Origin of ushiro ryote and ryokata dori

Hi there,

Does anyone has some ideas about ushiro ryote dory and ushiro ryokata dori?
Where do these attacks come from?

Arjan

Originally, they were frontal attacks, where you "yank" the person around and get behind them. Quite common in older jujutsu styles.

It's a fair speculation that in Daito-ryu/aikido, these techniques were integrated as a way to put 'stress' on the body from behind - can one retain a connected body while behind pulled in some direction from behind.

This is a logical supposition because if there were purely a concern for combative readiness from behind, there are a number of more effective ways to take a person downwards or off-center from the rear that no DR or aikido system considers. Therefore, it's very likely that they adapted elements of older combative forms and reworked them as a training device to develop the 'aiki body' from a particular 'angle.'
Ellis Amdur

Hello Arjan,

There is some discussion in the common introductions to Budo Renshu (1933) and Budo (1938).

Best wishes,

Ushiro ryote properly begins from a flank attack -- with the fairly obvious implication of an attack on a weapon hand , and both turning nage with the grasped wrist, and moving to exercise control from behind -- which can resolve as either a ryote or kubishime control.

If you put a knife in nage's hand, which uke grabs from a slight flank attack, the proper dynamic in the initiation becomes obvious and natural.

Ryokata is more of front control, but also only makes sense to initiate from the side, with an applied turn of nage to apply a control in kuzushi.

Ellis Amdur wrote: This is a logical supposition because if there were purely a concern for combative readiness from behind, there are a number of more effective ways to take a person downwards or off-center from the rear that no DR or aikido system considers. Therefore, it's very likely that they adapted elements of older combative forms and reworked them as a training device to develop the 'aiki body' from a particular 'angle.' Ellis Amdur

What would they be?

Oisin - "by what would they be," do you mean what kind of techniques? To enumerate a few from the Araki-ryu (other ryu approached this differently, so Takenouchi-ryu, Shosho-ryu, or Tsutsumi Hozan-ryu might have different takes of this):
1. Grab them by the hair, slam them backwards to concuss and stomp on their head (the name of this technique is "the unification of the topknot and the throat")
2. Simultaneously to grabbing around the neck, stomp the back of the knee and lever your shoulder forward into the back of the neck to hopefully break their neck, but at minimum, putting them in a perfect position to continue into a tracheal strangle (called "falcon stoop")
3. The grab entry, followed by slipping behind (like 'aiki' arts), but continuing with a stab with a short weapon. (called "the truth of grappling")
4. A simple tackle from behind, followed by a pin and a leveraged neck/spine break (called "bringing back to life," for reasons I do not know)

There are more. . . but that's a start. That's what was considered and trained originally.

Ellis Amdur

Ellis Amdur wrote: Oisin - "by what would they be," do you mean what kind of techniques? To enumerate a few from the Araki-ryu (other ryu approached this differently, so Takenouchi-ryu, Shosho-ryu, or Tsutsumi Hozan-ryu might have different takes of this): 1. Grab them by the hair, slam them backwards to concuss and stomp on their head (the name of this technique is "the unification of the topknot and the throat") 2. Simultaneously to grabbing around the neck, stomp the back of the knee and lever your shoulder forward into the back of the neck to hopefully break their neck, but at minimum, putting them in a perfect position to continue into a tracheal strangle (called "falcon stoop") 3. The grab entry, followed by slipping behind (like 'aiki' arts), but continuing with a stab with a short weapon. (called "the truth of grappling") 4. A simple tackle from behind, followed by a pin and a leveraged neck/spine break (called "bringing back to life," for reasons I do not know) There are more. . . but that's a start. That's what was considered and trained originally. Ellis Amdur

The grab-rear entry doesn't really apply to daito ryu as I trained anyway. The corpus of ushiro techniques start from rear attacks and work from there. The techniques aren't as apparently violent as the ones you mentioned, but there are a number of rear strangulation, stabbing, kicking, pinning and locking techniques.

Ellis Amdur wrote: 1. Grab them by the hair, slam them backwards to concuss and stomp on their head (the name of this technique is "the unification of the topknot and the throat")

Reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zL0Z2_V1EI

Ellis Amdur wrote: 3. The grab entry, followed by slipping behind (like 'aiki' arts), but continuing with a stab with a short weapon. (called "the truth of grappling")

Araki-ruy guys have a great sense of humor.

My take is derived fro Budo Renshu...

I think the origin of rear attacks in aikido is related to a balanced curriculum, with the emphasis on creating a rear-oriented attack for practice. As for ryokata, ryote and the other multiple grab options, you are also talking about a generalized attack attack to managed. I feel the attacks are designed to create a sterile canvas to work on, not necessarily a "practical" attack. Budo Renshu has several photos as well as a selection that speaks specifically about training to defend all angles of attack, even the rear.

Whether those earlier attacks had origin as more "practical", I get the impression for Budo Renshu that we should use [generic] attacks as tools to train the aiki body.

Since Daito Ryu's Hiden Mokuroku contains a large number of ushiro kata, which all involve attacking directly from nage's rear, in my opinion this is another example of Aikido taking the form of Ueshiba's showmanship. He skipped the kata setup so that he could demonstrate what he could do, as opposed to teaching his students what to do or how.

Because the instructions begin from a point of contact already (not showing *a* specific attack), you think Ueshiba was not instructing a waza? I don't follow this...

Would you rather see a more complete string that originates from a single specific rear attack that continues through the responsive waza? I don't disagree here, but I think the thought of reading through an instruction that illustrates every variation of an attack and every responsive waza could get exhausting.

I also don't disagree that other gendai and koryu may have a larger (and more effective) set of rear attacks, but I am not sure how the existence of those attacks affects an interpretation of Ushiba demonstrating waza, unless you think that Ueshiba chose an attack that was designed to fail in order to show a technique. Given the "aikido doesn't work in a fight" thread critiques, I am not saying this would be right or wrong, I am just curious what you mean.

Also, Hey Cliff!

I am just pointing out that Daito Ryu has ushiro kata where first nage turns around, and then uke comes in directly form the back and attacks in some manner. They are similar to kata that exist in various other jujustu-based koryu schools.

Seems like a good answer to the question of where the Aikido techniques come from.

And as to why Aikido doesn't practice the way Daito Ryu does, my answer is because Ueshiba was never interested in passing on kata to his students which they could work on. He just did stuff in front of them, with context removed.

Notwithstanding claims that Aikido is a different system than Daito Ryu, I get a historical context that says aikido attacks and waza have a strong relationship to Daito Ryu. But you also have some context that implies Ueshiba was moving away from Daito Ryu, largely due to strong input from his student base to develop what we call the "waza" that emerged. I can't say I am surprised some techniques were left behind, or some components emphasized over others.

That said, if our instruction is based on a lowest denominator, I am not sure teaching someone to defend a strong rear attack has value if they can't defend against a rather bland grab to begin with. If I was lifting weights to get stronger, what would be accomplished by me failing move an inappropriately heavy weight? Injury? Confirmation that the weight was definitely too heavy? I know plenty of aikido people who struggle to manage simple attacks - I am not sure what would be gained by implementing a stronger attack. I see this as a walk before running thing.

From Aikido perspective it could be attack change as response to opponent movements.

I have long since had a different take, and have trained accordingly. First, I like the way Aikikai attack from the front to get to the rear. I dislike those methods where uke comes up behind, or where uke turns his back for them. Both are useful, but I prefer the Aikikai way. Now for my take on it, and before anyone claims such and such a person also does it - in 20 years of training in Asia I have never seen it.

My take is that everything prepares us for counters. Maybe not everything, but many things. So, for example, consider katate-dori ushiro eri-dori (catch a hand then the rear lapel behind the neck). This is the one that woke me up long ago. Basically, tori learns various escapes using various waza, but to me, in essence, it is (or can be) an escape to irimi-nage. It is therefore, with a change of attitude, a counter. If you look carefully at what we do, our view (of the simple attacks) in many cases can be changed from just doing plain waza to doing kaeshi-waza. I have shown these ideas to a few people; few seem interested - they prefer tradition. I don't know if that was ever the original intent of the attacks, but it works for me. Try it and you will discover an entire new syllabus extension to add to your training.

To start, take a tradition attack, then add a little ... something / movement. For front ryote-dori, uke might try tenchi-nage / or a kick / or a head butt / or a pull -- just standing there is pointless. Then, the way you move to evade that kick will most likely provide the natural beginning to a suitable technique. So it can be almost like you are countering a tenchi-nage type attack. It is not hard to come up with more ... Hmm ... might not be the best one to start with anyway.

When (no club now) I taught morote-dori, I would first have the students take each other down ikkyo-esk style, using the morote-dori attack. Then, do your waza against that - ?or would that now be a counter? - it is more dynamic and a lot more fun.