# aikido style differances



## ct111

I currently take kenpo karate but also have great interest in learning aikido. i have been told their are 3 differant types or styles of aikido. i was curious if someone out could explain the differances to me .thanks ct111


----------



## arnisador

Check out old threads in this forum, e.g.:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=840


----------



## CrankyDragon

Your welcome to visit our school's site and ask about Nihon Goshin Aikido.... I think Jeff may chime in and offer some of his knowledge.  I am a beginner so I dont want to offer too much information in anticipation I may offer incorrect data.

 NGA does have kicks and punches and strikes.  Of the soft styles, ours is a "hard" style.  Our style focuses on what is practical in real life.

 Andrew


----------



## Yari

ct111 said:
			
		

> i was curious if someone out could explain the differances to me .thanks ct111



That would be very difficult. In some sense the difference is in the movement, but not in the intention, and sometimes oppesite.

Most Aikido schools (from Ueshiba) ares based on principle, rather that the excat technique. But cetain ways of getting to that principle is the reason you see different styles.

/Yari


----------



## theletch1

Yari said:
			
		

> That would be very difficult. In some sense the difference is in the movement, but not in the intention, and sometimes oppesite.
> 
> Most Aikido schools (from Ueshiba) ares based on principle, rather that the excat technique. But cetain ways of getting to that principle is the reason you see different styles.
> 
> /Yari


Yet another excellent observation, my friend.  Nihon Goshin is very much the same.  I've often believed that the techniques are simply different ways of convincing us of the correctness of the principles.  I've seen kotegaeshi done a dozen different ways with varying degrees of damage done to uke.  The principles involved are generally the same basic ones if you're talking about physical technique.  If you begin talking about philosophical principles then you start seeing some decent divergence from one style to another.


----------



## arnisador

theletch1 said:
			
		

> I've often believed that the techniques are simply different ways of convincing us of the correctness of the principles.


We feel similarly in arnis!


----------



## Yari

arnisador said:
			
		

> We feel similarly in arnis!



I've practiced Arnis too, and that's my feeling of it too. I love arnis it's a wonderful stye.

/Yari


----------



## t-bone1972

It is commonly thought that tomiki(spell check?) is the most aggressive style of aikido is this true?


----------



## arnisador

Well, I don't know that 'aggressive' is the word I'd use, but it's one of the more physical branches, yes.


----------



## theletch1

I think you could consider it a bit more aggresive in that there is more emphasis on offensive techniques and I believe atemi is more of a focal point.  I don't know that ANY style of aikido could truly be considered aggresive but if you look at Tomiki as relative to most other styles of aikido then, yes, I suppose your assumption would be appropriate.


----------



## JAMJTX

Being competetive in nature, Shodokan (AKA Tomiki Aikido) would require aggression.  A competition with 2 non-agressive adversaries would not be much of a competition.  But then again, this is not pure Aikido it is Aikido and Judo.

There are, however, some aspects of Yoshinkan that I would call aggressive.


----------



## arnisador

Yoshinkan  is (or was) the style taught to police in Japan, isn't it?


----------



## Yari

That's what I've heard.

/Yari


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

People with Jujutsu background, I recommend to check out the Tomiki Aikido style. It has a fantastic set of training forms called the Koryu Goshin Jutsu no Kata which is basically the self-defense forms taken from Daito-ryu Aiki Jujutsu. Much of the techniques looks very very similar to the Hakko-ryu Jujutsu I learned from my teacher in Indonesia. Tomiki Aikido is very practical, "to the point", and has a sparring method to hone their skills. To me personally it is the best Aikido style for people who wants to learn self-defense.


----------



## theletch1

jujutsu_indonesia said:
			
		

> People with Jujutsu background, I recommend to check out the Tomiki Aikido style. It has a fantastic set of training forms called the Koryu Goshin Jutsu no Kata which is basically the self-defense forms taken from Daito-ryu Aiki Jujutsu. Much of the techniques looks very very similar to the Hakko-ryu Jujutsu I learned from my teacher in Indonesia. Tomiki Aikido is very practical, "to the point", and has a sparring method to hone their skills. To me personally it is the best Aikido style for people who wants to learn self-defense.


How would the sparring method relate to the randori that we use in our dojo?  Person 1 attacks person 2 defends, gets up and immediately attacks again.  This is done on a freeform context with out either party knowing what the other is going to do beforehand.  I've always found that randori was a great exercise.  You get to react naturally to an attack and become progressively more fatigued as the session goes on and therefore have to rely more and more on proper technique and less on muscling the tech.


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

theletch1 said:
			
		

> How would the sparring method relate to the randori that we use in our dojo? Person 1 attacks person 2 defends, gets up and immediately attacks again. This is done on a freeform context with out either party knowing what the other is going to do beforehand. I've always found that randori was a great exercise. You get to react naturally to an attack and become progressively more fatigued as the session goes on and therefore have to rely more and more on proper technique and less on muscling the tech.


 
Mr. Theletch, your randori sounds like something we call Goshinjutsu Randori (or in the JJIF, it's the Duo system). We practice something like that in our Dojo, and yes it's a GREAT exercise. However the Tomiki randori that I know of is very different. It is called tanto randori, it is like this, one person has a knife and is free to stab the other person (but only use straight thrust), the other person must defend but is only allowed to use Ju-Nanahon technique (17 techniques) only, no other technique allowed. Ju-Nanahon is a set of specific 17 techniques designed for this type of randori.

If the knifer struck the defender, the knifer got a point, and if the defender defend successfully using throws/locks, he got a point. Both players accumulate points for a specified time period, then switch roles, then in the end of the game the scores are added and the one with larger score wins.

So in this randori type, your technique must be good also, not just speed, timing, etc. Very difficult, but the Japanese seems to love it!


----------



## theletch1

Sounds like a blast!  I think I may approach my instructor with this idea and see if he'll go for it as a training tool.  Our techniques would be restricted to those techniques that the lower ranking person has already been taught.


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

theletch1 said:
			
		

> Sounds like a blast! I think I may approach my instructor with this idea and see if he'll go for it as a training tool. Our techniques would be restricted to those techniques that the lower ranking person has already been taught.


 
Sure, give it a try! I watch a tape from this Tomiki Randori tournament at is is very exciting. I think there are some more info in the Internet about this, just type Tomiki Aikido Randori into google.com and see what we can come up with. BTW, using real knife are not recommended


----------



## theletch1

I thought I'd try to revive this thread as it has a great deal of merit for not just those new to the art but for those of us who haven't had exposure to some of the other forms of aikido in the world.  How does your aikido differ from other styles that you've seen?  What makes your aikido your aikido?


----------



## Monadnock

theletch1 said:


> I thought I'd try to revive this thread as it has a great deal of merit for not just those new to the art but for those of us who haven't had exposure to some of the other forms of aikido in the world. How does your aikido differ from other styles that you've seen? What makes your aikido your aikido?


 
I just got back from Japan and had the wonderful opportunity to take a class at the Aikikai Hombu as well as at a Yoshinkan school. The differences were very obvious, each style with it's own feel. I truely enjoyed them both.

Here in the US I do not train true Aikido, but a derived system that has Aiki- in it. So I guess I can't really compare there, other than sometimes we tend to "go with the attacker's flow" and sometimes we don't.


----------



## theletch1

Compare away, my  friend.  I wanna hear what the differences and likenesses are from all spectrums.  I think that far too often folks see a demo of a very soft style of aikido on youtube or something and think, "Ok, that's all there is to aikido" and disregard the style.  Hearing how your art incorporates the principle of "going with the flow" may help others realize that their art does the same from time to time.


----------



## Monadnock

theletch1 said:


> Compare away, my friend. I wanna hear what the differences and likenesses are from all spectrums. I think that far too often folks see a demo of a very soft style of aikido on youtube or something and think, "Ok, that's all there is to aikido" and disregard the style. *Hearing how your art incorporates the principle of "going with the flow" may help others realize that their art does the same from time to time.*


 
This is very true. I think when Aikido came to the US, it was an eye opener for lots of people because it presented some concepts like "blending" and "ma-ai" and "timing" that people thought were rather unique to Aikido. (Plus there was the whole "not harming your opponent" that got a little out of control in some places).

After I started studying some other Japanese systems, it became evident that ma-ai and timing were not unique to Aikido, and arguably, there were systems that had a more realistic take on them.

What people did not realize is the Aikido they were seeing in the US was sort of the "final product" from Ueshiba's life of training. His style was much harder when he was 50 years old, and probably even more so in the early days.

One question we can ask ourselves is "Would Aikido still exist if the techniques were all lost?" Would the principles still be there? That shows the depth of Ueshiba's philosophy. It's why there are so many books on Aikido in daily life. I do not believe all Aikido practitioners were meant to look and feel the same. We should study it as best we can, then make it our own and incorporate it into our lives as best we can. Not all be clones of one another.

We hope to be making a small video in the near future. Hopefully I'll find a way to share it with you if you are interested.

Thanks,


----------



## theletch1

I'll be looking forward to the video.
The principles of blending, redirecting energy and maintaining proper distance are universal to different aikido styles and taking them from the physical application to the realm of interpersonal relationships is, to me, what marks the beginning of a true understanding of aiki.  Trying to redirect someones psychological energy (no, nothing psychic here) during a drawn out exchange can be just as taxing as doing technique.  The style that I study is a bit more direct than some others during physical technique but we try to deal with the verbal confrontation (mental tai-sabaki) that precedes the altercation with as much flow as possible.


----------



## Yari

Monadnock said:


> ........One question we can ask ourselves is "Would Aikido still exist if the techniques were all lost?" Would the principles still be there? ........Thanks,


 
Good question. Because principles are human thoughts. Techniques are the way humans move. The reasoning why you move in certain ways is also human. So without the thought process behind, there is no Aikido principle. So if nobody thinks Aikido, there is no Aikido. It's really not a qeustion about techniques...

/Yari


----------



## Monadnock

Yari said:


> Good question. Because principles are human thoughts. Techniques are the way humans move. The reasoning why you move in certain ways is also human. So without the thought process behind, there is no Aikido principle. So if nobody thinks Aikido, there is no Aikido. It's really not a qeustion about techniques...
> 
> /Yari


 
I agree. I believe there is a similar quote in the book, "The Art of Peace" about there being no [physical] techniques. And this comes straight from the founder


----------

