I decided I would put this in the Beginners Corner since I am a beginner at Aiki-Jutsu. I hold a brown belt in Kenpo, but haven't truly worked in the art in quite a long time. I won't go into great detail as to how I got involved, since it isn't really relevant, but long story short, my oldest daughter wants to give it a try and talked my into joining her.
I plan on asking my Sensei some of the following as soon as I get the chance, but I thought I would also run some of these questions past the crowd here, since there appears to be some pretty knowledgeable martial artists.
What is the difference, if any between "Aiki-Jutsu" and "Aiki-Jujutsu?" Is it simply two names for the same thing? I have done a search here and on Google without coming up with anything real definitive. I'm not saying it isn't there, I just didn't find anything.
If there is a difference, what is it?
I understand that the art is more "aggressive" for lack of a better word, than Aikido. Is it something that works well for self-defense?
And, finally, if I start trying to knock some of the rust off of my Kenpo skills, will the two arts compliment each other, or conflict with one another? My first class was challenging because of my habit of falling back into a fighting stance as opposed to keeping squared up with my center facing front.
Thanks in advance.
Hmm....
First, a clarification. Although sometimes used in modern, primarily eclectic and often Western, systems, the terms "Aikijutsu" and "Aikijujutsu" were historically only known to be used by one system, which is Daito Ryu (the foundation of Hakko Ryu, Hiko Ryu, and Aikido). Additionally, the usage of specific terminology is only ever really specific to that system... how Daito Ryu differentiates one from another can be subtly or vastly different to any other system who have adopted the terminology. So, really, if you're not studying Daito Ryu, but another system, then your only real recourse is to talk to the instructor about how the terms are differentiated in your system (for the record, other than Daito Ryu, they seem to be used interchangebly in many modern expressions..).
That said, if we are talking about Daito Ryu, there is a real distinction... and you're not a beginner in Aikijutsu. Within Daito Ryu, the training and skills are divided up into three distinct approaches, starting with Jujutsu, then Aikijujutsu, and finally (after many years and development of skill and understanding) Aikijutsu/Aiki no Jutsu. These three approaches have certain tactical/mechanical traits to them, and can each be applied to any technique within the Daito Ryu system. The progression is dependent on the skill level of the student, though, and Aikijutsu, being the highest level, is not something any beginner would be started with.
In short, within Daito Ryu, the Jujutsu approach relies primarily on striking (atemi) in order to create openings and to move the opponent, as well as affect their balance, in order to move in and apply your technique. At the Aikijujutsu level, striking is still applied, but it is used in conjunction with "Aiki timing", essentially moving in a way that the opponent's natural actions are blended with and extended in order to take their balance, and create openings. The highest level, Aiki no Jutsu/Aikijutsu, forgoes the striking to apply it's waza with Aiki timing only. This makes for a very direct and fast application of the skills.
When it comes to a comparison with Aikido, that's going to depend on which level of Daito Ryu you're looking at, as well as which Aikido organization you're meaning. The later forms (Takemusu/Iwama Ryu etc) are far closer to the Aikijutsu methodology, while earlier forms (Yoshinkai) are much more like the Aikijujutsu approach. Which is more "aggressive"? Well, that's kinda in the eye (or body!) of the beholder... and while both can be applied to self defence, after a fashion, neither are really that well suited to it "straight out of the box", as it were. Whenever looking at a martial art, before you start wanting to apply it to your own preference, you need to examine what the actual and original context of the art really was/is.
There's little way to say whether or not your Kenpo will be complimentary, really... it will be if you can find a way for it to be. To my mind, no. They're opposite in too many ways (the idea of having something that covers where the others are lacking is, to me, massively missing the point of how martial arts work, and leads to lacking skills, rather than improving them), with very different ideas on power source, movement, angling, preferred aims, preferred ranges, and more. In the end, it's best to have one that you focus on/rely on, and you might find that aspects (a particular kick, or strike) from the other can find a place without necessarily contradicting the primary art. But the base needs to be one, and one only. There's reasons the stances are so different...
