Hey Koyo, and Dave, I hope I can clear up my question some here. The only formal training I have was in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (Gracie style) I did learn some atemi waza from a childhood friend and most of Seitei Iai forms, but I don't claim to be proficient in either (although my Jui Jitsu isn't bad) I have an opportunity to study with (Bob) Elder Sensei and learn Toyama Ryu Batto Jutsu, he shares a dojo with an Aikido school, which I am also interested in learning. But I have a lot of questions, I hope this doesnt bother you, as you two seem to be my best source of information, I'm hoping you two can help me find the answers to my questions, so here goes. There seem to be many similarities between atimi and aikido, is this coincidental, or can they compliment each other? I understand the link between ju jutsu, and Brazilian jiu jitsu but how will my previous training in jiu jitsu help or hinder my aikido training? My training to this point primarily centers on bringing an opponent to the ground and creating an opportunity to submit (or disable) an opponent, does this contrast with aikido and will I have to "un-learn" it? Seitei Iaido seem to focus on correctness of form, fluidity of motion, and drawing and cutting in one motion. However nothing is ever cut, and training does not include practice against another "armed" opponent. So the practicality of it as a batto jutsu, comes into question. I am not under delusions of having sword fights, or becoming Samurai, I am merely interested in the JSA, and would like to learn more. Toyama Ryu seem apples and oranges to Iaido, would it be considered a Kenjutsu? With regard to my previous question regarding (i will use my own english to avoid confusion) sword and spear kata's. From what I understand from Koyo's previous posts he finds fault (as it seems his teacher did as well) with preforming kata as being helpful with the practical application of aikido, or even the learning process. Does this belief extend to sword and spear forms (kata, waza, jo)? Sorry for the confusion, and I hope I have not just made my question more confusing. Also any comments, or thoughts regarding Elder Sensei would be appreciated, from everything I have gathered he is a very solid, and respected teacher. It seems I am very fortunate for living in Orlando. I'm not sure if I fit into the western vs. eastern learning philosophy, I have a habit of looking at ma like an A.A. program, I try to take what I need and leave the rest. Which kind of explains my interest in learning more than one budo. I seem to have zero chance of learning more atemi where I am living, and aikido from what I have seen seems my best bet, style wise. I have long marveled on the dynamic moves, and both understand, and relate to aikido's teaching the control of your opponents center. It almost feels heretical to consider learning it so I can blend it together with the Jiu Jitsu that I know, however the more I learn about O'Sensei, the more I feel he might understand my goal, considering how many styles he studied and incorporated into aikido. I think considering the time spent on the discussion of the "spiritual" aspects of Morihei Ueshiba, and it's necessity in aikido training, I should mention I am not a spiritual person. I do not study MA to find my reason for being, explaining the universe, or my place in it. I more think of myself as a grain of sand on a beach, eventually I'll be pulled back into the ocean. I am not significant, nor do I seek to be. I claim no more knowledge of the ocean than a fish does of clouds. I'm here, that's all. I seek to learn because I can, if training can sharpen my body and mind, then I will train. If what I have learned can help someone, then I will try to help. If I have to fight, then I will use whatever I have to to end it as fast, and with as little damage as necessary. Insofar as whatever is after this life, I guess I'll deal with that when the time comes, before that no point in obsessing over it, knowledge or lack of will not change anything when it's all said and done. Thank you again
Hi djchaos667, I will throw in my tuppence. All martial arts have similaries so yeah that CAN compliment but that isn't always the case with some people. Learn the principles of both and you'll do just fine. No. Never unlearn any martial training. Just be ready to do similar things differently and keep an open mind about the new style. I think where they were coming from is katas only give a small benefit. Whereas paired training forces you to think about position, distance and timing of you and your training partner. It also helps to train intent and a good crack on the head now and again stops you from getting too sloppy. The Bear.
Atimi ? Would that be atemi, as in striking with the hand ? It shouldn't hinder training in aikido provided you are able to keep the arts separate until you've spent enough time in both, to be able to understand the principles of each and put them effectively in to practice then, you'll be in a position to take from each and "do" as required whilst retaining the characteristics of each respective art. See my last comment, each art has a different emphasis, if you learn both to a good standard they will compliment each other. Indeed but, although seitei (and many koryu iai forms) are entirely solo study, the use of the Japanese sword is a teacher of many things to do with aikido, you simply need an instructor who understands the relationship between taiso and ken gensoku. When we practice our taiso with 'people' there are an infinite number of variables which effect our performance; those variables are the very people we train with. Height, Weight, Skill Levels, Attitudes, Strength etc etc, they all effect how we perform waza (which is important). When we work by ourselves with a sword, we are able to control those variables because, the only partner we have at that time is.. An inanimate object and, the only way what we do alters is if we ourselves allow it thus, we can study the principles of aikido without the outside influences which other people bring. This is both mental and physical conditioning to acheive a single constant which is a deep understanding of the origin of the waza. Having never done batto jutsu I can't really comment on what it is exactly however, from an aikido perspective, you are going to see benefits in your taiso by picking up a Japanese sword and learning how to use it. Remember the basis for Aikido and many of the things we do in the art is based upon the generic principles, strategy and movement employed in sword use. Bill this one is specifically for you mate I can't comment on Mr. Elder as I've never net or trained with him.
Thanks Dave, I made an edit, so if you could read the post's end again, I would value your perspective on my further statements. Thanks again. Atimi ? Would that be atemi, as in striking with the hand ? Yup, as in exactly. Also this is listed as pre-war kendo, is this acurate? or would it be kenjutsu, or other koryu, as I don't see any protective coverings and they are using shinken. Someone has posted 6 of them, and they are interesting, I just wasn't sure if they could be concidered kendo. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j58lSEocJZ8&mode=related&search="]YouTube[/ame] Thanks for your answers too Bear, all help is welcomed, so long as it isn't from muppets, or trolls offering useless, usually bad advice, playing on mom and dads 'puter. Causing threads to flame up as people who know what they are talking about get angry, leaving the questions overlooked. :woo:
(lol) you've read some of my posts in MAP's weapons forum then lol Seriously, I'll reply to your additional questions later as I'm at work for the moment... Gimme a couple of hours.
Koyo With regard to maai have you tested yari or naginata against jo or bokken? Our instructor made a yari (about 2m long, I guess) with a padded tip. Where there was a lot of room for manoevre (outdoors), it was hard to close down the space, but once that tip was passed, the shorter weapon won every time. Of course, we also had to allow for our amateurish skills with the pole arm! ( I understand that our 2m yari was acceptable for combat on foot but that much longer pole arms were used against horsemen.) We did not try with a naginata as we did not have one, but it is my guess that this would have been a very different story, due to the lengthy blade section and due to the speed with which the shaft may be drawn back through the hand when distance was reduced. Some naginata also had parrying bars or tsuba, which would help against the sword. Apart from being fun, this kind of experimentation seems to bring a new enthusiasm and awareness when we return to more familiar ground.
I read a lot of posts, but try and just keep my mouth shut (for lack of a better term, i guess i could say "keep my fingers off the keyboard) until I have reason to believe my input could help, or I believe someone there can help me with a question I have. Or sadly if someone says something so ignorant my ire is irked. With regard to when you can respond, no problem it's morning here, and I work nights so whenever you have time is fine.
Hi djchaos I am afraid you may have misunderstood me regarding kata in aikido. I am refering to weapons kata and I do feel they are of great value to the empty hand techniques particularly the body movements. The dislike was kata which are written in stone while aikido weapons kata allow kaeshe waza (alternate techniques)As far as atemi we at the Makotokai use them all of the time to unbalance the attacker prior to the throw. I have often seen training wherein the initial attack given is done almost carelessly because the attacker has no fear of being struck before , during or after his attack. In my opinion this may lead to unrealistic practice.It is most difficult to attack an experienced budoka without leaving suki (openings physical or phsycological) it is these that we attack usually to a kuzushi (point of imbalance). In a practical sitiuation atemi is 90% of aikido. I am almost certain that the shinken you refer to must be either a school of iai or kendo no kata which are executed with real blades. KIaiki I have trained against naginata ( to learn techniques which can be applied with the jo) and they are by far the most difficult bladed weapons to face.The deadliest attacks I found were to the ankles as I attempted to close the maai If I lept over the sweep they simply "folded" the blade and were it for real I would be landing minus a legThey also had a technique where they appeared to turn their back on you from as safe maai and as you lept in you were met by happo giri a figure eight cut so now you are landing minus an arm and a leg.(bit like monty python) There is also the sudden reversal of the naginata wherein while stepping back they strike with the rear of the weapon. One technique I could pull off was to cover the blade and enter in striking the centre of the naginata with my body to control (for an instant) the reversals.If I had to fight a naginata exponent for real I would want it to be in a telephone box then I would have a chance. Keep the posts coming regards Koyo edit djchaos you have already contributed to the posts by asking intelligent and interesting questions.Thanks.
A telephone box, eh? Sure you're not keeping a secret from us, Clarke Kent? Or maybe you're the other guy who uses a telephone box and a sonic screwdriver? I forgot to mention that we did study some kumitachi many years ago, although it formed no part of our normal aikido practice - our Sensei was kind enough to introduce it for a few months. My memory is that each starts in a set kamae such as chudan or hasso kamae, we suriashi forward 3 times then there is an attack and a defence, each with a different kiai ('yah' and 'toh'). We then returned to the set distance. Sadly I have no idea what this set of techniques was called. Anyone know? I've seen something similar in Dave Lowry's book on the Bokken and in some Iai books, but nothing exactly the same. Anyone know, please?
Hi Kiaiki The sword techniques you speak of in particular the use of different kiai sound like the kendo no kata which also has a number of kata wakizashi against katana with an interesting use of irrimi. As to Dave Lowry that would almost certainly be Yagyu shinkage ryu. This being his specialty. Keep the posts coming Regards Cla... oops Koyo
Thanks - thought you would know. I've just been on to the beloved Youtube ans watched a pre-war demo of the kata - you were right 'on the money'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCqt5Po1w-M&search=Kendo no kata When the Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu master Okabayashi Sensei (now Soke?) visited our dojo, he performed this kata with his ukedeshi before instructing us. Ah, it all comes flooding back now...the flowing gracefulness, the gentle sound of bones crushing on tatami...those were the days!
Hey Koyo, What I was trying to find out was if the issue with set-in-stone kata/waza/jo applied to weapons as well, you answered brilliantly by the way, even though you never grasped my question as I meant to ask it. I wasn't referring to any koryu specifcly, and the use of the word shinken, was more of an example than to point of reference. No thoughts on Toyama Ryu Batto Jutsu as to if it would compliment the Aikido I have yet to learn, or opinions of other JSA styles, or do most blend well? I do know that my training in Seitei Iai will help me to learn Toyama ryu, and I feel that BJJ will compliment the Aikido, as I learn more. I think the biggest problem I face is not reacting to similar situations in the way my BJJ training would dictate as Bear said.
I'm not sure what you are asking... but when on the ground, neither Aikido or BJJ uses much striking (atemi). There are a few good reasons for this, one is that striking someone on the ground is different than striking someone when both are standing. For one thing, the ground is solid and if you punch down to the ground through your opponent like you would when standing, whatever you hit isn't going to move much, it is going to hurt your hand more. As for stand up striking, Aikido considers weapons and the footwork learned is more appropriate for dealing with such things. It is the same footwork as in ju-jitsu, but it starts at weapon ranges rather than just starting at punching ranges or closer. The differences in takedowns between BJJ and Aikido are quite a lot. For any takedown (or technique), (1) you can try to force it, (2) you can try to get someone to move in a direction and use their energy/momentum against them, or (3) you can trick someone into giving it to you. In BJJ, you are allowed to force it, although the other methods are also in there. In Aikido, you are very much discouraged from forcing it. You MAY have to unlearn any impulse to "force it" with a takedown or technique in order to learn Aikido. Of course, in a self-defense situation, it can be anything goes and forcing it is still a valid option given the right situation. In fact for many it is the most direct and simple way to get things done. Like what Bear and Dave said... in my words the different arts will complement each other when you have been in it long enough to understand and apply the principles. I went from Aikido to BJJ, and I find they complement each other well but at first they did not because I did not see how the principles were the same, but instead I tried to make my BJJ technique look more like Aikido or I tried to make my Aikido technique look more like BJJ... neither worked well as a result. Where they are similar is in the principles and from there they are alike. Once that became clearer, then my Aikido helped my BJJ and my BJJ helped my Aikido. Take for instance a BJJ technique Omoplata and an Aikido technique Nikyo. In BJJ the finish is called a submission, in Aikido it is called a pin. Here is a submission for Omoplata (from bjj.org): And here is a pin for Nikyo from Aikido (from http://www.ai-ki-do.org): These two submissions/pins use similar principles: 1) To those that know the techniques, both techniques lock the shoulder (immobilize the shoulder so the body cannot move), and both apply pressure like turning the propeller on an airplane (airplane stays still, but propeller moves). 2) However there are many more principles shared, such as both techniques have tori resting on the tops of the feet (opposed to on his toes or balls of his feet), both techniques require that tori's hips are moved/positioned to the rear of uke's shoulder (the omoplata there is a part of the setup to drop the hips back, without this step the technique can be countered much more easily), and both techniques apply pressure into the ground rather than roll uke forward. I'm sure there are other principles that are shared, but that's all that comes to mind right now. The big difference is that tori puts his arm around uke in the omoplata submission to keep uke from rolling forward, in Nikyo pin, uke is flat on the ground and cannot roll. So the techniques use the same principles but are not identical nor should one try to make one the same as the other in looks as they are for different situations.
Hi Rebel In the photograph of the aikido ka if he were to enter his shin in and "fold " the oppenet's arm over his (the aikidoka's) knee pressing over the attacker's shoulder this would complete the submission. Only used when there are no other possible attacker's. (as in the other version too ). Koyo
Koyo - I'm geting slower at editing my posts. please look back at number 351. ta. Hi Rebel. You said: 'neither Aikido or BJJ uses much striking (atemi).' IMHO Aikido uses lots of atemi. There are differences in what is meant by 'atemi': Some wave a vaguely flapping hand at Tori and call it atemi. At the other extreme, others aim a full blown strike at Tori which would cause damage if not evaded or blocked/blended. the same is true of Tori's defensive atemi. I stand ready to be corrected but I know of no school of Aikido which does not regard atemi as a major part of its training. I'm also not too sure about the assumtion about BJJ that it offers the option to force an opponent to comply whereas Aikido does not. Yoshinkan style was designed to overwhelm the attacker and force (not strength) was certainly in there as an option - in fact good, hard atemi would be an element of that IMHO, together with painful pressure points and use of leverage. If you mean use of strength - if skill, speed and spirit are all equal, weight and strength are factors - but may be a disadvantage as well as an advantage in some situations, such as those requiring stamina or agility.
Hi djchaos There are two books and complementing videos that would answer all of your questions on Batto ryu and aikido. They are By Toshishiro Obata master swordsman and master of yoshinkan aikido (gozo shiod They are called crimson steel and naked blade the videos are crimson steel and samurai aikijujutsu in the Obata demonstrates both arts. They are very interesting, The books are from dragon books an american publisher. Hope this is of some help. Koyo
Just for clarification the immobilisation seen in the above image is NOT Nikyo. It is specifically known as katakatame and is generic method of immobilisation which can be applied following any of the kansetsu waza. Ikkyo ude osae, Nikyo kote mawashi, Sankyo kote hineri, Yonkyo te kubi osae, Gokyo ude nobashi and Gokyo hiji gaeshi are merely sequentially numbered methods of control using (mostly the wrist but with the exception of Gokyu on the elbow) as the connection points to uke's centre, and whilst they are quite commonly referred to as "pins" they are not entirely effective for long term immobilisation. hence there are methods of immobilisation which follow on when uke is (usually) prone; katakatame is one such application, and fairly unique because it has a specific name whereas, (and this is where the confusion factor can set in) most of the physical endings which provide an effective method of immobilisation, do not thus are termed "ikkyo" "nikyo" etc.
Hey Rebel I can relate to edits not being fast enough, so I will carry this edit down in hopes that it does not get overlooked. Hey Koyo No thoughts on Toyama Ryu Batto Jutsu as to if it would compliment the Aikido I have yet to learn, or opinions of other JSA styles, or do most blend well? I do know that my training in Seitei Iai will help me to learn Toyama ryu, and I feel that BJJ will compliment the Aikido, as I learn more. I think the biggest problem I face is not reacting to similar situations in the way my BJJ training would dictate as Bear said. As all I have to relate similarities to between BJJ and Aiki is what I have seen, read, or learned practicing with friends who took Aikido your pictures were very helpful. I hope I can just put my previous training in BJJ on the back burner (so to speak) and only reference it mentally as what they are options for outside the Aiki dojo, and follow and practice what I am being taught. Hopefully blending them will come as I become more proficient in Aikido. Sorry Koyo, it seems you didn't miss the edit, however I did end up adding to it. Thank you for the book and video references, I'll try and find them, but you couldn't offer me a bit more of the information and comparison from your own prospective?
Just a misunderstanding kiaiki, I could have been more clear in my words. The lack of atemi I was talking about was "atemi on the ground" or striking when on the ground. My comments were not intended to apply to stand up striking. Neither BJJ or Aikido employ much striking when on the ground. Again, I could have been more clear, but when I said forcing it as in forcing a technique, I was specifically looking at the example of takedowns. Aikido "discourages" forcing a takedown, BJJ doesn't encourage it but they don't discourage it either if it works. I was thinking of the example of a shoot and double leg takedown as a common technique taught in BJJ (I would say it is basically a tackle with better posture), I can't think of any Aikido schools that teach a tackle or anything as direct as that as an Aikido technique (edit: although iriminage can be forced so I stand corrected there, I don't believe one is allowed in Aikido to force MOST takedowns when in training). Sorry for any confusion. ------------------- And Dave Humm, thanks for the corrections... what maybe would have been better for me to say was that was a pin I learned as a follow-up to Nikyo. I also learned the finish to that pin as koyo described but I was under the impression that was more ju-jitsu and not the basic pin to be learned as part of Aikido (e.g. it was something one learned but it was not part of our particular schools requirements).
