My Master was a student of Kushida from Ann Arbor Michigan that still taught punching and kicking etc many years ago. Kushida was told to eliminate this but did not and broke off from the main school in Japan many years ago. When my master moved to Canada from Ann Arbor he became friends with Professor Wally Jay (circle jiu jitsu) and Dr. Yang Jwing -Ming. He incorporated these martial arts into the Aiki Jiu Jitsu curriculum. To answer your question I think it was Yoshinkai base Aikido or Aiki Jiu jitsu old school.
Thanks, looks like an interesting mix!
The answer, like other arts, is it varies by individual. Many do not. Some do.
I know some folks in Aikido who are deep into the philosophy of peace and would be bothered by a student competing - a very closed-minded view of competition. I know others in Aikido who have no issue with it.
Well, on a philosophical level, competition was against the founder's beliefs. However, he did not require his students to subscribe to his religion. Also he let Tomiki invent a competitive aikido style without having any problem about it, maintaining a good relationship until his death.
The founder did not want aikido to become a sport either (like judo had done) because "aikido is about life and death". This actually reflects a debate that has been going on since medieval times in Japan and is still going on in this very thread: are kata (drills) needed? Should we include sparring and competition in the training curriculum? Various arguments were already used back then: kata training does not develop courage nor the sense for position, timing and dealing with resistance while sparring is still different from a combat situation and, if success in sparring becomes the goal of training, this will make practitioners pick up bad habits (like exposing vital points that do not constitute targets in competition) and leave them unprepared mentally for life and death situations. It is my understanding that most schools kept kata as the primary method of teaching.
On a technical level, competition/sparring (focusing on downing the opponent) is actually counterproductive to the practice of aikido, which becomes physically easier to do and learn once you stop trying to do something to your uke.
That seems plausible. I can't speak to the accuracy of it, but it would explain why some of the older arts have such an emphasis on wrist grips. My personal view of the current usage is that it's an easy way to practice - you know exactly where to find their hand, because it's attached to your forearm. From that, you're actually learning what to do with a hand/arm when you end up with it in your possession while grappling with someone (or blocking, or whatever).
I believe that, in koryu, wrist grab defenses were indeed used to free your sword. However, Sokaku Takeda's peculiar background (including his family history, his alleged sumo background and his apparent lack of formal training in jujutsu) makes me think that the grabs and techniques used in daito ryu (and even more in aikido) are meant to teach you how to deal with forces applied to your body (someone grabbing you and pushing/pulling), how to move correctly, what are the right positions and angles for kuzushi and to condition your body/joints to receive forces (this theory has been developed by E. Amdur in great detail).
IMO, the techniques that would translate the most into "real life application" would be the ones we lump together as "kokyu nage":