Aikijitsu and jujitsu

[Koga-Shinobi]

A simple question from a beginner MAist: How similar in style is Aikijitsu and jujitsu? What are the similarities/differences bewteen the two styles?

 

[Yari]

Hi

Your questions is not as easy answered as it is asked.

While there isn't many Aikijitsu styles alive anymore, jujitsu styles have evovled both in name and techniques. So your question is to ask about a certain style compared to many different "styles". Therefor the difficulty on the answer.

But what are you looking for? And why are you trying to compare arts?

/Yari

 

[Koga-Shinobi]

The reason I ask is that at a club I've been looking at lately (for Aikido), they cross-train Aikijitsu which seems to be quite similar (in terms of throws and circular movements), but is much harder ie. incorporates a lot of strikes, locks, throws...which I would associate with more jujitsu (hence my my question on the similarities between Aikijitsu and Jujitsu.

Personally, I really enjoy the art of Aikido (from what I've seen and read up on), but feel that one neds to have some degree/measure of offensive capability..which Aikido does not teach. Unfortunately, there are no Ju-jitsu clubs in my area, the closest being is the Aikijitsu...which seems very aggressive and effective...but other than what I've seen in a half-hour display, I dont know too much about it.

Your thoughts?

 

[Yari]

Most of the Aikido styles I know of have strikes, or the possibility of strikes. One of the major issues in Aikido is mae, and positioning (sp?). Some Aikido styles don't pratice atemi (strikes), since they don't belive in striking an opponent.

The style I pratice ( Nishio) emphesizes striking in the techniques, but it "can" be pratice without, and a lot of people do. They also do throws like Ipponsiegonage or taiotoshi.

I would say that the differance between Aikido and Jujitsu isn't the technique, but the philosophy behind it. While Aikido works more with principles( flow - mae - timing - center), jujitsu has it's own way. Both aikido and jujitsu can be very simulair and far apart, depending on the style praticed. You could do something that wasn't in the Aikido curriculum, and as long as it follows the principles it would be concidered Aikido.

Concerning the offencive part, it again depends on the style and teacher, for Aikido and Jujitsu.

/Yari

 

[Koga-Shinobi]

The style Aikido that they teach is Yoshinkan...which in my understanding was supposed to be a harder style Aikido, thereby incorporating strikes, breaks, locks etc. I asked the sensei though, and his understanding was that it is a harder style, but the comes from the way the throws are executed, not necessarily from strikes. In fact he said, very few strikes are actually used in his teachings, and if they are it is primarily a distraction method.

Another question, Aikido is supposedly supposed to be a defensive style right, where your opponent doesnt get injured. But in my view, once you've thrown someone down to the ground, you cant just leave it there, there has to be some sort of follow-up to ensure he doesnt get up to attack you again ie a wrist-break, or strike to the face. Does that go against the philosophy of Aikido, or is it just a lesser "advertised" aspect of Aikido?

 

[Yari]

I would say Aikido isn't offensive or defensive, but responsive

The way I understand Aikido is that I react in the best way possible, and by harming the opponent as least as possible.
I believe that many of the current philosphies in Aikido today estem from the '60-'70, when "make love, not war" was a big hit, and the very "soft " part of Aikido was cultivated. Therefor some Aikido styles have lost some parts of the orignal meaning. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but that's part of the evolution of AIkido, and why there are many different aproaches.

What most Aikidoka's agree on are to minimize hurting/harming the attacker. Some styles think that by throwing/pinning an attacker they will learn that their ways are wrong. Others talk about escalting the technique until the person doesn't attack anymore, or some just beleive that the first technique will do the job.

But none of them will follow up by bashing the person or kicking him while lying down, or giving him three quick punches.

About Yoshinkan, I can't help you, since I've never tried or seen it. But it's true what he stated, as you probably can read from what I wrote earlier.


/Yari

 

[Humble artist]

After spending a short time in aikido and reading lots of material I have around of it and related arts I´d like to share my view.
In aikido it is preferred that the attacker won´t be hurt,he may be temporarily in great pain and stunned but not seriously injured (if injured,then with least injuries)
There are often very little strikes in modern aikido,but they shall be there to cause distraction for a follow-up,primary technique.
Ueshiba obviously believed in atemi and it´s relation to aiki.
Ueshiba had a lot of training in jujutsu (daito ryu aikijujutsu as a primary art) so I guess he could have "taken it for granted".
Yes,in aikijujutsu there is plenty of striking but grappling applications are still the primary part I think.Just like in other jujutsu styles,aikijujutsu has potential to seriously injure or kill a person and offensive techniques can be found.
Some points:
1.jujutsu uses opponent´s power (including some of exponents own,little circular movement if compared to others,in many styles lots of striking/kicking while in others little,use of force then is needed for the above and such as breaking limbs etc.)
2.In aikijujutsu there are similarities to "basical" jujutsu,when getting more advanced,circular movements and aiki play a big part,still there is use of force and striking.
Many techniques are similar to aikido (as this is where aikido comes from,besides other arts,same techniques applied with different approach)
3.Aikido.Generally all movement includes use of opponents force,circular movement and aiki.

 

[Dave Fulton]

I think that the arts that you're refering to are jujitsu and "aikijujitsu". If so, "aikijujitsu" is jujitsu performed with aiki.

What is "aiki"? That depends upon whom you ask. Daito-ryu people seem to have a different point of view on aiki than folks from other arts, like Aikido.

Aikijujitsu is alive and well ... if you know where to find it. In fact, I have the honor of working with a couple of Daito-ryu people on a semi-regular basis.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

 

[Jon O'Neall]

Mr. Fulton has hit the nail on the head with his statement:

"What is "aiki"? That depends upon whom you ask. Daito-ryu people seem to have a different point of view on aiki than folks from other arts, like Aikido."

That appears to be the crux of so much confusion over the definition of "aiki" within the world of Aikido and Aikijujtusu (and jujutsu too for that matter). It would appear that Morihei's Ueshiba's view of "aiki" was fairly unique.

James Williams (who I believe is a practitioner of Yanagi-ryu Aikijujutsu, i.e. the art of Don Angier) expounded upon this quite well in an article he wrote entitled, "Martial Aiki - Past and Present". Below is a quote from that article that speaks specifically to how "aiki" was view historically (as opposed to how it is viewed today by the vast majority of people (which is largely due to the enormous popularity of Aikido)).

"This method of combat to the samurai mind however had nothing to do with what happened to the opponent outside of
the fact that it facilitated his demise. Blending and harmony meant aligning oneself with physical reality and the
movement, physiology, and psychology of the adversary to defeat him. The awareness and sensitivity that came from
the study of an aiki based military science was valued because of the increased ability it gave the warrior to successfully perform his prime directive, victory in mortal combat. For those Samurai fortunate enough to belong to a clan that taught an Aiki aspect of bujutsu the art was practiced not for spiritual edification but because it was the most efficient method of combat."

This defintion of "aiki" defines well how it would have been originally viewed from the perspective of an individual who was using it in the real life and death struggle of (as Mr. Williams put it) "mortal combat". In essence, while the blending and harmonizing would be considered "soft", the rest of the technique would be applied with a power, focus, decisiveness and, yes, brutality in the end.

Thus it would seem that Ueshiba instituted his own particular ethical and moral view upon the concept of "aiki". But, while commendable, it really had nothing to do with "aiki" from a martially historical perspective.

And this is what has led to much confusion over just what "aiki" is. When the world (and most martial artists) hears the term "aiki" it thinks Aikido, and with that comes the image of the benevolent, aging Ueshiba, smiling warmly and gently tossing people around. This is thus confused for what "aiki" is. When in fact, that is what Aikido is. "Aiki" applied to jujutsu need not be so benign. "Aiki" and Aikido are not synonomous, and therin lies the confusion.

Respectfully,

 

[Yari]

Nice input Jon O'Neall. It got me thinking, and I'm still thinking about it while writing this.

Thanks for the great input!

/Yari

 

[Jon O'Neall]

Thank you Yari. Here's something more. It's a quote from the definition of Aikijujutsu from the Aikido Journal's "Aikido Encyclopedia" no less:

"3. Aiki techniques performed in a hard, jujutsu-like manner used in contrast to the softer, rounded techniques of aikido."

Just another instance of "aiki" not necessarily meaning what most people think.

Just something more to think about.

Respectfully,

 

[Dave Fulton]

Originally posted by Jon O'Neall
'This method of combat to the samurai mind however had nothing to do with what happened to the opponent outside of
the fact that it facilitated his demise. Blending and harmony meant aligning oneself with physical reality and the movement, physiology, and psychology of the adversary to defeat him. ...'

"In essence, while the blending and harmonizing would be considered "soft", the rest of the technique would be applied with a power, focus, decisiveness and, yes, brutality in the end."

This certainly seems to fit the feel of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu that I have had the opportunity to experience and yet I believe that there is more to their POV on "aiki" than simply blending and harmonizing. Because I am not a student of Daito Ryu, they are a bit secretive about it, so I'm going upon my impression of what they're doing based upon feeling their aikijujutsu.

Originally posted by Jon O'Neall
It's a quote from the definition of Aikijujutsu from the Aikido Journal's "Aikido Encyclopedia" no less:

"3. Aiki techniques performed in a hard, jujutsu-like manner used in contrast to the softer, rounded techniques of aikido."

Maybe I'm a little dense today, but this definition doesn't seem to tell us anything about what "aiki" is. Further, having been uke for aikido and aikijujutsu practitioners, I can tell you that it FEELS like there is more of a difference than degrees of hardness/softness and linear vs. circular. Just my impression based upon how they both feel though.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

 

[Jon O'Neall]

I believe that there is more to their POV on "aiki" than simply blending and harmonizing. Because I am not a student of Daito Ryu, they are a bit secretive about it, so I'm going upon my impression of what they're doing based upon feeling their aikijujutsu

You won't get an argument from me. "Aiki" can mean so many different things that when I talk about it I try to do so within the context of the discussion at hand (not always easy to do because "aiki" discussions wander off in all kinds of directions very, very easily).

At any rate, blending and harmonizing is indeed only part of what "aiki" is. But it's also many other things. I used this particular example only to try to correlate it to the James Williams article I quoted.

Maybe I'm a little dense today, but this definition doesn't seem to tell us anything about what "aiki" is. Further, having been uke for aikido and aikijujutsu practitioners, I can tell you that it FEELS like there is more of a difference than degrees of hardness/softness and linear vs. circular. Just my impression based upon how they both feel though.

No you're not dense and yes you are correct, it doesn't tell us what "aiki" is (I've yet do discover anything or anyone that does that fully!). But that wasn't why I posted it. My purpose was just to show that it can be thought of from a different perspective than what most people think of when they hear "aiki" (i.e. Ueshiba and Aikido). My point was just that the definition in the Aikido Encyclopedia is pretty far from what your average person thinks of when they hear the term "aiki" applied to something.

Anyway, I've yet to hear or read anything that defines "aiki" completely. The day that happens I'll light up my best cigar and celebrate! And please believe me, I sure wasn't trying to do so here (I'm not nearly that foolhardy! Trying to define "aiki" has stymied far greater individuals than me!!!!!)

Respectfully,

 

[old_sempai]

but never-the-less thought I'd share this:

Aiki [no Jutsu - Budo Heketsu]:

“The Techniques of Aiki - The Secret of Budo.” This is the title of the oldest book [published in 1899] that discussed the concepts of aiki. During the Meiji Era many writers and scholars greatly inflated the ideas of ki, ki-ai and aiki, and in this particular work one finds the following statement; “The most profound and mysterious art in the world is the art of Aiki. This is the secret principle of all the martial arts in Japan. One who masters it can be an unparalleled martial genius.”

To some a later work entitled Jujutsu Kyoju-sho Ryu no Maki, published in 1913 furthers provides what is considered to be the finest definition of this concept: “Aiki is an impassive state of mind without a blind side, slackness, evil intentions or fear. There is no difference between aiki and ki-ai; however if compared, when expressed dynamically aiki is called ki-ai, and when expressed statically, it is aiki.”

However, with regard to the last paragraph the following points should also be noted:

"Western Martial Artists identify Ki with the mind, but oriental concepts identify Ki as being the link that exists between an individual and nature. With time Ki came to be viewed as the universal cosmic energy that pervades all living things and is the prime force behind the visible order of nature. However, these definitions should not be viewed as proof of Ki being a mystical force that can be harnessed as will. Further, with regard to the concept of Ki-ai being the opposite of Aiki, the reality is that Ki-ai is neither a synonym nor antonym of Aiki because the Japanese Kanji ideogram used for writing the one bears no relationship whatsoever to the other. Still, this view will always be in dispute because when transliterated using the Hepburn system of Romaji the syllables are reversed in their pronunciation. Later when Karate was introduced into Japan its proponents also adapted the concepts of Aiki into their teachings as well."

It would be interesting to locate an original copy of The Techniques of Aiki to see what other information it contained.

L Fitzgerald

 

[arnisador]

Aiki in this sense is a principle found in many arts, not a single art?

 

[Dave Fulton]

Originally posted by Jon O'Neall
No you're not dense and yes you are correct, it doesn't tell us what "aiki" is (I've yet do discover anything or anyone that does that fully!). But that wasn't why I posted it. My purpose was just to show that it can be thought of from a different perspective than what most people think of when they hear "aiki" (i.e. Ueshiba and Aikido). My point was just that the definition in the Aikido Encyclopedia is pretty far from what your average person thinks of when they hear the term "aiki" applied to something.

Anyway, I've yet to hear or read anything that defines "aiki" completely. The day that happens I'll light up my best cigar and celebrate! And please believe me, I sure wasn't trying to do so here (I'm not nearly that foolhardy! Trying to define "aiki" has stymied far greater individuals than me!!!!!)

Respectfully,

Jon,

I realized that you weren't offering those quotes up as the definition of aiki and apologize if you thought that my criticism was directed at you.

I may not be able to define what Aiki is, but I can tell you what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

 

[Jon O'Neall]

I may not be able to define what Aiki is, but I can tell you what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

Amen to that!