Ueshiba taking Ukemi

Ellis Amdur wrote: I do think that the "source" of Ueshiba's power is somewhat more nuanced than you do - in the same way that Sagawa reportedly made his aiki something different from what he learned. Call it 90% DR - 10% from somewhere else - from his own genius??? From other studies????

Yeah I know. We're doomed to go round and round on it. Mojito's are on me
So....If there are enitities to be added unnecessarily...When? Where? How? With what? The assertion is that it wasn't all there in the teachings in the first place. That the teaching was incomplete. I guess we can say the same for Xing -I and Tai chi as well. If you study those-you have to go elsewhere to improve them.
So lets go with that then. Let me ask more questions
Since Takeda, Sagawa, Kodo, Ueshiba were all amazing- where did each go to find this other "stuff" to surpass the stuff they learned?
1. Was it the same place?
2. Same Man?
3. Did the same missing parts and pieces get fixed the same way? 4. What?
Nuance can also be so small as to be negligable and worth discounting. It remains they were all unusually skilled and powerful in the same way. Sagawa, Kodo, and Ueshiba each said they surpassed Takeda's teachings. They were smart. They were innovators. But, without Takeda's teachings? They were nothing.
It stands to reason that many guys felt that in their later years they had areas of enlightenment in this or that. In the area or internal skills your understanding builds over time. The gradual realizations of what your teachers has instilled in them all along and their own discoveries. But they were all taught the excellent and teachable internal skills of Daito ryu.

90%10%
Don't get me wrong I don't care if it is, or isn't 100%. Folks see me argue and assume I have a vested interest. Nope. It's just is all I see him doing and we know where he got it.. It begs the question if the guy trained in it for twenty years and taught it, and handed our scrolls in it, and does it on video-
What's the "need" for it to be anything else? Of course there is a natural evolution in those who train these skills. Over years you just keep getting better. Your natural abilities and personal "bents" will certainly color what you do.
But to adequately judge these things-if it is even possible- we need more information. Since Takeda "made" Sagawa, Kodo, and Ueshiba, It makes it easy -at least for me-to say that regardless of their "unknown," "unproved," "theorized," and guessed at added skills- I see Daito ryu men.

Ellis Amdur wrote: For example, I've got some body skills which I use in Araki-ryu which come from elsewhere, (and I'm in the process of acquiring more). At what point am I no longer doing Araki-ryu when I'm doing Araki-ryu?

Well, men's proclivities run the gamut of possible interests. Your teacher discharged you to change the art. So its your call to invigorate, refine, roughen, or even modify into an unrecognizable entity. It would be ashamed if that were the case, but that's your call. One could do other things and then do that art. Thus preserving it to some extent. But since you brought it up. Wouldn't it be still Araki ryu were it infussed with your understanding of the Asian methods of internal power? I mean since Araki ryu is allowed to be changed then in every aspect the change is still the art eh?

Ellis Amdur wrote: Further questions arise when one asks what part of a practice touches the essence of the tradition. In other words, since Ueshiba's spiritual leanings permeated what he did - does this make his art something different from DR? Then, of course, the next question - is such a change tangibly for better or for worse. Returning to aikido, it goes both ways: Deblooded is a bad thing, less pretzel logic (thank you for that!) is good.

Well the essence of most of these arts --were- these body skills anyway. That's the real essence. Definable waza and movements that establish and X ryu for a Y ryu are just ways of expressing these skills in terms of strategy really. Whether you are using great power to cut through-or great balance and skills to move around can and should be a result of good body training none-the-less. What you make of it is expression.

Ellis Amdur wrote: "Hidden in Plain Sight" is far different now than when I wrote it the first time - as you hint, it will be bound between covers once I finish peer review of the chapters. Best

Well, as a fan, I thought it was just a good suggestion really.
I didn't expect an answer.

Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: This was my response two years ago to the "Hidden in plain site thread" -where theories were being explored that Ueshiba had to go outside and train in Chinese arts, and or esoteric Shinto practices, and or a multiplicity of unrelated arts to "get his stuff." When the truth is he got his stuff from Takeda's Daito ryu. Along with Sagawa, Kodo, Hisa, and Shioda. What -was- hidden was the truth behind Takeda's power. The answers once again lend credibilty to Occam's razor. That being-the simplest answer was correct.

Unless someone trained with both Ueshiba and Takeda "back in the day", there's just no way of knowing. Imagine a bunch of dilettante Aikido practitioners 50 years from now and one of them insisting that Tohei "got his goods" from Ueshiba, no doubt about it. Tohei studied with Ueshiba and was Ueshiba's highest ranked guy, so that would end the discussion.... UNLESS you happen to know that Ueshiba didn't teach the ki/kokyu skills and that Tohei had to go outside to Tempu Nakamura to get his real info on the kokyu/jin skills.

Same thing with the imperative "Ueshiba had to get the kokyu/jin skills from Takeda". The real killer to this theory is that there are apparently *many* sources of these ki/kokyu skills in Japan. Ueshiba may well have been just like Tohei and had to go outside (like from Omoto practitioners) in order to get his info.

I think that rather than insist that Ueshiba got his ki/kokyu skills from Takeda, we're safer just saying that Aikido derives from DR and that's about all we provably know, despite Occam's razor.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: Unless someone trained with both Ueshiba and Takeda "back in the day", there's just no way of knowing.

Hi Mike
We do know there were many who felt both. Even those who did not like Takeda openly discussed his superior abiltities over Ueshiba and wrote of them. Others- including some newer guys you will never know because they refused to discuss it openly- also formed opinions.You would have to go back years and read all the materials. I have all of the Aikido journals from day 1 issue one. Then there is other evidence that Stan knows about but it is held in the schools and no one outside will ever see it Still others felt Kodo and Ueshiba, Sagawa and Ueshiba. There is a reason both are held in high regard.
But mores the point and as you asked
"In the day" -Ueshiba already had the stuff while under Takeda. And that was written about also. Just that Takeda was better.
So the argument is moot.
And they "all" got better as they aged and trained. Not just Ueshiba.

Mike Sigman wrote: Same thing with the imperative "Ueshiba had to get the kokyu/jin skills from Takeda". The real killer to this theory is that there are apparently *many* sources of these ki/kokyu skills in Japan. Ueshiba may well have been just like Tohei and had to go outside (like from Omoto practitioners) in order to get his info.

Except that this logic does not address Sagawa, Kodo, and Ueshiba together. And adding entities "had to go outside" is an opperative phrase here.
1.Takeda taught Sagawa (and that was enough)
2.Takeda taught Kodo (and that was enough)
3. Takeda taught Ueshiba (he was stupid and incomplete and had to go outside)
4. Sagawa made Kimura (how")
5. Kodo made several men with real skills inclusing Shioda and Okomotto (how?)
So are we to assume that Ueshiba was dumb and didnlt get it and had to go elsewhere?
Or are we asserting he was better than his contemporaries becase he went outside?

Mike Sigman wrote: I think that rather than insist that Ueshiba got his ki/kokyu skills from Takeda, we're safer just saying that Aikido derives from DR and that's about all we provably know, despite Occam's razor. FWIW Mike Sigman

Hmm....Isn't it odd that only these two schools were the premier internal shools in Japan over all others. Bits and pieces here and there..then these giants. I wonder why?
Actually there is no evidence to contradict that Takeda was the sole source of Ueshiba's skills. Ueshiba's training in other things was neglible. As well there is solid interviews and first hand information of their skills and what they could do with them again "in the day." And again adding Sagawa and Kodo into the mix as his contemporaries begs the question of where they got their substantial skills if Ueshiba alone had to go outside. All this theory and speculation trying to contradict some rather sound logic and obvious connections has never offered up anything of the same substance and detail. I think its pushing a point past all reasonable bounds and trying to put a square peg in a round whole to make some point.

I always wonderd why no one else "claimed" to have taught Ueshiba-this famous guy-these amazing "added skills" after Takeda. And Yagyu Soke even denied the scrolls authenticity regardig Ueshiba.
It truly is "adding entities uneccesarily"
The Aikikai had tried in vain to do much the same thing for years...
Nothing new here.
Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: Actually there is no evidence to contradict that Takeda was the sole source of Ueshiba's skills.

And there is no evidence to contradict the assertion that humans were genetically tailored from apes by Aliens. It's hard to prove a negative, but that doesn't mean the statement is true, just because "no one can disprove it".

Ueshiabs training in other things was neglible.

Pooh... we could say the same thing about your training and you're still picking up information on ki/kokyu skills right now from outside sources, right? My point is still... "We don't know for sure enough to make definitive statements".

I think its pushing a point past all reasonable bounds and trying to put a square peg in a round whole to make some point.

Unfortunately, I'm not trying to make a point... I'm simply rebutting yours, since you give a chance to re-examine the same point about once every month or so.

If I had to place a bet, I'd place one that Ueshiba learned a decent proportion of his jin/kokyu stuff from Takeda.... but I would not go further than that because it's so danged murky and I don't like to make definitive pronouncements that may come back to haunt me (among sane people, of course, not the whacko's like you-know-who).

Best.

Mike

Soon we will be splitting split ends, not hairs. My own interests, as some of you know, are not to enhance my aikido (a truly side-interest in my own training) - it is to enhance my "me." But "Hidden in Plain Sight" was/is written not only or even primarily as an essay on how important internal skils are. That would be a very short essay. "Internal skills are really really important. I've seen it, I've felt it, and I can't do it. I want to do it. I'm practicing."
The essay was a challenge to aikidoka that WITHIN Ueshiba's teaching is all that one needs - IF one trains in what he did. And if, for whatever reason, he channeled his training thru the Misogi rather than thru what he learned from Takeda, then I suggest it behooves the aikidoka to learn it. If they want to learn DR, then they should jump the fence - caveat emptor being a caution, however, because I've seen as much to criticize on that side of the pasture as within the aikido world.
It may be that thru this training:
1. Ueshiba actually embraced a method of cultivation inferior to what he had, and he was unable to permutate it into something others could use.
2. He did that alchemy, and created the equivalent of a second set of formula that created the same alchemical change.
3. He continued to improve using his own personal methods, and got better and better - (maybe better or worse than he would have had he merely stayed with Takeda).
And for me, other ramifications including the political and psychological meaning of the change are also very intriguing.
Hence "Hidden . . ." rewritten. And after it's written, my own personal training will continue, as if I hadn't written it at all, except the writing of it has enabled me to engage in dialogue and meet people who know things that I want to know.
Best

Ellis Amdur wrote: The essay was a challenge to aikidoka that WITHIN Ueshiba's teaching is all that one needs - IF one trains in what he did.

I agree with that. There are a number of different approaches to these skills, best typified by the "External Schools" (like Shaolin) and "Internal Schools" (like Baguazhang, Xingyichuan, Taijichuan, Wujichuan, Li He Ba Fa, etc., etc. .... they were *not* all "Taoist" schools that were "internal", BTW; that's a myth).

Of all the approaches that at least starts in the right direction for the Aikido that Ueshiba did, so far I like the general approach of Tohei's Ki-Society. If someone has an approach that is radically different from Tohei's approach, they need to ask themselves why they're so different. There is an important aspect of so-called "internal" training that I think a lot of people are going to miss is they go on some of the harder routes. Then again, half a loaf is better than no bread at all.

Best.


Mike

I don't mind a healthy debate.
I disagree with you but don't feel strongly enough to lose sleep over it either.
Again two posts one from each. Neither adressing the questions I asked, and Ellis outlining the mostly lousy DR he has seen.
So,
Explain Takeda?
1. Explain Sagawa please_____________
2. Explain Kodo please_______________
3. Explain Shioda please______________
4. Explain Okomotto please____________

Each exhibiting internal skills from Daito ryu. But Ueshiba had to go into shinto practices?

I keep waiting for anything by way of fact, interviews, etc.to contradict the questions I placed in the above posts about other men with internal skills within the art that Ueshiba studied for twenty years. Are we now openly asserting that Ueshiba was better? Is that it?
Now, remember I still don't discount that 10% I just suggested following it up and looking at it. So I asked more questions.
Since Daito ryu isn't good enough or up to someones par to account for Ueshiba's skills. What about these guys?
1. Takeda was amazing where'd he get his added 10%
2. Sagawa was amazing where'd he get his added 10%
3. Kodo?
4. Shioda? Left Ueshiba to go learn his 10%.......where?
Daito ryu (Kodokai)
4. Or are we asserting Ueshiba was so much better that there just HAD to be something else?

Again I've asked in a very even,and logical fashion to look at the sum of all four men who were all amazing?
How did they get there? Why? With what skills?
Then add Kodos students who are amazing
and it all points to Daito ryu
I really don't care if its X or Y ryu. I could care less. But the connection speaks for itself.

Cheers
Dan

Tohei?? Hmmm...
1. Since Ueshiba was poweful "in the day" where did that come from? Tohei? Or Takeda?
2. Since "in the day" he was known for his feats of strength-How'd that happen?
3. Since Takeda was known for publicly displaying the same feats of strength that Ueshiba did and did them before him. Where did it come from?
4. Since Sagawa was openly demonstrating DR's Aiki (which is far more in depth than basic kokyu skills) How is it that Tohie's seemingly lesser skills are a superior model?
5. I'd at least consider whether there still exists in some schools of DR ...Superior methods.
6. Ueshiba's students stated Takeda was superior. We should study Tohies methods why?
7. Mike why Tohei and exlude Shioda's methods?

Since these skills can be used for many things, and the basics are rather easy to grasp- how significant was Ueshiba's misogi in altering anything much he had already learned from Takeda? Whom he said Taught me the truth of Budo."
And as compared to exactly what practices...in which school of Daito ryu?
Exactly -what- was improved, or missing alltogether?
I'd certainly accept an "I don't know"
It's better than the alternative

Facinating stuff, doesn't really matter any more but facinating and fun nonetheless
Cheers
Dan

Good questions, Dan.... but they're questions and not the definitive answers. There are questions that can imply a number of things, but the point I made was that no one knows for sure. The real problem to your thesis is that your thesis assumes Takeda was the only recorded person that Ueshiba was around from whom Ueshiba could have gotten those skills. What I'm pointing out is that those same kokyu/jin skills were and are in a number of Japanese arts (not to mention Chinese arts, from which a lot of these skills derived). Ueshiba, like a lot of people who learn some of these skills, didn't give complete credit to anyone, so we just don't know for sure. That's all I'm saying. Everyone likes to act like they know everything and like they've known it for a long time.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman wrote: Good questions, Dan.... but they're questions and not the definitive answers. There are questions that can imply a number of things, but the point I made was that no one knows for sure. The real problem to your thesis is that your thesis assumes Takeda was the only recorded person that Ueshiba was around from whom Ueshiba could have gotten those skills. What I'm pointing out is that those same kokyu/jin skills were and are in a number of Japanese arts (not to mention Chinese arts, from which a lot of these skills derived). Ueshiba, like a lot of people who learn some of these skills, didn't give complete credit to anyone, so we just don't know for sure. That's all I'm saying. Regards, Mike Sigman

Well of course I can agree with that to point. I'm not at all convinced of the answers either. I lean one way for several reasons. It remains interesting that he was nothing, then Takeda came, then he was skilled and powerful.
And that is about the sum of it.
Two things of note.
1. His training was very well documented. and the power was exhibited under Takeda? Which says what?
2. Takeda, Sagawa and Kodo all had it as well. The common link is there, its seems silly to stretch it. There are men alive today in DR who have it as well. The method is there and is reproducible.


Cheers
Dan

Ellis Amdur wrote: Great post, Brion. One question arises - if the conventional method of taking ukemi in aikido is just the sort of "innovation" that you caution against. It's not that old, and could be considered something quite alien, not only to DR ukemi, but to most jujutsu as well (excepting the circus-like performances,and "trained" responses Dan mentions, which were probably rife in earlier days as well). Best

Thank you for the kind words. I am sorry if I seemed to caution against innovation; what I was talking about was avoiding mistakes masquerading as innovation. As I asked in my previous post, "...how do we know when innovation is called for?"
Aikido's ukemi is innovative in the long context of martial arts practice. But it has been around long enough, I believe, to qualify as traditional (that is, multi-generational, and of coherent structure, among other things).
Aikido itself is an innovation, so I am hardly standing on an ancient platform here. It is also radical (and check that etymology), but its practices by now have sufficient weight and momentum, and have been worked at by enough talented people that I was only suggesting that any tinkering, let alone significant departures, need to be considered carefully.
With any luck, Aikido in a few centuries will be largely unrecognizable to the likes of me. This will happen if people, working with what they were given from Ueshiba's time, can build on the art, making true innovations.

O.K. Dan - I'll answer all your questions.
1. "Explain Takeda?" - See my next essay on AJ for the best answer I can come up with.
2.. "Explain Sagawa please" - learned from Takeda, also did Kogen Itto-ryu and Araki-ryu, reportedly found the latter useless - and reportedly made a new form of aiki training
3. "Explain Kodo please" - loyal student of Takeda only.
3. "Explain Shioda please" - 95% Ueshiba + the statement by Tomoo Yawata and others' of my acquaintance that he got the "trigger" from Kodo
4. "Explain Okamoto please" - Kodokai.
NOW - since I've never asserted that Ueshiba is better, why do you bring that up again? This is/was about aikido - Ueshiba. Your next set of questions are also confusing as they don't address anything I've been saying. But to answer them anyway - let's say of all your luminaries, Ueshiba was the WORST. Okamoto, on a bad day could pretzel him into ribbons. Shioda, his own student, could grind him to dust. Among the superstars, his light is dimmest of all - a mere red dwarf.
BUT - for aikidoka, they receive a transmission from him thru their teacher, etc. They WANT to do aikido. So, I've been curious how Ueshiba did his own training. If I want to retrace his steps, that's the way to go. If they say - well, is there a better way, is there a shorter way - maybe so. And you, among others, have provided the signposts. There are even some Kodokai guys in Japan who seem to be teaching without demanding a pledge of a first born. There may be some Yoshinkan guys who actually learned what Shioda taught.
SIGH - you, my friend, consistently read what I write too fast - which is a terrible insult because every phrase should be savored like a fine cognac beside a warm fire. I have NEVER - ONCE - suggested that Ueshiba found a better way to train that made him better than any of the other stars. I have only suggested that he found some other training methods that interested him - and given that Sagawa stated that breath training wasn't productive, and Ueshiba found it very important, they went on two divergent paths. For 99.999999999999% of all aikidoka alive, Sagawa's methods will probably be beyond reach or accessibility. My written project over the past few years has to say - it's within aikido! How terrible that the teacher taught and somehow it was missed. But this requires me to ask, what did he teach? So I do.

Best

Dan Harden wrote: Well of course I can agree with that to point. I'm not at all convinced of the answers either. I lean one way for several reasons. It remains interesting that he was nothing, then Takeda came, then he was skilled and powerful. And that is about the sum of it.

Interestingly, in "Ki no Kakuritsu" Koichi Tohei makes the opposite argument (based upon conversations with Ueshiba's Judo instructor) - Ueshiba was no more powerful than before after studying with Takeda, but became suddenly more powerful after his association with Deguchi began. I don't completely buy his reasoning, but that was one of the reasons that Tohei went in the direction that he did.

Best,

Chris

Ellis
Other than quoting you about not looking in some areas of DR that are lousy- the rest of the posts were to Mike. That's why it was such a disconnect to what we've been discussing for a while now The questions really cannot be answered. But they raise points worth discussing.

I know where you stand on all this. Mike keeps more or less marginalizing the influence of DR. You know better.
Sorry for the confusion. But I must confess the cognac of your ire and confusion was aromatic still, and I, unlike Clinton, inhaled deeply.....before I swallowed.
It would have been more fun face to face you wouldn't have been so polite.
Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: Mike keeps more or less marginalizing the influence of DR.

No, Dan, I'm marginalizing your unsupported assertions by saying we don't know for sure.... a point which you have already conceded, so how can I be "marginalizing"? I admit probability is on the side of your position (not your point-blank assertions, though), but not definitively. I just think it helps an argument/debate to be as honest as possible in evaluation.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Christopher Li wrote: Interestingly, in "Ki no Kakuritsu" Koichi Tohei makes the opposite argument (based upon conversations with Ueshiba's Judo instructor) - Ueshiba was no more powerful than before after studying with Takeda, but became suddenly more powerful after his association with Deguchi began. I don't completely buy his reasoning, but that was one of the reasons that Tohei went in the direction that he did. Best, Chris

That would be interestig to hear or track down. Was it the 17 year old shoden who taught Ueshiba in Tanabe-all growed up who commented later in life?
The deguchi thing is tenuous also. Was the Judoka in Ayabe before, during, and after Takeda's 9 month stay to confirmand compare things?
Its always tough to hear things third party removed but its sometimes all we have.
Dan

Mike Sigman wrote: No, Dan, I'm marginalizing your unsupported assertions by saying we don't know for sure.... a point which you have already conceded, so how can I be "marginalizing"? I admit probability is on the side of your position (not your point-blank assertions, though), but not definitively. I just think it helps an argument/debate to be as honest as possible in evaluation. Regards, Mike Sigman

Just to be clear though I really don't care if it came from his imagination, the CMA which is where all these skills probably originated from anyway or from his 20yr. tenure in DR. I just hate to see more "spin" added to the Aikikai Ueshiba mythmakers. While I agree with the honest debate. I just wish it had originated as one.

I'll go back and look But I commented about your marginalizing in that in so many of your continued references to the skills you've not often reffered to DR's prominance or discussed the several men in it who were his contemporaries and who by many acounts were considered better, and or equal-actually most said better. And we all seem to now agree Ueshiba spent 20 years training in it and exhibited power during that tenure.
Of the thousands of posts across many boards I see CMA, and Misogi influence with nary a word for his most profound influence.
Thats the only point I was making about marginaliziing. No big deal or argument. It was just an impression thats all.

Some assertions about his possible influences are sketchy, though still sound.
The ones I try to stick with have at least the provinance of circumstantial evidence through many interviews and his contemporaries.
While neither case is admittedly provable. the later is the more compelling.
But the influence of the percentages 90/10 80/20 what have you- I never discounted. Just wondering why we don't follow the logic?

Where Takeda and Sagawa went to get there extra perecentage?. And why Shioda's extra came from going back to Kodo.

To be sure it isn't going to effect my training in the least. I'm open to all sources and am pursuing several.
Intriguing as the history is- I'm sure I'll get a good nights sleep.
Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: Just to be clear though I really don't care if it came from his imagination, the CMA which is where all these skills probably originated from anyway or from his 20yr. tenure in DR. I just hate to see more "spin" added to the Aikikai Ueshiba mythmakers. While I agree with the honest debate. I just wish it had originated as one. I'll go back and look But I commented about your marginalizing in that in so many of your continued references to the skills you've not often reffered to DR's prominance or discussed the several men in it who were his contemporaries and who by many acounts were considered better, and or equal-actually most said better. And we all seem to now agree Ueshiba spent 20 years training in it and exhibited power during that tenure. Of the thousands of posts across many boards I see CMA, and Misogi influence with nary a word for his most profound influence. Thats the only point I was making about marginaliziing. No big deal or argument. It was just an impression thats all.

Well, wait a minute... you're mixing two different topics, Dan. I've noted before that most people recognize that DR played a prominant role in the development of Aikido. That's mentioned in many books, AJ has a whole sectional forum devoted to DR, many interviews from DR are posted and so forth. It's a given, Dan.

The only discussion I ever remember responding to was your assertions that Ueshiba got all his ki stuff from Takeda. It's not fully known.... and that has been my continued comment.

The ones I try to stick with have at least the provinance of circumstantial evidence through many interviews and his contemporaries. While neither case is admittedly provable. the later is the more compelling. But the influence of the percentages 90/10 80/20 what have you- I never discounted. Just wondering why we don't follow the logic?

I'll follow the logic all day long, but the anecdotes are sketchy and, as you'll note, you continue to concede that nothing is definitively proved. So we agree on that point.

Where Takeda and Sagawa went to get there extra perecentage?. And why Shioda's extra came from going back to Kodo.

I honestly think all the theories need to go back to the drawing board and be looked at from the perspective that the ki/kokyu skills were not just known by one or two people in Japan. With the multiple sources it's difficult to say exactly who learned what from whom, how much was cobbled together, etc., etc.

FWIW

Mike

BTW, Dan, I'm more of a mind to suggest that Ueshiba got some of his stuff from Takeda, but got the hints on the softer direction from somewhere else. I.e., the Takeda source is there, but Ueshiba's filmed actions suggest to me that he was doing a different approach than Sagawa, etc. It's the old "Shaolin" versus "Taoist" argument. The tension approach, even though it also has six-directions, etc., is more of a Buddhist approach. The very soft approach is quite different. Think of it as the difference between what you practice and the general approach of the Ki-Society. The Ki-Society approach almost undoubtedly reflects the approach Ueshiba used, while your general approach is the other side of the same animal.

Using that perspective, you'll remember that I said something in prior months about Ushiro and others using approaches that, while containing basic ki/kokyu skills, are probably not the same methods that Ueshiba use.

Hence, my lack of enthusiasm about the "Ueshiba got everything he knew from Takeda" theory.


My opinion, FWIW.

Mike

Dan Harden wrote: That would be interestig to hear or track down. Was it the 17 year old shoden who taught Ueshiba in Tanabe-all growed up who commented later in life? The deguchi thing is tenuous also. Was the Judoka in Ayabe before, during, and after Takeda's 9 month stay to confirmand compare things? Its always tough to hear things third party removed but its sometimes all we have. Dan

Yes, that's the guy. He knew (and taught) Ueshiba before he ever met Takeda (before 1910), and was acquainted with him at least through 1940, when he suggested to Tohei that he seek Ueshiba ought since he (Tohei) had become dissatisfied with Judo.

I'm not entirely satisfied with Tohei's conclusion here, since it is based entirely upon the timeline during which Ueshiba meet Takeda and Deguchi, and ignores the fact that Ueshiba was constantly researching what he'd learned from Takeda through that period, but that was his opinion. It's possible, I suppose, that Deguchi (or someone else) provided the clues that Ueshiba needed to figure out what Takeda had been doing, especially since Takeda wasn't one to give detailed explanations.

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: Yes, that's the guy. He knew (and taught) Ueshiba before he ever met Takeda (before 1910), and was acquainted with him at least through 1940, when he suggested to Tohei that he seek Ueshiba ought since he (Tohei) had become dissatisfied with Judo. I'm not entirely satisfied with Tohei's conclusion here, since it is based entirely upon the timeline during which Ueshiba meet Takeda and Deguchi, and ignores the fact that Ueshiba was constantly researching what he'd learned from Takeda through that period, but that was his opinion. It's possible, I suppose, that Deguchi (or someone else) provided the clues that Ueshiba needed to figure out what Takeda had been doing, especially since Takeda wasn't one to give detailed explanations. Best, Chris

Well, that once again brings in the issues of
1. Were Takeda's teachings not good enough technically?
Or were they so ill-defined that Ueshiba had to go elsewhere? How'd Sagawa, and Kodo, and Yoshida manage?
Where'd they go?
Did -they- have to?
Did anyone really have to?
Was it simply a matter of time and training- each to his own- and the whole idea of ever "having" to go elsewhere was simply hogwash?

2. Maybe what differentiated all of them- including Takeda himself as well as Sagawa, Kodo Yoshida and Ueshiba- from everyone else is that each was intelligent, curious and self-absorbed enough to work though. Same as with CMA stylists. Thousands of whom never got it either. But then you had the self absorbed workers and experimenters who worked through.

3. Then again It makes me wonder about the next generation of men under Kodo, and under Sagawa. There are some men with serious skills. Just how'd they manage?

You are right in that Takeda supposedly did not give detailed explanations. The method certainly appeared on the surface to be as if he had great internal skills and was sort of making it up on the spot, as a result of the way the guys moved or he was in fact just showing things once and telling folks to "figure it out for themselves." The former certainly gives thought to why there was such disparate teaching in so many circles as the years went on.
Anyway, it leaves one to ask if there was in fact any truth to this notion of Ueshiba discovering other methods,-which remains posiible I guess.
But that leaves me to ask "Other methods from what "known methods" of Takeda's?" Known by whom?
And even assuming its true "How "much" was it an improvement over what he already was taught?"
Or was it in fact just a reiteration of what he had already been taught and was still working on?
Or was it just a slight rather insignificant additive?
And further, since most folks are ignorant of the methods in the various schools of Daito Ryu-even folks in the different schools are. Then it seems rather tenouos to claim an understanding of the differences between Takeda, Sagawa, Kodo. and Yoshida skills and those of Ueshiba's theoretical changes.
In the absence of a large body of evidence- I opt to follow the evidence we do have- to is most logical conclusion.
These men all exhibited the same core skills and demonstrated the same types of unsual power.
Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: So it leaves one to ask if there was in fact any truth to this notion of Ueshiba discovering other methods,-which remains posiible I guess-But that leaves me to ask "Other methods from what known methods of Takeda's?"

Well, that's a good question, Dan. You have been ascribing Ueshiba's expertise to DR.... do you know enough about the real training methods in DR to actually take that position? Or are you just doing a "my style" type of discussion when you bring it up about Takeda being Ueshiba's teaching? Answer that part and I'll tell you the logic of the rest.

Regards,

Mike

I'm not into "styles" Mike. Nor do I have any vested interest. If it was all from this, or partially from that I'd be up for that as well. I dont care if its ryu specific- or just good solo work. I'm open for any version of answers to these questions. I Just don't think there is a man alive who can answer them. Comparitive analysis requires something to compare. Particularly between the experts of that time.
Now, there are men in DR who can do many of the things you see Ueshiba doing and others that are superior to anything I have seen Ueshiba do. But the teaching methods in DR are all over the place-like in many arts. With a few extremely different approaches. So no one can say it is this or that. It is more appropriate to point at the real experts -just like you do with the CMA. You don't define the Taiji by the masses. You define it by the experts.
For that reason I stick with Takeda, Sagawa, Yoshida, Kodo, who were Ueshiba's contemporaries and who each were known for their power. The question remains how and what they were taught. And why there were so very few and why they -apparently at least- did not need to go outside. They found what they needed within, in more ways than one.
Cheers
Dan

Dan Harden wrote: . They found what they needed within, in more ways than one. Cheers Dan

I think that is the thrust of the question isn't it? It is obvious Ueshiba did not find what he needed so he sought answers to his questions elsewhere. It is the elsewhere and the whom involved in the elsewhere that people like Stan are trying to find the best answers to. Stan has conducted much research and continues to conduct research into this question. When we offer speculation and unsupported opinion we just muddy the waters further. Of course sites like this would probably fade away without so many people offering both. myself included.

Dan Harden wrote: I Just don't think there is a man alive who can answer them. Comparitive analysis requires something to compare. Particularly between the experts of that time.

Voila'! You just said what I have been saying, lo these many messages, Dan.

Now, there are men in DR who can do many of the things you see Ueshiba doing and others that are superior to anything I have seen Ueshiba do.

But you haven't seen Ueshiba do anything, Dan. You're making your statement based on a few filmclips, filmclips in which you can be sure that he's not going to show all that he really can do, right?

For that reason I stick with Takeda, Sagawa, Yoshida, Kodo, who were Ueshiba's contemporaries and who each were known for their power. The question remains how and what they were taught. And why there were so very few and why they -apparently at least- did not need to go outside. They found what they needed within, in more ways than one.

I agree with that, more or less, Dan, although again all you're going by is anecdotes, books, and maybe a few filmclips, since you weren't there. And again, these guys didn't publicize or show the public their actual capabilities. Their students, like Ueshiba's, tended to glorify things that happened, so it's all too murky to tell.

So when you say "Other methods from what known methods of Takeda's?", my question of "what do you *know* of Takeda's actual methods" is very valid. If you don't really know yourself what and how Takeda trained, how can you question what Ueshiba actually knew and where he got it?

Regards,

Mike Sigman