AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   General (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   A question (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11143)

Elrond 10-17-2006 04:04 AM

A question
 
You know that aikido is an art which is derived from some other martial arts like taijit su, ken do...
Here comes the question;
Is it possible for somebody who does not know those arts in question to learn the aikido in the level of the person who has developed this art from the others?
I mean if you do not know the arts like taijut su .... will this mean you will not be able to learn the real aikido?

Mark Uttech 10-17-2006 04:21 AM

Re: A question
 
No one knows what the 'real aikido' is. That is why we all practice and search and research. As for where to begin, one has to begin somewhere, so it is best to just begin or you won't have a practice.

In gassho,
Mark

kocakb 10-17-2006 04:39 AM

Re: A question
 
Selam Arif :)
I don't think that it would be a problem...Most of the languages we speak are formed from eachother. You speak English but you don't know Latin...but your English still contains the fundament and is real. Same for Aikido, IMHO...

Guillaume Erard 10-17-2006 04:49 AM

Re: A question
 
Please correct me if I am wrong on this one. I remember reading a text from O Sensei where he basically says that his students don't have to go through the different arts he has been studying to understand AIkido. They just have to listen to him, watch him and practice Aikido.

I like kocakb's language analogy. I think it is very relevant here. This also implies that Aikido, like languages can evoluate and adpat itself. I like that! ;-)

med 10-17-2006 04:52 AM

Re: A question
 
I'm reasonably certain that Aikido was not in fact developed from Tai jutsu or Kendo. Let me be absolutely clear I am not divorcing Aikido from sword technique. I am simply saying that the techniques are much older than they could be if it was simply born out of Kendo or Tai jutsu. The techniques of Ai and ki were a guarded secret of the Aizu clan for a thousand years, made famous by Daito ryu Aiki Jujutsu. The Takeda family are responisible for guarding the secret techniques that were taught over this time to only the best practitioners of jujutsu. Read Obata Sensei's Samurai Aikijutsu for a lineage and a frank but opinionated angle on the developement of Aikido into its modern form. I found it hard to read because Obata Sensei does not mince words and has strong words to say about O'sensei and Jigoro Kano Sensei. But I found it refreshing that he speaks so openly and if any body is qualified to write on the lineage of Aiki technique it is a descendant of the Aizu clan himself.

But in principle I see where your coming from. Aikidoka should seek to expand there knowledge of the sword and body mechanics. The sword is an excellent tool for learning Kimai and improving Kamai. I can only talk form my experience in Pre war Aikido but I believe Aikido is a complete art and that study Kendo and tai jutsu are not necessary but may be complimentary, but no more than any other physical practice.

ian 10-17-2006 06:06 AM

Re: A question
 
Taijutsu really is just unarmed techniques, so karate/judo/jujitsu styles are also taijutsu. Indeed the 'techniques' of aikido in a broad sense are all seen in other martial arts (for example modern exploration of karate kata suggests that these kata encompass many of the grappling techniques similar to ikkyo, irimi-nage, kokyu-nage etc). Non-japanese martial arts (e.g. greek wrestling) also have developed similar techniques (e.g. 'sankyo'), probably through some convergent development (only so many ways to manipulate a body practically for self-defence).

However aikido is obviously different from ju-jitsu and other martial arts. I would say the main reasons for this is i. the training method, ii. the use of blending iii. the concept of destruction of the opponent not being an overall aim.

Daito ryu aikijitsu was certainly the basis for aikido development, and indeed 'aikijitsu' does have some concept of blending (though maybe not as exagerated as aikido). However the number of daito ryu techniques far exceedes that of what most people consider aikido (see M.Ueshibas first book).

I believe Ueshiba 'created' aikido in that he slimmed down the daito-ryu syllabus to the most important techniques (ikkyo, irimi-nage, shiho-nage, kokyu-nage, sokumen irimi-nage, sumi-otoshi, kaiten-nage, nikyo, sankyo, yonkyo, gokyo, rockyo... and on occasion aiki-otoshi and koshi-nage). Indeed, later on it pretty much seemed that just ikkyo and irimi-nage were the order of the day unless something unexpected happens. He also altered some techniques slightly (nikkyo done on the other side of the chest for example).

Also, traditional techniques had to be practiced in quite a static way with expressions like 'and then you break their neck' (thus things like karate kata which encompass some lethal techniques, but which cannot be practisced in their entirety with a person). However these methods often do not work in reality because the person has not practices them with a live person. Gigorano (in Judo) got around this problem by using the most effective techniques which could be practised full out in a non-lethal manner. Thus many techniques (such as rokyo) tend not to be practiced much in Judo now.

Aikido could be considered somewhere in between with the training method. You can have full power attacks and can throw quite hard, but the lethal or damaging end-points are not used. Thus we can practise techniques with a much more realistic uke than many traditional methods, but we retain the basis of techniques which are designed to kill or maim someone (e.g. throw onto the head with irimi-nage/shoulder disslocation with kaiten-nage or shiho-nage) - indeed aikido techniques also enable vital point strikes intrinsically within the technique. Though we have the same problem that, if we aren't actually doing them in practice, can we do them?

Thus, this is why aikido is often criticised as being unreal. We have tried to retain the real battlefield killing techniques with a semi-realistic training approach. Other traditional arts tend to be less realistic, other modern arts have taken out dangerous techniques. I'm guessing that what must have seemed like enlightenement for Ueshiba was that this logically led to thinking that these lethal techniques could thus also be done in reality in a non-harmful way. I'm not convinced that this is always practically possible (i.e. in a multiple-attack situation I think you really do need to put someone out of action with an irimi-nage quite quickly, and not throw them so they will get back up immediately and attack again - but maybe thats my failure in ability).

stelios 10-17-2006 06:46 AM

Re: A question
 
Strive to do your best in your everyday mental & physical training and you just might reach such a level of fluency that will enable you to overcome dillemas like your question. Every single path we take is unique, as everyone of us is, and so it does not need be compared to the background in martial education we each posess.

David Humm 10-17-2006 09:41 AM

Re: A question
 
Quote:

Ian Dodkins wrote:
However aikido is obviously different from ju-jitsu and other martial arts. I would say the main reasons for this is i. the training method, ii. the use of blending iii. the concept of destruction of the opponent not being an overall aim.

Nothing changes other than the intent of the budoka, compassionate application of waza with the intent not to harm or downright forceful !! Either way the technique's principles don't change, our intention however does, simply the difference between oyo (applied) and ara (severe) waza.
Quote:

I believe Ueshiba 'created' aikido in that he slimmed down the daito-ryu syllabus to the most important techniques (ikkyo, irimi-nage, shiho-nage, kokyu-nage, sokumen irimi-nage, sumi-otoshi, kaiten-nage, nikyo, sankyo, yonkyo, gokyo, rockyo... and on occasion aiki-otoshi and koshi-nage). Indeed, later on it pretty much seemed that just ikkyo and irimi-nage were the order of the day unless something unexpected happens. He also altered some techniques slightly (nikkyo done on the other side of the chest for example).
In Dai-to ryu "ikkyu" 一教 isn't actually a technique but a series of 118 within the Shoden level. Ikkyo essentially means "first teaching" and could feasibly be applied to anything being taught first. In actuality, in Dai-to Ryu its a series of waza and in aikido it's just one - ude osae 腕押さえ.
Quote:

..Thus, this is why aikido is often criticised as being unreal. We have tried to retain the real battlefield killing techniques with a semi-realistic training approach.
Sorry I can't agree with that statement, there is question as to whether Dai-to Ryu was in fact a "Battlefield Art" or more along the lines of a system of jujustu used within non military communities, I can't offer a perspective on that myself but aikido is a gendai art and in my humble opinion doesn't display a great deal of koryu form. Of course I understand the art's origins but "aikido" has undergone so much change (some good and not so good) it has developed this way because it is gendai and allows its students to apply a liberal amount of personal interpretation in its study, I don't get that at all from the koryu I've studied I feel aikido takes a bashing because it isn't seen or studied first and foremost as a martial system.
Quote:

... Other traditional arts tend to be less realistic, other modern arts have taken out dangerous techniques. I'm guessing that what must have seemed like enlightenement for Ueshiba was that this logically led to thinking that these lethal techniques could thus also be done in reality in a non-harmful way. I'm not convinced that this is always practically possible (i.e. in a multiple-attack situation I think you really do need to put someone out of action with an irimi-nage quite quickly, and not throw them so they will get back up immediately and attack again - but maybe thats my failure in ability).
Well my take on this is that aikido is merely a name for a particular budo and, regardless of ideological opinion, it should be martial in orientation, through that we change ourselves (for the better hopefully) ideology and philosophy can be applied to a system of effectiveness and still be a worthwhile endeavor however; intention vs. situation requires the student to be able to make choices about their appropriate reaction to threat, ideology or philosophy won't reason with an unreasonable threat, effective martial skills however will, the person then makes a choice based on situation whether severe injury occurs as a result.

What I also think has to be borne in mind is that compassion. harmony, blending etc doesn't mean subservience, and is relative to any given situation. Of course it would be wrong of me to wantonly break a person's arm for little reason however, if that person posed a continued threat to me or others, and there was no other means of action, then breaking the arm would be perfectly valid, indeed place a weapon in this situation and I assure you, I'm looking be in "control" of that person quickly and effectively, that may well involve an injury that that individual yet I am still acting compassionately to others by dealing with the threat in such a way it no longer exists.

Conflict resolution without violence is indeed a worthwhile ideology to follow however, to be in a position to realistically achieve this, one must first forge the body and mind through practical experiences, often in fights of a 'real' nature. Thankfully we don't exist in a "live and die by the sword" mentality but, we strive for the ideological goals through martial practice not IMHO through philosophical practice.

Regards

Regards


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.