PDA

View Full Version : History of nomenclature for Aikido techniques


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


ironicon
07-24-2009, 03:40 PM
Hi everybody!

I am looking for a little bit of historical information on Aikido..

The thing is, I am interested in the naming of techiques which is very structured and concise (if I understood correctly, I'm still a bit of a newbie in this aikido thing), e.g. ai hanmi ikkyo ura waza and follows the principle attack - techique - mode. In librarianship this would be called a facetted classification.

Does anyone of you know if this naming konvention existed from the start on? Or did Ueshiba use different names and someone sorted it all out at a later date?

Any information would be much appreciated!

Have a nice day and greetings from Cologne

Peter

odudog
07-24-2009, 03:54 PM
You are opening a big can of worms with this question!

Not everybody uses the same name for the same technique. For instance, Yoshinkan uses the word "mochi" but Aikikai uses the word "tori". Both words mean to grab, to grasp, etc... something. You need an encyclopedia to figure everything out.

Also, in the old days a lot of techniques were disguised by the naming. The name actually did not describe what was being done or on what part of the body to attack. You had to be part of the "family" to understand what was actually happening. For example, shihonage just means four direction throw but it in no way describes what is being done.

Lastly, not all the words in the technique is said. An instructor could just call out part of the technique yet the student knows exactly what version needs to be demonstrated. Again, you need to be part of the "family" to understand what is being asked of you.

David Maidment
07-24-2009, 05:19 PM
Our organisation call ai hanmi 'gyaku [hanmi] katate-dori', which to most I believe would be completely the wrong way around :) There aren't really any standards.

ironicon
07-24-2009, 05:24 PM
Not everybody uses the same name for the same technique.

There aren't really any standards.

Too bad! I guess that's the librarian in me who wants to see nice little organisations schemes everywhere..

Thanks for your answers!

dps
07-24-2009, 05:28 PM
Too bad! I guess that's the librarian in me who wants to see nice little organisations schemes everywhere..

Thanks for your answers!

Hmmm, Aikido classified by the Dewey Decimal System.
Sounds just the project for a librarian. :)

ironicon
07-24-2009, 05:32 PM
Hmmm, Aikido classified by the Dewey Decimal System.
Sounds just the project for a librarian. :)

Dewey is soo last year :)
My goal was to go in the direction of the Colon Classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_classification with the faces "attack", "technique", "mode"

-> "ai-hanmi" : "ikkyo" : "omote waza"

all the best,

peter

CitoMaramba
07-24-2009, 06:42 PM
Dewey is soo last year :)
My goal was to go in the direction of the Colon Classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_classification with the faces "attack", "technique", "mode"

-> "ai-hanmi" : "ikkyo" : "omote waza"

all the best,

peter

"ai-hanmi" is not an attack, it is a description of the stances of tori and uke relative to each other.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=8
AI HANMI 相半身
Same, or matched stance. Attacker and defender have the same foot forward. See GYAKU HANMI.
The complete description of the attack would be "ai hanmi katate-dori" (matched stance one hand grab); some dojos would use "ai hanmi kosa-dori" or simply "kosa-dori" (cross hand grab)... Yoshinkan
dojos would use "katate aya-mochi".
As for the mode, where Aikikai dojos would use "omote" and "ura", Yoshinkan dojos would simply use "ichi" (one) and "ni" (two).

Here is an example:
Aikikai:
Gyaku hanmi Katate-dori Shiho-Nage Ura
Yoshinkan:
Katate-mochi Shiho Nage (Ni)

Both describe essentially the same technique.

dps
07-24-2009, 06:52 PM
Dewey is soo last year :)


Well, so am I.:D

David

jimbaker
07-24-2009, 10:30 PM
Terry Dobson said that in all his time at Hombu he never heard O-Sensei call any technique by name.

Jim Baker

rob_liberti
07-24-2009, 11:27 PM
Colon notation would be difficult. It might be something like
"relative vertical" : "relative horizontal" : "attack" : "technique" : "mode"

Examples:
"tachi-tori / suwari-waza / hanmi handachi" :
"ai-hanmi / gyaku-hanmi / ushiro-waza" :
"shomen-uchi / yokomen-uchi / etc." :
"ikkyo" :
"omote waza"

As an aside, I never could much care about ai-hanmi verse gyaku-hanmi. Whenever someone corrects my initial stance prior to my symbolic attack, I generally just thank them and think "give me a break; what's the big difference here?!"

Rob

observer
07-25-2009, 02:25 AM
For example, shihonage just means four direction throw but it in no way describes what is being done.
Actually, it does make sense to read it as a 'full turn' throw. What means that you are facing four directions (North,East,South,West).

dalen7
07-25-2009, 03:47 AM
Here are a couple of differences for you:

- Hijikime Osae = Rokkyo

- Ryote Tori: Koshinage Kote Hineri = Ryote Tori: Koshinage Sankyo

Also it seems everyone uses the term Kaiten Nage, where as we use the distinction of Uchi Kaiten Nage [under the arm on the inside] and Soto Kaiten Nage [outside the arm]

Terms can be fun, especially when they start to sound the same... :)

Peace

dAlen

CitoMaramba
07-25-2009, 07:02 AM
And then there's the Shodokan (Tomiki) nomenclature which is also different :D

akiy
07-25-2009, 11:33 AM
Here is the "Cross-Style Aikido Technique Names Reference Chart" article in the AikiWeb AikiWiki:

http://www.aikiweb.com/wiki/Techniqueschart

Although not "historical," per se, the chart may give you directions in which to conduct research into the technique names.

From what I understand, the names were not introduced by the founder but were applied by folks such as Kisshomaru Ueshiba sensei and Koichi Tohei sensei. Can anyone clarify?

I agree that many of the names are not very descriptive but are post-scriptive at best and jargon on average. If you go up to a non-budo-practicing Japanese person and ask them to do "shihonage," "ikkyo/ikkajo," "kaitennage," or myriad other aikido techniques, they would most likely have no idea how -- just as asking someone to do the "four direction throw" in an English speaking country would most likely yield the same, puzzled results. Even the more descriptive names (in my mind) as "kote mawashi" (nikyo) wouldn't mean much to people who didn't already know what the term mean.

Just my thoughts.

-- Jun

dalen7
07-25-2009, 12:47 PM
Just for interest sake, here is a [complete] list of techniques learned 6th - 1st kyu in my organization. [minus attack names]

The main differences is that we have Uchi & Soto Kaiten Nage, along with Omote & Ura versions of them. [They are not one and the same.]

Also note that Gyaku Kote Gaeshi is not the same as Gyaku Hanmi Kote Gaeshi - [its not an attack - the difference is the hand used in the Kote Gaeshi technique... which is the one mirroring the attacker.]

Other than that we have some of the older name conventions, as pointed out... not sure about the 1st Kyu stuff which has an (*) asterik beside it.

Indeed the names can vary widely between organizations, and the list Jun gave does help... :)

Peace

dAlen

Nage Waza: Throwing Techniques

Shiho Nage
Irimi Nage
Uchi & Soto Kaiten Nage............
Kote Gaeshi..............................[Gyaku Kote Gaeshi]

Udekime Nage
Tenchi Nage
Kubi Nage
Koshi Nage...............................[Koshi Nage Kote Hineri/Sankyo]

Kokyu Nage
Kokyu Ho

Sumi Otoshi
*Ganseki Otoshi
*Ushiro Kiri Otoshi
*Aiki Otoshi

*Juji Garami

[U]Katame Waza: Pinning Techniques

Ikkyo
Nikkyo
Sankyo
Yankyo
Gokyo
Hijikime Osae/Rokkyo

crbateman
07-25-2009, 01:34 PM
IMHO you will never see a reunification of the naming conventions, any more than you will see reunification of the different ryus. Even if someone went to all the trouble of classifying and naming all the variations, there will be those who will not join the fold simply because they don't believe in conformity. You will most likely be taught some derivative of what your teacher was taught, which is likely a further derivative of what his/her teacher was taught, etc. etc. etc... Knowing the names is not nearly as important as knowing the techniques.