does aikiken teach iai techniques, is it closer to kendo or a less restricted art? basically, what is it like? /\those are 2 points i am more concerned with.
by iai you mean iaido? Sorry if any of this info is incorrect,last time i done it was when i was also doing katori shinto ryu. I think its purpose in aikido syllabus is because all techniques come from the sword so it gives a greater knowledge of origin and thinking behind what and why you are doing them,there are small katas etc and you practice aikido strikes with the bokken(eg shomenuchi) Not too familiar with syllabus of other styles you mention so sorry bout that
i dont know exactly what defines "iaido" but i do know that iai means a draw/slash or a draw/block, so if that's what you mean, yeah. also i think my second question was a little unclear, so i will be more specific. does it include sparring, does it restrict the strikes allowed in sparring, etc. anyway thanks for the info.
Your asking a very difficult question about aikiken. First there are many different shihan practicing ken work in there aikido. Most of it is called Aikiken, but there is a huge difference. Osensei spent years and years in Iwama developing The relationship between bodymovment and ken and jo. That is why he came up with Hanmi, The stance from Aikiken, Hitoemi-from jo. He developed Aikiken from what he had mastered in traditional japanese swordsmanship, HE LEFT NO KEN KATA BEHIND. Only 7 saburi, 5 kumitachi and hundreds of different Awaze exercises(blending) Including tachidori, ken tai jo.from all of these comes your body movements in Taijutsu. There is no difference between ken-jo-taijutsu, they are one and the same-AIKIDO. BY training in taijustu you learn ken and jo. by training in buki waza(weapons) you learn taijutsu. Now some of O sensies students were never around or learnt very little weapons. So some have took what they learned and worked with there other japanese weapons training like kendo, kenjutsu etc( this is very popular). AS for what its like. Its like no other sword school. Execpt that most of its roots do lye in kashima shinto ryu. take a look at there first kumitachi then look at osenseis first kumitachi. That is it after that its all about aikido and the principles of aiki. Many students developed there own ways of learning these movments ie kata. Saito sensei never developed any kata for the ken either only the 31 and 13 for the jo, and these came from the saburi movments that Osensie left. So there is no real relationship between japanese wordsmanship and aikiken. One is learning to use a sword properly and the other is learn Aikido through the movements of a ken. Another way to think about it is this, iaido is about cutting, kendo is about striking and aikido is about controlling.
Well yes in a way, its just as much a training tool as aikijo and taijutsu. They are all Aikido. YOU CANT HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. Thats why some schools who do not practice proper aikiken but instead incorparate other weapons schools into there aikido are in my opinion (which i share with Saito Sensei) are only practicing taijutsu from aikido. I also beleive they will not fully undertsand Aikido this way.
The size of the aikiken/aikijo is really just as big as the taijutsu sylabus, simple because they are the same so there must be the same level of training. ITS SO HUGE. remember 10,000 techniques-100,000 varations this is Takemusu Aiki
Did O-Sensei give Saito certificates in weapons teachings? Well that is rhetorical, he didn't. He only gave one student certificates for weapons and it wasn't Saito and it was for bo, not jo or ken. He awarded Masakatsu-bô jutsu certificates to Hikitsuchi sensei, 10th dan, in the 1950s. Saito created the suburi and kumi-tachi for the bokken and jo that were taught at Iwama, Pat Hendricks says so on her site, and in interviews available on the net, coz she was there with Bruce Klickstein while they were being developed. Saito had an immense grasp of aiki principles but 'aiki-ken' and 'aiki-jo' would be better called Saito techniques. So it would be disingenuous to say that you cannot learn Aikido without learning Saito's weapons system. You can only say that you cannot learn Saito's system without them. O-Sensei's weapons techniques were based around misogi rituals afaik. But as this takes us into the realm of O-Sensei's spiritual path many teachers have decided to ignore this part of his teaching because it doesn't suit them. Caveat emptor. Weapons systems in aikido seem, to me, merely to reflect the aikido of that systems proponents.
you will need to tell me where on her website it states that. Im going by what his son told me, and the pics that are in the founders home. The saburi already existed for both ken and jo and most of the kumitachi and kumijo, execpt for the last 3 kumijo which saito developed, i believe as a presentation for his ninth dan. He also put together the 31 and 13. All saito did was systimised the movments so it was easier for larger groups to learn. The founder was very much against kata forms. As for the idea of calling them saito techs or saito ryu, he has already stated this years ago that the reason he cant call them his own is beacuse he is teaching what he was taught, and because of his postion in Iwama he was unable to change his aikido to his own style like most other teacher where able to. Now you dont have to tell me about pat and bruces lineage to the chief, But theres no way that is completely correct. Not when you see all the evidence in Iwama. Plus listen to what Hitohiro says, as he was the only child allowed to train in the adults classes under the founder in Iwama, and of course saitos form looks difrerent now to the 60s and 70s, but not the techs. As for what i said about one cant learn one without the other, i truly believe that. You can see a huge difference in aikidoka who do and dont use ken. They usually have no idea about good hanmi. Of course thats not going tro stop you learning some good aikido, But im trying to point out how huge the syalbus of aikido that the founder left us is. It takes a hell of alot more than a couple of classes a week for a couple of years to see this connection.
Another contravercial statment that could be said is that aikiken and jio where only ever taught to a small group who made the time in iwama, apart from the odd class that the founder let saito teach on a sunday at the honbu(was not very often) He only really demonstrated outside of Iwama. Which explains why very little people experianced reall aikiken and jo.
Well I am not getting drawn into another 'Iwama is the only pure Aikido' argument. Nevertheless I stand by what I said: O-Sensei awarded Masakatsu-bô jutsu certificates to Hikitsuchi sensei, 10th dan, in the 1950s, he gave no-one else weapons certificates. That means that he gave no-one else teaching certificates for weapons. As I keep repeating - that does not mean that Saito's system is lacking in any way, but it does mean that Saito was certainly not uniquely qualified to teach weapons (or indeed Aikido, by extension) in Ueshiba's eyes. If I can say that Saito's system is not lacking...perhaps other people would have the good grace to say the same about Aikido systems of which they know little or nothing. Then this constant argument about it would disappear. :Angel: Peace all.
DEX, your the only one who is saying anything about Iwama being the only pure Aikido out there. In my opinion and thousands more it is the least changed aikido from what the founder taught in his home dojo. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT THE PUREST. As i keep saying theres just as much **** Iwama schools out there as aikikai, tomiki, etc. Theres plenty of people who learnt bukiwaza from the founder, but NONE LEARNT AS MUCH WEAPONS AS SAITO. Whats the certifacates got to do with anything? As for respecting other style i know nothing about, i will admit ive seen nariyama doing some lovely stuff and his traditional Aikido is also very good. But your write i know very little about tomiki, like your very limited knowledge on iwama aikido,other than its was developed from one of the founders great prewar students.
I agree. The weapons taught at Iwama are the best in my opinion, and I agree that the systems taught in aikido are not 'weapons' at all but tools for aikido. You say that there are no kata for the bokken....thank god for that, learning the suburi is hard enough.
True, but then Dex is only saying plainly what your implying in all your posts. And yet it doesn't seem to stop you from hijacking threads that appear on the aikido section of this site to 'big up' your aikido and be disparaging about other styles.
Can we get back to the ACTUAL question ? The answer to your question (already answered by some) is no, Aiki ken does not teach Iai. Iai has very specific elements not associated with Aiki-ken. The very name of Aiki-ken suggests its purpose and nature and it is an often misconception that students of aikido are being taught a sword art, when in fact Aikido is sword influanced. I dont want to go anywhere near the Saito / Aiki ken connection / debate although I fully acknowledge Saito Sensei's standing in the matter of buki waza however, even a full working knowledge of these skills still does not constitue skill in a "Sword Art" although yes, it would help considerably towards it. Regards
Your quite right dave i do apologise but i did state the riai between ken-tai-jo in my first statemant, i just got carried away after that. It would be very possible to over come a sword system using aikido if yo think of doing aikido with your ken, rather than thinking of sword fighthing, that would be crazy. Ive seen some good kendo people being controlled by aikido, But at a high level. Perfect hanmi
Kewl. Just to start another raging debate.. I don't study iwama style but, I do 150% believe that quality aikido comes for the lessons gained from Aikiken and Jo. it is the reason why I study Iaijutsu If people like William Smith, Ken Cottier, Kanetsuka Minarou, Yamada Yoshimitsu tell me so, who am I to argue.. ..cough cough.. Sorry for the name dropping lol.
Im sure Iai is very complementive to your taijutsu. What i think is abig problem though is schools who have no real instruction on proper weapons training, ie the schools who are not Iwama and choose not to learn a acutal separte weapon school, but want to follow O'sensies system, from what they have seen or tried at a few seminars along with some vids and books. Ive seen a lot of non Iwama schools try to do Iwama weapons and they have not got a clue what they are doing, they have no idea whats going on in every indevidual movement and usually have no form or essence to there practice. There are 2 schools in particular around Around my area who are exactly like this and its doing them no good at all because there teacher has no idea about this and when asked if they would like to come along to an Iwama course to learn from an Iwama master they dont want to know.(crazy) i also remember going to one of these classes for training not long after returning from Iwama and doing so called Iwama weapons there and being told that i should be doing it this way, but when you try to tell them that that there way is wrong if its meant to be Iwama they look at you as if to say "but im 3 dan grade higher than you how can you be right". This to me is a total waste of training time and they would be much better learning somthing they can be taught rather than the above way.
I guess what im trying to say is that although i keep going on about the fact that Osensei left behind a huge Aikiken and jo syalbus, you would be better to learn another weapons art from a skilled teacher to complament your taijutsu, just like dave is talking about. Rather than trying to copy somthing you see at the odd iwama seminar you may attend and not learn from a proper teacher of that system is going to do you no good if its wrong to begin with in twenty years it will be a totla disgrace if not pointer out.
