Aikijujutsu - ow ow ow

I just saw a demonstration of aikijujutsu and a lot of it looked familiar. It seemed, to my untrained eye, to move from the grab, to uke's wrist, to the elbow, to the shoulder and sometimes the back. Each successive twist incorporating pain. It was a real eye-opener to me.
There were a lot of irimi nage type moves but they didn't look as familiar to me as the wrist and even foot-grabs .
The sensei Kuyama sp? ( kee ama) showed the final techniques but everything looked much more painful than anything I've done in the dojo.
Is this where O Sensei started?

It's one of many elements that O Sensei used to form Aikido.

There are three basic levels to the parent art of Aikido, Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. The second and third levels are more sophisticated than level one which are straight hard jujutsu techniques. I believe O Sensei drew and modified techniques from level two and probably did some level three on people without explaining to them what he was doing. The article at the following link has a good explanation.
http://www.atlantamartialarts.com/styles/daitotryu.htm
Best wishes,

Jorge Garcia wrote: There are three basic levels to the parent art of Aikido, Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. The second and third levels are more sophisticated than level one which are straight hard jujutsu techniques. I believe O Sensei drew and modified techniques from level two and probably did some level three on people without explaining to them what he was doing. The article at the following link has a good explanation. http://www.atlantamartialarts.com/styles/daitotryu.htm Best wishes,

I would say I don't see anything on that page that can't be practiced in Aikido and actually is in some circles. Nor do I think that some of O'Sensei students didn't get it with level three. Daito Ryu is great stuff but it's not a deeper well than Aikido no matter how much some proponents may like to claim that. It's goals are simply different. Not goals that I am particularly interested in, but others are and that's fine as long as it does not become some kind put down game over something that is really very subjective.

Mike Taylor wrote: It's one of many elements that O Sensei used to form Aikido.

It's the primary element that Morihei Ueshiba used to form the technical side of Aikido - so much so that the other arts he studied pretty much pale in comparison.

Best,

Chris

Craig Hocker wrote: I would say I don't see anything on that page that can't be practiced in Aikido and actually is in some circles. Nor do I think that some of O'Sensei students didn't get it with level three. Daito Ryu is great stuff but it's not a deeper well than Aikido no matter how much some proponents may like to claim that. It's goals are simply different. Not goals that I am particularly interested in, but others are and that's fine as long as it does not become some kind put down game over something that is really very subjective.

The actual level three techniques are quite unusual and not usually shown to the public. Most Daito ryu practitioners aren't shown the techniques until they have been in the art for 15 or 20 years. I've seen my share of aikido like you have Craig but I've never seen techniques like those before. I also had a basic explanation given to me and the principles are different from what we use. I had a chance to experience and challenge them and I can honestly say I have never seen or felt that kind of technique in Aikido and I have seen all of the major instructors in this country. I am not claiming an inherent superiority of Daito ryu. I am merely standing by my original statement. The reason I said what I did about O Sensei is because I have read from so many people that he threw them in a way that they couldn't understand and they hardly felt anything or similar statements like that. What I saw fits that description. Realizing that Sokaku Takeda probably showed him some of those techniques, I realized that he would have had quite an advantage over "regular" people if he kept that to himself. It may be a reason he wouldn't repeat techniques other than the standard reasons given.

Christopher Li wrote: It's the primary element that Morihei Ueshiba used to form the technical side of Aikido

I have always wondered about this. The 1930's film, "Budo" looks quite different than any Daito Ryu demonstration that I have seen. Ueshiba moves in much more of a dynamic way, a way that I think is a primary characteristic of Aikido. The difference reminds me of the Aiki News video of a Sokaku Takeda memorial demo where Yasuno Shihan's demo looks very different from the rest. Any ideas as to why?

Charles Hill

Charles Hill, That might be, but facts remain: Morihei did issue Daito Ryu licenses in the 1930-th. Sokaku Takeda did visit the Takuma Hisas dojo and acknowledged Ueshibas teachings and taught from there.

/J

Has anyone else heard of Kuyama sensei? I've never met him but he's supposed to be extremely well regarded. Two people I know, one is my doctor, say he goes to Washington, D.C., from time to time to train the Secret Service. Around here he's a gardener.
BTW, as impressive as aikijujutsu appears I'm certain I don't want to pay anyone to inflict that level of pain on me. After watching this demonstration I can understand why ancient practitioners require absolute dedication from their disciples. Pacifists need not apply.

I would like to learn some of the ground pin techniques as an additional idea but only if I'm never uke.

Dan Guthrie wrote: I just saw a demonstration of aikijujutsu and a lot of it looked familiar....The sensei Kuyama sp? ( kee ama) showed the final techniques but everything looked much more painful than anything I've done in the dojo.

Dan Guthrie wrote: BTW, as impressive as aikijujutsu appears I'm certain I don't want to pay anyone to inflict that level of pain on me.

My experience is meager (15 years aikido, several teachers/many seminars; 2 DR, one teacher, three seminars), but I find DR training to be slower and more careful, a dangerous generalization perhaps, I'm sure there are exceptions, but my experience. Also, the DR people I've trained with have shown great respect for my body and my well-being even as they apply these painful techniques. Alas, this has not always been my experience in aikido.

Charles Hill wrote: The 1930's film, "Budo" looks quite different than any Daito Ryu demonstration that I have seen....Any ideas as to why?

My current hypothesis on the same problem is "personality". (Check out the differences of styles of Osensei's students...)

It is my understanding that O'Sensei studied a multitude of martial arts. To say one over another had more influence, noone could really say. It is very subjective. That aside, many of the locks; kotegaeshi, nikkyo, and so on are also found in other arts such as jujitsu, karate, even tae kwon do. They are not exclusive to any one art. Who knows where O'Sensei got his original inspiration from. Does it really matter?

As far as what can or cannot be practiced in an Aikido class; this is a very subjective issue. Depending on the dojo or association you belong to it may mean that you do not have atemi, or you do not kick in your aplication of a technique, ukes may not resist at all. There are more opinions than people on this subject.

Lyle Laizure wrote: It is my understanding that O'Sensei studied a multitude of martial arts. To say one over another had more influence, noone could really say. It is very subjective. That aside, many of the locks; kotegaeshi, nikkyo, and so on are also found in other arts such as jujitsu, karate, even tae kwon do. They are not exclusive to any one art. Who knows where O'Sensei got his original inspiration from. Does it really matter?

Your understanding, then, would be directly contradictory to the current best scholarship on the subject.

Without going into a great deal of yak, there are, essentially, two great pillars of aikido: Daito Ryu and Omoto Kyo.

Chris Li, btw, has trained quite extensively in aikido and also in the main line of Daito Ryu.

And, yes, given some of what went on during the early years of the propagation of aikido, it *does* matter to many of us.

Regards,

Lyle Laizure wrote: It is my understanding that O'Sensei studied a multitude of martial arts. To say one over another had more influence, noone could really say. It is very subjective. That aside, many of the locks; kotegaeshi, nikkyo, and so on are also found in other arts such as jujitsu, karate, even tae kwon do. They are not exclusive to any one art. Who knows where O'Sensei got his original inspiration from. Does it really matter?

Whether it matters or not, I suppose is a matter of whether you think that the history and roots of the art that you study matter. Some people don't, I do, not only for informational purposes, but because the history of a thing tells you quite a bit about the present of a thing, which is one reason people study history in general, right?

You can argue the evidence, but it's pretty much been hashed out already.

Morihei Ueshiba's time in training with Sokaku Takeda pretty much eclipses the time he had in any other art, so much so that study of the other arts amount to what is really dabbling.

All of the pre-war students (Shioda, Tomoki, Mochizuki, Shirata, etc.) were ranked in Daito-ryu, from Ueshiba. Ueshiba himself had no real teaching licenses of consequence in arts other than Daito-ryu.

What Ueshiba was teaching in 1935 was so close to what Takeda was teaching that Takeda was able to continue directly with the students of the Asahi newspaper dojo when he took it over instead of having to reteach the curriculum.

Further, Morihiro Saito testified that what Ueshiba taught him at Iwama after the war most closely resembled what was represented in the 1938 technical manual "Budo" published by Ueshiba before the war.

Stan Pranin's done most of the research, check it out - there's really very little on the other side of the argument.

Best,

Chris

Unrelated Q to those with DR Knowledge:

Has Dayto Ryu been more preserved in its original (Takeda's) form? , in contrast to Aikido's Multitude of Branchs and styles , over the course of time?

Christopher Li wrote: What Ueshiba was teaching in 1935 was so close to what Takeda was teaching that Takeda was able to continue directly with the students of the Asahi newspaper dojo when he took it over instead of having to reteach the curriculum.

The idea that Daito Ryu was the major influence on the technical development of Aikido seems obvious to me with the research done by Stanley Pranin and the Aiki News people. I just see a difference in the film. If one agrees that there is a difference btwn the Aiki Budo film and the Takeda memorial demo, my question is why? It could be very well due to my limited exposure to DR. It could be that DR people keep a narrow focus when it comes to public demonstrations. It could be that while M. Ueshiba kept to the DR technical repetoire, he made technical advances in how he taught his students to take ukemi. Or it could be something else. Any ideas?

Charles HIll

Charles Hill wrote: The idea that Daito Ryu was the major influence on the technical development of Aikido seems obvious to me with the research done by Stanley Pranin and the Aiki News people. I just see a difference in the film. If one agrees that there is a difference btwn the Aiki Budo film and the Takeda memorial demo, my question is why? It could be very well due to my limited exposure to DR. It could be that DR people keep a narrow focus when it comes to public demonstrations. It could be that while M. Ueshiba kept to the DR technical repetoire, he made technical advances in how he taught his students to take ukemi. Or it could be something else. Any ideas? Charles HIll

Saito sensei says that O Sensei was an old style martial artist that did not believe in showing his art to the public and whenever outsiders were present or the cameras were rolling, he would do aiki demonstrations but wouldn't actually show the technical features of his waza. It stands to reason that the same would have been true for his Daito Ryu during the time he was giving those licenses.

Charles Hill wrote: The idea that Daito Ryu was the major influence on the technical development of Aikido seems obvious to me with the research done by Stanley Pranin and the Aiki News people. I just see a difference in the film. If one agrees that there is a difference btwn the Aiki Budo film and the Takeda memorial demo, my question is why? It could be very well due to my limited exposure to DR. It could be that DR people keep a narrow focus when it comes to public demonstrations. It could be that while M. Ueshiba kept to the DR technical repetoire, he made technical advances in how he taught his students to take ukemi. Or it could be something else. Any ideas? Charles HIll

How many different demonstrations have you seen from people who trained directly Morihei Ueshiba? Quite a few, I'd bet. It's much the same in Daito-ryu. If you look at Kodo Horikawa, Takuma Hisa, Tokimune Takeda, and Yukiyoshi Sagawa they all look and teach in some very different ways, although they all studied with Sokaku Takeda. Morihei Ueshiba taught the things that he liked or had an affinity for - same for the others.

Best,

Chris

The idea that Daito Ryu was the major influence on the technical development of Aikido seems obvious to me with the research done by Stanley Pranin and the Aiki News people. I just see a difference in the film. If one agrees that there is a difference btwn the Aiki Budo film and the Takeda memorial demo, my question is why? It could be very well due to my limited exposure to DR. It could be that DR people keep a narrow focus when it comes to public demonstrations. It could be that while M. Ueshiba kept to the DR technical repetoire, he made technical advances in how he taught his students to take ukemi. Or it could be something else. Any ideas?

Hi Charles,

I think one of the central differences was the attachment of a (at least semi) Classical art to kata, and Ueshiba's wish to transcend the old ways and teach something new. I also think that the Omoto-kyo and his own personal attachment to misogi have something to do with it. It is a fascinating area for speculation and study. I'll let you know if I get any revelations...

It is my understanding that O'Sensei studied a multitude of martial arts. To say one over another had more influence, noone could really say. It is very subjective.

Not really...its quite clear what it is he taught, what he was licensed to teach, what makimono he gave his students, and (if you are familiar with the syllibus of Daito ryu) what the history of the techniques are. Its also pretty clear how much time he spent in the other arts (very little) compared to his time with Takeda (he even lived with him for a time). In my opinion, anyone who debates this really hasn't spent much time looking at the relevent material. This is not to say that Aikido = Daito ryu...I believe that Aikido is indeed something different, whether its because of the Omoto-kyo, other philosophical underpinnings, the movement, the non-attachment to formal kata, or whatever.

That aside, many of the locks; kotegaeshi, nikkyo, and so on are also found in other arts such as jujitsu, karate, even tae kwon do. They are not exclusive to any one art.

Similar locks are found in many western and asian arts...similar does not equal same. The differences are notable...and when the absense of training in these other arts is noted, significant. Does the presense of a shihonage like movement in early western grappling mean that someone in that line studied jujutsu? I think not...

Who knows where O'Sensei got his original inspiration from. Does it really matter?

Read Stanley Pranin's research. It matters to some...not so much to others. Whether it matters or not does not change objective fact.

Best,
Ron

Jorge Garcia wrote: The reason I said what I did about O Sensei is because I have read from so many people that he threw them in a way that they couldn't understand and they hardly felt anything or similar statements like that. What I saw fits that description. Realizing that Sokaku Takeda probably showed him some of those techniques, I realized that he would have had quite an advantage over "regular" people if he kept that to himself. It may be a reason he wouldn't repeat techniques other than the standard reasons given.

There are some old timers in other organizations who have admitted to me in personal conversations that Koichi Tohei Sensei threw them in ways they yet don't quite understand and in which they felt nothing or hardly anything. I have had the pleasure with learning from some of guys training 50 years and who throw with extremely effective and subtle. I don't quite understand how they are doing it but they keep showing me even though I get it only in a theoretical sense at this point. But it isn't hear say for me, it's direct experience. I am just skeptical of the perceived need to go cross-train in Daito Ryu. It just appears like looking for greener pastures rather plowing your own field with fertilizer. I respect those who have chosen Daito Ryu. Just having trained with Kondo Sensei at the Aiki Expo, I wonder why some want to straddle the fence and try to study both.
Of course, I will freely admit to spending a great deal of time training in Iaido/Iai-jutsu, so I am not really one to talk.

Craig Hocker wrote: I am just skeptical of the perceived need to go cross-train in Daito Ryu. It just appears like looking for greener pastures rather plowing your own field with fertilizer. I respect those who have chosen Daito Ryu. Just having trained with Kondo Sensei at the Aiki Expo, I wonder why some want to straddle the fence and try to study both. Of course, I will freely admit to spending a great deal of time training in Iaido/Iai-jutsu, so I am not really one to talk.

I think that the key words are "perceived need". Many people who cross train do so for some kind of "perceived need". Especially aikido people who feel a lack in the martial aspect of their training. Others are martial arts aficionados and others may have their own reasons. In the Aikikai, the number of people who have cross trained go from Nishio sensei to Bruce Bookman so there's no shortage of legitimate examples of loyal Aikidoists who have done so.
Some people do so just because of opportunity to learn new things and to get new perspectives. What I don't have respect for are those who either linger in self doubt or who are chasing the "holy grail". What bothers me the most are those who are trying to gain personal invincibility of some kind .
I've spent ten years doing aikido and I plan to do it for the rest of my life but I think that if you meet a great martial artist and you have an opportunity to learn something different that could add to your overall knowledge, that may be legitimate. We asked our shihan, Kato sensei if it was wrong to cross train and he said that whatever we did with our own time was our business. I took that to mean it was alright.
By the way, with that example that you gave, why did you cross train with Kondo sensei? There were a lot of Aikidoists you could have been with at the Expo. If you don't mind sharing that with us, you might give me another legitimate reason to cross train in Daito-ryu that I didn't think of!
Best,

I am just skeptical of the perceived need to go cross-train in Daito Ryu. It just appears like looking for greener pastures rather plowing your own field with fertilizer. I respect those who have chosen Daito Ryu. Just having trained with Kondo Sensei at the Aiki Expo, I wonder why some want to straddle the fence and try to study both.

Well, I'm one of those that has chosen to cross-train when I can, and I can definately say its not about effectiveness or greener pastures for me. I enjoy both, and feel a different quality (not better or worse, just different) to the practice, and do my best to keep the two separate. I train in the yoshinkan, so as aikido goes, that's plenty effective enough for me (I live in the suburbs, don't get in fights, not likely to use any of this 'for real' anyway). I do find that my practice of one increases my understanding of the other...there are things that are focused on in Daito ryu that have increased my understanding of what is happening in aikido. There are also things in aikido that I think might be more 'effective' than some of the more static Daito ryu waza. To me, its all about gaining perspective...and I constantly fail to see why anyone would look down on that, as if the grass was greener or whatever.

The Daito ryu training also fills a longing for my younger days and the down and dirty grappling I did poorly then...and perhaps still do poorly now! Did I ever say I like chokes? The way I figure it...train in what you like...and leave it at that. Oh, and I can definately say that you won't get the same information at large public seminars or videos that you get in more private settings. So basing all of your information from one venue might be a mistake...

Ron

Jorge Garcia wrote: If you don't mind sharing that with us, you might give me another legitimate reason to cross train in Daito-ryu that I didn't think of! Best,

first class was sheer curiosity.

the rest of the classes just because he obviously had a lot of enthusiasm for what he was doing so it made the classes fun and was interesting to see some of the connections to Aikido, most of the other students were from Aikido so there was none of the nonsense you some times get in some of the Aikido classes at inter-style events with students who come to train only with their teacher or a senior teacher in their own organization.

Now if he or someone else of that caliber taught at a school down the street from my house, I might have to think hard about it. Being that iffy even in that ideal case indicates to me that is not where my heart lies.

Ron Tisdale wrote: I think one of the central differences was the attachment of a (at least semi) Classical art to kata, and Ueshiba's wish to transcend the old ways and teach something new. I also think that the Omoto-kyo and his own personal attachment to misogi have something to do with it.

Hi Ron,

I completely agree with you here. I just wonder, though, if I am not jumping the gun due to my relative unfamiliarity with Daito Ryu. For example, I read somewhere that Kondo Sensei is careful with what he shows in public. Maybe what he does in the dojo with his own students looks more flowing.

I disagree with the idea that the difference is due to personal style. Even with the shihan who seem to me most DR-like, Inamura shihan and Arikawa shihan, still look more like O'Sensei than any DR I have seen. I think that (at least until proven otherwise) Morihei Ueshiba was technically innovative, even in the beginning/pre-war.

Charles Hill

Ron Tisdale wrote: Oh, and I can definately say that you won't get the same information at large public seminars or videos that you get in more private settings. So basing all of your information from one venue might be a mistake... Ron

on the last day of the first time he taught at the Aiki Expo, in the small last class Kondo Sensei was in his own words teaching very advanced stuff (Menko Kaiden level). I think the energy and enthusiasm of the weekend had gotten the better of him and he was sort of laying it out there. I admit it was a pretty wild ass class from what I recall. So perhaps I had a little taste. The next year with lower attendance and it not being a new thing for him, it seemed that he kept more control and the weekend stayed on techniques from the ikkajo and nikkajo series.

If I eventually dropped karate because I didn't care for spending my time practicing smashing up peoples bodies with my fists and feet, I am probably not a good candidate for spending time on DR's outer practice of breaking joints, smashing bodis and such to get to the good stuff. Much better to leave that stuff with students who have an interest in preserving it.

Charles Hill wrote: I disagree with the idea that the difference is due to personal style. Even with the shihan who seem to me most DR-like, Inamura shihan and Arikawa shihan, still look more like O'Sensei than any DR I have seen. I think that (at least until proven otherwise) Morihei Ueshiba was technically innovative, even in the beginning/pre-war.

I would expect people to look something like their teacher, that doesn't rule out difference due to personal style. Takumakai folks move in a generally similar manner, although their movement is clearly different than, say, Kodokai. FWIW, I was watching an old film of Yamaguchi Seigo the other day, and I was struck by the similarities to Daito-ryu in his technique.

Kodo Horikawa and Yukiyoshi Sagawa were technically innovative in many ways - still, nobody questions that what they were doing was Daito-ryu.

Best,

Chris