Something I have wondered about for a while now is we have a really good Aikido school close by me and I would love to train there but I dont want to mess up my Taijiquan.
I have seen the classes and they look like advanced Taijiquan push-hands/applications classes.
Does anyone know about training in Aikido to aid in Taijiquan mastery?
I have had some training, not the advanced stuff, but enough to know that there are very similar things going on between the 2 styles. First, there is the idea of the circle, deflection, internal energy work, joint twists/unbalancing/throws stuff that is found in push hands. Some of the sharing for joint manipulations and stuff can be found in things, like Chin Na, which you find in TC push hands. There will be some stuff that’ll be different when you take an aikido class, but you’ll still be in a good position having some TC already. Just think of the stuff you know already, as a refresher course segment of the aikido class. I’m baised towards TC being the main system used, so I’d designate aikido to being a supplimentary system to help refine ones TC and turn it into a form of “Tai Chi Quan-ized Aikido”.
I knew an instructor who taught both Tai Ji and Aikido. He always claimed that the two were sister arts.
There’s also talk out there about Aikido actually having a Bagua influence - Morihei Ueshiba was stationed in China for a while as a soldier, and there’s speculation that he may have learned something there, because it was after this that he developed Aikido.
Regardless of the past, Aikido has a lot to offer to a TaiJi practitioner, particularly one who is in a class that doesn’t do much partnerwork, because Aikido is a Budo - it has no forms, ONLY partnerwork.
Personally, I’d go find a Taiji school that did skill challenge push hands at least. If there is none in the area, though, the Aikido school or any other standup art is a good supplement. Heck, even Rugby helps. 
CSP
Hmmm
I maybe being traditional here, but if you want to get better at Taiji then you must practice, practice, practice Taiji, not another art.
If I wanted to learn how to read French I wouldn’t go out and buy books written in Spanish.
I agree that the best way to help your Taijiquan is to train better Taijiquan. If you like Aikido’s groundwork and weapon work, there are Taijiquan styles that do that, too. The trick is to find them.
There is nothing wrong with Aikido as far as I know, but the footwork, the fundamental stances, are very different.
Greetings..
I spent 2 years in formal Aikido training (early '80s), and meet frequently with Aikido friends today.. The difference in principles is so negligible as to be a non-issue.. don’t let pride in one art deprive you of the value in another.. An aspect of Aikido that i find particularly rewarding is its training follows through to a conclusion of technique.. Most Taiji schools i am familiar with express a techinque with no conclusion, the demonstrations end up with a “then, you can do this or this or that”, but no one is taken to submission or forced to admit no valid defense.. Good Aikido is a thing of beauty and its principles, even by a different name, are closely approximate to Taiji’s.. Blind faith is a weakness..
Be well..
Any style that teaches its students to hit the floor safely has a lot going for it, I don’t want anyone to think that I have anything against Aikido, but I am a Taijiquan teacher, so my bias is obvious, even to me! 
My statement above was solicited as an opinion and presented by me as such (as is everything below), not unequivocal eternal truth. But, so you don’t think that it is entirely blind faith, I should explain where the opinion comes from.
I have two and have had three Aikido black belts from two different styles among my students. I have worked with them and other Aikido students for many years, indeed, for my entire career in Wu style Taijiquan we have had former (and some current) Aikido teachers and students in our school.
Technique-wise, I agree that there are some similarities in principles. Aikido’s locks and throws seem to rely very much (IMO) on a motion quite similar to the “split” power generation lie (, liè), a spiral twist using various size circles in a varying angles of diagonal or horizontal planes relative to the momentum of the opponent. This has the effect of automatically rolling one’s partner along to the ground as they fall, with the degree of relative roll determined by the thrower. It fits very well with the desire not to hurt the opponent, and it is only when performed improperly (usually by accident) that people get hurt in training, IME. Indeed, the Taijiquan that I have learned is one third traditional Chinese medicine, and the Aikido people who come to us have done so when they were hurt this way. They have told me, anecdotally, that there was no provision in their former schools for the injuries they sustained, and it was even recommended once or twice by their teachers that they come to us. Conversely, I had another Aikido black belt get into quite a bit of hot water with her sensei for coming to me for treatment without his prior permission, for the (to my mind justifiable) reasons I set out in the paragraphs below.
As a teacher, if one of my students were to ask me (or tell me!) about concurrently training in another school, I would automatically assume at first that I had failed them as a teacher, by not giving them enough to keep them busy learning and growing in the art. If, after having gone through my entire history with them to see if indeed I had left anything out, I could see that I hadn’t and they did go to another school, I would be done with them. The Taijiquan we’ve inherited is many lifetimes worth of study, and to mix metaphors, unless it was an extremely fortuitous circumstance (there is some precedent for advanced students of our teachers cross-training with exceptional teachers from other styles) impairs that transmission and limits the student’s opportunity to work to their full potential.
There is only so much time in one life, there are only so many students one teacher can teach, if thay have an art worth preserving. I am on the lookout (“like a tiger” as the I Ching says) for students who can make the most of my limited time on this earth, as my teachers were when I met them. Many people disagree with this approach, and that is OK, I don’t have to teach them either.
I hope this helps to explain why I wrote what I did.
Greetings..
But, so you don’t think that it is entirely blind faith, I should explain where the opinion comes from.
I offer humble apologies if my reference to “blind faith” was uncomfortable for anyone..
At some point, i hope, we come to recognize the Taiji in much more than our confined Taijiquan societies..
As a teacher, if one of my students were to ask me (or tell me!) about concurrently training in another school, I would automatically assume at first that I had failed them as a teacher, by not giving them enough to keep them busy learning and growing in the art. If, after having gone through my entire history with them to see if indeed I had left anything out, I could see that I hadn’t and they did go to another school, I would be done with them.
Conversely, i advise my students to experience as much as they can of the “arts”.. if my art is worthy, if my teachings are sufficient, they will return.. It’s not about “me”, or my ego.. it’s more about the Art.. but, mostly, it’s about the student and their well-being.. I’ve been in too many “closed door” schools, where is was punishable by excommunication to visit another school or train with another teacher.. the in-house dogma was repressive and generally fearful of losing students to another school.. Part of the student’s education is to experience a variety of Arts and choose the Art that is in accord with their nature.. My job, as teacher, is to present my preferred Art, Taiji, in a manner that is consistent with Taiji principles and true to the tradition of Art.. but, i can only offer the lessons, not impose or influence the student’s potential beyond the training i offer..
The influence of other Arts will either impede or enhance the student’s progress.. and, that is the cost or reward the student gains or loses.. It is not necessary for me to set boundaries as to whom the student trains with, those boundaries are naturally occurring.. there will be profit or loss through the student’s choices, the boundaries will expand or contract..
Remember, the student chooses the teacher, usually pays the teacher, and a bargain is struck.. the teacher teaches and the student tries to learn.. I explain to my students that you get bsck what you invest in the Arts.. if you fragment your discipline(s) you get fragmented arts.. but, if an experienced student finds similarities and applys good principles to evaluate something like Aikido, i find no fault.. if a student finds favor with Aikido over Taiji i wish them well,and remind them they are welcome here, too..
Exclusiveness, confinement, and “The One True Way” schools are red-flags in my field of experiences.. i have cross-trained in quite a few other martial arts, including prior to Taiji.. it always confirms to me that my direction and purpose in Taiji are valid.. Taiji should free us from the bonds of repressive thinking.. should liberate the student, not confine..
Be well..
Thanks for your reply, it is nice to have a conversation instead of an argument.
There is another side to what we are talking about that I would like to propose for your consideration. It is the relationship of care for the heart one’s teacher puts into teaching. The reciprocity of relationship. My attitude towards the subject doesn’t suppose that what I teach is the only martial art or even the best martial art, it is simply the art that my teachers trained their entire lives to bring to me and my colleagues. That being said, I am awestruck at the level of detail that they took the care to show their students.
When I was learning, I was already doing “Yang” style Taijiquan and they didn’t tell me that I couldn’t continue with those classes. I was a rank beginner, mind you. At a certain point though, not quite a year into it, I saw that I was doing a disservice to the wealth of detail coming in from the Wu style teachers to continue with the relatively uninformed “Yang” style group (they were not proper Yang style, wholly unaffiliated with the actual Yang family), and went voluntarily over to just the one syllabus. Much later, when learning from them about teaching myself, we spent a lot of time going over the sayings passed down in the family as well as in the “classics” regarding teaching.
One of the themes is that students don’t have the knowledge themselves yet to care properly for their relationship with the teacher, while the teacher should have the perspective to support the student and teach consistently and accurately. The student is usually (and should be, within the limits of civility) skeptical and questioning. The student can be forgiven for being skeptical of the teacher, how could they be otherwise with an incomplete demonstration? Later, when the student is a teacher in their own turn, they will see very clearly from their own experiences how the heart of their teacher cared enough to set the right example of generosity for them to follow. That should induce a feeling of gratitude in the student/teacher for the years of sacrifice made by their teacher to thoroughly prepare them that ought to redouble the commitment to teach well in the same spirit. A mercenary approach that dictates success or failure based on monetary concerns and how much info can be cribbed from other styles is antithetical to the approach I was shown, which is why no one has ever heard of my school as well as why I don’t drive a BMW.
This teaching spirit I was shown clearly by Wu Yinghua, Ma Yueliang, Wu Yanxia, Guo Xiaojong and especially Wu Daxin demands great reserve and personal discipline. One has to “show every student the same face” and necessarily leads to a high turnover rate in the students, yet the saying is that fate will send the right students if it is real.
People can run their schools any way they want. For myself, I’m satisfied that the style of Taijiquan that I learned has been methodically structured to unfold in the right way at the right time for my students if the spirit it has historically been taught in is observed. My primary teacher’s cousin, Wu Daqi, was friends with the Wing Chun master Yip Man, they knew each other well, and in the 1950s and 1960s their senior disciples did exchange classes with the other school. Unless trust in that level of expertise is there, though, I can’t in good conscience guarantee my students would benefit from training the hours and weeks and months necessary to actually learn anything beyond a surface appearance with a school that I don’t have a relationship with, whose training principles in many ways contradict mine, and therefore cannot be trusted to look after things the way I know they should be. They may do a good job, they may not. I know my colleagues and I will. I have assumed a responsibilty, one that I owe to the teachers who did the same for me, to recommend what I feel is the best for my students.
Don’t be the Jack of all Trade
Hello,
Although I have a lot of respect for some Aikido lineages (but not all), and that there are many similiarities between the two, I believe that Tai Chi is Tai Chi, and Aikido is Aikido. You cannot confuse between the two…
However, after saying that, what is Tai Chi? What is Aikido anyway? What are you trying to achieve? For myself, I am searching for the ultimate expression in mind and body, and my Tai Chi training had helped me in more ways than I can imagine. But may be what may help you the most is something else?
So IMHO, the bottom line is, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong in doing some Aikido, as long as you know that it is a different system to Tai Chi, and that you are clear what your signature martial art style is. It’s like, Catholic priests/nuns may learn budhist meditations, but they remain Catholics.
Cheers,
John
Greetings..
I am searching for the ultimate expression in mind and body, and my Tai Chi training had helped me in more ways than I can imagine
Likewise.. i think of it as a work in progress.. there are many tools available to help us with this work.. What is odd, to me, is that some people will reject some very valid tools due to pride or prejudice.. insisting that the tools they use are the only ones or the best ones.. This is a blurred vision of the work.. where the tools are more important than the goal.. it is my perspective that we try various tools to achieve the maximum benefit, discard the tools that perform poorly and accept the tools that do the job well..
Taiji, as opposed to Taijiquan is more favorable to the experimentation with differing tools.. Taiji, IMHO, is a way of living, consistent with principles of Taijiquan and Tao, but not exclusive.. Taijiquan, is a specific discipline with specific family sets and guidelines, and is somewhat exclusive.. It’s a bit like a horse with blinders, it goes only where it can see, but it may miss a helpful turn..
As to the issue of teacher respect, i am as loyal and grateful as the next guy to the teachers that have helped me become who i am.. but, it is a two way street.. teachers must also respect the people (individuals) that spend their money and time learning their art.. A full cross-training regimen would present challenges to most beginning and even intermediate students.. i have had all but 2 that tried cross-training return with a better understanding of the wisdom of focus.. as for the 2, they followed their nature and i respect that.. we are still good friends and push regularly..
Taiji is an art that is alive and evolving, otherwise it is stagnant and dying.. it draws greatly from the traditions of Taijiquan, and is open minded toward other influences that are consistent with the guiding principles.. The training i have had in Aikido has deepened my understanding and respect for Taiji and Taijiquan..
Be well..
it probably should depend on what you want from your training …
if you want to improve your tai chi chuan I would study tai chi chuan, assuming you have a good teacher.
if you want to be a better ‘martial artist’ and as you said, the school near you is a good one, then I would say try it out. as far as the martial arts component goes I think it is pretty valuable to listen to differnt peoples energy in different situations, if you only ever listen to your same few classmates energy, studying the same system you are bound to be suprised when you play with another opponent from outside.
in practice most teachers are less thn perfect and if one is serious about their art there is often the question if one should continue or seek out a new path.
I study yang style with a good teacher old, skilled, a student of cheng man ching, and not at all expensive. still, I met a chen style teacher who I am interested to learn from as well. I am not commited to any one style but want to improve martial ability.
I even consider learning some Brazilian jiu jitsu.
good luck train well.
I would definitely recommend it.
Not so much because we need to become BJJ fighters, but so that we do not get tunnel-visioned about our own art.
Plus, it is fun rolling on the mat
Cheers,
John
I must add to this thread as it is quite relevant to my own training history. After decades in kung fu and tai chi, I crossed the cultural gap and joined Aikido. I would now say it is my favorite art even though I am currently learning Chen style TC. The more perspectives you get, the bigger picture you will start to see. Kind of like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. Aikido footwork is different, adding to your variety of mobilization, and one is able to move more quickly without losing your grounding connection. I’ll probably get flamed for this but… the chin-na is way superior. I totally recommend it as supplimentary to TCC. Sensei is always drawing comparisons to the two arts. You will gain much from it as I have.
Hello Greendragon,
I don’t think the Aikido is “way superior”… but it’s ok, you won’t get flamed 
However, I think the most superior techniques in Aikido are the ones done without the need for chin-na or joint locks; why? in real fights, everything’s so chaotic that it becomes too slow or troublesome to excecute the joint locks. Of course, joint locks are still useful when you need to pin down a person or break some joints.
Out of all the Aikido I am aware of (I’m no expert), I like the Saito branch in Japan the most. The Sansei is the son of the original Saito who learned directly from O’Sansei Ueshiba. His methods are fast and powerful, minimal joint locks and tremendousely effective. I’ve see a demo of him countering a sword cut and throwing the person across the room. I’ll probably get flamed for this too but… it was almost bagua. If I’d ever have a chance to stay with him for a week, I’d give an arm for it.
Cheers,
John
Aikido looks more like bagua than taiji. They both like to move in circle. But bagua is way superior than Aikido.
All CMA have chin-na & joint locks, including bagua, taiji & wing chun etc. Chin-na & joint locks can be very deadly in real fights.
Well, I wonder how much hidden knowledge there was in Aikido that O’Sensei did not pass on publicly… Even different schools of Bagua ranges from totally physical or non-martial to highly internal and deadly.
Lets say for instance, O’Sensei talked about spreading the fingers to let the Ki (Qi) flow between them. Looking at the old pictures of him his fingers spread more like good Bagua and good Tai Chi palms than so many of the Aikido practitioners spreading the fingers rigidly these days. The way he cut with his sword resembles an integrated Xingyi technique yet so many people these days just cut with the muscular strength of the arm.
Cheers,
John
In bagua, there are two kinds of practitioners. One goes for the forms, Qi & theories etc stuffs like that. The other one goes for the applications & practical usages etc stuffs like that. Usually, the one that goes for the forms, Qi & theories etc are the one that are more famous.
As for how much hidden knowledge there was in Aikido that O’Sensei did not pass on publicly… Well, who knew whether is there any hidden knowledge or not?
These are some Aikido & Bagua vids that you can watch. You may compare them both.
Aikido:
http://a8.ent.tom.com/player/vplay.php?vid=21691
http://home.kimo.com.tw/tcaa_aikido/movie/satm2.wmv
Bagua:
http://140.117.170.120/johnson/taichi//1/1.rm
http://140.117.170.120/johnson/taichi//1/2.rm
http://140.117.170.120/johnson/taichi//1/3.rm
http://140.117.170.120/johnson/taichi//1/4.rm
http://140.117.170.120/johnson/taichi//1/5.rm
http://140.117.170.120/johnson/taichi//1/6.rm
Hello Jack,
True, by definition, if we know it wouldn’t be hidden
Don’t get me wrong, everyone knows I have a lot of respect for both Bagua and Aikido. And although I do not practice Bagua, I am heavily influenced by it as one of my closest friend is a Bagua expert and we often share ideas (who incidently use to be an Aikido blackbelt many years ago and taught me the basic Aikido sword cuts more than 10 years ago). I think both are very very good martial arts. As long as it is done properly, just like Tai Chi.
Thanks for the video links. They’re great!
Cheers,
John
Baqua Links don’t work.