Let me put it this way. In a real situation Aikido is 90% atemi. It would seem that the Hanbo is best suited for striking. Therefore striking would seem to be the best way to use this weapon. So I would say using the Hanbo should be 90% atemi. So if your main focus is not on atemi with this weapon you're wasting your time. Everything I have been able to find out about this weapon says it's a striking weapon. And once again, if you're not using this weapon on a regular basis then it's study is purely a curiosity.
And how do the principles of using the Hanbo differ from Aikido or any other art? What is it that you are studying that is so different?
-- Great question. It is not that the principles of a weapon used differ from a particular style of martial art, it is that the principles of weapons used differ from weapon to weapon, according to the weapon used. For example, one would not use a tanto the same fashion in which one would use a jo, or a bo...each of these have different principles and applications, advantages and disadvantages, certain skill sets and certain movements that dictate how to best employ the particular weapon.
Certainly techniques differ from weapon to weapon... but the essential principles are the same for all fighting, weapon or none. Get offline, hit hard, hit fast, hit often. One thing my coach said recently: "When you give someone a knife, he often forgets how to fight... remember, use the knife, but don't forget what else you have available." He'd show us an attack and ask what needed to be done... and when we'd be trying to figure out a movement with the knife, he'd point out the simplest solution was atemi to the face. He also showed how all the empty hand techniques we did were still valid, with only slight modifications needed to allow use of the knife.
Every single weapon I have used in aikido ALL have the same basic major principles only the length of the weapon makes any change and that is in the body entry. For example the jo is used as a sword,a spear,a naginata even a dagger. The only differences is the distances used and the same principles are in the empty hand techniques.
Well considering the Hanbo represents something on the order of a broken spear, not a knife, and the Jo, as Koyo points out can be used to represent a spear. How do the principles and not the techniques of using the Hanbo differ from the Jo?
-- Other than the obvious differences in ma ai, lets take the bo, jo and hanbo. The bo being longer than the jo, and the jo being longer than the hanbo, mere striking principles are affected greatly. It is quite easy to strike several times, with a variety of different strikes, quite rapidly with the hanbo. It takes longer to do the same series of strikes with the jo, and even longer with the bo. Hence, different principles for different weapons. This also applies to being able to use the omote and ura (front/back) parts of the weapon, bringing them into play. And then the same applies to blocks or deflections with the different weapons. On a different note, this affects the way in which one carries, holds, treats or stores the weapon. Even within the category of knives and swords, different principles apply to the different types of knives or swords (curved/straight/short/long/double edge/single edge/ blood groove/ no blood groove, fixed blade/ assisted opening, and even handle type) that one may use, and now this introduces principles and methods of cutting, slashing, and stabbing as well.
I can't see that you've really added anything to your answer here. I was looking for a bit of detail. I think you're confusing fundamental "principles" with actual "techniques". Some unarmed techniques are better suited to tall people while others are better suited to smaller people. However the fundamental "principles" don't change for any of those techniques.
I can see where it might be difficult for some to discern or separate the two, since from the formation of martial arts, technique is a manifestation of principle, and principles are basically grouped into two categories, efficiency and effectiveness. Even in kata, kata are not just something for rote memory, and repitition. Those who designed and started the kata for their systems did so because those kata best embody and represent the principles. I would agree that the fundamental principles do not change in the example you provided, however the principles are modified to various degrees based on the situation, and such would be the case with various weapons, including the hanbo, as I described above, specifically omitting any mention of technique at all.
Personally I group principles under headings like esoteric, philosophical, mechanical or even physical. Never would I categorise a basic principle as efficiency or effectiveness. Those are desired attributes of a technique. What I'm really trying to get at here is what is it about the Hanbo that is so different from the Jo, Bokken or Tanto? When you take the techniques apart and examine them, what is it that is different. What are you learning that you will not otherwise learn with the three traditional weapons used to form the core and backbone of Aikido? For example is timing more crucial with the Hanbo than it is with the Jo? Perhaps there is something particular about body alignment that the Hanbo provides a unique insight to?
Well, it would not be fair to lump the tanto into this category, as now principles of cutting, slashing and stabbing are introduced. And within the sword, there were many, many shcools and styles that emphasized different fundamental principles, which in turn guided the techniques they used. What I have gained from the hanbo are the different applications, governed by principles applicable to the weapon itself. If you took half a hanbo, then it would also be different from the bo, jo or hanbo. Take a hammer, which I have never trained with as a weapon (but understanding the principles behind various weapons would be able to use / choose not to use, quite effectively), the principles and techniques change even according to how you hold it...I can hold it by the handle and use the hammer/claw edge as a striking weapon, or as a hooking weapon much the way a curved cane would be used (again different principles). I can hold the claw/hammer edge and use it accordingly as well. I can use it with both hands, allowing the center of the hammer to become the effective weapon. I would venture to guess (agian keep in mind that we train only a couple of times a year with the hanbo in a mini workshop type session), that the hanbo is much more versitile than the jo or bokken, with far more possible applications. Of course you could not cut someone with a hanbo. The applications/techniques are governed by the principles. It would be far more difficult to apply a wrap or come along technique with a bo (though I assume it could be done, but would not be an efficient or effective use of the weapon, it works in aikido when someone is standing at the other end of the weapon and grabs it, depending on how they grab it), or apply a wrap or come along or joint lock with a sword...the principles behind the sword just don't allow it...one would literally sever their opponent. Now, I am not talking about a joint lock with the wrists when I am holding the sword, and someone grabs my wrists/arms, in the form of say nikkyo (common to aikido, and still done with the hands while the hands merely hold the weapon), I am talking about a jointlock or wrapping of the body limbs with the weapon itself. What would be kind of fun is using a hanbo in one hand, and a tanto/knife in the other...now you've got the principles of each weapon involved, intermixed, and twin style, not unlike using twin swords, which also introduces new principles. And yes, to use any of the above mentioned weapons (throughout the thread) body alignment and movement is what allows one to use the weapon, and can be dictated by the weapon used, which is why there are different kata for sword, different kata for jo, different kata for the longer bo staff.
Yes that's all very nice. But lets focus here on the Hanbo. You still haven't actually gone into any detail as to the principles used or how they are different from the Jo or any other weapon or aspect of Aikido. If I ask other members a question regarding principles used in a given technique or weapon they don't start pontificating about claw hammers. What they will do is tell me things like body positioning is important. With reguard to that body positioning they may tell me that I must enter very deeply or that I would have to come off the line of attack more than usual. What you have done in your answers thus far from my point of view is skip around the edges rather than getting to the meat of the issue. Which leads me to believe you're not getting anything worthwhile from using the Hanbo a few times a year.
Aikido Introducing counterd different weapons etc to change the principles and aikidoka shall have to change is simply pointless. All the weapons we studied were form japanese sword trailing. The body movement the sword/dagger and jo the basic body movement correct is all you need,
I have added to this thread the manner in which I have recieved some training with the hanbo, and I feel that the value is relative. Although at my level I may not get much out of our practice time on the mats with the hanbo, it is great to see some of the other practitioners on the mats practicing, enjoying themselves and learning what they can. Some of them had never even heard of a hanbo before, and some of them had never held one in their hands before. Here are a couple of dojo that practice with the hanbo / and an article from aikido journal with John Goss. The article is quite a good read, a bit long, so if you don't want to read the whole thing, his discussion of the hanbo is down towards the bottom 2/3 of the article. Hope I'm not breaking any TOS by posting these, I merely post them as a source with some practitioners / dojo that also train aikido that use the hanbo. Please note that these are yoshinkan dojo, and aikikai dojo as per their websites. Article: http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=654 Dojo: http://www.aikidominnesota.com/keishoukanbudo.php and John Goss's dojo: http://www.aikimartialarts.com/ Although I have not read it, John Goss has a book entitled "Hanbo, the Aiki Way."
I think I posted a link to an on-line version of that book earlier. I'll give your links a read. I have to say though. If you have the wealth of experience you claim and you're not getting much from using the Hanbo a few times a year, then your students with less experience and understanding of Aikido and martial arts certainly aren't getting much that's worthwhile. The reason i say this is that in general, the more you learn and understand the faster you learn knew skills and information.
-- Well, I don't claim I have not gotten much from the hanbo training, I was basically going with your supposition. I actually gain quite a bit, and so do the others in my class. For that duration, I am not teaching, demonstrating...it gives folks a break from me at least, and my teaching. It also allows me to continue to be a student (which if you subscribe to martial arts philosophy, we are all students), with no preconcieved notions nor expectations about what it is I am doing, or what I might learn...beginners mind. As far as my claim of experience, aikido is huge. It transcends the many groups and affiliations and orginizations and the politics...I know my place in the world of aikido, and I'm pretty much a nobody. Experience yes, but experience does not always equate to skill or ability. I'm just an average, bottom of the barrel aikidoka.
-- I'm not sure what you mean...is my statement cotradictorty, or is going with your supposition contradictory?
First you make a statement claiming not you're not claiming to get anything from using the Hanbo. Then you immediately claim you get "quite a bit" from using the Hanbo. Sounds contradictory to me.
I think his use of double-negative "...don't claim...not gotten" is the cause of the confusion. In affect, he is saying he "has gotten much".
