I think aikibudo may actually be genuine. I know that's what Takeda Tokimune called his art and I believe it's also what Ueshiba called his practice back in the 1930s. But yeah, aikibujutsu is a red flag IMO.
Yep, you're right about Tokimune (don't know about Ueshiba)... I was just being silly. Aikibudo included techniques from Ono-ha Itto ryu, which was one of the sword arts that Sokaku had learned and taught.
Aikibudo is (was) a name coined by Ueshiba as a title for his budo, along with Ueshibajuku and of course aikido.
Well, the term Aikido came from Minoru Hirai, of Korindo Aikido and Tatsuo Hisatomi from the Kodokan. This was to represent a division of the Dai Nihon Butokukai, similar to the division of Kendo and Judo. The Aikido division was to represent sogo budo systems, that did not fit into the other divisions. Regard,
Minoro Hirai was indeed credited with coining the word aikido to go alongside kendo, judo eic. It must be realised the great help afforded O Sensei in his creation of aikido by Kano of Kodokan judo who sent a number of his finest judoka to train with Ueshiba.Hirai had already come to similar conclusions regarding martial arts before he met O Sensei and became the general director of Ueshiba's kobukan dojo. regards koyo Minoro Hirai
I hope I'm on topic with this post. I was told that we don't have much documentation on techniques taught and used even seventy years ago. We have some pictures and written descriptions, but for the most part, technique was passed down through training and by word of mouth. What was passed down in writing were mostly the principles that needed to be understood and learned through experience, training and practice. So I guess the first question is the above even true for Aikido? Second question would be, if principles are documented more so than techniques, were there any major changes in the principles taught in the early 1920-1930s (before the art was known as Aikido), compared to around 1940-1945 (when the art was known as Aikido)? I not saying that principles changed, but more which principles may have become more of a priority later rather than earlier. Hope this makes sense.
When Sokaku Takeda was teaching Daito ryu japan was in the middle of a civil war then techniques must emphasise the kill ot be killed attitude. During the war O Sensei Ueshiba taught military personnel the same tactics. After the war japan had suffered two atom bombs. This had a tremendous effect upon Ueshiba who saw the ultimate futility in combat. It is the "intention" more than the techniques which changed. Techniques are applied in modern aikido so as to control the attacker rather than to destroy him. I would say that the principles have not changed simply the manner in which they are applied. You can throw an attacker in such a manner that he can breakfall. The same technique with a slight adjustment can cause serious injury or death. regards koyo How are you doing rebel, still hanging in there?
Thanks for the reply Koyo. I have no doubt the principles have not changed the way you describe them, but recently I've been toying with the idea that besides combat principles, there may be something called training principles. Principles that apply to training that are related to other principles used in combat. For instance, building stamina/conditioning could be a training principle. I'm thinking some of the training principles changed in priority after WW II compared to before WWII for instance. But maybe it is just more that the intent changed as you say. Yes, I'm hanging in there. Thanks for asking. We have one student who is going to fight in his first Muay Thai match next week. I've been sparring with him a lot in training. He should do well, he has a good attitude and is in condition. I am interested to see what kind of improvements and changes in his character come out in the next few months after he has a few fights under his belt.
Hi Rebel At this moment Chris will be in his sixth day of training in Thailand at a Muay Thai club.Vadim who teaches Sambo at our dojo has just heard that of the three boys who entered mixed martial arts competition two won one drew.So it is all good at the makotokai at the moment.Looking forward to seeing Chris when he comes back, regards koyo From my own experience military training in martial arts tends to be more pragmatic and intense over shorter periods emphasising basic principles and a few techniques.
Most, if not all, of the pre-war students had several arts under their belts (pun intended ). This was basically a requirement. As a result, all of the men were already tough and strong, specifically due to the fact that most of them were judoka or kendoka. After the war, in an effort to build his golden bridge of peace, anyone was accepted as a student. I think the Aikikai would have been the first to let untrained people start Aikido (this is not a dig at the Aikikai), simply becuase they needed the money from tuition to survive after the war. Kisshomaru describes some dismal conditions during and after the war at the Hombu (I forget when the Kobukan was replaced with the Hombu). Iwould love to know when Ueshiba started emitting untrained students to Iwama. Saito Sensei was a karateka (someone previously suggested he may have also been a jujutsuka). So long story short, yes there would have been a change in training that reflected the change in students. Regards,
When O SEnsei was training in Iwama very few foreigners were invited to train. Although there may have been more the only two that come to mind are Andre Noquet from france and and Dobson from america. I think it would be more correct to say that aikido was spread rather than an influx of non martial trainees. I saw aikido as it was when it first came out of Japan and similar to japan all of the first trainees came from a martial background mainly judo. To be honest we did not encourage anyone with a "passing" interest to train. It was when the number of those that were "interested" outstripped those who were dedicated that the manner of training began to change. To the point that many would begin to change aikido to suit their interpretation often without the proper amount of training. This has been a contention of mine since I began training. ..That we should accept the hard and difficult training and understand that martial arts are NOT for everyone. Teachers should only accept students who present the proper spirit and attitude. I was told and firmly believe that true martial artists shall always be in the minority. regards koyo
Thanks for the posts koyo and 0gmios. They answered my questions. I'm creating a new thread with some observations based on your posts.
Dunno if the ju jutsu that preceded aikido was exactly pure. Just wondering where Yoshin Ryu fits into the ju jutsu tree? I've read that the founder was a medical practitioner that travelled and studied in China was was exposed to their martial arts and applications in the 17th century. By the way, I'm only open to the possibility of there being a relationship. Some of the posts here seem to be so adverse at the idea that Aikido could even be remotely influenced by a Chinese Martial art. :S
I am not adverse to the idea, I just don’t think that cling on to the idea that there is a "cradle of life" for martial arts, and it was spread with Buddhist scripture, is completely reasonable. This is a lovely story, but the fact that Yuki Chigai (Sankyo) is show in ancient Greek statues and on pottery suggests that organised wrestling in its self can lead naturally to things like wrists locks. As I said before, you can only twist the wrist in two directions and bend it in two directions. From these come all the combinations for locking the wrist. How many untrained kids do you remember shoving arms up behind backs like Ude Garami in primary school. I did it. I takes your older brother no time at all to figure out how to stop you squirming when he has you pinned. I think evolution has given us the gift of say, “oh a joint, how may I manipulate that to my advantage.” It is like all of the other “tools” that separate us from the other species (sorry, speaking as an evolutionist). Regards,
I don't think that's so. What some posts say is that there's no credible evidence that any Chinese arts influenced Aikido. It's not a matter of anybody being averse to Chinese arts - it's simply a question of fact.
I know that... I just like to think my opinion goes for everyone Edit. For the love of god people, that is a joke, please don't hurt me, emotionally...
To be serious, there very well could be people out there who would fight tooth and nail to say that there is no mainland influence at all in Japanese arts. Hence, there may very well be some that would say the same for Aikido. Just in case anyone involved in the previous discussion does feel this way, I cannot say "no one is adverse to the idea..." I personally don't think that there is enough evidence that "Chin Genpin" actually existed, and he revolutionised Japanese arts by adding atemi, or what ever the full story is. Regards,
Hang on though, Chin na never really existed as a complete system in itself though? I thought it was always a part of different styles of Kung Fu.
