How similar are Aikido and Jiu Jitsu?

[Mighty.Panda]

I've been taking Aikido classes for about a month and have recently found a Jiu Jitsu club that trains on a different day so immediately jumped into an intro letter. There's a girl at my Aikido club that has never practised Aikido before (she's an absolute beginner like me) but she's been picking up virtually everything we're taught instantly without any flaws. She previously trained in Jiu Jitsu and our 3 blackbelts often say things like "I bet you're already familiar with this". So I've been wondering how different are the two styles?

From what I can gather from videos they look virtually the same with the exception that Jiu Jitsu seems to teach groundwork, which is something that so far appears to be very frowned upon amongst Aikido practitioners. Reading about Jiu Jitsu it says it involves strikes but I'm unsure if these are actually taught as offensive techniques or more as atemi like in Aikido? I know atemi was originally supposed to simulate weapons but I think we can all agree the empty hand atemi in Aikido aren't particularly realistic depictions of the kinds of strikes used in the modern world.

 

[K-man]

Reading about Jiu Jitsu it says it involves strikes but I'm unsure if these are actually taught as offensive techniques or more as atemi like in Aikido? I know atemi was originally supposed to simulate weapons but I think we can all agree the empty hand atemi in Aikido aren't particularly realistic depictions of the kinds of strikes used in the modern world.

The atemi I have experienced in Aikido is as realistic and at times harder than any striking I have encountered elsewhere. Strikes performed by Uke while you are leaning techniques are slow and often performed in a very sloppy, unrealistic manner. It all depends on the training and your instructor as to the importance that is placed on the atemi.

With regard to similarities. Don't forget, Aikido was developed from principally Daito Ryu which was Ueshiba's initial training. Basically that was Aiki Jujutsu. So there are many similarities between Jujutsu and Aikido. When it comes to Jiu Jitsu, as you have spelled it in the OP, I am assuming you are referring to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu which basically developed from Judo which itself came from Jujutsu.

As someone much further up the food chain from me once said, "there is only a finite number of ways to bend and break the human body". It is no surprise that there are similarities between all martial arts, not just Aikido and Jiu Jitsu.
:asian:

 

[Hanzou]

I think we can all agree the empty hand atemi in Aikido aren't particularly realistic depictions of the kinds of strikes used in the modern world.

Oh boy... You've done it now. :uhoh:

On a serious note, do you know what type of Jiujitsu it is?

 

[Mighty.Panda]

The atemi I have experienced in Aikido is as realistic and at times harder than any striking I have encountered elsewhere. Strikes performed by Uke while you are leaning techniques are slow and often performed in a very sloppy, unrealistic manner. It all depends on the training and your instructor as to the importance that is placed on the atemi.

With regard to similarities. Don't forget, Aikido was developed from principally Daito Ryu which was Ueshiba's initial training. Basically that was Aiki Jujutsu. So there are many similarities between Jujutsu and Aikido. When it comes to Jiu Jitsu, as you have spelled it in the OP, I am assuming you are referring to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu which basically developed from Judo which itself came from Jujutsu.

As someone much further up the food chain from me once said, "there is only a finite number of ways to bend and break the human body". It is no surprise that there are similarities between all martial arts, not just Aikido and Jiu Jitsu.
:asian:

The spelling is correct for the style listed on the website although I am aware that there are quite a few different ways of saying/spelling jiu jitsu.. Some times it seems to be spelt differently, sometimes it's all one word, other times it's broken into two or three words. I've never been sure as to the correct spelling. The club teaches "Aiuchi Jiu Jitsu" and when the instructor replied to my email he said something along the lines of "we do cover groundwork but not to the same extent as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu". By the sounds of it though Jujutsu is Japanese and Jiu Jitsu is Brazilian? As I said I wasn't sure because there's technically kana for both spellings in Japanese so it's confusing lol.

 

[Mighty.Panda]

Oh boy... You've done it now. :uhoh:

On a serious note, do you know what type of Jiujitsu it is?

Yeahhh okay "I think we can all agree" was perhaps a little bold lol..

But seriously Aikido atemi does seem to be pretty widely criticised :/ but hey I'm pretty new to it so perhaps they'll become more refined but so far things like 'chops' to the forehead and punches with the back of the hand facing outwards to the left or right seem a bit silly.

 

[Danny T]

Yeahhh okay "I think we can all agree" was perhaps a little bold lol..

...and punches with the back of the hand facing outwards to the left or right seem a bit silly.

Are you writing about punching with the Base Knuckle facing the target vs the Middle Knuckle or is it simply a rt and left vertical punch?

 

[K-man]

The spelling is correct for the style listed on the website although I am aware that there are quite a few different ways of saying/spelling jiu jitsu.. Some times it seems to be spelt differently, sometimes it's all one word, other times it's broken into two or three words. I've never been sure as to the correct spelling. The club teaches "Aiuchi Jiu Jitsu" and when the instructor replied to my email he said something along the lines of "we do cover groundwork but not to the same extent as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu". By the sounds of it though Jujutsu is Japanese and Jiu Jitsu is Brazilian? As I said I wasn't sure because there's technically kana for both spellings in Japanese so it's confusing lol.

Aiuchi Jiu Jitsu is an Australian variation that was taken to England in the 1960s. It is pretty much a combination of Jujutsu and Judo. You will probably find it has much more throwing and pinning than Aikido.

Yeahhh okay "I think we can all agree" was perhaps a little bold lol..

But seriously Aikido atemi does seem to be pretty widely criticised :/ but hey I'm pretty new to it so perhaps they'll become more refined but so far things like 'chops' to the forehead and punches with the back of the hand facing outwards to the left or right seem a bit silly.

Let's look at the 'chop to the forehead', or shomen uchi. That might seem like the target but normally it would be more likely to be the eye socket, bridge of the nose or collarbone. With a slight turn, yokomen uchi, you now have temple or throat. In reality these strikes are like sword and involve both hands and the intent to strike hard. The beauty of those strikes is that you can 'track' your opponent if he moves whereas a punch really only travels in a straight line.

This is a video of what I think is bad attack from Uke followed by bad technique IMO from Tori. Note he is using just the one hand and demonstrates no intent to actually hit his partner.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6vB8MXRrgjM
Have a look for Aikido video from Christian Tissier. He is one of the top Aikido guys around.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BXx6KW4bOFI
Even here you can see some pretty ordinary attacks.

I'm not sure what the punch is you are referring to. It could be a straight punch with the knuckle of the index finger, ippon ken, or it might be just the normal vertical punch. Either way these are very effective punches. Ippon ken is targeting specific points and is very useful in Aikido as a distraction. Tate Tsuki or vertical punch is the signature punch of Isshin Ryu Karate, nothing silly there I can assure you. I teach vertical fist to all my students for a number of reasons.

Anyway, perhaps it might be prudent to withhold judgement on the effectiveness or otherwise of Aikido techniques until you are more familiar with them. There are some on this forum just salivating at the thought that someone agrees with them that Aikido is a second class citizen.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm… let's see what we have here. This might not be short…

I've been taking Aikido classes for about a month and have recently found a Jiu Jitsu club that trains on a different day so immediately jumped into an intro letter. There's a girl at my Aikido club that has never practised Aikido before (she's an absolute beginner like me) but she's been picking up virtually everything we're taught instantly without any flaws. She previously trained in Jiu Jitsu and our 3 blackbelts often say things like "I bet you're already familiar with this". So I've been wondering how different are the two styles?

Okay, let's start with some history, and some clarification of terminology. Probably the first thing to understand is that Aikido is Jujutsu… just a particular form of it. As such, you really can't say anything about "how different are these two styles", as, well, we aren't dealing with "two styles"… we're dealing with a huge range of differing methodologies and approaches.

Let's look at "Jujutsu" first.

What is commonly referred to as "Jujutsu" is, realistically, a rather general collection of a very wide range of different approaches to various contexts, applications, and situations. They are Japanese arts that focus on unarmed, or lightly armed, combative methods against unarmed, lightly armed, or armed opponents… but that's about where the connection ends. These systems might be more "battlefield", or "civilian"… it might be part of a larger syllabus, or be the main focus itself… it might have a weaponry contingent, or leave that completely… it might have a lot of striking, or practically none, or anything in between… it might have a large repertoire of throws, or almost none… it could focus on joint locks, or chokes… or not… it might even not be called "jujutsu"… it might be called taijutsu… or yawara… or hade… goho… torite… kogusoku… kumiuchi… katcchu yawara… koshi no mawari… judo (both the modern form, and a term used in Jikishinkage Ryu some 150 years prior to Kano)… aikijutsu/aikijujutsu… yawaragei… gyoi dori… kempo… tai… ju… wa… wajutsu… suhada jujutsu/heifuku yawara… yoroi kumiuchi/senjo kumiuchi… goshinjutsu… joshi yawara/joshi goshinjutsu… hakuda… koppo… kawami… shubaku… yawarariki… ryoku… and a whole range of others. You might have a single method taught in one system, or multiple forms taught in a single art (such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu, who have four separate curriculums dealing with different contexts and applications). In other words, "jujutsu", as a separate and distinct art, really doesn't exist… but there are many, many things that can be classified as "jujutsu".

From there, we get the ideas of koryu jujutsu (old school jujutsu, what might be thought of as "proper" jujutsu, arts that truly come from the samurai [or related], specifically pre-dating the Meiji Restoration of 1868), and gendai jujutsu (modern forms, which might be Japanese, such as Judo, Aikido, Hakko Ryu, Moto-ha Yoshin Ryu, and more, or Western, which are often Judo based, incorporating aspects of karate, aikido, or anything else, with little that actually defines it)… you get sporting versions (BJJ, Judo, and a range of Western systems), and non-sporting versions… you have systems that are largely ground work (most often modern… it really doesn't feature in classical systems, for a variety of reasons), or basically none… and, even when ground work is involved, it might be wildly different to what's seen in modern sporting systems…

As you can see, there's really no single definition of what "jujutsu" is… it just covers too much ground.

When we start to look at Aikido, it's a little more defined… but there's still quite a bit of variation involved. Aikido was developed by Ueshiba Morihei, largely out of his exposure to Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, as well as a range of other arts (however minimalist it may have been), and his increasing association with a range of spiritual awakenings and factions of Buddhism. As he continued to develop his art, various of his students went out on their own, to continue in the way they were taught. This has resulted in a range of different forms of Aikido as well… which can be very interesting to look at, as they provide clues into snapshots of time in Ueshiba's own development. For example, Shioda Gozo was the first to go his own way, and form the Yoshinkan… this faction of Aikido focuses on the type of training that Shioda experienced in the early days of Aikido, when much of it was closer to the Daito Ryu roots… at that point, Ueshiba's school was known as the "Jigoku Dojo" (Hell Dojo), largely for the amount of pain endured within it's walls… it was definitely hard, seriously applied martial training. After WWII, Ueshiba had his own series of revelations, which laid the groundwork for the later "pacifist" reputation for Aikido (it might be important to note that, earlier in his career, Ueshiba was, essentially, a right-wing "leg breaker"… hardly the pacifist ideal that many have of him&#8230. When Tomiki Kenji went his own way, he wanted to introduce Aikido to schools… and created a competitive format, based on knife defence, and his experience in Judo… then there are the factions of "Ki" Aikido, largely derived from people such as Tohei Koichi… there are any number of independent schools and instructors, and various national associations in a range of countries, not necessarily associated with any of the major Japanese groups… and, of course, there's the "mainline" group, who continue under the descendants of Ueshiba himself (known at various times as Takemusu Aikido, or, most commonly, Iwama Ryu, after the location it was developed in). Different lines/branches have differing levels of weaponry associated, as well as different training approaches and ideologies (large and small).

So, when you ask "how different are the two styles?", we need first to know what both of the styles are… the jujutsu, and the aikido.

From what I can gather from videos they look virtually the same with the exception that Jiu Jitsu seems to teach groundwork, which is something that so far appears to be very frowned upon amongst Aikido practitioners. Reading about Jiu Jitsu it says it involves strikes but I'm unsure if these are actually taught as offensive techniques or more as atemi like in Aikido? I know atemi was originally supposed to simulate weapons but I think we can all agree the empty hand atemi in Aikido aren't particularly realistic depictions of the kinds of strikes used in the modern world.

Hmm… again, as mentioned, far more information would be needed. But to address a few things here, groundwork isn't "frowned upon", it's simply not part of the context of Aikido… it kinda goes against a range of their methods and ideals. Striking in "jujutsu" could be anything… it could be similar to Aikido's atemi, or more of a classical jujutsu methodology… or simply borrowed/taken from something like karate… or even aspects of boxing/kickboxing. It's really hard to know without knowing the system. Oh, and there's a difference between striking not being realistic, and striking not being what is seen in a modern (Western) form of violence… the thing is, you need to understand the difference. Aikido is teaching you Aikido… not street fighting… or anything of the kind. Thinking that all forms of violence are the same, or that something has to look a certain way to be "realistic" is to head down a rather narrow path which simply leads to a deep lack of understanding of anything outside a tiny fraction of what really exists… and we already have a few here that cover that.

The spelling is correct for the style listed on the website although I am aware that there are quite a few different ways of saying/spelling jiu jitsu.. Some times it seems to be spelt differently, sometimes it's all one word, other times it's broken into two or three words. I've never been sure as to the correct spelling.

Real brief, the kanji is 柔術, which is written in hiragana (syllables) as じゅうじゅつ… to write that in romaji (Latin-based English letters), it's "jyuu-jyutsuu". The correct transliteration is "jujutsu"… however, early on in the introduction of the word/concept to English, it was often written as "jiu-jitsu" (note: the usage of hyphens is purely subjective, Japanese doesn't subdivide that way), so a number of Western versions have utilised that spelling, including Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. But, if it's a Japanese system, the only correct version really is "Jujutsu".

The club teaches "Aiuchi Jiu Jitsu" and when the instructor replied to my email he said something along the lines of "we do cover groundwork but not to the same extent as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu". By the sounds of it though Jujutsu is Japanese and Jiu Jitsu is Brazilian? As I said I wasn't sure because there's technically kana for both spellings in Japanese so it's confusing lol.

Not quite… "Jujutsu" is correctly used for Japanese systems (frankly, it should be used for all who use the kanji 柔術… but that's a large argument that's been had here too many times&#8230, with "jiujitsu" being used by BJJ, and other modern, Western systems. In one sense, none of those are actually Jujutsu anyway, as, despite having a lineage from them (maybe&#8230, they aren't Japanese systems… which is one of the defining aspects.

When it comes to this particular system, uh… well, the first thing I'll say is that the name is just really, really, really badly chosen. It means "mutual striking", and is the concept of killing the other guy, but getting killed yourself in the process. It's a bad thing, and something to be avoided, as it shows that you weren't actually aware of what was going on around you… when it comes up in a martial tradition, it's alongside warnings of how to avoid such an event… to the point that it's often given the translation of "mutual killing/slaying". A little more alarming is that the choice of kanji they use to write the name not only doesn't make sense… it also can't be pronounced the way their name is. What they use is 合中柔術… the first character is "Ai", meaning "meeting", and the last two are "jujutsu"… but the second one is "chu", or "naka"… and means "middle". So… "meet in the middle"? "Ainaka Jujutsu"? "Aichu Jujutsu"? Hmm…

So, to begin with, a very poorly chosen name, written incorrectly. Not a good start. Looking through the history of the system, there's very little definite in any of the systems it's based in… other than Judo… to the point that they talk about the fact that they have very little actual system (almost seeming proud of that… interesting&#8230, and to be honest, the photos on the page don't fill me with a lot of confidence… it looks okay Judo-wise, but you really can't tell from what is shown… however, the mis-mash of disparate systems and methodologies, focusing on the idea that techniques are what makes a martial art, are all things that I wouldn't recommend…

Yeahhh okay "I think we can all agree" was perhaps a little bold lol..

But seriously Aikido atemi does seem to be pretty widely criticised :/ but hey I'm pretty new to it so perhaps they'll become more refined but so far things like 'chops' to the forehead and punches with the back of the hand facing outwards to the left or right seem a bit silly.

Yeah, I'm going to side with others, and ask what you mean by a punch with the back of the hand facing out… that's actually pretty standard in many systems (if you're referring to a vertical fist on impact), to the point that it's sometimes referred to as an "Oriental Fist", as opposed to a "Western Fist" (palm down).

 

[Mighty.Panda]

Hey everyone sorry for the really late reply. Been very busy with work and damn there's a lot to catch up on and reply to in this thread but I'll start with the two common recurring questions which related to what I said about the atemi.

Yes I was essentially referring to the 'Oriental Fist' as Christ Parker put it. I wasn't implying that it was a silly technique that was useless. Far from it, it's potentially a very powerful technique. What I was implying though was it is fairly unrepresentative of the kinds of strikes we encounter in the modern world (during random fights/muggings/drunken brawls etc) although I didn't clarify that part so I understand the confusion. But simply put when the average joe attacks people in the street it's very uncommon to see an 'Oriental Fist' which is why the atemi had limited usefulness. The second was the 'knife hand' strike to the head, this was obviously born out of simulating blade chops but again this isn't overly representative to the real world. Most engagements in the real world involve stabbing motions and to a lesser degree slashing, downward chops just simply aren't very common. This was my point from the start, these specific atemi don't effectively simulate the kinds of things you'll face from average people, they're more applicable to trained martial artists and people that are trained in the use of long bladed weapons.

 

[Mighty.Panda]

Also Chris Parker that must have taken you a long time to write. I found it very interesting to read and appreciate the time. If I were an admin I would probably make that post a sticky somewhere because I imagine the similarities/differences between Aikido/Jujutsu is a fairly common area of inquiry that will undoubtedly be raised by more people in the future.

 

[Hanzou]

Mighty, have you considered Bjj or Judo?

 

[Mighty.Panda]

Mighty, have you considered Bjj or Judo?

I have considered lots of things but I'm unfortunately restricted by the clubs/dojos in my area. There is a Judo club very close to me, my Aikido lessons are held there. I did write a letter to the Judo club but it's been 6 or 7 weeks and still no reply so I guess it's a dead end there. There is no where to learn BJJ anywhere near me. I have a 'Jiu Jitsu' club 5 miles from me though (the Australian variation that K-Man discussed) I've had one lesson there so far.

 

[K-man]

What I was implying though was it is fairly unrepresentative of the kinds of strikes we encounter in the modern world (during random fights/muggings/drunken brawls etc) although I didn't clarify that part so I understand the confusion. But simply put when the average joe attacks people in the street it's very uncommon to see an 'Oriental Fist' which is why the atemi had limited usefulness. The second was the 'knife hand' strike to the head, this was obviously born out of simulating blade chops but again this isn't overly representative to the real world. Most engagements in the real world involve stabbing motions and to a lesser degree slashing, downward chops just simply aren't very common. This was my point from the start, these specific atemi don't effectively simulate the kinds of things you'll face from average people, they're more applicable to trained martial artists and people that are trained in the use of long bladed weapons.

I think to some extent you are missing the point, or your instuctor hasn't been able to communicate the reasoning behind the attacks. The attacks are designed to enable you to learn the techniques. It is a training methodology, not something that is meant to represent a real world attack. If the attack is offered in an unrealistic way, that is without intent, then the whole training is going to turn to mush. Once you learn the techniques to the extent that you can use them flawlessly without thinking, something that can take years of training, then you start to be able to apply the training in a martial sense. If you're considering needing to defend yourself in the short term, Aikido is not your best option. Longer term, sit back and enjoy the journey.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey everyone sorry for the really late reply. Been very busy with work and damn there's a lot to catch up on and reply to in this thread but I'll start with the two common recurring questions which related to what I said about the atemi.

Not a problem… a few questions, and some things for you to think about, until the next break in your schedule, then…

Yes I was essentially referring to the 'Oriental Fist' as Christ Parker put it. I wasn't implying that it was a silly technique that was useless. Far from it, it's potentially a very powerful technique. What I was implying though was it is fairly unrepresentative of the kinds of strikes we encounter in the modern world (during random fights/muggings/drunken brawls etc) although I didn't clarify that part so I understand the confusion.

Okay, here's the first question (it'll be repeated a bit, in slightly different ways, so forgive the repetition… I'm really just aiming to get you thinking in a broader sense)… why does it matter if it's not the same, or particularly similar, to "the kind of strikes we encounter in the modern world"? Follow up… are you sure that they're not representative?

But simply put when the average joe attacks people in the street it's very uncommon to see an 'Oriental Fist' which is why the atemi had limited usefulness.

No, what you're seeing there is a disconnect between what you think martial arts are, and what they're about, and learning the reality… cause here's the thing… martial arts, despite the rhetoric and marketing, simply aren't designed for, around, about, or really to do with "violence in the modern (Western) world". And, if you stop to think about it, you wouldn't expect them to be. Take Aikido, as an example… it's an art, derived from older unarmed and weapon systems, developed from the 1920's to the 50's, initially as particular approach to the methods learnt by Ueshiba, later with a more "spiritual" emphasis, largely influenced by his association with the Omoto Kyo sect of Buddhism, in Japan… why it would therefore be designed for forms of violence found in the mid-2010's in the West is kind of a bizarre question or expectation.

In terms of the strikes usefulness, honestly, you're expecting "useful" to be one particular thing… when that's just not the reality. K-man touched on the actual usefulness (well, one aspect at least), and I'll expand as we go.

The second was the 'knife hand' strike to the head, this was obviously born out of simulating blade chops but again this isn't overly representative to the real world.

Are you sure about that? And yeah, while it originated out of armed attacks, it's not really about learning to deal with armed attacks… there's a reason that the hand is now empty, and the reason isn't safety…

Most engagements in the real world involve stabbing motions and to a lesser degree slashing, downward chops just simply aren't very common.

Hmm, you seem now to be talking about weapon assaults… and there, it's not quite the way you put it. There are a few different ways that armed assaults take place, and each tend towards a different preferred tactic… ambush assaults/assassinations will tend towards thrusts, short, close, and tight… slashes happen when the knifeman wants to keep the other guy at bay, or scare them… downward attacks happen when emotions take over (such as anger)… so each are actually just as likely as each other… depending on the situation and context in the first place.

Of course, if you're talking unarmed, then it's largely going to be wild swings… which is different again…

This was my point from the start, these specific atemi don't effectively simulate the kinds of things you'll face from average people, they're more applicable to trained martial artists and people that are trained in the use of long bladed weapons.

Ah, cool, now you're getting to it… okay, so take that to it's logical progression… if the attacks are more applicable to trained martial artists, then what is the art really designed to deal with? Is it "average people"? Or is it actually teaching you a methodology of handling something rather different? Oh, but the long blades don't have anything really to do with it here…

Here's the thing. You're expecting the classes and lessons to deal with one context… one type of application… but the problem is that what you're expecting it to deal with is actually quite different to what martial arts actually do focus on. That said, it's not that what you're dealing with is completely inapplicable… what you're learning, by dealing with these forms of atemi as an attack, is to recognise various lines, or angles, of attack… you're learning to handle a person who doesn't unbalance themselves (so you have to learn to take advantage of their motion in order to over-extend them and break their balance yourself)… you're learning to handle incoming attacks that are straight, round, downward, and so on… sure, the way those attacks come in might seem odd (to you, at this point), but the fact that they're formalised makes it easier (and more reliable) for you to learn the lessons… which are the real point… instead of focusing on the "techniques". You have to remember that techniques simply aren't the answer… they are representative of potential answers. But you're new to this… for now, talk to your instructor about any queries or concerns, but more importantly, listen to them, and (for now, at least), simply follow their instructions. I really can't over-emphasise that enough… listen to what they tell you, and follow their instructions. Questioning is fine… but second-guessing something that someone has spent decades learning when you're a couple of lessons in isn't something you're in a position to do yet… you simply don't have the experience to be able to see the whole picture… or even a corner of the picture.

I'll finish that section by explaining part of a students role in Japanese arts… In your early career, you are expected to have the attitude of nyunanshin, or junanshin (in fact, in a number of traditions, your early ranking is named for this attitude, naming you as "nyumonsha"). In essence, the concept is one of having a "soft, pliable mind/spirit"… which implies the idea that you are open to the instruction of your seniors, and you recognise that you really don't have the complete picture that they are guiding you from. In other words, as you don't "know" the art yet, it's your place to listen to those who do. They are guiding you from a much higher vantage point (with regards to the art)… it's your job to learn. Otherwise, it's like learning five words in a new language, and arguing with people fluent in the tongue.

Again, asking questions is fine… in my schools, I encourage it… but, when it comes to instruction, the why's and wherefore's of the art, I often give points that the students don't see the relevance of. And that's simply because I am watching from a viewpoint far higher to them (in my art). I can see why we do certain things, but not others… the students might not have that understanding yet. And it's got nothing to do with intelligence, it must be said, it's simply experience and exposure to the art itself.

Also Chris Parker that must have taken you a long time to write. I found it very interesting to read and appreciate the time. If I were an admin I would probably make that post a sticky somewhere because I imagine the similarities/differences between Aikido/Jujutsu is a fairly common area of inquiry that will undoubtedly be raised by more people in the future.

Ha, nah, that wasn't long at all… well… not for me, anyway…

Mighty, have you considered Bjj or Judo?

Out of interest, why would you suggest them? What do you think in MP's posts would be better served by either Judo or BJJ? I'm being very serious here, by the way, and am genuinely curious as to what reasoning you have.

 

[Hanzou]

Out of interest, why would you suggest them? What do you think in MP's posts would be better served by either Judo or BJJ? I'm being very serious here, by the way, and am genuinely curious as to what reasoning you have.

Mighty appears to have an interest in the family of styles related to Japanese Jujutsu. I was just curious if he had ever considered training in Bjj or Judo in the past. If not, maybe he would consider them for future training. I wasn't implying that Bjj or Judo would serve his training needs better than Aikido. :uhoh: Plenty of Aikido guys train in Bjj and/or Judo as well, and vice versa. Those of us in these arts typically have a strange desire to venture into the other styles because of their similar roots but different focuses.

EDIT: It would appear my hunch was correct since he requested info about the nearby Judo class.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay… really, MP only asked about the similarities between two partially related Japanese (or Japanese derived, at least) systems… so bringing in Judo and BJJ didn't seem to have much relevance, from my perspective. It'd be like someone asking what the similarities are between TKD and karate, and someone suggesting they take up kung fu or boxing… not actually anything to do with the thread or OP…

 

[Hanzou]

Okay… really, MP only asked about the similarities between two partially related Japanese (or Japanese derived, at least) systems… so bringing in Judo and BJJ didn't seem to have much relevance, from my perspective. It'd be like someone asking what the similarities are between TKD and karate, and someone suggesting they take up kung fu or boxing… not actually anything to do with the thread or OP…

To be fair, Bjj, Judo, Aikido, and eclectic JJ have far more in common with each other than Karate/TKD do with Kung Fu and Boxing.

 

[Chris Parker]

That will depend on the systems, your perspective, and how well you understand the history…

 

[hussaf]

My organization offers aikido, karate, and judo/JJ. Most senior students train in some combination of arts. I will say there seems some natural relationship between JJ and aikido. I frequently find myself slipping to JJ in aikido class, and vice versa, without realizing it sometimes. I mean, you do some aikido throw resulting in a break fall escape and Uke is face up, it's very appealing to transition to kesa or yoko shiho gatame as they are landing.

Also doing resistant kaeshiwaza in aikido class really does feel like a standing version of rolling in JJ - you can't just attempt a technique without there being a setup or reversal, plus there's that same balance of playing a defensive game, or exposing yourself and being aggressive to hit a tech while risking a counter.

I feel like the relationship between aikido and judo is even closer. We have a lot of the same or similar techniques. Usually the biggest difference is aikido versions have a more noticeable follow through or just slightly different foot posture.

Coming from karate to aikido (which was a gateway to Iaido, judo, and jujitsu) TE hardest part of the transition was the nonspecific footwork. That took awhile to get comfortable with. A fee years after starting aikido I started training Yoshinkan aikido and the footwork was a lot more specific and purposeful, which was more comfortable to me. A little more difficult since it still has to be fluid, but hitting solid stances, in good balance, while loading and throwing Uke feels more natural to me.