I studied for a short time on the Chinese mainland, practicing taiji and other systems. I vividly remember a non-martial arts student there asking me once "Why don't you do Western boxing, a style where they actually hit each other?" It took me a while longer to wake up to common sense.
Kano once said that aikido was "true judo," or something along those lines. It actually angered one of his students to hear that.
Some of his other statements showed that he was opposed the head down, muscular, "locking horns" style of grappling that often comes when strength takes the place of technique - as in a lot of judo training. He also opposed training that led to injury, which makes for interesting speculation on how he might view a lot of judo today.
And if you look at Kito-ryu, which he was licensed in and based much of his judo standing methods on, its kata have a lot of aiki-style stuff in it, including several throws that are aikido throws(Ueshiba also studied Kito-ryu).
That's why when I watch the really good BJJ guys, the ones who stay relaxed, fluid and technical, using points of balance and weight against guys of all different sizes I like to wonder if Kano might not reconsider his ideas re: groundfighting and judo.
This is of course heresy in most judo dojo. But there are several high level aikido folks out there who have studied BJJ and written about how its flow and strategies are very similar to aikido. Tim Cartmell has said the same in comparing BJJ to Chinese Internal styles.
The key difference is that the latter kind of technical flow has been developed against resistance, whereas in aikido its not.
I like to think, and it is a huge presumption on my part, that is what Kano meant....