# The Effectiveness Of BBT.



## MJS (Sep 14, 2009)

I'll preface this thread by saying the following:

1) My intent is *not* to start a flame war.  Therefore, I respectfully ask that all posts that follow, keep this in mind.  

2) The only Ninjutsu experience that I have is from what I've read online, in books, and personally viewing it live, from Greg Kowalski, here in CT.

That being said, here goes......

It seems like BBT, the art headed by Soke Hatsumi, gets beat on like a dead horse.  During my free time, I'll lurk on various forums.  Seems like innocent discussions on an aspect of the art, always turn into the my art vs. your art debates.  It seems, to me anyways, that the majority of detractors of the art, a) have no experience in the art, b) base their opinions off youtube, c) just jump on the bandwagon because they have nothing better to do, d) base their opinion of the art off of one visit to a dojo, e) are most likely keyboard warriors that probably haven't set foot in any dojo, but most likely spend their time pretending their the next Bruce Lee, and imitate what they see in their backyard.  I was watching a thread the other day, and found it interesting that one 'authority' on the art, couldn't even post without serious spelling errors, yet he's saying the art isn't good??  Sounds like he should spend more time in English class, rather than commenting on an art he most likely knows little about.

Now, some students of the art tend to say that the art is not about fighting, which of course leads to the question, "Well, why study something if you can't use it?"  The reply to that is that there is more to it than just fighting.

People also go on to make the usual MMA vs. Taijutsu comparisons, asking why its not used in 'the ring', and who a student of the Bujinkan could even think about multiple opponents, if they can't even handle one with effectiveness.

Youtube is also brought into the mix, with the detractors usually searching YT, and posting clips.  Of course, to aid their defense, they assume that what you see on the clip, is standard par for the course in ALL BBT dojos.  

The other 2 X-kan groups, Genbukan and Jinenkan don't seem, to me at least, to take nearly the heat the the Bujinkan does.  Maybe they do, but its usually the Buj that takes the heat.  Are they doing things so different that they fly under the radar of the trolls?

I've heard that people have used the art with success, in RL situations, so one would think the art is good and effective.  So whats with the bashing?  What is it about the art of BBT that seems to attract the trolls, for lack of better words?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 14, 2009)

I am not a Bujinkan member (Genbukan).

1) The first thing that comes to mind is that the US is Bujinkan territory. Since English is this board's language, There will be many Americans here. -> if people will bash something, Bujinkan is a more attractive target.

2) The ninja hype of the 80s didn't help either, with people forming an opinion about BBT based on the ninja larpers they have seen in action. I don't mind admitting that I had my doubts about ninpo at first, based on the larpers I met 15 years ago when I was still doing modern JJ.

3) Ninpo practisioners typically don't step into a ring / octagon / cage, so its effectiveness is less visible to people than for example kickboxing.

3b) what doesn't help is that BBT is more about feel / principles, rather than techniques by themselves (please correct me if I am wrong. I got this impression from reading MT). While I am not judging that philosophy, it has led to a wide difference in skills of BBT teachers, and I think that the good get judged by what the bad do.

4) Grading in BBT is totally unlike any other system, which adds to the confusion when dan grades are compared to dan grades in other systems.

I am sure there are more reasons, but the ones above came to mind as possible explanations of the phenomena described by the OP.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 14, 2009)

I think that all forms of ninjutsu tend to attract newcomers who are, shall we say, other than the typical MA student.  I do not think that this means that any form of legitimate ninjutsu training is disreputable, but I do think it has suffered badly from the exposure it has received in the movies and various other media.

The very term 'ninja' has become synonymous (for some) with hokey, fake, and childish.  This is confirmed to some extent by the occasional wide-eyed post made by someone clearly of a young age or maturity level who wishes to become 'a ninja' by home-study.  One imagines a frail, pock-faced, picked-on young person of unsteady self-confidence and low self-esteem who cannot get a date and lives in his parent's house until the age of 30 or so.

I mean, it's bad enough when a young person steps into an Okinawan karate dojo and declares that they don't want to learn to kick, block, or punch, they just want to learn weapons like 'numb chucks' and sai.  But when a young person imagines themselves capable of learning to hang from walls like Spiderman or become invisible...





To answer your question, I think it is simply the cultural understanding (or lack of same) of the word 'ninja' that attracts all the heat. I do not know why one school would attract more 'trolls' than another, though.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

I am going to show examples of Genbukan training:

http://www.genbukan.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?genbukan_techniques

 As you can see the techniques are done with no pressure testing causing a false sense of being able to apply said technique in a realistic fashion.

This type of training is what most critics see and are critical of. Uke just standing there looking bored or day dreaming. You see it in countless video clips of Uke not resistancing,not trying to counter or follow up just dead compliance.

 It is not the techniques that are lacking you find the same in every art it is the manner of how it is trained. 

Without pressure testing the technique it stands a greater chance of failure. Alot of critics practice pressure testing in their arts like Judo randori and Muay Thai sparring which the average X-kan practicer is not engaging in at those speeds in the beginning at least. 

In Japan when I trained in the Genbukan I put a little resistance when I was Uke and the technique could not be pulled off and this was not against a kyu rank mind you. Another time I remember I was Uke in America and the Tori had to to a reversal to put me down all he did was spin on his ***. I got plenty of these stories some of them were Kyu some of them were Dan rank ALL OF THEM HIGHER RANK THEN ME.

So IMO it is not the art its not the techniques it is people are blindly following and not questioning there teachers who they themselves may not know how to apply the technique under pressure. This is why the X-kans get flack the Sensei worshipping,Ninja role playing,no pressure testing. I am not the only one who has seen it in 4 dojos in America and in Japan others have stated similar findings train alive stay alive.


----------



## MJS (Sep 14, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> I am not a Bujinkan member (Genbukan).
> 
> 1) The first thing that comes to mind is that the US is Bujinkan territory. Since English is this board's language, There will be many Americans here. -> if people will bash something, Bujinkan is a more attractive target.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for your post.  To adress some points:

1 and 2) IMO, and I may be wrong, but it seems that much of the training has changed from what it used to be, to what we see today.  By change, I mean, like any martial art, things do change.  Just seems that the contact and the overall look of the training is different.  

3) True, and although he was billed as Ninjutsu, I don't think many are looking at Steve Jennum as a BBT or any Kan member for that matter.  However, from a training standpoint, is stepping into 'the ring' that much of a precursor as to benig effective or not?  Would someone look down on me if I said I train BJJ, but don't have any interest in rank testing or competing, but just the training, the workout, etc.?  Some don't have any desire to enter the UFC, NAGA or anything of that nature.  

Now, some may make an exception if sparring is done.  I know there are many Kan students that regularly pressure test or devote special classes to that sort of stuff.  2 that come to mind are David Dow in Ca. who has a Taijutsu Alive class on his site, as well as the Dayton Bujinkan Dojo, which offers a randori class.

3b) Yes, I've heard the same thing, regarding the 'feel' of the techs., the material, the lesson, etc.

4) Coming from a non-Buj background, I've noticed the same thing.  Going only on my impressions, it seems like its very relaxed and not standardized, vs. what we see in the other 2 Kans.


----------



## MJS (Sep 14, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think that all forms of ninjutsu tend to attract newcomers who are, shall we say, other than the typical MA student. I do not think that this means that any form of legitimate ninjutsu training is disreputable, but I do think it has suffered badly from the exposure it has received in the movies and various other media.
> 
> The very term 'ninja' has become synonymous (for some) with hokey, fake, and childish. This is confirmed to some extent by the occasional wide-eyed post made by someone clearly of a young age or maturity level who wishes to become 'a ninja' by home-study. One imagines a frail, pock-faced, picked-on young person of unsteady self-confidence and low self-esteem who cannot get a date and lives in his parent's house until the age of 30 or so.
> 
> ...


 
Hey Bill,

I think you hit the nail on the head here.  I mean, aside from the early SKH books, I think its pretty safe to admit that there was some pretty hokey stuff as far as movies go.  So, if people, like me, watched the countless Sho Kosugi movies...well, I think you see where I'm going.   Main difference being, is that some of us, like myself, understood that this was a movie.  I'm sure there were and still are people who watched that stuff and thought what they were seeing what really Ninjutsu.


----------



## MJS (Sep 14, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> I am going to show examples of Genbukan training:
> 
> http://www.genbukan.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?genbukan_techniques
> 
> ...


 
Likewise, that is one of my biggest pet peeves in my training (Kenpo) as well.  Nothing pisses me off more, than someone choking me, and they're giving me a shoulder massage.  Choke me dammit!! LOL!  Same with a punch.  Hit me in the face!  If I don't move, then I guess I get hit.  

Now, of course, during the initial learning, and I'd go so far as to say this is par for the course in all arts, the techs. are done slow at first, to get the fine points, etc., with gradual pressure and resistance added in.  So, in other words, by the 10th time I do this tech., I'd expect to have to move or get hit by that hard punch racing to my face.  Additionally, take it a step further....once the basic tech. is done with resistance, add in something else.  Ex: Opponent does right punch.  Defender goes thru the start of the tech., but O adds in a kick after the punch, or throws a 2nd punch, grabs, whatever.  This forces the defender to adapt to whats happening at the time, makes it alive, and adds in movement.

So, perhaps if we saw similar techs. as you listed above, done that way, but then with progressive aliveness/resistance, the doubters would have a change of heart?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

Just to address Steven Jennum won 2 fights out of the 5 he fought. He won mostly with grappling that looks more like wrestling or BJJ he was a student of Robert Bussey so clearly there is a wide difference.




 

Scott Morris record 2 wins one lose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbaa...FCD04DE7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> Likewise, that is one of my biggest pet peeves in my training (Kenpo) as well. Nothing pisses me off more, than someone choking me, and they're giving me a shoulder massage. Choke me dammit!! LOL! Same with a punch. Hit me in the face! If I don't move, then I guess I get hit.
> 
> Now, of course, during the initial learning, and I'd go so far as to say this is par for the course in all arts, the techs. are done slow at first, to get the fine points, etc., with gradual pressure and resistance added in. So, in other words, by the 10th time I do this tech., I'd expect to have to move or get hit by that hard punch racing to my face. Additionally, take it a step further....once the basic tech. is done with resistance, add in something else. Ex: Opponent does right punch. Defender goes thru the start of the tech., but O adds in a kick after the punch, or throws a 2nd punch, grabs, whatever. This forces the defender to adapt to whats happening at the time, makes it alive, and adds in movement.
> 
> So, perhaps if we saw similar techs. as you listed above, done that way, but then with progressive aliveness/resistance, the doubters would have a change of heart?


 Lets take two examples:Ippon Seoi nage both Judo and X-kan have this technique. Both start out teaching Ippon slowly maybe no resistance so Uke can learn the technique. This is where the similaries end. Judo will then go into Randori and pressure test Ippon while the X-kan will just learn the technique and not engage in the randori type training Judo does.

This is the difference and what most people are critical of.


----------



## MJS (Sep 14, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Just to address Steven Jennum won 2 fights out of the 5 he fought. He won mostly with grappling that looks more like wrestling or BJJ he was a student of Robert Bussey so clearly there is a wide difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Oh, I'm not slamming Jennum.  Personally, he impressed me more than Morris.  Only reason I said what I did, was that many from the Kans feel that Hayes and Bussey, even though both trained with Hatsumi, both went their own ways, own thing, etc. are the black sheep.  But seeing that it was brought up, what are your thoughts on Bussey?


----------



## MJS (Sep 14, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Lets take two examples:Ippon Seoi nage both Judo and X-kan have this technique. Both start out teaching Ippon slowly maybe no resistance so Uke can learn the technique. This is where the similaries end. Judo will then go into Randori and pressure test Ippon while the X-kan will just learn the technique and not engage in the randori type training Judo does.
> 
> This is the difference and what most people are critical of.


 
So why then, do we never see any of the Kans posting the techs. at a faster pace or more alive?  I mean, if they're going to post clips of techs slow, I'd think it'd only make sense to post them doing the tech. quick.  

While I'm sure there'd still be some that thought it was BS, I'm thinking if we saw things quicker, it may satisfy others.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 14, 2009)

Hi,

I must be a little bored right now, so I guess I'll weigh in...

The effectiveness is not really ever about the effectiveness of the art, but the effectiveness of the training methods. After all, a kick to the knee is a kick to the knee, a punch to the face is a punch to the face (etc etc...). So I think we can all agree that the particular technical aspects of BBT (or any other combative art) can be as effective as any other. That brings us to training methods...

Over the years, the Bujinkan has gone through a number of very distinct training approaches. In the 60's and 70's the training was very restricted in terms of numbers, and was focused on hard body conditioning and (sometimes brutal) application of technique. Hatsumi himself has spoken about the way he taught and trained in those days, saying that he often went too hard and too far in the application, but everyone seemed to be fine with it.

This was followed by a focus on basics (such as the Kihon Happo and Sanshin no Gata) as the art spread around the world, particularly to Western countries such as the US. At this time the Ten Chi Jin Ryaku no Maki became the standard teaching manual. However, the art was spreading in many directions, and rather than establish firm control over the organisation, Hatsumi Sensei chose to leave the teaching in the hands of the individual instructors which has had the downside of having vastly wide ranging levels of skill and standards across the organisation.

Due to the large numbers, and very different ability levels, the training developed again into what became known as the Bujinkan's "Happy Heart" training. This was from the late 80's into the 90's, and was characterised by very relaxed movement, and focus on the "feeling" rather than form or power. It is thought that a large part of the reason was to ensure safety for the large number of people now training in the art.

Eventually Hatsumi saw that this was weakening the practitioners, and it was time to change again. The story goes that around 1996 (from memory...) he was teaching a sword technique (using bokken), and the senior Japanese Black Belt was attacking with a "Happy Heart". Hatsumi told him to atack again, properly this time. The Black Belt attacked with a "Happy Heart". Hatsumi told him again to attack properly, and again was presented with a "Happy Heart". This time, Hatsumi struck down in responce to the attacking Black Belts forehead, leaving the watching group in shock. As the blood trickled down the Black Belt's foehead, Hatsumi turned to the mostly Western group there, and said "Playtime is over". Thus the period of "Happy Heart" training came to an end.

And finally, as we have moved into the 2000's, Hatsumi has been spending more and more time focusing on the more "philosophical" aspects of the training, with yearly themes such as Budo of Life, Budo of Zero, Koteki Ryuda, and this year a theme of no theme... This has been reflected in a training method that is slow, and relies on concepts of manipulation of space, distance, angling etc, and is mainly demonstrated on simple attacks to demonstrate the concepts fully, however these attacks and defences are not exactly realistic. And they are not meant to be.

The problem comes about when many members of the Bujinkan believe that they should only train exactly as they have seen in Japan, or more realistically, how they believe it is done in Japan (how they percieved it, even if they were there, is not always accurate) without the requisite background that the Bujinkan as a qhole has gone through, and the background that Hatsumi Sensei has spent many decades accruing. Very simply, by only training the way it is done in Japan, you are skipping to the end, and will not be able to really do what is shown, as you will be missing the basis that is required. However, a good instructor will be able to take you through that part.

It should be remembered that the way Hatsumi teaches is really designed for only the high level practitioners with the requisite background to understand, not the less experienced. But the way that Hatsumi has set things up is by telling everyone that if they are not training with him in Japan, they are not getting the "real" art. This is, I must say, simply a control method. And it again has the downside of leaving many practitioners behind who do not have the experience to get the benefit of the way that Hatsumi Sensei teaches. 

As I'm sure you can see, I feel that the Bujinkan as a whole would benefit greatly from having much stricter standards, people would be able to get more out of the information and education that Hatsumi Sensei gives them, and the art as a whole would be much more positively recieved. These standards are found in organisations such as the Genbukan and the Jinenkan, and as MJS said, they are rarely targeted the same way the Bujinkan is. But the practical upside of everything is that it is entirely Hatsumi Sensei's organisation, and what he says goes as far as the Bujinkan is concerned.

To address the other parts of the OP, "Why study something if you aren't going to use it?", well, I personally really enjoy spear work, but a nine-foot long straight spear against a battlefield sword has little relevance to todays world. So why do I train it? Well, it teaches a management of distance, it has certain targeting principles that can be very easily adapted, it teaches you to comfortably handle an oversized and cumbersome weapon, it teaches an appreciation for the historical realities of the art, and more. But the reason is always going to be a personal one, and as far as the practical elements involved in the art, the sheer breadth of knowledge gives more practical elements and principles than any specialised system (such as a sporting art). And that brings us to...

"MMA vs TMA" arguments, really sport and sparring versus non-sparring non-competitive. This has been covered many times, so to sum up, sparring is not real fighting and has as many drawbacks as benefits, teaching habits that can be downright dangerous when it comes to real violence, so the idea of it not being seen in a ring is kind of moot. Oh, and Steve Jennum when he entered the UFC had left his association with Robert Bussey and his RBWI, which was a system that Bob developed out of his experiences in Bujinkan (known in the day as Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu), Tae Kwon Do, and a number of other arts. Steve then went out on his own, but at this point we are about 3 or 4 steps removed from the Bujinkan, so labelling him as a Ninjutsu practitioner was showbiz as much as anything else.

But in essence, the difference is not in the arts, it is in the way it is trained. If resistance is used, and pressure testing is part of the training methods, then it is certainly a very effective system. But if they are trained only softly, with little to no resistance or pressure testing, slowly, without the requisite years of serious training behind them (as Hatsumi and many of the seniors have), then things can fall down quite easily, with most of the detractors comments being fairly valid. Fortunately, many instructors are intelligent enough to avoid this trap.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

Long are the days of bad 80's music and Ninjutsu assasins:





 
Notice his http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHXUxw1NsLI&feature=related

Some of the themes are there but similar to Toshindo.

 Is it bad,wrong no not really it is not traditional and seems to work more boxing and Western arts it also is bigger on what works what doesn't approach rather then static training and tradition also as seen with Toshindo there seems to be more pressure testing with the techniques offering a more realstic approach. So really its taking the same techniques and training them in a more realistic manner.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> So why then, do we never see any of the Kans posting the techs. at a faster pace or more alive? I mean, if they're going to post clips of techs slow, I'd think it'd only make sense to post them doing the tech. quick.
> 
> While I'm sure there'd still be some that thought it was BS, I'm thinking if we saw things quicker, it may satisfy others.


 
Thats right they learn the techniques but do not pressure test it.

You almost never see this in the X-kan:





 
This is pressure testing. They learned the the techniques slowly and now they are testing it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 14, 2009)

There are a number of Bujinkan dojo's that train very hard and would be physically challenging to anyone stepping in to train.  I have been to a number myself. (particularly back in the day)  What this really boils down to is the alive vs. not alive training. (that is the crux of the situation)  I am happy to say that quite a few Budo Taijutsu practitioners do get out there and have alive training in what they are doing. (though definitely not all






)  I can remember just a short while ago where some friends in the Bujinkan where up at my IRT Training Hall and engaged in fukuro shinai sparring and some rolling. (next time I will video tape it)  They were also good and did well.  So mileage varies and while the majority probably do not train alive there are quite a few that do.  

In any system though it will come down to the practitioner in the end and what they can do with their training.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 14, 2009)

Chris addressed this well, I just want to hit upon 2 things that were mentioned before...

1) Youtube is the bane of our existence.  I don't think those videos need to be there, but they are so from my "educated" perspective; Most of the videos posted are demo videos.  Not being done at speed, not showing "realistic" application of technique, often with pauses as the instructor speaks.  Typically they are Kata video, and our Kata are just that Kata, despite the fact they are done with a second person who is throwing punches and kicks, their use in application is no different than a Solo Kata in, say, Karate or TaeKwonDo.  Its to teach a certain body movement.  Why people don't post more of their stuff being "used"... I'd venture to guess from past experience at many schools I've visited, It's not done often and usually only at higher ranks.  So there is less of it out there.  Also a lot of taijutsu doesnt look like much when its done correctly, so people would probably STILL look at those videos and go "Wuhhuh, durrr (insert drool here) dat guy jes feel down on himsown, it gots tah be fake.  I go watch WWF naw. Git me another Pabst"

2) There are a large number of people who feel that 100% emulation of what is seen in Japan is neccessary.  "Do like Hatsumi, now and always" but often you find these are the same people telling you "Hatsumi is only teaching to the shihan".  

How's that for a confusing message?

I think they forget that the "Old Guard" as it were DID this stuff hard, pressure tested the hell out of it and proved to themselves that It worked... that many of us were not there for that and need to do it as well to develop the kind of skill that Hatsumi and the old guard have now. For most of them It didnt come overnight from doing flow drills.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

But those who do train alive is like what 20% where 80% train dead?

  For every clip we find of alive training we find the majority doesn't.

There are quite alot of people who trained in the X-Kan(myself included) who can testify that the majority of X-Kan training is dead/stale,no resistance,unrealistic attack patten. I am not even talking about sport vs non sport or TMA vs MMA this is about aliveness vs compliance and the X-kan is not the only one guility of this. But the problem is not questioning your teacher about this(who may not even know he is training stale) and turning a blind eye if you are going to step up and call yourself a Martial art and effectiveness for self defense then its time to train like that. Instead of turning away from critics like Bull shi do people should get off the Soke/teacher worshipping and put their training to the test. I see alot of following in the X-kan and not enough free thinking anyway I will get off my Soap box:soapbox:


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Chris addressed this well, I just want to hit upon 2 things that were mentioned before...
> 
> 1) Youtube is the bane of our existence. I don't think those videos need to be there, but they are so from my "educated" perspective; Most of the videos posted are demo videos. Not being done at speed, not showing "realistic" application of technique, often with pauses as the instructor speaks. Typically they are Kata video, and our Kata are just that Kata, despite the fact they are done with a second person who is throwing punches and kicks, their use in application is no different than a Solo Kata in, say, Karate or TaeKwonDo. Its to teach a certain body movement. Why people don't post more of their stuff being "used"... I'd venture to guess from past experience at many schools I've visited, It's not done often and usually only at higher ranks. So there is less of it out there. Also a lot of taijutsu doesnt look like much when its done correctly, so people would probably STILL look at those videos and go "Wuhhuh, durrr (insert drool here) dat guy jes feel down on himsown, it gots tah be fake. I go watch WWF naw. Git me another Pabst"
> 
> ...


 
Most of the videos teach how it is done in a typical class. The Bujinkan dojo I went to teaches the same. 3 Genbukan dojos I have been to teach the same way only stricter. Also many people on other forums have said similar conclusions making the videos proof of the claims. Most of the techniques done in the 3 Genbukan dojos and Bujinkan dojo were done at slow to meduim speed with no reistance or aliveness in training very different than say Judo randori. I have seen and been on the recieving end of higher rank kyus then me and also dan ranks and because of the false sense of performing the technqiues could not perform the technique on a resisting person. Other people on other forums have come to similar conclusions. Again it is not the technique because you find a lot of the techniques in Judo yet the majority are able to make it work at a fast pace against a resisting opponent and these are people at the lower kyus not upper dans. I know people are going to jump and say but they did not have Kuzushi,distance,Atemi,setup etc etc....True to an extent Judo trains against resistancing opponents at a fast speed and they do have to figure in all that as well. It is not that they did not set up,Atemi,Distance,Kuzushi it is that the X-Kan member had a false sense of security in performing the  technique on a dead Uke and now can not figure out how to set up distance,timing,Kuzushi on a resisting opponent see the difference? I use Judo alot as an example because alot of similar techniques with the X-kans.

Hatsumi and his students in the olden days may have trained in a realistic fashion giving them awareness on how to apply the technique and what works what didn't what sets up a technique. But students today are not training like that in the majority are holding on to false pretense that they can defend themselves against an encounter.

I wish the X-kan would look at what the critics are saying even Ex-X-kan members who were in the X-kan before we may have a valid point.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 14, 2009)

I understand the argument for randori, and to an extent I agree with it.
However, training slow and medium speed definitely has its advantages too. If you learn something new, you do it slow, just to learn the correct movement. Then comes medium speed in order to get a feeling for the flow. Then comes high speed.

At least, that is how it is done in my dojo. I had the luck of training a lot with my sensei in private, and by the time I knew what I was doing regarding some basic techniques, he really picked up the pace and started mixing various attacks.

Currently, the only techniques I have been pressured at high speed is tai sabaki though. A couple of times during punch / block drill, my sensei has attacked me with the warning that he would try to hit me full power full speed. And from what I can judge, this was indeed the case. So I really think it depends on the dojo and the sensei.

By the time we grade, we have also tested against resisting opponents, even though we start out doing a lot of things slowly. We don't rush through the kyu grades so every student has lots of time to ingrain the new techniques.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 14, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> I am going to show examples of Genbukan training:
> 
> http://www.genbukan.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?genbukan_techniques
> 
> ...



I'm not disputing your personal experiences -- but I don't think those videos are fair samples to prove your point, any more than a series of line drawings to show how to do a technique are proof that it works against resistance.  The videos linked above are clips out of videos being sold as references and training aids.  The techniques are being done slower (in some cases), and with no real resistance to simply show how to do them.  It's like you're trying to prove that someone can't jam musically by showing them practicing scales...


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I'm not disputing your personal experiences -- but I don't think those videos are fair samples to prove your point, any more than a series of line drawings to show how to do a technique are proof that it works against resistance. The videos linked above are clips out of videos being sold as references and training aids. The techniques are being done slower (in some cases), and with no real resistance to simply show how to do them. It's like you're trying to prove that someone can't jam musically by showing them practicing scales...


 To illustrate the point I will use the Ippon Seoi nage then. Look here: http://www.genbukan.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?kokusai_techniques
Though its not Ippon persay close enough. 

In Judo you would learn Ippon the same way: 



 
So nothing wrong with the technique both X-kan and Judo teach it the same way to learn it. Here is where things take a big difference.

The X-kan will practice Seoi nage just like the clips without adding pressure testing or resistance. While the Judoka will start adding pressure testing. Seoi nage should then look like these: 



 
Most schools in the X-kan are not practicing like that.

The videos are training however a typical class looks exactly like that.



> I understand the argument for randori, and to an extent I agree with it.
> However, training slow and medium speed definitely has its advantages too. If you learn something new, you do it slow, just to learn the correct movement. Then comes medium speed in order to get a feeling for the flow. Then comes high speed.


 I do not have any quarrel with learning technique slow or meduim speed I think learning technique slow is a good thing. The thing is if we take say 5th kyu of X-Kan and 5th Kyu of Judo teach them both Seoi nage the Judo 5th kyu will be able to perform it in Randori at fast speed and the X-kan will not. The reason is the 5th kyu will have pressure training during Randori sessions while the X-kan 5th kyu will be practicing it at slow speed only. 



> At least, that is how it is done in my dojo. I had the luck of training a lot with my sensei in private, and by the time I knew what I was doing regarding some basic techniques, he really picked up the pace and started mixing various attacks.


 Dojo miles will vary however the majority of X-kan practice dead,nonresisting techniques and I hear the arugement well when you go higher up in the dans then you can go fast this type of mindset is a cop out really.



> Currently, the only techniques I have been pressured at high speed is tai sabaki though. A couple of times during punch / block drill, my sensei has attacked me with the warning that he would try to hit me full power full speed. And from what I can judge, this was indeed the case. So I really think it depends on the dojo and the sensei.


 Its good the punch was thrown at full speed at least you know how to apply your art at the intensity of a real strike. If more people trained like this the X-kans would not get so much flack.




> By the time we grade, we have also tested against resisting opponents, even though we start out doing a lot of things slowly. We don't rush through the kyu grades so every student has lots of time to ingrain the new techniques.


 I never saw one resistancing Uke in Japan except me at Soka dojo. At Harukaze dojo going over the material no resisting and those two dojos are pretty high level(7th and 6th dans) 

I don't know how much resistancing is going on but I doubt it is at the level you find in Randori and in Judo if it is good for you!! Your dojo goes against the majority of X-kan.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 14, 2009)

The Myth of the Fully Resisting Opponent may be of interest.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 14, 2009)

I will bow out. I have made my point the X-kan in majority do not train realistic others have come to the same conclusion. If you have not well good luck with your training.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 15, 2009)

Now Jadecloud, you appear to have become more jaded where the X-Kan are concerned over the past year or so. Are you sure you aren't just looking through slightly shaded glasses here?

But to the point, I agree that non-compliant training is not only important, but required. But that is very different to the randori of Judo, and those differences need to be explored.

In Judo (and any other sparring in sporting arts here, whether it is rolling in BJJ, sparring in Karate, or any other), the use of randori is a method of developing the ability to apply your techniques against someone else who is trying to stop you from applying it, and apply their own. This is set up in a very restricted situation, usually with only one or a few ranges, methods of technique (throws and grappling, or strikes and kicks, or a combination of both), number of opponents, and rules to safe-guard what is happening. This is very good training to get you able to apply over time (a competitive match) against another person looking to do the same thing.

But that is not what you will find in a real fight/self defence situation. Here, as stated in the article JKS linked to, your opponent is not defending against you, they are not resisting you (in that they are not "stopping" your techniques), they are simply attacking you in order to hurt you. Ideally, what they want is to attack you, and keep attacking you, so that you never even begin to defend yourself, and so you certainly don't attack back. So if you do, you will get a very different form of "resistance" to that which you would get in randori, rolling, sparring, or the ilk. And that is trained for in a very different way.

The idea of pressure testing, non-compliance in training, is not the same as sparring, randori or rolling. But it is essential. Slow to learn, then definately speed up and remove compliance. But that will require the instructor having a very good understanding of this very difference, and the implications that are involved. And in that I go back to my initial comment that it is far more the instructor than the art.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 15, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> But that will require the instructor having a very good understanding of this very difference, and the implications that are involved. And in that I go back to my initial comment that it is far more the instructor than the art.



And why my comments weren't directed so much at the detractors of the art, but a commend on some people in the art itself.  (Well, and the video stuff)


----------



## xJOHNx (Sep 15, 2009)

I can only speak from my own point of view, for my own dojo and from the little I read in this whole thread.

What I experienced is that Jinenkan (don't know for the other two X-kans, although I think Bujinkan is closer to it), is not a style that puts heavy focus on a certain aspect of combat. Like boxing or BJJ. People who study Taijutsu seem to be more jack of all trades. Not excelling in something, but still able to do something in every aspect of combat (stand up, defense against weaponry, groundwork).

Training here and elsewhere still is with Uke's that resist. I once got smacked on the head with a shinai because I wasn't struggling enough. 
Also when chokes are involved we are expected to push through (controlled though), so that we could endure the situation and feel what is is ( to mimic real life).

This way, Taijutsu becomes a good art that can keep up with the rest. I come form muay thai and I like jinenkan alot. The locks, the sometimes more complex maneuvres, the time I have to invest to become better. 

When I did one free lesson of Bujinkan, I noticed how sloppy most of the techniques were. No straight back, no angling the body so that you avoid the surface where the opponent can strike, lots of open space when performing a technique. Things I didn't see when I started going to free jinenkan classes.

I don't know why that was, bad teacher, just bad students, the art itself? No idea.

peace


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 15, 2009)

Chris,
I have nothing against the X-kan I have nothing against the techniques.



> another person looking to do the same thing.
> 
> But that is not what you will find in a real fight/self defence situation. Here, as stated in the article JKS linked to, your opponent is not defending against you, they are not resisting you (in that they are not "stopping" your techniques), they are simply attacking you in order to hurt you.


 If you throw a jab at an opponent he will either move or block this is defending. If you try to put a joint lock on an opponent he will resist this is also defending. 
The article is flawed and I will post all the flaws at the end of this post.


> The idea of pressure testing, non-compliance in training, is not the same as sparring, randori or rolling. But it is essential. Slow to learn, then definately speed up and remove compliance. But that will require the instructor having a very good understanding of this very difference, and the implications that are involved. And in that I go back to my initial comment that it is far more the instructor than the art.


 Randori has pressure testing and non-compliance it has more aliveness then a prearranged attack like you find in say Ichimonji no kata. 
You are saying more like we are to D3adly 2 Spar and it takes time to develop this skill. Take a 5th kyu X-kan and a 5th kyu Judoka teach them the same technique Seoi nage and see which one can apply it against a resistacing opponent my money is on the Judoka and I have posted videos of Judoka doing Seoi nage against reistancing opponents this is as close as you are going to get to combat without endangering your opponents life. But then X-kan say but but in theory on paper if your timing,distancing is good you can defend yourself in a steet encounter yes in theory but with out putting that to the test how will you know?

Go read up on Bullshido look at the countless examples. Most have no beef with technique but a major beef on the unrealistic training.

Now for the article:



> I submit that if you have never had anyone try to gouge your eyes out to escape from a rear naked strangle, you've never tried the technique against a "fully resisting opponent". The first time, I let go of the strangle to protect my eyes. The second time, I knew better. (Edit- but one eye is still blurry almost twenty years later. From that eye gouge or the one four years later?


 Ok if you put on a rear naked choke correct and tight he is not going to have time to try to gouge your eyes so Fail#1
A correct Rear naked choke watch how fast he goes: 



 


> In the time it takes to put someone in a juji gatame and start to yell "Back off or I'll break his arm!" You can easily be kicked in the head three times. Maybe more. I remember the first three pretty well.


 Ok Juji gatame is this: 



I am guessing he means when dealing with multiple opponents: Putting yourself on the ground when facing multiple opponents is stupid. Fail#2


> If you've feel you've hit a real opponent as hard as you can hit, take the gloves off and try again. I've known people with shattered hands to keep punching, and people with broken skulls to keep fighting.


 Oh really because research says this: 





> Most reputable studies[1][2] have shown that gloved fights cause more severe and more long-term brain and eye injuries than bare-knuckle fights, although the incidence of superficial injuries (cuts, bruising) is reduced. In part this can also be attributed to more, shorter rounds in modern fights made possible by the use of gloves, which results in longer fights than earlier. Such research is often ignored by boxing promoters, as there is a feeling that the public prefer longer matches to shorter fights with early knockouts.[3]


 Fail#3



> A fully resisting opponent isn't resisting. He is acting. A pure attack with no thought of defense. He's not resisting your technique, he's trying to beat you so badly, so quickly, that you can't USE a technique. (Edit- I was thinking of the predator ambush when I wrote this.)


 It's not pure offense. A fight has defense as well such as parry,blocking,ducking,weaving this is all defense. If you are talking about someone jumping you like this article is saying you are not fighting a reistancing opponent your not even fighting you are getting blind sided big difference. Fail#4



> this subject up- someone was claiming that eye gouges and throat spears weren't allowed in his particular brand of ultimate, anything goes, cage fighting because they either didn't work or were too hard to execute.) because I don't know enough about Uechi to contribute. But I have once used a spear hand to the throat.


 Teh D34dly Eye gouge is not going to take someone out of a fight. Plenty of boxers in boxing matches fight with swollen eyes. Gerard Gordeau vs Yuki Nakai. Gordeau eye gouged Nakai and guess what Nakai submitted him with a heel hook so Teh D34dly is not so d34dly. Spear hand? Most boxers have their chin tucked and shoulder turned in. This how I learned it from a Golden glove boxer and it is not east to get a Spear hand in. Fail#5


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 15, 2009)

Good to know, JCA.

But I still have to disagree with you in terms of what you are looking at (not in the regard as to realistic training being needed). You seem to be describing a "fight", or a match, not an attack or assault, which is a very different animal indeed. The idea of throwing a jab at an opponent implies an extended match style fight, from a distance you simply don't find as a common range in an assault. Now, while I realise this was just one example you gave, the concept itself is flawed in that an attacker will not look to defend against a jab (or anything else), so you will likely get it in with little to no resistance. Just also little to no result.

With regard to the choke, there I am completely with you. Too often I have seen people rely on just one or two moves such as this, without realising the way they are actually applied. Without getting too much into what you actually need to do against a choke (and, for the record, most of it involves moving before the choke is on), this is where the realistic approach to training comes in.

With the Juji Gatame (on the ground against multiple opponents), yep, you are completely correct. But if the authors point was that it was the result of unrealistic training (in this case, I would probably suggest BJJ or Judo, and that has plenty of the resistant training and randori youare suggesting would be the answer here) being applied. And yes, he was completely wrong to try it. But if that is what your training has been like, and you believe in your training, then you will go to the tactics you have been trained in. And that just goes back to my first comment, the way you train trumps the art you train in.

Okay, the punching. The study you referenced states that the gloves tend to lead to more LONG TERM injuries due to the more blows being sustained over a longer period, and the author of the article is saying that without the gloves there is a greater tendancy to break your own hands, and keep fighting through the pain (adrenaline in action there). So I'm not sure how that worked for you, seems like you are both talking at crossed purposes there.

Then you seem to be saying the same thing as the article, and the same thing as myself, for the record, but trying to argue at the same time. We are not talking about a fight, we are talking about an assault. As you say, big difference there.

Okay, we are not talking about a boxing match, we are not talking about boxers, so we are not talking about someone who is prepared and expecting to be hit, and is therefore worried about their own defence. An eye gouge in a competitive match is not going to be applied the same way you would if your life is on the line, so I don't really see the comparrison here. 

If there is anything you would like to clarify, or have me clarify, please just ask. As I said, in essence I agree with your thoughts, just the methods being advised.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 15, 2009)

> But I still have to disagree with you in terms of what you are looking at (not in the regard as to realistic training being needed). You seem to be describing a "fight", or a match, not an attack or assault, which is a very different animal indeed. The idea of throwing a jab at an opponent implies an extended match style fight, from a distance you simply don't find as a common range in an assault. Now, while I realise this was just one example you gave, the concept itself is flawed in that an attacker will not look to defend against a jab (or anything else), so you will likely get it in with little to no resistance. Just also little to no result.


 
An assault-A sudden violent attack
Fight-combat
Attack-Begin fighting

Are you applying that an assault comes at only close range? Or are you refering to an assault like a sucker punch or ambush like the article was saying? I am guessing you mean someone who just rushes at you like a madman. If you throw a jab at someone who does not look to defend or move out of the way then the jab will stick the person. But I think you are not describing a fight as done on a square off encounter but someone coming up to you from behind or just rushing into you. I am describing where 2 people are going to fight and square off. Push comes to shove and then fist start flying. 


> With the Juji Gatame (on the ground against multiple opponents), yep, you are completely correct. But if the authors point was that it was the result of unrealistic training (in this case, I would probably suggest BJJ or Judo, and that has plenty of the resistant training and randori youare suggesting would be the answer here) being applied. And yes, he was completely wrong to try it. But if that is what your training has been like, and you believe in your training, then you will go to the tactics you have been trained in. And that just goes back to my first comment, the way you train trumps the art you train in.


 Then the author does not have common sense. Anyone with a brain knows going on the ground with multiple attackers is stupid. I can not think of anyone who trains in BJJ or Judo sitting on the ground in Juji Gatame with an opponent while the others are around him. Thats not Randori fault thats not Judo's fault or the technique thats some idiot who has no common sense.



> Okay, the punching. The study you referenced states that the gloves tend to lead to more LONG TERM injuries due to the more blows being sustained over a longer period, and the author of the article is saying that without the gloves there is a greater tendancy to break your own hands, and keep fighting through the pain (adrenaline in action there). So I'm not sure how that worked for you, seems like you are both talking at crossed purposes there.


 Meaning hitting someone with gloves is harder(You are wearing 8-10oz golves. He said 





> If you've feel you've hit a real opponent as hard as you can hit, take the gloves off and try again.


 If you are hitting with gloves on you are hitting with extra power which causes more damage. Boxers break their hands too sometimes when they are fighting and fight thru the pain. I have broken 7 bones and none of them would have kept me from fighting. 


> Okay, we are not talking about a boxing match, we are not talking about boxers, so we are not talking about someone who is prepared and expecting to be hit, and is therefore worried about their own defence. An eye gouge in a competitive match is not going to be applied the same way you would if your life is on the line, so I don't really see the comparrison here.


Most street fights expect to be hit but still move or block the strike. 



 
See the moving? see the parrying? This is what street fights look like. The eye gouge was intentional meaning he meant to blind him in fact he did blind him! And the guy still submitted him with a heel hook. So thinking an eye gouge is going to safe you is unrealistic because we have video proof it does not. 

Most X-kan training could not handle this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU4LOw2WfYc&feature=fvw

People are not training in an alive manner
People are making excuses for why they are to D34DLY to spar
Noone questions their teacher on how practical a technique is or training is because of the Sensei/Soke worshipping 
Here typical X-kan training:




 This is the type of bull shi* people are talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YVaG9BL0hw&feature=related


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 15, 2009)

**** even Taijiquan puts up and spars!!:


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 15, 2009)

Hi Jadecloud,

No, I am describing more the assault scenario you are describing there. The sucker punch from close range. This is by far and away the more common type of situation to be encountered from a street predator (different from a street fighter). Someone rushing into you like a madman is not so much an issue, as that type of attack is usually easy enough to see coming. 

But to describe further. Most violent encounters (at least here in Australia) are from a talking distance, refered to as an interview distance. From here, most defences are very difficult to use, as an attack (or assault) will simply be too fast for anything other than a flinch to possibly get you out of the way, or at least evade slightly. If someone is squaring off with you, even in a bar or street situation, that is a match fight, and is doing no one any favours. Get out if you can, if not, don't fight, finish. Fighting is, frankly, for losers in this game. It is the opposite of self defence (or self protection, as I prefer to label things). The jab is not a good, or even commonly available, option. As for "push comes to shove, then the fists start flying", that is a pretty good description of the escalation, and if you are allowing the other guy to dictate that, you are always on the defensive, and always behind the times. But that's not this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

One of the most common things heard in the martial arts is that you are training your muscle memory, or getting things into your unconscious, so you don't have to think about things in a real situation. So if someone has trained for years, and has trained themselves to the point where they react from an unconscious place, then common sense doesn't actually enter into it. It is the training coming to the fore, and that is why I don't advocate training unrealistic responces (too often I see overkill responces to simple attacks, or tactics that result in a great deal of danger, or techniques that cross the legal boundaries into assault territory) with the claim that you can always scale them back in the situation. That doesn't work if the training "takes over". And that could easily have been the situation here. Not saying it's smart, just saying how it could very easily happen, and intelligence and  common sense is no part of the equation.

I think you can hit pretty damn hard with or without gloves, but the gloves offer a protection buffer for both the hands and the recieving person. This leads to longer bouts, as you said, due to the fact that to get the same amount of damage, the effect needs to be cumulative. Still not sure how you are spinning that...

And I must say I am really lost at the end there, JCA. We are not, I repeat, NOT discussing match fighting here, we are talking about the type of training required to handle a real life assault or attack, so showing two match fight clips seems rather irrelevant. These are not street fights, they are not street assaults, or attacks, these guys are thugs, but not street predators or street fighters (in these clips). They're just insecure kids, really, in need of direction. I kinda feel sorry for them. And I have no need to want to "handle" Kimbo and his group, but if I was going to, this would not be the way I would do it. Not our tactics at all.


----------



## MJS (Sep 15, 2009)

Rather than quote each post seperate, I'll just address the last few all in one.  

Regarding youtube:  Yes, it seems that much of the BBT that we see is demo stuff.  We would also like to think that what is shown, is good stuff, but of course, whats good to one, may not be good to another.  I think what some of the detractors would like to see and are wondering why it can't be done a bit quicker.  For example...once the tech. is demo'd, why not do it at a quicker pace, so as to show the effectiveness of it, realtime?  For example...when I teach a Kenpo tech., I usually do it once quick, so everyone can see it real time, then I break it down slow.  Take this clip for example.  Its a demo but at the same time, it seems quicker.

I have said before, even with my arts that I do, that for someone to judge and make an opinion off of 1 visit and/or little to no training, its foolish and impossible to make an accurate assumption.  

Slow vs. fast training:  There are benefits to both.  I do both.  When I spar, depending on what the focus is that day, I gear my training to that.  I do the majority of the boxing with my inst., so if there is something specific I want to drill, we work it at a slow to med. pace.  Perhaps I want to work a specific combo....so thats what I do, over and over and over, with him not throwing anything, unless he sees an opening.  There are days when we gear up and just bang.  I do my forms/kata slow at times, to work specifics, such as proper foot placement, body position, correct target alignment, etc.  There are days when I run thru them fast and powerful.  When I say fast, I want to clarify, this doesn't mean that its done sloppy, just that there's more power, etc.  I do the same thing with my SD techs. as well.  So again, yes, both have their benefits. 

Just to reiterate, I have nothing against any of the X-kans.  I enjoy talking to folks on here about it, both on the open forum, and privately if I have a specific question.  I really enjoyed talking with Greg and watching his class and students.  I have always said that there're things to benefit from, from each art.  I just hate to see the constant bashing of the Buj by so many people.  

From that link that was posted.  I disagree with this:

A fully resisting opponent isn't resisting. He is acting. A pure attack with no thought of defense. He's not resisting your technique, he's trying to beat you so badly, so quickly, that you can't USE a technique. (Edit- I was thinking of the predator ambush when I wrote this.) 

I'm sorry, but I don't think its acting.  When I am working my techs., my uke will attempt to do just what it said here....prevent me from using my tech.  If I'm working on a headlock defense, as I'm doing that, he'll start to tighten his grip and move me, trying to throw me off balance.  He'll start to punch, so now I have to not only focus on getting out of the headlock, but also deal with punches.  

As for the 'deadly' techs....well, I'll say what I always say.  Everything, IMO, has its purpose.  However, if that is what someone has to do, in order to win, then IMO, they should sit down and re-evaluate their training.  Sure, its a good tool to have in your toolbox, but come on, there are other things to do besides that.  On the flip side, I wouldn't always call them fight stoppers either, but there have been many a UFC where someone takes a hit to the groin or shot to the eye and the ref. calls a time out so the fighter can compose himself.  I don't look at an eye gouge as a fight ender, I look at it as something to buy me some time to set up my next move, and the one after that, and the one after that.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 15, 2009)

> The sucker punch from close range. This is by far and away the more common type of situation to be encountered from a street predator (different from a street fighter). Someone rushing into you like a madman is not so much an issue, as that type of attack is usually easy enough to see coming.


 Ok you can not defend against the Sucker punch thats why they call it the Sucker punch because you can't see it coming.

X-kan is not going to train you to defend against the Sucker punch no art is going to teach you how to defend the sucker punch because you can't see it.

As for street predator what a rapist,robber? Someone who attacks you from behind? someone who sucker punches you? I am sorry how many times does the X-kan train getting punched in the face? Lets be real a boxer can take a punch it is doubtful the average X-kan kyu can take one at full speed. You want to define Street predator and Street fighter please do I am sure it could clear things up.
My defination of a Street predator-is a robber or rapist who stalks people and usually attacks them from behind with a sucker punch or blunt object.
Street fighter-is any person engaging in a fight(street preadator included) on the street.


> But to describe further. Most violent encounters (at least here in Australia) are from a talking distance, refered to as an interview distance. From here, most defences are very difficult to use, as an attack (or assault) will simply be too fast for anything other than a flinch to possibly get you out of the way, or at least evade slightly.


 This is called Shi* or get off the pot. If someone gets that close to you 2 choices hit them first or they hit you first. I have been in fights in that situation and have seen first hand many fights in that situation first one to strike usually wins the fight. If someone gets that close to you he is most likely going to strike you so hit him first,get hit,or widen the distance. Personally I would hit first he is invading your space.



> If someone is squaring off with you, even in a bar or street situation, that is a match fight, and is doing no one any favours. Get out if you can, if not, don't fight, finish.


 Ya and when you turn off to run you get hit sometimes with a blunt object to the head seen it done,did it myself to others. 

Peopl don't square off really its usually a push or in your face then a sucker punch then from there fist fly. Its not 2 people standing there and getting in ready stances.



> Fighting is, frankly, for losers in this game. It is the opposite of self defence (or self protection, as I prefer to label things).


 
Its the same thing. You are fighting someone to protect yourself. Self protection-protect oneself. Fighting- *1 a* *:* to contend in battle or physical combat; _especially_ *:* to strive to overcome a person by blows or weapons 
In order to protect yourself(self protection) you have to fight.



> The jab is not a good, or even commonly available, option. As for "push comes to shove, then the fists start flying", that is a pretty good description of the escalation, and if you are allowing the other guy to dictate that, you are always on the defensive, and always behind the times. But that's not this thread, so I'll leave it at that.


 The Jab is not good let me guess the lunge punch is better? The jab creates distancing,it disrupts your opponents timing. For more info about the Jab look at Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun do. If push comes to shove you strike first and keep striking. 



> One of the most common things heard in the martial arts is that you are training your muscle memory, or getting things into your unconscious, so you don't have to think about things in a real situation. So if someone has trained for years, and has trained themselves to the point where they react from an unconscious place, then common sense doesn't actually enter into it.


 Doing something slow trains muscle memory however unless you test that muscle memory its not going to be of any use. It's like saying knowledge is power but if you do not use that knowledge its not really anything.



> I think you can hit pretty damn hard with or without gloves, but the gloves offer a protection buffer for both the hands and the recieving person. This leads to longer bouts, as you said, due to the fact that to get the same amount of damage, the effect needs to be cumulative. Still not sure how you are spinning that...


 As I have said a boxer can break his hand as well during a match. You hit harder with gloves on. If you ever put on a pair of boxing gloves you can feel how heavy they are. A round is 3mins so you are looking at about 30mins of fighting. Most fights do not last that on the street because someone usually gives up for some reason. A 30 second street fight is physically exhausting.



> And I must say I am really lost at the end there, JCA. We are not, I repeat, NOT discussing match fighting here, we are talking about the type of training required to handle a real life assault or attack, so showing two match fight clips seems rather irrelevant.


 A real life assault or attack looks like that this 



 
The match fights are real attacks. This is how fights are done on the street. I have seen it I have been in it. Let me clarify it for you.
Someone comes up to your face maybe pushes you this is how most street fights come about. Your scenerio is some guy coming out of the bushes with a tire iron and hits you in the back of the head and robs you thats a street predator. The only self defense for that is don't walk at night in bad areas or walk with friends. 



> these guys are thugs, but not street predators or street fighters (in these clips). They're just insecure kids, really, in need of direction. I kinda feel sorry for them. And I have no need to want to "handle" Kimbo and his group, but if I was going to, this would not be the way I would do it. Not our tactics at all.


 Thugs are the people robbing you at night which you call street predators. How do you know these guys are thugs? One of them actually trains MMA(not talking about Kimbo) Are they ghetto yes that area of Miami is ghetto but I know people who know them and say they are nice people. You are saying that the people in the videos are not street fighters?! Every day in the ghetto of Miami people are fighting out in the street. You got alot of Gall to talk about my area and the people in it when you have not set foot in it.

You think your training real?! Son you don't even know what real is...
I am done with this thread and you Chris say something now punk *** and IF YOU EVER STEP FOOT IN MIAMI LET ME KNOW SO I CAN TAKE YOU DOWN PERSONALLY TO THE GHETTO and you can talk your shi* to these people face to face.


----------



## MJS (Sep 16, 2009)

Well.....the thread is reopened, one user banned for a variety of things, so maybe, just maybe, we can get back to a normal discussion.   Like I said in my opening post, I did not start this thread to bash the art, but instead, to get a better understanding of things.  I also requested that we not turn this into a flame fest, which apparently went ignored.  Guess reading comprehension is difficult at times. *shrug*  

Anyways....it sure would be nice, if someone had a doubt as to whether or not something worked/didn't work, instead of saying NO it wont work, how about saying why you feel it wont, or why you feel something will.  Again, the experiences of 1, IMO, does not constitute the entire X Kan.  

Now a few things:

1) The video of the punks fighting...well, thats been posted on here before, and I'll say the same thing again....IMO, nobody on that clip impressed me.  If thats the skill that we see on the street, well, IMO, I didn't see any skill.  I saw a few sucker shots, that could have been avoided, had the other guy been aware of what was going on around him.  Sure, you get hit with one of those wild swings and it may be lights out, but again, I dont see any skill.  

2) I didn't intend to turn this into the typical debate.  IMO, fighting and SD are 2 different things.  I look at them like this..

SD: You're at the ATM and someone comes up and demands money, someone tries to carjack you, someone gets in your face, accusing you of looking at their girl while you're in the bar.

Fighting:  A pre-determined, agreed upon time, place, where 2 people mutually agree to show up and fight.  ie: the UFC is a fight.  All of the fighters know exactly who they're gonna fight, how much they weight, their skill level, etc.  I know none of this during SD.

3) On another forum, I was reading a members post, in which he stated that he had heard that some senior members of the Bujinkan feel that sparring will hurt your skill.  Out of curiosity, why is that?  I will say that I do spar, but I dont view it as the end all, be all either.  Like the other aspects of my art, I gear my 'sparring' to what I want to work on.  Some days will be just hands, so its more boxing than sparring.  Others kicks will be added.  Other times it'll include clinch and ground work.  Others, my partner is padded up, and he throws random attacks.  He will resist and fight back.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 17, 2009)

MJS said:


> 3) On another forum, I was reading a members post, in which he stated that he had heard that some senior members of the Bujinkan feel that sparring will hurt your skill.  Out of curiosity, why is that?  I will say that I do spar, but I dont view it as the end all, be all either.  Like the other aspects of my art, I gear my 'sparring' to what I want to work on.  Some days will be just hands, so its more boxing than sparring.  Others kicks will be added.  Other times it'll include clinch and ground work.  Others, my partner is padded up, and he throws random attacks.  He will resist and fight back.



I think the argument is 2 fold:
1) you will train not to use certain techniques (on account of damage) and condition your body into not using those techniques.
2) during sparring, people will think about winning instead of polishing their technique, thereby abandoning technique in favor of shortcuts like using strength.

While I can understand the arguments, I don't agree for 100%. I think there is value in pressure testing and randori style sparring. I think beginners should use randori within defined limits (only grapling, only sparring, only striking) and perhaps even with defined uke / tori roles.

That would give even relative beginners the opportunity to 'spar' and pressure test in a freeer format without degenerating into 'rock 'n roll'. As people's skill increases, the limitations could also decrease.
Personally, I like randori, but it is not my call to make


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2009)

Well, it's nice to have my right of reply, even if the questioner is no longer with us. I'll try to keep this brief, but having been asked to clarify, I will for those still reading (and maybe for JCA if he visits here again).

Unfortunately, JCA, it seems you have a rather narrow view of a few things. A sucker punch is very difficult to defend against, but not quite impossible to avoid. The keys are in managing distance, and maintaining awareness, both of which are taught in the X-Kans (although you seem to have gotten off track... this particular thread is why the Bujinkan in particular gets such a hiding in public, not other organisations such as the Genbukan or Jinenkan, so I'll try to keep things to Bujinkan specific). And as for training to get punched full force in the face, that is a rare experience for boxers. Boxing punches are trained in combinations, with the power restrained. It is very rare for a boxer to just punch full force, as that doesn't help their endurance for multiple rounds. We don't train for rounds. And, yes, we do train to be able to handle full force hits and keep going.

A street predator is someone who is entirely concerned with causing you injury and pain, but has no wish to enter into a "fight" (by which I mean two or more people striking, kicking etc in an attempt to injure each other) as that puts them at risk. A street fighter, on the other hand, is the guy in a bar who gets angry, and starts to throw punches. This is still removed from a match fight in that there is a defined aggressor, at least in the beginning, not two people facing up against each other.

As to your take on our tactic of escape first, if you feel that violence cannot be avoided, absolutely hit first. This is one of our most commonly practiced street tactics, and to assume I am unaware of it is a little presumptious. But the priority should always be escape, as that is the safest plan, with the least risk of injury or legal repercussions. But really, JCA, you start off saying that if someone is so close they can launch a "sucker punch" attack, then you cannot defend, now you are saying that it is a prefered method of attack that you have witnessed a number of times? So my model of violence matches yours, I don't understand why you are insisting on arguing...

Escape, though does not mean turn your back. It means get enough distance to avoid attacks, then continue to increase the distance to get away. I am never saying here to turn away, so please don't read into my words what I haven't written. But your next description is the exact interview distance I spoke about. It is very different to sparring, competition, randori, or anything else you have mentioned. This is handled by being aware of your surrounding and distance. And those skills are certainly taught. There's more, but this is enough for this thread.

Okay, the reasons I don't like the jab is it is a disruptor to a rhythm, which is not necessarily there yet, and is not a power hit. If it is a competition/match and my job includes wearing the other guy down, working on rhythms, creating and exploiting openings over time, then the jab is great. In a street sense, a jab can just annoy an opponent, it can kick them off into a completely commited rush (leaving out the opening you may have created), and is really nothing more than a probe. I prefer a strong lead strike, aiming for a knockout if possible,and followed by another (probably rear) strike to continue. A jab won't have the same result. Oh, and a lunge punch is a cultural expression of a fully powered (body weight in motion) rear punch, with a stepping action, just as a right cross is a power strike without a step. Same concept, but with different distancing ideas. And I'll rely more on a power strike to endthings fast, rather than a lower powered annoyance outside of a ring.

Training muscle memory can be done slow, medium, or fast. It is actully more related to the mindset you hold when practicing rather than the actual physical speed at which you perform, but really, if you are just saying again that non-compliance is needed, I agree. Don't know where the argument is...

Yes, boxers can break their hands. Yes, they can keep going. Yes, htey can hit hard with gloves on. And yes, I have put on gloves and hit. I have spent my time in boxing gyms, kickboxing gyms, BJJ classes, and far more. This is part of what is expected of our seniors, so you are really not dealing with a neophyte, nor someone who follows just what he is told. Your comments about a boxer fighting for 10 3 min rounds, and a street fight not lasting as long actually seems to make my point. They are very different scenarios with very different requirements and very different strategies, tactics and skill sets, I'm not sure why you keep insisting they are not.

Okay that clip again? I thought this was discussed a while ago, and many very experienced LE Officers, Security Professionals, and Martial Artists from many different backgrounds found little that impressed them, other than people with no awareness paying for it. I'm of the same opinion as them, by the way. If you don't see the issues with that clip, then there will be little I can say. But that scenario is not what I described at all, it is what you described as something you could not see a way to avoid. Not my fear talking there.

As to Kimbo and his guys, the reason I say they are thugs is that they act like thugs in each of these clips. The amount of ego for them to need to validate themselves with such displays of machismo is sad, to my mind. They may indeed be nice guys, but I doubt it. And hey, I'm not a nice guy. I'm generous, and care a lot about many people around me, but I'm not "nice". 

As to your last statements there, I have little to say, other than I remember having very intelligent conversations with you where you were rational, thoughtful, and fun to talk to. During the week of lost posts you started a thread to say you were leaving the forum, and that saddened me, so I was glad to see you back. I now see that was really a tantrum, and it really was just time for you to go. I wish you the best, and if you are in Melbourne, come visit. I'll show you what is "real". In a friendly way...

Okay, thank you to everyone for indulging me there. Back to the topic.

MJS, I'm pretty much in agreement with your assessment of SD and fighting, that is what I was getting at. But to clarify my point of "self protection" rather than "self defence", the latter implies an attack(er). Without an attack, there is no need to defend. This is where a number of martial arts fall down, in my book, in that that is the only thing they cover. Self protection, on the other hand, is far more wide reaching, and includes aspects such as social and situational awareness, management of distance, verbal de-escalation, awareness of how to be a "hard target", protection of self against disease (health, diet, exercise), psychological protection, and much more. The physical is just the easiest way into exploring being protected in all ways in your daily life (as much as possible).

You also asked about sparring. In essence, sparring is limiting your options, and by training in a way that limits your options, you are robbing yourself of exploring/training skills that could help you survive a real encounter. And by leaving those skills out of your training, you will hurt your development in those areas, while strengthening areas that are not necessarily what would be prefered or required.

The traditional Japanese approach to this is a form of free form training, which involves a free-responce to an attack. This could be nominated (single strike or kick, attempted throw), or unnominated, single attack or continuous, single or multiple opponents, slow or fast. This is a method of pressure testing, and if done properly is done with compliance (to a degree), through to non-compliance. This is also a common drilling method in RBSD classes. So to all who thought otherwise, this is "resistance" training in Bujinkan methods, it's emphasis will depend on the instructor.

Oh, and finally (I promise!), just before JCA's post, you were questioning the earlier articles comment about "resisting versus acting". Personally I think that the author chose a poor word here, and was actually meaning that the opponent is not resisting, as they are looking to move forward in their attack, but they are REacting to your actions. Does this change your take on his words?

Once again, thank you for your indulgance, back on track now.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 17, 2009)

I'm on the same page as Bruno with the subject of "Sparring".  Now if you go back and read some older posts of mine on the forum, I said I was against it... but that was because I was defining "Sparring" as somthing different.  I'm going to go with the definition of Sparring as the same as "Randori" or other forms of "controlled conflict".

I do it.  Im not against it.  I don't think it should be an everyday activity.  I think its a great tool to see where technique breaks down, but only once you know the techniques.


----------



## MJS (Sep 18, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, it's nice to have my right of reply, even if the questioner is no longer with us. I'll try to keep this brief, but having been asked to clarify, I will for those still reading (and maybe for JCA if he visits here again).
> 
> Unfortunately, JCA, it seems you have a rather narrow view of a few things. A sucker punch is very difficult to defend against, but not quite impossible to avoid. The keys are in managing distance, and maintaining awareness, both of which are taught in the X-Kans (although you seem to have gotten off track... this particular thread is why the Bujinkan in particular gets such a hiding in public, not other organisations such as the Genbukan or Jinenkan, so I'll try to keep things to Bujinkan specific). And as for training to get punched full force in the face, that is a rare experience for boxers. Boxing punches are trained in combinations, with the power restrained. It is very rare for a boxer to just punch full force, as that doesn't help their endurance for multiple rounds. We don't train for rounds. And, yes, we do train to be able to handle full force hits and keep going.
> 
> ...


 
Well said. 



> MJS, I'm pretty much in agreement with your assessment of SD and fighting, that is what I was getting at. But to clarify my point of "self protection" rather than "self defence", the latter implies an attack(er). Without an attack, there is no need to defend. This is where a number of martial arts fall down, in my book, in that that is the only thing they cover. Self protection, on the other hand, is far more wide reaching, and includes aspects such as social and situational awareness, management of distance, verbal de-escalation, awareness of how to be a "hard target", protection of self against disease (health, diet, exercise), psychological protection, and much more. The physical is just the easiest way into exploring being protected in all ways in your daily life (as much as possible).
> 
> You also asked about sparring. In essence, sparring is limiting your options, and by training in a way that limits your options, you are robbing yourself of exploring/training skills that could help you survive a real encounter. And by leaving those skills out of your training, you will hurt your development in those areas, while strengthening areas that are not necessarily what would be prefered or required.
> 
> ...


 
Regarding the article that was linked:  Yes, looking like it that way, does make sense.   And if we do think about it, that seems like thats what'll happen. 

Regarding the verbal de-escalation, etc.  Yes, I think that many times, all thats taught is what to do when the situation is happening.  Whats missing is the before and after.  

Regarding sparring:  Sure, in sparring, you're working on 1 particular skill set.  So, if I'm understanding you correctly here, by working just the techs. you can then focus just on the SD aspect.  In other words, end the confrontation, ie: our techs., vs. engaging in a sparring match with the person.

Thank you for your input.  Please keep your thoughts coming. 

Mike


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 19, 2009)

Hey Mike,

Thanks! Glad I could help at least a bit with the article's wording there... I certainly think that the word acting didn't really give the right image.

Yeah, the pre- and post-fight are something that not enough martial art schools cover, but also missed are the other aspects, such as protecting others, anti carjacking and anti road rage driving skills, counter surveilance so you don't get targeted by criminals, and more. This is a small part of what we cover, by the way.

With sparring, yes, that is part of it. But the biggest thing is that it is simply teaching tactics and strategies that have no place in a self defence/protection situation. That includes training to stay and trade blows when you should be looking to create enough violence to escape and get away. Not an option in sparring, really. 

But, no, just training the techniques as drills I don't feel is enough either. That is where the Japanese free form training I have described comes in, it has many of the benefits of sparring in that there is chaos, distancing, timing, angling, targeting on the fly, it can (and should!) be done with contact from both sides, if you don't move from the attack, you get hit! You are simply focused more on acting like a real situation (finish and move on, or avoid and escape) rather than stay and trade blows. Hope this makes a bit more sense. Oh, and this is sparring in a Japanese sense, randori that came before Judo randori. And that just confuses the matter, as the same word is used for both...

But to make one last thing clear, I should stress that my particular school is not Bujinkan, although that is where we started (as Australia's first schools) 3 decades ago. So my descriptions of my training should not be taken as examples of Bujinkan training, although I feel that, certainly in the better schools around, there will be a number of similarities. Thought I should link this back to the origin of the thread...


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> With sparring, yes, that is part of it. But the biggest thing is that it is simply teaching tactics and strategies that have no place in a self defence/protection situation. That includes training to stay and trade blows when you should be looking to create enough violence to escape and get away. Not an option in sparring, really.



This is an excellent example of why people say our art isn't about fighting, IMO.  Its not.  To me a fight is two combatants "duking it out" and while yes, we train that, its not what we train FOR.  Great point Chris.

I was thinking about some of the points from JCA's post about things not working against someone who is reisisting a technique, and I think too, that one of the things that is emphasized in our training IS flow, so that if you begin a technique, and the opponent resists you can flow into something that uses that resistance to you advantage.  Do schools train this, and do it often enough to make that effective?  I don't know if its done in a majority of them or not, but I have seen schools that do, the one I train at included.  We are forever exploring "but what happens when he locks down, tightens up, straighens out, muscles thru" etc...


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Thanks! Glad I could help at least a bit with the article's wording there... I certainly think that the word acting didn't really give the right image.
> 
> ...


 
Great post! Thanks!   So....seems like we're on the same page in regards to the sparring, and what you will/will not gain from it.  I do have a question on the underlined part.  Now, when you said doing the techniques as drills, am I correct in saying that you mean....uke throws a punch at tori.  Tori does a technique, uke just stands there letting tori do his thing.  He offers no resistance, does not react to anything?  

Instead, to get more out of it, it should look like:  Uke throws any random attack.  Tori has no idea what he's being attacked with.  This clip may say it better than I can say with words.   Looks like committed attacks, good power, movement, etc.


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> This is an excellent example of why people say our art isn't about fighting, IMO. Its not. To me a fight is two combatants "duking it out" and while yes, we train that, its not what we train FOR. Great point Chris.


 
If I may...this is probably because most of, or should I say the majority of folks that are saying that, assume that they are one in the same, when in reality, they are not.



> I was thinking about some of the points from JCA's post about things not working against someone who is reisisting a technique, and I think too, that one of the things that is emphasized in our training IS flow, so that if you begin a technique, and the opponent resists you can flow into something that uses that resistance to you advantage. Do schools train this, and do it often enough to make that effective? I don't know if its done in a majority of them or not, but I have seen schools that do, the one I train at included. We are forever exploring "but what happens when he locks down, tightens up, straighens out, muscles thru" etc...


 
IMHO, this is the ultimate goal that we want to get to.  We should be able to shift on the fly, so to speak.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Sep 19, 2009)

I just want to offer something as food for thought for everyone in their training.

Take it for what it is worth as it relates to this and all martial arts training.

Most fights I've seen involve two or more people swinging for the fences.

Most attacks I've seen invlove one or more people throwing punches as fast and as hard as they can.

Does this mean that all self defense situations will involve this?
No.

But it is the most common attack and the one to be handled first if you want to be able to successfully defend yourself today.

Again it is not the only thing you should train for, but the first thing I believe.

I say this because of much of the points and arguments that have been brought up here.

I think it's important to consider this in your training, it doesn't involve the attackers defending themselves in any way.

And looks almost nothing like sport fighting or martial arts.

I love both and I am not bashing either, I'm just offering something to think about.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 20, 2009)

Hey MJS,

The clip you posted, and your description of how you feel things should be done are what I am talking about with the Traditional Free Form training, which is our version of sparring. As you can see, it is random from both sides, and there are clear attackers and defenders (as in an assault). In the beginning of this, though, the trainees start with nominated attacks, then limited free attacks, then finally unnominated, including weapons and groups. But yes, this is exactly what I was describing. Very cool find.

As to training drills, that is more the "learning" stage, and is the way any school teaches a technique. Here you go through the movement as shown by the instructor, and repeat to drill the action. But it is not exactly as you described here: *"am I correct in saying that you mean....uke throws a punch at tori. Tori does a technique, uke just stands there letting tori do his thing. He offers no resistance, does not react to anything?" *

That, I must say, seems closer to things that I have seen in (predominantly) karate and karate-related systems. In these demonstrations and drills, the attacker moves in with their attack (say, a stepping reverse punch), and the defender evades or blocks, then counters with a variety of strikes and kicks. The attacker stands in exactly the same place, immobile and unaffected by the barrage. This is very good training to develop control, distancing and targeting, but I'm sure most here will point out the obvious flaws in this method. In short, it teaches an unrealistic body shape as a result of your actions, and teaches the unconscious to not believe that the techniques work. So it's use should be limited.

In our schools, on the other hand, we utilise something we refer to as "play-acting". In this concept, the attacker comes in with their attack, and the defender responds with the technique. But each action results in a shift in the attackers body shape, a kick to the knee turns them, and limits their mobility, opening up the head as the arms are brought down, or the kidneys as they turn, and so on. So the students are taught to respond and react realistically to the techniques being applied... and are "gently" reminded what the effects would be if they are not responding realistically. By that I mean that if I hit someone in the throat (gently, with control), and they offer no responce (they don't seem affected by the strike), I let them know the effects of such a strike. Then, if they don't respond again, I let them feel the effects of the strike. That's usually enough.

But that is our standard way of repeatedly drilling our techniques, and resistance is definately there. It is just tempered by the experience level of the students themselves, the newer students have little to no resistance to begin with (to get used to the movements), then a little more added as they become mre confident with the actions. As the experience grows, the students are challenged to offer resistance, but still with the play-acting concept (in other words, the attack will not stop unless the defence is deemed strong or effective enough to work. They are not simply allowed to have the technique work because "that's what it says in the scrolls". But when the defence is effective, the resistance is lowered as appropriate).

The next step is to train the technique failing. In this stage, the technique is done as normal, but the attacker can thwart your efforts (hmm, cool word, not used enough these days...), and the student is shown ways of handling the new circumstances. Eventually, it becomes the free form randori we discussed earlier.

I must say, though, that this is not related to rank, it is a range that a single technique may be trained in in a single session, so every student gets each of these levels. The level of intensity gets raised with rank, though.


----------



## Kajowaraku (Sep 20, 2009)

This thread has actually moved from interesting to everything a thread shouldn't be and now back to interesting. I don't have much to add to this discussion but would like to express my most sincere gratitude to the people that contributed to this discussion in a constructive and meaningful way. I think we finally mananged to phrase the way most of us feel ninpo ought to be trained and experienced, and how all the things that might seem odd to the competitive arts (like play-acting) actually fit in with the learning process. There's a lot here to draw from should somebody ask a similar question in the future. 

so here it goes: thanks alot guys!


----------



## Hudson69 (Sep 24, 2009)

My experience (and I am not experienced),
It was my friend back in 1990 that got me my first lesson in Ninjutsu and the instructor and the training was very physical, very hands on and it was so close to the sparring I experienced in EPAK and WHKD it was very practical, it was *effective.*

Then I took a break of about a decade and when I came back it wasn't ninjutsu anymore, it was BBT, and we had to sing kuum-bi-ya and hug trees whenever possible while learning 900 year old sword techniques in order to learn how to defend yourself when you are not leaping around or rolling on the floor..... it was strange and not very effective in my personal experience (kidding abou the kuum bi ya part; mostly).

I was once told that BBT was the new name because there was too much bad ju-ju from the whole ninja mythos attached to it, the ninjutsu name.  But somewhere in that decade the art changed.  It wasn't bad it wasn't good it was just a change put out by the man, the head man.  He is Soke and he controls his organization.  I think some of the flak comes from this change, for those who liked the way it was, for those who dont know enough either way and for those who want to be a great and feared "ninja" in a "clan of shadow warriors."

The other two arts, Genbukan and Jinenkan are too new for the newbies while Genbukan seems more old school, if militaristic. I cannot comment on Jinenkan.


----------



## savagek (Sep 24, 2009)

Hello all, 

Look for a teacher that began training before it became BBT when it was BNT this might help. 

Ken Savage 
Winchendon Massachusetts 
www.winmartialarts.com


----------



## Kajowaraku (Sep 24, 2009)

Ok edited the original (somewhat jesting) post to avoid possible miscommunication that could lead to people feeling wronged or anything like that. Basicly, in a more serious tone my point boiled down to the fact that people such as Tanemura sensei and Manaka sensei left Bujinkan with the idea to continue the more traditional line (well, that is to say: I can't really assess jinenkan since i'm not in that organisation.) Still, living styles such as Bujinkan taijutsu and genbukan (with living charismatic leaders) are not static but dynamic, they evolve while the grandmaster gains new insights in both the material as in the way to instruct them, manage a huge organisation and generally do what they do as a soke. Bujinkan has changed, sure. So has genbukan, the same will probably be true to jinenkan, and if it isn't yet, it will probably happen later. Look how people like Chosun miyagi and Gishin funakoshi reformed karate, and while they were active they changed kata, even added new kata of their own. 

It happens I suppose it's the prerogative of a soke to do with his school as he sees fit. 

peace


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 25, 2009)

Kajowaraku said:


> It happens I suppose it's the prerogative of a soke to do with his school as he sees fit.


 
Absolutely. What many people fail to realise is that the idea of only teaching exactly as the previous generation did is kind of incorrect in and of itself. Each generation head passes on the school to the individual they believe is the best to keep the art going, and they are free to do as they wish or see fit to do just that. Tanemura Sensei's feeling on what the best method to pass the teachings on are is simply different to Hatsumi Sensei's take on what the best method is (at this point in time... who knows what the future may bring?).

But each generation would change or alter the art they are transmitting in the way they chose. Takagi Yoshin Ryu, for instance, although very well known for their skills in Jujutsu and Jutaijutsu (depending on lineage), wsa originally founded based on the knowledge of a number of weapon schools, particularly Sojutsu systems. It wasn't until the second Soke has a number of encounters with the Takenouchi Ryu that Jujutsu was even included, and later became a focus after the 4th head came in to contact with the 3rd head of Hontai Kukishin Ryu.

There are similar details for most older systems, Kashima Shinryu has had their Jujutsu syllabus altered for each of the last three generations, and most likely in many previous ones as well. In terms of BBT, Hatsumi Sensei feels that the best way to preserve the teachings is by almost completely ignoring the subtleties and individualities of the particular systems, in lieu the focus is on the principles gleaned from each of the disparate sources. That approach will work for some, less for others, but is the way that Hatsumi has decided to go.

This is, I must say though, beside the point of whether or not it is effective, just on why it is the way it is. Any of these approaches could be effective or ineffective depending on how it is trained. And that is the instructor, and their understanding of what makes effective training.


----------

