Tomiki isn't significantly different from, say, Yoshinkan. The problem is, aikido is a concept. In other words, the techniques themselves are essentially unimportant- they're physical tools to teach the concept. Tomiki is wholly technique-driven- hence, Tomiki practicioners aren't doing anything more than superficial aikido, with strangers.

The same "aliveness" can be found in any aikido dojo which trains in such a spirit. The only distinction with Tomiki, is that they do it with people from other dojo, as well. The same can be done, simply by interaction between dojo.

"Mixed" systems- I'm not a real big believer in "mixing", in the sense that, once one understands the concepts, the material should all fit together. "Mixed" school evince, to me, a fundamental lack of understanding of anything other than techniques, which are themselves mostly irrelevant.

So, while some might call (as an example) Yoseikan budo a "mixed" style because Mochizuki trained in Karate and Judo (and a few koryu, as well), I don't consider it such at all. He was teaching a budo, applied with an aiki philosophy- in essence, resurrecting the notion of 'aiki budo'. It only came to be called "Yoseikan" because that was the name of Mochizuki's dojo. He always called it "aikido".

My own school is much the same way- I teach budo, from an aiki perspective. I call it "aikido". Someone might call it "mixed" because I've also trained other arts, but I don't. Aiki is a concept, which can be broadly applied.

Similarly, there are a number of modern-day "mixed" schools which aren't really "mixed" at all- then there are some which have no conceptual foundation, no higher understanding. These schools really are "mixed", in the sense of being a jumble of randomly-taught techniques.

I think the best way for the beginner to determine which is which, is to go and ask the instructor at a prospective school. If he says "we draw (this) from (this style), and (that) from (that) style, and I'm going to teach you alot of different styles", it probably should be viewed dimly. If he says "it's all really the same thing, we just get it from more than one source", then it's probably A-OK.

As far as actually enumerating a certain style I like, which fits those criteria, I'd say Yoseikan, for one. It's more based, however, on the instructor, rather than the method. In my experience, though, Yoseikan tends (largely) to produce very good instructors.

All-in fighting
04-24-2005, 09:40 AM
roundeye, strong opinions on aikido rendered from a man with a long background.what weapons should be in the base of aikido ? now from your exp. which instructor[s] gave you the best instruction or input on your idea of the real [ best all-around ] aikido---?ever hear of albert church? what is is connection to the aikido based systems--ralph

RES
04-24-2005, 10:06 AM
Albert Church- his system of Kamishin-ryu is really just a reiteration of Hakko-ryu, which isn't surprising, since he trained with Okuyama Yoshiji (I refuse to call him "Ryuho").

Aiki weapons- traditionally, the jo and bokken are aiki weapons, but rather than serving the purpose of weapons, they serve the purpose of illustrating aiki principles. Personally, I think that aiki and iai are two sides of the same coin- a practicioner develops a much greater appreciation of aiki, in my opinion, when he also trains iai. I've only really discovered this after training iaido and iaijutsu for a very long time.

Naginata is also a very aiki type of weapon- Ellis Amdur has probably demonstrated this better than anyone else I can think of, off hand.

Aikido influences- This is a toughie, because there have been so many, and not all of them are actually aikidoka.

Mitsugi Saotome, Kyoichi Inoue, and Kensho Furuya, have all taught me about what it means to be an aikidoka and a warrior in the classic sense. I think this is the biggest lesson to learn. They also taught me a valuable lesson about the difference between real power, and the presumption of power.

Truthfully, the sensei with whom I have trained on a day-to-day basis, really haven't had much to do with my total development as a budoka- they taught me the techniques, but it took doses from the masters to make it all make sense to me.

I'd have to say that the greatest teacher I have ever had, was Experience.

All-in fighting
04-24-2005, 10:52 AM
many people say that aiki jiu jitsu is a great part of hapkido and shorijii kempo---what proof do we have of this?--ralph

RES
04-24-2005, 11:11 AM
many people say that aiki jiu jitsu is a great part of hapkido and shorijii kempo---what proof do we have of this?--ralph

The founder of Hapkido, Yong Sul Choi, recieved menkyo kaiden from Takeda Sokaku. So yes, Daito-ryu was very foundational in the formation of Hapkido.

I really don't know much about the other, but I'll be happy to look.

Ted T.
04-24-2005, 11:20 AM
Gents,

I've enjoyed this immensly. Thanks,

RES
04-24-2005, 11:28 AM
Sure thing, Ted.

Keep watching, there's probably alot more to come! ;)

Ted, maybe you can answer the question Ralph posted about Shorinji-ryu and Daito-ryu connection?

mudvillejon
04-24-2005, 11:46 AM
I am joining this discussion late having just registered to the forum.

I learned Aikido for just short of 5 years and never took rank. I started in the Aikikai in Vienna Austria. I came back to the states and trained also mostly in Aikikai but had a chance to work out with a Yoshinkan instructor at my college in PA a few times and at Ki Society Dojo also in a Phily suburb.

What follows are my impressions only. Aikikai was soft. A lot of my fellows at the time put philoshy ahead of technique, but most of my instructors were actually quite good. Mostly we were talking of retired Judoka with bad knees.

Variations between Europe and America: Many of the technical variations I learned in Europe were more direct. Irimi nage as taught to me there was a chinjab. In the USA it was a much more finessed throw. The general principles were the same.

My very brief impression of Yoshinkan, looking abck on it was that the drill felt a lot more like Judo's Uchikomi. There was less focus on feeling out the path of least resistance. In retrospect, if I was going to try Aikido again, I would like to try that or Tomiki style.

My experience of the Ki society was was not at all positive. But it was only one dojo. It was like all the bad stereotypes about Aikido you hear.

Weapons - we worked with the Jo - Boken - and wooden tanto.

Randori - limited and non competitive.

Overall - I found the learning curve steep. I never got to a point where I could have applied any of the techniques with great confidnece. Having said that, I think that both the techniques and principles have merit. What I have found is that now, after 20 years of Judo, suddenly Aikido works for me. I find that not infrequently I can apply the non jointlocking waza in Judo randori. I call them by the judo names (they are cognates) but its all the same. I also find that the aikido principles are also useful in a tussle. The way I relate to them is different now than then. I think of them as ways to generate inertia in my opponent and then capture that in order to throw him. I think of that as just being good judo, but I also think of it as an aiki principle. Also, tenkan and irimi - Aikido's "umbrella step" and driving step - if you think about it are two of the prime ways that you use body mass to generate force - the motor of your techniques. One is torque, and the other is linear drive.

I am not sure what the conclusion should be... But that is my experience and thinking on the matter.

As an aside, I recall reading in an article - maybe on Steve Cunningham's site, that Tenshin Shinyo as well as some of the other root arts of Judo being considered, or at least including Aiki techniques. I don't know if this is true.

Another aside - the differences between the transliteration from Japanese into latin letters, the difference between Kyu and Kju might be the difference between the pronunciation of J vs Y in German vs English. It makes sense that pre War Japan might have preferred a German transliteration and a Post war Japan an English transliteration. But I am just guessing.

Jon

RES
04-24-2005, 12:01 PM
Hi Jon,

Randori- Randori is like any other training tool- it's only as good as the way in which it is applied. If you were to see randori as performed during Yoshinkan senshusei, you'd swear it was a bloodsport.

The difference between Yoshinkan in Europe and in the US, centers on the fact that many "Yoshinkan" schools in the US (and Canada) are Chudokai schools, who merely use the Yoshinkan name. Yoshinkai school, on the other hand, are more rare, whereas in Europe, virtually all Yoshinkan schools are Yoshinkai.

Aikido and Judo- As I said in a previous post, aikido was originally intended to be a "post-combat" martial art. It really can only be understood by those who already have a secure grounding in combative disciplines. Your statement about understanding aikido after taking judo for a long time, fits right in with that.

Kyo vs. Kajo- it's "kajo", not "kju". They are actually distinct suffixes, not differences in Romanization. The adoption of "kyo" in lieu of "kajo", was intended to reflect the change between O'sensei's pre-war aikido, and the post-war aikido.

All-in fighting
04-24-2005, 04:14 PM
jon, did you ever get a chance to train at damien's ? roundeye, irimi and tenken appear in both aikido and aiki jiu jitsu as well? does aikido have tai-sabaki and shintai as well?i am glad that some people are enjoying these, i am asking roundeye questions i think many would like to ask or what someone who is intertested in taking aikido up may ask. i thank roundeye for answering these--i feel it may answer many peoples question about the subject---regards, ralph

mudvillejon
04-24-2005, 04:30 PM
Ralph,

I still have not gotten a chance to get out to Pompton Lakes.

When i first made contact with Damien I was nursing a knee injury. Then I got buried under work related travel. I am not that far away. I'd like to make it out for one of the seminars that you guys do every once in awhile.

I also invited Damien et al to come down to our Dojo in Clifton. Matsumura Sensei does a Judo clinic monthly, followed by the traditional Pizza, anti pasto, calamari friti and beer. Its Kodokan Judo but you are more than welcome. I think most of you guys train or trained with Yonesuka.

Jon

It'll

RES
04-24-2005, 04:36 PM
I'm happy to answer questions, Ralph.

Yes, aikido has tai sabaki and shintai, but they are rarely called such- since the foundational tactic of aikido is to move "off the line", the emphasis is to make such a movement.

Since movement in aikido is "unconstructed" (in other words, spontaneous and creative), naming the types of movements would only serve to press the student into a "pattern" of movement, which is precisely what we wish to avoid.

The terms "tai sabaki" and "shintai" themselves, are basically terms found in use by aikidoka who have previously trained in other styles (judo, for example).

Irimi and tenkan do both appear in aikido and aikijujutsu. In aikido (when it is well-taught), irimi and tenkan are tactics (there is, of course, an irimi technique- 'irimi nage').

mudvillejon
04-24-2005, 04:49 PM
Again, for me I see the parallels between Aikido and Judo.

A while back it struck me that the standard turning movements done in Aikido are perfect analogues of the pivots for forward throws in Judo. If you consider that Aikido's Kamai has one foot forward, as where Judo's shizen hontai has both feet side by side and square, you can see how they are essencially the same thing.

I find things like this interesting because I am looking for common underlying principles that I can work on applying.

I don't really understand the point about a post combat martial arts. I've never heard that before.

For whatever its worth I get a real kick out of being able to apply aikido waza and movement in hard Judo randori. As you said, it is just a training tool, but it is something of a yardstick. I have heard accounts of hard Aikido randori but I never experienced it myself. Perhaps hard and fast, but never with meaningful resistance. That was in the Aikikai not Yoshinkan.

Jon

RES
04-24-2005, 11:34 PM
Jon-

The parallels between aikido and judo basically come from the fact that there's "only so many ways to skin a cat", to use a cliche. Judo and aikido are both one step removed from various Edo styles of jujutsu.

"Post-combat aikido" is a term that I use to describe O'sensei's intent in creating aikido. To paraphrase the story, O'sensei was already a very accomplished martial artist in his own right, when he was conscripted into the Japanese army. During his three years of mandatory service, he served in the Russo-Japanese War. What isn't said, but is generally understood, is that O'sensei likely participated in some of the atrocities which were common during Japanese conflicts. Many years after that war, guilt set in, and O'sensei turned to religion in order to find a way to cope with what he had done. The religion in question was a pacifist sect of Shinto called Omoto-Kyo. Although aikido doesn't, itself, have a religious bias, the philosophy of aikido was influenced heavily by the pacifist philosophy of Omoto-kyo. O'sensei, in essence, used his martial skills as a physical means with which to transmit his philosophy of conscientious objection (the ultimate conscientious objection- the objection of a war veteran), harmony with nature and with people, and non-violent means of resolving conflict.

Aikido was formed, in essence, to provide a budo which could be practiced by those who needed to heal from the wounds left by combat. In the same light, aikido is best practiced by those who already have a solid grounding in the combative disciplines (and who has a more solid grounding, than a vet?).

The paradox of a martial strategy of non-violence wasn't a new concept when O'sensei created aikido- in fact, the strategy of aikido (aiki heiho) has a great deal in common with the writings of Sun-Tzu, among others.

All-in fighting
04-25-2005, 06:19 AM
roundeye, couple of questions 1] would it be safe to say that if you can not find a aiki-jiu-jitsu school in your area that a very good hapkido school would be the closet thing to "old style"? tell us a little about a duel that o'sensei had in which he used an iron fan[tessen, i think] , is the tessen still taught? when you teach a person" budo" do you mix karate, aikido, judo methods as being different if you were to teach a straight "aikido" class---ralph

RES
04-25-2005, 07:10 AM
It would be safe to say that Daito-ryu aikijujutsu (note two "ju"s), Yoseikan budo, and Hapkido (or Hwa Rang Do) schools would all be a good first choice for a person new to combative disciplines. As well, a Yoshinkan (Yoshinkai) school which emphasizes robust techniques and practical application would also be a good choice. All of these schools teach in the koryu budo tradition (provided the instructor is competent).

I don't recall the tessen story; but then again, there are literally hundreds of such stories of duels between O'sensei and others. Here is a link describing some of them:

http://www.kiaikido.ca/kiaikido/index_html/history/Master_Morihei_Ueshiba_and_the_Origins_of_Aikido.h tm

Tessen is taught in very few schools nowadays- the few schools where it is found, are koryu budo schools (like Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu).

As far as my own budo, I essentially teach whatever comes to mind. Mostly "standard aikido techniques" (if there really is such a thing), striking, and sword/bokken/jo work. I'll sprinkle in some outside material occasionally, but mostly it's the core aikido curriculum, writ large.

All-in fighting
04-25-2005, 07:52 AM
roundeye, if this thread has generated an interest in aikido, aiki -ju jutsu etc, is there any assns. or orgs . , talk sites, websites that people can go to to engage with others and get more info? also can you list the the systems organzations that people could go to in case they want to join an aikido school? --ralph

All-in fighting
04-25-2005, 08:53 AM
what is the koga method of aikido---it has been taught to lapd i think? anyone have exp. with it or has seen it first hand?--ralph

StevenM
04-25-2005, 10:32 AM
The difference between Yoshinkan in Europe and in the US, centers on the fact that many "Yoshinkan" schools in the US (and Canada) are Chudokai schools, who merely use the Yoshinkan name. Yoshinkai school, on the other hand, are more rare, whereas in Europe, virtually all Yoshinkan schools are Yoshinkai.


With all do respect, this is just flat out wrong. First, the head instructor of the Chudokai is a registered Yoshinkan instructor with the rank of 6th dan. Given to him by the founder of Yoshinkan Aikido. Second, there are but just a handful of schools that are affiliated with the Chudokai. Your comments about them being Yoshinkan or not is up to them to debate, however to say that "MANY" of the schools in the US and Canada are affiliated to Chudokai and are not really Yoshinkan, is as wrong as it gets.


The Chudokai is but one of many Yoshinkan dojo's in the US and Canada that are directly tied to Yoshinkan via the IYAF. Many of these instructors were graduates of the Yoshinkan instructors course, have trained in Japan, or, like myself, train directly under instructors who were taught in Japan by the top Yoshinkan instructors. I'll note the Mr. Kevin Blok, head of the Chudokai, trained under Kushida Sensei when he was the head of Yoshinkan Aikido in N.A.

http://www.seikeikan.com/Links.htm will give you a good idea of how many Yoshinkan schools there are in the US and Canada. With the exception of maybe one or two listed, none of these schools are affiliated with the Chudokai and are directly tied to the Yoshinkan honbu via the IYAF.

To say that the likes of Kimeda, Parker, Utada, Morita, Mustard, Jeannette, Haynes, Yamashita, myself, etc, are affiliated with the Chudokai is ridiculous.

May I ask who you are and where you are getting your information? Because is it just flat out wrong.

With Respect,

Steven Miranda
www.seikeikan.com

RES
04-25-2005, 11:15 AM
Steven Miranda:

It's nice to talk to you again (we've actually met before, but you may not remember me). I prefer not to disclose my name openly on the forum, but PM me and I'll be more than happy to tell you there. You'll find that there are a good number of folks on this board who use a penname simply because of professional or personal concerns.

I was of the impression that the majority of Yoshinkan schools in the US are Chudokai-affiliated. If I am incorrect in that, thank you for correcting me. It's good news to hear. Seems like every time someone here on the forums asks for the location of a dojo near them, it (more often than not) comes up being a Chudokai-affiliated school. So, in all fairness, my response was based on that subjective criteria.

You read a little too much into that statement, by believeing that I was alledging the sensei you named to be affiliated with Chudokai, I was not making such an assertion.

I'm glad to have another Yoshinkan practicioner on this board. I hope you stick around and enjoy yourself here. Also, I would love for you to post your perspectives on the questions posed by Ralph ("All-in fighting").

Just watch out for the "wolf pack". :rolleyes:

All-in fighting
04-25-2005, 11:37 AM
yes, blok, several members of my group attended a seminar [ several years ago] in windsor sponsered by blok . it was yoshinkan aikido and if featured gozo shioda , one of the top guys in the field----ralph

StevenM
04-25-2005, 11:44 AM
Roundeye:

Sorry if I came across a bit harsh. I believe the reason you keep coming across the Chudokai is because their affiliates are mostly in the east and south. But they only make up a very small group of dojo's in North America.

My dojo directory and well as the one on the IYAF website tells the story about Yoshinkan Aikido schools.

Please do drop me a PM at aysdojo at seikeikan . com. I've got a pretty good idea on who you are and it's good talking with you again.

Peace ...

RES
04-25-2005, 11:53 AM
Steven, no hard feelings at all.

Zealousness is a good thing on the internet forums, especially given that we (aikidoka) are typically outnumbered several-to-one by people who even more zealously HATE aikido (I am not being overly dramatic here!).

It wouldn't surprise me if there's a geographical bias to my finding, being that Blok sensei is more or less directly north of me.

Will do with the email, as soon as I am able (as Marc Denny says, 24 hours in a day is insufficient! LOL).

Osu!

StevenM
04-25-2005, 02:35 PM
dan ivan
david dye


If this is the same Dan Ivan I am thinking of, he was one of the first Americans to train in Yoshinkan Aikido before all the formality. I had the pleasure of speaking with him a few years ago about his training at the Yoshinkan HQ and his training after he came back. He explained that his Yoshinkan practice enhanced his karate and felt the two were perfect mates. Hence, he incorporated the two systems together. It was a fascinating discussion in deed. Though he did state he was more the karate purist.

David Dye is a Yoshinkan sandan and holds an international teaching license in Yoshinkan Aikido. He is also well versed in other MA's, particularly Judo. David adapted the basics and principles of Yoshinkan Aikido, added a bit of Judo and came up with a pretty good Police Defense Tactics course which I've been priviledged to have attended on one occassion. When he taught at my dojo in 1999, in town visiting, what he showed was Aikido, as taught by the Yoshinkan.

Like Kevin Blok, he has since started his own organization which utilitizes various MA, but when it comes to Aikido, it is the Yoshinkan system that he uses. He has quite a successfull Police course.

Just thought since I was here, I'd through that out for people to chomp on.

Peace...

RES
04-25-2005, 02:55 PM
Steven-

Karate, judo (and/or jujutsu), and aikido have been perfect mates for a long time- Yoseikan budo, being a great example.

My own background included about 12 years of (mostly) karate and judo before I got into aikido. What I'm finding out now (last couple of years), is that pretty much all of the Japanese martial arts have a symbiotic relationship with one another; but more importantly, that the aiki heiho is universally applicable to the entire spectrum of combative skills, Japanese or otherwise. To use a military analogy, aikido training is like War College for budo (at least, as I see it).

The "unnameable name" started out training karate under Fumio Demura, before taking up aikido.

It seems to be a pretty common theme. I wonder why?

michael
04-25-2005, 03:01 PM
RoundEye,

Have you heard of Sanzuryu? A fellow that goes to my church has a Sanzuryu school and teaches aikijujitsu, karate-jutsu and something else which I've forgotten. Is it a spin-off of daito-ryu?

All-in fighting
04-25-2005, 03:36 PM
ivan said he bastardized aikido with judo and karate, he was a c.i.d. agent i japan and got his as kicked by a karate guy, he then decided to employ it in his judo/aikido background--info from an early belt belt mag--ralph

StevenM
04-25-2005, 05:14 PM
ivan said he bastardized aikido with judo and karate, he was a c.i.d. agent i japan and got his as kicked by a karate guy, he then decided to employ it in his judo/aikido background--info from an early belt belt mag--ralph

Hi Ralph,
That was many of the things we talked about. A great conversation indeed.

RES
04-26-2005, 03:00 AM
Michael:

No, I haven't heard of Sanzuryu. Was it "aikijutsu" or "aikijujutsu"? (One or two "ju"s?)

If it were aikijujutsu (two "ju"s), it's either a descendant of Daito-Ryu, or a complete fake. I hate to say that, but it does happen (I, myself, have even been the reciever of training from a fraud). There are other styles of aikijujutsu (Nami-ryu and Yanagi-ryu), but they are extremely small and centralized in California.

There are a number of spinoff styles which are karate with 'aikijutsu' (one "ju"). One such style, which is quite prominent in my area, is the style of karate I used to train.

'Aikijutsu' is a very broad term which is often (but not always)used to describe nothing more than a method of jointlocking, more like yawara than anything 'aiki'.

In the style in which I trained (which I no longer train or endorse), "aikijutsu" was the instructor's own creation, a hodge-podge of simple joint locks and judo, which wasn't taught as a system, but rather as a random compilation of various techniques which were intended to compliment karate. The result was actually not a bad system, but applying "aikijutsu" as a name, merely took advantage of the "aiki craze" which was once very common amongst martial arts schools (and still is, to some extent).

It wouldn't be fair of me to say that *all* aikijutsu schools are of this mold; there are some very good (and very honest) aikijutsu schools as well. The same rule of thumb I set forth previously in this thread, applies to this circumstance as well- best to avoid a school which advertises itself as "a mixture" of several methods, and instead, look for a school which advertises itself as a "system" comprised of multiple components, typically with one style being dominant and the others being ancillary.

mudvillejon
04-26-2005, 06:08 AM
RoundEyeSamurai and other Aikido guys,

I was reading of Col. Guano's thread about what is Aiki good for. My thinking is that the principle - Aiki - can be applied to the gross motor movement that people think of when they think close combat or other kinds of grappling, in the same way I try and make it work in my Judo.

The way it works for me is just as an extension of taking the force and motion in the direction it wants to go, or in a direction where posture and balance are weak. Its a common idea that gets expressed in different ways - leading, blending, yielding, going-with, and so on.

I think that this can sound fairly esoteric if someone has not actually worked at it, and I think this is part of the root of a lot of the criticism you hear. My experience I think is pretty common to people who practice Judo or wrestling or BJJ etc for enough time. I think at a certain point, it just becomes intuitive, and you apply it without really thinking about it responding to visual and kinesthetic cues.

To me this is Aiki, but it is not necessarilly Aikido. I find that it translates well into the way guys apply their atemi when we work this into our training as well.

Jon

RES
04-26-2005, 06:25 AM
Jon-

You hit it right on the head.

Aiki is a concept; the purpose of aikido techniques is to viscerally teach this concept. Some folks end up figuring it out on their own after a long process of trial-and-error; the benefit of aikido training, is that the learning of this concept becomes the primary focus of one's training.

When I refer to 'aiki heiho' (the aiki strategy), I'm referring to what you just described- "leading, blending, yielding, going-with, and so on". I would also add "balancing"- a soft response to a hard attack (yielding), and a hard response to a soft attack (entering).

An analogy to balancing I can make, is this: If a Mack truck is barrelling toward me, I get out of the way. If I'm in a Mack truck and a pedestrian directly in front of me is shooting at me, I put the pedal to the floor. Extrapolate from this analogy, and you start to get a sense of combat balancing.

michael
04-26-2005, 06:31 AM
RES,

I think it's Aikijutsu, but I'm not sure. I did find this:

http://www.sanjuriu.com/default.asp

which I believe is the same thing. I think it is a spin-off of Daito-Ryu, but I'm not sure on that. I do know that the instructor travels to Japan a couple of times a year for more training. I'm sure he's legit, I just wasn't sure of the origins. There is a little info I found on the net, but not a lot.

RES
04-26-2005, 06:52 AM
Michael:

Gotcha, thanks.

mudvillejon
04-26-2005, 07:42 AM
Jon-

You hit it right on the head.
.

Nice when it happens...



An analogy to balancing I can make, is this: If a Mack truck is barrelling toward me, I get out of the way. If I'm in a Mack truck and a pedestrian directly in front of me is shooting at me, I put the pedal to the floor. Extrapolate from this analogy, and you start to get a sense of combat balancing.

The way I try and teach this - albeit applied to standing grappling and throwing - is I tell my students, that the hand moves a tiny bit ahead of the rest of the body (weapon moves first?). The reason being that the hand that pulls or drives is also like your antenna.

You feel either weakness or resistance. If you encounter weakness you continue to drive through with the whole body. All mass moving at once - irimi.

If you feel resistance, then you change the direction of your force - either in the direction of the resistance (using their force against them...) or on a tangent to it (yielding, redirecting etc.). I do drills around this for the typical motions of throwing - forward and back - clockwise and counter clockwise - side to side.

Its not an that hard really but its not something you pick up over night either and teaching it can be challenging. When I did practice Aikido, no one ever worked on this explicitly. For that matter in my Judo education either. I do try and explain it and teach it.

RES
04-26-2005, 07:55 AM
When I did practice Aikido, no one ever worked on this explicitly. For that matter in my Judo education either.

Well, you know what they say- not all instructors can be the best.

Generally speaking, it's the instructors with combat grounding who spend time teaching this principle. The reason is obvious- after having done it, and then doing it all over again in further training, they usually recognize it, ponder it, and then develop it. Then, it's only natural that they transmit it to their students.

ShanghaiJay
04-26-2005, 09:21 AM
mudvillejon wrote: If you feel resistance, then you change the direction of your force - either in the direction of the resistance (using their force against them...) or on a tangent to it (yielding, redirecting etc.).......

For what it is worth this is almost a word for word lesson in Taiji quan as well.

Jay

ShanghaiJay
04-26-2005, 09:29 AM
RES,

Would you care to elaborate a bit more on the mixing of Karate with Aikido. Karate movements are straight while Aikido, Judo and Jujutsu movements are round. These are two different ways of moving. Are there problems getting them to work together?

Thanks,

Jay

Edited to add: I am asking this question as a complete outsider. I have only studied Chinese methods for the last 20 years. I forget all the Shorin Ryu I studied in college.

RES
04-26-2005, 10:22 AM
Jay-

It's incredibly simple to show, but incredibly difficult to put into words. Be that as it may, I'll try anyway.

Most styles of karate are very good at teaching the attack. Since most of aikido is centered around dealing with the attack, the two fit together like balanced opposites (like male and female). The easiest way to describe the corrollation of the technical skills, is to say that when one is attacking (moving straight in), they are doing karate. When they are not attacking, they are doing aikido. The two coexist very well.

From a technical standpoint, the linear movements of karate, other than the forward movement, have been discarded (if I am not moving directly forward, it's not karate, it's aikido). The rest mesh pretty well.

Geezer
04-26-2005, 10:35 AM
Mudvillejon posted: "If you feel resistance, then you change the direction of your force - either in the direction of the resistance (using their force against them...) or on a tangent to it (yielding, redirecting etc.)......."

This is exactly how an experienced carpenter drives nails. I would expect that it is also exactly how all experienced manual workers manage the forces and resistances they encounter. Brute force may work for the moment, but it is too tiring to keep up for any period of time.

People who cannot find the flow as described above, give up working with their hands and find some other way to make a living.

God bless and y'all be mindful out there.

RES
04-26-2005, 10:40 AM
This is exactly how an experienced carpenter drives nails. I would expect that it is also exactly how all experienced manual workers manage the forces and resistances they encounter. Brute force may work for the moment, but it is too tiring to keep up for any period of time.


Folks, now you see what I mean about people discovering aikido on their own. ;)

J Marwood
04-26-2005, 10:50 AM
For what it is worth this is almost a word for word lesson in Taiji quan as well.

And also in Fiore Dei Liberi's writings - he refers to strong and weak rather than force but the principle is the same...

mudvillejon
04-26-2005, 11:22 AM
RES,

Would you care to elaborate a bit more on the mixing of Karate with Aikido. Karate movements are straight while Aikido, Judo and Jujutsu movements are round. These are two different ways of moving. Are there problems getting them to work together?

Thanks,

Jay

Edited to add: I am asking this question as a complete outsider. I have only studied Chinese methods for the last 20 years. I forget all the Shorin Ryu I studied in college.

I have come to think of this slightly differently. People talk about linear and circular movements. I talk about how I generate force using my body.

My options are as follows:
1) Muscular strength

2) Taking my body mass and moving it; of which my options are -
a) linear drive. Legs launch body
b) rotational - torque. Body twists on its axis driven by legs and torso.
c) F of G. Gravity, you drop your weight.

Most movements use some of all of these to some extent.

Drop step is linear drive with gravity attached. Boxing and karate punches are linear drive with rotation and torque.

Good technique harnesses the motor to the drive chain efficiently. Good training will help you do this as a matter of habit.

The round 'avoidance' techniques you see in aikido or jujitsu or judo are not just getting off line. They are also the motor, and also the act of lining the motor up to do work most efficiently which has to do with own body mechanics and the direction of the opponents force and weakness.

It sounds complicated but its all encompassed in the good form that you get through repetitive drill, and the live practice that you have which teaches where and how to attack.

Jon

michael
04-26-2005, 03:53 PM
My old Bujinkan instructor used to have us train for endless hours, so that later in the day after we were very tired, we would get the flow and start using technique instead of muscle. It always seemed to work well.:p

J Marwood
04-26-2005, 04:13 PM
Same with mine :) I always find that the techniques I drill when exhausted are the ones I rely on when the adrenaline starts flowing - perhaps something to do with the way we learn?

mross
04-29-2005, 11:50 AM
Wasn't sure if I should put this under the "What's Aiki good for?" thread or not, but this seemed as good a place as any. I should preface this by saying it's been 30 years since I took Aikido, but I remember all the techniques like it was yesterday. Only several years ago my rolling practice saved me from injury while playing volleyball. Not exactly selfdefense, but it protected my butt just the same.
The things my sensei taught me where/are practical for self-defense. They where; 1) Get out of the way 2) Take your opponents balance 3) Finish it. One thing he said was in many situations just getting out of the way and giving a little nudge to you attacker is enough. My only real complaint was that there was no preemptive strike. But that would have been diametrically opposed to the teaching of O-Sensei. We where taught to get out of the way and make our target more compliant (usually by various strikes) this went hand in hand with #2. We where not taught strikes as in Karate, something I thought was lacking. But my teacher said the strikes you know where enough for what they where needed for. Many have said the techniques don't work on them. It is probably true under the circumstances it's being applied on. Aikido IMHO is designed to deal with an all out I want to kill you MF'er attack. The attacker is set on hurting you in an all out attack. He is not sparring, or pokeing or jabbing. He is not thinking about countering you response. He has no way of knowing your responce. Likewise you have no idea of his ability either. If you do #1 and do #2 (repeatedly if necessary) then #3 is not that hard. Applying a techinque to finish the encounter is less diffacult if your attacker is off balance and/or stunned. Of coures this is an simplification,but it is how I was taught to apply the techniques.

RES
05-01-2005, 02:17 PM
Mross:

Pardon the tardiness of my reply, I have been gone all weekend.

You're correct that the concept of striking, before an actual attack has commenced, is not generally part of the aikido curriculum. What is there, however, is the concept of "get there first". One thing I impress upon my students continuously (which was similarly impressed upon me) is "get there first", generally spoken as "move slower, but get there first". In other words, no matter how fast he tries to close the distance between you and he ('ma-ai', or combat distance, roughly two armspans), he will still have to move longer than you- hence, no matter how fast he is, he has to cross six feet and hit you, where you need only move inches to counter it.

Ma-ai is one of the most crucial concepts of aikido. If you take a step toward me, I take a step back. If you take a step back, I take a step forward. Hence, the only way for the opponent(s) to get to you, is to commit themselves to crossing that distance- which is why aikido works for the committed attack, but not for the sticking-and-jabbing game of sparring- because, if he steps in to jab me, I step back (and nothing happens). He has to commit himself to crossing the distance, which means committing himself to tearing your head off. A committed attack is extremely difficult to stop once initiated, which is where aikidoka find their advantage.

The two armspans distance of ma-ai is what makes this work. One armspan, and he actually could reach across and hit. Three armspans would be enough distance for most to realize their attack isn't going to work, and alter it. Two armspans is just right- he has enough space to necessitate committing as described above, but not enough distance to stop himself once he realizes what is happening.

This is a concept which is learned with one person, but later moves on to two, three, four persons, and so on.

Earlier in the thread, ShanghaiJay asked about the relationship between Karate and Aikido- well, after reading this post, now everyone knows the relationship: When I can afford to stay at a distance, I am applying aikido. For those occasions where I must break ma-ai, which are always circumstances where I have to act (the preemptive strike described by Mross), then I am applying karate. Hence, all karate movements other than movement directly forward (attacking) are discarded, and the use of the attack becomes the exception, rather than the rule.

Chuckk
05-02-2005, 02:37 PM
My first post here. . .

I wanted to thank you all for one of the best Aiki-based threads I've read in a long time.

All the best.

All-in fighting
05-02-2005, 04:54 PM
chuck, i started this thread with information and reader enjoyment in mind, with luck i had roundeye samurai here to help--ralph

RES
05-02-2005, 04:56 PM
Always happy to help.

RES
05-03-2005, 03:14 PM
BTTT for those who haven't seen the thread yet.

BTW, I'd love to know who was the jackass who voted a "1" for this thread to bring the rating down.

Shady
05-05-2005, 01:21 PM
RES,

Would you care to elaborate a bit more on the mixing of Karate with Aikido. Karate movements are straight while Aikido, Judo and Jujutsu movements are round. These are two different ways of moving. Are there problems getting them to work together?


There are MANY schools of Jujutsu... some are softer and rounder, others more hard and linear, and the one I've trained in combines both forms of movement.

Different movement for different needs. As RES states pretty clearly, a committed full on attack is usually best met by soft redirection. An uncommitted or short stopped attack can be entered into very directly. The two forms of movement are complementary, and with a little time and practice flow from one into the other. Vigorous, full spirited randori really helps teach this transition from one to the other.

Shady
05-05-2005, 01:21 PM
RES,

Would you care to elaborate a bit more on the mixing of Karate with Aikido. Karate movements are straight while Aikido, Judo and Jujutsu movements are round. These are two different ways of moving. Are there problems getting them to work together?


There are MANY schools of Jujutsu... some are softer and rounder, others more hard and linear, and the one I've trained in combines both forms of movement.

Different movement for different needs. As RES states pretty clearly, a committed full on attack is usually best met by soft redirection. An uncommitted or short stopped attack can be entered into very directly. The two forms of movement are complementary, and with a little time and practice flow from one into the other. Vigorous, full spirited randori with solid atemi really helps teach this transition from one to the other.