Talk:Aikido/Archive 8

Aikido is not a grabbling budo.

As stated by the Founder and his son, Aikido is not a grabbling budo. This is one of its main differences from Judo and similar combat budos, which true aikido is not.Dragonmist1 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Grappling certainly isn't the first word anyone would use to describe aikido, but I was personally surprised at how broad the actual definition of grappling is. Read over Grappling and you may be surprised too. Have fun! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dragonmist1. Aikido is not grappling. Those who define Grappling do so in a very broad manner, but that does not mean that Aikidoka must accept this definition and our inclusion therein. I would like to remove this reference, if we can get consensus. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue comes up frequently. The reason we categorize Aikido as a grappling art here is simply that it fits in that category moreso than striking or weapons-based, which are the other two categories. Remember that this is an encyclopedia article and is meant to be informative to readers who may not practice or have any knowledge of Aikido. You are free to try to develop the categories of martial arts on Wikipedia to be more granular if you want. We can't take Aikido out of grappling if it doesn't have a category to belong to. Transentient (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to keep Aikido in the grappling (Aikido? grappling? whose idea was that) category just because one can't think of another category to put it in! Aikido is most certainly weapons-based, and though not striking-based, has a great deal more striking in it than grappling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleProcida (talk • contribs) 07:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grappling is currently the best category for Aikido, as that category includes arts that focus on joint locks, throws, takedowns, and pins. It doesn't just mean wrestling on the ground for submission around here. If you would really like Aikido to go to another Focus I encourage you to create a new focus category. Transentient (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Beyond doubt it is more appropriate to fit Aikido into a weapon-based category. All the movements are based on (when not exactly the same as in) swordsmanship (kenjutsu) and staff techniques (jojutsu). There are also plenty of techniques derived from knife techniques (tanto dori). You don't find these in so-called grappling arts such as Judo, much less in Jiu-jitsu. Besides, the idea of grappling, in its general concept, relates to measuring of strength, of one against the other, to fighting, submission and competition. You simply do not find that in Aikido. The correction is due. Aikijin 27.09.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.119.1 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Aikido is derived from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, a grappling art created by Tokimune Takeda. The idea that Aikido technique is "based on sword technique" is a common misconception. It is the descendant of side-arts (jujutsu, yawara, kogusoku) that were practiced by swordsmen before the Meiji period, and it is the product of a sword-based martial culture, but it owes much more to hundreds of years of experience with empty-hand technique than it does to weapon techniques. Please read the wikipedia article on Grappling; it is the best category for Aikido. Transentient (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The misconception lies on the affirmation that the techniques are "based" on sword technique. They're not "based", they are "exactly the same". All of the techniques in Aikido, from basicmost form and stance, up to the advanced randori and kumitachi techniques are exactly the same as in traditional kenjutsu schools, such as Shinkage ryu school. All the strikes, such as shomen and yokomen, are not "based" on sword movements, they are the same. Daito ryu was developed to fight against people armed with all sorts of weapons, and against unarmed people too (though rare in those days). It derives from hundreds of years of armed, life and death batlefield combats. Daitoryu was, for hundreds of years, the art of the elite force in Japan, the warriors that took care of the emperor, palaces, and field lords. Unarmed fights, in those days (Tokugawa and Bakufu periods) were extremely rare, and with the purpose of entertainment, and were considered as relevant as a dog fight (pretty much what we see today with "so-called" MMA). I've read the wikipedia article on grapplin, and I'm sure it is not fit for Aikido. Technique number one in Aikido (ichi kyo)...technique to prevent a direct sword attack to the head. Not grapplig whatsoever. Judo, jujutsu, Karate...unarmed, empty handed arts. Aikido is not. Morihei Ueshiba's favorite exercise were solo kenjutsu techniques. The correction is due - Aikijin 11/17/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.119.1 (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Grappling includes systems designed for unarmed combatants to disarm and control armed attackers, such as your conception of Daito ryu and your understanding of the first technique, which in most styles is called ikkyo or ikajo. A weapons art is an art designed to train people in the use of weapons in armed combat. Even if Aikido allowed people to cut things with their hands (think of what that could do to the kitchen knife industry), its stated goal has never been to create better sword or stickfighters. Transentient (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Atemi belongs to aikido. Does atemi fit in grappling? jmcw (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not? "Grappling refers to techniques, manoeuvres, and counters applied to an opponent in order to gain a physical advantage..." atemi fits right in there, especially since in Aikido an atemi is not always an actual physically realized strike. Maybe folks should read the article on Grappling. Transentient (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did read the article. Did you see the part "Grappling does not include striking or most commonly the use of weapons..."? jmcw (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So your initial comment was a leading question that you already had an answer to, great. Are you advocating moving the focus to striking? Transentient (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we are making progress when we admit that we have several choices of categories that don't fit well. Maybe someone from the Ki Society could chime in here and suggest a spiritual category. jmcw (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody in this discussion read the works of the late Donn Dreager? Grappling is really the perfect category for Aikido. Most people against that category, I think, are put off by the image of modern sport grappling. While modern sport grappling can be said to descend from sports and ceremonial practices that existed in Greece, Rome, India, and various parts of Asia, the fact of the matter is that Aikido and Judo (and therefore Brazilian Jiu-jitsu) are descended from various schools of Jujutsu (Tenshin shinyo ryu, Daito Ryu, and a few others) which as a class of martial arts were peacetime elaborations of earlier schools that had a focus on pulling warriors down off of horses and finishing them off quickly with a long knife (Take Uchi Ryu, Araki Ryu are two surviving examples). I.e. not a lot of "wrestling" going on, the work was dirty and was done quickly. The later jujutsu systems were created in peacetime and were budo, which meant they were geared more towards providing a long-term avenue of self perfection, as opposed to simply providing skills for winning in combat. But it wasn't until Judo that there was a sporting motivation. Grappling should probably be fixed to be more accomodating to classical martial arts and their spiritual descendants.

What Aikido really is, is a study of the high-level, soft / internal / psychological applications of martial arts, particularly jujutsu but also sword arts. You guys are right - there is not a good category for this out of the three but if you look at the history of the development of martial arts in Japan (cf Draeger, Ellis Amdur, Karl Friday) it is abundantly clear that Aikido belongs in the category that is currently under the umbrella of Grappling martial art on Wikipedia, because the other two categories are extremely specific. Why are there only two? I don't think this is the result of any conspiracy, its just that nobody has done the work to add anything to the list. I personally think Aikido should be in a category with Systema and the various "Internal" Chinese martial arts, until such a category is created it belongs in grappling Transentient (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Grappling is one part of Aikido, since it contains many techniques for differents grabs. But yes, strikes are there too, and also the practise with weapons, which you don't find in grappling arts whatsoever. So, to include Aikido into a grappling based art is to diminish it. Ikkyo is short for ichi kyo, just as Ikko is short for ikimasho. Japanese terms/language is not the issue here (at least I did my homework). Also, those are not just my understanding of Daitoryu or of the first technique, but of most renowned masters and books. Besides, Aikido DOES teach you how to use a sword, a staff, and in some schools, a knife. Not just disarming, but to fight armed as well. Let it be remembered that a wodden sword is not less deadly that a steel sword. Bokken is not a "replica" of a sword, as I heard many times people affirm this childish mistake. It is a weapon by itself. Sorry, but there's no arguing here buddy - Aikido is definitely NOT JUST a grappling art. To affirm it is the typical western, encyclopedic, newtonian, cartesian thinking, that urges to label and qualify all things, and you simply cannot do that with complex matters such as Aikido. To do so is the same as labeling Yoga as philosohy or religion. Is it? Is it not? Is it both? The fact that there isn't a better category to fit it, does not mean you can simply fit it in a category that is in agreement with your understanding of the art. Aikijin - 18.11.2010

Now why would we want to use "typical western, encyclopedic" thinking in our encyclopedia article? Transentient (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I answered that before you even ask. But here goes again: " To affirm it is the typical western, encyclopedic, newtonian, cartesian thinking, that urges to label and qualify all things, and you simply cannot do that with complex matters such as Aikido" Good point though. Still, this kind of thinking is not enough to encompass Aikido, or any other eastern art for that matter. That's why you should "eat the orange", not talk or write about it. And you know, that's the same question modern quantum physicist asked themselves. Why should we keep on with cartesian, labeling thought, when it simply does not cover things properly? But this is a bright, deep conclusion, expected from these guys in labs. Perhaps that's too much to ask from an encyclopedia right? Of course, those willing to find accurate meanings to Aikido or anything coming from the East, should seek a master. A good book at least. Still, let it be reafirmed. "Grappling" is not more appropriate then "weapons-based art" to classify Aikido(since you have to do that as an encyclopedist). All the best! Keep up the "good" work grasshopper! Aikijin 18.11.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.119.1 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh...you're the "pools of sorrow" guy. I should have known by your bolded text. You ought to write up an article for a new category of martial arts for Aikido. Make sure you cover absolutely everything! Transentient (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OOohh, and you're the "encyclopedia" guy! The issue is still whether Aikido is a grappling art or not, as you insist in affirming. Clearly it is not. That encircles the art into something smaller than it really is. And why not write an article having Aikido in a mixed category? It seems a simple matter of explaining why the art is not just grappling, or not just an armed art, or not just a striking art, or not just philosophy, or not just religion...Aikido is all of that together, and that's why it's a complex art/issue. I haven't seen atemi strikes on Judo, neither knife takeaway on ju-jutsu, neither have I ever seen Olympic grapplers deal with swords, or doing purification rites and meditation. But isn't all that in Aikido? Isn't all of this an integral, inseparable part of the art? So yeah, I don't see a problem in creating a mixed category for Aikido, say: "grappling-strinking-weapons based martial art" (which still would only cover the physical/technical part of the art). And, yes, I agree with you, when you say Aikido is also an internal art. But again, it is not just that. I'm honestly just trying to help. Since this is an Encyclopedia, the information should be accurate. And just placing Aikido into a grappling art, just because there isn't a "better category" is, forgive me, a lame argument. And here goes a bit of bold text just no annoy you! (just kidding). Aikijin. 11.19.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.119.1 (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You continue to insist on a limited definition of grappling, its like you are only allowing for wrestling and other sport fighting. No knife defenses in jujutsu? Jujutsu evolved from tactics the bushi would use when things got too close on the battlefield. So I wish you would do some more research on the origins of Aikido and how it fits into the living history of Japanese martial arts for one. For another, I don't actually disagree with you that Aikido is complex and unique art. But this is wikipedia, what we are doing here is trying to maintain an article that casually curious people - most of whom have zero interest in training Aikido or possibly any martial art - can read and glean a consensus-driven, encyclopedic view of the art, containing references so they can continue their research if they wish. We have a mandate to avoid skewing the article with POV. Any layman walking into an Aikido dojo seeing people lock, throw, and pin each other, given the choice of striking, weapons, or grappling art, is going to call it a grappling art, regardless of what we, as practitioners, think of it when we are off our meds. Transentient (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok buddy. You won! Just for the record though, I've done plenty of research. You're talking about ancient jujutsu, which had weapons training, modern jujutsu does not. I've trained in different jujutsu schools, and it's all about ground techniques. Their notion of self-defense against weapons is pretty naive, and its techniques are useless for law enforcement agents, and other professions that deal with real life threatening situations. The ancient samurai of old realized the dangers in rolling on the ground, when spears, swords, arrows and horses where all over the place. Throws is another great flaw in their techniques. No weapons whatsoever. But that's another discussion. And I think you are insisting on a too too broad notion of grappling. But yeah my friend, bottom line, I have to agree with you when you say: "what we are doing here is trying to maintain an article that casually curious people can read and glean a consensus-driven, encyclopedic view of the art." That's exactly what it is, and it's a bit unfair on my part to expect anything more then that (no sarcasm here, really). Thanks for the nice discussion. All the best! Aikijin 11.19.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.119.1 (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for my occasional lapses into childishness. I think there is a lot of validity to the argument that fitting Aikido into Grappling doesn't quite nail it, but I maintain that right now, its the best of the three categories. There's a good argument for Grappling being too broad, and I believe the actual article on Grappling has been evolving towards being more combat sport-oriented anyway, so that complicates matters. Some intrepid wikipedian should write up some articles that create new categories for us to put stuff like Aikido. Transentient (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Aikido being "based on sword techniques" in not a misconception by all means. The founder of Aikido himself affirmed that frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.119.1 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Aikido is not a grappling budo, cont.

I would like to propose for discussion a a focus of hybrid internal martial arts; this fits the template guidelines. The hybrid article is oriented towards MMA and the internal MA article is oriented towards Chinese MA but the two descriptions fit aikido better than grappling (IMO). jmcw (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Having been at a training seminar this weekend, I would like to add two remarks:

If aikido were grappling, there would be even fewer women involved.

In good aikido, the aiki is established before anything like a grappling technique is started. Ikkyu, et al., that look like grappling, are just some small details at the end of aiki.

Isn't there a quote from Osensei that tai sabaki would be enough? jmcw (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Grappling certainly isn't the first word anyone would use to describe aikido, but I was personally surprised at how broad the actual definition of grappling is. Read over Grappling and you may be surprised too. Have fun! —Mrand Talk • C 16:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.219.66.218 (talk)

It seems the "oh yes it is!" "oh no it isn't" debate is getting fired up again with regards to grappling. My personal position is that aikido is a complex budo based on both Daito-ryu jujutsu and kenjutsu which incorporates weapons, blends and strikes, but nevertheless, the definition of "grappling" used on Wikipedia is as good a way as any to describe it: "Grappling refers to techniques, maneuvers, and counters applied to an opponent in order to gain a physical advantage, such as improving their relative position, escaping, submitting, or injuring them, through the application of various Grappling techniques, and the counters to these. Grappling is a general term that covers techniques used in many disciplines, styles and martial arts that are practiced both as combat sports and for self defense. Grappling does not typically include striking or most commonly the use of weapons, however some grappling disciplines teach tactics that include strikes and weapons either alongside grappling or as part of it." (emphasis mine) Let's not mangle the FA status of this article by hauling this tired old argument over the coals again, eh? Yunshui (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

I've also tacked on a citation; the source quote from Allemann is "Aikido is primarily a grappling rather than a striking martial art." Unambiguous WP:RS, hope that helps settle it. Yunshui (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My problem with "grappling' is that the article and its definition used on this talk page are not referenced. In my opinion, the FA status is mangled by our original-research based classification. We need several reliable references (including the one from Osensei, if it is available) to extinguish this smoldering talk page. jmcw (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Wikipedia definition needs referencing; I've been trying to find a good source for the last ten minutes or so, but there doesn't seem to be anything readily to hand that actually defines "grappling" in a martial arts context. Green's Martial Arts of the World does define grappling in a very similar way to the Wiki article, but he specifically states that the definition used only applies to his text ("Grappling, as the term is used here, includes hitting, kicking, throwing..."), so it's not really acceptable as a general definition. The book Grappling by Ollhoff specifically covers aikido in its discussion of grappling arts, but even then falls short of providing a suitable definition. I'm running out of books... if anyone can do better, please do! Yunshui (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(out-dent) From Kisshomaru Ueshiba's Best Aikido What is Aikido: O-Sensei said "Heretofore I studied many kinds of martial art systems - Yagyu ryu, Shinyo Ryu, Kito ryu, Daito ryu, Shinkage ryu and so on - but Aikido is not a composite of those arts. All Aiki techniques are a function of ki." I find this quote difficult to reconcile with most any definition of grappling. jmcw (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's veering perilously close to WP:OR, I think. Who's to say you can't apply "grappling" techniques using ki? O-Sensei's statement (like, sadly, so many of his recorded pronouncements!) doesn't really say anything about the practical classification of aikido. Interpreting it to exclude the concept of grappling relies on accepting your specific definition of the term "ki", which may or may not be what the Founder intended.

If he'd had the good sense to state categorically that "Aikido is/is not a grappling budo" then we'd be sorted, but perish the thought that one of O-Sensei's public proclamations could be interpreted unambiguously! Yunshui (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In fiction

Aikido is featured in G.I. Joe: Special Missions #4 (April 1987), utilized by a pacifist combat medic. Lots42 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Aikido is featured in almost all movies of Steven Seagal. Heard he's a master. Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.6.155.59 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he hold the rank of 7th Dan from the Aikikai Foundation. According to his students, he is a student of Morihei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido, when he was 10 but there is no proof that he is a deshi of O-Sensei. His movies shocked the Aikido world, everyone wants to know what kind of mertial arts he studies. Although at his 50's, he still remember the philisophies of Aikido (it can be found in his reality show, "Steven Seagal: Lawman").Aikido Philippines (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

His Aikido teachers were Koichi Tohei, Hiroshi Isoyama, Seiseki Abe, Kisaburo Osawa and Kisshomaru Ueshiba, being Isoyama and Abe the most influential. All of these were direct students of Morihei Ueshiba. Seagal himself never studied with the founder of the art, although it is said he did watch him. He arrived in Japan when he was 17, not 10. First western ever, in the long history of Japan, to hold credentials to run a dojo on Japanese soil, considered by many in the Aikido high dome inner circle, as the person responsilble for the dissemination/popularization of Aikido, since it was considered an "underground art" till the mid 80's, unlike Judo or Karate. He is currently 58 years old. Check his page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.119.1 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam external link

I just removed the external link to http://www.aikidostudent.com/ because it has PayPal and Amazon.com links, and is thus a commercial site. If they remove the PayPal and Amazon links, then we can link to it. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Other aikido-related terms

• This interview with John Stevens (scholar) mentions chinkon-kishin 鎮魂帰神 (ちんこんきしん return to the divine through spiritual quietude) as an essential part of aikido as "a fully integrated system".
• 弛緩力 relaxation power youtube
• shinmu fusatsu 真武不殺 true budo doesn't kill Interview with Kazuo Chiba
• Ichi-go ichi-e
• Masakatsu Agatsu 正勝吾勝

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Among the many translations of the "ai-" in aikido, I would like also to have 'cooperation' inserted, which actually is the physical counterpart of 'harmony' and reflects well the desired interactions between uke and nage, and between sensei and seito. I would like to believe that if this word 'cooperation' is included and understood by non-Japanese-speaking westerners, it will be easier to persuade beginners, especially in our children's groups, that the uke part is an important part of the practice to be performed with as much focus as possible, and not just a boring part that one has to bear with in turns. Moreover, I would also guess that this would make some less knowledgeable critics pay less attention to the "unrealisticness" of the attack forms. After all, I guess that most aikido players and practitioners do not do this art primarily to prepare themselves for street fights. Okjhum (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• There is a disturbing inconsistency in the use of the word "breakfall". The article states, correctly, that "the concept of a 'breakfall', common to other martial arts, is out of place in Aikido, as a fall in Aikido is not broken, but chosen by the receiver." But in the illustration of suwariwaza shihonage at the upper right corner, the caption still uses the word breakfall without reservations. Okjhum (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What does that even mean? A fall in Aikido is not broken, but chosen by the receiver?!?

Consider ryotetori koshinage (shihonage-based variation), where the uke has been loaded up onto nage and (unless nage relinquishes uke's arm somehow) does not have the option of rolling out (especially if being thrown with gusto): the only choices left for uke are whether or not to momentarily resist (causing their shoulder be torn by the shihonage lock) before they get thrown anyway, and then whether or to endeavour to dissipate the landing impact evenly over the flat of their side (i.e., "break the fall") rather than presenting some protubence to fall on (e.g. breaking the wrist). In other words, there is no choice; in aikido (though rolling is more preferred) it is sometimes necessary to breakfall just like in many other arts. Okjhum, perhaps you would explain more clearly how you think other arts are different? Cesiumfrog (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Famous practitioners

I was just wondering...on that list of "famous practitioners", which one of them is really "famous", other then Steven Seagal? All of the others mentioned are known to Aikidokas only, and to label them as "famous" is a bit to much. A "renowned practitioners" section would fit the issue better. Famous...well...just Seagal. Isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.189.119.1 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Back to Grappling

With the possible exception of Yoseikan Budo, Aikido is not at all a hybrid martial art. It is the study of the principals of Aiki, and its technical syllabus in all the mainstream traditions is a small subset of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu. The internal aspects are there but Yoshinkan and other styles downplay them to the extent that we shouldn't go there - in fact in the mainstream today, if you follow forums like aikidojournal and aikiweb, the whole issue of internal power has only come up because it isn't there in the main line of training and upper-level people are wondering why nobody has ever gotten as good as O Sensei. But at any rate I just changed the template back from being just hybrid. If it is possible to do more than one classification, there is a story for internal and GRAPPLING I think. But hybrid? What has been amalgamated into the Aikido that we know today?

I am obviously stuck to my opinion that Aikido is grappling as defined on wikipedia, but I think we should all respect that this debate has come up more than once over the years and each previous time, we've stuck with Grappling. If you want to change the classification I think the burden is on you to re-address the things that have been discussed by others when we've settled on Grappling.

Once again though, this is an encyclopedia. What's the 1000-foot view of Aikido to a person who knows nothing about martial arts? The techniques are throws and joint locks, for pete's sake. Occasionally you chuck somebody in the kidneys or back of the head or whatever. And of course the goal of the training is to learn not-fighting. But the goal of the techniques at a very basic level is to take a person down to the ground with your hands. Transentient (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

kamiza

Is it worth having a section on where aikido is practised, e.g., the dojo and tatami (or outside)? Also, whether that place at the front is called the kamiza or kamidana, and why does that tradition exist in aikido? And what is displayed there? Is it a copy of one particular image of osensei as an old man (is this universal to aikikai)? Does anyone use different images of osensei, or images of anybody else? Weapons mount? Flower arrangements? Candles? Does each school pick something distinguishing (e.g., painted "shin" kanji for yuishinkai)? Japanese "Aikido" calligraphy? Is there really a Japanese tradition involving the dojo sign, that challengers might try to steal as trophies? Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a short section on "the Aikido Dojo" wouldn't be bad for the article. Maybe after the part on uniforms and belts. I am used to referring to the front of the dojo as just the shomen, at my dojo we have a picture of O Sensei there. Transentient (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Differences between kokyu nage and kokyu ho

Hello, we aikidokas in the Philippines have just think about the differences between kokyunage and kokyuho, we know that they are breathing techniques. But the differences between this two is that kokyunage is a breath throw (or projection) and kokyu ho is a breathing technique. There is a confusement between senseis in both Aikikai and Ki-Aikido. Some senseis call suwari-waza kokyu-ho into suwari-waza kokyunage. This article needs a lot of clean up although it is a feature article, some senseis in aikido ,who always search in wikipedia, are confused.Aikido Philippines (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing the article

Some Aikido editors in wikipedia are mixing the article with a Aikikai style, Yoshinkan style, Iwama style, Yoseikan style Aikido article. Shouldn't we focusing on one style, the style of O-Sensei? Because all Aikidokas in all the four corners of the world, who always fond in researching in Wikipedia, are confused (including those in Aikikai). I was once talked to a Sensei in Japan that came from Aikikai who said that The article of Aikido in Wikipedia is so confusing, the main style for that article is Aikikai because it is the main core of all Aikido styles and the main style of the founder.Aikido Philippines (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are asking why we don't maintain a bias towards "Aikikai style." Basically, nobody wants that. This article is for Aikido, the martial art. With the possible exception of Yoseikan all of the groups you mentioned are just what you say they are - different styles, without a significant difference in substance. On the other hand, the Aikikai shihans each have a unique take on things and if you train at the Hombu on different days you will see different styles anyway. There are plenty of other reasons. Transentient (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, this Aikido article must be focusing on one style, the style of the founder. I'm not saying that this article is only focusing about Aikikai. The article must be based on O-sensei's teachings, not about Shioda's teachings, Saito's teachings, Tohei's teachings etc. Because a martial art must be focused on a founder/s teachings and style/s.Aikido Philippines (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view, and changes need to be made with clear consensus. You probably won't have an easy time convincing Wikipedians who train under Tohei, Shioda, Saito, or Kisshomaru's organizations that what they are doing doesn't merit mention in the article anymore. Transentient (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Grappling, again...

I've reinserted the sentence about aikido being a grappling art, with a reference, but I'm still sympathetic to the argument that it isn't an appropriate classification. As jmcw points out above, we're working from the Wikipedia definition of "grappling", which is largely unsourced and arguably POV. I propose the following line as a compromise:

"Aikido is primarily categorized as a grappling art, as opposed to an art which focuses of striking or weapons training. However, both of these elements are taught in the curricula of many aikido schools."

Any thoughts? Better? Worse? Liable to open the whole can of worms up yet again? Yunshui (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the essence of the problem is that the act of categorizing in Wikipedia is usually OR. Who has decided that the various MA partition neatly into 'Grappling', 'Striking', etc? It is this assumption (and the lack of sources to support it) that produce the problems of the template "Martial Arts by Focus". jmcw (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In a positive spirit, I would suggest leaving out this categorization. jmcw (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I like that summary sentence, I think it covers it quite nicely. Transentient (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but there are uses to the categories. A complete neophyte, who knew nothing of aikido, could quickly surmise from the "grappling" (I am really starting to hate that word...) tag that aikido involved some aspects of seizing and throwing; the same person could equally establish from the Wikipedia article on karate that karate focuses more on strikes, since it is described as a striking art. No-one would suggest that karate lacks joint locks, throws and pins, but if asked to explain it to a Martian, one could succinctly state that "karate is a striking art" and said Martian would instantly have a picture of what karate was. Same with aikido; whilst its focus is not solely on throws and takedowns, they are the most common and obvious outer aspect of the art to the layman. As such, for the theoretical Wikipedian who has never before heard of aikido, "grappling" is a convenient shorthand.

We could write: "Aikido is an art whose curriculum contains throws, pins, projections, restraints, joint locks (both supinating and pronating), unbalancing techniques, evasions, blending techniques, open-handed strikes, knife-hand attacks, punches, kicks, pressure-point manipulation, sword cuts (solo and paired), staff techniques (again, solo and paired), knife takes, breathing techniques etc. etc. etc.", but that seems a bit of an overload for our hypothetical Martian, and also describes just about every Oriental martial art to some degree.

I move that it should stay; albeit in the sanitised version described above. Yunshui (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

At least some senior shihan have repeatedly instructed that aikido is not a martial art. (That aikido is a form of personal development, and presumably they see it as only partially overlapping with our western concept of martial art. Say, it is highly concerned with some nonmartial aspects like ego, attitude and personal refinement; it is largely uninterested with some martial aspects like desensitivisation, just winning in any crude way, and physical strength.) Despite this, martial art still seems the most apt initial description to a newcomer. But the grappling thing seems to be a concession too far.

First, there's two separate debates here: the info box and the article. It is really only because of the info box field that we're trying to pigeon hole aikido into any category at all. Contrary to what was said above last September, even keeping the infobox we do not need to choose from "grappling, weapons-based, and striking"; we still have freedom to, e.g.: just omit the focus field from the box, or list multiple categories, or to name a focus that is not already in that list. I suggest that the true primary focus of aikido is soft style. What is central to aikido is that, rather than opposing force directly with further force, we parry, we let the attacker's force and momentum turn to their disadvantage, we evade needing to add significant force of our own. Unlike grappling arts we always (except for the most primitive timing) begin at striking distance, and even as we finish the technique we still prefer to avoid grabbing (instead keeping the more flexible control of open hands). As a compromise we could list both grappling and soft style in the focus field.

But there's no reason in the rest of the article to to try to pigeon-hole aikido into such an awkward foreign category as grappling. (Such can not be a convenient shorthand for the unfamiliar since it is plainly going to foster the wrong impression.) The second paragraph of the lead is no place for such inelegant weasel words as "Aikido can be categorised under the general umbrella of grappling arts". That sentence cites only a mere 3rd dan who had the presumptousness to subtitle his book "the essential guide to mastering [aikido]", and yet the only contexts in which that source mentions the word grappling are: to explain that a karate gi will tear; to contrast aikido from exclusively striking arts; and to note that the striking attacks correspond to more advanced forms of aikido techniques than do grabbing attacks. So that sentence is not justified. Let us instead stick to describing aikido on its own ground. For example we might say that aikido typically involves parrying a strike and capitalising on the attacker's momentum to grapple them into submission. It is good to link in the term "grappling" just as long as we do so in a context where the word isn't made to seem to sum aikido up. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ach. Cesiumfrog makes a good argument. I'm swinging more and more towards the view that we don't need this text in the article, in spite of my arguments above; we definitely don't need it in its current form. I disagree that there's a problem with the citation; Allemann may only be "a mere 3rd dan", but he did manage to get himself onto the books of a notable global publisher, which is the major requirement of WP:RS; so we can source the claim that "aikido is a grappling art" if we want it kept. I haven't found anything more definitive to date. The principle reason for using the grappling label is indeed to distinguish aikido from a primarily striking art, though the more I study, the more I'm realising that aikido actually is a striking art, just not one where you hit people (very often...).

As for entering the soft style tag in the infobox, I'm amenable to the idea, although there are aikido schools out there whose focus is definitely more hard/soft.

I'd like to hold off on making any changes until we have a few more opinions in, but I'm definitely leaning now towards the idea of leaving the grappling statement in the main text out.

On a closely related note, it's really nice to see Wikipedians putting this into discussion rather than the edit warring which can be so common elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Must be all that practicing the Way of Harmony! Yunshui (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am all for adding soft style to the infobox. I really don't understand why people have such a hard time with the fact that Aikido is actually a grappling art and I do not think any good non-PV arguments have been advanced to change the article. Transentient (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise concerning "grappling"

MOS:LEAD states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. "

The current lead has: "Aikido is performed by blending with the motion of the attacker and redirecting the force of the attack rather than opposing it head-on. ...The techniques are completed with various throws or joint locks."

This should be enough for the Martians and beginners. To then allude that it is grappling negates the better, former description.

As a compromise, I would propose removing the grappling umbrella sentence from the lead but retaining the grappling Wikipedia category in the info box.

The article would be improved and I could hope that someday someone will make order in the Wikipedia artifact of categories. jmcw (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. 1. The term gives novice readers the incorrect impression, because grappling is ordinarily synonymous with wrestling (as can be confirmed with any dictionary). Futhermore, being derived from the grappling hook implement (i.e. the French word for hook), it implies grabbing (fastly or not slipping). Aikido is completley different from belonging under wrestling, and grabbing is explicitly deemphasised in aikido technique. (I know that the wikipedia grappling article proposes a broader definition but such is more esoteric, plus that non-FA doesn't even cite for the def'. If we use the broadest sense of grappling, then everything related to conflict would also be included.) 2. Because such categorisation of aikido is POV. In particularly, it offends the sensibilities of many aikido experts, which is counterproductive to the article (lets see if we can conclude the endless distraction here in the talk and archives). 3. Because I think it misses the context of the cited source: "aikido is primarily a grappling rather than striking martial art" conveys a very different message from saying "aikido wholly comes under grappling, period".

Again, nobody objects to saying that aikido is less focussed on striking back, or mentioning that aikido includes some grappling, the problem is the sentence that totally pigeon-holes aikido. And I agree, the lead is just fine without it. Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both-of-you, as grappling really holds a very light weight to be phrased like that. I also think it should be removed from the lead. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

After much consideration, I'm inclined to agree. It is done. Yunshui (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That sentence about the umbrella of grappling really tied the article together. Ah well, so be it. Transentient (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)