can someone tell me the difference between the techniques of aikido and aiki jujitsu. I know that aikido was derived from aiki jujitsu.
Depends mainly on the style of aikijujutsu.. Ueshiba founded Aikikai Aikido after training under Sokaku Takeda in Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, so you can see the inter-relationtion, as you mentioned. To be very general, aikijujutsu would tend to focus more on practical combat that a beginner make use of more quickly, while aikido would emphasize the higher spiritual nature of martial arts, and the nature of ki applied to combat and life. But, like I said, that's very general. It really depends on who is teaching it these days. They will essentially have the same techniques, with aikido being more flowing in general. Both arts go for the same ideal ultimately, but it depends on the philosophy of the school as to how you would go about getting there.
Good reply from Zankuro. I studied Mushinkan Aikido for 12 years (shodan) and for the past year Kogusoku AikiJitsu (yonkyu). A lot is similar, but as Zankuro said, the 'jitsu' art is more practical/battle/combat orientated than the 'do' art. In our style of jitsu every waza is finished with a takedown and throat cut using a tanto, so we are dealing with the destruction of the opponent, not just the evasion of his technique. That said, some schools of yoshinkan aikido can be pretty brutal and many may find it hard to tell the difference between this and aikijitsu. I suppose they are as different as they could be. One thing 'i think' is certain though, jitsu employs more direct (irimi) style waza, and far less tenkans than aikido, basically due to the fact that with battle armour on, you'd find it hard to jump around your uke using kaiten and tenkan sabaki. Tai sabaki is very important in jitsu, but its subtle, very subtle, as i've found out with many of the hip throws/wheel etc. Hope this helps.
Nice post The Damned... Another difference is striking. Most Aikido styles don't strike, or strike very little. AJJ, we strike every chance we get. Also, another important aspect is hand movements. Aikido has these horrendous circles, while AJJ is smaller and tighter. Other things to consider are the jujitsu aspect, such as grappling. Good luck finding that in Aikido. Aikido takes years to learn, as well as the higher level aspects of AJJ. But the jujitsu pieces can be picked up pretty quickly.
To the best of my knowledge the major difference in technique is the circular motion which is emphasised far more in Aikido.
nice addition and follow-up aiki-jo. Yeah, i neglected to mention the points you brought up, which are, after all probably the most important ones. I do like the fact that atemi-waza features quite heavily in AJJ, and it easier on the beginner to pick up without becoming dissalusioned with all the ki elements of general aikido. Love it!
Firstly lets not be too generalised about what people 'think' "aikido" is or isn't. The founder is quoted as saying that atemi is 90% aikido and within my dojo and many others I might add, atemi waza features as a required method of learning. Secondly, although the practice of ki is an essential aspect of any style of ai KI do, it only becomes a problem *if* and only *IF* it is taught in preference to the remaining aspects of the art, yes that does happen but that doesn't make ALL AIKIDO weak. Please don't make sweeping statements about "aikido" in such generalised ways. This is absolutely correct, although Aikido will teach and in many cases practice large dynamic circles, any half clued-up student or instructor will know/teach these circles in ever decreasing sizes. This one aspect of the art which, if you pardon the pun, makes Aikido such a "round" art, we can choose the appropriate responce, large and open or small and closed. Again... its a misconception (mainly by those who don't study the art) that all aikidoists can do is make large, long winded and 'open to counter' type circular movement. There is only one way to disprove this misconception and that would be to step up to the mat and demonstrate that fact. One has to appreciate the differing ideology behind aikido and that of ju-justu. Jutsu - is a method of war, do - is the practice of tradition however, the two ideals very easily cross over. That said, just because a person chooses to study a tradition rather than a method of war doesn't make that person's journey in Budo any less valid or effective. Take my study of Iai for instance, I might study a system which in all honesty would serve me no use on the street in today's society however, does that make it any less a martial art (and a traditional one at that) than say kali or any form of knife fighting ? Actually no thats not quite right. Yes the philosophy of the founder may have been radically different to many others of the time however, its the person who exudes compassion and mercy which ultimately sets the definition of the technique being applied at that moment in time. Jutsu or do, it really doesn't matter. I can apply aikido technique in very brutal ways, likewise someone skilled in AJJ could easily apply their knowledge in compassionate ways if the circumstances required it. Regards
No doubts there; just to reiterate, I was being quite general when I brought it up. Getting deeply into application and analysis, you can apply virtually anything to anything.. a main reason why martial arts are a never-ended pursuit.
If the founder said atemi is 90% of Aikido, then is it safe to assume that most styles are not doing Aikido because they don't strike? I'm sure a limited number of styles do strike, but they are far and few between. To teach principles of Aiki, especially coming from a style that emphasizes blending with ones energy (non-sense), taking ones center with their energy (more non-sense), is important if taught with some actual understanding. But it's only a part of an overall MA style. Since Aikido doesn't really touch on other things, that's all it offers.... Does that make the art weak? I think yes...
Care to back that statement up aiki-jo? Tell us which styles don't strike. Show us your evidence. And please explain why blending is such non-sense when it plays a part in a great many martial arts. Surely you're not suggesting all those people are wrong and you are right?
I'm not familiar with the actual affiliations of the ones I've seen and been told by their instructors that do not strike. I think 1 was from Tohei's group and the other was from Saotomi's group. I witnessed first hand both, and was told by both that there is no atemi. They use feigning... Blending with ones energy is what I believe to be non-sense. Can you effectively blend with someone going quarter speed and you going full speed? Blending is important, but it doesn't need to be treated in some mythical concept. Its more important to understand the concept/principles of blending, than to explain it using words like blending with their energy (especially when it can't be explained properly).... And there is no reason why you can't shadow someone without doing a tenkan... Tenkan does not mean to be able to blend. Meaning, you simply can't say the only way to blend is tenkan. I know that no one said that, I just wanted to make that known. There are many many people who can demonstrate the true concepts of KI as it relates to blending... "Taking ones center", to me is another mythical way of saying something that you really don't understand. Can you take ones center and move it? Can you place it somewhere for the purpose of moving it?
OMG..the people in the ASU (Saotome's Org) don't strike?!?! That's too funny....go take a gander at "Principles of Aikido" and take a look at some pics of Atemi. Better yet,go to a seminar by Saotome or Ikeda Shihan and tell them that they don't strike.
So far as I am aware Koichi Tohei Sensei has no problem with full on atemi. He freely admits he got to where he is today through regular solid practice. I study Ki Aikido my self and I have no problems makeing full on atemi. Maybe you got confused when you read somewhere that Ki Aikido was a "soft" style.
I've been to one of his schools in the DC area. It was without a doubt, the worst thing I've ever seen. Now, I didn't actually see him. I spoke to several of the instructors there at that time, and they confirmed that they do not strike only feign. Now if they learned that awfulness from him, and that was passed down to you... Good luck..
It was so long ago, and yes I thought they called it KI Aikido. I can't swear to it, but I think it was his affliation. I did talk to the instructor that night, and I asked about atemi. He said they don't use and went on and on about the beliefs of the founder... He was killing me, litterly. It is possible that the particular instructor at the time had different beliefs than Tohei. I also visited more schools to see if any of them were worth anything. This was close to 15 years ago. All of the ones I visited, that claimed to teach Aikido, did not strike. I simply can't remember who or where their lineage is. I did find one school that said "We teach Aikido", come learn the art of Steven Segal... I know; sounds silly. But I thought why not? So I started there and quickly realized this is it. This is what I want to learn. Come to find out a short time later, they only call it Aikido for walk-in people. Simply as an advertising ploy. What they were teaching was AJJ. So in short, I visited plenty of schools before I chose the one I did. The ones I visited, did not strike.
I think there is sometimes a confusion over what 'atemi' actually is and it's hard to argue against an instructor who says 'we do it this way'. Why should he change? If you don't like what they do, find another club which does offer what you want. IMHO however, good aikido includes atemi which is always hard enough to test and improve the students - at whatever level. I've been to dojos where a vague waft of the hand is called 'atemi' and othere where uke walks towards tori with an outstretched 'dalek' arm as an attack. Those who do 'proper' punches, kicks etc sometimes also fail to provide a 'committed' attack. Leaving aside the obvious training situation where each student needs to learn how to handle atemi gradually, increasing in power and speed, improving timing and distance, good aikido IMHO includes atemi which is designed to make contact which would cause pain and damage if tori fails in his defence. Aikido techniques are designed to deal with hard, accurate and fast attacks. Same thing with weapons - strike as if you mean it! Bad atemi gives tori little opportunity to practice techniques properly and we all have a duty to learn how to be a good uke in this respect. (My atemi is getting worse due to arthritis so I wouldn't have the cheek to uke for a good BB in freestyle, but there's plenty of others who don't seem a bit embarrassed about being good in other respects and rubbish at atemi - weird!)
We are on the verge of slamming folk into THIS here... And please take note... Aiki-jo - please stop trolling. It may be better to post in forum areas where you have some actual experience of the art in question. It may make your viewpoint more credible. You don't value Aikido much - ok - we know that now - now please change the record.
There could be a few names on that door. Yoda has spoken. It's time the thread was back on track or closed.
Ok, so I'll be the first one to jump back on track, although I don't think I lost anything. Anyway, we touched on the circular aspect of the comparison between Aikido and AJJ. AJJ is also more linear. IMO, there is more atemi in AJJ, and more emphasis is placed on atemi. Then there also is the jujitsu aspect between the 2 styles. One major difference is also the philosophical differences between the 2 as well as footwork, hand work are different. IMO, I believe there are more weapons being trained with in AJJ. These are just a few.
The principles are the same but the teaching methods vary not just from style to style, but from school to school also. Not a big deal, IMHO, Aiki-jo. I feel the bigger deal is getting students that want to train for self-defense to train with realism and against realistic resistance. It doesn't matter as much if you employ more linear or more circular, etc. when you train it against realistic resistance because in the end, if it works then it will be closer to practical application. Practical application is an integration of all you have learned and refinement through hands on experience. I have found through my own experience that the more linear movements of irimi are much more useful in practical application in most cases, but the use of tenkan is as useful, if not more useful at times when the opponent is much bigger and stronger, and when dealing with multiple attackers. I have made an observation that the teachings of Aikido technique almost always has the element of multiple attackers in it, even when training one-on-one. This could be one of the differences between the movements of AJJ and Aikido at some basic level.
