Aiki Ken and Ken justu

Hi,
Can anyone tell me about real sword fighting and Aiki ken.
Is there any similarty between kenjutsu and aiki ken?
Thanks

They are similar in that both use a Japanese sword of some sort. In my mind they are analogous to softball versus baseball. Aiki Ken is practiced to inform emptyhand aikido and kenjutsu is the practice of swordfighting.

Ok. I didnt play softball or baseball
Is it possible to use Aiki Ken in real sword fighting?
Does anyone has expirience in some ken jutsu or koryu?

No, aikiken would not serve you in a real swordfight. The reason for this is really that aikiken systems evolved during times when real swordfights don't happen so there are areas of instruction that are just not pertinent. You don't need to understand how long it will take someone to die if you cut them in various places, for example. You don't need to know how to get past armor or deal with your own armor.

Koryu sword training uses kata that have layers of instruction that are peeled away like the skin of an onion as the practitioner grows in understanding over the course of years of study. Aikiken takes some of these layers and disregards others.

"Real sword fighting"? Is there some highly restricted war going on somewhere I haven't heard of? I never get those memos.

What do you mean by that term?

Mark

Aleksandar Miketa wrote: Ok. I didnt play softball or baseball Is it possible to use Aiki Ken in real sword fighting? Does anyone has expirience in some ken jutsu or koryu?

Aren't sword fights pretty hard to find these days?

Aleksandar Miketa wrote: Is there any similarty between kenjutsu and aiki ken?

Nope.

No one is going to fight with the real swords :-))
But what I meant is this:
Is Aiki Ken just a form which is not useable with real katana.
Or can it bee zsed with real katana?

Aleksandar Miketa wrote: No one is going to fight with the real swords :-)) But what I meant is this: Is Aiki Ken just a form which is not useable with real katana. Or can it bee zsed with real katana?

Another thing to reconsider is that there are many different forms of aiki-ken. Some more like traditional sword arts than other. Nishio stylists even train a aiki-version of iaido (Aiki Toho) that probably can be trained with a real katana if that´s what you´r intrested in.

I am thinking about Iwama Takemusu Aikido...
But and others opinions are welcome :-))

I have seen aikiken demonstrated with metal blades. (Iaito in this case, not shinken.) All the forms "work."

I wouldn't recommend doing this unless you have a fair amount of experience with blades, though. First, you'll bash the heck out of the blades and make their owner very unhappy unless you know what you're doing. And second, if you use live blades without a great deal of care, you're very likely to hurt someone.

If you want to study the use of blades, study a sword art.

Katherine

Aleksandar Miketa wrote: No one is going to fight with the real swords :-)) But what I meant is this: Is Aiki Ken just a form which is not useable with real katana. Or can it bee zsed with real katana?

There are some people practicing aikido that can be trusted "real" katana. They usually have training outside of aikido. Most of us, especially me, should never be allowed near anything with sharp edges. So, we do aikiken with boken and simulate knives with tantos. That's a huge difference no matter how seriously you try to simulate the real thing. Most folks can use a sword, surviving a hostile encounter is a completely different matter.

The aikiken training I've seen really doesn't compare well with European fencing classes as far as training in using a weapon. My exposure is very limited though. If I wanted to really learn to be the toughest thing around with a really sharp blade, I'd first sit down, have a drink and stop watching old Japanese movies. Then I'd try to return from fantasy land.

Regards,
Mark

I often find these discussions baffling. First of all because many individuals seem to assume that there is some universally agreed upon definition for the term "aikiken" and they know what that is. I find this difficult to believe because Aikidoka's usage of the (generally) bokuto based art when used at all, is usually only uniform to a particular teacher and there is tremendous variety among teachers. So the more practical question seems to me to be, is "so and so teacher's ken" as viable as ken jutsu. Once again though this question artificially lumps all Ken Jutsu into a singular category. Schools of Ken Jutsu run from soup to nuts.

Then there is the the assumption that Aiki Ken and Ken Jutsu could be compared qualitatively via some sort of combat venue disregarding the variables of the nature of the combat venue and the variability of participants. This assumption simply doesn't make sense. I individual on the edge of death who studied Ken Jutsu all their life could conceivably be defeated by a strong healthy person who had no training in anything . . . and we are to assume then that no training is better than a lifetime of training because the in individual on the edge of death decided to "check out" at that time?

A common assumption is that if I just join the World Champion Football team I will become a world champion . . . and I think we can see the flaw in that reasoning. I may not be World Champion material AND the World Champions of last year may not be the same this year. (Sure there are trends. That seems to be a more reasoned approach to look at.)

Finally, and most contentiously, we read about the Aiki masters WHO HAD SOME KEN BACKGROUND (not ones with zero ken background) being lauded by some as masters of ken. But then those same individuals were lauded by some as masters of Jujutsu as well.

Who do we know TODAY with Aikido that is lauded by those outside the art as masters of Jujutsu? Perhaps we no longer hear of masters of Ken within the art for the same reason. Perhaps even though there has been some technical knowledge handed down (And I realize that there is a unbelievably broad continuum of what has been handed down.) for both taijutsu and buki waza, perhaps the difference that MADE the difference is now predominantly missing.

BTW, I am unaware duals taking place with swords recently, but then again that is assuming that one plans to use their ken in a dueling situation . . . there are many other situations in which a ken might be used and there are arts that generalize and arts that specialize in individual or various situations.

To me it is an overly broad question receiving overly broad answers.

Just some lunch time thoughts.

Allen

English is not my first language so it is dificult to express myself.
I had oportunity to hold a real katana (mine friend bought it recently) and i was suprised how is diferent from the bokken i am used to.
I dont think that i could doit things with katana what i am doing with bokken (in kumitachi or awase...). It so hard to handle it .
Someone said Fantasy land, so mine question is this:
Is it Aiki ken fantasy land and some romantic wiev on samurai fights or i just mised the point.
Is here some peoples who is doing something like Kshima shinto ryu , Muso shinden Ryu.....

Aleksandar Miketa wrote: Is it Aiki ken fantasy land and some romantic wiev on samurai fights or i just mised the point.

Aiki ken (Iwama style) is not swordmanship. It's purpose is not about learning how to use a japanese sword in combat.

Aiki ken is a another tool to help you understand the principles of aikido. I would say that aiki ken is to kenjutsu as aikido taijutsu is to regular martial arts.

Aleksandar Miketa wrote: English is not my first language so it is dificult to express myself. I had oportunity to hold a real katana (mine friend bought it recently) and i was suprised how is diferent from the bokken i am used to. I dont think that i could doit things with katana what i am doing with bokken (in kumitachi or awase...). It so hard to handle it .

Yes, it is very different. Learning to handle a sword properly would be excellent training for you and would greatly enhance your aikido.

Katherine

Thanks everyone...
Domo arigato gozaimashita...

In our line we learn both:
aiki ken and a ken jutsu.
It teaches different things.

FWIW, good kenjutsu training is an excellent aid to understanding aikiken.

I have read many times that Aiki Ken's purpose is to illustrate the "the Principles of Aiki." Some questions immediately come to mind for me.

Is Aiki Jo's purpose to illustrate "the Principles of Aiki?" If so, are the principles illustrated different from the Ken? If not, why the redundancy? If not, what is the difference?

Is Aikido's waza's purpose to illustrate "the Principles of Aiki?" If so, are the principles illustrated by waza different from the Ken and Jo? If not, why the redundancy? If not, what is the difference?

O-sensei practiced with other weapons and weapon (like) objects, do these illustrate "the Principles of Aiki" as well? If so, are the principles illustrated different from all others. If so how are they different. If not, why the redundancy?

If so many people agree that Aiki Ken "illustrates the principles of Aiki" or "Aikido," than it occurs to me that many (most?) people pointing to this fact must be able to share the universally agreed upon "Principles of Aiki or Aikido" that they so often refer to.

Would someone care to list the principles that are referred to by both those inside and outside the art? They seem to be commonly known. For communication's sake and for a common understanding of the core of the art it would be very helpful to have a list of these principles posted.

Thanks in advance!

Allen

Oh yeah, just a thought . . .

If Aiki Ken, Jo, and Taijutusu have no martial veracity and are not meant to have any martial veracity but specifically intended to illustrate the commonly known (soon I'll know too I hope) "Principles of Aiki," then it follows that Aikido would have no martial veracity unless of course the "Principles of Aiki" were had martial veracity.

It occurs to me that this observation would kill all "is Akido an effective martial art" threads and the fact that the "Principles of Aiki" are well known should kill many others as well.

It would at least answer a lot of common questions.

Allen Beebe wrote: Oh yeah, just a thought . . . If Aiki Ken, Jo, and Taijutusu have no martial veracity and are not meant to have any martial veracity but specifically intended to illustrate the commonly known (soon I'll know too I hope) "Principles of Aiki," then it follows that Aikido would have no martial veracity unless of course the "Principles of Aiki" were had martial veracity. It occurs to me that this observation would kill all "is Akido an effective martial art" threads and the fact that the "Principles of Aiki" are well known should kill many others as well. It would at least answer a lot of common questions.

I alluded to that in post nr 16. There is always the "that´s not how you handle a sword"-reaction regarding aikiken from within the aikido community, but it´s not like aikido is known for it´s excellent unarmed fighting ability either.

Hello Allen,

Have you ever come across the phrase 論議の花を咲かせる: rongi no hana wo sakaseru: to let the flowers of argument bloom? It is a very important part of Japanese meetings and of AikiWeb discussions. This thread is a good example.

Best,

PAG

Allen Beebe wrote: Oh yeah, just a thought . . . If Aiki Ken, Jo, and Taijutusu have no martial veracity and are not meant to have any martial veracity but specifically intended to illustrate the commonly known (soon I'll know too I hope) "Principles of Aiki," then it follows that Aikido would have no martial veracity unless of course the "Principles of Aiki" were had martial veracity. It occurs to me that this observation would kill all "is Akido an effective martial art" threads and the fact that the "Principles of Aiki" are well known should kill many others as well. It would at least answer a lot of common questions.

Allen, with all due respect, you've just asked a number of rhetorical questions that you don't believe anyone can provide adequate answers for. In some circles this is called trolling. It obscures what your actual thoughts are on the matter, which would probably greatly benefit this thread if you offered them more gently.

Are you suggesting that aikiken and aikijo systems are meant to actually be effective in actual combat? Or are you lamenting the fact that you constantly hear the refrain "these sytems are meant to illustrate / explain / demonstrate principals of aikido," but you do not hear adequate explanations of what these principals are and how they are demonstrated? Or something else?