My esteemed brother tedi-kuma said aikido and aikijustsu were derived from battlefield arts, which you claimed were not used for almost 300 years. I do not agree with this statement. Aikijutsu is a direct decendant of arts which were commonly trained and used throughout the tokugawa shogunate. This doesn't add anything to the legitmacy of the arts just adds context of why the arts are the way they are. They aren't street fighting arts. Also if you are knowledgable about musket warfare you know that melee was still a critical factor right up until the advent of the automatic rifle. The Samurai arts were still relevant on the battlefield during this period. The Bear.
Not that I know of. I was taught it in the context of some footwork found in Tang Soo Do. Bear in mind that this was not an explanation of an entire martial art system, but in the context of why certain movements/footwork were emphasized over others. The idea that in modern day some footwork (movement below the belt) has lot context to why it was originally developed. We see examples of why in karate there are stances in kata but when in sparring it is more a fighting stance... why teach the stances in kata if they are not used in fighting? etc. Another example would be to train movements in swordsmanship that would allow for having the blade hidden under the water. Taken out of context, I would imagine that the movements would not look as practical when done in the air without knowing they were intended for under water.
This is easy enough to test: 1) Take someone who is an outstanding unarmed fighter. 2) Give him a katana. 3) Pair him up against Otake Risuke or one of his sons, also armed with katana. 4) Observe outcome. 5) Rethink.
History is history. After the Osaka Summer & Winter campaigns, there weren't any kind of battlefield type paradigms until the Meiji restoration that is the best part of three centuries. Most of the peasant uprisings were very badly organized and they had very few effective weapons (For the most part, rocks and farming implements.) Aikijutsu is a modern term kuma, grin and bear it (Pun intended! ) It wasn't used in the normal parlance by budoka until it was coined by Takeda Sokaku in conjunction with the new ryuha he formed, Daito-ryu. The historical incident I recall (I shall look the precise name and year up in my notes accurately) was where the bushi, withdrew to their castles and used matchlock until almost every peasant rebelling was either dead or had sallied. Sojutsu, naginatajutsu, kyujutsu, hojutsu (gunnery) and kenjutsu, yes. The oh-so special 'Aikijutsu' no. That anomaly didn't exist at this point. Kumiuchi, kogusoku, jujutsu and various forms of taijutsu did however. But then again, weapons came first on the battlefield.
No one said it did exist ,if you listen to what we are saying. We said Aikijutsu is a decendant of these arts not that is existed at this period. Much in the same way sport fencing is a decendant of historical fencing in europe. The Bear.
Hi guys. Here is my take on it. Minamoto Yoshikiyo the eldest son of Yoshimitsu moved to Kai prefecture and founded a new branch of the Minamoto . He founded the Kaigenji Takeda Kai.Kai being the province Genji the root name of the Minamoto and Takeda the new family name. THus the art of Minamoto Aikijujutsu was passed down through the Takeda clan taught only to the elite among the warriors and was renamed Takeda Aikijujutsu. In 1573 Takeda Shingen was mortally wounded Takeda Kunutsugu was tasked to take Shingen's will to Ashina Moriuji master of Aizu. He was given a post as martial arts instructor to the Aizu clan and given a mansion which he named Daito Kan. In 1674 a training hall was built and called the Nisshikan.Here they studied kenjujutsu yari jutsu naginata jutsu etc. The "unarmed" arts were Takeda Aikijujutsu also known as Goshikiuchi.Sometimes reffered to as Daito ryu. Thereafter the art was handed down through the Aizu Takeda until Tanomo Saigo taught it to Takeda Sokaku. The first recorded lesson in Daito Ryu attended by Morihei Ueshiba was in 5th march 1915. O Sensei Ueshiba went on to create his own art of aikido. This as far as I know is a short "history" of the connections between the arts.It is sad that many are not at all interested in the lives and effort that have gone into the creation of the art that they choose to see as a pass time or commercial endevour. My worry is the tenuous "connection" between what aikido is becoming for many and the art that was first introduce to us in the late fifties early sixties!!!! regards koyo I am not certain if Daito Ryu and Takeda Ryu are exchangeable. Sometimes one term is used and at times the other.
Hi Kugo, As well you know that isn't possible. Since there isn't one source but many roots of modern martial arts. So you are saying that Aikijutsu was created completely from a vaccum? Thanks Koyo, As I see it all martial arts have a history, there probably hasn't been a completely new martial arts in a long time in the world. The Bear.
Whether or not it was created from a vacuum is still being debated. If you look on aikidojournal.com, you can find some very interesting articles by Ellis Amdur on this exact topic. No-one knows for sure where it came from. One thing is for certain and that is the name aikijujutsu wasn't even being used until 1922. Before that, Sokaku Takeda called his art "Daito-ryu jujutsu." And before that, he called it "Yamato-ryu jujutsu." It's also interesting to note that the name "aikijujutsu" only started being used at about the time when Sokaku Takeda spent time with Ueshiba and Onisaburo Deguchi at the Omotokyo headquarters in Ayabe. Was the name "aikijujutsu" perhaps their idea? No-one knows for sure.
Thanks for the heads up regarding the use of the term aikijujutsu.It is so easy to make a mistake and have it perpetuated. As for fighting THESE GUYS. No way regards koyo
We are going way off topic here! Aikido and Aikijutitsu could never of come from a vacuum. It is impossible to create something from nothing and the essential principles taught in traditional Aikido like that taught by Koyo, the weapons and hand techniques are all one. The founders of these styles all had a history training in other arts which I'm sure date back somewhere to the older battlefield arts. In particular I'm sure the principles are the same in the modern arts as the older. Even if some of the techniques have changed. In my belief, once you take the weapons out of an art it will lose it's connection with past arts and start to change itself into a totally different art. As what Koyo mentions about how Aikido is being taught these days in increasing numbers. To say that Aikido and Aikijutitsu have no links to battlefield arts I think is to deny the influences of other older arts in the creation of these styles. Always grinning and bearing it! Regards Teddy Bear
Thinking of your above post. Aiki wo hazusu is a term from martial arts which states avoid aiki. Aiki being the circumstance wherein both share the same timing and distancing. In a conflict an experienced budoka shall instantly feel this and act to destroy your timing , distancing and balance. More correct is the term awase meaning to blend with the intention of asserting control over the attacker. Perhaps aiki defines the attitude to life and when this is not possible then awase should be used. As for Takeda Sokaku being influenced by Onisaburo Deguchi. I would not think so as there was no love lost between them. Deguchi continually attempting to influence Ueshiba to discard Daito Ryu and create his own art. Awase NOT aiki. The attacker's balance MUST be TAKEN. Below Chris's technique is countered using awase to "break the rythm" of the technique. REGARDS KOYO
These are the links to Ellis Amdur's highly interesting articles on Daito-ryu history. http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=2610 http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=2702 http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=2755 I've printed them out and read and re-read these several times.
I think there's a good chance you might be right here koyo. Have you been practising long? I also suspect it is why Aikido is moving away from it's martial roots as the art does tend to attract those who are more interested in "the way" rather than the martial system of techniques and underlying principles that form the foundation. Speaking of principles. Are we still talking about weapons?
Attack at all times display a superior fighting spirit assert control over the spirit of your attacker. This is a basic sword principle. This is a basic principle of traditional aikido. Therefor Omote or entering techniques were emphasised FAR more than ura techniques which display a lack of control over the opponent.The basic principle of enter triangularly is fundamental to swordsmanship and spear technique. When the aikidoka enters he enters like a swordsman attacking powerfully using ki ken tai ichi, to a weakpoint in the attacker. Below the entry used in aiki ken the entry during unarmed techniques is the same (only the maai is adjusted) As can be seen the centreline of the attacker is vulnerable (for an instant) empty handed his head, solar plexus and groin area are open to a direct attack from the position assumed by the aikidoka. This is a weapons principle that directly equates to hand technique. regards koyo
The same could be said about JU as in jujutsu. Ju can be translated as gentle or supple... but IMHO the meaning is probably better described as "bend, don't break." Is not Aikijutsu just effectively the SAME as Jujutsu? Except I have heard the belief that Aikijutsu was in some way a school superior to other schools of Jujutsu... so how are they different? I come to the belief that in the manifest world, "aiki" addresses a state of single purpose or in other worlds, acting with the lack of internal conflict. Internal conflict having to do with the mind, body, spirit not acting together. This means that aiki addresses not just the body skills and conditioning, but those of the spirit and mind also. But Aiki is more than the removal of internal conflict. I mean you could "brainwash" someone into acting with single purpose like a machine. That could be effective in creating a very dangerous killer. Aiki exists everywhere, in the enemy also. If you have no internal conflict, free to act upon intuition without hesitation, then this same must be deprived from the enemy. To cause internal conflict in the enemy... break their spirit, body, mind. As once told me, "he came to have a fight, I gave him a war." It is not just a contest of physical might...
Depends on what you define as a sword and mastering thereof vs. one's skill with bokuto. Realistically all you can't do with a bokuto is "cut" but pretty much everything else combatively speaking is the same. ..cut or strike effectively enough and the result is the same.
Hi Koryu101 The statement was that tai jutsu alone. (no bokken) would enable you to master the sword.I had pointed out that a friend Gerry Kincaid 5th dan kendo had trained with me in aikido and in a couple of years had far outstripped others because of his understanding of principles.It would be likewise if someone from an empty hand art with true understanding of principles took up the sword he would progress faster. However no matter how long you have trained unarmed ,instruction in the sword would have to be pursued before any competence could be claimed let alone mastery. regards koyo A major mistake I see in bokken work is that the fact that the Japanese sword cuts on the "push or the pull" is absent ,many who train with bokken tend to "strike" with it rather than cut.
Why cut with a blunt weapon? You mean we are pretending the bokken is a cutting weapon? What a concept... we could all imagine we are chopping wood or sweeping the floor when it comes to doing chores instead of actually doing any work. I'm only kidding. But is it possible that if the bokken is treated as weapon rather than as a practice sword, that it would be used differently in some instances... didn't Musashi use bokken sometimes in duels? Did he use them strictly as cutting weapons?
