I will take that as a compliment. I have stated the facts in a clear concise way. This is what I try to do as a scientist Regards,
No, I meant that we approached things from different perspectives, touched on similar points (e.g. Chin Gen'pin) and came up with similar findings. It wasn't a jab at the clarity of your writing at all.
Trying to keep track of the history and influences of aikido can be tricky. A few years back I had to keep producing this picture to refute what many aikidoka were saying..that Daito Ryu had no influence on aikido.It was a blatent attempt to rewrite history.One official attempted to take the photo from me.Others had the caligraphy for Daito Ryu airbrushed from other copies of the photo. I still have the photo. O Sensei Ueshiba seated next to the caligraphy for Daito Ryu in my opinion the greatest technical influence on aikido. regards koyo
That truly baffles me. There's really no doubt that Ueshiba trained regularly under Sokaku Takeda from 1915 until 1922, and off and on after that for some time. Takeda awarded him a teaching license (kyoju dairi). He was reputed to have been one of Takeda's most talented students. All of this is documented. Koyo, can you think of any logical reason why any Aikidoka would deny Aikido's Daito-ryu heritage?
When aikido first came out of japan martial arts were not as popular as they are today. The training was most severe few people were attracted to them. Most who trained in aikido like myself came from judo. Then when martial arts became popular many instructors realised that new students came to aikido because of the philosophy.I feel it was to apease these that daito ryu was thought to be rather brutal therefor some aikidoka wished to present aikido as a "new" form of martial art.So the rewriting of history and the deliberate misinterpretation of O Sensei's words. There are no strikes in aikido or the latest one weapons training is "unaiki".I can only think that it is a case of giving the people what they want (pay for) rather than what they need. I got into many an arguement when I suggested to some who took a "spiritualy superior " attitude that Daito Ryu students were as compassionate and civilised as any aikidoka. regards koyo
He was from Japan same gentleman that I had words with for his habit of putting his hands on female students. regards kyo
This photo, undoctored, is in Budo, Teachings of the Founder of Aikido. So I don't think the Aikikai did a good job, since Kisshomaru wrote the introduction of this book, where the photo appears. Without doubt Daito Ryu is the primary influence on Aikido. Mochizuki Kancho described the development of Aikido as Takeda would teach kata to O'Sensei. When Takeda left O'Sensei would then use these techniques as jiyu waza against his students. Saying to them, come attack me. Then the students would try to do the same thing against each other. Regards,
O SEnsei tended to demonstrate a technique once and the deshi had to watch closely and ,as they said, "try to steal" it. This was often the way the deshi would teach in the early days. I remember being in a class and practising a technique just as everyone else was and being told "Yes you got it, THAT one was correct. "I was NOT told what was "correct" about it. regards koyo
In Daito-ryu it's still taught this way. At least if I'm understanding you correctly. In my experience we haven't gone over the same technique two lessons in a row. Many of the concepts will be similar (zanshin etc.) but the actual technique being taught above and beyond that is not really gone over in the next class. It gets shown once and we work it... for that class. Then the next class we are working something different. Needless to say that's a massive change from the Aikido classes I took many years ago or the way we go about teaching boxing or Muay Thai where constant repetition is the order of the day. It strikes me that style of instruction is far more subtle than most of the other arts I'm used to.
What I have come to believe slip, is that principles are more important than techniques. The manner of training in Daito Ryu (and the way we train in my club) is simply constant repetition of principles. So whatever technique is used to study them , to my mind, is secondary. Get the principles and the technique shall "appear." That's about as esoteric as I get. regards kyo
You put that far better than I could have. That's exactly what I was trying to say... but didn't quite get it across.
Have you found that training mainly in principles equiped you better when cross training. I found that training with kendoka Maai was of great value (I only get hit most of the time) Then there is the realisation that all of the arts "work" on the same principles. regards koyo
To some extent yes... it's completely different than what I'm used to so in that it's refreshing - if at times baffling. Though to be honest at times it's frustrating because there isn't the instant gratification I'm used to from other training methods... though I think in the long term there are some real advantages to this type of training. Patience for one... especially for me...a person who has little patience.
Koyo, thanks very much for your reply. Makes sense to me, and is consistent with the thoughts of several former Aikidoka I know here in the States who now train in Daito-ryu. Regards...
NJ you are welcome it saddens me that such separation has robbed us of much we could learn from each other. Slip I began with judo so I have a healthy respect for competition. I then moved on to aikido and having friends who are high grades in other arts (they are always delighted to show me how effective their respective arts are) I have been able to cross train with them for decades. My approach is to see how ,out of my element, the other arts reflect upon my aikido. (rather than learn the other arts) From kendo, their ability to go from zero to 100% attack really polished my zanshin. From karate my mobility and the understanding of the instant of kime. FRom judo just how difficult it is to take someone's balance and realising that they remain off balance for only an instant during which you must act. All in all I feel that cross training has simplified my approach which must bring me back to principles principles principles. best regards koyo. On a "historical" point. ALL of the original aikido shihan were "cross trainers" mainly judo and or kendo and jujutsu.
Hello all, I remember reading somewhere that O-Sensei travelled to China at some point, and may have studied some Bagua Zhang? Has anyone else heard/read this? If it is true, then there is a link between Aikido and Qinna, as Bagua Zhang makes use of Qinna techniques. But, as I say, I don't know if it is true or not.
Koyo, you are obviously a man who is speaking from experience. I couldn't agree more with that comment. And that instant is terribly brief, isn't it? Bailu, yes, Ueshiba traveled to China (including Manchuria, I think), but I'm not aware of any credible evidence that he studied any Chinese arts while he was there. As was said above, the facts we know today indicate that he created Aikido from Daito-ryu and other Japanese arts he had studied earlier in his life.
