Is there any documentation besides BK Frantzis that supports a Bagua/Aikido connection?
! I have no idea, I study hopgar
you wanted a answer.
LOL 
There are a few similarities, but many more differences. Aikido is usually described as a development of aikijujutsu, and all the other ‘stuff’ seen as from some kind of internal influence - be it ‘his genius’ or something like bagua. However, most of this stuff comes from Yagyu Shinkage Kenjutsu (a sword art), which is clearly just as foundational, if not more so, for aikido that aikijujutsu is. Some references suggest there is a third, rather obscure art which was also part of aikido. It’s possible that in the history (ie. Pre-Ueshiba) of this art, someone had some contact with baguazhang and incorporated some of it’s methods (but clearly not any significant portion of it’s curriculum) - as there are a few ‘remarkable’ similarities between aikido and baguazhang. On the other hand, it’s possible that unrelated groups of people would come up with the same ‘stuff’ if they had the same mindset and the ‘stuff’ ‘worked.’
The problem alot of people make is that they try to ‘categorize’ arts in terms of the output - aikido is circular, yielding, internal… therefore it’s like the other circular, yielding, internal art, baguazhang. Even at face value, this rough comparison is a little absurd. However, looking deeper it becomes entirely useless. Arts should NOT be categorized on what they do, but rather how they train it. This is an important point. If you compare the training methods of baguazhang and aikido (which I would argue, is truly what the art IS), you will find essentially no similarities. That their ‘output’ shares some similarities becomes unremarkable with this fact.
Or so I would argue, based on what I have seen, read, experienced, and been told. 
Don’t know if this would be considered as off the subject or not, but whether or not Aikido and Bagua have similarities, I noticed more so of the similarites between Aikido and Tai Chi because these similarities are found in the application and are both devastating effects…( By the way, the Aikido I do is Daito Ryu Aikibudo, just so it makes more sense, since modern aikido is so " yeah, you know the type, so peaceful and without the finishing techniques)
Nope. No relation.
I think its a matter of the same good ideas turning up all over the globe…
I trained with a shaolin guy a couple of weeks ago and showed him some applications from capoeira, and he claimed that these techniques was “stolen” from shaolin…So ok…Shaolin had a temple in africa or what?
Actually my capoeira teacher says that capoeira and Aikido is very similair…there must be a connection…NOT!
what applications from capoeira? Describe to me. i cant see any resemblense to capoeira in Shaolin. Perhaps in the northen styles?
I’m just asking because I’ve heard this “connecton” being mentioned a lot in the last couple of years. I read this in a BK book, but never seen a reference anywhere else.
"Arts should NOT be categorized on what they do, but rather how they train it. This is an important point. If you compare the training methods of baguazhang and aikido (which I would argue, is truly what the art IS), you will find essentially no similarities. That their ‘output’ shares some similarities becomes unremarkable with this fact. "
Is that really so important? If the goal of my training, as far as fighting goes, is to be circular and yield, then what does it matter how I train as long as the means helps me to achieve my goal?
Being circular and yeilding are still fairly generic terms that only have meaning in the context of the training methods. The output of Aikido and BaGua or only similar on the most superficial of matters.
HOW you train is everything. It defines your strategy and your tactics. The training doctrine of Aikido is significantly different than any of the BaGua training doctrines I have observed. This results in significantly deifferent results - even though there are superficial ‘circular’ and ‘yielding’ aspects to both arts - how each of those arts interpret and make use of those concepts is entirely different, so it is not really an apples to apples comparison on the outcome.
But this does not mean that you cannot learn from oibserving different arts - or benefit from it. It’s just better to understand the game plan going in.
What he said.
André Nocquet, Aïkido 7th dan who studied personally with M. Ueshiba and his son after his death plainly stated that, I quote him “O Sensei has ben very influenced by some baguazhang he saw during his trips in Mongolia and Mandchouria for the Otomo sect…as a matter of fact, his art used to be very linear at the begining, and it became spiralling only when he came back from China”…
This guys is a very reputable source, and cannot be taxed of sinocentrism, so I guess there’s definitely basis for research here
Cool
Okay, so Ueshiba saw some baguazhang. That still does mean that there is anything more the most highly superficial resemblance.
I mean really…
It’s not referring the techniques of Pakuazhang added to Aikido. He’s mainly referring to the Internal strength and to a smaller extent the evasion that Ueshiba got from studying it. It has nothing to do with techniques. We all know that the techniques of Aikido came from Aikijutsu and Kenjutsu. Pakuazhang is an offensive art and Aikido totally defensive, so theres no way possible that Aikido could have techniques from it except of course evasion. Although Aikido is classified as “soft” and “internal” it’s not exactly known for building “chi” (or internal strength). So when Ueshiba studied Pakua, as frail and weak looking as he was, he was known for incredible speed and strength. He was known like a Pakua practitoner to “dissapear” and a person would be on the floor in pain before they knew what happened to them. I think thats the connection this Franztis guy is making.
cross train Aikido (old-school) with Pakua, then you will be on your way of what Aikido probebly would have looked like if O sensei descovered Pakua earlier in his life. Thats what I thinks.
no connection
Ueshiba was in China as an invading soldier in an invading army.
He didn’t have any time to learn any Chinese arts.
There are only so many ways to move the body. so some moves from the Tango might look like bagua moves, some moves from capoiera might look like N shaolin stuff. And so on and so on.
There are moves in Isshinryu that look like S. Shaolin Moves, and you could go on comparing til the end of time.
He was a soldier during the occupation. I dont think there was much fighting at that time so of course he had time to learn. Just like the American occupation after WW2. The Japanese still taught the soldiers there Karate, Jujutsu, and Judo. He could of learned on many occasions in his life not wriiten down, so you cant just dismiss it