Iwama or Takemasu
Hello folks,
I was wondering if anyone could please tell me the difference between Takemusu (or Iwama) style aikido compared to other styles? Thanks in advance. |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
Can you tell me the difference between English and all over European languages? Each style has its own way of doing things, which is nuanced and cannot be summed up in a forum post, so no, I can't. P.s. I'm still grumpy.... Sorry about that. |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Ueshiba Morihei taught differently (different material, a different style of teaching) in each major center of aikido and to various major teachers. Therefore, those who learned at the Kobukan (Shioda, Iwata, Shirata, for example) learned one method. Ueshiba taught two major teachers in Osaka (Tanaka Bansen and Kobayashi Hirokazu and they were quite different). Sunadomari, who went to Kyushu, the teachers in Shingu and of course, those at Iwama, who centered around Saito sensei each learned things differently.
You can easily see this by looking up films of major shihan on YouTube (and better yet, training with someone from the various subbranches). Some people assert that this was because Ueshiba was 'tailor-making' the best style suited for each person, but this breaks down when one sees that he taught a specific method in various areas. Iwama, for example. Those at Iwama can assert that they learned the true O-sensei style, yet he was teaching different styles during the same time period in different locale. For this reason, I believe that Ueshiba did this deliberately, using his students as crash-test dummies, to emphasize certain principles to see what the limits of those principles would be if emphasized. Ellis Amdur |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
Best, Bernd |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
I'm guessing you probably already know that "Iwama style" and "Takemusu Aikido™" usually refer to the late Morihiro Saito-shihan's style and lineage. It is probably also worth mentioning, that although his son, Hirohito Saito, broke off from Aikikai, many dojos that carry the Takemusu name and Morihiro Saito lineage are still affiliated with Aikikai, whether directly or through a regional organization that is itself affiliated with Aikikai. As the others already pointed out, Ō-Sensei taught differently to different students at different times, and those that became instructors themselves had different points of emphasis in their instruction method, and this too is true within Aikikai itself. Even so, I'll use "Aikikai Hombu style" as a sort of third point of reference. So, in general, Aikikai (Takemusu/Iwama here included), like Yoshinkan, generally uses hanmi stance for most waza; most Aikikai instructors are generally less rigorous about the shape of hanmi than Yoshinkan. Similarly, Aikikai waza does not usually begin with hands raised in a guard position (not counting offering an arm to grab); a few instructors might use it, but not so much in the Saito-lineage. There's also not much in the way of the "by the numbers"/"stop motion" training you might be familiar with from Yoshinkan. Now for Saito-lineage compared to Aikikai Hombu: 1. Iwama-style tends to prefer to first teach waza from strong static holds then teach flowing style ("ki no nagare") later, while Hombu tends to teach a lot of flowing style from the beginning. 2. For most Aikikai branches, uke will be the only one to initiate an attack. For shomenuchi, in particular, Iwama-style will often have tori/nage initiate, rather than uke. 3. For weapons work, Aikikai Hombu mostly limits it to weapons taking and throwing (e.g. tantodori, tachidori, jodori, jonage). Iwama-style has these too, but goes further in teaching how to actually use bokken and jo (though not nearly as extensive as a koryū system), with many drills, both solo and partnered (both partners armed). Anyway, this is just my take on what I've seen and experienced so far. Your own experience may vary. |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
I think you might have accidentally reversed uke (person who takes ukemi) and tori/nage (person who receives the attack/throws) here. If so, I concur with your point. Regards Carl |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
|
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
|
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
|
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Thank you so much to all, I'm definitely indeed slowly figuring out the difference between Yoshinkan and Takemusu, very excited about it.
Who ever thought Aikido could be so vast and multi faceted. I of course read the Wikipedia articles online before asking my original question and I must say the mention in the wiki of "coarse techniques" and "modified technique" are fascinating to me, apparently briefly shown to students (although not fully practiced) to show harm that could be done - and ways to perform techniques that can't be countered by other Aikidoka, presumably for last ditch self defense efforts. I haven't actually seen/can't find examples of these yet. Thanks again. |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
I have had the benefit of training with several teachers, one of whom was K Chiba. Chiba was a Hombu live-in student, but was sent to Iwama to recover from an injury. He hurt his back permanently from an ukemi, because he tied his hakama at the back and not at the front. He landed on the knot and injured his spine. I was curious about this, since one of the 'received traditions' in aikido is that Iwama training is very hard -- and therefore the very last place to recover from a serious injury. During World War II Morihei Ueshiba retired to Iwama and stayed there, away from the gaze of the occupation authorities. Another 'received tradition' is that Morihei Ueshiba 'gave' the Tokyo dojo to his son Kisshomaru and regarded Iwama as his main base. The meaning of 'gave' here is somewhat controversial, since it is suggested that he did not really 'give' him the dojo, but only lent it to him for safekeeping during the war. This 'received tradition' is strengthened by the fact that Ueshiba actually sought advice from one of his students about whether he could 'take back' the 'Tokyo dojo' from Kisshomaru. He decided not to, and the conclusion is that he regarded the present Hombu as Kisshomaru's domain. One consequence is that the training at both places went in different postwar directions. I am not going to explain the differences here, or the reasons for the differences. If you have chance, look at the aikido practiced by two of O Sensei's students, both with the rank of 9th dan. One is Morihiro Saito and the other is Hiroshi Tada. If you like to read aikido books, then compare Budo Renshu, if you can find it, with the more plentiful texts written by Kisshomaru Ueshiba and his successors at the Hombu. The present Doshu once explained to me that he was bound by his position as Doshu only to show and teach what he called Kihon waza (basics). I suspect that his father also believed this and I saw his son recently give a clear demonstration of such waza. So I suppose this is a family tradition.However, the traditional way of training in Iwama is also traced back to O Sensei. One explanation of this is that in Iwama, Morihei Ueshiba gave clear and detailed explanations to the rugged farming types in the Iwama dojo, which was his home dojo, whereas he did things differently with the more sophisticated types in Tokyo -- which was Kisshomaru's dojo, anyway. One final note. Be careful how you deal with the O in O Sensei. The Japanese is 大先生 and the 大 is an honorific, given to some very important items and activities in Japanese life. An honorific is also given to 糞尿, but I will leave you to look up the meaning of the characters. The combined terms are not often used as such, and the latter character 尿 is usually given the term shikou, but this is always given the honorific O. An apostrophe, as in O'Sensei, is incorrect. Best wishes. |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
I should add that the kanji for the honorific given to O Sensei is different from that given in other cases. The one for O sensei is dai (大), but there is also 御, which can read as o.
|
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
May be, here we might find a strong clue if not the the main reason for the difference between what Kisshomaru (or even Saito, despite the different approach) intended to teach and what - as some people suspect - OSensei actually used as his basis, i.e. for what he practised himself and throughout his life, after Takeda had him set his eyes on it. Best regards, Bernd |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
I do not think I begged any questions, as least as I understand this term.
I assumed the knowledge of basic techniques as this is given in the first book on aikido that I read in English. This is Aikido, by Kisshomaru Ueshiba, translated by Kazuaki Tanahashi and Roy Maurer and published in 1973. The section on basic techniques begins on p.45 and the techniques described are irimi-nage, shiho-nage, kote-gaeshi, and kaiten-nage, together with what are now known as 1-kyo to 4-kyo. (Kisshomaru gives the old names.) These are the basic waza that the present Doshu told me that he was required to present, by virtue of his office. Of course, he teaches other waza, but he has to present the core, and in as clear a way as possible. His son does the same. You might want to argue that both present a paradigm, or model. Otherwise, I am not sure what you mean by 'paradigm and basics behind the basics.' Kisshomaru presents an earlier section devoted to Tanioku dosa and Sotai dosa, but he calls these 'basic preparatory exercises,' which is a translation of dosa. |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
|
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
Thank you for the clarification. 単 独 動作. I'm reading this as "individual exercise" or "solo exercise". My reference book for Kihon Waza in the sixties was an earlier edition: Aikido, by Kisshomaru Ueshiba, Hozansha Publishing Co., 1963. But I never had the impression that it could be used to learn OSensei's aikido. Best, Bernd |
Re: Iwama or Takemasu
Quote:
Best wishes, |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:18 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.