Talk:Iwama style

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iwama style article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Kobayashi

Does Kobayashi really count as Iwama style? There are ties, but I believe he was uchideshi at hombu dojo rather than Iwama...

132.162.250.239 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Iwama Ryu

I have started a discussion at Talk:Iwama Ryu about merging this article with Iwama Ryu. Please discuss it there. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The external link goes to a British Iwama style web site. I have no clue what such websites exist, but suspect there would be more relevant links than this one. // Habj 23:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Styles template

So what is a major style of aikido... is Iwama one of them or not? There is no organisation for Iwama, most of it is nowadays within the Aikikai. Maybe it makes sense to define Iwama as a "major style", maybe not. I find the division on List of aikido styles sensible enough, but putting it in a template in each article makes it look so... definate. IMHO the template adds litte worth but more trouble. I removed it from the article, and and started a discussion at Template talk:Major styles of aikido. // habj 12:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above

Iwama is not the style of Aikido, per se, the style is called Takemusu. Takemusu was based on Morehei Ueshiba's (O'Sensei) teachings during the later period of his life when he retired to Iwama. After World War II, O'Sensei's son left Iwama for the dojo that the family owned in Tokyo, in order to protect it from looting/claims of ownership after the bombing of the city. This caused a split in styles of aikido, with the Tokyo dojo (in Shinjuku) dropping the more complex movements and the sword movements from the art. This has become evident in the various styles of aikido taught today, particularly in the US.

Takemusu, on the other hand, focuses on O'Sensei's teaching and training methods as they were directly passed on to Morihiro Saito (Saito Sensei). This included the complex movements and the sword movements. Takemusu dojos train in Taijutsu (without weapons) and Aikiken (the sword) and AikiJo (the Jo). They movements in Takemusu Aiki closely resemble those movements made when using sword.

The above may be a biased interpretation, however. THe information comes from the takemusu website, the Saito Sensei website and my own Sensei in the Takemusu Aiki Association of Australian. Perhaps Takemusu should be expanded in the 'AIkido Styles' section?. //[[User:telemeister] 18:46, 9 June 2007

Iwama Sutairu Aikidō

To what extent is this term used in Japanese? Is it at all? AFAIK the "Iwama aikido" phenomenon is mainly something in the West. // habj 12:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan styles are usually designated with the suffix -ryu or -ha to my knowledge. For example, Ueshiba-ha Daito-ryu Jiujutsu. Probably the designation is not the same as in the west, but the formation of a new Iwama-style organization shows that there are some political issues about differing styles in the Aikikai... // User: Rufe 5:38 PM, 2/2/2007 (EST)

rework

I don't mean to step on anybody's toes, but this article has some glaring issues. Even just the lead is atrocious:

Iwama Style Aikido (岩間スタイル合気道, Iwama Sutairu Aikidō) is an informal name for the style of aikido that was taught by the founder of aikido, Morihei Ueshiba, at the Iwama dojo in the pre-War period. It is often used to describe the aikido in the lineage of Morihiro Saito, a close disciple of Ueshiba for 23 years, which empahsizes Jō (staff) and Aiki-ken (sword). The name comes from the Japanese village of Iwama where Ueshiba lived during the War, and there taught Morihiro Saito and others.

Problems:

the bolded name should agree with the article title, which is "Iwama ryu" not "Iwama Style Aikido".
The was no Iwama dojo in the pre-war period: Ueshiba only moved to Iwama during WW2 (leaving his son in Tokyo to protect the earlier dojo from firebombing).
there is a whole bunch more names to mention: ryu, style, sutairu, takemusu, traditional, dento, founder's, Saito, etc.
The article doesn't yet mention the "Iwama ryu" paper grading certificates produced by Morihiro. These are what justify the article's preference for the title iwama ryu. It is specifically the acknoledgement of these certificates (e.g., the authority of Saito in preference to just the doshu) which unites the informal network of aikido groups that we're trying to discuss, and which distinguishes them from other groups. (Analogously, the ultimate common defining feature of aikikai organisations is acknowledgement of doshu as grading authority.) This is also significant as the paper trail, the thing that is potentially verifiable, as opposed to vagueries of technical influence.
The lead probably isn't the place to try to explain stylistic/technical differences, it unnecesarilly oversimplifies things. Yes, Saito's style is widely acknowledged for greater inheritance of jo and sword from the founder (and some reasons for this merit describing at some length), but these are still emphasised to similar levels in many non-iwama schools too. And there are other differences too, such as the emphasis on static timing and resistance when teaching beginner/kyu levels.
The status section should be the place to describe the umbrella organisation set up fairly recently by the 7ds.
This article is probably a better place than Saito's article for the content dealing with "Saito's legacy" (Iwama ryu students).

I'll suspect though that many of the problems with the articles surrounding Iwama ryu are artifacts due to page moves and such. I'll try to implement some improvements.. Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it clearly comes from the merge between Iwama style and Iwama ryu.

Also, I've put the info on Koshi-nage, but it may violate some wiki rule I'm not aware of. Rufe (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

founder's style

I've deleted the term "founder's style" as as far as I know that term is not used and I could not find any information on that term on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufe (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even search for the term "founder's style"? You created that yourself. Try searching for the term that the article used before you, which was "founder's aikido", which is used by numerous websites associated with the Saito lineage. You'll also find that even many English language sources have literally used the term "Sutairu" (the doubly-transliterated translation of ryu). There is a good reason not to be in a rush to remove any synonyms from the lead, and that is that this topic has tended to proliferate duplicate articles (owing to the tendency of martial arts students to found new dojos and to pass on their own preferences, including labels, for next generation students to expect to find online). Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed found many pages for "founder's aikido", but they are not necessarily Iwama style (including things such as the Seagal (Abe) line, Manseikan, and the Takeda line). In fact, the main connection between Iwama and "founder's aikido" I see is the article by Stanley Pranin of the same name.

I didn't change the "Sutairu" portion unless I'm seriously forgetting something.

Rufe (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..and Pranin would have to be about the most reliable and least biased source that we could conceivably cite on the entire topic of the Iwama line of aikido. Yup, can really see why you'd rather replace such content with something else like "It has been speculated that.." citing only a forum post that does not mention Iwama and which has nothing at all to do with the subject of this article. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pranin's whole agenda appears to be defining Saito as the true student of the founder. That is a caricature of Pranin, because he certainly also did some historical research, but it is clear his opinion is just that and not unbiased. Having studied with Saito for a long time, and portraying himself as the source for knowledge on Aikido, he has an interest in emphasizing the Ueshiba -> Saito (-> Pranin) lineage. Besides, Gozo Shioda for instance also did the founder's Aikido -- the one from the 1930ies. He adds his teaching methodology, Saito-sensei adds his. Referring to "the founder's Aikido" is not a very helpful characterization. As an aside to this: it's probably true that neither Kisshomaru's style nor Tohei's style -- and thus the Aikikai for a long time -- had too much in common with the founder's. 85.181.15.114 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that Mr. Pranin is a true historian of Aikido; however, I must point out that while his article suggests that Iwama style is the founder's aikido, it does not suggest that the term "founder's aikido" is generally synonymous with "Iwama style". Many people claim to teach "the founder's aikido" as it was taught to them or their teacher, many of them with good reason. Given that, I don't see why that term should be included as a synonym for Iwama style. I contrast, all the other terms are (with the exception of "Traditional Aikido"), especially in English, uniquely associated with Iwama style.

As for the koshi-nage, it is true that the source is a poor one and perhaps it should be excluded in the article. However, if you have spent time with the Yamaguchi or Nishio stylists in particular you've surely noticed that they sometimes do a more judo-like koshinage with the feet together and occasionally with their back to uke. In contrast, Iwama stylists always do the "jyuu-no-ji" style koshinage with the feet in hanmi and using their eyes in kihon to help direct their bodies. I could add the Takemusu Aikido books as a reference for the Iwama style koshi, though the Shingan-ryu thing really is just speculation by a few senior practitioners of other classical martial art styles. I included it only for the historical interest and would not argue with its removal. Rufe (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technique details are really difficult to include in WP well, and it's obvious if you think about it: it takes a large number of years of aikido study to become aware of the subtlety of what one's head instructors are aiming to communicate. But even that isn't enough, we need reputable people who have then gone on and spent considerable periods of time with a wide variety of high level instructors from unrelated schools (despite the associated politics and the fact that it runs counter to the loyalty most teachers try to imbue), in order to even be qualified to speak on the technical differences between schools. (If you have much personal experience in this you'll understand that even the broadest statements, such as focus on jo/ken or static timing, are also highly suspect. Then there's the problem that there's nowhere reliable to publish because everyone with this special interest lacks independence, and nobody is very good at explaining the techniques in words anyway - ever seen somebody learn a martial art from a book?) As for koshinage, while there may be some schools that prefer the judo version, I see no reason not to believe that the perpendicular version is the standard default across nearly all of aikido (after all that is how the founder taught it right?), and therefore the discussion might be worth including on the "aikido" page but it isn't worth including on "iwama" and "aikikai" and nearly every single other aikido clan page (each along with a copy of a manual for every other technique too - why single out koshinage..). Rather than reason with you at much further length, let me point out the violation of WP:NOR for including material if no source already links it to Iwama-ryu, and the whole matter plausibly is WP:NOT encyclopedic. Cesiumfrog (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct that the self-published material by a qualified but not "expert" author is probably an insufficient source. I'll remove the information -> Shingan-ryu from the page. I singled out koshinage because Shoji Nishio claimed to his students that he personally reintroduced koshinage to the aikikai, in part influenced by his knowledge of judo.

What of the topic of "founder's aikido"?Rufe (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clean up

I've attempted to clean this article up a lot and add citations for much of the information. I removed some citation needed tags placed by myself as they were not intended to challenge the statement and are redundant with the tag at the top

moved to "Iwama style" as "Iwama ryu" is encompassed by style but not visa-versa.

Rufe (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iwama style. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120828234651/http://www.aikidojournal.com:80/article?articleID=374 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=374

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Iwama style. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iwama style. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Iwama style. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]