Thread: A question
View Single Post
Old 10-17-2006, 08:41 AM   #8
David Humm
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 269
United Kingdom
Re: A question

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.
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.
..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.
... 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.



Last edited by David Humm : 10-17-2006 at 08:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote