Jiu Jitsu VS Aikido

[Syed]

Here is my understanding of these two arts and other arts (Jujutsu and Aikido). Like Funakoshi said that “there are no styles in karate”. That means back in those days they used to train on all kind of techniques, i.e. stand-up, ground, locking, chocking etc. it’s the pupil of those masters chose some of the techniques that they were good at and named their own styles. I know people call me crazy but just look at the history. Here is an example, Wado-Ryu, what is that style? Its nothing but a mixture of Jujutsu and Shotokan. There was a time when the master call their art nothing but “Jujutsu”, regardless what kind of techniques they preferred to practice. Like Judo definitely came from Jujutsu but we don’t call it Jujutsu anymore. Now we can find several version of judo, none of them looks like original Kodokan version Judo. In west whatever the MMA fighter call Brazilian Jujutsu is nothing but Judo techniques that means their history end up in ancient Jujutsu (all the throwing, wrestling, locking, chocking) but they call it Brazilian Jujutsu, which doesn’t make any sense to me (the naming). Technically we can call Judo since the we can’t dig the history before O sensei’s time (thanks to the masters who never kept any record or dairy of their training method or history), O sensei called his style Aikido, and his philosophy is same as original Jujutsu philosophy (I think), not to use your own power on your opponent, use your opponent’s power and speed to redirect to them. Dr. Kano’s Kodokan Version Judo had the same philosophy which has changed now and nowjudokas are using their body weight, power and all kind of things which is exactly same as what MMA fighters do, so technically what MMA fighters Jujutsu is actually Judo. Look at Shotokan style, there are two major organizations (JKA version and Shotokai version) train the same art in two different ways (thank God that they still call their style Shotokan). The point I’m trying to make is no art is superior to others because they all have same basics they all have the spiritual side but we are losing all these concept and get busy to make points which one is superior, what’s the name of the art…
Please forgive me if you can’t buy my theory, Its just my idea and that’s how I see it and I have respect for all kind of arts but I have no respect for those who train little and talk more.

 

[Mack]

I agree with Syed's post. I have trained in many different styles over the years. I have trained with Bujinkan groups that did alot of groundwork and others that didn't do any. The same with Aikido. Also I have trained with Judo folks who did some stand up other than just throws. I think it depends on the instructor's background. Alot of instructors at least now, do not just train in one style, so, they teach a little of this and a little of that but call one main style. I don't think it's fair to try and compare different arts because they all have different reasons why they train the way they do. As long as you can find a dojo or training group that is training in something that you enjoy I think you will be fine, after all martial arts should be fun and something you look forward to doing. Just my thoughts.

 

[Aikironin]

It depends on what style of Jiu-jitsu you study. Please don't study Brazillian Jiu Jitsu for self-defense 'cause you'll only get your *** kicked.

Aiki-do was developed from Aiki-jitsu just as Ju-do was developed from Jiu-jitsu. The 'do' ending is a dead giveaway that it has been watered down to be more humane; the practice of traditional pre-1868 Aiki-jitsu is equivalent to the instruction of homocide.

Any half-way decent self-defense style will always include weapons practice. In Japan, modern Jiu-jitsu incorporates the use of an automatic pistol, along with some still useful traditional weapons (like a knife).

Aiki-do is still primarily a self-defense style but lacks the physical realism of Judo, and Judo doesn't get into self-defense until several years of study. It takes a long, long time to become good at either Judo or Aikido, so its best to start young (like before 10 years old).

What in God's name are you talking about?? Traditional Pre-1868 Aiki-Jutsu is equivalent to the instruction of homocide?

That training in BJJ for Self Defense will only get your *** kicked...but Aikido which you admit lacks the physical realism of Judo, you won't get your *** kicked?

Aikido is not a primarily Self Defense style, as most "do" forms are not traditionally Self Defense styles. Go back and read some D.Draeger on Do vs Jutsu for a starting point on that tidbit.

In addition you can start young in both Judo and Aikido, but in both those styles kansetsu waza is omitted at that age, for fear of damaging growth plates. 13 is the age that Kodakan will start teaching those techniques.

 

[K-man]

Here is my take on these to Arts.
Jujitsu is very combat oriented. Should a fight flow through to its ultimate conclusion, Jujitsu's aim is to immobilize the attacker. This may come from a throw, joint lock, barring technique, choke/strangle or from any number of strikes, but the intent is still to end the fight with no rules, so holds barred, and the potential death and or permanent injury to the attacker.

Aikido is a very spiritual art. The true Aikidoka will seek to avoid the fight and create an atmosphere of peace to prevent the fight form ever having to take place. Should the fight flow through to the ultimate conclusion, Aikido's aim is to end the fight with no injury being inflicted. This may come from a throw, joint lock, barring technique or any number of strikes, but the ultimate intent is to avoid injury to the attacker.

Aikido is Jujitsu under a different philosophy. Should a Jujitsu Master meet an Aikido Master no fight would take place. Both would seek a peaceful means of resolution.

However, should a conflict be unavoidable, I think the real difference is that the Jujitsuka would not care about the health of the attacker until the fight was finished in one form or the other, as opposed to the Aikidoka who would try to prevent such injury during the battle. :asian:

Jujitsu is very combat oriented. Should a fight flow through to its ultimate conclusion, Jujitsu's aim is to immobilize the attacker. This may come from a throw, joint lock, barring technique, choke/strangle or from any number of strikes, but the intent is still to end the fight with no rules, so holds barred, and the potential death and or permanent injury to the attacker.

Same same. Admittedly my aikido is to supplement my karate but your sentiment is the same as mine, with the proviso that I would not be looking at the scenario of permanent injury or death unless there was no alternative. In the situation of multiple attackers, the first guy down will not be getting back up in a hurry!

Aikido is a very spiritual art. The true Aikidoka will seek to avoid the fight and create an atmosphere of peace to prevent the fight form ever having to take place. Should the fight flow through to the ultimate conclusion, Aikido's aim is to end the fight with no injury being inflicted. This may come from a throw, joint lock, barring technique or any number of strikes, but the ultimate intent is to avoid injury to the attacker.

True to some degree. If there is a fight, I have no sympathy for the attacker. If there is injury, so be it. We train strikes and joint breaks in aikido. I have a badly injured elbow at the moment thanks to my overly exuberant sensei last Friday!!

If I am unfortunate enough to be involved in a fight, my opponent's health and well being will be far, far from my mind. That is not to say that I would use more force than necessary.
My 2c on the original discussion. Probably in most situations, from my limited training in Aikido (and even less Jujutsu) I would lean to the Jujutsu, unless the Aikido school actually teaches the atemi and joint breaks. In fairness, many of the locks can progress to the break if required. As a supplement to karate, either is great.

(And, to Patrick Skerry, you were right about starting young .. I was just 59 when I started the Aikido!!

)