jodo vs. aikijo

What is the difference between jodo and aiki-jo? Is there such a thing as "aiki-jo" anyway, or is it just a name like the "bat-belt"?

John Matsushima wrote: What is the difference between jodo and aiki-jo? Is there such a thing as "aiki-jo" anyway, or is it just a name like the "bat-belt"?

Aikijo's got more blendin'. Jodo's more about whuppin' somebody.

Jodo is an art based on defending against a sword with the jo.

Aiki-jo is aikido with a jo in your hands. A lot of aiki-jo is done jo vs. jo, whereas this is not really seen in jodo. Jodo people do not normally think too highly of aiki-jo. Aiki-jo could not stand alone as its own art - the point of it, in my opinion, is to improve your aikido.

Spike

Hey Spike,
You back home now? Just curious

Steven

Jo in aikido, or aikijo, is one small part of the whole.

Jodo is a whole art and not a segment.

Aikijo is built upon principles of Aikido (for the most part) and practice is done with Aikido in mind.

Jodo is koryu. If you don't know that word, check out http://www.koryu.com

Aikijo can be practiced with jo vs unarmed, jo vs bokken, and jo vs jo.

Jodo not only incorporates work with the jo, but also other weapons. But my knowledge is limited so I won't list the other weapons. I don't believe that jodo does jo vs unarmed either, but don't quote me on that.

The strikes, moves, and blocks are different between the two.

Read Ellis Amdur's posts on Aikido Journal for some background info on where weapons work came from in Aikido. Good luck with research after that.
http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=1996

Research for jodo can be done on Shimizu Takaji, Muso Gunnosuke, Phil Relnick, Shinto Muso Ryu Jodo.
http://www.koryubooks.com/library/wmuromoto1.html

Hope that helps.

Mark

You could say that the difference between jodo and Aiki-jo is like the difference between kendo and Aiki-ken. When O Sensei taught with jo or ken, it was Aikido, or, the staff of Aikido, the sword of Aikido. Comparisons do not always do any good.

If we call Jodo,this mean Shinto-Muso-ryu in Japan. This was created 400 years ago by Muso Gonnosuke.

[QUOTE Aiki-jo could not stand alone as its own art - the point of it, in my opinion, is to improve your aikido.

Spike[/quote]

Hello Spike. But a note about my situation. I came to aikido "too late", in that I soon learned that my joints are too old and crunchy for the rigours of the mat. Nevertheless I found a dojo where they were willing to allow me to join the weapons-only class. I accept that weapons work serves to improve one's aikido, and there is a valid argument (with which I disagree) that, if you do taijutsu in aikido, weapons work is done only to improve the taijutsu. Yet in my case I can do only weapons work, and I feel glad of it. I am learning the inner lessons of aikido through the weapons class. Even half of aikido is better than no aikido.

At your service


Peter

Peter, that is a wonderful testimonial. It has always been a truism that some people learn the empty hands techniques of aikido through working with weapons, and others learn the weapons through learning the empty hands. Many people on either side are not 'experts', but all the people on either side are 'trying', they have a practice which is really the most important thing.

May I ask what are these aiki principles that many people say the jo teaches? There may be similar movements, but I don't see anything aiki about using the jo. I know many people have said that using the jo has improved their aikido, but I could say the same about sweeping the floor.

In my opinion, the jo has nothing to do with Aiki principles, but more to do with Budo principles. In regards to jo kata, they all seem to end up with a violent strike or thrust to uke. That does not fall in line with the peaceful philosophy of aikido. The techniques require no connection, which is a primary principle of aiki;so again, what principles are used in "aikijo" practice that make it so different from jodo? The principles i do see involve proper use of maai, timing, use of openings, martial awareness, and martial spirit, which come from the general practice of any budo.

The "katas" we practice when using the jo were never set by Ueshiba sensei (to the best of my knowledge; I may be wrong). As I understand it, the katas presented by Saotome and Saito sensei are their interpretations or remembrance of random flowing movements that Ueshiba demonstrated.

As far as weapon taking, I can agree that that is Aikido; but then it isn't involved in using the actual weapon, so I don't think i would label it as jodo or aikijo but as taijutsu instead. When we practice knife take-aways, can we say we are practicing "aiki-tanto"?

I enjoy practicing with the jo very much. I also believe that it has helped my aikido, but not because it contains aiki principles, but budo principles.

Peter Martin-Browning wrote: Yet in my case I can do only weapons work, and I feel glad of it. I am learning the inner lessons of aikido through the weapons class. Even half of aikido is better than no aikido. At your service Peter

Thank You Peter,
I am very happy to know that there is a way to physically practice Aikido after I am no longer able to do shikko, ukemi, etc.

David

Would learning to use the jo as an extension of your body (i.e., if somebody grabs it or strikes it with a bokto or another jo) count? Or performing a throw or takedown against someone that has a jo while you are unarmed?

(i'll also know more in a month or so after my new dojo introduces me to the way of the aiki-jo.)

In regards to jodo, the little that I have done/seen, was more along the lines of strictly kata with no jiyuwaza/sparring type of situation.

John Matsushima wrote: May I ask what are these aiki principles that many people say the jo teaches? There may be similar movements, but I don't see anything aiki about using the jo. I know many people have said that using the jo has improved their aikido, but I could say the same about sweeping the floor. In my opinion, the jo has nothing to do with Aiki principles, but more to do with Budo principles. In regards to jo kata, they all seem to end up with a violent strike or thrust to uke. That does not fall in line with the peaceful philosophy of aikido. The techniques require no connection, which is a primary principle of aiki;so again, what principles are used in "aikijo" practice that make it so different from jodo? The principles i do see involve proper use of maai, timing, use of openings, martial awareness, and martial spirit, which come from the general practice of any budo. The "katas" we practice when using the jo were never set by Ueshiba sensei (to the best of my knowledge; I may be wrong). As I understand it, the katas presented by Saotome and Saito sensei are their interpretations or remembrance of random flowing movements that Ueshiba demonstrated. As far as weapon taking, I can agree that that is Aikido; but then it isn't involved in using the actual weapon, so I don't think i would label it as jodo or aikijo but as taijutsu instead. When we practice knife take-aways, can we say we are practicing "aiki-tanto"? I enjoy practicing with the jo very much. I also believe that it has helped my aikido, but not because it contains aiki principles, but budo principles.

Hi John!
On a take of another saying, your aikido may not incorporate aiki principles in its jo work, but that doesn't mean other aikido schools are the same.

Okay, silliness aside. The aiki principles? I'll try to illustrate a few.

First, you have the jo and someone else grabs it. You move with aiki principles but it is definitely not the same as if the person had grabbed your wrist. So, you are learning aiki principles with a jo. Now, think about applying nikkyo/nikkajo to uke. You can't just muscle that in there with the jo. You have to use aiki principles to get it to work effectively.

Strikes. Yes, we all know that the jo can be used similar to a bokken in the strikes. In other words, you have shomen, yokomen, and munetsuke strikes. But, just because the jo is a weapon doesn't mean you necessarily have to use it exactly like an implement of force. Yes you can use it to strike effectively. But you can also use it to affect center. Have you ever tried to just put the jo on uke's shoulders and attempt to affect uke's center? When doing yokomenuchi, you can strike with blunt end, with end of jo, or you can use it to affect uke's center.

As for the katas, I'd suggest reading Ellis Amdur's articles and researching that aspect of Aikido. I don't have much of a clue about it.

But, the jo can be used with aiki principles.

Mark

so again, what principles are used in "aikijo" practice that make it so different from jodo? The principles i do see involve proper use of maai, timing, use of openings, martial awareness, and martial spirit, which come from the general practice of any budo.

Well, on the simplest possible level, in aikijo you have jo vs. jo kata, whereas in jodo (shindo muso ryu) all kata are jo vs. sword. That does change things considerably at times.

well, a couple of things, Aiki-jo kata, I assume that we are talking about the system that Saito codified, vs. SMR jo. Aiki-jo teaches principles and concepts of aikido via the staff, i.e. extension and showing quite graphically the movement of circles and spirals in technique. (Jo-dori vs. Tai-jutsu) like Shiho-nage, kote gaeshi, irimi-nage, can all be expressed through Jo-nage/dori, one of the best I have seen show this relationship is Andy Sato head of Aikido World Alliance. If you ever get the chance to train with him do so. Secondly the 31 count kata which spawned the Kumi jo was Saito's attempt to simplify and standarize movements, using sweeps, strikes and tsuki's that are both similiar to empty hand, and Ken, the so call Riai of aikido. These Katas that now are used teach the aforementioned Maai, timing, footwork, and bear little resemblance to actual empty hand technique, but do teach us movement principles that are fundamentally the same. Now contrast that with SMR, which has a totally different organization to its kata and uses the Jo completly different. For example, the thrusts done in SMR very different than in Aiki-jo, as well, most katas, are Ken vs. Jo, secondly the rhythm of practice is different too. Just like the rhytmn of daito-ryu is very different than the rhytmn of Aikido practice. Secondly the stance is different too. SMR is there to teach you combative principles that in theory are there to provide you with the tools to be successful in a combative situation, albeit, rare that I will be attacked by a katana wielding person when coincidentally I have a Jo. Whereas Aiki-jo is used as a supplement to my empty handed Aikido. If I had my choice, I would put more principles of SMR in Aiki-jo than the other way around. does any of this make sense?

Dan Hover wrote: Secondly the 31 count kata which spawned the Kumi jo was Saito's attempt to simplify and standarize movements, using sweeps, strikes and tsuki's that are both similiar to empty hand, and Ken, the so call Riai of aikido.

Well, Saito certainly implemented the numbered count of the 31 jo kata, but the kata itself was (at least according to Saito) the work of Morihei Ueshiba.

Best,

Chris

Could anyone comment on the Jo system of Nishio Shoji Shihan? I read that he studied Jo under Takaji Shimizu Dai-Sensei, Grandmaster of Shinto Muso Ryu.

Many thanks.

Not really being a Nishio Deshi per se, but seeing him live at seminars and on DVD, I can comment with some reservations. Nishio's Jo and Ken work to me, is great, and fully complements his empty hand technique, IMHO waay more comprehensively than Saito's does. That being said, his Jo work has little in common with SMR and more in common principly and technically with an advanced form of Aiki Jo. His Jo and Ken work taken away from his empty hand would like most Aiki Ken and Aiki Jo styles, be somewhat lacking, but as a complement to empty hand it completely fills a common void in weapons vs. taijutsu relationships. Perhaps Chris Li can shed more insight.

Dan Hover wrote: Not really being a Nishio Deshi per se, but seeing him live at seminars and on DVD, I can comment with some reservations. Nishio's Jo and Ken work to me, is great, and fully complements his empty hand technique, IMHO waay more comprehensively than Saito's does. That being said, his Jo work has little in common with SMR and more in common principly and technically with an advanced form of Aiki Jo. His Jo and Ken work taken away from his empty hand would like most Aiki Ken and Aiki Jo styles, be somewhat lacking, but as a complement to empty hand it completely fills a common void in weapons vs. taijutsu relationships. Perhaps Chris Li can shed more insight.

As I understand it, he was on pretty good terms with Takaji Shimizu and actually spent a fair amount of time in SMR, which Saito never had (that I know of). I never saw enough of his jo, personally to say one way or the other, but my experience with Nishio was that he tended to put his personal stamp on whatever he was doing.

Best,

Chris

Mark Murray wrote: First, you have the jo and someone else grabs it.

This is of course one of the problems with aiki-jo... no one who had studied jodo would let you grab their jo.

Spike