AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   Internal Training in Aikido (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=81)
-   -   Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ? (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23707)

Chris Li 07-25-2014 12:54 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Peter Rehse wrote: (Post 338556)
First DR group I ran into was at Tsukuba Daigaku. They introduced themselves to me as an Aikido group - a matter of convenience I suspect.

That's what I'm saying - the name may mean something, or it may mean nothing at all - it's tricky to read too much into it when there are multiple issues in play.

Best,

Chris

oisin bourke 07-25-2014 01:54 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338555)
Well there was quite a bit going on with the naming, so it's hardly that simple. Additionally, "Takeda-ryu" and "Ueshiba-ryu" is hardly definitive in and of itself (all that really indicates linguistically is the "style" of that particular person) - the Takumakai, for example, often uses "Aikido" to describe itself in Japan.

Takeda, FWIW, didn't change what Ueshiba had been teaching at the Asahi dojo - he acknowledged that they had already studied the basics and built upon the foundation, which is quite different.

Now, you've been very clear that you don't think that people in Aikido should comment on Daito-ryu without a high level of initiation in that art. Why do you feel free to comment on Aikido and what Ueshiba taught and practiced without a high level of initiation in that art? Personally, I don't care, but you can't have it both ways.

Best,

Chris

There's quite a bit going on regarding Amatsu and Hisa's comments about what Takeda teaching was more "advanced" or whatever too IMO. Anyway, I'm not arguing with you over the "basics" I'm pointing out that Takeda and Hisa quite clearly stated that Ueshiba didn't teach (or wasn't privy to) the advanced levels of the art.

As to commenting on aikido, It's pretty obvious: Takeda said it, Hisa sad it, Amatsu said it, so take it up with them. Ueshiba learned DR to a certain level, and then went his own way. As to what exactly Ueshiba taught,(and why) have my opinions, but the bottom line is that he wasn't (according to the above people) disseminating the advanced levels of DR. Nothing to do with me, so don't make it personal.

Chris Li 07-25-2014 02:11 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338558)
As to commenting on aikido, It's pretty obvious: Takeda said it, Hisa sad it, Amatsu said it, so take it up with them. Ueshiba learned DR to a certain level, and then went his own way. As to what exactly Ueshiba taught,(and why) have my opinions, but the bottom line is that he wasn't (according to the above people) disseminating the advanced levels of DR. Nothing to do with me, so don't make it personal.

Well, you're posting your own conclusions and citing their statements in support - and other people are doing similar things with reference to Daito-ryu. The difference is that no one is saying that you ought not to be commenting on Aikido because of your lack of experience in that art. As I said, you really can't have it both ways.

Hisa said (essentially) that Takeda was doing things at a higher level than Ueshiba. That's a no brainer for me - if my teachers walk in the door I would certainly hope that they're teaching and functioning at a higher level than I am, why else would they be my teachers?

Best,

Chris

oisin bourke 07-25-2014 03:21 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338559)
Well, you're posting your own conclusions and citing their statements in support - and other people are doing similar things with reference to Daito-ryu. The difference is that no one is saying that you ought not to be commenting on Aikido because of your lack of experience in that art. As I said, you really can't have it both ways.

Hisa said (essentially) that Takeda was doing things at a higher level than Ueshiba. That's a no brainer for me - if my teachers walk in the door I would certainly hope that they're teaching and functioning at a higher level than I am, why else would they be my teachers?

Best,

Chris

You are misrepresenting my comments.

Amatsu said this:

"It is my personal opinion, I think there are three types of Daito-ryu. One is Aikido, Ueshiba-sensei wanted to make his Aikido popular, even children and aged people can enjoy it, so he abandoned foot skill. As Hisa taught me, foot has more power than arm, so practising is painful, it may be an obstacle to make Aikido popular, so Ueshiba abandoned it. "

So Ueshiba changed a methodology that is not MY opinon, that is Amatsu"s.

Hisa said

"Hisa san told me. There are two types of Daitoryu, one is Takeda Sokaku's and the other is Ueshiba Morihei's. Takeda Sokuku's is the original one but for making Daitoryu popular Ueshiba Morihei's is better. As it is softer and more beautiful. Takeda's is more painful and not as beautiful. He taught Ueshiba's style in his dojo because students were all citizens, whereas he was teaching me Takeda's because I was a journalist at the Asahi.

One difference between Takeda's and Ueshiba's is that in Takeda's you use your legs. A leg is more powerful than an arm hence attack the enemy's arm with your powerful legs. The objective is the joints, and to attack them with you leg. When enemy is standing and moving freely it is difficult to attack the joints with your legs, so throw the enemy down to your feet and use your legs. Hence Takeda's has no throw away technique."

So Ueshiba changed the methodology. That's HISA'S opinion, not mine. There is an obvious change in methodology. Ueshiba even changed the name of the art!

It is also not a simple matter of the teacher being better than the student.Takeda had more advanced teachings than Ueshiba was privy to. Ueshba split from his teacher before he got these teachings. That is not "my" opinon either, that s Hisa's and Takeda's.

These are all stated facts, so stop trying to pin the "spin" on me. Take it up with them and the takumakai. They also happen to support previous statements refuting comments about throws in DR, so they do indeed point to people with insufficient experience of DR commenting as if what they they say is fact (as opposed to qualifying their statements by highlighting that this is their opinion).

I'm not going to carry this on further. I'm just repeating myself at this stage, and readers can make their own minds up, f so inclined.

Chris Li 07-25-2014 03:40 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338562)
So Ueshiba changed the methodology. That's HISA'S opinion, not mine.

You missed the quote from Amatsu where he said:

Quote:

Hisa san judged that Takeda’s wazas were same kind as Ueshiba’s.
In any case, everybody's free to draw their own conclusions - and make their own statements about their conclusions, as you have. Which is precisely my point.

Posting somebody else statement to prove or illustrate a point implies that you agree with that point, does it not? Take some responsibility for that.

Best,

Chris

oisin bourke 07-26-2014 12:43 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338563)
You missed the quote from Amatsu where he said:

In any case, everybody's free to draw their own conclusions - and make their own statements about their conclusions, as you have. Which is precisely my point.

Posting somebody else statement to prove or illustrate a point implies that you agree with that point, does it not? Take some responsibility for that.

Best,

Chris

Once again you're cherry picking. Takeda, Hisa and the takumakai are on record stating that Ueshiba wasn't privy to some teachings. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to ascribe the same point to Amatsu's above statement. In any event, it's a pretty open and vague statement, so if you want to claim it for whatever purpose, off you go.It still doesn't change the basic point.

On your second point, well, If you held Mert and others earlier on this thread to the same standard, I wouldn't have even posted. Unfortunately, Mert and Carsten posted assertions about DR not as their own qualified opinions, but presented them pretty much as undisputed. This comes up again and again in these kind of threads BTW. I posted supporting Grant's statements about DR. But sure, if people want to qualify their statements as being their own opinions based on their limited knowledge, rather than making assumptions, I'd fully encourage them to do so. It would get rid of a lot of fractiousness in these debates IMO.

On your final point, stop making this personal. The fact is that Ueshiba was not privy to advanced level teachngs in DR, according to Takeda, Hisa and the Takumakai, so if people are going to use their statements to support their own opinions/points of view, this has to be into account as well, as opposed to being ignored. There's no getting around it.

oisin bourke 07-26-2014 01:03 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338574)
The fact is that Ueshiba was not privy to advanced level teachngs in DR, according to Takeda, Hisa and the Takumakai, in addition, he also made significant changes in methodology to the art from the 1930s at least. These changes almost certainly involved changes in body methodology, as what he was doing was jujutsu (a body to body based art). so if people are going to use their statements to support their own opinions/points of view, this has to be into account as well, as opposed to being ignored. There's no getting around it.

I edited the above.

Chris Li 07-26-2014 01:21 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338574)
Once again you're cherry picking. Takeda, Hisa and the takumakai are on record stating that Ueshiba wasn't privy to some teachings. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to ascribe the same point to Amatsu's above statement. In any event, it's a pretty open and vague statement, so if you want to claim it for whatever purpose, off you go.It still doesn't change the basic point.

On your second point, well, If you held Mert and others earlier on this thread to the same standard, I wouldn't have even posted. Unfortunately, Mert and Carsten posted assertions about DR not as their own qualified opinions, but presented them pretty much as undisputed. This comes up again and again in these kind of threads BTW. I posted supporting Grant's statements about DR. But sure, if people want to qualify their statements as being their own opinions based on their limited knowledge, rather than making assumptions, I'd fully encourage them to do so. It would get rid of a lot of fractiousness in these debates IMO.

On your final point, stop making this personal. The fact is that Ueshiba was not privy to advanced level teachngs in DR, according to Takeda, Hisa and the Takumakai, so if people are going to use their statements to support their own opinions/points of view, this has to be into account as well, as opposed to being ignored. There's no getting around it.

Oisin, all that I said was that I don't think that it is a foregone conclusion, and I stated my reasons.

You've missed my entire point on the "standards" thing - which only came up because you brought it up...as you have on other forums.

I really don't care what anybody's qualifications here - they may mean something, or it may not, there's really no way to say. My point was simply to point out your double standard.

If Mert and Carsten are "unqualified" to comment on Daito-ryu then you are certainly unqualified to comment on Ueshiba.

Or, alternatively, we could leave all that on the side and just focus on the arguments that are actually being presented.

Imagine that, a conversation based on the arguments being made, rather than the people making the arguments...

Best,

Chris

Carsten Mllering 07-26-2014 01:53 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338574)
... Carsten posted assertions about DR ...

I have never posted any assertion about Dait ry.

In my first and my second post I was not aware that Gavin was talking from a Dait ry standpoint. In fact I thought of him as someone, who had just begun to practice a very soft and "loving" way of aikid.
As soon as I realized where he is coming from I wrote: "Thank you! I was completely on the wrong track!"

What I indeed stated was - and is - that I use to practice on a regular base with a student of End sensei who is teaching Dait ry Roppokai. And with students of his, who also use to practice with End sensei. And that at least our understandig of aiki "goes together".

I never meant to claim to know anything about Dait ry. Like I wouldn't talk about any other bud I don't practice myself or am not involved in in which way ever.
True: I am to blame for not having made that more clear but all my following statements refer to the aikid I myself practice.

I hope that rereading my comments with this in mind might help to relase some tension?

...............................

Besides that ...
I am very interested in the relation of Japanese bud and especially the understanding of Ueshiba Morihei of aiki and the Chinese roots of this understanding. I am researching into this for some time now (on my level of "scholarship"). And I was completely perplexed when I started to realize how deep and intense these relations were.
In a very short formula. I think - besides other sources - Ueshiba was heavily influenced by the thinking patterns of internal alchemy of Quanzhen Daoism.
The knowledge, the texts, the practice was not only available in Japan and for him. But what's more, as far as I understand it by now, was very alive in Japan.

One last simple point, not to prove something, just to have in mind also:
When I look up in and y in my English or my German dictionary of Japanese language, they both give me yin and yang. Which seem to have become loanword by now. So in my classes I don't mean to speak Chinese when I'm using yin and yang for in y. But I am translating in y to "German".

oisin bourke 07-26-2014 02:43 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338576)
Oisin, all that I said was that I don't think that it is a foregone conclusion, and I stated my reasons.

You've missed my entire point on the "standards" thing - which only came up because you brought it up...as you have on other forums.

I really don't care what anybody's qualifications here - they may mean something, or it may not, there's really no way to say. My point was simply to point out your double standard.

If Mert and Carsten are "unqualified" to comment on Daito-ryu then you are certainly unqualified to comment on Ueshiba.

Or, alternatively, we could leave all that on the side and just focus on the arguments that are actually being presented.

Imagine that, a conversation based on the arguments being made, rather than the people making the arguments...

Best,

Chris

A note on qualifications. I don't think I ever stated that people need to be "qualified" to comment on an art . If I did, I certainly didn't mean that. What I was getting at is that if people are going to offer an opinion on arts, they need to qualify their arguments to their extent of exposure (or not) to said arts, as opposed to presenting their opinions as a 'fait accompli".
Of course anyone is free to voice their opinions and present evidence. But repeatedly, assertions are made regarding Dr and DR aiki by people with little or no direct experience of the art. And of course, the same courtesy should be extended to other arts, be it aikido, koryu or whatever. People should be clear on the extent of their exposure (or not) when they are making points IMO. Just to be clear for people reading these posts. It would make things a lot easier to understand. BTW, the assertions made about Ueshiba were actually made by those who practiced with him and/or Hisa/Takeda.

oisin bourke 07-26-2014 02:46 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Carsten Mllering wrote: (Post 338577)
I have never posted any assertion about Dait ry.

What I indeed stated was - and is - that I use to practice on a regular base with a student of End sensei who is teaching Dait ry Roppokai. And with students of his, who also use to practice with End sensei. And that at least our understandig of aiki "goes together".

Thanks for your post, Carsten. On this point, Would you say what you are doing is essentially the same?

Mert Gambito 07-26-2014 05:20 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
OK, let's keep this simple and bring this back to the major fork in the road that Gavin took us down with the introduction of Daito-ryu into this thread.
  • "Power" as goal or not of "Daito-ryu":
    • Citations with quotes clearly verifying that Hisa felt students should seek at least one specific type of "power" in his variant of the art, while differentiating that power from others.
    • Still waiting for a clarification of the use of the term "internal strength", as stated on the Australian Takumakai website. That could lead to a very worthwhile discussion, so let's see if it materializes.
  • As for lack of throws, and not throwing people away:
    • Here's a 1939 photo of Hisa, courtesy of Aikido Journal, throwing someone -- away. It's an exception to the norm in Daito-ryu, sure, but nonetheless, there it is, literally in black and white.
    • Besides, here's what the Australian Takumakai website has to say on the topic of throws, among other things:
      Quote:

      Through harmonisation and the application of Aiki the practitioner is able to respond naturally and appropriately to a range of threat levels utilising evasion, redirection, atemi, locks, throws and pins.
    • Nonetheless, I'm all for hearing a description of techniques that cause people to leave their feet and land in the same spot or two meters away that's semantically different than the word "throw".I agree the term, like "power" doesn't adequately capture all the nuances of what occurs between training partners, in this case when doing "nage-waza".

Bernd Lehnen 07-26-2014 06:38 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
If there are no throws, what's Hakaru Mori doing in this video? Ueshiba's contribution ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuYnTdqOkZA



Best,
Bernd

Zoe 07-26-2014 08:11 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
The demonstrations run from jujutsu to aki-jujutsu to aiki-no-jutsu. From 5:20 onward Mori is using aiki-no-jutsu and throwing people away. One of the characteristics of aiki-no-jutsu are of course, aiki as control with no leg or foot power. I was taught that Aiki-no jutsu is the higher level throws. I was also shown that in the Ropokai almost all of the techniques were of the aiki-no-jutsu level (higher level) and lack leg or foot power.

I think we should consider that Ueshiba, like Mori here, and Okomoto of the Ropokai, all decided to use the upper level techniques of the art demonstrating pure aiki as the foundation of their arts. Therefore I think the arguments for leg power are from the lower level teachings of the art, mostly by lower level students.
Zoe

Chris Li 07-26-2014 10:35 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338579)
A note on qualifications. I don't think I ever stated that people need to be "qualified" to comment on an art . If I did, I certainly didn't mean that. What I was getting at is that if people are going to offer an opinion on arts, they need to qualify their arguments to their extent of exposure (or not) to said arts, as opposed to presenting their opinions as a 'fait accompli".
Of course anyone is free to voice their opinions and present evidence. But repeatedly, assertions are made regarding Dr and DR aiki by people with little or no direct experience of the art. And of course, the same courtesy should be extended to other arts, be it aikido, koryu or whatever. People should be clear on the extent of their exposure (or not) when they are making points IMO. Just to be clear for people reading these posts. It would make things a lot easier to understand. BTW, the assertions made about Ueshiba were actually made by those who practiced with him and/or Hisa/Takeda.

I notice that you presented your conclusions as a 'fait accompli", as fact (you actually used the word "fact"), and there was nowhere in that comment or before that you qualified your argument with your experiences (which were never stated on this thread):

Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338536)
IAnd then we have the fact that Takuma Hisa stated quite clearly that what Ueshiba was doing and what Takeda Sokaku was doing was completely different

I didn't (and don't) believe that to be completely accurate, and that's when I replied:

Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338548)
I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that Takuma Hisa thought that what the two people were doing was completely different

Further, you went on to make conclusions about what Ueshiba was doing:

Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338554)
Well Takeda, Hisa and his students have been pretty definite that there was enough difference between the methodology to term the two arts "Takeda Ryu" and "Ueshiba Ryu". And Ueshiba renamed his art. I would submit that, taking into the contemporary descriptions of takeda and ueshiba, this almost certainly refers differences in body methodology. This would mean that Ueshiba was doing something essentially different in terms of body usage than Takeda and the other of takeda's higher level students who continued to teach Daito ryu. In other words, Ueshiba was teaching something different from DR from the 1930s.
Of course, this is only a problem if you try to introduce what you believe are advanced level teachings of DR/body methodology into aikido, when it's clear that this wasn't what ueshiba taught/practiced (for whatever reason).

Never on this thread have you stated your qualifications to make such a statement, or "qualified your argument as to the extent your of exposure (or not) to said arts" - just asked that others do so.

I'm not so much arguing about your statements (which I think is a complex discussion, and not nearly as simple as you have stated) as I am about the double standard here.

In any case, I think that demanding a resume from anybody making a posting on an internet forum is a losing proposition. Even many of the "qualified" Daito-ryu folks who participate in these discussions are often, in reality, people with realatively little experience in the art who have no business under the kind of standard you're talking about making any kind of statements at all.

Why don't we stick to discussiing the statements as posted and leave it at that?

Best,

Chris

oisin bourke 07-26-2014 11:03 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338585)
I notice that you presented your conclusions as a 'fait accompli", as fact (you actually used the word "fact"), and there was nowhere in that comment or before that you qualified your argument with your experiences (which were never stated on this thread):

I didn't (and don't) believe that to be completely accurate, and that's when I replied:

Further, you went on to make conclusions about what Ueshiba was doing:

Never on this thread have you stated your qualifications to make such a statement, or "qualified your argument as to the extent your of exposure (or not) to said arts" - just asked that others do so.

I'm not so much arguing about your statements (which I think is a complex discussion, and not nearly as simple as you have stated) as I am about the double standard here.

In any case, I think that demanding a resume from anybody making a posting on an internet forum is a losing proposition. Even many of the "qualified" Daito-ryu folks who participate in these discussions are often, in reality, people with realatively little experience in the art who have no business under the kind of standard you're talking about making any kind of statements at all.

Why don't we stick to discussiing the statements as posted and leave it at that?

Best,

Chris

TBH, Chris I wouldn't be so strident in my opinions if others weren't. I probably wouldn't post at all As I've said, this whole narrative of Ueshiba doing IP skills culled from DR which are culled from CMA is indeed presented as a done deal in these discussions, repeatedly. I have brought up the training situation with Takda/hisa to highlight that a basic tenet of this assertion (Ueshiba's body training methodology) wasn't really linked to inner level DR based on evidence of people who were there, yet you keep trying to pin this as "my" opinion. This is just distracting from the main points.

I also haven't "demanded a resume", but you could be right. If people won't be up front about their training history when posting opinions on DR and aiki related stuff, discussions probably aren't going to go anywhere. BTW, Mert raised "qualifcations", when people disagreed with his points, and Zoe has just done the same. Why not go after them? I have no problem posting my training history. And You keep on going on about being "qualified" to post when I never said that at all. But look, you've made your point about this repeatedly. It really has nothing to do with the points raised in the thread, so why not drop it?

I'm actually gong to be offline for the bones of a week anyway.

oisin bourke 07-26-2014 11:06 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Zoe Botnaro wrote: (Post 338584)
I think the arguments for leg power are from the lower level teachings of the art, mostly by lower level students.
Zoe

I think the arguments for "power" are from the lower level teachings, be it leg or whatever.

Chris Li 07-26-2014 11:21 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338586)
TBH, Chris I wouldn't be so strident in my opinions if others weren't. I probably wouldn't post at all As I've said, this whole narrative of Ueshiba doing IP skills culled from DR which are culled from CMA is indeed presented as a done deal in these discussions, repeatedly. I have brought up the training situation with Takda/hisa to highlight that a basic tenet of this assertion (Ueshiba's body training methodology) wasn't really linked to inner level DR based on evidence of people who were there, yet you keep trying to pin this as "my" opinion. This is just distracting from the main points.

I also haven't "demanded a resume", but you could be right. If people won't be up front about their training history when posting opinions on DR and aiki related stuff, discussions probably aren't going to go anywhere. BTW, Mert raised "qualifcations", when people disagreed with his points, and Zoe has just done the same. Why not go after them? I have no problem posting my training history. And You keep on going on about being "qualified" to post when I never said that at all. But look, you've made your point about this repeatedly. It really has nothing to do with the points raised in the thread, so why not drop it?

I'm actually gong to be offline for the bones of a week anyway.

Well, this is the leading edge of a discussion (with many of the same players) that has been going on for close to 20 years now. It's not surprising, in that context, that many of the statements appear to be presented as a "done deal". I think that you're just going to have to live with that.

It seems to me that you stated your opinion quite clearly:

Quote:

Oisin Bourke wrote: (Post 338554)
Of course, this is only a problem if you try to introduce what you believe are advanced level teachings of DR/body methodology into aikido, when it's clear that this wasn't what ueshiba taught/practiced (for whatever reason).

As I said before, take responsibility for your own postings.

FWIW, I'm not objecting to you (or anybody else) expressing an opinion about Ueshiba, regardless of qualification.

As to your Takeda/Hisa point - I can make the exact same arguments without Ueshiba in the equation, without discussing how much Ueshiba was or wasn't taught. It doesn't really affect the base argument. There have been a series of book on Takeda published in Japan that are researching the very same argument - without Ueshiba in the equation.

I don't remember Mert demanding qualifications in order to post an opinion, although he inquired at one point for clarification (I don't think there's anything wrong with that), and I certainly don't read Zoe's statement as anything close to that.

Best,

Chris

oisin bourke 07-26-2014 12:18 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338588)

As I said before, take responsibility for your own postings.

I don't remember Mert demanding qualifications in order to post an opinion, although he inquired at one point for clarification (I don't think there's anything wrong with that), and I certainly don't read Zoe's statement as anything close to that.

Best,

Chris

Whatever Chris, still trying to make it personal. And for the Millionth time, I have never "demanded qualifications" of someone before posting. You consistently misrepresent my comments. As for the other comments, more double standards from you. I'm finished here.

Gavin Slater 07-28-2014 04:07 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Hi,

My posts on this were just to highlight what it seems is a very different approach from what I learnt.

I was always told from the very beginning that it is not a good idea to WANT to become powerful, the more powerful you WANT to be, the enemy does the same. The main purpose of Daito Ryu is to defeat the enemy, not make them stronger.

My teacher always told me, if you think you are powerful go to a good judo/jujutsu dojo, or mma gym and show them how powerful you are. Do you think they will care about your dantien? Aiki should set you free, not make you become obsessed with power. My teacher actually warned me against doing that and told me about people who had done that, and it didn't end too well for them.

The photo you showed of Hisa Sensei, that is him doing Ueshiba Ryu. Ueshiba Sensei changed what he learnt from Takeda Sensei and introduced throwing people away. Hisa Sensei had two clubs in Osaka; the Kansai Aikido Club and the Asahi Dojo. What he taught at the Asahi Dojo was different.

Gavin

Chris Li 07-28-2014 04:22 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote: (Post 338629)
Hi,

My posts on this were just to highlight what it seems is a very different approach from what I learnt.

I was always told from the very beginning that it is not a good idea to WANT to become powerful, the more powerful you WANT to be, the enemy does the same. The main purpose of Daito Ryu is to defeat the enemy, not make them stronger.

My teacher always told me, if you think you are powerful go to a good judo/jujutsu dojo, or mma gym and show them how powerful you are. Do you think they will care about your dantien? Aiki should set you free, not make you become obsessed with power. My teacher actually warned me against doing that and told me about people who had done that, and it didn't end too well for them.

The photo you showed of Hisa Sensei, that is him doing Ueshiba Ryu. Ueshiba Sensei changed what he learnt from Takeda Sensei and introduced throwing people away. Hisa Sensei had two clubs in Osaka; the Kansai Aikido Club and the Asahi Dojo. What he taught at the Asahi Dojo was different.

Gavin

The problem we have here is similar to what often happens with discussions about "Aiki" - people make statements based on different definitions of what they are talking about (in this case "power") and, inevitably, end up disagreeing.

FWIW, we have a lot of folks who do quite well in Judo and MMA (for some of our folks it's their primary practice), and don't seem to have been hampered in the least, dantien or no.

Best,

Chris

Erick Mead 07-28-2014 05:36 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338630)
The problem we have here is similar to what often happens with discussions about "Aiki" - people make statements based on different definitions of what they are talking about (in this case "power") and, inevitably, end up disagreeing.

This is one of the reasons I have worked (here -- and in my own training and conceptual grasp) to reduce these concepts as much as possible to their objective physical and biomechanical aspects - to remove such pernicious ambiguities of reference in ill-defined terms.

IHTBF is one thing -- but then you still have the problem of wondering how to extend and apply what it is you just "felt" -- or -- even more problematically thought you felt. The problem is that these mechanisms play demonstrable tricks with the (quite severe) lags between conscious neurological perception and voluntary response on the one hand (slow) -- and subliminal neuro-skeleto-muscular cues for reflexive action (order of magnitude faster).

In these settings IHTBF is of less use than what one might commonly assume. Your "feeling" is not normally attuned to track these skewed temporal sequences (and subconscious neuro-mechanical cues) . Without a conceptual grasp of the objective mechanisms one cannot easily judge what is happening because perceived cause and effect are jumbled by the mismatches in timing between each type of these perceptions and their prompted actions -- and their resulting interplay (and exploitation). It is precisely these disruptive features at such a basic physiological level that makes it a superlative addition to any physical martial engagement.

RonRagusa 07-28-2014 09:27 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Erick Mead wrote: (Post 338631)
IHTBF is one thing -- but then you still have the problem of wondering how to extend and apply what it is you just "felt" -- or -- even more problematically thought you felt.

But that's exactly what training is engendered to elicit, the ability to extend and apply correct feeling to different tasks. Waza and ki exercises are the tools employed to explore the feelings associated with a coordinated mind and body. Repetitive practice allows one to experiment with how varying degrees of mind/body coordination influences performance.

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote: (Post 338631)
The problem is that these mechanisms play demonstrable tricks with the (quite severe) lags between conscious neurological perception and voluntary response on the one hand (slow) -- and subliminal neuro-skeleto-muscular cues for reflexive action (order of magnitude faster).

You haven't stated what the "mechanisms" you mentioned above are, but that is of no matter. Performance that is mind/body driven is neither wholly voluntary or reflexive. Nor is it a simple amalgamation of both. Unfortunately I don't have the terms to state clearly what I'm trying to say, but I know what I feel and that is: performance that arises from a coordinated mind and body is a synergy of both voluntary response and reflexive action whereby the gap separating the two is considerably narrowed.

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote: (Post 338631)
Your "feeling" is not normally attuned to track these skewed temporal sequences (and subconscious neuro-mechanical cues) . Without a conceptual grasp of the objective mechanisms one cannot easily judge what is happening because perceived cause and effect are jumbled by the mismatches in timing between each type of these perceptions and their prompted actions -- and their resulting interplay (and exploitation).

As an intellectual exercise I see the value of casting what we are learning in the mold of known, familiar patterns. But for me, and I can speak only for myself, I learn best by doing... and doing again... and again... Each repetition provides feedback that I use to enhance correct feeling and strengthen mind/body coordination.

I do appreciate your analyses Erick, though admittedly a lot of what you post goes over my head and I just don't see how to apply what I do follow to practical training. But you definitely spur my thought processes which drives me to keep looking deeper to broaden my understanding.

Ron

Mert Gambito 07-29-2014 12:17 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote: (Post 338629)
Hi,

My posts on this were just to highlight what it seems is a very different approach from what I learnt.

I was always told from the very beginning that it is not a good idea to WANT to become powerful, the more powerful you WANT to be, the enemy does the same. The main purpose of Daito Ryu is to defeat the enemy, not make them stronger.

My teacher always told me, if you think you are powerful go to a good judo/jujutsu dojo, or mma gym and show them how powerful you are. Do you think they will care about your dantien? Aiki should set you free, not make you become obsessed with power. My teacher actually warned me against doing that and told me about people who had done that, and it didn't end too well for them.

Gavin,

Thank you for revisiting your intentions for contributing to this thread: the additional semantics actually make a big difference! Those seeking to develop "internal power", in particular through the Daito-ryu-based aiki-taiso discussed over the years here, are after the same objective: to not present "power" in a manner that induces the uke/attacker to become stronger. The body skills negate the "ability" (maybe that's a better word for what we're trying to quantify and qualify here) of the attacker while amplifying one's own, and the attacker never feels the normal ramp-up of "power" to meet his/her attack that results in a physical and emotional escalation of the clash.

Now, as for taking one's ability out for a spin against trained fighters, it is certainly smart to not equate one skill (e.g. IP) with another (fighting). That said, the most notable Daito-ryu men saw no problem dispatching fighters via the ability discussed in the preceding paragraph. That is a key reason why the art in its various flavors and flows (including aikido) wasn't relegated to the history books in the former half of the 20th century.

That ability is still demonstrable today, but then as now is extremely rare. For example, many folks have seen the photos of Dan Harden demonstrating Aiki-Age on Scott Burke recently in Hawaii. Why head-butt the guy, or bite is ear -- tactics that could very likely create the escalation you rightly state to avoid -- when you can simply use high-level aiki, if it's in your repertoire (also, imagine that same ability to move a man of Scott's size channeled into a throw or atemi if things don't end there)?

Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote:
The photo you showed of Hisa Sensei, that is him doing Ueshiba Ryu. Ueshiba Sensei changed what he learnt from Takeda Sensei and introduced throwing people away. Hisa Sensei had two clubs in Osaka; the Kansai Aikido Club and the Asahi Dojo. What he taught at the Asahi Dojo was different.

OK, taking that at face value, Ueshiba's contributions to the Asahi lineage are still Daito-ryu (not aikido) canon. There certainly is tactical value in the relatively few Daito-ryu jujutsu throws that aren't designed to go straight down for the usual intended arm and leg strikes to finish off the attacker. Sometimes using the attacker as a projectile (e.g. maybe toward a nearby wall or precipice) is a better game-ender than the ground in a given situation.

Gavin Slater 07-29-2014 08:14 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Hi Mert,

I just dont think aiki is something you get more and more of. So when you say high level aiki I get the impression that you think it is something you keep building on?

Yes that is a very impressive photo of Dan Harden doing 'aiki-age'. My teacher never used that term, and he said Hisa Sensei never used that term to him either. I dont think that term exists in Takeda Ryu, but there are really no terms or names. Maybe it is a modern term.

Yes Ueshiba Sensei had a very important contribution to Daito Ryu. Although at the time the students never knew they were learning Daito Ryu. They were just learning Ueshiba's martial art i.e. Ueshiba Ryu, he never told them the name, but he had started to change towards aikido during that time. If you look at the Asahi film that is very different to Takeda Ryu.

When Takeda Sensei arrived he did re-teach alot of the waza in the early books that did throw away waza. I remember my teacher telling me all of the time, in Ueshiba Ryu they did it like this, but Takeda Sensei told them do it differently. The waza were very different there is one in particular in Ueshiba Ryu in the 5th book I think, it was like the throw kaiten nage in aikido, but Takeda Sensei did not like that throw. The version he taught is completely different.

Gavin

Chris Li 07-29-2014 09:02 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote: (Post 338648)
Yes that is a very impressive photo of Dan Harden doing 'aiki-age'. My teacher never used that term, and he said Hisa Sensei never used that term to him either. I dont think that term exists in Takeda Ryu, but there are really no terms or names. Maybe it is a modern term.

Just off of the top of my head - here and here the Takumakai's Hakaru Mori uses the term "aiki-age". Seigo Okamoto used the term, and of course, Sagawa Yukiyoshi also used the term frequently (and he pre-dates Takuma HIsa in Daito-ryu). That's three different lines that really only have Takeda as a common denominator....

Best,

Chris

kewms 07-29-2014 10:48 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote: (Post 338648)
Hi Mert,

I just dont think aiki is something you get more and more of. So when you say high level aiki I get the impression that you think it is something you keep building on?

Yes that is a very impressive photo of Dan Harden doing 'aiki-age'. My teacher never used that term, and he said Hisa Sensei never used that term to him either. I dont think that term exists in Takeda Ryu, but there are really no terms or names. Maybe it is a modern term.

Why wouldn't it be possible to develop a deeper understanding of aiki, just like any other body skill?

I first heard the term "aiki-age" from a student of Okamoto Sensei's.

Katherine

Gavin Slater 07-30-2014 04:30 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Hi,

What Hisa Sensei taught at the Asahi Dojo was a bit different. Amatsu Sensei said he was never taught anything called aiki age from Hisa Sensei.

Gavin

Bernd Lehnen 07-30-2014 05:25 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Hello Gavin,

Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote: (Post 338648)
Hi Mert,

I just dont think aiki is something you get more and more of. So when you say high level aiki I get the impression that you think it is something you keep building on?

Yes that is a very impressive photo of Dan Harden doing 'aiki-age'. My teacher never used that term, and he said Hisa Sensei never used that term to him either. I dont think that term exists in Takeda Ryu, but there are really no terms or names. Maybe it is a modern term.

Yes Ueshiba Sensei had a very important contribution to Daito Ryu. Although at the time the students never knew they were learning Daito Ryu. They were just learning Ueshiba's martial art i.e. Ueshiba Ryu, he never told them the name, but he had started to change towards aikido during that time. If you look at the Asahi film that is very different to Takeda Ryu.

When Takeda Sensei arrived he did re-teach alot of the waza in the early books that did throw away waza. I remember my teacher telling me all of the time, in Ueshiba Ryu they did it like this, but Takeda Sensei told them do it differently. The waza were very different there is one in particular in Ueshiba Ryu in the 5th book I think, it was like the throw kaiten nage in aikido, but Takeda Sensei did not like that throw. The version he taught is completely different.

Gavin

Possibly, probably.

In any case I don't see therein any contradiction to what Zoe wrote here:

Quote:

....One of the characteristics of aiki-no-jutsu are of course, aiki as control with no leg or foot power. I was taught that Aiki-no jutsu is the higher level throws. I was also shown that in the Ropokai almost all of the techniques were of the aiki-no-jutsu level (higher level) and lack leg or foot power.

I think we should consider that Ueshiba, like Mori here, and Okomoto of the Ropokai, all decided to use the upper level techniques of the art demonstrating pure aiki as the foundation of their arts.....
In fact, throwing, done by Ueshiba, Hakaru Mori or Okamoto, to the eyes of those who had got the right instruction and were expected to know what to look for, may have been meant to show them one of the purest forms of aiki; this in the context of Budo but largely deprived of any aspect of real fighting.

Best,
Bernd

Cliff Judge 07-30-2014 05:58 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: (Post 338651)
Why wouldn't it be possible to develop a deeper understanding of aiki, just like any other body skill?

I first heard the term "aiki-age" from a student of Okamoto Sensei's.

Katherine

What if Aiki isn't a body skill?

Zoe 07-30-2014 07:10 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Hakaru Mori (森 恕) -- Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu Takumakai
(student of Takuma Hisa)

合気をかけ、合気技を行なうためには、関節技で要求されるこのような力・技術・要領等は必要要件ではない。むしろ、邪魔になると言ってもよい。

In order to apply Aiki and execute Aiki techniques, the strength, technical points and other essentials required for joint techniques are not necessary requirements. You could even say that they are an impediment.

つまり、合気技と関節技は、技の原理が全く異なっており、極端に言えば、両者の術理は対極にあると言ってもよい。従って、関節技の稽古をどれ程重ねても、それだけでは絶対 に合気には到達できないのである。

In other words, the fundamental principles behind Aiki techniques and joint techniques are completely different, stated extremely one could even say that their technical principles are diametrically opposed. Accordingly, however much one trains in joint techniques, that alone will absolutely not enable one to accomplish Aiki techniques.
Quote:

Takeshi Maeda (前田 武) -- Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu Renshinkan
(student of Toshimi Matsuda)

「集中力」ではなく、触れることで相手を無抵抗にさせることだと思います。接点から気を出して、丹田から足へと伝えることによって相手を動けない状態にしてしまう。あとは 投げようが倒そうが、こちらの意のままです。師匠の松田敏美には「力を入れるな」と教わりました。師の手を握った時の感触を覚えておいて、あとは自分でいろいろ思考錯誤す ることで身に付くはずです。私の場合には30年ぐらい掛かりましたね。

It is not "Shuchu-ryoku" ("focused power"), I believe that it is to make the opponent non-resistant upon touch. Extend Ki through the contact point, transmit from the Tanden to the feet and put the opponent in a condition in which they are unable to move. After that, they may be thrown or taken down at will. I was taught by my teacher Toshimi Matsuda "Don't put in power!". One must remember the feel of taking the teacher's hand and then absorb it through their own process of trial and error. In my case it took about thirty years.
Quote:

Hitoshi Nakano (中野 仁) -- Yoshinkan Hombu Dojo
(student of Gozo Shioda)

合気を得るには、理屈によるものと体によるものがあります。どちらも合気という答えを求めているのですが、戦後の新しい流派の多くは、過程を飛ばして理屈により答えを求め ているようです。私達はそれとは違い、基本動作や指導稽古等の過程、体を使った稽古を通じて合気を習得する方法をとっています。また、合気は必ずしも神秘的なものではなく 、敵との間合いや殺気を感じる等のことを含めて合気であると思います。

In order to grasp Aiki there are those that approach through theory and those that approach through the body. Both of these seek the answer to Aiki, but most of the new schools from the post-war skip past the process and seek the answer through theory. We are different from that, we chose the method of learning Aiki though the process of such things as Kihon-dosa and guided practice, training that uses the body.
Dan and I discussed this just last night regarding weapons. All the same principles are applied. Weapon work just makes it far more obvious.
Power from hara/dantian is used to create stability as mentioned here. It is what Dan calls dynamic stability that has such a profound effect on someone trying to push or pull you and they end up off balanced or having to adjust to retain balance. Since any point of contact has this soft power behind it and requires what feel like- as no effort at all- it tends to neutralize their force it then becomes easy to use aiki (In yo ho) to control in whatever way one wants. Throwing away or throwing down is not aiki, it is what happens after aiki, and is merely a choice that defines various arts approaches.
Zoe

Demetrio Cereijo 07-30-2014 07:49 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Cliff Judge wrote: (Post 338656)
What if Aiki isn't a body skill?

I'm all ears.

jonreading 07-30-2014 08:28 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
In one of my previous posts, I related a preservative feeling that drives my ukemi. First, I think that you have a cross roads at which you decide whether aiki is about you doing something to someone, or someone doing something because of you. If you understand that you are in physical jeopardy when you partner throws you into the ground, then you have an obligation to escape that jeopardy. I think there is a mis-conception that when you see someone thrown "away" it is because nage projected them in that direction. It's not. It's tiddlywinks. The force is up/down (ten chi). My partner "shoots" out to avoid the pressure. Can nage provide some guidance to the trajectory? Sure. The problem is that most of us cannot generate the vertical power to "shoot" our partner away, so instead we apply a directional force to "project" our partner. The crazy $hi! is that the tiddlywinks works against heaven, not just earth.

I think another cross roads we meet is when we have to cast a marble about what is aiki. I think most of us spend a considerable amount of time without fidelity to a concept of aiki. Right or wrong, I think we deliberately leave aiki as a nebulous concept. Part of my terminology contends that aiki is definite and demonstrable. I believe this because I have felt it and worked with a number of people who can show it, teach it, and transmit it. Part of my terminology contends that aiki is a [perishable] body skill. You condition you body through physical activity and that activity improves the quality and quantity with which to you utilize aiki. I believe this because we have been given a set of exercises and a curriculum that was originally intended to condition this skill.

I began differentiating aiki from aikido because I believe there is no majority definition of aiki in aikido. Its ridiculous to say, but the simple fact is there is no consensus in aikido about what is aiki. The understanding on which I have decided is not even a leading minority definition. This observation is also consistent with the demonstrations and instruction in which I have participated. There is a small minority of instructors who has started showing what they do in a different fashion. I believe these instructors are trying to separate aiki to give it a refined illustration. It didn't seem fair to assimilate the work these individuals did back into the collective aggregate. So, I separated them.

Aiki is not magic. It's not a power bar positioned below your avatar. It's not invisible force that shoots from your hands... I am not sure defining aiki by negation ( "I was never told that," "That's not what I do," "I can't do that," etc.) is going to ever produce a definition of aiki. If you don't believe in aiki, why entertain the discussion? If you believe in aiki, why not set forth the aspects about which you feel strongly and build consensus component by component? Hell, I can buy a judo book that defines aiki - I am not saying it's right, but at least they're casting a marble.

Aiki age (and its corresponding partner aiki sage) are Japanese terms that I have heard through a number of sources. We have a permutation of the exercise in aikido, we call kokyu tanden ho and it contains both the rising and falling components of the exercise. I think at some point we have a burden to personally invest in education beyond what we get in the dojo and that possibly transcends arts. Just cause we don't know it doesn't mean it ain't true.

Chris Li 07-30-2014 09:25 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote: (Post 338654)
Hi,

What Hisa Sensei taught at the Asahi Dojo was a bit different. Amatsu Sensei said he was never taught anything called aiki age from Hisa Sensei.

Gavin

Well, I understand that - I also understand that every line of Daito-ryu that I've seen or trained in uses the term, including people who pre-date Takuma Hisa, and other students of Takuma Hisa like Hakaru Mori. So what exactly is the point that you're trying to make?

Best,

Chris

kewms 07-30-2014 09:33 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Cliff Judge wrote: (Post 338656)
What if Aiki isn't a body skill?

Then what is it?

And, more relevant to the original point, why can't it be improved with study?

Katherine

Mert Gambito 07-30-2014 01:58 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote: (Post 338648)
Hi Mert,

I just dont think aiki is something you get more and more of. So when you say high level aiki I get the impression that you think it is something you keep building on?

If we were born with high-level ability, we wouldn't need to train, or have a reference like the Soden, would we? Heck, we can't even walk when we're born, let alone generate kuzushi on contact.

If you're saying that aiki in full bloom is inherent to the human condition -- as if we are born like light bulbs switched on but covered in opaque mud -- on what is that theory based? (Personally, I think we're all born with varying baselines of ability that must be developed into something martially effective).

And as a corollary, what is it then that allows, over time, a practitioner to more efficiently and fully scrape away the occlusion, and turn "muddy power" into "transparent power" (to borrow terminology from Sagawa-den Daito-ryu) and fully, efficiently express aiki in a manner that is martially effective?

Timothy WK 07-30-2014 06:33 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Regarding the Takumakai using or not using the term "aiki-age":

I was under the impression that there was a time when the Takumakai didn't use names for techniques. I thought that Okabayashi---after spending some time training with Tokimune---brought technique names into the Takumakai along with the Hiden Mokuroku organizational scheme. (I believe the Soden isn't organized in any particular fashion.)

So while I really don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if the name "Aiki-age" came through Tokimune and not Hisa.

Chris Li 07-30-2014 06:42 PM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Timothy Walters Kleinert wrote: (Post 338667)

So while I really don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if the name "Aiki-age" came through Tokimune and not Hisa.

That may well be true. Sokaku wasn't much on names, and he only taught Takuma Hisa for a short time - 2-3 years, much of which he wasn't even there in Osaka. In any case, I'm not sure why it appears to have been a sticking point.

Best,

Chris

Gavin Slater 07-31-2014 01:16 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Christopher Li wrote: (Post 338668)
That may well be true. Sokaku wasn't much on names, and he only taught Takuma Hisa for a short time - 2-3 years, much of which he wasn't even there in Osaka. In any case, I'm not sure why it appears to have been a sticking point.

Best,

Chris

Hi,

Im not making any point. I just said in Takeda Ryu there is no such thing as aiki age/sage. Amatsu Sensei never taught me anything called aiki age. Im just saying my experience in training Daito Ryu thats all.

In Daito Ryu aiki is defined you dont need to cast any marbles, its no secret. You just have to go to a dojo and ask them. I cant speak for Mori Sensei but I dont think what you posted opposes anything I said?

Gavin

Chris Li 07-31-2014 02:08 AM

Re: Demonstrating aiki, demontrating aikido.Same thing ?
 
Quote:

Gavin Slater wrote: (Post 338671)
Hi,

Im not making any point. I just said in Takeda Ryu there is no such thing as aiki age/sage. Amatsu Sensei never taught me anything called aiki age. Im just saying my experience in training Daito Ryu thats all.

In Daito Ryu aiki is defined you dont need to cast any marbles, its no secret. You just have to go to a dojo and ask them. I cant speak for Mori Sensei but I dont think what you posted opposes anything I said?

Gavin

I've been in a number of Daito-ryu dojo, including a number of years with direct students of Takuma Hisa - but I would probably class my experience of people's willingness (and their ability to do so, even if willing) to share in a somewhat less positive light.

In any case, every Daito-ryu line that I've run across uses the term "aiki-age", including direct students of Takuma HIsa like Mori, so it is liketly to have come from some central source and the most likely source for that is Takeda himself, that's all. FWIW, some of the Sagawa students claim that Yukiyoshi Sagawa really invented the name, but I'm a little sceptical of that one as well.

Best,

Chris


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.