PDA

View Full Version : Pre War Aikido, 1930 through Iwama period


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


salim
07-29-2008, 02:49 PM
Osensi prewar Aikido is missing from the vast majority of the dojos around the country. It's well documented that Osensi studied Jujutsu, Judo and others. Most dojos concentrate on wrist locks, elbow locks and shoulder locks. The pre war Aikdio incorporated Judo techniques, major body throws, sutemi waza, sacrafice throws and leg take downs, basic newaza. Pre war Aikido used atemi to cause harm when necessary. One of the greatest practitioners of Aikdio, sensei Hiroshi Isoyama would often, during his earlier years, receive challenges from boxers and wrestlers. He would often use head butts (atemi) or sacrafice throws (sutemi waza), to help subdue his opponent. His Aikdio was pre war Aikido. Stanley Pranin wrote a very interesting article, Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido.” Perhaps the article will shade some light on some of the misconceptions.

http://www.aikido-iwama.ru/text1_en.html

One has to ask why is this seemingly hidden? Why is it often not talked about or frowned upon. Why is the only acceptable Aikdio, peace and harmony. Is there a bit of mis education of Aikdio as a whole. There is so much evidence to support that Aikido is aggressive when necessary. There seems to be a steadily growing following of those who are interested in Aikido as much more than unbalancing your opponent and redirect his/her own inertia. We have to being talking about this more openly, but respectfully.

Hiroshi Isoyama in action.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qfJXNuT02h0&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bAhBPa6-CJ4&feature=related

Alfonso
07-29-2008, 03:03 PM
I don't know.. in the official demonstration of aikido captured in the film Budo, O-Sensei shows none of these techniques. (head butt, newaza, kimewaza)

why would that be?

Lyle Bogin
07-29-2008, 03:14 PM
I am usually the first to cry that someone's technique is too brutal, but really this amazing demonstration is not so. He leaves plenty of room for his uke's to escape, and releases his joint locks so uke can survive them. Fantastic!

The more aggressive tactics of the martial arts are and should be part of aikido training, but aikido give us some room to not always be that way. Iwama aikido is the style I respect them most, following Imaizumi's style which he describes as "90% like Tohei's style when he was with the aikikai".

Demetrio Cereijo
07-29-2008, 03:26 PM
Isoyama started training after WWII.

If you want pre-war aikido (considering the name was adopted in 1942), you should look at Budo Renshu and Budo complemented with the mid 50's Mochizuki Minoru and Abe Tadashi manuals.

MM
07-29-2008, 04:02 PM
Osensi prewar Aikido is missing from the vast majority of the dojos around the country.


Really? Wow, you'd better not tell all the dojos affiliated with Shioda or Tomiki that. :D The two biggest schools to come from pre-war students of Ueshiba. That's not to mention Mochizuki, either. I'm not sure how large Yoseikan is -- maybe they have more members in Europe, but I don't know.


It's well documented that Osensi studied Jujutsu, Judo and others.


Unfortunately, you're wrong again. It is well documented (thanks to Stan Pranin) that Ueshiba Morihei's main and central martial art was Daito ryu. Period. What made Ueshiba great? Daito ryu. What made Ueshiba powerful? Daito ryu. What did Ueshiba teach pre-war? Daito ryu. What kind of rank did Ueshiba award to pre-war students? Daito ryu. Thank you Stan for your laborious research.

It's like saying that it is well documented that Chuck Norris studied Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Well, sure, he worked out with BJJ some. Wasn't what made him great or famous, though.


Most dojos concentrate on wrist locks, elbow locks and shoulder locks. The pre war Aikdio incorporated Judo techniques, major body throws, sutemi waza, sacrafice throws and leg take downs, basic newaza. Pre war Aikido used atemi to cause harm when necessary.


If you're really interested in this stuff, study Daito ryu. :) And if you want someone capable, great teacher, fun, and worthwhile, look up Howard Popkin.


One of the greatest practitioners of Aikdio, sensei Hiroshi Isoyama would often, during his earlier years, receive challenges from boxers and wrestlers. He would often use head butts (atemi) or sacrafice throws (sutemi waza), to help subdue his opponent. His Aikdio was pre war Aikido.


As someone else noted, Hiroshi Isoyama came from post war and started studying Aikido in 1949.

Janet Rosen
07-29-2008, 07:50 PM
I don't know; it seems to me that a case could be made that if there is someone I consider a really worthwhile instructor, what I'm interested in is what he was teaching later on in his development, not what he was doing earlier and then discarded...this is NOT meant as a backhanded jab at those who split off from OSensei earlier to pursue the paths that interested or inspired them, just a reflection of my thoughts decades later on.

Chris Li
07-29-2008, 09:33 PM
Really? Wow, you'd better not tell all the dojos affiliated with Shioda or Tomiki that. :D The two biggest schools to come from pre-war students of Ueshiba. That's not to mention Mochizuki, either. I'm not sure how large Yoseikan is -- maybe they have more members in Europe, but I don't know.

When you get right down to it - Shioda, Mochizuki, Tomiki, and Kisshomaru Ueshiba all studied with Morihei Ueshiba primarily before the war and established their teaching styles after the war (Iwama "style" being one form that was clearly established post-war with post-war students).

So you could say that all of the major styles above (including the Aikikai under Kisshomaru Ueshiba - he took over from his father in 1942) are "pre-war" styles or that they are all "post-war" styles, or that the division itself is really somewhat artificial.

Best,

Chris

David Orange
07-29-2008, 10:20 PM
The pre war Aikdio incorporated Judo techniques, major body throws, sutemi waza, sacrafice throws and leg take downs, basic newaza.

I don't know where you got the idea that pre-war aikido incorporated sutemi-waza. The only major instructor I know of that even taught sutemi-waza as aikido was Minoru Mochizuki and he created pretty much all his sutemi-waza based on principles of a jujutsu system he had learned. About the only thing in Ueshiba's aikido that could be considered sutemi-waza was the "aiki drop" where he would bow on the floor as uke attacked, causing uke to fly over him. Also, techniques where he dropped to one knee to throw. But the aiki-drop is still found in modern aikido, as, I think are the "half-sutemi" techniques involving dropping to one knee. I don't know of anyone who really taught full-on full-body sutemi-waza like Mochizuki Sensei, even among the most outstanding pre-war students.

And if you want to quote Stan Pranin, remember how surprised he was to find the "Budo" book from the 1930s with pretty much identical techniques to what Saito Sensei was teaching him in the 1970s.

As for the demo by Isoyama Sensei, it looked pretty much like standard aikido to me--what you'll find in pretty much any aikido dojo you visit, if maybe a little more forceful. But that's not the element that makes Isoyama great. So I don't really see what you're getting at.

You can see better in clips of Gozo Shioda. And maybe you should take one of the suggestions above and see Howard Popkin to get another view of Daito Ryu.

Best to you.

David

Ellis Amdur
07-30-2008, 12:23 AM
Problem is, what H. Popkin is doing is not prewar Ueshiba aikido. Roppokai is an off-shoot of Kodokai and the Kodokai people are pretty adamant that what they do is quite different from what Ueshiba did.
And as for Kisshomaru, Tomiki and Shioda, all of them put their own stamp on what they learned prewar. Otherwise, they'd look pretty much the same and they don't.
Actually, it's pretty simply. Prewar "aikido" is almost surely most accurately preserved in the Takumakai. The vast bulk of their material is preserved religiously from Ueshiba, with appr. 30%, as I recall, from Takeda Sokaku. And I also recall Hisa grumbling that after awhile, Takeda was repeating himself.
Now, what I'm writing here has nothing, in my mind, at least, with "the real aiki" (TM) wars, or which Daito-ryu faction is better - yawn.

Simply, what organization learned from Osensei prewar - is in the ONLY film of Osensei prewar, and has made a point of trying, through the Soden (everything photographed) to retain things as completely as possible? Takumakai
Best

MM
07-30-2008, 07:33 AM
Problem is, what H. Popkin is doing is not prewar Ueshiba aikido. Roppokai is an off-shoot of Kodokai and the Kodokai people are pretty adamant that what they do is quite different from what Ueshiba did.


Hmmm ... should have detailed the logic train a bit better, I guess. Pre-war "aikido" is really Daito ryu. Every pre-war student's art looks different. I'm told every Daito ryu school has a different look. Hence, if you're interested in pre-war "aikido", then really, try Daito ryu. And if every person's take on that training is different, does it matter which one? Yes and no. So, for my view, I've been to one seminar of Howard Popkin. I'd recommend him and I did. :)

Now, if you want to train in something that has the look of what Ueshiba was doing pre-war, okay, I wouldn't know. I'd still probably say try Daito ryu. And if you suggest the Takumakai, I guess the problem would be finding a local branch or dojo.

Course, if you want something with an "aikido" brand on it, then that'd probably be something from Tomiki, Shioda, or Mochizuki.

Thanks,
Mark

Peter Goldsbury
07-30-2008, 08:15 AM
Hmmm ... should have detailed the logic train a bit better, I guess. Pre-war "aikido" is really Daito ryu. Every pre-war student's art looks different. I'm told every Daito ryu school has a different look. Hence, if you're interested in pre-war "aikido", then really, try Daito ryu. And if every person's take on that training is different, does it matter which one? Yes and no. So, for my view, I've been to one seminar of Howard Popkin. I'd recommend him and I did. :)

Now, if you want to train in something that has the look of what Ueshiba was doing pre-war, okay, I wouldn't know. I'd still probably say try Daito ryu. And if you suggest the Takumakai, I guess the problem would be finding a local branch or dojo.

Course, if you want something with an "aikido" brand on it, then that'd probably be something from Tomiki, Shioda, or Mochizuki.

Thanks,
Mark

Hello Mark,

I think this is partly a matter concerning the fluidity of definition. A more precise question would be: which postwar manifestation of Daito-ryu is closest to what Morihei Ueshiba was actually doing during the years he spent in Ayabe from 1920 onwards? (Remember that there are also Admiral Takeshita's notes, which I think begin from around this this period.) Then, there was the move to Tokyo in 1927 and the beginning of another period, between 1927 and 1942, which would involve Hisa Takuma more directly.

Best wishes,

PAG

MM
07-30-2008, 08:31 AM
Hello Mark,

I think this is partly a matter concerning the fluidity of definition. A more precise question would be: which postwar manifestation of Daito-ryu is closest to what Morihei Ueshiba was actually doing during the years he spent in Ayabe from 1920 onwards? (Remember that there are also Admiral Takeshita's notes, which I think begin from around this this period.) Then, there was the move to Tokyo in 1927 and the beginning of another period, between 1927 and 1942, which would involve Hisa Takuma more directly.

Best wishes,

PAG

Hmmm ... well, would Iwama style be just as much in line as the Takumakai? I don't know much about Saito or what he learned, but there's the often cited passage about Saito and the Budo manual. How close are Iwama style aikido and the Takumakai syllabus?

Thanks,
Mark

Timothy WK
07-30-2008, 08:49 AM
Prewar "aikido" is almost surely most accurately preserved in the Takumakai. The vast bulk of their material is preserved religiously from Ueshiba, with appr. 30%, as I recall, from Takeda Sokaku.
Ellis,

Not to divert the discussion, but how familiar with the Takumakai are you? Is the above statement still true in light of Okabayashi Shogen's influence?

Though Okabayashi has since broken off on his own (forming Hakuho-ryu, the style I study), while he was still affiliated with the Takumakai he was considered one of their more prominent instructors. After training with Takeda Tokimune, he was part of an effort to add the Hiden Mokuroku (and possibly other elements) from the mainline to the Takumakai curriculum. (I'm not sure about the politics behind that change, though I know Tokimune wanted to consolidate Daito-ryu before he died.)

Okabayashi's personal style certainly changed as a result of his time with Tokimune, but I'm curious about the extent and endurance of Okabayashi's influence on the Takumakai. Did the Takamukai become a bit more "mainline-ized" in their actual movements, or did they just re-structure their syllabus? I know that there was a backlash against the syllabus changes, but I don't know if that included removing the Hiden Mokuroku (and whatever other elements) after Okabayashi broke away.

Peter Goldsbury
07-30-2008, 09:14 AM
Hmmm ... well, would Iwama style be just as much in line as the Takumakai? I don't know much about Saito or what he learned, but there's the often cited passage about Saito and the Budo manual. How close are Iwama style aikido and the Takumakai syllabus?

Thanks,
Mark

Mark, Wait a minute. You seem to be jumping right to 1942.

There is a context here. When Saito Sensei saw the 1938 Budo manual, he recorded his conviction to Stan Pranin that this was what O Sensei was doing when he trained with him. However, the Budo manual is quite different from Budo Renshu, written in 1933. Any serious comparison with the Takumakai should be based on the Budo Renshu manual, not on Budo, which was a manual written for a specific purpose. The same purpose is not so evident in Budo Renshu.

Best wishes,

PAG

MM
07-30-2008, 09:24 AM
Mark, Wait a minute. You seem to be jumping right to 1942.

There is a context here. When Saito Sensei saw the 1938 Budo manual, he recorded his conviction to Stan Pranin that this was what O Sensei was doing when he trained with him. However, the Budo manual is quite different from Budo Renshu, written in 1933. Any serious comparison with the Takumakai should be based on the Budo Renshu manual, not on Budo, which was a manual written for a specific purpose. The same purpose is not so evident in Budo Renshu.

Best wishes,

PAG

Ah, I see. I was confused. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Mark

Ellis Amdur
07-30-2008, 10:15 AM
Timothy - I've seen Okabayashi, and it "looks" different from the Takumakai I've seen. I'm not qualified by experience to say what changes he made, or how qualitatively different they are.
Mark - any fluid we drink is water. Mostly. But Coca-cola tastes different from lemonade. It becomes kind of uninteresting to discuss things on cooking when everytime someone brings up a favorite beverage, the reply is that "hey, that's basically water too."
Best

Fred Little
07-30-2008, 10:23 AM
It becomes kind of uninteresting to discuss things on cooking when everytime someone brings up a favorite beverage, the reply is that "hey, that's basically water too."
Best

Ellis:

If you make that mojito with Wray & Nephew Overproof White Rum, no one will mistake it for "basically water." But then no one will ask for a second mojito, either.

Best,

Fred

TomW
07-30-2008, 10:45 AM
May be you should look in Yamagata, I hear some of the students of Shirata S. still practice the pre-war aiki-budo.

Allen Beebe
07-30-2008, 11:06 AM
Pre war there was*:

▪ Zenzaburo Akazawa (born 1920) since 1933
▪ Masahiro Hashimoto (born 1910) since 1931
▪ Takuma Hisa (1895–1980) since 1934
▪ Noriaki Inoue (1902–1994) since c.1921, nephew of Morihei Ueshiba
▪ Ikkusai Iwata (born 1909) since 1930, 9th dan Aikikai
▪ Hisao Kamada (1911–1986) since 1929
▪ Minoru Mochizuki (1907–2003) since 1930, 10th dan (received from the International Martial Arts Federation)
▪ Aritoshi Murashige (1895–1964) since 1931
▪ Gozo Shioda (1915–1994) since 1932, founder of the Yoshinkan Aikido
▪ Rinjiro Shirata (1912–1993) since 1933, 9th dan
▪ Isamu Takeshita (1869–1949) since c.1925
▪ Kenji Tomiki (1900–1979) since 1926, was the first 8th dan awarded in aikido in 1942.
▪ Shigemi Yonekawa (1910–2005) since 1933
▪ Tsutomu Yukawa (1911–1942) since 1931

Ellis mentioned Takuma Hisa, Chris Moses likes to mention Noriaki Inoue, nobody has mentioned Ikkusai Iwata (We don’t seem to hear much about him even though he was active in the Aikikai up until a ripe old age . . . any body know why? Peter, thoughts?), Minoru Michizuki has been mentioned as has Gozo Shioda, Rinjiro Shirata hasn’t been talked about, Kenji Tomiki has been listed, I didn’t list the others because I don’t think they were significantly active after the war. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

All of these individuals were students of O-sensei prior to, or at, the time that Budo Renshu recorded a sampling of techniques being studied and I would be very surprised if all of the students listed above weren’t familiar with its contents (It was a broad sampling but by no means comprehensive), I know one did.

Another very valuable historical and marker for O-sensei’s pre-war waza are the Noma dojo pictures. This is, reportedly, a huge collection of photographs many of which haven’t been published. This collection poses several problems however. 1. There is limited access. (I only know of one individual, outside the Ueshiba family, that has access to them all. But things can change, and, I could be wrong here.) 2. The photos are in disorganized jumble. 3. It will take a a person with knowledge of (that period’s) Daito Ryu, and (that period’s) Ueshiba’s practice to best be able to “connect the dots.” (Given the present topic of conversation, I think we can see the problem finding living individuals that satisfy those criteria.) 4. Given all of the above, it will still take a significant amount of time to accomplish the task.

*According to a list found on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morihei_Ueshiba Yeah, I’m lazy!

Allen Beebe
07-30-2008, 11:18 AM
Mark - any fluid we drink is water. Mostly. But Coca-cola tastes different from lemonade. It becomes kind of uninteresting to discuss things on cooking when everytime someone brings up a favorite beverage, the reply is that "hey, that's basically water too."
Best

In addition, how about:

There will be no further discussion once one drinks the "cool-aid." (Of any particular teacher, school, organization, or dogma.)

:sorry: :drool: :yuck: :crazy: :dead: :hypno:

Sure have enjoyed the latest exchanges between informed individuals and inquisitive, thoughtful minds. :)

Ellis are you still on track with the books?
Peter do you have a date in mind for your next column?

salim
07-30-2008, 11:43 AM
Really? Wow, you'd better not tell all the dojos affiliated with Shioda or Tomiki that. :D The two biggest schools to come from pre-war students of Ueshiba. That's not to mention Mochizuki, either. I'm not sure how large Yoseikan is -- maybe they have more members in Europe, but I don't know.

Unfortunately, you're wrong again. It is well documented (thanks to Stan Pranin) that Ueshiba Morihei's main and central martial art was Daito ryu. Period. What made Ueshiba great? Daito ryu. What made Ueshiba powerful? Daito ryu. What did Ueshiba teach pre-war? Daito ryu. What kind of rank did Ueshiba award to pre-war students? Daito ryu. Thank you Stan for your laborious research.

It's like saying that it is well documented that Chuck Norris studied Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Well, sure, he worked out with BJJ some. Wasn't what made him great or famous, though.

If you're really interested in this stuff, study Daito ryu. :) And if you want someone capable, great teacher, fun, and worthwhile, look up Howard Popkin.

As someone else noted, Hiroshi Isoyama came from post war and started studying Aikido in 1949.

Here is a picture of O'sensei doing newaza. Perhaps pre WWII Aikido? Perhaps from his Judo background that he gained?

salim
07-30-2008, 11:47 AM
Really? Wow, you'd better not tell all the dojos affiliated with Shioda or Tomiki that. :D The two biggest schools to come from pre-war students of Ueshiba. That's not to mention Mochizuki, either. I'm not sure how large Yoseikan is -- maybe they have more members in Europe, but I don't know.

Unfortunately, you're wrong again. It is well documented (thanks to Stan Pranin) that Ueshiba Morihei's main and central martial art was Daito ryu. Period. What made Ueshiba great? Daito ryu. What made Ueshiba powerful? Daito ryu. What did Ueshiba teach pre-war? Daito ryu. What kind of rank did Ueshiba award to pre-war students? Daito ryu. Thank you Stan for your laborious research.

It's like saying that it is well documented that Chuck Norris studied Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Well, sure, he worked out with BJJ some. Wasn't what made him great or famous, though.

If you're really interested in this stuff, study Daito ryu. :) And if you want someone capable, great teacher, fun, and worthwhile, look up Howard Popkin.

As someone else noted, Hiroshi Isoyama came from post war and started studying Aikido in 1949.

Here is a picture of O'sensei doing newaza. Perhaps pre WWII Aikido? Perhaps from his Judo background that he gained?

Jujutsu is the father of all jujutsu, Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu, BJJ, Judo etc.

Ron Tisdale
07-30-2008, 12:43 PM
Salim, let's be clear. That is a picture of Ueshiba doing a reclining pin. That in and of itself IS NOT indicative of a developed newaza curriculum, or anything like what you see in certain styles of judo, or BJJ where positional dominance and transition strategy come into play.

I'm not saying that those things absolutely didn't exist...I know some Yoshinkan instructors from the early days that demonstrate a variety of reclining pins, and there may have been more behind them...

But what you present does not make a very convincing case there.

Best,
Ron (one reclining pin in a picture does not newaza make)
PS I would have no problems if there WAS newaza, just trying to be logical.

Timothy WK
07-30-2008, 12:50 PM
Here is a picture of O'sensei doing newaza.

No, I *think* you're wrong, Salim. I can't be sure by just that picture alone, but I think I recognize that as a Daito-ryu technique.

I can't remember if that starts from standing, kneeling/suwari, or both... probably kneeling... but anyway, you "tie" the guy up with your arms around him, then throw/unbalance him. You then him follow down and break his neck...

... if I'm remembering all that right... I definitely remember being held like that, but I don't remember the full setup... It's been awhile, and it was also one of techniques above my rank that sensei showed "for fun". ;)

salim
07-30-2008, 01:22 PM
I don't know the full history of sensei Masatomi Ikeda, 7th dan. I do know that he studied Judo prior to Aikido. Interesting enough he teaches his students newaza. I wonder if he understood Aikido from a different perspective (pre war)? Clip below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=85Jxmles0Hk

Another good sensei, Julio Toribio 5th dan, performing sacrifice throws. Maybe really, the pre war Aikido is more of a persons perspective. Clip below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eOnSAiggMpE

Demetrio Cereijo
07-30-2008, 02:20 PM
I don't think O Sensei has the need to teaching newaza, especially at pre-war times, when his students usually had judo (from their school days) or other forms of traditional jujutsu experience, and much less teaching basics like kata gatame/arm triangle choke.

OTOH.

Masatomi Ikeda S. is a 4 dan in judo besides his 7 dan in aikido. If he sees relationship between both arts and wants to show it, no problem. But I don't think he is showing "pre-war aikido".

In the Julio Toribio S. clip what you see is mostly Iwama style aikido.

Anyway, enjoy the pics:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/9871/dibujova0.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dibujova0.jpg) http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/9501/dibujo2ty6.th.jpg (http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dibujo2ty6.jpg)

raul rodrigo
07-30-2008, 02:29 PM
I don't know the full history of sensei Masatomi Ikeda, 7th dan. I do know that he studied Judo prior to Aikido. Interesting enough he teaches his students newaza. I wonder if he understood Aikido from a different perspective (pre war)?

Well Ikeda was born in 1940, and started aikido in 1958, so any notion of him having a "prewar" kind of aikido seems pretty iffy to me. But the fact that he can be seen teaching his students pins isn't remarkable in and of itself. My own teacher taught shimewaza and judo throws in the course of some of her aikido classes when I was a 5th kyu, and she was born in the 1960s. Theres nothing prewar about her or her first aikido teacher. I think several of us have said this to you before: you're making an oversimplification about the character of "prewar aikido" and postwar aikido. Isoyama is a postwar student, as is Chiba.

Ron Tisdale
07-30-2008, 02:41 PM
I think several of us have said this to you before: you're making an oversimplification about the character of "prewar aikido" and postwar aikido. Isoyama is a postwar student, as is Chiba.

Yes, we have...and he keeps ignoring us. Oh wel....
Best,
Ron

johan smits
07-30-2008, 03:55 PM
Hi there,

This is my first post here and I probably should not stick my nose where it does not belong but I seem to recall that in the wonderful movie in which Ueshiba sensei shows pre-war aikido there is one technique which according to me qualifies as a sutemi.
Ueshiba sensei sits in seiza and is grabbed from behind. He rolls to the rear on his back, hooks uke's nek with his foot and throws uke to the front.

Definintely a sutemi technique.

By the way what I feel is very interesting in pre-war aikido are the solutions Ueshiba sensei came up with for things he saw maybe as not so good in Daito-ryu.The adaptions he made would be a very interesting subject for research. But then that would be very difficult to do probably.

Happy landings,

Johan Smits

Peter Goldsbury
07-30-2008, 05:53 PM
Allen,

I remember meeting Ikkusai Iwata in 1980. He and Rinjiro Shirata were in Paris for an IAF meeting. The IAF has a Superior Council and they took turns to head this body. When O Sensei died in 1969, they both accepted Kisshomaru as Doshu and quietly ran their own dojos/organizations. Like Hikitsuchi, Iwata favoured a white hakama.


Peter do you have a date in mind for your next column?

Well, Jun already has it and so I suppose it will appear with the August columns.

PAG

Fred Little
07-30-2008, 06:05 PM
Like Hikitsuchi, Iwata favoured a white hakama.PAG

Dear Peter,

This is an interesting point.

Was this 1) a practice he had continued from his early days of pre-war training when the deshi at the Kobukan wore white hakama 2) something (like Hikitsuchi) connected with a Shinto ordination of some sort 3) a practice he adopted later in life (as is sometimes the case with senior kendo instructors) 4) some combination of the above or 5) something else entirely?

And just as interestingly, how did others respond to his choice?

Best regards,

FL

Don_Modesto
07-30-2008, 06:06 PM
No, I *think* you're wrong, Salim. I can't be sure by just that picture alone, but I think I recognize that as a Daito-ryu technique.Gyakudasuki is it?

I can't remember if that starts from standing, kneeling/suwari, or both... probably kneeling... but anyway, you "tie" the guy up with your arms around him, then throw/unbalance him. You then him follow down and break his neck...I *think* you're thinking of another:Kubihineri maybe. The one in the picture is a carotid choke.

... if I'm remembering all that right... I definitely remember being held like that, but I don't remember the full setup..Yeah. Me, too. Caveat emptor.

David Orange
07-30-2008, 10:57 PM
I don't know the full history of sensei Masatomi Ikeda, 7th dan. I do know that he studied Judo prior to Aikido. Interesting enough he teaches his students newaza. I wonder if he understood Aikido from a different perspective (pre war)? Clip below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=85Jxmles0Hk



No, that's straight judo he's demonstrating and it's a common kind of thing for aikido teachers with judo experience to occasionally throw in some judo for perspective. That material was never part of daito ryu or prewar aikido.

Another good sensei, Julio Toribio 5th dan, performing sacrifice throws. Maybe really, the pre war Aikido is more of a persons perspective.

Well, those few things where he goes to the ground are not really what you would call sacrifice throws. They're more like escapes. This clip, featuring one of the pre-war greats of aikido, shows some real sacrifices, starting about 3:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf39s46Qxcg

But these sacrifice techniques are Mochizuki Sensei's own developments and they were not part of daito ryu or Ueshiba's aikido. His "ordinary aikido," shown from about the 2:00 minute mark to about the 3:00 minute mark, is closer to pre-war aikido, but maybe more pragmatic because it excludes all techniques that rely on the attacker's own grip to execute the throws. Mochizuki Sensei did not trust that kind of throw. If you grabbed him, he would cut your grasp off, re-grasp you, then throw you with his grasp--not yours. But even pre-war, Ueshiba's aikido often used the attacker's own grasp to execute the throws. So "pre-war" should not be confused to mean "harsher" or "rougher" aikido and it certainly should not be thought to include sutemi-waza (sacrifices). And it's definitely not a matter of "perspective" unless you mean the perspective of having studied with Morihei Ueshiba before WWII.

David

Allen Beebe
07-30-2008, 11:45 PM
Allen,

I remember meeting Ikkusai Iwata in 1980. He and Rinjiro Shirata were in Paris for an IAF meeting. The IAF has a Superior Council and they took turns to head this body. When O Sensei died in 1969, they both accepted Kisshomaru as Doshu and quietly ran their own dojos/organizations. Like Hikitsuchi, Iwata favoured a white hakama.

Well, Jun already has it and so I suppose it will appear with the August columns.

PAG

Thanks Peter. Hmm, August is just a day away . . . :)

Allen

Scott Harrington
07-31-2008, 12:05 AM
Prewar Aikido seems to be the latest bugga boo here. So, to join in.

1) Prewar Aikido is Daito-ryu, the certificates say it, the sign said it, the students then said it, now all of you say it together, Prewar Aikido is Daito-ryu.
2) Daito-ryu has everything in it (that means what Takeda Sokaku taught). Five minutes into an Aiki Expo seminar by Kondo sensei of the mainline Daito-ryu, he had me down on the ground, sutemi fashion, in a grappling move with a pressure point application to the sternum and a neck crank -- all at the same time, certainly rivaling any Bjj'er. Saito Sensei handed out shuriken certificates out (Hendricks Sensei has one.) Jutte techniques are in the Gokajo section of the Hiden Mokuroku, sojutsu was taught to Ueshiba Sensei, variant Itto-ryu can be seen from the Takeda Tokimune sensei line and aiki can be seen from Kodokai and others.
3) Ueshiba sensei did two important things we should all be thankful. Simplified an ungodly complicated system which seems to have enough minutiae to fill a freight car and took out all the really, really, REALLY painful add-ons. How many people pin in suwariwaza by placing their knee on the triceps? Let me do it first. In ‘Budo Renshu' there is a drawing with the prewar pin variant with uke on his knees, bent at the waist and forehead touching the ground. This is to SLAM the skull to the ground, not gently guide uke into a life changing direction. Hell, I get enough injuries just doing Aikido, can you imagine what being hardcore back then must have meant. No wonder Takeda Sokaku's 10 day ‘classes' had a lot less participants at the end than at the beginning. "Uh, I have to go check up on my sick mother, sensei." There's a reason he had them pay first. There's a reason very few dojo practice yonkyo -- it hurts.
4) Ueshiba sensei was a tree-hugging, back to nature, new ager who dawdled excessively with some very, very fascist people. That's okay, everyone was fascist back then, just that U.S. was less than everybody else (thank God).
5) Did he change the direction of martial arts in Japan? I had a chance (unfortunately I didn't have a fortune to buy the rest of the books along with the last in the Soden series by Takuma Hisa -- the fish that got away) for a nice book translated as "History of Judo in Showa period -- with an appendix of waza - 1939" and the purpose is stated to help train the people's spirit for fascism (dirty word again). When you see Kano sensei in Europe who do you think he was demonstrating for in Germany, the local synagogue? Civilization came too close in 1941 to 1984 back then. O'sensei, though far on the fringes (what we would consider) with the utopian Omoto cult, took a superior deadly art, modified it like Kano had, looked at the precipice that wacky European thought had taken mankind to the edge of and said on the mat at least, "There is a better way." Did he believe it, I hope so. Did he bring spirituality into his new Aikido or did Daito-ryu have some of it in there anyway? Great question.
6) Ueshiba sensei had a student defect back to Daito-ryu (Takuma Hisa). Anyone can pick and choose to do the same, shades of one from column a and one from column b. He created a template (probably just like Takeda Sokaku) to study his way (whatever that is still being discussed), or go back to the roots of Daito-ryu, or follow the principles of physics and anatomy and diverge on a different path (I hear there is a combo of Yoshinkan Aikido and MMA -- aaaaaaaagh!) Of course, every seminar I have been too they always say their way is the right way, but it is a way to there.
7) Aikido's curves are rubenesque, with a projection not a crushing drop, a temporary pin and not a way to hold the body down while you cut the head off. It can have a lot less than the supposed nearly 3000 waza or it can have a creative riff with something new just showing up. It can be made too soft but that's alright when you get too old. It can be too spiritual but that can be better than too cauliflower ears. It's a way to there.

Scott Harrington
co-author of "Aiki Toolbox: Exploring the Magic of Aikido"

salim
07-31-2008, 08:03 AM
Prewar Aikido seems to be the latest bugga boo here. So, to join in.

1) Prewar Aikido is Daito-ryu, the certificates say it, the sign said it, the students then said it, now all of you say it together, Prewar Aikido is Daito-ryu.
2) Daito-ryu has everything in it (that means what Takeda Sokaku taught). Five minutes into an Aiki Expo seminar by Kondo sensei of the mainline Daito-ryu, he had me down on the ground, sutemi fashion, in a grappling move with a pressure point application to the sternum and a neck crank -- all at the same time, certainly rivaling any Bjj'er. Saito Sensei handed out shuriken certificates out (Hendricks Sensei has one.) Jutte techniques are in the Gokajo section of the Hiden Mokuroku, sojutsu was taught to Ueshiba Sensei, variant Itto-ryu can be seen from the Takeda Tokimune sensei line and aiki can be seen from Kodokai and others.
3) Ueshiba sensei did two important things we should all be thankful. Simplified an ungodly complicated system which seems to have enough minutiae to fill a freight car and took out all the really, really, REALLY painful add-ons. How many people pin in suwariwaza by placing their knee on the triceps? Let me do it first. In ‘Budo Renshu' there is a drawing with the prewar pin variant with uke on his knees, bent at the waist and forehead touching the ground. This is to SLAM the skull to the ground, not gently guide uke into a life changing direction. Hell, I get enough injuries just doing Aikido, can you imagine what being hardcore back then must have meant. No wonder Takeda Sokaku's 10 day ‘classes' had a lot less participants at the end than at the beginning. "Uh, I have to go check up on my sick mother, sensei." There's a reason he had them pay first. There's a reason very few dojo practice yonkyo -- it hurts.
4) Ueshiba sensei was a tree-hugging, back to nature, new ager who dawdled excessively with some very, very fascist people. That's okay, everyone was fascist back then, just that U.S. was less than everybody else (thank God).
5) Did he change the direction of martial arts in Japan? I had a chance (unfortunately I didn't have a fortune to buy the rest of the books along with the last in the Soden series by Takuma Hisa -- the fish that got away) for a nice book translated as "History of Judo in Showa period -- with an appendix of waza - 1939" and the purpose is stated to help train the people's spirit for fascism (dirty word again). When you see Kano sensei in Europe who do you think he was demonstrating for in Germany, the local synagogue? Civilization came too close in 1941 to 1984 back then. O'sensei, though far on the fringes (what we would consider) with the utopian Omoto cult, took a superior deadly art, modified it like Kano had, looked at the precipice that wacky European thought had taken mankind to the edge of and said on the mat at least, "There is a better way." Did he believe it, I hope so. Did he bring spirituality into his new Aikido or did Daito-ryu have some of it in there anyway? Great question.
6) Ueshiba sensei had a student defect back to Daito-ryu (Takuma Hisa). Anyone can pick and choose to do the same, shades of one from column a and one from column b. He created a template (probably just like Takeda Sokaku) to study his way (whatever that is still being discussed), or go back to the roots of Daito-ryu, or follow the principles of physics and anatomy and diverge on a different path (I hear there is a combo of Yoshinkan Aikido and MMA -- aaaaaaaagh!) Of course, every seminar I have been too they always say their way is the right way, but it is a way to there.
7) Aikido's curves are rubenesque, with a projection not a crushing drop, a temporary pin and not a way to hold the body down while you cut the head off. It can have a lot less than the supposed nearly 3000 waza or it can have a creative riff with something new just showing up. It can be made too soft but that's alright when you get too old. It can be too spiritual but that can be better than too cauliflower ears. It's a way to there.

Scott Harrington
co-author of "Aiki Toolbox: Exploring the Magic of Aikido"

Scott,

thank you for your critique and you clearly expressed what I was thinking, but in a more fashionable way. Again, thanks for sharing.

Aiki1
07-31-2008, 10:31 AM
Anyway, enjoy the pics:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/9871/dibujova0.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dibujova0.jpg) http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/9501/dibujo2ty6.th.jpg (http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dibujo2ty6.jpg)

What book(s) are these pics from again? Thanks.

Demetrio Cereijo
07-31-2008, 10:53 AM
First one is from Saito's Traditional Aikido (it's in vol.5 iirc) and the other I've found it surfing the web, it seems to be from the Noma Dojo sessions.

MM
08-01-2008, 07:11 AM
Having conversations about aikido is like asking for a headache (as in, oh, my head hurts from thinking about that). :hypno: So, I thought I'd pass the headache on that occurred while thinking about this stuff.

Thanks to Stan & others, it's known that Ueshiba taught Daito ryu before the war. And that some prewar students received scrolls in Daito ryu. It's been said that Shioda and the Yoshinkan look more like a Daito ryu school than an aikido school.

According to Saito, Ueshiba's techniques were similar when he trained with him and what was recorded in the 1938 Budo book.

I'm told that the Daito ryu schools all have a different syllabus, although some elements remain common.

So ...

If the Daito ryu schools are different just like aikido schools can be different and yet still be doing aikido ...

If Ueshiba was teaching the same things after the war as he was pre-war, at least around 1938 ...

If the name aikido wasn't directly chosen by Ueshiba, but was just acknowledged from the Society ...

If Ueshiba's son, Kisshomaru changed the art after the war for his own purposes ...

If the main influence on Ueshiba in regards to technical knowledge of martial arts was Daito ryu ...

Then we come to the headache. What if Ueshiba never stopped practicing Daito ryu? What if he, like all the other students of Takeda, adopted his own version of Daito ryu? Did Ueshiba ever really leave Daito ryu?

Maybe what Kisshomaru created was truly aikido? The peaceful, blending, harmonizing martial art that most of us know. While the father was still doing what he had learned all along -- Daito ryu.

salim
08-01-2008, 08:29 AM
Thank you Mark for sharing. Most Aikidoka are unaware of this history totally, refuse to admit or stubbornly will not accept the fact. Aikido has been tainted in some many different ways. The fact remains that the original practitioners methodology has been lost to a larger degree and ridicule for it's martial application (newaza, sutemi waza). As I indicated earlier, only the peace loving, soft flowing methods receive the greater acceptance as the "Real" Aikido. We have to accept Aikido as more than soft flow. Aikdio can be very martial and that was the intent. That means accepting newaza, sutemi waza as Aikido. Historical evidence supports these methods. It was practiced by the earlier practitioners and some Aikidoka today.

Peter Goldsbury
08-01-2008, 09:30 AM
Having conversations about aikido is like asking for a headache (as in, oh, my head hurts from thinking about that). :hypno: So, I thought I'd pass the headache on that occurred while thinking about this stuff.

Thanks to Stan & others, it's known that Ueshiba taught Daito ryu before the war. And that some prewar students received scrolls in Daito ryu. It's been said that Shioda and the Yoshinkan look more like a Daito ryu school than an aikido school.

According to Saito, Ueshiba's techniques were similar when he trained with him and what was recorded in the 1938 Budo book.

I'm told that the Daito ryu schools all have a different syllabus, although some elements remain common.

So ...

If the Daito ryu schools are different just like aikido schools can be different and yet still be doing aikido ...

If Ueshiba was teaching the same things after the war as he was pre-war, at least around 1938 ...

If the name aikido wasn't directly chosen by Ueshiba, but was just acknowledged from the Society ...

If Ueshiba's son, Kisshomaru changed the art after the war for his own purposes ...

If the main influence on Ueshiba in regards to technical knowledge of martial arts was Daito ryu ...

Then we come to the headache. What if Ueshiba never stopped practicing Daito ryu? What if he, like all the other students of Takeda, adopted his own version of Daito ryu? Did Ueshiba ever really leave Daito ryu?

Maybe what Kisshomaru created was truly aikido? The peaceful, blending, harmonizing martial art that most of us know. While the father was still doing what he had learned all along -- Daito ryu.

Mark,

I have a serious question here. How much of Morihei Ueshiba's own discourses are you going to accept as relevant to this discussion? After all, Ellis Amdur's original discussions in Three Peaches and Hidden in Plain Sight derived in part from a close analysis of those parts of Takemusu Aiki that had been translated into English.

Allen Beebe
08-01-2008, 10:42 AM
I have a serious question here. How much of Morihei Ueshiba's own discourses are you going to accept as relevant to this discussion? After all, Ellis Amdur's original discussions in Three Peaches and Hidden in Plain Sight derived in part from a close analysis of those parts of Takemusu Aiki that had been translated into English.

The problem I see with using this Takemusu Aiki as a "the" source rather than "a" source of information reflecting Ueshiba's thoughts and motivations is that it is a Post War amalgam of lectures delivered to a religious audience. Context should be strongly taken into account IMO.

Of course Takemusu Aiki is an important source in a very sparse field so therefore cannot be taken lightly.

Allen

aikilouis
08-02-2008, 05:51 AM
The field is not so sparse. O Sensei's life is quite well documented (through writings, film, pictures, drawings, testimonies...) thanks to the work of research of a few, and is still today the source of fruitful debate and analysis.

Just ask the practitionners of many chinese martial arts if they would not gladly have the same amount of information about the founders of their arts. Most of the time they have to satisfy themselves with fragments.

DH
08-02-2008, 07:06 AM
Having conversations about aikido is like asking for a headache (as in, oh, my head hurts from thinking about that). :hypno: So, I thought I'd pass the headache on that occurred while thinking about this stuff.

Thanks to Stan & others, it's known that Ueshiba taught Daito ryu before the war. And that some prewar students received scrolls in Daito ryu. It's been said that Shioda and the Yoshinkan look more like a Daito ryu school than an aikido school.

According to Saito, Ueshiba's techniques were similar when he trained with him and what was recorded in the 1938 Budo book.

I'm told that the Daito ryu schools all have a different syllabus, although some elements remain common.

So ...

If the Daito ryu schools are different just like aikido schools can be different and yet still be doing aikido ...

If Ueshiba was teaching the same things after the war as he was pre-war, at least around 1938 ...

If the name aikido wasn't directly chosen by Ueshiba, but was just acknowledged from the Society ...

If Ueshiba's son, Kisshomaru changed the art after the war for his own purposes ...

If the main influence on Ueshiba in regards to technical knowledge of martial arts was Daito ryu ...

Then we come to the headache. What if Ueshiba never stopped practicing Daito ryu? What if he, like all the other students of Takeda, adopted his own version of Daito ryu? Did Ueshiba ever really leave Daito ryu?

Maybe what Kisshomaru created was truly aikido? The peaceful, blending, harmonizing martial art that most of us know. While the father was still doing what he had learned all along -- Daito ryu.
Ueshiba taught the Asahi group in Osaka up until 1936.
Takeda arrived in 36 and stated that Since Ueshiba had taught them all the basics of Daito ryu he would continue their lessons from that point on (actually Ueshiba ran away)
I really can't see any wiggle room here. He was handing out scrolls-though curiously not to the Asahi group) in Daito ryu, and teaching a syllabus so clearly defined as Daito ryu that Takeda himself acknowledged it. Then you have the Noma dojo record as well.
I contend, and as you all know I have always contended, that he never stopped doing Daito ryu aiki his entire life. He changed the use of his connections to create a cast-off projection instead of the more violent seizing of an opponent. And he let them roll away instead of wrapping them up for the kill. That said the power he used to do so was non other than Daito ryu aiki.
In fact I think the "legend, in many ways obfuscated his greatest innovation. Koryu jujutsu has some great stuff in it but the results are pretty much the same in wrapping up or dropping close-in for a weapon kill or stomp. Daito ryu even more so- due to it aiki. Ueshiba with a long history of violent jujutsu in his hands, which was greatly enhanced through Daito ryu aiki, made a phenomenal discovery and innovation. That he could handle violence, and cast it away instead of being violent in return.

And all that said. I believe Marks questions are interesting.

The question of what was being taught really expands out past Ueshiba to what was being disseminated
If Ueshiba was teaching Daito ryu up until 37 or 38 and handing out scrolls, (Takeda recognized and called it Daito ryu). If all his deshi were calling it Daito ryu, (even two of his students considered themselves students of Takeda).
Then what were those deshi teaching?

You see it really does expand outward. Were they all somehow transformed as well by the kami? Did Ueshiba's Satori now expand outward and envelope and wash away all of their years and hard work inculcating a body method in a flash?
Somehow I doubt it. Their scrolls were never given back and they were all given dan ranks after the formal creation of Aikido in the 40’s. However, they were indelibly marked, as Daito ryu men. They- like their teacher before them- had never studied anything else in depth. They replaced their menjo with dans, replaced the capturing aiki with cast aways, and replaced the hell dojo with more cooperative training, and helped found a new movement.


The world sees Daito ryu aiki in Ueshiba for the first time and is amazed. Ueshiba, for reasons lost to history takes the glory for his vision, but doesn't say much on how he got there. His deshi, for some equally curious reasons all their own- never tell anyone about training with him for years in Daito ryu or about the existence of Daito ryu scrolls. They go along to get along.

Then... Along comes a Journalist and History buff called Stan Pranin. Stan gets a bug to investigate this barely mentioned Takeda guy. Whoops..can o' worms, goes and meets Tokimune, sees the eimoroku of Takeda with 20 years of training by Ueshiba. He sees actual Daito ryu for the first time, -being a great student of the obvious- he starts asking pointed questions of all of Ueshiba's deshi.
All of a sudden a new history is written.

dps
08-02-2008, 07:12 AM
Funny thing about history. It is always being rewritten.

David

DH
08-02-2008, 07:26 AM
Funny thing about history. It is always being rewritten.

David
Yup. And sometimes replete with live interviews, paperwork, and a fairly good corroboration of dates and facts. Unfortunately most have passed. Their are some extremely good follow up questions many would like to have asked.

Peter Goldsbury
08-02-2008, 08:01 AM
Hello Allen,

I don't think I disagree here. I remember when Ellis Amdur wrote his blogs for Aikido Journal, the only part of Takemusu Aiki that had been translated were the three installments done, with annotations, by Sonoko Tanaka and Stan Pranin. Ellis used these creatively--as a base for his blogs, which were also supplemented by his vast knowledge of Japanese budo.

When the blogs came out, I remember thinking that the basis for some of Ellis's statements seemed awfully fragile--being only three installments of an English translation of a 200-page book. It would have been better to base his arguments on the whole work, in Japanese, not the first few pages in English. Of course, there are major problems here, one of which is copyright and another of which is translation: making sense of what O Sensei actually states. As for copyright, the Aikido Journal translation stopped--and there are some dark theories as to why. With respect to translation, Sonoko Tanaka made a big effort to explain the context of O Sensei's more bizarre statements and I think that this is why Ellis could write his blogs. Nevertheless, an English translation of a text written in very difficult Japanese seems to me to be an unusually fragile basis for statements about what O Sensei actually stated. The same is true of the recent translation of Aiki-Shinzui by John Stevens. As I said elsewhere, I do not have a problem with Mr Stevens producing a sanitized translation, to show how O Sensei fits into the postwar scheme of things (Well, actually, I do have a problem :o ), but the sanitized translations need to be complemented by something more substantial.

I spent some very pleasant years in the Department of Classics at Harvard University, where we came to grasps with the 'ethics' of translation. (One of my exam questions was to translate Lincoln's Gettysburg Address into the style of Greek used by Pericles in his Funeral Oration during the Peloponnesian War.) There was a rigour there (in the Classics Department, not in my own translation) that is lacking in virtually every single translation of O sensei that I have so far encountered.

I am now writing Column 10 and have translated about a half-dozen pages of Takemusu Aiki--some of the later material, about World War II. There are some really outrageous statements here and so the question arises: to what extent does the context affect the truth of what is stated?

What O Sensei stated himself (allegedly) is complemented by what others have written about him. The 'documentation' here is supposed to be good, but I do not think so. For example, there is very little in Stan Pranin's extensive research into O Sensei's life in Tokyo between 1927 and 1942 that will enable us to illuminate O Sensei's own statements in Takemusu Aiki.

Best wishes,

PAG

The problem I see with using this Takemusu Aiki as a "the" source rather than "a" source of information reflecting Ueshiba's thoughts and motivations is that it is a Post War amalgam of lectures delivered to a religious audience. Context should be strongly taken into account IMO.

Of course Takemusu Aiki is an important source in a very sparse field so therefore cannot be taken lightly.

Allen

MM
08-02-2008, 09:15 AM
Mark,

I have a serious question here. How much of Morihei Ueshiba's own discourses are you going to accept as relevant to this discussion? After all, Ellis Amdur's original discussions in Three Peaches and Hidden in Plain Sight derived in part from a close analysis of those parts of Takemusu Aiki that had been translated into English.

Hello Peter,

I'm sorry I couldn't get a reply back quicker. Things got busy here.

Being in the U.S. and not having access to quite a bit of material, things are a bit murky in regards to Ueshiba's history. Not to downplay Stan's research or your own, but I'm finding that I have to rely upon translations. Sometimes that is good and sometimes that isn't.

Not to demean Ellis or his articles on Aikido Journal, but I find them a stretch at times. I've read through the later posts by you and Allen and it sort of goes along with my thoughts. But the major hurdle is always having to rely upon the translation. And in my case, the majority of books being published are translated by someone affiliated with the Aikikai.

I've learned enough about the Japanese culture to know that while they won't lie, well, they will lie. Up to that point, the material can, and has been, spun with a different aspect to it.

So, I ask questions and propose theories. Being that I'm not a scholar in this area, I hope that they are at least semi-intelligent.

I'm trying to learn Japansese, which isn't an overnight thing. One of these days, maybe I'll be able to read some of the texts and then have an intelligent conversation with you. :)

Where did you get your text of Takemusu Aiki?

Thank you,
Mark

Peter Goldsbury
08-02-2008, 09:30 AM
Hello Peter,

Where did you get your text of Takemusu Aiki?

Thank you,
Mark

I bought it in a local bookstore. It is freely available here, along with a whole load of books about O Sensei (ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous), that have not been translated.

Best wishes,

PAG

Allen Beebe
08-02-2008, 10:17 AM
I don't think I disagree here.

Score! :D

. . . but the sanitized translations need to be complemented by something more substantial.

Enter special agent Goldsbury! :cool:

I spent some very pleasant years in the Department of Classics at Harvard University, where we came to grasps with the 'ethics' of translation. (One of my exam questions was to translate Lincoln's Gettysburg Address into the style of Greek used by Pericles in his Funeral Oration during the Peloponnesian War.) There was a rigour there (in the Classics Department, not in my own translation) that is lacking in virtually every single translation of O sensei that I have so far encountered.

Hear! Hear! Such a translation would be beneficial even in Japanese!

I am now writing Column 10

And where is Column 9 today August the 2nd (August the 3rd if one resides in Japan) . . . hmmmm . . . . Jun . . . pleeeeease?

. . . and have translated about a half-dozen pages of Takemusu Aiki--some of the later material, about World War II.

Page numbers please.

There are some really outrageous statements here . . .

OH, THANKS A LOT Peter! I have to admit this statement finally got me to get off my lazy bottom and go get my copy of Takemusu Aiki . . . and low and behold, I have a copy of 合気神髄 sitting next to it! :eek: Whoda thunk it? :rolleyes:

. . . and so the question arises: to what extent does the context affect the truth of what is stated?

Yeah baby!

What O Sensei stated himself (allegedly) is complemented by what others have written about him. The 'documentation' here is supposed to be good, but I do not think so. For example, there is very little in Stan Pranin's extensive research into O Sensei's life in Tokyo between 1927 and 1942 that will enable us to illuminate O Sensei's own statements in Takemusu Aiki.

Peter are you, by chance, willing to autograph 8x10 glossies? I'm seriously considering a prominent place for you on the wall of my dojo.

Honestly, thank you for all of your hard work and your willingness to share. I don't know that we will always draw the same conclusions, but that hardly matters. (Getting closer to "the truth" is what matters in my mind, not who's right or wrong today or tomorrow.) The fact that you are publicly sharing pertinent information in a highly transparent fashion and from a hard earned position that demands to be taken seriously is what matters most IMO. That you do so in a down to earth, accessible and un-pretentious manner is icing on the cake!

I don't know how many folks will read, comprehend and appreciate what you are sharing, but at least it is out there and that in itself is ground breaking.

As my 5th graders would say, "You rock Mr. Goldsbury!" :)

MM
08-02-2008, 10:39 AM
Honestly, thank you for all of your hard work and your willingness to share. I don't know that we will always draw the same conclusions, but that hardly matters. (Getting closer to "the truth" is what matters in my mind, not who's right or wrong today or tomorrow.) The fact that you are publicly sharing pertinent information in a highly transparent fashion and from a hard earned position that demands to be taken seriously is what matters most IMO. That you do so in a down to earth, accessible and un-pretentious manner is icing on the cake!

I don't know how many folks will read, comprehend and appreciate what you are sharing, but at least it is out there and that in itself is ground breaking.

As my 5th graders would say, "You rock Mr. Goldsbury!" :)

Ditto, but don't forget a big Thanks for putting up with some of us in-the-dark stumblers who don't know enough to ask the right questions yet. :)

Mark

Peter Goldsbury
08-02-2008, 09:24 PM
And where is Column 9 today August the 2nd (August the 3rd if one resides in Japan) . . . hmmmm . . . . Jun . . . pleeeeease?

Good Morning Allen,

At the risk of some thread drift, I think I should explain.

Actually, Jun has a time line. He wants the columns by the 1st of the month and puts them up for editing around the 5th. They are put up for the general readership by around the 12th. However, Jun is also busy and so sometimes things run late.

Since I am away from Japan from tomorrow till Aug 22, I sent him Column 9 early and Jun obligingly sent the formatted column to me a few days ago. (However, I sent him the latest request for correction just a few minutes ago.)

I gather that another problem is formatting. Jun needs a PC to keep the same formatting as I use when I write the columns (in the Japanese version of MS Word). Since my own columns are much longer than those of Ross, Lynn and 'The Mirror', I suspect that formatting is quite a headache.

Back to the thread. The translated pages of Takemusu Aiki are the continuation of what I quoted in Column 7.

Best wishes,

Peter Goldsbury
08-02-2008, 09:33 PM
Ditto, but don't forget a big Thanks for putting up with some of us in-the-dark stumblers who don't know enough to ask the right questions yet. :)

Mark

Mark,

Clear your PM box :D .

PAG

Allen Beebe
08-03-2008, 12:27 AM
Good Morning to you Peter,

I hope you will soon be on vacation and enjoying yourself. Thank you for the explanation about the column. I'll try to be patient.

Also, thanks for the clue as to where to start reading in Takemusu Aiki. I'll consider it a sneak preview. I'm enjoying Thomas Nadolski's thesis BTW.

All the best,

Allen
(Your fellow "four legged" foreign friend . . . at least according to some mediums!)

MM
08-03-2008, 07:09 AM
Mark,

Clear your PM box :D .

PAG

I did. Thanks! Didn't realize it was full.

Mark

Demetrio Cereijo
08-03-2008, 06:19 PM
First one is from Saito's Traditional Aikido (it's in vol.5 iirc)

Checked. It's in Vol IV (pg.12). Sorry.

MM
08-04-2008, 11:41 AM
Thank you for the explanation about the column. I'll try to be patient.

Allen


You know, Allen, sometimes Jun gets really, really busy and can't get the columns published until near the end of the month. :freaky:

And if I remember right, I think there was a time when he skipped a whole month. :eek:

Not that I'm trying to drive you crazy with impatience or anything. :crazy:

evileyes :hypno: :D

Allen Beebe
08-04-2008, 04:51 PM
Mark,

You're starting to sound more and more like a friend all the time . . .@ hole! :grr:

;) :D

Allen
(I'm left with no other choice but to continue re-building my stinking deck and it's HOT today!)

salim
08-06-2008, 09:43 AM
Perhaps one the best who uses principles from the earlier practitioners of Aikido.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Y3WZuUtVo

MM
08-06-2008, 10:22 AM
Perhaps one the best who uses principles from the earlier practitioners of Aikido.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Y3WZuUtVo

If you're going with Yoshinkan, don't forget:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCDN72MWGtc&feature=related

Still, looks a little like Daito ryu, no?

Allen Beebe
08-06-2008, 12:39 PM
Dude!,

Your like a Ninja, two places at one time!

Who's Daito Ryu and when?

Who's Aikido and when?

Just being a jerk, Mark. I like to be myself!

Allen

barry.clemons
08-06-2008, 08:44 PM
I have two questions.

Why is there such a focus on what O'sensei studied pre-war, instead of what he desired to transmit post-war?

I'll give an example (meant to be used purely as context).

In the Bible, there is very little mentioned about the life of Jesus Christ as a child. There is very much written about his transmissions to his disciples up to and through the Crucifiction. That is acceptable with most Christians today; what matters is what was decided to be transmitted, not the man himself.

While I don't mean to compare O'sensei to a religious figure, I believe the analogy is sound.

Bruce Lee studied various martial arts, to include Boxing and Wing Chun. What was created was Jeet Kun Do. Practicioners of this art study Jeet Kun Do to be more proficient at Jeet Kun Do; I don't see Jeet Kun Do practitioners compartmetnalize their training, forcing them to retrace Bruce Lee's training in Wing Chun and Boxing to be better at Jeet Kun Do.

So I come back full circle to O'sensei. It sounds almost as if modern Aikido requires some sort of validation in its historical context in order to define what it is today, instead of accepting the transmisison that was left by the founder.

The next reply I will probably witness will be the fact that O'sensei performed his transmission, yet it was interpreted in at least 5 different ways; hence the major styles we have today.

My second question then, is, what was O'sensei's wish in terms of transmission? He did leave behind writings. Are we studying today what he intended to be studied? There is a difference between different views of the same picture (the sum is greater than the parts), and a student disagreeing with dojo politics, thus breaking away from convention and bastardizing the original concept.

barry.clemons
08-06-2008, 09:02 PM
Better yet, I have another question.

Instead of asking why we don't study more pre-war technique, the question I propose is this: What made it OK for students to break away from O'sensei, thus ceasing transmission?

If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Tomiki to include competition into the curriculum?

If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Shioda to eliminate Ki from the curriculum?

If O'sensei is the founder, why was it OK for his son not to honor Tohei as head instructor, and by proxy his curriculum?

I may be reducing things to their basics, but my position is that what O'sensei transmitted is what we should study; as is. I don't see a pre-war or post-war. I only see what was being taught up until the day he died.

Gernot Hassenpflug
08-06-2008, 10:29 PM
Better yet, I have another question.

Instead of asking why we don't study more pre-war technique, the question I propose is this: What made it OK for students to break away from O'sensei, thus ceasing transmission?

If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Tomiki to include competition into the curriculum?

If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Shioda to eliminate Ki from the curriculum?

If O'sensei is the founder, why was it OK for his son not to honor Tohei as head instructor, and by proxy his curriculum?

I may be reducing things to their basics, but my position is that what O'sensei transmitted is what we should study; as is. I don't see a pre-war or post-war. I only see what was being taught up until the day he died.

You know, this is a fascinating set of questions, and I really hope someone like Professor Peter Goldsbury will write something about this in his column, or directly in this thread. In fact, anyone who has insight into this (Robert John?) could lend some clarity here: I think the ideas about teaching, having a "school", and tradition are so radically different at their core between Japanese (Chinese, East Asian in general?) and Western cultures that it does not really make sense to phrase the questions the way you did. The answer would be trivial and meaningless in terms of explanation :-)

My take on it is that there is no concept of an "absolute" in East Asian culture, so there is no premise of a core set of skills that must be passed on to someone. Very much related, there is no concept of "sharing" without "social competition", which leads to the need by each person to "steal" what s/he can from the circumstances that present themselves. If one takes the above to one possible logical conclusion; namely, that people teach, demonstrate, or show something to others in order to live, rather than in order to build something universally approachable, then the existance of omote and ura, the social niceties and gokui, and emphasis on personal "shugyo" rather than group "sharing" of knowledge, become clear (in this interpretation of reality). It also makes sense of the extreme difficulty and wariness in building trust, and reticence, that one sees in East Asian societies, and how groups of like-minded individuals tend to be small rather than encompassing.

Against this background, with such incentives and constraints, splitting off, existence of differences, patchy knowledge and skills, searching for and application of niche knowledge, is natural and economically sound.

For someone (and there are more and more of such people) to break out of this mould is astounding!!!

Regards, Gernot

barry.clemons
08-06-2008, 11:13 PM
You know, this is a fascinating set of questions, and I really hope someone like Professor Peter Goldsbury will write something about this in his column, or directly in this thread. In fact, anyone who has insight into this (Robert John?) could lend some clarity here: I think the ideas about teaching, having a "school", and tradition are so radically different at their core between Japanese (Chinese, East Asian in general?) and Western cultures that it does not really make sense to phrase the questions the way you did. The answer would be trivial and meaningless in terms of explanation :-)

My take on it is that there is no concept of an "absolute" in East Asian culture, so there is no premise of a core set of skills that must be passed on to someone. Very much related, there is no concept of "sharing" without "social competition", which leads to the need by each person to "steal" what s/he can from the circumstances that present themselves. If one takes the above to one possible logical conclusion; namely, that people teach, demonstrate, or show something to others in order to live, rather than in order to build something universally approachable, then the existance of omote and ura, the social niceties and gokui, and emphasis on personal "shugyo" rather than group "sharing" of knowledge, become clear (in this interpretation of reality). It also makes sense of the extreme difficulty and wariness in building trust, and reticence, that one sees in East Asian societies, and how groups of like-minded individuals tend to be small rather than encompassing.

Against this background, with such incentives and constraints, splitting off, existence of differences, patchy knowledge and skills, searching for and application of niche knowledge, is natural and economically sound.

For someone (and there are more and more of such people) to break out of this mould is astounding!!!

Regards, Gernot

Gernot,

I appreciate your reply and insight.

My position was not meant to compare Eastern with Western mentality. I understand the concept of 'stealing' technique, as well as sharing/social competition. I am witnessing something different in this conversation.

The original question is why pre-war technique is not included in modern Aikido. My position is that the founder chose NOT to include those techniques, either because they needed to be eliminated or because he refined them; that is meant to read he taught what he wanted to transmit up until the day he died.

I meant to further elaborate that stream with identifiying the different flavors of Aikido as we know them today. My position on this subject is such; Shioda and Tomiki CHOSE to break away from O'sensei at a point in time when it was necessary for them to do so. They didn't just stick around and 'steal' techniques in order to increase their bag of tricks. When they left, they named their system Aikido and they honored the founder. My point is that there was a conscious decision to end transmission between student and teacher; so how then can that system be deemed complete? Thus begets the question of whether or not the teachings of an incompletely transmitted system is what the founder originally intended as Aikido, since he is indeed considered the founder.

Don_Modesto
08-06-2008, 11:52 PM
If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Tomiki to include competition into the curriculum?Necessity. To secure a place to train (and presumably funds), Tomiki needed to follow Waseda's guidelines for sports (sic) clubs.

Evidently, Osensei never had a gripe with Tomiki, although Kisshomaru asked him to stop calling what he did aikido.

If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Shioda to eliminate Ki from the curriculum?KI being what it is, it would be impossible to eliminate it. More precisely, he may have the way it is approached/eliminated TALK about it.

If O'sensei is the founder, why was it OK for his son not to honor Tohei as head instructor, and by proxy his curriculum?It's good to be the king.

I may be reducing things to their basics, but my position is that what O'sensei transmitted is what we should study; as is. Seems kind of overbearing to me. "Should"?! Where does that come from? I'd rather let folks study what they want.

Josh Reyer
08-07-2008, 12:36 AM
I may be reducing things to their basics, but my position is that what O'sensei transmitted is what we should study; as is. I don't see a pre-war or post-war. I only see what was being taught up until the day he died.

But really, this very idea is what drives interest in pre-war vs. post-war. Because there's a fairly clear record of what he was teaching pre-war, but not at all a clear record of what he was teaching post-war. In fact, post-war, he did not seem to be doing a lot of "teaching", instead just traveling around Japan, giving some demonstrations, and dispensing words of wisdom. The post-war aikido record is very much mixed up with the contributions of Tohei and Kisshomaru, and there's a good case to be made that what the vast majority of Aikikai dojos practice is not aikido as Ueshiba transmitted, but rather aikido as Kisshomaru/Tohei transmitted. Hence, the interest in pre-war aikido and Iwama.

Flintstone
08-07-2008, 06:26 AM
The post-war aikido record is very much mixed up with the contributions of Tohei and Kisshomaru, and there's a good case to be made that what the vast majority of Aikikai dojos practice is not aikido as Ueshiba transmitted, but rather aikido as Kisshomaru/Tohei transmitted. Hence, the interest in pre-war aikido and Iwama.
That's right to the spot IMHO ;).

Orio
08-07-2008, 07:17 AM
I read somewhere, I guess it was in an interview from Saito sensei, that when he started training the Founder used to say that what he was doing before the war was wrong, and they had to correct it.

I wonder what he actually meant by saying that.
What do you think?

Anyway, I think that he wanted to take his training and the art to something else, not because it was really wrong, but because he had a different goal.
But IMO that does not mean we should forget what he did before the war. I think we can only understand the Founder, his ideas and his art if we look at his whole life and, of course, if we practice!

Demetrio Cereijo
08-07-2008, 07:41 AM
I read somewhere, I guess it was in an interview from Saito sensei, that when he started training the Founder used to say that what he was doing before the war was wrong, and they had to correct it.

I wonder what he actually meant by saying that.
What do you think?

Maybe he was not talking about waza.

OTOH, things like O Sensei shouting at Hombu students: "What you people are doing is not aikido." as related by Kenji Shimizu in this interview (http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=140), and some other similar stories, are food for thought.

Flintstone
08-07-2008, 07:51 AM
I read somewhere, I guess it was in an interview from Saito sensei, that when he started training the Founder used to say that what he was doing before the war was wrong, and they had to correct it.

I wonder what he actually meant by saying that.
What do you think?
Not that I'm an expert in any sense, but I guess he was talking more about intention/philosophy/morals than about waza.

MM
08-07-2008, 08:23 AM
Better yet, I have another question.

Instead of asking why we don't study more pre-war technique, the question I propose is this: What made it OK for students to break away from O'sensei, thus ceasing transmission?

If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Tomiki to include competition into the curriculum?

If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Shioda to eliminate Ki from the curriculum?

If O'sensei is the founder, why was it OK for his son not to honor Tohei as head instructor, and by proxy his curriculum?

I may be reducing things to their basics, but my position is that what O'sensei transmitted is what we should study; as is. I don't see a pre-war or post-war. I only see what was being taught up until the day he died.

Let me ask your questions back to you, framed in a different way.

Ueshiba Morihei studied Daito ryu under Takeda Sokaku. Ueshiba's main and primary martial art was Daito ryu. So, to ask your questions,

What made it OK for Ueshiba to break away from O sensei Takeda, thus ceasing transmission?

If Takeda is the founder, why is it OK for Ueshiba to reduce the curriculum?

If Takeda is the founder, why is it OK for Ueshiba to add spiritual Ki to the curriculum?

If Takeda is the founder, why was it OK for one of his chosen successors (that would be Ueshiba) to not to honor Takeda but instead break off on his (Ueshiba's) own?

MM
08-07-2008, 08:36 AM
The original question is why pre-war technique is not included in modern Aikido. My position is that the founder chose NOT to include those techniques, either because they needed to be eliminated or because he refined them; that is meant to read he taught what he wanted to transmit up until the day he died.


It is interesting to note that what Saito learned *after* the war was nearly the same as what was being taught *before* the war in 1938. So, the position of having different techniques prewar and postwar doesn't really hold up too well. And that's a reason for studying what Ueshiba was doing prewar, during the war, and postwar. It's also a reason to study what his son, Kisshomaru, was doing post war.

Just a speculation ... but what would you do if you found out that

1) your aikido wasn't Ueshiba Morihei's aikido at all but instead was a variation built upon Kisshomaru's vision and

2) that the "whole" art of Ueshiba had not been passed down to you, but rather a gutted version built for worldwide dissemination.

As I said, it's merely speculation and wonderings, so ignore if you choose. :)


I meant to further elaborate that stream with identifiying the different flavors of Aikido as we know them today. My position on this subject is such; Shioda and Tomiki CHOSE to break away from O'sensei at a point in time when it was necessary for them to do so. They didn't just stick around and 'steal' techniques in order to increase their bag of tricks. When they left, they named their system Aikido and they honored the founder. My point is that there was a conscious decision to end transmission between student and teacher; so how then can that system be deemed complete? Thus begets the question of whether or not the teachings of an incompletely transmitted system is what the founder originally intended as Aikido, since he is indeed considered the founder.

According to your paragraph, "O'sensei" would definitely not be the founder. In fact, according to your paragraph above, you clearly put "O'sensei" into the exact same category that you have Shioda and Tomiki.

You see, Ueshiba learned Daito ryu from Takeda. And Ueshiba, did that exact same thing that you say of Shioda and Tomiki. Ueshiba broke away from O sensei (that would be Takeda), the founder of Daito ryu.

So, I ask your very same question of you ... "Thus begets the question of whether or not the teachings of an incompletely transmitted system is what the founder" (here I will rephrase the rest) Takeda originally intended as Daito ryu, since he is indeed considered the founder.

salim
08-07-2008, 08:50 AM
Maybe he was not talking about waza.

OTOH, things like O Sensei shouting at Hombu students: "What you people are doing is not aikido." as related by Kenji Shimizu in this interview (http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=140), and some other similar stories, are food for thought.

Very interesting interview with Kenji Shimizu. It's very evident based on the interview, O-Sensei did not teach much at the Aikikai Hombu Dojo, if any. More philosophical lectures were given by him than teaching martial application towards the latter days of his life. To me it's more conformation, along with other documented research, modern Aikido today (Tohei and Kisshomaru Aikido) is not Aikido from O-Sensei. It appears that only a few select individuals have preserved the martial application of O-Sensei. O-sensei's Aikdio needs a serious resurrection from Aikikai as an organization.

Flintstone
08-07-2008, 09:50 AM
O-sensei's Aikdio needs a serious resurrection from Aikikai as an organization.
May I ask here who created the Aikikai and what for?

barry.clemons
08-07-2008, 02:43 PM
Let me ask your questions back to you, framed in a different way.

Ueshiba Morihei studied Daito ryu under Takeda Sokaku. Ueshiba's main and primary martial art was Daito ryu. So, to ask your questions,

What made it OK for Ueshiba to break away from O sensei Takeda, thus ceasing transmission?

If Takeda is the founder, why is it OK for Ueshiba to reduce the curriculum?

If Takeda is the founder, why is it OK for Ueshiba to add spiritual Ki to the curriculum?

If Takeda is the founder, why was it OK for one of his chosen successors (that would be Ueshiba) to not to honor Takeda but instead break off on his (Ueshiba's) own?

Checkmate.

Was Takeda the founder? I thought he was merely the next successor.

barry.clemons
08-07-2008, 02:56 PM
It is interesting to note that what Saito learned *after* the war was nearly the same as what was being taught *before* the war in 1938. So, the position of having different techniques prewar and postwar doesn't really hold up too well. And that's a reason for studying what Ueshiba was doing prewar, during the war, and postwar. It's also a reason to study what his son, Kisshomaru, was doing post war.

Just a speculation ... but what would you do if you found out that

1) your aikido wasn't Ueshiba Morihei's aikido at all but instead was a variation built upon Kisshomaru's vision and

2) that the "whole" art of Ueshiba had not been passed down to you, but rather a gutted version built for worldwide dissemination.

As I said, it's merely speculation and wonderings, so ignore if you choose. :)

Oh no sir, I won't ignore! In fact, this question is very introspective and took me a few to think about. To answer your question, I would probably want to know what exactly was gutted and for what reason. But does that mean that Aikikai is Kisshomaru's vision? Did he merely organize training to make it more efficient, or did butcher the vision that was Morihei's? Is Shioda's the vision of Morihei, or his own? And what about Tomiki? I think that's the difference I see between Takeda and Ueshiba; Takeda was content with his art being Daito Ryu. Ueshiba, more of a spiritual transformation and less of a falling out between student and teacher, created his art being Aikido.

Demetrio Cereijo
08-07-2008, 05:42 PM
Ueshiba, more of a spiritual transformation and less of a falling out between student and teacher, created his art being Aikido.

Or it was simply the old su-ha-ri.

Anyway, one thing I've noticed is the great similarities in how waza is done (and the lack of "spirituality") in the styles developed by pre-war students* regardeless affiliation or separation from Aikikai, compared with the different approaches both technical and spiritual you can see in post-war Hombu lines.

*This considering the strong pre-war relationship of O Sensei with Omoto Kyo starting in 1920.

MM
08-08-2008, 07:19 AM
Checkmate.

Was Takeda the founder? I thought he was merely the next successor.

I don't know. :)

But, let's take a look at both. If he was the founder, the questions are still valid. If he was merely the next successor, well, the questions are still valid. Ueshiba still broke away from him at one point. :)

But, let me go back to your original post:

I have two questions.

Why is there such a focus on what O'sensei studied pre-war, instead of what he desired to transmit post-war?

My second question then, is, what was O'sensei's wish in terms of transmission?


My questions weren't designed to elicit answers from you, but rather to get you thinking about your original two questions. Why such a focus and What was Ueshiba's wish?

To start answering those questions, you should have information to form an intelligent base. Getting that information isn't always as easy as listening to your teacher. For example, there are time periods when no one knew that Ueshiba's main study was Daito ryu. Stan Pranin brought that to light. So, what other information has yet to be brought to light? There is quite a lot of information that hasn't been translated or shared. And some of the translated material has a spin to it. Sometimes not much, but sometimes a bit more.

MM
08-08-2008, 07:33 AM
Oh no sir, I won't ignore! In fact, this question is very introspective and took me a few to think about. To answer your question, I would probably want to know what exactly was gutted and for what reason. But does that mean that Aikikai is Kisshomaru's vision? Did he merely organize training to make it more efficient, or did butcher the vision that was Morihei's? Is Shioda's the vision of Morihei, or his own? And what about Tomiki? I think that's the difference I see between Takeda and Ueshiba; Takeda was content with his art being Daito Ryu. Ueshiba, more of a spiritual transformation and less of a falling out between student and teacher, created his art being Aikido.

First, don't take my posts as meaning I think Kisshomaru butchered aikido. I have a lot of respect for what Kisshomaru did. I don't agree with everything he did, but I certainly have a lot of respect for him and what he did.

Do I think the current version of U.S. Aikikai aikido is Kisshomaru's vision? Yeah, I think it is. Did he change a lot of his father's art? I don't know. Goldsbury sensei has some excellent articles here on AikiWeb and he will probably address that question in an upcoming one. In reference to what we're talking about here, read the published ones and look for the part about omote and ura and the spread of aikido worldwide.

As for the students ... research Daito ryu. You'll find that each of Takeda's students are doing their own thing and they don't really look alike. So, if we follow that trend, why should Ueshiba's students not look different?

If Takeda's students can do such different things and still do Daito ryu, why can't Ueshiba's students do different things and still do Aikido?

Ron Tisdale
08-08-2008, 10:48 AM
If O'sensei is the founder, why is it OK for Shioda to eliminate Ki from the curriculum?

What in the world makes you think the base of this question is true?

Read Shioda's books...he does in fact talk about ki...

Best,
Ron

salim
08-20-2008, 08:57 PM
What in the world makes you think the base of this question is true?

Read Shioda's books...he does in fact talk about ki...

Best,
Ron

I suggest reading the below article. "Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido."

http://www.aikido-iwama.ru/text1_en.html

Charles Hill
08-20-2008, 10:01 PM
I highly recommend the book, The Japanese Art of War by Thomas Cleary. It will help in learning/discovering the Japanese approach to the "truth." The reason I suggest this is that all the facts and quotes attributed to the various people above seem to be divorced from the context in which the individual spoke. I firmly believe that the original impetus for each comment lies in political or pedagogical intentions, not in discovering historical facts. I believe this to be true even with Mr. Pranin's ideas (whom I greatly respect).

Charles

Josh Reyer
08-22-2008, 09:39 AM
I suggest reading the below article. "Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido."

http://www.aikido-iwama.ru/text1_en.html

I've read the article, as I'm sure Ron has previously, and I still don't see anything in there about Shioda eliminating ki from the curriculum. To be sure, Yoshinkan aikido is quite different from Ki Society aikido, but the idea that Shioda eliminated ki from his curriculum doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination of his books, lectures, and instructional tapes. In fact, going from their published writings, Shioda mentions ki even more than Morihiro Saito.

And I say this as a former Iwama practitioner who's never stepped a foot into a Yoshinkan dojo.

salim
08-22-2008, 09:47 AM
I've read the article, as I'm sure Ron has previously, and I still don't see anything in there about Shioda eliminating ki from the curriculum. To be sure, Yoshinkan aikido is quite different from Ki Society aikido, but the idea that Shioda eliminated ki from his curriculum doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination of his books, lectures, and instructional tapes. In fact, going from their published writings, Shioda mentions ki even more than Morihiro Saito.

And I say this as a former Iwama practitioner who's never stepped a foot into a Yoshinkan dojo.

Oops, sorry I think I may have submitted the link a little out of contrast. I was trying to make a point more of who created Modern Aikido and it's methodology. Again forget the post.