aikijutsu vs. aikido

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[genin]

I know the difference between the two is that one is an art, while the other is a sport. One is based purely on technique, and the other is rooted in philosophy. Both mirror each other in many ways, but their are distinct differences.

I use aikido techniques as part of my taijutsu training. It's clean and easy to learn, but I do recognize the limitations of these techniques in a realistic "street fight" situation. That is where aikijutsu comes into play. It is the practical application of these techniques in a real-life combat situation.

I had a friend who reached blackbelt in aikijutsu. His dojo was really hardcore and they trained full contact. He had multiple bones broken during his training over the years. He was attracted to aikijutsu because of the realism and practicality, but I think he eventually realized that the fight scenario he was training for, was never going to happen. And he was letting himself get beaten repeatedly for no real reason (and paying monthly to do so!)

I think this is a limitation with a lot of martial arts. You can train and spar in unrealistic dojo fights, or you can train for real and risk injury and pain. Either way, you may be training for a conflict which may never materialize. If there is a spiritual/lifestyle teaching to it, then it can serve more of a purpose beyond the violence. I don't know if my friend ever wanted to learn anything more than just a really good way to kick somebody's butt. Maybe that's the difference.

[Cliff Judge]

Hi Roger,

I have some questions and comments:

- What is this "aikijutsu" you speak of? Is this the one that is a sport? Most aikido practitioners do not regard aikido as a sport.

- Do you train a particular system of martial arts? What taijutsu do you practice?

- Repeated broken bones are a sign that bad training methods are taking place. Doesn't matter how "hard" or "lethal" or "streetworthy" a system claims to be. Who wants to be a badass street ninja with a permanent limp, who is blind in one eye? It sounds as though your friend saw the truth in that though - at some point you have to ask yourself "is being truly deadly worth paralysis?"

- Aikido is not exactly rooted in philosophy. It is rooted in an old, Japanese style of martial training. This type of training is not designed to supply the practitioner with winning technique. Rather, it is supposed to shape a person's behavior so that they respond to conflict with a certain type of character and strength. The techniques are tools to instill principles; the theory is that a well-trained practitioner will be able to freely apply the principles if attacked, and will not be restricted by technique.

- The founder of Aikido took the art in a more philosophical direction later in his life. There are styles of Aikido that this movement had no effect on, just as there are styles and teachers that feel the later-era philosophy is the core teaching itself. If you or your friend have the opportunity to check out a couple of different Aikido dojos there is a chance you might find something you like. It is possible you could find a dojo that has a level of intensity and hardness to their training that suits you, but can also help you study principles to the level where you can develop your own "aikijutsu" that can help you meet whatever real conflicts you face in your life, whether they are physical or emotional or what have you.

[genin]

Hi Roger,

I have some questions and comments:

- What is this "aikijutsu" you speak of? Is this the one that is a sport? Most aikido practitioners do not regard aikido as a sport.

- Do you train a particular system of martial arts? What taijutsu do you practice?



The aikijutsu my friend did was not a sport. It was strictly for realistic combat training. I've seen some aikido tournaments with guys putting locks and throws on each other for points. That is the "sport" aspect I am referring to. I realize that aikido isn't JUST a sport, though.

I train in ninjitsu, and I incorporate multiple martial arts into the taijutsu (unarmed combat) portion of that training, one of which is aikido.

When you encourage realism in training then you have to accept accidents and injuries. If you train safe, you are not training to simulate real combat situations. I can understand the reasoning there, but I don't think it is necessary for people in modern times to train on a weekly basis to thwart up to four attackers in a full contact situation. Great workout, and great training, but not necessary. That's why my friend got his blakbelt and then quit. He reached his goal but realized that there is not much left for him after that. There has to be some perceived value in it, otherwise it won't be worth your while. For me, there is a great deal of value in what I get out of martial arts, even aside from the ability to kick someone's butt.

[Basia Halliop]

I've seen some aikido tournaments with guys putting locks and throws on each other for points.

Tomiki, maybe? There are one or two styles of aikido that do have tournaments and competitions, but it's actually rather unusual. The majority of aikido styles and organizations have a very specific and strong 'anti-sport' philosophy, and never hold tournaments of any kind.

I don't know about aikijujustu (which is a pretty wide word that covers a lot of different things) but I was certainly under the impression that there were styles that had tournaments.

I would also question the dichotomy you've brought up of technique vs philosophy, or of violence vs philosophy. This does not square with various dojos I've encountered. You can have one dojo that is both very practical (or 'combat-oriented' if you prefer) and very explicitly 'philosophical', ones that are neither, ones that are emphasize one over the other...

A lot of injuries doesn't necessarily imply that what you're doing is realistic or practical, either -- it may sometimes be the case, but it's also very easy to injure someone _because_ they are not protecting themselves enough or are doing something 'unrealistic' (e.g. letting you put them in a vulnerable position while ignoring opportunities to stop you or escape).

I think many of the comparisons you're making seem to be very specific to one or two dojos or styles you're familiar with, rather than things that describe aikido or aikijujutsu as a whole.

[grondahl]

Legitimate styles of aikijutsu with competitions?

[genin]

My friend mainly drew the comparison between aikijutsu and other sport based martial arts like Tae Kwon Do, karate, judo, and others. It wasn't just a comparison to Aikido.

I admit that I too struggled to find the practicality of someone holding their arm out in front of you, letting you grab them, and then intentionally allowing themselves to be flipped into a vulnerable position. I didn't "get it" until I started doing it myself. I now realize these techniques can be incorporated into real combat moves once they have been practiced and perfected in the traditional manner.

I also personally feel that a strictly aikijutsu based defense system has flaws. There is not as much emphasis placed on striking. That's why I cross train in Krav Maga too. But the Krav Maga school is completely devoid of all easter philosophy. It's pure self-defense, nothing spiritual or metaphysical about it. From what I'm hearing, Aikido is a mix between the two, in it's traditional form.

[Cliff Judge]

The aikijutsu my friend did was not a sport. It was strictly for realistic combat training. I've seen some aikido tournaments with guys putting locks and throws on each other for points. That is the "sport" aspect I am referring to. I realize that aikido isn't JUST a sport, though.


FYI that's one particular style of Aikido, which is often referred to as "Tomiki" Aikido after the guy who founded it. Most styles of Aikido emphatically do not engage in competitive sparring.


I train in ninjitsu, and I incorporate multiple martial arts into the taijutsu (unarmed combat) portion of that training, one of which is aikido.


Bujinkan?


When you encourage realism in training then you have to accept accidents and injuries. If you train safe, you are not training to simulate real combat situations. I can understand the reasoning there, but I don't think it is necessary for people in modern times to train on a weekly basis to thwart up to four attackers in a full contact situation. Great workout, and great training, but not necessary. That's why my friend got his blakbelt and then quit. He reached his goal but realized that there is not much left for him after that. There has to be some perceived value in it, otherwise it won't be worth your while. For me, there is a great deal of value in what I get out of martial arts, even aside from the ability to kick someone's butt.

The promise of martial arts like Aikido and the other arts that Aikido people get mixed up in is that, by using a training methodology that does NOT simulate real combat situations, over a longer period of time you acquire skills which are not only applicable to a wider range of situations than a "real combat situation," they are actually superior in the real situations.

That's the promise anyway. If I ever get mugged or attacked by pirates I will let you know what happened. In the meantime, the training is much more compelling over the long haul as I've got an infinite number of things to work on, I am continually improving, though very very gradually, and I've not had any broken bones or serious injuries, just my knees and wrists seem to be wearing out.

[Janet Rosen]

"Real combat"? Join the armed forces. As far as I know that is the only way to train for it.

[genin]

"Real combat"? Join the armed forces. As far as I know that is the only way to train for it.

Close. You could do Krav Maga, which I am also studying, and that is based on fighting techniques used in the military.

[Krystal Locke]

"Real combat"? Join the armed forces. As far as I know that is the only way to train for it.

Or, just get in bar fights. More work for me, thanks,

[Amir Krause]

Close. You could do Krav Maga, which I am also studying, and that is based on fighting techniques used in the military.

Noyt really

The main technique used for a militaries to fight, is communications and coordination of large forces (and fire assets).

Hand to hand is not even a secondary issue in every Army, including the Israeli one.

While special units and most soldiers here do learn H2H fighting under the title "Krav Maga" , no one ever said they are really good at it (they have other skills which are much more important - comm, shooting, demolition, observation & inteligence).

Get out of Holliwood, armies are huge complex organizations, with many thousands of machines. H2H is the least of worries.

Amir

[Richard Stevens]

*sigh*

[genin]

To clarify, when I say "combat" I mean hand to hand fighting. I don't mean military combat in the traditional sense.

[Kevin Leavitt]

I'm in the military, I am a combaitives instructor for the Army, Aikido black belt, and BJJ brown belt, have taught CQB......

Disagree that you must "accept" injuries as a part of "realistic training. I have been injured yes, and injuries do happen, however they can also be mitigated and risk assessments and safety is paramount in everything we do in training.

In a dojo and in hand to hand training the injuries you discuss above should be the exception and not the norm. While bumps and bruises do occur, I have never had a student seriously injured or broken a bone in training. It is a mark of a poor school and of poor instruction if students get carted out of the dojo on a regular basis with injuries...not a badg of honor or a sign of a good school and realistic combat training.

[graham christian]

To clarify, when I say "combat" I mean hand to hand fighting. I don't mean military combat in the traditional sense.

Are there two of you? I'm confused. One Aikido, Krav magna, ninjutsu exponent who learns so much from martial arts and another who gets picked on by girls. mmmmm?

[genin]

Are there two of you? I'm confused. One Aikido, Krav magna, ninjutsu exponent who learns so much from martial arts and another who gets picked on by girls. mmmmm?

I wouldn't quite say I get picked on by girls, lol.

My friend's dojo taught realism in fighting, so they'd throw real punches and if you didn't duck, you got hit. It's a good way to teach you awareness and give you confidence in a real street fight. Yes, I always felt it was a bit excessive, but who am I to judge that Sensei and his dojo.

[Tim Ruijs]

To my knowledge this is exactly why Ueshiba developed Aikido. The original form, aikijitsu/aikijutsu, was about combat, hard and exterior form. The need for this slowly faded with time and to prevent the art from getting lost Ueshiba searched a way to preserve the 'content' by a different more interior way of practise. Which finally resulted in Aikido.
When you want to learn to fight and do Aikido, something is wrong. When you practise aikijitsu and do not like getting hit/hurt, something is wrong. When you mix both equally...when you study the older to understand newer...

[Cliff Judge]

To my knowledge this is exactly why Ueshiba developed Aikido. The original form, aikijitsu/aikijutsu, was about combat, hard and exterior form. The need for this slowly faded with time and to prevent the art from getting lost Ueshiba searched a way to preserve the 'content' by a different more interior way of practise. Which finally resulted in Aikido..

Are you piss-taking the ninja guy here? :confused:

[genin]

Are you piss-taking the ninja guy here? :confused:

What? Wanna try that again?

[Cliff Judge]

What? Wanna try that again?

That stuff Tim posted is surprisingly wrong.

[phitruong]

My friend's dojo taught realism in fighting, so they'd throw real punches and if you didn't duck, you got hit. It's a good way to teach you awareness and give you confidence in a real street fight. Yes, I always felt it was a bit excessive, but who am I to judge that Sensei and his dojo.

and these folks have lots of experience in real street fight? just curious about people, that's all. whenever folks mentioned realism, street fight, and martial arts, all in the same sentence or two, my bullshit alarm went off. that's just me, other folks might not react.

[genin]

and these folks have lots of experience in real street fight? just curious about people, that's all. whenever folks mentioned realism, street fight, and martial arts, all in the same sentence or two, my bullshit alarm went off. that's just me, other folks might not react.

Their Sensei was a cop for years and one of their instructors was a bouncer for a long time. They did have some street cred when it came to real life violent situations. Doesn't mean these guys were seasoned UFC fighters or anything, but at least they have probably seen some real action before.

[JO]

Their Sensei was a cop for years and one of their instructors was a bouncer for a long time. They did have some street cred when it came to real life violent situations. Doesn't mean these guys were seasoned UFC fighters or anything, but at least they have probably seen some real action before.

Funny, I would think a cop or an experienced bouncer would have a much better understanding of real violence than a UFC pro.What they don't have is the same physical conditioning (professional athletes are generally in a league of their own over even very fit amateurs).

The only gut I have trained and talked with that really combined the knowledge of real violence with serious hand to hand training was a guy that trained with us briefly who is a combat veteran and an instructor of hand to hand fighting in the Canadian military. He was very respectful of our different focus in training and he caught on faster than any other complete beginner in aikido that I have known (including karate, taekwondo and judo guys).

[Walter Martindale]

Their Sensei was a cop for years and one of their instructors was a bouncer for a long time. They did have some street cred when it came to real life violent situations. Doesn't mean these guys were seasoned UFC fighters or anything, but at least they have probably seen some real action before.

Seasoned UFC fighters are certainly fit and very tough with a good number of competencies, but they also have a referee and a rule set. Kick someone in the gonads in a UFC competition - he's given time to recover, and you get penalised. Get kicked there in 'the street' and if you curl up in a little ball, nobody stops you from getting further thrashed, having your pockets emptied, your car stolen, and your house burglarized while you're in the ambulance.

A former national team judoka was working as a bouncer (I won't name him or the city) - tossed a rowdy out of a bar and (who knows why) put on a choke hold to keep the guy down. The rowdy's friend pushed a knife in the back and out the front of the ex judoka. He lived, but only just.

"combat" can end up with someone dead. There's not a heck of a lot of things that will get me into "combat." Yes, the dojo is a (relatively) safe place, and that's where I'd rather keep whatever clumsy skills I have.
Cheers,
W

[genin]

It's a choice. Some want to train more realistically, and others prefer other techniques. Each has it's own merits. I think that those with more knowledge and experience realize that combat is actually much more simplistic than most realize. I knew the people on this site knew there stuff when I read a guy saying how he'd prefer to use a heavy sharp object in a fight, rather than apply some slick wrist lock move.

[Tim Ruijs]

That stuff Tim posted is surprisingly wrong.

Really? You think? Why do you think he developed Aikido, his ultimate Budo? Or do you actually believe Aikido is about learning how to fight? I wonder...

Ueshiba saw no future in martial ways that destroy the opponent. He understood this was not nature's way at all. Fights in nature occur because of territory(= food), the right to reproduce.

[Tim Ruijs]

What? Wanna try that again?
Ha! did not see that one coming, now did you? :D

[Jono]

I found this thread rather interesting.

When I asked my Sensei years ago what the difference is between Aikido and Aikijutsu i simply got the reply
Aikido gives Uke a way out

years later I began to understand what he meant.

I mix both Aikido and Aikijutsu in the dojo reflecting my thoughts about Aikido in general and as a practical martial art

[Tim Ruijs]

I found this thread rather interesting.

When I asked my Sensei years ago what the difference is between Aikido and Aikijutsu i simply got the reply
Aikido gives Uke a way out

I like his reply very much! must remember this ;)

[sakumeikan]

Are there two of you? I'm confused. One Aikido, Krav magna, ninjutsu exponent who learns so much from martial arts and another who gets picked on by girls. mmmmm?
Dear Graham .
A case of Dr Flatley and Mr Flatley [apologies to Robert Lois Stevenson]. Which guy is the one who digs the nails in?
Cheers, Joe.

[Cliff Judge]

Ueshiba saw no future in martial ways that destroy the opponent. He understood this was not nature's way at all. Fights in nature occur because of territory(= food), the right to reproduce.

Tim,

No offense, but, I think one of three things is going on here. Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are trolling the OP, or you are actually spot-on but are choosing phrases and terms that confuse me into thinking one of the first two is the case.


The original form, aikijitsu/aikijutsu, was about combat, hard and exterior form.

Now, aikijitsu/aikijutsu is not actually a thing. It is probably a valid term in many contexts, but there is no martial tradition called "Aikijutsu," certainly not one that antecedes Aikido.

Aikido is descended from Daito ryu Aikijujutsu. If that's what you mean, then aside from a misspelling you are correct, however the OP is not talking about this. He's talking about a type of technique that he and/or his pugnacious friend encountered in their bujinkan training.

If you were talking about Daito ryu, then the term hard and exterior form is kind of appalling. I mean its the art where Ueshiba learned aiki. I'd also take issue with the idea that DR was about combat but that's a different debate.

On the other hand, if you applied the phrase The original form, aikijitsu/aikijutsu, was about combat, hard and exterior form to the training that the OP was referring to, I agree with your characterization but that was not the "original form" of Aikido.

So basically the quote above just sounds like, utterly bonkers to me, and is demonstrably false.

The rest of your post is more you sharing your opinions, which I disagree with but thank you for sharing. :)

The need for this slowly faded with time and to prevent the art from getting lost Ueshiba searched a way to preserve the 'content' by a different more interior way of practise. Which finally resulted in Aikido.

There was not really a change in the "need" for anything in the period of time when Ueshiba stopped teaching Takeda's art and started teaching his own. I mean we are talking about the early 20th century here. The samurai class were abolished, Japan was nationalizing and militarizing and gearing up to conquer the world.

There was a change in "the need for this [type of martial art]" after Japan lost WWII and had to face the shame and the hardship. Before WWII martial arts were an important tool for mass indoctrination, and stuff like Daito Ryu and Ueshiba's Aikibudo may have had a role as something for leadership types to do to gain some kind of cache as a cultured warrior type.

After the war, there was an impetus to shift the martial arts so that the spirit they aimed to inculcate was less of an obedient, unquestioning, militaristic spirit and more of a brave, mannered, responsible spirit.

On to other matters. I have a problem with your assertion that Ueshiba was motivated to prevent anything from "getting lost." Seems to me we wouldn't have the constant debates about whether mainstream Aikido is really Ueshiba's Aikido etc. If he cared about passing his art on, he would have worked at being a better teacher. Koryu have passed very high-level teachings down through hundreds of years, why was it so difficult to for Ueshiba to pass his art on to the very next generation?

I think the narrative is basically that Takeda designed Daito ryu to have a very large catalogue of techniques so that he could impress crowds and attract a lot of students interested in paying per technique. Like other traditional jujutsu schools, Daito ryu had a high-level internal principle, in this case called aiki, that many students never really felt or were taught.

Ueshiba intended for Aikido to be an immersion in aiki. So he ditched most of the abundant syllabus of Daito ryu and stuck to using a small subset of the techniques.

You know, Tim, what is interesting is that there is a lot of agreement between your ideas and mine. I agree that Ueshiba's goal was to extract the internal teachings from the predecessor art and ditch the hard / external techniques.

It is just that:

a) I don't think he actually cared that much about the internal stuff "being lost";

b) the historical paradigm shift that changed the "need" for whatever type of martial arts was after Aikido was created;

c) the types of training methods the OP is referring to have nothing to do with any of this.

[Patrick Hutchinson]

Cliff, I think you mean "cachet." i.e. prestige
Contrariwise I heard some CIA guy on the radio talking about finding a "cachet" of weapons.
Cache: hidden stash.
Sorry to interrupt...

[Cliff Judge]

Cliff, I think you mean "cachet." i.e. prestige
Contrariwise I heard some CIA guy on the radio talking about finding a "cachet" of weapons.
Cache: hidden stash.
Sorry to interrupt...

Thanks for the correction! :cool:

[Tim Ruijs]

Cliff

You address a lot of points.
First of all aikijujutsu is correct off course. My bad.

I might be mistaken but I thought Jutsu originates from older Samurai fighting arts (i.e. to kill). Jutsu refers to complete fighting system (armed, unarmed, different small weapons).
Jitsu is the practise of one element of the jutsu for study rather than to kill. So to me aikijujutsu means the principles of aiki applied to a complete fighting system.

Jutsu: art for life and death scenario: war/combat (exterior)
Jitsu: study of the art, change of self (interior)

[Cliff Judge]

Cliff

You address a lot of points.
First of all aikijujutsu is correct off course. My bad.

I might be mistaken but I thought Jutsu originates from older Samurai fighting arts (i.e. to kill). Jutsu refers to complete fighting system (armed, unarmed, different small weapons).
Jitsu is the practise of one element of the jutsu for study rather than to kill. So to me aikijujutsu means the principles of aiki applied to a complete fighting system.

Jutsu: art for life and death scenario: war/combat (exterior)
Jitsu: study of the art, change of self (interior)

First of all, jutsu and jitsu are two ways of transliterating the same kanji, 術. Jutsu is the way you spell it in romanji using the Hepburn system of transliteratiion. Jitsu is a common misspelling of this transliteration. When you see people use the jitsu spelling its a good bet they have never studied Japanese.

Jutsu is generally translated to "art" or "technique." You are correct that we often refer to the older systems as -jutsu where the modern systems are -do ("way of"). And it is not too off the mark to note that some of the older martial systems preserve several different -jutsu.

You are actually free to coin your own terms such as aikijutsu. Japanese people use these terms in a more general fashion than non-japanese martial artists do - we want words ending in -do and -jutsu to be the names of distinct martial systems but they are actually looser descriptors than that.

But jutsu doesn't denote more lethality or combat applicability, it just kinda means "how you do it." Every -do contains methods of training and practicing -jutsu.

So it is not really accurate to say that Aikido comes from aikijutsu - in fact, Aikido training is almost entirely what could fairly be called aikijutsu training. Though it is accurate to say that Aikido shed a lot of aikijutsu as it descended from its ancestor art.

[Tim Ruijs]

Hi Cliff

My knowledge on this subject is only that what I have read. No, I do not study Japanese and have no intention to. But, I would like to understand correctly since I run my own dojo. Now I know you will ask me where I have read this, but I could not tell you for sure, unfortunately. From other threads I have also understood that some important things may have been lost in translation and perhaps even worse wrongly interpreted...
small search on google (not to say that this is some final proof, but I am not alone with this distinction)
http://www.adrr.com/bengoshi/jitsu.htm

The two words jitsu and jutsu are just that: two different words. They sound very similar in Japanese, but they have quite different meanings.

jitsu
(n) truth; reality; sincerity; fidelity; kindness; faith; substance; essence;

jutsu
(n,n-suf) art; means; technique

What is your take on this and what is your source (so I can catch up my reading)?

I have always believed jutsu was complete (combat) system and jitsu takes one element from jutsu and studies that and only that...
When that is wrong, it is wrong and I have learned something :)

[Cliff Judge]

Hi Cliff

My knowledge on this subject is only that what I have read. No, I do not study Japanese and have no intention to. But, I would like to understand correctly since I run my own dojo. Now I know you will ask me where I have read this, but I could not tell you for sure, unfortunately. From other threads I have also understood that some important things may have been lost in translation and perhaps even worse wrongly interpreted...
small search on google (not to say that this is some final proof, but I am not alone with this distinction)
http://www.adrr.com/bengoshi/jitsu.htm

The two words jitsu and jutsu are just that: two different words. They sound very similar in Japanese, but they have quite different meanings.

jitsu
(n) truth; reality; sincerity; fidelity; kindness; faith; substance; essence;

jutsu
(n,n-suf) art; means; technique

What is your take on this and what is your source (so I can catch up my reading)?

I have always believed jutsu was complete (combat) system and jitsu takes one element from jutsu and studies that and only that...
When that is wrong, it is wrong and I have learned something :)

This word jitsu you bring up, here, is not used to describe or classify martial arts that I am familiar with. I am sure its a word, but I don't think you would find it used in the same way as jutsu. The majority of times you see jitsu, it is a misspelling of jutsu.

jutsu doesn't have a connotation of completeness - jutsus are actually focus areas in most of the classical systems - a ryu may have maintained not only kenjutsu but also sojutsu, naginatajutsu, etc.

[Eric Winters]

Cliff

You address a lot of points.
First of all aikijujutsu is correct off course. My bad.

I might be mistaken but I thought Jutsu originates from older Samurai fighting arts (i.e. to kill). ]Jutsu refers to complete fighting system (armed, unarmed, different small weapons).[/B]
Jitsu is the practise of one element of the jutsu for study rather than to kill. So to me aikijujutsu means the principles of aiki applied to a complete fighting system.

Jutsu: art for life and death scenario: war/combat (exterior)
Jitsu: study of the art, change of self (interior)

Just thought I would let you know:

Sogo Bujutsu - Integrated martial art system or comprehensive martial art system.

Have a great day,

Eric

[JW]

Tim, I think you should post the "jitsu" question as a new thread in the "Language" section. I am with Cliff on this, regarding "jitsu" being a misspelling of "jutsu" (and a mispronunciation as well). But there are actual Japanese speakers who just aren't going to be reading this thread who could help.

I looked it up after your post-- 実 is a kanji which is one of the ways to write "makoto" or sincerity. An alternate pronunciation is "jitsu." But-- I think Cliff is right that this is not related to what people are talking about when writing "jutsu" and "jitsu."

For instance, to imply the existence of a term like 合気実 "aikijitsu".. I think that is probably nonsense that was never used. Most likely, people who couldn't speak or spell Japanese were trying to write "aikijutsu," 合気術 or "aiki techniques/methods/art."

And I think Eric is right, you may have been thinking of sogo bujutsu.
Jutsu just means art or technique or method, no such implication about completeness of a martial system.

[Tim Ruijs]

Thanx to all of you for your input.
I have assumed something in the past that proves wrong. problem is that I have read about this years ago, so to find out exactly where is a challenge...
Does any term exist to indicate the study only a part of a complete fighting system?

[Cliff Judge]

Thanx to all of you for your input.
I have assumed something in the past that proves wrong. problem is that I have read about this years ago, so to find out exactly where is a challenge...
Does any term exist to indicate the study only a part of a complete fighting system?

There is possibly such a term, but I don't think it is common parlance. Something named x-do is more general than x-jutsu, though. Ueshiba may have dispensed with a large portion of the Daito ryu syllabus when creating Aikido, but what Aikido ostensibly tries to teach the student is loftier, and more open-ended than Daito ryu.

As an fyi, your assertions have had quite a bit of truth to them, but you seem to have some details and ideas wrong is the thing. Aikido, Daito ryu, and pre-modern Japanese martial arts in general have nothing to do with the type of brutal sparring that the OP's friend engaged in. The type of professional warrior that maintained a standing as the highest social caste would not go in for such things, IMO. So the movement from Daito ryu to Aikido was not a shift from harder, external, more combat-oriented martial arts to more philosophical martial art. It was a shift from a classically constructed, rooted-in-the-past martial art to a more modern, forward-looking one.

[Tim Ruijs]

I see. I would like to get that straight and prevent telling the wrong things to my students. So thanks again.

Still I wonder why it is that Ueshiba (seems) able to start to define his ultimate Budo after he met Deguchi. Without a doubt Daito Ryu had a big impact on him. Ueshiba became much more philosophical which also reflects on his technique.

But like you said the person hating war the most is the (true) warrior. He knows...

[genin]

This is probably an oversimplification, but from what I gather Ueshiba initially began learning aiki-jujutsu and then as he got older and more refined, transitioned to a more fluid form of the same art, which was aikido.

[matty_mojo911]

This is one of the few threads I've really read for a long time.

As for the original discussions, as it has diverged in the last few comments, realism etc is much under debate. I have a big issue with any teacher who talks about "on the street...." and discusses "realism" unless they have some real knowledge of it, harsh maybe. So many martial arts for so many years have been taught by people, who've been taught by people who just don't know what they are talking about.

However, this can be overcome, to a certain extent, if techniques are tested to the best of your ability in the dojo. BJJ is a classic for this, you don't fight each other, but you constantly test techniques against a resisitng opponent (within certain boundaries). This very, very quickly leads to both a refinement, and understanding of what "works" and variations, upon variations, to make techniques work on a resisitng opponent.

The problem with many Aikido instructors is that in the dojo they do not test a technique on a resisitng opponent constantly, so the refinement of the art is ultimately (despite what many think) less a refinement of a martial art, but more a refinement of an actual art.

In itself there is nothing wrong with this just that many teachers can't distinguish between the two. All martial arts are "self indulgent" as long as we are aware of it and when we teach we can say "hey, this technique isn't something I'd recommend on the street, but it is a nice variation." Nothing wrong with this at all, an art should be challenging, changing, and developing.

As for the recent discussions around how Aikido came about etc...people constantly forget that O'Sensei was much, much more religious orientated than martial orientated. He was deeply religious/spiritual, it is my opinion that this was the major factor in the creation of Aikido. People seem to forget this and just seem to assume it was a conglomerate of his prior arts, which of course it was, but it was driven primarily by his spirituality. This means many things as to why, how the art came about, but it should always be forefront in your mind when asking questions about Aikidos origins.

[Tim Ruijs]

...people constantly forget that O'Sensei was much, much more religious orientated than martial orientated. He was deeply religious/spiritual, it is my opinion that this was the major factor in the creation of Aikido. People seem to forget this and just seem to assume it was a conglomerate of his prior arts, which of course it was, but it was driven primarily by his spirituality. This means many things as to why, how the art came about, but it should always be forefront in your mind when asking questions about Aikidos origins.
Agreed.
To me it seems that some people try to find something in Aikido that simply is not there. Allthough the last comment of Cliff and myself are perhaps a bit off topic, I think it is valuable in this discussion. As you correctly point out it remains important to remember what Aikido is about.

The OP perhaps neatly describes what Ueshiba (might have) went through when trying to find his ultimate Budo. Why hurt your body training for something that never happens. Or at least you hope will never happen (warriors do not like war and do not go looking for it either).

[genin]

The aikijutsu school's sensei was a cop, so he had some exposure to street level violence, for whatever that's worth. But he's probably spent much more time in the dojo under simulated violent situations, which give him experience as well. Just because it's not a "real" fight, doesn't mean you aren't learning, improving, and conditioning yourself for combat.

[Cliff Judge]

I see. I would like to get that straight and prevent telling the wrong things to my students. So thanks again.

Still I wonder why it is that Ueshiba (seems) able to start to define his ultimate Budo after he met Deguchi. Without a doubt Daito Ryu had a big impact on him. Ueshiba became much more philosophical which also reflects on his technique.

But like you said the person hating war the most is the (true) warrior. He knows...

Deguchi was the guy who says to the young talent, "you have something special. You are a genius and if you would only free yourself from the chains you have placed on your own potential, you could change the world. I am going to show you how to release your true self." This sounds very silly to most of us, but those guys were serious enough about changing the world that they risked their lives in a foreign land trying to build a utopia, apparently.

It was something to do with the time, also. Gurdjief and Crowley were actively attracting seekers and pursuing their own paths to godhood at the time.

I think you are undoubtedly correct about the experience of the horror of war and the defeat of Japan as well. But I think the main narrative is one where Ueshiba was frustrated with Takeda's personality which was, my own reading, paranoid and restrictive, and then he found Deguchi who was expansive and gregarious and probably more than a little flattering. And in that environment, he was encouraged to find his "true budo," as you say.

[Cliff Judge]

The question of what "realism" is and what role it should have in training has been done to death on these forums. Since we've diverged quite a bit into the historical roots of Aikido I have a particular thought to share.

You can divide Japanese martial arts into epochs. Modern post war (mainstream Aikido), modern pre-war (Toyama ryu, arguably Daito ryu), edo period (Hokushin Itto ryu, Tenshin Shinyo ryu), and warring states period (Yagyu Shinkage ryu, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto ryu) are the way I usually break them up in my head.

The oldest of those are interesting in that, they are a product of a time when battle was common. They were made by and for men who understood that they might have to stitch up their armor and march to actual war at any given time. So obviously, of all the various arts from the various periods, these would be the most concerned with practical combat skills, right? Talk about street fights, these were guys who had to be prepared for getting knocked off their horse and have to use their swords against multiple spearmen.

So here is a fact about these arts that might interest you: they are all entirely kata based, with no real free sparring involved in training. If free sparring with full resistance was the best way to build martial skill, why wasn't kendo armor developed until the middle of the edo period? My takeaway is that free sparring is not at all the best way to develop the skills that active warriors need, which I believe include precision, relaxation in the face of stress, awareness, etc.

I am a newb koryu sword guy. In the art I train in, we have a set of kata that has been handed down from the founder himself that, as I understand it presently, is meant to teach the exponent to wait in stillness and draw the enemy in.

There is one particular kata where you wait in a strong posture and invite the opponent to strike at your hands. As he begins his strike you move right in and kill him.

This is really really hard to do without getting your hands clobbered. The kata calls for the senior student to strike at a precise spot. It's very hard to do, but you can simply move forward and get him if he strikes at that spot and your timing and patience are right.

However, if the senior student does NOT strike at that particular spot, he will clobber your hands. This is where the whole thing gets very interesting.

Obviously, in a Real Fight, there is no reason why the senior guy would strike at that precise spot. If he was a yokel with no idea what he was doing he might not even take the opening you are giving him. So if this is a technique that can only work if your opponent strikes at a particular spot, it must be a pretty crappy technique, right? Best to change it so that it works! Perhaps the junior should move to avoid the incoming sword, and then strike. Etc etc.

If you are as lucky as I am, you have an instructor who will come by and point out that the kata calls for the senior to strike at precisely one spot so that the junior has the opportunity to learn a very very important principal, which is actually something meant to be applied to a wide variety of situations.

I don't believe you can have a martial art that teaches this kind of stuff if you focus on full resistance and free sparring and "realism". Technique and principle get watered down to "whatever works."

IMO, the more open-ended the engagement you are training for, the MORE restrictive the training sphere needs to be, to give the teacher a chance to pass onto the student the principles that he is trying to teach. Real street fights, real combat, business negotiations, divorce settlements, if you want to improve your odds of survival, you might take a hint from the feudal warriors of Japan who trusted kata based training methods.

Free sparring against a fully resisting opponent can do at least as much to make technique WORSE as it can to improve or refine it.

[Cliff Judge]

quick caveat to something I stated about koryu bujutsu from the Sengoku Jidai: I have heard that Maniwa Nen ryu practices some kind of semi-free sparring as part of their training, and that art has one of the oldest unbroken lineages of all extent Japanese martial arts. But I am not sure that it has ever been asserted by the english-speaking koryu researchers that this ryu has always used such training methods; they may have been added later as many other schools did when the opportunities for practical combat experience became limited due to peace.

Its also not clear to what extent you could classify this type of practice as "free sparring against a fully resisting opponent".

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Cliff,

Have you read Karl Friday's "Legacies of the sword: the Kashima-Shinryū and samurai martial culture"?

The chapter named "The martial path" is very interesting regarding the kata vs sparring debate.

[Tim Ruijs]

Cliff


...so that the junior has the opportunity to learn a very very important principal, which is actually something meant to be applied to a wide variety of situations

This is exactly the way my teacher and myself train and teach.
Techniques are a means to get something across. That something is the important bit, not the technique.

It takes proper concentration, context and stylized form to get to that point (of interest). You study.
In actual combat many more aspects come into play: what is the fight about, emotion, weariness...You fight to live another day.

So proper and precise training is important. In the past I have had experiences with highly experienced students of my teacher (dojochos with decades of experience) where they 'broke connection' because my attack was not precise enough and thus adapted their technique to the new situation I had (unknowingly) created. Off course much to my confusion. They explained what happened and why.;)

A few years later I started my own dojo and encounter similar situations with my own students. They wonder why everything in Aikido is stylized. "That stuff won't work in combat." Nope, you are spot on: it won't. But still you will be prepared!

Many threads go on about the effectiveness of Aikido, but hardly ever consider what you concisely described. Perhaps your post should become sticky...:D

[Abasan]

Cliff, I think to invite someone to attack one spot in your body is essential in any martial arts at least until mastery. The better you are the more concentrated that opening would become until uke has no other choice but to attack there and only there. Any other choices leads to a foregone conclusion, his defeat or stalemate. Most koryu seeking to defeat techniques of other schools create techniques to counter openings of the followup to the initial invitation if they can. Thus I guess... This is a never-ending path.

For uke, attacking another opening is valid if it exists... But to do this in the beginning means no one can learn anything unless you're already blessed with a fighters instinct and genius.

[matty_mojo911]

If free sparring with full resistance was the best way to build martial skill, why wasn't kendo armor developed until the middle of the edo period? My takeaway is that free sparring is not at all the best way to develop the skills that active warriors need, which I believe include precision, relaxation in the face of stress, awareness, etc.

I don't believe you can have a martial art that teaches this kind of stuff if you focus on full resistance and free sparring and "realism". Technique and principle get watered down to "whatever works."

Free sparring against a fully resisting opponent can do at least as much to make technique WORSE as it can to improve or refine it.

Perhaps I didn't say what I thought well enough when talking about resistance in training.

Again, in BJJ the best exponents spend a lot of time, light rolling, that is flowing through techniques with a semi passive partner, it is understtod that to enhance your set of skills it is important to do this. But again, the fundamentals of how the art came about are based on tried and tested technique on resisting opponents - hey, all arts are different...I wasn't having a go at anyone...just saying that people need to really understand what they are doing.

Cripes I did a soft style of Aikido for 14 years or so, greatly enjoyed it, and still visit my old dojo to teach them new stuff from time to time.

[Avery Jenkins]

Kata training in the koryu sword arts might just be a matter of common sense. Full-contact sparring would probably have reduced the soldier population a little faster than most generals would like.