Role of Weapons Training in Aikido

[vvolfgang]

I'd really appreciate feedback from the community on these questions:

- What is the role of Weapons Training in Aikido?

- My perception from recent discoveries, and I may be completely off, do different schools of Aikido favor or emphasize one weapon over another?

Thanks in advance

Jason

[Saint Louis Ki Society]

I've seen that some teachers favor jo or bokken. Some schools of Aikido use them more than others, too. I'm not sure there is a big differentiation by style. But I'm not real familiar with every style of Aikido. I know Saito Sensei emphasized Bokken, so maybe schools that follow him do more Bokken work.

There are many ways that Jo and bokken training can help Aikido. They amplify the properties of movement and reveal the information about control and clarity. Jo & Bokken can help produce a feeling of extension and connection to the space around you that carries over to empty hand technique. Then there are also many details of movement that become more clear with weapons. You could think of Jo & Bokken as another point from which to view every aspect of Aikido training and gain new insight.




Glass may be half-full or half-empty, but never forget, it's probably plastic, not glass.

[J. Nachtrab]

When training with weapons, how important would you say it is to incorporate not only aikido principles but also correct weapon technique?  Most aikido schools that I've seen use weapons as a method for learning aikido technique, but the use of jo and bokken is not an end in itself.  Consequently, I've seen jo and bokken used in ways that are perhaps useful in teaching or demonstrating an aikido principle or movement, but are essentially useless (or completely incorrect) as a weapon technique.  I'm not trying to bash aikido or start an argument, I'm honestly curious.  Maybe taking weapon technique into account doesn't really matter, as that's not the point.

[Saint Louis Ki Society]

I've seen jo and bokken used in ways that are perhaps useful in teaching or demonstrating an aikido principle or movement, but are essentially useless (or completely incorrect) as a weapon technique.....Maybe taking weapon technique into account doesn't really matter, as that's not the point.

I have seen some blatant things such as blocking a sword with a jo. I've also seen plenty of movement that would be pretty limited in effect. And here I'm talking more about something like simple impact with a jo (would there be any). Or is the edge of the bokken actually in line with the movement so that it would cut.  As for the training I've had with Kashiwaya Sensei and at Ki Society Headquarters, and some other teachers, the purpose is to understand movement and mind and body coordination. However, a certain basic quality in the use of the weapon is expected to develop. The practice isn't intended to produce expert sword work, and few students spend enough time working on sword to become such an expert.

Kashiwaya Sensei is the only teacher I've seen do much other than the movements in the Weapons Taigi. I've never taken time to practice some of the sword work he's taught in advanced classes past the point of learning it's application to Aikido movement. He has obviously taken a lot of time training with sword and jo, and is the most accomplised Aikido Sensei I have seen with weapons.

Of course, ultimately, as far as the Samurai go, all sword and bokken work became essentially useless after the 1860's. Usefullness is alway subjective and changes with context. There were many expert swordsmen killed on the battlefield, sometime because they depended too much on the sword. And that's before people started shooting them.

So why practice with these sticks. In Ki Aikido it's to learn mind and body coordination. However I do think that includes some basic effectiveness. To go much further, I think one might need some experience in actually cutting something with a real sword, which I haven't done, or hitting something with a stick, which I've done a lot of (but not people). I think you would also need to spend more time on it than we typically spend in regular classes at our dojo.

[vvolfgang]

I have seen some blatant things such as blocking a sword with a jo.

Are you referring in terms of "reality" that a wooden Jo would never stop a real sword?  If so, wouldn't the underlying techniques also be appliable when other weapons are substituted?  

I guess factoring in reality again, I can't remember the last time I had to defend myself with a metal pipe against someone yielding a sword....

Although my own brief experience with weapons were limited to Shinai (brief bout in Kendo)and Nuchuku (yeah, I know, talk about odd couple), I see a distinctive benefit for weapons training.  Among other things, coordination, balance, focus, reaction speed may all be enhanced by its practice.

Not to mention the side benefit of strengthing your hands and wrists by making your own Jo!

To borrow a quote from O'Sensei:  "Those who train in Aikido, must be able to demonstrate Aiki-ken when you hold a sword and Aiki Jyo when hold a jyo in your hand. Of course, sword and Jyo are extension of your body and you must handle these weapons as if they have your blood running through them. Unless you can make the weapons part of your body (running blood), you have not truly trained in Aikido."

I hope that someday I can truly appreciate the state of integration he described.

[J. Nachtrab]

Are you referring in terms of "reality" that a wooden Jo would never stop a real sword?  If so, wouldn't the underlying techniques also be appliable when other weapons are substituted?  

I guess factoring in reality again, I can't remember the last time I had to defend myself with a metal pipe against someone yielding a sword....

I've heard this argument before, that it's not necessary to take "correct" weapon usage into account because it's anachronistic and largely irrelevant.  "Who cares if you would never really do that with a jo or sword, I will never have need to do it anyway.  I'm just using it as an analogy for some other lesson."  I suppose from a certain perspective that's defendable, but I personally never thought it made any sense.  What use is that analogy if the root side of it is incorrect?

see a distinctive benefit for weapons training.  Among other things, coordination, balance, focus, reaction speed may all be enhanced by its practice.

Diane Skoss wrote a really good article on the benefits of weapons training vs. unarmed training:

http://www.koryu.com/library/dskoss4.html

She has the added perspective of coming from significant training in aikido.  It's written as if for women but the points she talks about are applicable to anyone.

[vvolfgang]

Thank you, very interesting article.

The thread kind of ties into the "best way to learn Aikido" thread.

Where as some styles of Aikido may emphasize or de-emphasize weapons training, I don't think anyone would discount the relationship or the reinforcement between armed and unarmed training.

A related question:  What would lend to the effectiveness of weapons training?

J. Nachtrab had said earlier regarding correct weapons techniques, what about dynamic training vs fixed Kata?  is "sparring" a good thing?  (talk about unorthodoxy!)

[J. Nachtrab]

A related question:  What would lend to the effectiveness of weapons training?

J. Nachtrab had said earlier regarding correct weapons techniques, what about dynamic training vs fixed Kata?  is "sparring" a good thing?  (talk about unorthodoxy!)

I think it depends on why you train with weapons.  The only cases I can think of in which "sparring" would be useful are a) you're a kendoka or b) you have an actual need to defend yourself or enter into combat with that weapon.  

Classical Japanese weapon arts (kenjutsu, jojutsu, sojutsu, naginatajutsu, etc.) do not incorporate "free sparring" into their training curriculum, at least not at any level that I've seen.  Kata are the vehicle for training, and they are specifically (and rather ingeniously) designed to provide progressive instruction in weapon technique without the inherent danger of free sparring.  

[Selkie]

The dojo I trained at favoured jo over bokken, even though the gents had more fun playing with the bokken  However, jo was favoured because it has practical value in modern defensive settings.  That piece of metal pipe can be pressed into jo service.  My hiking stick makes a good jo; its carrying an unconcealed non-weapon   When I was menaced by a farm hand, the 21-Step Kata with a pitchfork made him back off in a hurry.   So to me, that is the value of jo training in aikido.  Aikido is a good martial art for modern times, when so many martial artists defend themselves from attack, only to be sued for 'unnecessary force'  

-- Selkie

[J. Nachtrab]

However, jo was favoured because it has practical value in modern defensive settings.

A jo may have practical value in a modern setting.  Jo technique as taught in aikido dojos, from a self-defense perspective, does not.  Weapon technique in aikido (aiki-ken, aiki-jo) is intended to provide insight into body movements - distancing, timing, all the things Mark mentioned above.  As a means of self-defense in and of themselves, they are not all that useful, because that is not their purpose.  

The primary purpose of a jo is as a weapon, a tool to maim or kill.  Integrating that with the overall philosophy and aim of aikido is difficult, and requires a much broader perspective than just "aikido is non-aggressive".