yoriki816

Kensai, I watched the video and we do indeed have a throw like that one. I'm not so sure it has a name because it is usually considered to be a failed or extremely high level application of a much more basic technique called Kata Ha Gaeshi which involves putting uke into what essentially is a chicken wing lock with tori doing a pivoting drop much like in the video to execute the throw. Lots of us end up in a position very similar to the tenshin nage in the video when doing the technique versus an uke who resists by straightening his arm before we can get it bent. Excellent video by the way. I enjoyed it. Metal Man, I was very suprised by the name of your style, considering the Grandmaster of the style I sudy came to the U.S. as part of a Nihon Jujitsu Tour of North America. The description of the belnding of karate, jujitsu and aikido you describe applies to our art as well. I have pontificated about Yoseikan quite a bit on this topic if you care to look back some of it may ring a bell. It seems our two disciplines have a lot in common. Welcome to the topic, may your stay be long and informative.

Kensai~ Yoseikan does has some solo kata, most of which are weapon or karate based. We practice the Heian series of Karate kata from Shotokan along with some original kata of Mochizuki's design. We do some solo knife, sword and bo kata as well. Most of the kata we do are paired however, both aikido kata and weapon forms. I particularly enjoy the kenjutsu forms as well as the series of sword vs staff forms we do as well. Trying to defend oneself from a man swinginh something six feet long with nothing but a bokken will teach you a lot about proper tai sabaki and distancing. And yes we do base a large amount of our training off of the techniques you listed although the names are quite different and the methodology of execution is a bit different. If I'm not getting my terminology wrong we test on ikkyo, nikkyo, sankyo, gokyo, and kote gaeshi all at yellow belt. I don't know what the Aikikai technique called yonkyo is so I'm not sure about it. Iriminage and a limited form of shiho nage are taught at orange belt along with a score of other techniques. The actual techniques themselves are a little different as well. Iriminage for example is done by stepping with the outside foot rather than the inside foot as it is taught in Aikikai. This particular difference causes a lot of confusion for the few former Aikikai practicioners we have in class. I believe the modification was made to avoid accidentaly throwing uke into your knee, but I am not sure on that one. Both techniques seem to work equally well. Shiho nage is also a bit different because the circle you take uke's arm in is horizontal rather than vertical, with emphasis placed on bridging his arm with yours allowing for tighter control. It's not as hard a fall from this method most of the time, but much harder to counter if your timing is less than perfect. Now for a question for you. What is kaiten nage? Can't say that I've heard of that one.

I was curious after reading a rather lengthy tpic about how many people feel that rank testing and the involved fees etc are a scam what the consensus was with the students of the non-striking systems. It seems that grappling styles such as Aikido, Judo, and Jujitsu take longer to acchieve rank in than other styes such as Karate, Tang Soo Do, and Tae Kwon Do. My question is whether or not the difference in the amount of time in study required for a student to acchieve the upper ranks, also effects their opinion on rank and belt testings. I don't plan to list what I have observed in the other forum so as to get more unbiased feedback. But I will share my thoughts on testing in the studio where I train. In our system the instructor decides when a student is ready for promotion, and while there is a minimum amount of practice time spent in order to be elligible, it is exacty that merely a minimum. Very few students test within just a few hours of that required allotment. Exams do cost more as you progress in rank, but it covers registration with the international organization and a certificate fee. Sensei's in most cases buy the new belts in preparation for the test out of their own pocket. I for one have given all of my old belts to promising new students who I have enjoyed teaching. The only belt I still have is the one I wear now. And when I pass a belt along to a newly promoted student it is with the stipulation that he pass it along in turn to a student he or she feels is deserving to wear it. I have observed that many people seem to feel that rank exams and the belt system are merely tools for the commercial dojo to make money. I disagree. For one, in randori I can tell in an instant what range of techniques a particular students can fall from and which attacks he or she can defend against, all based on the color of the belt they are wearing. This safety feature allows for a more realistic practice without undue risk of injury. I do agree that in the goal oriented society we live in many people need short terms goals and the recognition that comes from acchieving them. But is that such a bad thing if the accomplishment and accolades are earned rather than simply part of an agreement made when signing a contract to train for "x" number of years. As long as the instructor is awarding rank based on performance and nothing else where is the harm in it. Another advantage to rank exams is it shows how a student handles performing technique under stress. I personally found that the further along in rank I went the easier it was for me to put my stress and worry about failure aside and just do what I had been practicing like nothing was riding on it. I personally think that this particular aspect of testing can very easily bleed over to confrontations. If you learn to puch you emotions aside and perform with a clear mind the risk of needlessly hurting someone or being injured yourself is greatly reduced. With all of that said I'm looking forward to hearing everyone else's opinion on this topic.

Kensai, We do not practice any sort of ki exercises in class, it seems that the more martial pre-war aikido doesn't really focus on the completely internal practices such as that. I might be interested in learning it, but that would have to be in addition to, rather than in place of my weekly practice. Punchdrunk, Thanks for the encouragement, and by all means feel free to ask questions and make comments on anything I might say that seems strange to you.

Kensai, It is sometimes confusing for juniour students to learn techniques from the many different dan ranked instructors we have, because there is often a large difference in which particular parts of a technique that we place emphasis on. It's all about the fingerprinting you mentioned earlier. But we do have a set way to teach the basic techniques so as not to overwhelm beginners, but after Sankyu or so we really focus on finding which "version" of the technique works best for the individual student while maintaining that senior ranks muct still be able to teach a more "basic" method to beginners. In answer to some of your earlier questions; Yoseikan teaches a variety of weapons ranging from tanto and tanbo for more street application, and jo, bo, and katana for more stylized and historical reasons. Although I have found that analyzing the weapon work has taught me a lot of good lessons that carry over into empty handed techniques. As far as to whether or not Yoseikan is much like Sensei Shioda's Yoshinkan I really couldn't say having little to no experience with the techniques and principles of that style. From what I hear of it, there seems to be a similarity in the sense that both styles focus on having technique that is street applicable. I think that the broader scope of Yoseikan, especially in the inclusion of the nage waza from Judo makes it hard to compare to most other widely known styles of Aikido. I'll end this one here so as not to write yet another book on the subject. If you have more questions please feel free to ask.

Kensai, I would agree that all Aikido is indeed significant and I will do my best answer your questions. Master Mochizuki was a senior student of Kano's who was sent to study with Ueshiba to report back to Kano what this Aikido stuff was all about. And before his Judo training began he studied several different forms of Jujitsu as well. I'm not sure of the time frames but he also studied I assume consecutively with his Aikido and Judo training, Shotokan, Iado, Kenjutsu, Bojutsu. In all of these arts he hold significant dan rankings. So when deciding to start his own school after turning down the directorship of both the Kodokan and Aikikai, Master Mochizuki blended together the techniques from his vast experience that best illustrated the concept of maximum benefit with minimal effort, and Yoseikan Aikido was born. The most interesting thing is the teaching philosopy of the art. The two most significant teachers in Master Mochizuki's life were very different in their approach to technique. Jigoro Kano was very scientific in his approach to technique. There was a set way to do each technique. Ueshiba was on the other hand much more likely to teach a technique one way one year and the same technique a completely different way the next. The way Aikido is taught in Yoseikan is that the beginners are taught a set methodology for the techniques, so as to learn the principles of kuzushi, tai sabaki, and timing. But as the student develops more understanding of the technique we are encouraged to find the way that works best for us. Master Mochizuki understood that every man is individual and the expression of his aikido will be different as well. Differences in size, strength, flexibility and countless other less obvious variables make some techniques better or worse for all students. Finding your own path is important because it allows you to "own" a personal understanding and execution of the style. These teachings are mirrored in even the name Mochizuki chose for his style. Yoseikan means simply "the place where what is right is taught" This is not to say that Mochizuki's way is the only way, but rather that each student is allowed over years of dedicated study and persistant reflection to find his or her own truth. Man did that post get way too long on what was supposed to be a "simple" answer to what other arts were included into Mochizuki's Yoseikan. So I'll simply answer your other questions in a separate post. I hope this was informative.

Thanks for the comment Kensai, you certainly seem quite knowledgable about the art. I must confess however that I was more than a little suprised that you had even heard of Yoseikan Aikido. It is not a very well known style in the U.S. and is still relatively small in Japan. Some of this comes from Master Mochizuki's vocal stance on the sportification and over spiritualization of the Japanese martial traditions. O Sensei believes that to gain maximum benefit from such training that it has to remain true to the intent behind it's creation. Yoseikan is very heavily grounded in Jujitsu and Judo as well as Katori Shinto Ryu which forms the basis for much of our weapons practice. With all that said, I must ask where did you hear about such a small albiet not insignificant branch of Aikido?

I find it somewhat disappointing that what started as a sincere question about the practical application of aikido technique and the realistic or unrealistic nature of the offensive skills of the art has turned into something as juvenile as whether or not the Gracie family is really bunch of overblown egomaniacs who stage their own matches. We are martial artists here, or at least that's what I would like to believe. Who's style kicks who's style's butt is really irrelevant and contrary to the philosphy and teachings of the masters who founded the arts we all study. I understand that many practicioners are very concerned about whether or not what they practice has real street value, and that is a very understandable concern. But martial arts are not about violence for violence's sake let alone name calling. Every style has strengths as well as weaknesses. There is no perfect style or ultimate method of self defense. Each style has a blindspot, the true pioneers in martial arts realized that and took the approach that to truly be effective you have to eliminate questions of which large group pf techniques and methodologies works best and stick to which collection of specific principles and techniques work best for you as an individual. There is value in the traditional martial arts, I study them wholeheartedly but I also understand that I can learn from those arts that are strong where I am a weak. In being open minded and looking for the value in what I do not understand or feel comfortable with I can allow myself to become a better student, instructor, and person. And that's my two cents

I must say that Aikidoka's intitial post was very impressive in both it's treatment of what to some may be a touchy subject and the obvious research and possible personal experience that obviously went in to it. With that said, here's my two cents. While it is true that in most Aikido dojo's techniques are practiced with very little resistance, this is done to avoid injury to one's partner, since most basic techniques in aikido rely on pressure applied to the joints. but it is important to realize that resisting such techniques just a fraction of a second to late or in the wrong direction can effectively aid the aikidoka in breaking a wrist, wlbow, or shoulder. I personally have found that when properly applied aikido techniques are more effective againt people who are muscular. Aikidoka did make an excellent point that the use of strikes, or atemi is vital to the effective execution of aikido techniques in a real world environment. Atemi made up a large part of Daito-Ryu which is the basis for Aikido and the pre-war teachings of Ueshiba are full of strikes used both to injure, distract, and off balance an attacker. Simply put it is hard to concentrate on twisting your wrist away from a joint lock while you cannot see from a palm strike to the bridge of the nose or a reverse puch to the solar plexus. Another important thing to remember when considering a resisting partner is that there is nothing written in stone that says you must finish the technique you started with. Aikido is all about going along with your opponents movement so if you are trying to apply kote gaeshi and the thug pulls away there is nothing wrong with using a well timed irimi nage to end all discussion of whether or not he really want the fifteen dollars in your wallet. If one technique looks like its going to fail, just move on to something else. Aikido is a hard art to master, but with a good instructor and a willingness to train hard and truly think on the principles of the art, you do not have to wear a black belt in order to avoid bodily harm. And that's all I have to say about that.

I practice a pre-war style of Aikido called Yoseikan Aikido that was founded by a pre-war student of Ueshiba; Minoru Mochizuki who also studied to dan rank with Kano Sensei in Judo and Funakoshi Sensei in Shotokan. Mochizuki Sensei also has a great deal of rank in Kendo, Kobudo, Iaido, and Jujitsu as well. His form of Aikido incorporates elements from all of the arts he studies, with Judo being more heavily represented than the others. All in all it is an art with a great deal of material that is designed to make the practicioner as well rounded in the martial way as possible. It takes years to master, with my ten years in i have only recently been promoted to Shodan, but it was a voyage that has yielded me rich rewards both as a martial artist and a person. I have seen your comments on many other similar topics and am looking forward to learning more of your unique perspective on this art that has so greatly changed my life.

After taking a great deal of time to read and enjoy the discussion of Aikido, I've decided to weigh in with my opinion. I've been training in Yoseikan Aikido and Goshin Jujitsu for almost ten years and like many of the people posting I initially made the mistake of discounting any aikido that would be considered post-war. (For those not familiar with the difference between pre-war and post-war aikido, pre-war aikido is more heavily influenced by Daito-Ryu aikijujitsu wich is more direct and less flowing than it's more ki-centric post-war counterpart.) The "tree-hugging" variety if you will. I considered the post war branches such as the Aikikai, and Ki Society to be ineffective because they relied too much on the opponents cooperation to be effective. Well 10 years later I am here to tell you that I was dead wrong. If you think that a "fat man" with a 5th dan in Aikikai or a similar style couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag you are sadly mistaken. Muscle strength and speed do count for something don't get me wrong, but have you ever tried to fight someone who simply dodges every puch or kick you throw at them? It's tiring to say the least. I realize that this seems like an extreme example, but it isn't as far fetched as many martial artists would believe. Even Bruce Lee understood the concept of timing. If you can react to an attacker in such a way as to intercept or disrupt his incoming attack, then how can his offense be effective? Tai sabaki or body shifting is key. A punch does no damage if you aren't there to absorb the impact. I will agree that this type of Aikido is very difficult to master and places in some cases too little emphasis on what is correct for the individual student while trying to imitate Ueshiba too closely. Ueshiba was the kind of martial artist that comes along once in a life time. That is why the great Japanese masters sent their senior students to learn how this frail looking man could topple Sumo wrestlers with seemingly no effort. The founder of the style of Aikido I study was one of those students and the teachings of Ueshiba influence my practice in more ways than I truly realize. So in closing Aikido is not an ineffective bag of parlor tricks that only work for those with a willing or ignorant partner. It is a means of acchieving maximum effect with minimal effort, a concept that is mirrored all most all martial arts, judo and jeet kun do for example. If a one inch punch is not a striker's interpretation of this principle, I'll eat my belt.

I've found that anything other than friendly relationships in the dojo can be far too distracting for the involved students as well as disruptive to the other people in class. Mind you I've seen relationships work out in these instances but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule. The key to that seems to be that neither person is an instructor, thus not put in a position of power and not target for any sort of accusation of playing favorites because of perceived or actual attraction. just my two cents

Style: Yoseikan Aikido and Jujitsu Strong points: Excellent grasp of joint locks and takedowns from jujitsu and aikido. Emphasis is placed on modified judo techniques from nongrappling attacks. Groundwork and standing pins are addressed as well, although not as comprehensively as in more specialized arts such as Brazilian Jujitsu. Weapons are taught also, both the more useful knick and short stick as well as the more tradional sword and staff. And most useful is the inclusion of sacrifice techniques that can be utilized in almost any situation that against an opponent with little or no falling skills will in most cases incapacitate or injure depending on the threat level of the situation. These throws use the attackers momentum as well as that of the defenders falling body to take the attacker to the ground. Weak points: Not enough focus on defenses against a combination striker. Although in my dojo this has been introduced and we're working hard on making our practice more street effective. Groundwork could be more effective, but so to the breadth and depth of what we practice much of the improvement is left to the individual student. Striking skills are strong, but a large variety of strikes and combinations are not taught. Some instructor with cross training such as myself do teach basic boxing combinations to make up for this shortcoming. Once again sorry for the book.

I've been studying martial arts for nearly a decade and have dabbled in many different arts, including traditional styles of Aikido, Jujitsu, and various striking arts as well as the more eclectic or non-tradional styles such as JKD, Kali, Escrima, and Shootfighting, and can see both sides of this argument. The traditional offers structure and methodology that is necessary for a lot of students to grasp the often complex principles of martial arts. It also gives a sense of being a part of a greater history that appeals to some. The eclectic styles are less rigid in the both the manner in which they are taught as well as the material that is covered. This makes it easier to keepstudents involved and more emphasis is put on what works for the individual rather than they way things have always been done. That approach makes these styles much more appealing to Westerners who are more self involved than the typical Easterner. But after years of study I have found personally that I prefer the traditional approach for beginners, because it teaches them not only a set of principles that will only improve their more advanced technique but training in a traditional environment teaches a respect both for the skills that are being taught and the fellow students and instructors. I personally found that lacking in the eclectic styles I studied. There was much more emphasis placed on winning and losing than in developing your skill and better yourself as a person. I also think that getting rid of kata or form work is a definate mistake. Kata do have value to the student who takes the time to truly examine them. Most practicioners of karate do not realinze that there are a wide variety of throws and joint locks hidden in the most simple of forms.(Shotokan's Heian Shodan for example) I personally understand the principles of martial arts far better than I ever would have had I not taken the time to truly examine both kata and their applicable bunkai. Sorry so long winded.

When deciding which style of the two has greater self defense value over a shorter training time, it is important to note whether or not you are studying a pre-war or post war style of Aikido. Pre-war aikido is much more like aikijujitsu than modern day or post-war aikido. It is generally held that Ueshiba (Aikido's founder) was deeply effected by the events of World War II and the focus of his martial arts training and spiritual development changed drastically from his pre-war teachings. As a student and instructor in a pre-war school of Aikido and a dabbler in Hapkido as well, I would say that when dealing with practical self defense value that Hapkido has more real world application in the short run when dealing with a post war style. If you are studying a pre-war style I would say that things are much more equal in terms of street application. I hope this was helpful. Matt

I was curious if any of the readers of this topic study more prewar aikido or aikijitsu styles such as the Yoseikan, or other more heavily Daito-Ryu influenced styles. I also read somewhere on the forum that there is an instructor that has been awarded the Menkyo Kaiden in California. Does anyone know who that might be.