# What is Aikido?



## Hawke (Apr 21, 2008)

Greetings Everyone,

What to you is Aikido?

I had an instructor rotate his hands and move his feet and say, "This is Aikido."

I had another Aikido teacher say, "You learn so you may forget."

He would makes us do drills over and over again and say this is not Aikido.  It's Aikido when you can do this without thought.

So, what is Aikido?


----------



## ackks10 (Apr 21, 2008)

Hawke said:


> Greetings Everyone,
> 
> What to you is Aikido?
> 
> ...



well i'll tell you, if i were you i would get your two instructors together and let them work it out, after all someone has to be right:lool:


----------



## morph4me (Apr 21, 2008)

Aikido is what happens to uke when I do, correctly, what I'm supposed to be doing


----------



## charyuop (Apr 21, 2008)

1 milion dollar question. You ask it to 100 Aikidoka's and you will get 200 different answers. I am sure O Sensei himself would have given you different answers according to his age when you would have asked the question.

Keep practicing and find the answer to this question on your own...and I am sure that you too will change the answer along your Aikido path.


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 21, 2008)

Put it simply.... "The Way"


----------



## tempus (Apr 21, 2008)

I have no idea what Aikido is yet.  Aikido is a martial art.  As with any art project mine is still a work in progress and in the end will look like no one elses.

-Gary


----------



## ejaazi (Apr 22, 2008)

Aikido is a true Budo.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 22, 2008)

I've seen threads on aikido where a seemingly non-sensical question has garnered answers from everyone who has responded to this thread that were pages long (myself included) but the BIG question for us as aikido-ka gets one sentence answers?  Maybe that's aikido.  It's like asking a person who are you?  A very simple question yet at the same time an extremely complex question.


----------



## Yari (May 2, 2008)

Well.... I though I would anser "Aikido is was you make of it, and it fits to the phylosofy of it". But then I really starting thinking about all the answers written here. Everone of them showing different aspects of some kind of learning. Like showing different parts of the elephant, but not seeing it all at once. Not sayign that I hold the whole picture, but I offer another view.

Aikido is a name for something man has made. It is a set of rules created to make sure that another individual can experience life the "same" way as the "teacher". But nobody can experience (my assumption) something 100% as another person, because we have different experiences. There our view will be different, even if we adheard (sp?) 100% to the same rules. 

Some styles have many rules to ensure that the pupil gets the correct experience, some dont. Some have many rules for the "body" while others have rules for thought(how to think).

So it's these rules and the connected experience that makes Aikido(or anything else). And since experience cant (yet) be measured, we can only look at the rules (mostly techniques and phylosofies).

Now there isn't 1 style of Aikido, like there isn't just one car: Ford or Toyota. There are sub styles and newly created styles, mixed styles, and evovled styles. Just like cars. This can confues it, but lets keep it simple.

Asking "me" what I think about a statement like *"I had another Aikido teacher say, "You learn so you may forget."
*
Is like asking me _how doe the rules that this individual been taught about aikido, been applied to this guy_?

I can't say. I'd have to talk to and learn this guy alot better = understand the rules and experience this guy has. 

But if you see his tecnique you can see if it fits to something else (like the style he says he follows).

/Yari


----------



## thesandman (Jun 9, 2008)

My training under Soke Michael Kinney has always included Tang-soo-do, Jujitsu Modern Arnis and Aikido.  For a long time I wondered which move fell into which style.  As my training progressed I was able to recognize the principles that governed my techniques and more accurately fit them within a particular style.  For Aikido, in my experience, if the technique flowed naturally, had no or little striking involved and ended with my opponent on the ground or in a ton of pain, then it was Aikido.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 15, 2008)

Hawke said:


> Greetings Everyone,
> 
> What to you is Aikido?
> 
> ...


I think every art is unique in its own way.  A question like yours - which could elicit a wondrous cornucopia of replies - could be answered without using ornate language or complex metaphor by saying simply that Aikido is a martial way that seeks to neutralise any attack, but by its very intent, seeks to do so WITH NO HARM to the attacker.  I have yet to come across another art with this principle at its core.  

I am Aikikai btw so you will maybe forgive me for tarring all aikidoka with the same brush - I know there are some right Aikido hardnuts out there! 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 15, 2008)

Jenna said:


> I
> *I know there are some right Aikido hardnuts out there*!
> 
> Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


Guilty as charged!:uhyeah:


----------



## morph4me (Jun 15, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Guilty as charged!:uhyeah:


 
Me too, does that mean it's a conspiracy :boing1:


----------



## Jenna (Jun 15, 2008)

morph4me said:


> Me too, does that mean it's a conspiracy :boing1:


Ah.. another Nihon Goshin crazy!  Mighta known!  I've seen (felt) what you nuts are like when yous get goin hehe    Just jokin...  or am I?
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## amir (Jun 24, 2008)

Jenna said:


> I think every art is unique in its own way. A question like yours - which could elicit a wondrous cornucopia of replies - could be answered without using ornate language or complex metaphor by saying simply that Aikido is a martial way that seeks to neutralise any attack, but by its very intent, seeks to do so WITH NO HARM to the attacker. I have yet to come across another art with this principle at its core.
> 
> I am Aikikai btw so you will maybe forgive me for tarring all aikidoka with the same brush - I know there are some right Aikido hardnuts out there!
> 
> ...


 

No harm ???

Since when does throwing a person to the ground, while potentialy breaking a joint = no harm???

Amir


----------



## morph4me (Jun 24, 2008)

amir said:


> No harm ???
> 
> Since when does throwing a person to the ground, while potentialy breaking a joint = no harm???
> 
> Amir


 

In some styles of aikido the intent is to do no harm to the attacker. Intent doesn't always equal results. The potential for harm is there, but the intent is to try not to harm your attacker. It doesn't make much sense to me, but then again, I'm one of those aikido hardnuts


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 24, 2008)

morph4me said:


> *In some styles of aikido* the intent is to do no harm to the attacker. Intent doesn't always equal results. The potential for harm is there, but the intent is to try not to harm your attacker. It doesn't make much sense to me, but then again, I'm one of those aikido hardnuts


I bolded the key here.  It's as much personal intent as it is the intent of the individual art and how they view self defense and the art in and of itself.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 25, 2008)

amir said:


> No harm ???
> 
> Since when does throwing a person to the ground, while potentialy breaking a joint = no harm???
> 
> Amir


Amir, I would have to admit my ignorance, having not heard of your listed style previously.  Please forgive me I am unaware of your methodologies.  I will however stick to my outline of Aikido being the only art that seeks to neutralise an attack WITH THE INTENT OF causing no harm to the attacker.  Of course, as *morph4me *has stated, it is possible, and even perhaps, likely outside the dojo, that intent and outcome diverge.  Again, I am speaking from Aikikai viewpoint and the views expressed herein are not necessarily reflective of those of our sponsors.
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## amir (Jun 26, 2008)

Jenna said:


> Amir, I would have to admit my ignorance, having not heard of your listed style previously. Please forgive me I am unaware of your methodologies. I will however stick to my outline of Aikido being the only art that seeks to neutralise an attack WITH THE INTENT OF causing no harm to the attacker. Of course, as *morph4me *has stated, it is possible, and even perhaps, likely outside the dojo, that intent and outcome diverge. Again, I am speaking from Aikikai viewpoint and the views expressed herein are not necessarily reflective of those of our sponsors.
> Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


 

I know, Korindo Aikido is a very small style. And seperated from Ueshiba Aikido altoghether.

I have heard this approach from Aikikai people more then once before. I am still waiting for one to explain the contradiction between practicing a M.A. and holding on to this intent. 

I believe I have also seen more then a single case in which this intent started to affect the technical execution, to the point of rendering some techniques inoperable, as locks and leverages were changed to prevent the danger to Uke\ and could no longer do anything to any non-cooperative Uke.

Amir


----------



## Jenna (Jun 26, 2008)

amir said:


> I know, Korindo Aikido is a very small style. And seperated from Ueshiba Aikido altoghether.
> 
> I have heard this approach from Aikikai people more then once before. I am still waiting for one to explain the contradiction between practicing a M.A. and holding on to this intent.
> 
> ...


Amir, That is a valid point, though it is one I would have to respectfully disagree with.  Personally, I would never change a technique in a FOR REAL situation simply to prevent harm to my attacker.  I would never do that.  Yet, at the same time, I am never at any stage ACTIVELY SEEKING to harm that attacker.  If I can at all help it, he will not be greviously harmed by my technique.  He may however be harmed by his own resistance.  But through the execution of each and every technique, he is always offered the choice of not continuing.  Believe me, I try my absolute utmost to avoid any kind of physical confrontation whatsoever.  But having found myself in an attack (and yes I have), I only want to end it, not prolong it or destroy the attacker.  

The techniques of the Aikikai are borne through the doctrines of O'Sensei and personally, I see no contradiction in practicing my Aikido and not seeking to hurt an opponent.

And I am not trying to set up an argument my friend but perhaps you could offer me something and tell me what your own intention is when faced with an attack, and again, I mean outside the dojo?

Thank you.
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## morph4me (Jun 26, 2008)

Jenna said:


> Amir, That is a valid point, though it is one I would have to respectfully disagree with. Personally, I would never change a technique in a FOR REAL situation simply to prevent harm to my attacker. I would never do that.Yet, at the same time, I am never at any stage ACTIVELY SEEKING to harm that attacker. If I can at all help it, he will not be greviously harmed by my technique. He may however be harmed by his own resistance. But through the execution of each and every technique, he is always offered the choice of not continuing. Believe me, I try my absolute utmost to avoid any kind of physical confrontation whatsoever. But having found myself in an attack (and yes I have), I only want to end it, not prolong it or destroy the attacker.
> 
> The techniques of the Aikikai are borne through the doctrines of O'Sensei and personally, I see no contradiction in practicing my Aikido and not seeking to hurt an opponent.
> 
> ...


 
I am always very impressed at the compassion of those who can concern themselves about the well being of someone trying to do them harm. While I completely agree with this part of your statement



> Yet, at the same time, I am never at any stage ACTIVELY SEEKING to harm that attacker.


 
I can't wrap my head around this part



> If I can at all help it, he will not be greviously harmed by my technique.


 
I guess I haven't evolved that far, as the whole concept is completely foreign to me. My feeling is that what happens to him is a consequence of his decision to attack me. I really admire those who think like you do. :asian:


----------



## Jenna (Jun 26, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I can't wrap my head around this part
> I guess I haven't evolved that far, as the whole concept is completely foreign to me. My feeling is that what happens to him is a consequence of his decision to attack me. I really admire those who think like you do. :asian:


Tom, while of course I must reply on the premise that you are being sincere (by your little bowing man icon) at the same time I must also acknowledge the probability of sounding myself as if I am out of touch with the real world or maybe sounding like Mohandas Ghandi in proclaiming peace!  And but I think, there are many martial artists who do not train for anything beyond their first strike.  Perhaps after the attack, the attacker is supposed to run off and never be heard from again?  There are many factors in real altercations and two of which that may be pertinent here are the potential for escalation of violence after the attack against us as the initial victim, and the potential for initiation of forms of litigation again, against us as the initial victim, turned aggressor.  All I can say is that having been on the wrong end of an escalating series of attacks, I determined that the most expedient defence was the one I outlined, whereby I do not actively seek to harm and always try to give the attacker - through judicious application of the techniques - the CHOICE not to continue fighting.  

I apologise if this sounds pretentious.  I am prepared to accept that the my methodology and explanation can engender mockery, veiled or otherwise  and but I hope you can accept that I am only giving my personal view here.

Thank you sir,
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## morph4me (Jun 26, 2008)

Jenna, please believe that I am sincere in my admiration of that line of thought, I wasn't being facetious. I just think that put in that situation, I'd be inclined to take the choice out of the attackers hands, since he has shown me by his previous action that he is incapable of sound judgement. No mockery here, just a different perspective.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 27, 2008)

morph4me said:


> Jenna, please believe that I am sincere in my admiration of that line of thought, I wasn't being facetious. I just think that put in that situation, I'd be inclined to take the choice out of the attackers hands, since he has shown me by his previous action that he is incapable of sound judgement. No mockery here, just a different perspective.


Jenna, I'm honored to consider myself a friend of Tom's and will second his statement that he is being sincere.  I, too, understand where your head is in the mindset of "do no more harm than absolutely necessary" but, like Tom, have not yet evolved to that point yet.  Perhaps it's the old US Marine in me


----------



## amir (Jun 29, 2008)

Jenna

I will start with the last part and then get back to some comments on the first section.



Jenna said:


> And I am not trying to set up an argument my friend but perhaps you could offer me something and tell me what your own intention is when faced with an attack, and again, I mean outside the dojo?



On the large scale when attacked, my purpose is to optimize my exit state, which means (in this order of importance):
1. Immidiate - Well being of myself and family.
2. Long term implications - law, prevent future attacks etc.

However, after over 15 yrs of training, I must admit that during an attack, I will most probably only think of the tactical part -how to get out of the situation with all my loved ones in one piece. I would not care for the aggressor\s. If I will even think they are still a threat, I will neutrelize it, in whetever way I can.

Of course, if I feel I have a great advantage and there is no real threat to me. I will choose the least aggressive solution. In fact, in the last decade, I chose such a solution (to stay in the car and not to engage) in two such cases. But, I do not assume this to be the general case.

In the general case, once an agressor has set his mind on the intention of attacking me. I wish the conflict to end as fast as possible. To minimize the risk of him being successful and\or me making a mistake. It is not my role to educate an aggressor, and I will not wait to check if in the middle of the attack, he has changed his mind. I doubt such a scenario is likely, and would therfore try to finish the conflict at the first touch. In this sense, I will seek to create sufficient harm to my aggressor to stop, and plan to err on my safe side.





Jenna said:


> Personally, I would never change a technique in a FOR REAL situation simply to prevent harm to my attacker. I would never do that.


 
I have seen techniques which were altered in such a way taught by several Aikido instructors including some of relativly high rank. I once asked such an instructor on the "variation" they teach, he answered that ours was tooo dangerous to practice. His students do not even know they are doing a safer for training but much less effective technical variation. 




Jenna said:


> Yet, at the same time, I am never at any stage ACTIVELY SEEKING to harm that attacker. If I can at all help it, he will not be grievously harmed by my technique. He may however be harmed by his own resistance.


 
If I (or loved ones) are under a  threat, I will try to implement each technique to the maximum. I know this is likely to break some aggressor joints and possibly even some vital organs. But under the stress of a real situation, I can only imagine myself concentrating on my and mine well being, and not on the aggressor\s. 
Further, I will try to peed up my techniques to a speed one may not get away from with correct Ukemi, nor counter. This is an opening and may give any attacker a second chance at me, and I would not like that.
Note that I do not CARE for the aggressor, this does not equate to my  wishing to destroy\harm him. Further, most Aikido techniques are not killing techniques, which some people may consider to be merciful.




Jenna said:


> But through the execution of each and every technique, he is always offered the choice of not continuing.


 
This is something I try to avoid. From my point of view, you are talking of openings, which your aggressor may use for anything, not just walking away. Further, any time of reconsideration on the attacker side, means prolonging my involvement in the situation. While I wish to get way at once.



Jenna said:


> Believe me, I try my absolute utmost to avoid any kind of physical confrontation whatsoever. But having found myself in an attack (and yes I have), I only want to end it, not prolong it or destroy the attacker.


 
In that sense we agree, but I fail to see how this settles with your previous comment about giving the aggressor a chance to relent.



Jenna said:


> The techniques of the Aikikai are borne through the doctrines of O'Sensei and personally, I see no contradiction in practicing my Aikido and not seeking to hurt an opponent.



To the best of my knowledge, the Aikido techniques are not unique to Aikido (this is true for Korindo as well). All Aikido techniques may be found in a multitude of variations in the ancient Japanese Ju-Jutsu systems. Further, all of the Aikikai techniques were "imported" from the Daito-ryu and later on passed through some variations, as Ueshiba adapted them to his philosophical understandings. I believe there is a difference between a master who perfected his control over efficient techniques and then changes them in accordance with some inspiration he has, and someone who only learns the outcome.


Amir
P.S.
Korindo Aikido roots are several other ju-jutsu styles, and still we have most of the same techniques (in variations).

​


----------



## bootcampbj (Jul 2, 2008)

An old Aikido book Ive long passed on to another student so I can´t recall the author/title, tells a story I´ll recall as best I can.


¨I was traveling on a train one day by myself and at one of the stops a man I assumed to be drunk got on and started to intimidate the other passengers with his loud uncontrolled behavior.  After watching him awhile I was preparing myself for when he would come my way or do something that crossed the line so that I could put my Aikido training to good use and put him in his place¨

¨As I watched the drunken man move closer my way, I readied myself, suddenly an old man nearby stood up and grabbed the drunken man on the shoulder and pulls him down into the seat next to him and asks ´tell me, what´s wrong, you seem upset´  The drunken man with teary eyes begins to tell the old man how his wife has taken the kids and left him and he doesn´t know what to do, they continue to talk for quite awhile¨

¨I realized then, that after all my years of training in Aikido, this old man in this one moment showed more Aiki spirit and understanding than I¨


That story has always stuck with me, and it´s much of what Aikido means to me.

 - BJ


----------



## amir (Jul 2, 2008)

bootcampbj said:


> An old Aikido book Ive long passed on to another student so I can´t recall the author/title, tells a story I´ll recall as best I can.
> 
> 
> ¨I was traveling on a train one day by myself and at one of the stops a man I assumed to be drunk got on and started to intimidate the other passengers with his loud uncontrolled behavior. After watching him awhile I was preparing myself for when he would come my way or do something that crossed the line so that I could put my Aikido training to good use and put him in his place¨
> ...


 
This is the story of Terri Dobson, I have also heard stories with the same spirit about teachers in many other M.A. who chose not to engage in a confrontation, nothing special for Aikido in this aspect. Most people who learn M.A. realize the chaos and danger of a fight and prefer other solutions when a fight is not imposed on them.

This does not relate to the situation of a fight imposed on you. and you taking care of the aggressor, as had been described here.

Amir


----------



## Jenna (Jul 2, 2008)

Amir my friend, allow me to say that you have a tenacity   and which I mean sincerely!



amir said:


> I would not care for the aggressor\s. If I will even think they are still a threat, I will neutrelize it, in whetever way I can.​



Yes Amir, and but appreciate also that one of the reasons for our differing behaviour in an altercation lies in the inherent difference of our two styles.  The techniques in your style -a nd forgive me if this is mis-stated - are designed to despatch an attack efficiently without harm to yourself.  The techniques in my style are designed to despatch an attack efficiently without harm to myself or my attacker.  That is just how it is.  The styles are different and were conceived in different circumstances and with different objectives.  At some point in time, the designer of your Korindo style decided that the Aikikai was inappropriate and/or could be improved upon.  And while all Aikido has undoubtedly sprouted from that same Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu seed that you mentioned previously, there are now many different varieties of fruit on the tree of Aikido.  I happen to think mine is tasty   I have had some tough ones, some pretty ones that tasted awful and some ugly ones that tasted sweet...  Sorry, I wandered into my metaphor and fell into some kind of allegorical ditch 

Amir, all I can say is that our styles are not the same.  Of course I understand why the Ueshiba philosophy is perhaps regarded as pompous or not in keeping with reality.  Yet I am bound to respectfully disagree.  Trust me though because I am honestly on no mission.  And I have said and will repeat ad nauseum that all styles and all arts are valid and have merit.  I have no axe to grind my friend 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## morph4me (Jul 2, 2008)

Jenna said:


> Amir my friend, allow me to say that you have a tenacity  and which I mean sincerely!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hi Jenna,  I'm going to chime in here with my thoughts about the bolded portion. First, I think that aikido is aikido and the techniques are pretty much the same from style to style, it's the application and intent of those techniques that are different. 

 The second thing, and I may be going out on a limb here, is that I think that maybe the designer of the Korindo style of aikido may actually be more in line with the Daito Ryu roots and that O' Sensei is the one who decided that Daito Ryu was inappropriate and/or could be improved upon. As always, it's my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it


----------



## Jenna (Jul 2, 2008)

morph4me said:


> Hi Jenna,  I'm going to chime in here with my thoughts about the bolded portion. First, I think that aikido is aikido and the techniques are pretty much the same from style to style, it's the application and intent of those techniques that are different.
> 
> The second thing, and I may be going out on a limb here, is that I think that maybe the designer of the Korindo style of aikido may actually be more in line with the Daito Ryu roots and that O' Sensei is the one who decided that Daito Ryu was inappropriate and/or could be improved upon. As always, it's my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it



Hey Tom  thank you for this info/opinion.  I will take this as fact until proven otherwise.  I can only defer to your greater knowledge and am afraid I can claim no great knowledge of O'Sensei beyond a former sensei of mine who did train with Ueshiba and the most I really ever gleaned was that, as an instructor, he did not suffer fools gladly, pffft...  And but what you have said sounds entirely plausible.  Maybe someone on here can enlighten further.  Thank you again sir.
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## Yari (Jul 3, 2008)

Jenna said:


> ......appreciate also that one of the reasons for our differing behaviour in an altercation lies in the inherent difference of our two styles. ..... Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


 
This I agree to 100%.

If a style has as the first step to "rip an attackers eyes out", no matter what kind of attack, I would say that is effektiv, but there are other ways of handling "a push", "a wrist hold" and the such.

I know this is put a bit to the point, but I think it's important to understand that what you practice will define who you are (in a conflict), and that you can decide(to some extent) who that person is. And in the long run, the consequences of these choices.

/Yari


----------



## amir (Jul 3, 2008)

> Amir my friend, allow me to say that you have a tenacity and which I mean sincerely!


I'll take that as a compliment. You know your participation puts you with me 




morph4me said:


> The second thing, and I may be going out on a limb here, is that I think that maybe the designer of the Korindo style of aikido may actually be more in line with the Daito Ryu roots and that O' Sensei is the one who decided that Daito Ryu was inappropriate and/or could be improved upon. As always, it's my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it



Actually Korindo Aikido has little to do with Daito Ryu, and not much more to do with Ueshiba Aikido in the technical sense. 
While Hirai Sensei did have contact with Ueshiba, it was long after he (Hirai Sensei) had learnt and had started to teach Ju-Jutsu. Korindo Aikido technical roots are in different Ju-Jutsu styles, and primerily Takanuchi-ryu, see my discussion here: http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9889&highlight=korindo&sid=0affd61036058989f6cd1d1a0c53afb5

To summarize, Hirai was a part of the Ueshiba *organization* for a short time, and left it as life carried him along (to a senior position in the Dai-Nihon-Butokukai during WWII). He then decided not to return to Aikikai as it was not his way (see an interview with him in AJ100).  
However, the above is more of historical chasing after Hirai Carrier, then after his Aikido, for which the technical roots are clearly defined.




> The techniques in my style are designed to dispatch an attack efficiently without harm to myself or my attacker



It is clear all the techniques were originally designed and improved multiple times, for the exactly the purpose of "dispatch an attack efficiently without harm to yourself". This had been done by multiple generations of Ju-Jutsu students and teachers long before any Aikido style was formed or named. Further, M.A. historians (such as Stanly Pranin) have shown (they even hd some videos) Ueshiba himself had performed these techniques in the 1930s and 1940s.
I have yet to find any source indicating at which point those techniques were changed, or by who?  It is impossible to trace the routs of each sub-group in the Aikikai as there are lots of those (and I must admit it interests me less, though I like to read about history). Note that at least Stanly Pranin claims quite a bit of the Aikido groups in Aikikai, were more influenced from Ueshiba the son than from his father. And is thus more distanced from the Daito-Ryu origins.

I would further point out that logic alone explains that if you look for a solution optimized under two constraints (no harm to self and attacker) it is bound not to be better then a solution optimized under a single constraint in the terms of that single constraint. Thus, the more you wish to prevent harm to your attacker, the more likely you will become to allow some harm to yourself. I believe my previous post gave you some concrete technical examples.

 In any case, I strongly recommend everyone to practice the M.A. they enjoy and love. All this discussion is supposed to help us learn of our preferences, not to suggest a change of grouping or any such thing.

Amir


----------



## Yari (Jul 3, 2008)

amir said:


> In any case, I strongly recommend everyone to practice the M.A. they enjoy and love. All this discussion is supposed to help us learn of our preferences, not to suggest a change of grouping or any such thing.
> 
> Amir


 
I agree!


----------



## bootcampbj (Jul 3, 2008)

Amir,

 to elaborate a bit more on my part, that story was just a way of saying it´s the ´spirit´ as passed down from Ueshiba Sensie down through to my club, the way of budo philosophy he speak of in his writings, and the culture that it has created in my club (Iwama style)  and the calmness of my own spirit because of it.  

That´s what has separated  Aikido from other forms of martial arts for me in my journeys and experience.  In 20 years of martial arts training, it has had the most profound impact on me spiritually and emotionally and become the bedrock for a lot of the choices Ive made in life.

I couldn´t have asked for more.


----------



## amir (Jul 3, 2008)

bootcampbj said:


> Amir,
> 
> to elaborate a bit more on my part, that story was just a way of saying it´s the ´spirit´ as passed down from Ueshiba Sensie down through to my club, the way of budo philosophy he speak of in his writings, and the culture that it has created in my club (Iwama style) and the calmness of my own spirit because of it.
> 
> ...


 
I too love practicing Korindo Aikido and have found it to have great impact on me. But, I dislike attributing "too much" to something, and especially dislike attributing uniqueness too one M.A. for things which exists in multiple others.
Note that in Terry Dobson story, he was the Aikidoka, and any M.A. experiance of the older Japanese is left unmentioned. 
And as I have mentioned earlier, I have heard multiple similar stories of M.A. seniors who practice other M.A. and acted in the spirit of the old man, though they had nothing to do with Aikido. I believe this to be one sign of being a Martial Artist: being able to solve such situations with confidence and without resorting to actual violence.

Amir


----------



## morph4me (Jul 3, 2008)

Jenna said:


> Hey Tom  thank you for this info/opinion. I will take this as fact until proven otherwise. I can only defer to your greater knowledge and am afraid I can claim no great knowledge of O'Sensei beyond a former sensei of mine who did train with Ueshiba and the most I really ever gleaned was that, as an instructor, he did not suffer fools gladly, pffft... And but what you have said sounds entirely plausible. Maybe someone on here can enlighten further. Thank you again sir.
> Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


 
Jenna, it's only an opinion, I'm not a martial arts historian I'm just playing devils advocate. 



amir said:


> Actually Korindo Aikido has little to do with Daito Ryu, and not much more to do with Ueshiba Aikido in the technical sense.
> While Hirai Sensei did have contact with Ueshiba, it was long after he (Hirai Sensei) had learnt and had started to teach Ju-Jutsu. Korindo Aikido technical roots are in different Ju-Jutsu styles, and primerily Takanuchi-ryu, see my discussion here: http://www.aikidojournal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9889&highlight=korindo&sid=0affd61036058989f6cd1d1a0c53afb5
> 
> To summarize, Hirai was a part of the Ueshiba *organization* for a short time, and left it as life carried him along (to a senior position in the Dai-Nihon-Butokukai during WWII). He then decided not to return to Aikikai as it was not his way (see an interview with him in AJ100).
> ...


 
Thanks for the information, I really had no idea of the beginnings of Korindo and just assumed it was a choice to stay in line with the "Hell Dojo" days of aikido, before O'sensei got religion. I appreciate the link, and will be doing more reading :asian:

See Jenna, that's what you get for listening to me


----------



## bootcampbj (Jul 3, 2008)

amir said:


> I too love practicing Korindo Aikido and have found it to have great impact on me. But, I dislike attributing "too much" to something, and especially dislike attributing uniqueness too one M.A. for things which exists in multiple others.
> Note that in Terry Dobson story, he was the Aikidoka, and any M.A. experiance of the older Japanese is left unmentioned.
> And as I have mentioned earlier, I have heard multiple similar stories of M.A. seniors who practice other M.A. and acted in the spirit of the old man, though they had nothing to do with Aikido. I believe this to be one sign of being a Martial Artist: being able to solve such situations with confidence and without resorting to actual violence.
> 
> Amir



I´m not sure where you are trying to go with this discussion Amir, both your responses to me have been ones where you seem to disagree with what I´m saying as though I give Aikido to much credit or you somehow feel I´m wrong in what I´m saying.  That´s how it appears to me at the moment.

The question I´m responding to is ¨what to you, is Aikido¨, which is a very subjective question.  I´m not trying to quantify Aikido in all its being through a few sentences,  just sharing what it is to me.

I´m not ¨attributing to much¨ to Aikido because of all the MA I´ve experienced, Aikido is the one which has embodied this spirit the most for me personally.  I know many arts and not only the martial arts, embody the same qualities and have the same impact on other people, but the question was about Aikido and me.

So I´d appreciate if you´d kindly take my shared experience here as a subjective thing instead of a general quantification, theres no point disagreeing with a subjective viewpoint really.

Thanks 

 - BJ


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 3, 2008)

Hey, folks.  I started this thread to give us somewhere to discuss the differences in the styles that we study.  It'll stop the thread drift here and give more leeway for the discussion as it appears to be evolving.  See you over there.


----------



## amir (Jul 4, 2008)

bootcampbj said:


> I´m not sure where you are trying to go with this discussion Amir, both your responses to me have been ones where you seem to disagree with what I´m saying as though I give Aikido to much credit or you somehow feel I´m wrong in what I´m saying. That´s how it appears to me at the moment.
> 
> The question I´m responding to is ¨what to you, is Aikido¨, which is a very subjective question. I´m not trying to quantify Aikido in all its being through a few sentences, just sharing what it is to me.
> 
> ...


 


Sorry, for the misunderstanding. I thought the question was more on the objective side. Obviously. each person has his own subjective experiance, which often also stems from his teachers.

I do not have any agenda here, just responding to things as they go along.

Amir


----------



## bootcampbj (Jul 4, 2008)

amir said:


> Sorry, for the misunderstanding. I thought the question was more on the objective side. Obviously. each person has his own subjective experiance, which often also stems from his teachers.
> 
> I do not have any agenda here, just responding to things as they go along.
> 
> Amir



No worries Amir,  thank you for clarifying.  Misunderstandings  happen, which is  why I  thought I should ask.  

Cheers

 - BJ


----------

