Craig Hocker wrote:
that's not the point - who came up with what.
That's not my point either. My point is that often when a person on these or other forums promotes or berates what they call Aikiken or Aikijo, they obviously have a particular style in mind or else are just repeating what they have read elsewhere.
The point of weapons practice being a supplementary practice to unarmed practice seems to have come from those who have felt a need to defend Saito Sensei's weapons system from negative comments, often by people who are involved in koryu. I have never heard or read Saito Sensei as having said that taijutsu is of more importance than the other stuff he did. (I could be wrong, so I'd be very interested in hearing evidence of such thinking.) Most of my Aikiken, Aikijo comes from Shirata Sensei via John Stevens Sensei. In this system, all three are of equal value.
As far as there not being a major difference in the goals of the various shihan in their teaching of weapons, I have to (respectfully) disagree. I think the various goals are reflected in the differing emphases, techniques, and verbal teachings.