Base arts vs. "developed" arts

After several assaults by both email and on the boards by the national nit-picking society, a question came to mind that might be a good discussion. It was prompted by several electronic assaults over what I would term "developed arts", such as Aikido and Judo and "base arts" such as Jujutsu and Karate.

While many recognize Daito Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu as the base art of Aikido, it offended some of the Daito Ryu people to even consider "their art" and Aikido as being the same or the techniques as having the same makeup. I even took a beating over one of the comments by a sensei who spoke of Daito Ryu as "the old style" of Aikido (again, no offense intended by either he or I). He spoke of it that way to differentiate between the "Daito" technique and "Aikido" technique.

Clearly, Judo developed from the roots of Kito Ryu and other jujutsu systems in Japan, and no one that I've run across in Judo seems offended to discuss Judo in terms of the Kito Ryu system... but even the Aikido people steam up at talking about Aikido in terms of it being a highly developed form of jujutsu.

As I see it, all technique is evolving, but there have to be some "base techniques" and "base arts" involved in all martial arts. It seems a little short sighted to go off like a bottle rocket anytime someone questions one of them, or brings a different perspective of the art's development, but that seems to be the nature of the beast here... too many "role players" to have a civil discussion.

All of the arts are highly developed today, but many of them are grounded in others that, at the time of their founders study, were not so highly developed, (which prompted the innovations) but have grown together with the "newer" arts as they were tested against other methods.

Thinking of karate as a "hitting art", jujutsu as a "throwing and pinning art", and Aikido as a "blending art", could we have a civil discussion of this without the flame war and hate mail?

Wristtwister. May I suggest something. If an Aikido-ka says he's an Aikido-ka, respect it. Don't go on saying "Oh, you dude, you're just doing a developed jujutsu". That's not nice. If a Judo-ka says he's doing judo, respect it. He's not doing an off-shot of jujutsu. If a Muay Thai boxer is doing MT, respect it. Don't go saying "You're doing Muay Boran blended with boxing".

Some arts has developed so far, it's no longer the same as the mother art, and thus sometimes do not acknowledge any relationship to it. Look at Hapkido, do you think the Koreans will say "We just copied Aiki-jujutsu and put in a little TKD techniques and put on another brandname to it". That's not right, as Hapkido is an art by itself.

Quote:

---

Clearly, Judo developed from the roots of Kito Ryu and other jujutsu systems in Japan, and no one that I've run across in Judo seems offended to discuss Judo in terms of the Kito Ryu system...

---

That's because Judo, is judo. It's a sport developed from theories of different jujutsu styles, put together with emphasiz on throw to make the sport we know today. What do you think if you told a Wado-ryu karate-ka he's doing jujutsu and claiming to be doing karate? Or a TKD practitioner he's doing Shotokan karate with more emphasis on high kicks. I doubt you will get positive answers.

I think, the best thing to do is; if they are saying they are doing an art, respect it. If they are doing Aikido, they are not doing a "developed form of jujutsu". Although the facts are right, it's not right in manners to say that. For example, if I drive a volvo and I say "I'm in an American car", I'd be offended if you came in and said "It's Swedish!" but Volvo got sold to Ford, so technically, it's American.

Anyway, feel flamed!
-Taison out