# Ninjutsu good for security agent?



## Stef97

Hi I'm new here! I'm a 20 y/o woman and i am currently a security agent. I'm a black belt in Taekwondo but I actually stopped years ago.  I want to go back in martial art and found Ninjutsu. I'm not familiar with this art so wondering if it would be good for someone with my background ?  Thanks a lot! 


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Wrestling.


----------



## Stef97

drop bear said:


> Wrestling.



Explain why?


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Stef97 said:


> Explain why?
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk



If you want to stop dudes who don't want to be stopped. You have to train by stopping dudes who don't want to be stopped.

If you want to do it in a manner that does not leave them crippled. You have to train in a manner that does not leave people crippled.

Look at the video.4 guys fighting back who were effectively dealt with. And they walked away at the end.

Now that is MMA not wrestling. But it probably should be the wrestling you should focus on.


----------



## Charlemagne

Stef97 said:


> Hi I'm new here! I'm a 20 y/o woman and i am currently a security agent. I'm a black belt in Taekwondo but I actually stopped years ago.  I want to go back in martial art and found Ninjutsu. I'm not familiar with this art so wondering if it would be good for someone with my background ?  Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk




Can you define what you mean by "Security Agent"?  Is that the same thing as a Security Guard?  I just want to make sure that I am understanding your needs.  

Cheers!


----------



## Stef97

Charlemagne said:


> Can you define what you mean by "Security Agent"?  Is that the same thing as a Security Guard?  I just want to make sure that I am understanding your needs.
> 
> Cheers!



Yes sorry for the mistakes, i'm french


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Charlemagne

Stef97 said:


> Yes sorry for the mistakes, i'm french
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk



No worries at all.  That's why I wanted to double check.  

Considering the legal liability that you could find yourself in, I would suggest exploring a program that was designed for law enforcement and then expand from there towards a martial art that you feel addresses your gaps/needs beyond that.

Something like the Gracie Survival Tactics course would be a great place to start.
Gracie Survival Tactics

I don't know what the legal situation is like in France, but in the United States, given the manner in which the art has been portrayed in popular culture, any lawyer would probably have a field day with a security guard that studied Ninjitsu.  In the event that you ever have to use your skills, I would want to make sure it is something defensible in a legal sense.

I hope that is helpful for you.

Best regards,


----------



## Stef97

Thank you for your answer ! 
I definitly want to takes specific classes like that, but i'm also looking for something long term and that is why I looked up for martial arts as well. By the way, i'm from canada


----------



## Charlemagne

Stef97 said:


> Thank you for your answer !
> I definitly want to takes specific classes like that, but i'm also looking for something long term and that is why I looked up for martial arts as well. By the way, i'm from canada



Ah!  Well, you might be in even more luck then.  The Gracie Survival Tactics is a introduction to Gracie Jiu-Jitsu.  With your TKD background, you already know some striking, so adding a grappling/ground fighting art into your game might not be a bad choice.


----------



## Stef97

Charlemagne said:


> Ah!  Well, you might be in even more luck then.  The Gracie Survival Tactics is a introduction to Gracie Jiu-Jitsu.  With your TKD background, you already know some striking, so adding a grappling/ground fighting art into your game might not be a bad choice.



I'll check out if there is something similar available here, thanks so much. 


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Charlemagne

Stef97 said:


> I'll check out if there is something similar available here, thanks so much.
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk



Where are you at in Canada?  Perhaps we can help you find a good place.


----------



## Stef97

Charlemagne said:


> Where are you at in Canada?  Perhaps we can help you find a good place.



I'm in Quebec City. These places would probably be in Montreal, 3h from where i am.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Buka

Welcome to MartialTalk, Stef. 

Charlemange is giving you good advice.


----------



## Stef97

Buka said:


> Welcome to MartialTalk, Stef.
> 
> Charlemange is giving you good advice.



Thank you, I sure am taking notes !


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna

Stef97 said:


> Hi I'm new here! I'm a 20 y/o woman and i am currently a security agent. I'm a black belt in Taekwondo but I actually stopped years ago.  I want to go back in martial art and found Ninjutsu. I'm not familiar with this art so wondering if it would be good for someone with my background ?  Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


Welcome along!! Nice to have you here  x There would not be security training courses there more specific to the work than just martial arts?


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Welcome along!! Nice to have you here  x There would not be security training courses there more specific to the work than just martial arts?



Normally they are tragic.


----------



## Chris Parker

Stef97 said:


> Hi I'm new here! I'm a 20 y/o woman and i am currently a security agent. I'm a black belt in Taekwondo but I actually stopped years ago.  I want to go back in martial art and found Ninjutsu. I'm not familiar with this art so wondering if it would be good for someone with my background ?  Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk



Bonjour, Stef! Comment ca va? That's about the limit of my French these days... 

Firstly, welcome aboard! 

Ninjutsu is an interesting art, which is taught in different ways in different schools... so just how applicable it will be for security uses will vary depending on which school you are learning at.

The major groups (authentic) are Bujinkan, Genbukan, and the Jinenkan. All of these schools trace their teachings back to Takamatsu Toshitsugu, a man claimed to be Japan's last ninja. Takamatsu-sensei was the lineal head (Soke) of a large number of martial traditions, including samurai arts (jujutsu) and ninja arts (ninjutsu)... although that's a bit more complicated than that as well....

To take the groups in reverse order, both the Jinenkan and Genbukan focus more on traditional training and methods... which don't necessarily lend themselves immediately to modern contexts and usage. The Bujinkan, on the other hand (the largest, and most widespread of the organisations) is much looser in it's hierarchy and structure... exactly what you learn, and focus on, will be in large part down to your teacher. I've seen Bujinkan dojo that are highly traditional, and ones that are almost nothing but "modern" expressions... and anywhere in between.

But the question is how applicable to security work is it? Well... that really is down to the instructor. There are a large number of Bujinkan instructors (as in any art) who have experience in security work... and, being a Japanese art, there is a large emphasis on stand-up grappling (locks, throws, chokes, pins etc), which can transfer quite well. At the end of the day, though, any art will give you more of a sense of your own bodies capabilities and limitations... although, for security, I'd aim towards a grappling art, such as judo, BJJ, or a (legitimate) Ninjutsu school. I do emphasise "legitimate", though, as there are a large number of schools who have no basis in any historical connection to Japan let alone any genuine Japanese arts.

If you do have any further questions on these topics, please post them. This area doesn't get a lot of traffic these days, and the answers commonly come from those with no experience of our arts... so I am happy to answer anything I can.


----------



## Jenna

drop bear said:


> Normally they are tragic.


Would you have an idea percentage terms how much of security work do not involve martial arts skillsets at all?


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Would you have an idea percentage terms how much of security work do not involve martial arts skillsets at all?



It was handy for me. Otherwise no idea.


----------



## Stef97

Chris Parker said:


> Bonjour, Stef! Comment ca va? That's about the limit of my French these days...
> 
> Firstly, welcome aboard!
> 
> Ninjutsu is an interesting art, which is taught in different ways in different schools... so just how applicable it will be for security uses will vary depending on which school you are learning at.
> 
> The major groups (authentic) are Bujinkan, Genbukan, and the Jinenkan. All of these schools trace their teachings back to Takamatsu Toshitsugu, a man claimed to be Japan's last ninja. Takamatsu-sensei was the lineal head (Soke) of a large number of martial traditions, including samurai arts (jujutsu) and ninja arts (ninjutsu)... although that's a bit more complicated than that as well....
> 
> To take the groups in reverse order, both the Jinenkan and Genbukan focus more on traditional training and methods... which don't necessarily lend themselves immediately to modern contexts and usage. The Bujinkan, on the other hand (the largest, and most widespread of the organisations) is much looser in it's hierarchy and structure... exactly what you learn, and focus on, will be in large part down to your teacher. I've seen Bujinkan dojo that are highly traditional, and ones that are almost nothing but "modern" expressions... and anywhere in between.
> 
> But the question is how applicable to security work is it? Well... that really is down to the instructor. There are a large number of Bujinkan instructors (as in any art) who have experience in security work... and, being a Japanese art, there is a large emphasis on stand-up grappling (locks, throws, chokes, pins etc), which can transfer quite well. At the end of the day, though, any art will give you more of a sense of your own bodies capabilities and limitations... although, for security, I'd aim towards a grappling art, such as judo, BJJ, or a (legitimate) Ninjutsu school. I do emphasise "legitimate", though, as there are a large number of schools who have no basis in any historical connection to Japan let alone any genuine Japanese arts.
> 
> If you do have any further questions on these topics, please post them. This area doesn't get a lot of traffic these days, and the answers commonly come from those with no experience of our arts... so I am happy to answer anything I can.



Thank you for your answer! 
I feel like the school i'm looking at right now (bujinkan) would be good because the instructor has a large background in security and he came back from a trip to japan not long ago. I would be very interested in a mix of history (genuine school) and defense fo modern context. This school actually look like a good one. I've contected the guy, asking about the same question i did here, so now lets hope he'll have an honest response as yours. 

Thanks again !


----------



## Stef97

Jenna said:


> Welcome along!! Nice to have you here  x There would not be security training courses there more specific to the work than just martial arts?



Thank you ! 
I know there is some .. but the thing is, moste of them are for a limited time and cost A LOT. I do want to take some of them, but i'm also looking for something i can actually put my time in every week, something more long term! Thats why i thaught of martial arts. 


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna

Stef97 said:


> Thank you !
> I know there is some .. but the thing is, moste of them are for a limited time and cost A LOT. I do want to take some of them, but i'm also looking for something i can actually put my time in every week, something more long term! Thats why i thaught of martial arts.
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


Yeah martial arts would probably have been my first thought too! Sending you wishes that you find some thing suitable.. let us know how it goes yes?  xo


----------



## Stef97

Jenna said:


> Yeah martial arts would probably have been my first thought too! Sending you wishes that you find some thing suitable.. let us know how it goes yes?  xo



Thank you, will let you know for sure !


----------



## Charlemagne

Stef97 said:


> I'm in Quebec City. These places would probably be in Montreal, 3h from where i am.
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk



There are a few Jiu-Jitsu options that showed up when I search Quebec City, so you might consider checking them out.  You could always drive to a Gracie Survival Tactics workshop and use it to supplement you regular training.  There are other groups that do Law Enforcement defensive tactics which is Jiu-Jitsu based as well, so you might consider exploring your options to see what might be available.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I really do think that consideration of defensibility in a court-room setting would be something that I would want to consider if I was working in your occupation.  You might also consider contacting your local police department and ask if they have someone they recommend.  Just a thought.  There are at least three orgaizations offering Jiu-Jitsu based defensive tactics training that are worth looking into. 

Gracie Humaita - Law Enforcement | Gracie New Jersey Jiu Jitsu Academy
Royce Gracie Jiu-Jitsu - http://roycegracie.com/booking-info/g-r-a-c-i-e-law-enforcement-course/
Gracie Academy - Gracie Survival Tactics


----------



## Chris Parker

Stef97 said:


> Thank you for your answer!
> I feel like the school i'm looking at right now (bujinkan) would be good because the instructor has a large background in security and he came back from a trip to japan not long ago. I would be very interested in a mix of history (genuine school) and defense fo modern context. This school actually look like a good one. I've contected the guy, asking about the same question i did here, so now lets hope he'll have an honest response as yours.
> 
> Thanks again !



Bonjour, Stef.

That sounds pretty ideal for you, then! I've been involved in the "Ninjutsu" arts (Takamatsu-den) for about 25 years... the majority of physical usage I've needed has been the "security" style methods (although there have been a couple of other instances...), so I feel that it is certainly applicable!

Who are you looking to train under?



Charlemagne said:


> There are a few Jiu-Jitsu options that showed up when I search Quebec City, so you might consider checking them out.  You could always drive to a Gracie Survival Tactics workshop and use it to supplement you regular training.  There are other groups that do Law Enforcement defensive tactics which is Jiu-Jitsu based as well, so you might consider exploring your options to see what might be available.



Why? I'm actually serious here... Stef has not come along and asked in a general area, or in the Security area, for recommendations of what she should do, she has come to the Ninjutsu area to ask about Ninjutsu (specifically), and it's applicability from practitioners of the art.... and, thus far, I am the only actual practitioner to answer. She has also stated that she is not looking for courses, but a more rounded, long term study... she's not after a defensive tactics course here, nor a security course. She want's an art that she can dedicate time and effort to, that involves tradition and history, as well as applicability for her everyday life and work.

None of that invites suggesting anything here.

Look, I get the appeal of the Gracie's methods here... and I get why it's preferred in a number of LEO groups and areas... but it's not what was asked for.

I would also point out that informed opinion was requested... and your initial post didn't even spell the name of the art correctly.



Charlemagne said:


> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I really do think that consideration of defensibility in a court-room setting would be something that I would want to consider if I was working in your occupation.  You might also consider contacting your local police department and ask if they have someone they recommend.  Just a thought.



And, realistically, and licensing body would ensure that such considerations are present at all times. The OP will be aware of the legal restrictions of her position (if it's anything like Australia, different levels of licence will give different restrictions... and different security positions will have different demands). I highly doubt that there is much need to ensure that the martial arts instructor need address this in any major way... nor is there any need to consult with the local police department, any more than any other occupation.

As an example, I have had numerous discussions with security personnel in a number of contexts over the years... and they were all very aware of what they were and were not permitted to do... a little surprisingly, many weren't even able to physically grab, touch, or restrain an offender (security guards for shopping expos etc), or were limited in their permissions to affect an arrest. 



Charlemagne said:


> There are at least three orgaizations offering Jiu-Jitsu based defensive tactics training that are worth looking into.
> 
> Gracie Humaita - Law Enforcement | Gracie New Jersey Jiu Jitsu Academy
> Royce Gracie Jiu-Jitsu - http://roycegracie.com/booking-info/g-r-a-c-i-e-law-enforcement-course/
> Gracie Academy - Gracie Survival Tactics



Which, again, is not what the OP is asking for, or about.


----------



## Charlemagne

Chris Parker said:


> Which, again, is not what the OP is asking for, or about.



The OP had expressed interest in Jiu-Jitsu from my initial comment in regards to Jiu-Jitsu-based defensive tactics training, so I was following up with that.  Had she not, I would have let it go and moved on.


----------



## Stef97

Chris Parker said:


> Bonjour, Stef.
> 
> That sounds pretty ideal for you, then! I've been involved in the "Ninjutsu" arts (Takamatsu-den) for about 25 years... the majority of physical usage I've needed has been the "security" style methods (although there have been a couple of other instances...), so I feel that it is certainly applicable!
> 
> Who are you looking to train under?
> 
> 
> 
> Why? I'm actually serious here... Stef has not come along and asked in a general area, or in the Security area, for recommendations of what she should do, she has come to the Ninjutsu area to ask about Ninjutsu (specifically), and it's applicability from practitioners of the art.... and, thus far, I am the only actual practitioner to answer. She has also stated that she is not looking for courses, but a more rounded, long term study... she's not after a defensive tactics course here, nor a security course. She want's an art that she can dedicate time and effort to, that involves tradition and history, as well as applicability for her everyday life and work.
> 
> None of that invites suggesting anything here.
> 
> Look, I get the appeal of the Gracie's methods here... and I get why it's preferred in a number of LEO groups and areas... but it's not what was asked for.
> 
> I would also point out that informed opinion was requested... and your initial post didn't even spell the name of the art correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> And, realistically, and licensing body would ensure that such considerations are present at all times. The OP will be aware of the legal restrictions of her position (if it's anything like Australia, different levels of licence will give different restrictions... and different security positions will have different demands). I highly doubt that there is much need to ensure that the martial arts instructor need address this in any major way... nor is there any need to consult with the local police department, any more than any other occupation.
> 
> As an example, I have had numerous discussions with security personnel in a number of contexts over the years... and they were all very aware of what they were and were not permitted to do... a little surprisingly, many weren't even able to physically grab, touch, or restrain an offender (security guards for shopping expos etc), or were limited in their permissions to affect an arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, again, is not what the OP is asking for, or about.



Thanks Chris, you got it all. I appreciate other suggestions but i really think bujinkan would work for me. I talked to the teacher and he told me that most of his students were in the militay or law inforcement. He also said that the classes were about taking control of a individual (and not beating him or anything else).


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Which, again, is not what the OP is asking for, or about.



Op is asking about security work.

I spent twenty years as a security guard. Charlemagne is suggesting a reasonable approach. I mean I would still wrestle first. But that is nuances on a theme. I wouldn't Booj. 

If OP wanted ninja for any other reason than than security work. Fine have at it. If OP already was a security guard and knew what the job looked like from a first person view. Also fine.

Otherwise people can only give the advice their own experience has shown will be practical and applicable. Or come up with some set of reasoning as to why they think a person should do a style.

If you want to attack other posters. I will shut you straight down on this as you dont  have the personal experience to make a qualified judgement.

Argue you own case and leave other posters alone.


----------



## Steve

It's downright funny to me that Chris suggests BJJ, which isn't bad advise even though he admits to not training in it, but dickslaps Charlemagne for doing so, even though he appears to be very knowledgeable in it, because he doesn't train ninja. Makes zero sense.


----------



## Charlemagne

Steve said:


> It's downright funny to me that Chris suggests BJJ, which isn't bad advise even though he admits to not training in it, but dickslaps Charlemagne for doing so, even though he appears to be very knowledgeable in it,


  I do train the art, but calling me knowledgeable is probably a bit charitable...  LOL  





> because he doesn't train ninja. Makes zero sense.


  Meh.  Everyone has a ninja phase.  And, as we know, the proper time for that was the 1980's.


----------



## Stef97

Charlemagne said:


> I do train the art, but calling me knowledgeable is probably a bit charitable...  LOL    Meh.  Everyone has a ninja phase.  And, as we know, the proper time for that was the 1980's.



What do you mean by that?


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## Charlemagne

Stef97 said:


> What do you mean by that?
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk



It was a joke based upon the prevalence of Ninja movies in the 1980's. They and Bruce Lee movies started many a young man on their martial arts journey, only to later find out that the fantasy was mostly that, a fantasy.


----------



## KangTsai

When it's ninjutsu, all I can think of is disguise costumes, wall climbing, arson, poison, being vegan and sleeping on your left side.


----------



## Charlemagne

KangTsai said:


> When it's ninjutsu, all I can think of is disguise costumes, wall climbing, arson, poison, being vegan and sleeping on your left side.



Don't forget Sho Kosugi


----------



## Chris Parker

Charlemagne said:


> The OP had expressed interest in Jiu-Jitsu from my initial comment in regards to Jiu-Jitsu-based defensive tactics training, so I was following up with that.  Had she not, I would have let it go and moved on.



No, the OP asked about a specific martial art in regards to her needs and desires... when you mentioned the BJJ courses, she replied that, while she was interested in that, that was not what she was asking about here.



drop bear said:


> Op is asking about security work.



No, they're not. They're asking about a specific martial art in relation to security work... and the exact type of security work has not yet even been addressed or established.



drop bear said:


> I spent twenty years as a security guard. Charlemagne is suggesting a reasonable approach. I mean I would still wrestle first. But that is nuances on a theme. I wouldn't Booj.



Good for you. I've spent 25 years in these arts, done numerous security courses both inside and outside of my training there, engaged with many security guards in different ways, our seniors have worked security themselves (not something I was ever interested in, so I didn't), and more. So I'm going to put my background up against yours pretty happily... as mine covers both areas, rather than your uninformed views (based on your deeply inaccurate posts regarding our arts here).



drop bear said:


> If OP wanted ninja for any other reason than than security work. Fine have at it. If OP already was a security guard and knew what the job looked like from a first person view. Also fine.



"If the OP was already a security guard and knew what the job looked like from a first person view'? I take you back to the OP.... "I am currently a security agent".... 



drop bear said:


> Otherwise people can only give the advice their own experience has shown will be practical and applicable. Or come up with some set of reasoning as to why they think a person should do a style.



Sure.

So my advice is based on knowing the art in question. As well as it's applicability. In other words, it's the only one here actually based on genuine knowledge of the question.

Once again, this is in the Ninjutsu section.... with a question about Ninjutsu.... so please tell me why you feel that you can make an assessment based on a complete lack of knowledge and experience in this art?



drop bear said:


> If you want to attack other posters. I will shut you straight down on this as you dont  have the personal experience to make a qualified judgement.
> 
> Argue you own case and leave other posters alone.



There is no attack, dude. Asking for clarification is not an attack. Questioning why they're ignoring the actual question is not an attack. 

Oh, and you'll "shut me down"? Please. Firstly, I do have the personal experience. Secondly, you don't have the skills to do anything close to it.



Steve said:


> It's downright funny to me that Chris suggests BJJ, which isn't bad advise even though he admits to not training in it, but dickslaps Charlemagne for doing so, even though he appears to be very knowledgeable in it, because he doesn't train ninja. Makes zero sense.



Sigh.... really, Steve?

I recommend grappling approaches for security work... which includes BJJ, but also includes genuine Ninjutsu schools (which is the question of this thread), as listed in my first post. Secondly, I have trained in BJJ (Gracie)... which has been covered a number of times. And I hardly "dickslapped" Charlemagne... I pointed out that he was ignoring the actual questions of the OP.

I do train in Ninjutsu arts (Takamatsuden).
I have trained in BJJ.
I do know what I'm talking about.
If you think this makes "zero sense", then I suggest you reread and rethink.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Once again, this is in the Ninjutsu section.... with a question about Ninjutsu.... so please tell me why you feel that you can make an assessment based on a complete lack of knowledge and experience in this art?



OK. From my 20 years of security experience I have pretty much seen the styles that work.

Guess what style never crops up in a security guard that can handle themselves.

That's right ninjutsu.

My complete lack of  knowledge and experience comes from me never having seen ninjutsu effectively used anywhere. My experience is security. And ninjutsu basically does not exist in that environment.

There are styles that do work. The boxers, kickboxers, MMA, BJJ. Guys all do pretty well for themselves. But no ninjas.

So I could not recommend a system that I have never seen used effectively in 20 years of an environment I do have knowledge of and do have experience in. 

I can only recommend what works.

Now when you get 20 years of experience using ninjutsu in the security industry. You are welcome to recommend it.

Until then considering a person may actually have to rely on their martial arts as a security guard. They should go with the styles that work.


----------



## Steve

Youve trained Gracie BJJ?  what's your rank in BJJ?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Normally they are tragic.


Another one from the scarecrow factory.

That wasn't a gooseneck hold.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Another one from the scarecrow factory.
> 
> That wasn't a gooseneck hold.



 it is a variation. I think any bent wrist is a gooseneck.


----------



## Charlemagne

Chris Parker said:


> No, the OP asked about a specific martial art in regards to her needs and desires... when you mentioned the BJJ courses, she replied that, while she was interested in that, that was not what she was asking about here.


  Yes she did.  And I pointed out that other martial arts have a legitimate program designed for those in her situation that may be worth looking into for a number of reasons, and she expressed interest. If she had not, I would have stopped there, but she did.  As such, I provided additional information.



> I pointed out that he was ignoring the actual questions of the OP.


  I was not ignoring her questions. I was providing her with information that I believe will be more suited to her needs.  You are free, of course, to disagree, but I would respectfully ask you to provide any sort of evidence of Ninjutsu being used successfully against a resisting opponent, or of programs that are designed for police-security officers which are based from Ninjutsu and which have survived legal tests in the courtroom.  Perhaps they exist, but I certainly have not seen them.  There are multiple examples of GJJ-based police tactics being used successfully by those in such work, and of programs which have been vetted from a legality standpoint.

Setting aside the question of effectiveness for a moment, you also completely ignore the reality of the legal issue, which is quite pertinent to someone in her situation.  The first time (hopefully it never happens) that someone has to use martial arts training that goes beyond the defensive tactics training they are provided by their employer, any prosecutor or lawyer in their right mind is going to look into that.

I served on a jury in the recent past.  The case involved a guy who had been detained by a security guard from a private company that contracted out to various businesses. When that security guard was on the witness stand, both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer spent a good deal of time asking about the training that the guard had received, and he was not even the person being charged with a crime.

If a security guard is the person being sued or charged with a crime, and there are dozens of easily imaginable scenarios where that could happen, the examination into their past and training is going to be far more invasive, and any training they might have personally sought out is going to be far more heavily scrutinized, than what I witnessed.  If that guard is training in Ninjutsu, those lawyers are going to have a field day trotting out examples of people in black outfits with hoods on carrying all sorts of odd weapons in front of a jury.  They are going to show videos of people learning how to make poisons, and booby traps, and smoke grenades, etc., all of which can be found by the most simple google search of Ninja, Ninjutsu, or Ninjitsu.  It will take all of 5-minutes for them to find that stuff.  All of the weird and annoying examples of Ninjutsu that people trot out to make fun of the art (and which I suspect annoy you as well) are going to be shown to the jury or judge to influence their decision making.

Far more prudent in my view to deliberately seek out training in something which can easily be demonstrated to work in that setting, and which is very defensible from the standpoint of legality.  You, of course, are free to disagree, but I hope your disagreement will be more than telling me that I posted it in the wrong forum, or re-stating that I did not listen to the OP.


----------



## dunc

Hello Stef97

By way of an introduction - I’ve trained in the bujinkan for many years and actively cross train in BJJ. I don’t have direct experience as a security guard, but have had quite a few students who work in security & they value their training very highly. For various reasons there are quite a few UK police officers in the bujinkan over here also 

So please take this into account as I offer my perspective

The techniques that you’ll study in the bujinkan are predominantly stand up combining striking with grappling in jackets. The possibility of weapons is ever present and this has a big impact on the techniques

The curriculum, in my view, is very well suited to what it seems you’re looking for. It will give you tools to cope with a very broad range of scenarios (much broader than most styles) and has a depth & history to it which is fascinating 

However, the practicality of it depends not only on the curriculum, but also the way it is trained. This varies considerably from one dojo/school to the next, so it really depends on who you end up studying under

My recommendation is to look for a dojo where they don’t fall over at the slightest touch and do have some resistance training, people being difficult with each other etc

To my knowledge there have not been any legal issues arising from security guards, bouncers &/or police officers training in the bujinkan. I think that the legal aspects are an important consideration, but likely if you train in any style they’ll be youtube clips out there that a lawyer could use against you

I hope this is helpful

D


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> No, the OP asked about a specific martial art in regards to her needs and desires... when you mentioned the BJJ courses, she replied that, while she was interested in that, that was not what she was asking about here.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. They're asking about a specific martial art in relation to security work... and the exact type of security work has not yet even been addressed or established.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. I've spent 25 years in these arts, done numerous security courses both inside and outside of my training there, engaged with many security guards in different ways, our seniors have worked security themselves (not something I was ever interested in, so I didn't), and more. So I'm going to put my background up against yours pretty happily... as mine covers both areas, rather than your uninformed views (based on your deeply inaccurate posts regarding our arts here).
> 
> 
> 
> "If the OP was already a security guard and knew what the job looked like from a first person view'? I take you back to the OP.... "I am currently a security agent"....
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> So my advice is based on knowing the art in question. As well as it's applicability. In other words, it's the only one here actually based on genuine knowledge of the question.
> 
> Once again, this is in the Ninjutsu section.... with a question about Ninjutsu.... so please tell me why you feel that you can make an assessment based on a complete lack of knowledge and experience in this art?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no attack, dude. Asking for clarification is not an attack. Questioning why they're ignoring the actual question is not an attack.
> 
> Oh, and you'll "shut me down"? Please. Firstly, I do have the personal experience. Secondly, you don't have the skills to do anything close to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.... really, Steve?
> 
> I recommend grappling approaches for security work... which includes BJJ, but also includes genuine Ninjutsu schools (which is the question of this thread), as listed in my first post. Secondly, I have trained in BJJ (Gracie)... which has been covered a number of times. And I hardly "dickslapped" Charlemagne... I pointed out that he was ignoring the actual questions of the OP.
> 
> I do train in Ninjutsu arts (Takamatsuden).
> I have trained in BJJ.
> I do know what I'm talking about.
> If you think this makes "zero sense", then I suggest you reread and rethink.


I reread this post, and think it's very important.  In it, you explain In pretty good detail how unqualified you are to answer the question, while at the same time alleging to be the opposite.  And what's funny to me is I'm pretty sure that you have no idea how.  Lol.


----------



## webmaster786

I think Krav Maga is more interesting then Ninjutsu , its good and it weeds out all the elements of some other Martial arts that is essential and can be used in military or paramilitary work,


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

Stef97 said:


> Hi I'm new here! I'm a 20 y/o woman and i am currently a security agent. I'm a black belt in Taekwondo but I actually stopped years ago.  I want to go back in martial art and found Ninjutsu. I'm not familiar with this art so wondering if it would be good for someone with my background ?  Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk



Ninjutsu isn't even a real martial art. The real ninja may have studied something called "ninjutsu," but, according to extant texts, this training consisted of topics like "how to shoot a bow on horseback" and "how to burn a house down."

Modern "ninjutsu" is just people trying to recreate some aspects of ninja training with a liberal amount of imagination.

According to Wikipedia, ninjutsu training consisted of:


_Bajutsu_ – horsemanship
_Bōjutsu_ – stick and staff techniques
_Bōryaku_ – tactics
_Chi-mon_ – geography
_Chōhō_ – espionage
_Hensōjutsu_ – disguise and impersonation
_Intonjutsu_ – escaping and concealment
_Kayakujutsu_ – pyrotechnics
_Kenjutsu_ – sword techniques
_Kusarigamajutsu_ – _kusarigama_ (chain-sickle) techniques
_Naginatajutsu_ – _naginata_ (polearm) techniques
_Seishinteki kyōyō_ – spiritual refinement
_Shinobi-iri_ – stealth and infiltration
_Shurikenjutsu_ – throwing weapons techniques
_Sōjutsu_ – spear techniques
_Sui-ren_ – water training
_Taijutsu_ – unarmed combat
_Tenmon_ – meteorology


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Ninjutsu isn't even a real martial art. The real ninja may have studied something called "ninjutsu," but, according to extant texts, this training consisted of topics like "how to shoot a bow on horseback" and "how to burn a house down."
> 
> Modern "ninjutsu" is just people trying to recreate some aspects of ninja training with a liberal amount of imagination.
> 
> According to Wikipedia, ninjutsu training consisted of:
> 
> 
> _Bajutsu_ – horsemanship
> _Bōjutsu_ – stick and staff techniques
> _Bōryaku_ – tactics
> _Chi-mon_ – geography
> _Chōhō_ – espionage
> _Hensōjutsu_ – disguise and impersonation
> _Intonjutsu_ – escaping and concealment
> _Kayakujutsu_ – pyrotechnics
> _Kenjutsu_ – sword techniques
> _Kusarigamajutsu_ – _kusarigama_ (chain-sickle) techniques
> _Naginatajutsu_ – _naginata_ (polearm) techniques
> _Seishinteki kyōyō_ – spiritual refinement
> _Shinobi-iri_ – stealth and infiltration
> _Shurikenjutsu_ – throwing weapons techniques
> _Sōjutsu_ – spear techniques
> _Sui-ren_ – water training
> _Taijutsu_ – unarmed combat
> _Tenmon_ – meteorology


to be honest, that all sounds pretty usefull, if you up date it a bit, replace swords, with how to use a knife, abd spears with how to fight with a broom handle. Horseman ship depends on where you are i suppose, in the country in could be usefull, in the city it could be replace by mountain bike skills. And weatherforcasting always comes in handy.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

Malos1979 said:


> Were you dropped as a child? Or born this ignorant?
> 
> Maybe listen more to @Chris Parker than reading your stupid Wikpedia



There's no historical evidence of shinobi fighting systems. In pre-modern Japan, the only hand-to-hand martial art around was jujitsu, which was highly varied and stylistic depending on which school or clan or teacher taught it. It's certainly possible that some shinobi may have learned jujitsu techniques, but shinobi didn't care for fighting a whole lot.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

jobo said:


> to be honest, that all sounds pretty usefull, if you up date it a bit, replace swords, with how to use a knife, abd spears with how to fight with a broom handle. Horseman ship depends on where you are i suppose, in the country in could be usefull, in the city it could be replace by mountain bike skills. And weatherforcasting always comes in handy.



In my opinion, special forces are the modern-day ninja.


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> In my opinion, special forces are the modern-day ninja.


what does that even mean?


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

jobo said:


> what does that even mean?



It means that special forces teams carry out missions comparable to the ninja. When Green Berets were stationed in Afghanistan, for instance, they grew beards and spoke the language in an attempt to endear themselves to locals for intel gathering purposes.


----------



## JR 137

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> In my opinion, special forces are the modern-day ninja.


I always thought of Ninjas as feudal Japan’s Navy SEALs.

Edit: I think the Ninja were during Japan’s feudal period.  If not, substitute whatever era it actually was.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

JR 137 said:


> I always thought of Ninjas as feudal Japan’s Navy SEALs.
> 
> Edit: I think the Ninja were during Japan’s feudal period.  If not, substitute whatever era it actually was.



I'm certainly no expert on ninja. I just get irritated by this "ninjutsu" nonsense. As a Japanese American, I want people to know actual Japanese history rather than the semi-mythical movie version of it.


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> It means that special forces teams carry out missions comparable to the ninja. When Green Berets were stationed in Afghanistan, for instance, they grew beards and spoke the language in an attempt to endear themselves to locals for intel gathering purposes.


,? Growing beards isn't really an elite skill, hell you just sit there and it happens


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

jobo said:


> ,? Growing beards isn't really an elite skill, hell you just sit there and it happens



My point is that ninja often did stuff like this to get intel. According to Wikipedia, they were people watchers and good at dressing up and acting in various roles.


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I'm certainly no expert on ninja. I just get irritated by this "ninjutsu" nonsense. As a Japanese American, I want people to know actual Japanese history rather than the semi-mythical movie version of it.


as an English man i want people to know that robin hoods wasn't real, but i don't winge on and on about it.

why do you find it necessary to keep citing your heritage, it doesn't make your opinions more valid?


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> My point is that ninja often did stuff like this to get intel. According to Wikipedia, they were people watchers and good at dressing up and acting in various roles.


that's more actor than elite troop,


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

jobo said:


> as an English man i want people to know that robin hoods wasn't real, but i don't winge on and on about it.
> 
> why do you find it necessary to keep citing your heritage, it doesn't make your opinions more valid?



I didn't cite my heritage to make my points valid. I'm simply annoyed at how non-Japanese appropriate my culture, morph it into something weird, and then preach to me how my karate isn't "legitimate" for whatever reason that doesn't jive with their false ideas, which is why I posted in the Ninjustu forum. There's really no way of expressing my frustration without acknowledging my heritage.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

jobo said:


> that's more actor than elite troop,



What's all this talk about being elite?


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I didn't cite my heritage to make my points valid. I'm simply annoyed at how non-Japanese appropriate my culture, morph it into something weird, and then preach to me how my karate isn't "legitimate" for whatever reason that doesn't jive with their false ideas, which is why I posted in the Ninjustu forum. There's really no way of expressing my frustration without acknowledging my heritage.


who has said your karate isn't legitimate?


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> What's all this talk about being elite?


special forces are elite, you said they were like,special forces


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

jobo said:


> special forces are elite, you said they were like,special forces



I said the special forces are like the ninja, and then I gave an example showing how. You're the one who brought up elite military skills.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

jobo said:


> who has said your karate isn't legitimate?



Because the bulk of my karate came from my stepfather. He's been doing the karate thing since the 1960s and even trained with respected schools in Japan. He taught me karate during my teenage years, but because we opted to practice in regular street clothes and he never awarded me a fancy belt of any kind, many martial artists I've encountered think I'm somehow less legit than them.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> ,? Growing beards isn't really an elite skill, hell you just sit there and it happens


My beard is magnificent and i dont work at it at all.


----------



## Steve

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Because the bulk of my karate came from my stepfather. He's been doing the karate thing since the 1960s and even trained with respected schools in Japan. He taught me karate during my teenage years, but because we opted to practice in regular street clothes and he never awarded me a fancy belt of any kind, many martial artists I've encountered think I'm somehow less legit than them.


Have you ever heard the term "ceremonial adequacy?"   you actually could be more skilled and also less legit at the same time.


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Because the bulk of my karate came from my stepfather. He's been doing the karate thing since the 1960s and even trained with respected schools in Japan. He taught me karate during my teenage years, but because we opted to practice in regular street clothes and he never awarded me a fancy belt of any kind, many martial artists I've encountered think I'm somehow less legit than them.


so no one on here then, there a lot of fools,around in the world , someone said my dog was rubbish, i just ignored him


----------



## jobo

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I said the special forces are like the ninja, and then I gave an example showing how. You're the one who brought up elite military skills.


but the "special forces ARE elite troops, with elite skills, if ninja are like special forces they therefore must have elite skills


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

Steve said:


> Have you ever heard the term "ceremonial adequacy?"   you actually could be more skilled and also less legit at the same time.



I haven't. I don't care too much about belts, though, because belts are highly subjective and prerequisites vary by school. In fact, when Funakoshi Gichin awarded the first ever karate black belts, he himself had no belt.


----------



## Steve

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I haven't. I don't care too much about belts, though, because belts are highly subjective and prerequisites vary by school. In fact, when Funakoshi Gichin awarded the first ever karate black belts, he himself had no belt.


Whether you value them or not, if you have earned one, you have it.  

 If you go to a university for four years, but don't graduate, you might have the same education as a graduate, or even betyer.   but try putting that on a resume.   "almost a college graduate" and $4 will get yiu a coffee at starbucks, but it won't help you get a job.   

In the same way, you might be a more skilled martial artist, but not as legit.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> as an English man i want people to know that robin hoods wasn't real, but i don't winge on and on about it.
> 
> why do you find it necessary to keep citing your heritage, it doesn't make your opinions more valid?



It does if you want to play the weibo card.


----------



## dunc

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> There's no historical evidence of shinobi fighting systems. In pre-modern Japan, the only hand-to-hand martial art around was jujitsu, which was highly varied and stylistic depending on which school or clan or teacher taught it. It's certainly possible that some shinobi may have learned jujitsu techniques, but shinobi didn't care for fighting a whole lot.



I agree that there is a lot of myth and misinformation about this subject so I’ll try to elaborate - please forgive me for a degree of oversimplification to avoid getting into lengthy posts

Different regions in Japan developed styles of combat according to their circumstances, contact with other styles etc
For example in the Kamakura area people were relatively wealthy and could afford good weapons, armour and so on they also had boats and a navy, so the martial arts in that region (eg Kukshinden) focused on armour, weapons and fighting on ships

Perhaps you’re right in that we could classify all of these as jujutsu, bujutsu/budo or similar, but the Japanese had many different terms to distinguish one style from another. Terms like dakentaijutsu (striking focus), jutaijutsu (yielding focus), koshijutsu (focus on muscular system) etc were used historically

The regions of Iga and Koga were poorer, mountainous and relatively ungoverned. As a result they attracted people who were on the losing side of great battles, immigrants from China, Korea etc. The martial arts in that region developed with a focus on surviving against the odds, escaping, using non-conventional weapons and had a large influence from Chinese styles. Over time the warriors from these regions were often referred to as ninja because their skills were different from the more mainstream bushi

There is a great deal of evidence that the people in Iga and Koga fought and had martial arts skills. Eg the stories of Nobunaga and Tokugawa Ieyasu’s encounters with the men of Iga


----------



## Anarax

Stef97 said:


> Hi I'm new here! I'm a 20 y/o woman and i am currently a security agent. I'm a black belt in Taekwondo but I actually stopped years ago.  I want to go back in martial art and found Ninjutsu. I'm not familiar with this art so wondering if it would be good for someone with my background ?  Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk



I was an armed Security office for two years and have some experience with Ninjutsu. Ninjutsu is a great style to learn and I would advise learning it if you can get *legitimate* training. I emphasize legitimate because it's difficult finding one in Ninjutsu, I was fortunate to find a legitimate one, but they are difficult to find. 

What weapons do you carry? Do you carry them on a belt? What type of environments do you provide security for? I would suggest Filipino Martial Arts(Kali, Escrima, Arnis). FMA will teach you striking, grappling, throws, sweeps, joint locks, chokes, pain compliance techniques and weaponry(baton, knives, etc) offense and defense. We have a lot of law enforcement in my Kali class and they absolutely love it. FMA in general is widely taught to Law Enforcement throughout the world. The reason I wouldn't suggest wrestling nor BJJ is because of potential situations like knife wielding opponents, multiple attackers and weapons retention. You need something that will cover many if not all the facets of Private Security.


----------



## Tarrycat

Not the lineage issue again... This is getting ridiculous. The truth lies in the kata, I believe. If it were not applicable or efficient in any way, it would not have existed. I would also like to see what @Chris Parker says, as he's the only reliable & most knowledgeable source here to comment on all things Ninjutsu related. 

It's just ironic to me that the people who make the most accusations, know nothing about the subject at hand, nor do they have any physical experience with it. 

It's true what they say; "Empty vessels make the most noise".


----------



## Steve

Tarrycat said:


> Not the lineage issue again... This is getting ridiculous. The truth lies in the kata, I believe. If it were not applicable or efficient in any way, it would not have existed. I would also like to see what @Chris Parker says, as he's the only reliable & most knowledgeable source here to comment on all things Ninjutsu related.
> 
> It's just ironic to me that the people who make the most accusations, know nothing about the subject at hand, nor do they have any physical experience with it.
> 
> It's true what they say; "Empty vessels make the most noise".


Chris Parker has never worked in security, but he seems to know about ninjutsu.   Important distinction there.  Others in this thread are very experienced in security, but not as knowledgeable about ninjutsu.   

You’re on the right track, but I’d suggest being a little more discriminating.


----------



## Anarax

Tarrycat said:


> If it were not applicable or efficient in any way, it would not have existed. It's just ironic to me that the people who make the most accusations, know nothing about the subject at hand, nor do they have any physical experience with it."



I don't see your point if it's not applicable it wouldn't exist. What about the Wushu forms post boxer rebellion in China? I don't believe that just becomes a forms exists it is automatically valid as an applicable form. There are too many forms that have been created and are still being created to state that. There are also Martial Arts frauds you have to look out for in life that will trick and deceive you.


----------



## drop bear

Anarax said:


> I don't see your point if it's not applicable it wouldn't exist. What about the Wushu forms post boxer rebellion in China? I don't believe that just becomes a forms exists it is automatically valid as an applicable form. There are too many forms that have been created and are still being created to state that. There are also Martial Arts frauds you have to look out for in life that will trick and deceive you.



The most obvious distinction there is magic. So for example if horoscopes didn't work then why do they exist?


----------



## Anarax

drop bear said:


> The most obvious distinction there is magic. So for example if horoscopes didn't work then why do they exist?



Another example for a quality gradient would be weapons. If I'm choosing what knife to buy for everyday carry, I can only choose from knives that exist. I can buy a cheap 5 dollar one from the flea market, or a higher quality knife for 60 dollars. However; if I apply that rational then both knives are of equal quality for the sole reason that they both exist.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tarrycat said:


> Not the lineage issue again... This is getting ridiculous. The truth lies in the kata, I believe. If it were not applicable or efficient in any way, it would not have existed. I would also like to see what @Chris Parker says, as he's the only reliable & most knowledgeable source here to comment on all things Ninjutsu related.
> 
> It's just ironic to me that the people who make the most accusations, know nothing about the subject at hand, nor do they have any physical experience with it.
> 
> It's true what they say; "Empty vessels make the most noise".



Chris is very knowledgeable about ninjutsu, but he's hardly the only one here... Brian and Hyoho (just as a two examples) both have a great deal of knowledge about the Koryu arts. 
Chris has (so far as I know) never worked in security. Brian has LEO experience. But even given those facts, it's also important to remember that the laws in your area might very well be totally different, resulting in drastic changes in how security issues are approached.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

Steve said:


> Whether you value them or not, if you have earned one, you have it.
> 
> If you go to a university for four years, but don't graduate, you might have the same education as a graduate, or even betyer.   but try putting that on a resume.   "almost a college graduate" and $4 will get yiu a coffee at starbucks, but it won't help you get a job.
> 
> In the same way, you might be a more skilled martial artist, but not as legit.



I disagree. Universities are accredited. Karate schools have nothing comparable to measure quality; John's  blackbelt might be from a Mcdojo and Steve's blackbelt might come from having trained four hours a day for ten years. The belt system is a modern concept that is completely subjective and would have been totally unrecognizable to karate guys a century ago.

Also, why should I recognize your belt? Since there is no such thing as an objective blackbelt, you having one really tells me nothing about your skill. All it tells me is that you completed what your particular teacher considers the prerequisites for a blackbelt as per the standards he invented for his particular school.

I know karate. If someone wants to learn what I know, I'll teach them. I don't see why a belt is necessary.


----------



## Steve

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I disagree. Universities are accredited. Karate schools have nothing comparable to measure quality; John's  blackbelt might be from a Mcdojo and Steve's blackbelt might come from having trained four hours a day for ten years. The belt system is a modern concept that is completely subjective and would have been totally unrecognizable to karate guys a century ago.
> 
> Also, why should I recognize your belt? Since there is no such thing as an objective blackbelt, you having one really tells me nothing about your skill. All it tells me is that you completed what your particular teacher considers the prerequisites for a blackbelt as per the standards he invented for his particular school.
> 
> I know karate. If someone wants to learn what I know, I'll teach them. I don't see why a belt is necessary.


I wasn’t sharing an opinion.   I was explaining a concept.  It’s not really an agreed or disagree thing.  The college degree was an example.  Any kind of certification, regardless of how rigorous, fits.  Black belt is a binary thing.

You’re getting yourself all mixed up with a lot of irrelevant trivia.  The concept of ceremonial adequacy is not complicated, and it explains how one could be both more effective and less legitimate at the same time.  If you think about it, you’ll realize that most of your post actually supports the concept.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

Steve said:


> I wasn’t sharing an opinion.   I was explaining a concept.  It’s not really an agreed or disagree thing.  The college degree was an example.  Any kind of certification, regardless of how rigorous, fits.  Black belt is a binary thing.
> 
> You’re getting yourself all mixed up with a lot of irrelevant trivia.  The concept of ceremonial adequacy is not complicated, and it explains how one could be both more effective and less legitimate at the same time.  If you think about it, you’ll realize that most of your post actually supports the concept.



I'm not "getting mixed up." Why should I recognize your belt? Is there a universal standard of belt grading that I'm unaware of, and did your teacher adhere to it? And, if so, can you verify this?

How can I know your karate is legit?

Why should I care if it is or not?

I don't mean to come across as an ***, btw. These are honest questions. I'm unsure why your belt makes you legitimate, or why it deserves the recognition of anyone outside of your school.


----------



## Steve

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I'm not "getting mixed up." Why should I recognize your belt? Is there a universal standard of belt grading that I'm unaware of, and did your teacher adhere to it? And, if so, can you verify this?
> 
> How can I know your karate is legit?
> 
> Why should I care if it is or not?
> 
> I don't mean to come across as an ***, btw. These are legitimate questions. I'm unsure why your belt makes you legitimate, or why it deserves the recognition of anyone outside of your school.


You don’t have to recognize anything.  That’s one of the irrelevant bits.   And I don’t think you’re an *** at all.   I just think you are mixing things up.


----------



## drop bear

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I'm not "getting mixed up." Why should I recognize your belt? Is there a universal standard of belt grading that I'm unaware of, and did your teacher adhere to it? And, if so, can you verify this?
> 
> How can I know your karate is legit?
> 
> Why should I care if it is or not?
> 
> I don't mean to come across as an ***, btw. These are honest questions. I'm unsure why your belt makes you legitimate, or why it deserves the recognition of anyone outside of your school.



The belt like a degree is an accreditation. You don't have to recognize either.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf

drop bear said:


> The belt like a degree is an accreditation. You don't have to recognize either.



It's not. There is no recognized accreditation service for karate belts that I'm aware of. If there was, the McDojos would shrivel up. Is there some national or international organization that the majority of karate school recognize? Is there universal black belt syllabus?

If one looks at early Judo and Funakoshi's school, belts were entirely an in-house rank structure. For a long time, neither Kano nor Funakoshi even had belts when they awarded belts to students.


----------



## dunc

Not sure what this has to do with the OP...?


----------



## Chris Parker

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Ninjutsu isn't even a real martial art. The real ninja may have studied something called "ninjutsu," but, according to extant texts, this training consisted of topics like "how to shoot a bow on horseback" and "how to burn a house down."
> 
> Modern "ninjutsu" is just people trying to recreate some aspects of ninja training with a liberal amount of imagination.
> 
> According to Wikipedia, ninjutsu training consisted of:
> 
> 
> _Bajutsu_ – horsemanship
> _Bōjutsu_ – stick and staff techniques
> _Bōryaku_ – tactics
> _Chi-mon_ – geography
> _Chōhō_ – espionage
> _Hensōjutsu_ – disguise and impersonation
> _Intonjutsu_ – escaping and concealment
> _Kayakujutsu_ – pyrotechnics
> _Kenjutsu_ – sword techniques
> _Kusarigamajutsu_ – _kusarigama_ (chain-sickle) techniques
> _Naginatajutsu_ – _naginata_ (polearm) techniques
> _Seishinteki kyōyō_ – spiritual refinement
> _Shinobi-iri_ – stealth and infiltration
> _Shurikenjutsu_ – throwing weapons techniques
> _Sōjutsu_ – spear techniques
> _Sui-ren_ – water training
> _Taijutsu_ – unarmed combat
> _Tenmon_ – meteorology



Er... you do know that that list has come basically from the modern (combative) "ninjutsu" arts, yeah? And that numbers 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are all specifically combative methods (staff fighting, sword fighting, composite chain and sickle fighting, pole arm/glaive fighting, throwing blades, spear fighting, and unarmed combat)? So... not even a real martial art? Interesting.... 

 That said, some discernment in the use of terminology can be useful... historically speaking, the term "ninjutsu"/"shinobi-no-jutsu"/"shinobi no ho" and other terms used to describe the activities of "ninja"/"rappa"/"suppa"/"kusa"/"shinobi no mono"/"Iga no mono"/"Koga no mono"/"o-metsuke", and a number of other terms largely referred to the methods and activities of information gathering, espionage, occasionally sabotage, and so on... not combative engagements. Additionally, most historically, there were no "ninja" as such in the main... it was simply a way to describe anyone performing the job. Same way any soldier on a scouting mission is a "scout", regardless of other roles they may be employed in... many "ninja" were simply samurai (or non-samurai in cases) in the act of obtaining information in various ways.

To take the modern usage, though, the term today largely refers to the methods of the so-called Takamatsuden arts. These systems, which are a variety of more "orthodox" bushi systems (such as Kukishin Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu, both branches of systems which are taught in other lines as distinct Koryu arts), arts which claim a heritage based in the traditional "homeland" of the ninja of Iga and Koga (Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu, for example, both claim to have been developed in the Iga region, linking them with the social groups most commonly associated with "ninja", including the Hattori and Momochi "ninja" families and leaders), and a few arts that claim to be specifically "ninjutsu" (namely Togakure Ryu in most cases). Today, due to it's marketing and promotion, particularly in the 70's and 80's, with the use of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu as the "banner name", the more generic term "ninjutsu" has come to represent the whole group of teachings, regardless of the historical aspects or make up of the art.

Just for fun, though, the syllabus of Togakure Ryu, although it does include some combative methods, is not really geared up for engaging an opponent in any real "martial art" method... instead, the combative techniques are more a stop-gap measure if you find yourself discovered or caught when on an espionage action... which is really the primary emphasis of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu... and matches much of the historical view of ninjutsu itself. Hmm. Oh, and for the record, the list you give from Wikipedia? That's directly from Togakure Ryu.... just sayin'.... 



Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> There's no historical evidence of shinobi fighting systems. In pre-modern Japan, the only hand-to-hand martial art around was jujitsu, which was highly varied and stylistic depending on which school or clan or teacher taught it. It's certainly possible that some shinobi may have learned jujitsu techniques, but shinobi didn't care for fighting a whole lot.



Jujutsu. Not jujitsu. 

Oh, and, as said above, many "ninja" were samurai.... so the idea of "ninja didn't learn unarmed combat" is like saying that a modern soldier, when acting as a scout, never learnt how to fire a gun... 



Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> In my opinion, special forces are the modern-day ninja.



No. Really, not at all.



Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> It means that special forces teams carry out missions comparable to the ninja. When Green Berets were stationed in Afghanistan, for instance, they grew beards and spoke the language in an attempt to endear themselves to locals for intel gathering purposes.



In very limited circumstances, such as that, there may be some overlap... but in the main, no, Special Forces are not really like "ninja" at all. "Ninja" would be closer to spies, CIA etc.



JR 137 said:


> I always thought of Ninjas as feudal Japan’s Navy SEALs.



Same thing. Nope.



JR 137 said:


> Edit: I think the Ninja were during Japan’s feudal period.  If not, substitute whatever era it actually was.



First you'd need to define "feudal period".... there were a range of different periods in Japanese history that that covers... but, really, yeah... just in different contexts and ways.



Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I'm certainly no expert on ninja. I just get irritated by this "ninjutsu" nonsense. As a Japanese American, I want people to know actual Japanese history rather than the semi-mythical movie version of it.



Eh, movies are movies... it's rare for them to be that historically well researched or accurate if being entertaining is an option.... that said, regardless of your ethnic background, trying to clear the air in a topic you admit to not really knowing is a bit less than ideal, yeah?



Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> My point is that ninja often did stuff like this to get intel. According to Wikipedia, they were people watchers and good at dressing up and acting in various roles.



Ooh, Wiki... half a step above a movie for credibility.... 



Tarrycat said:


> Not the lineage issue again... This is getting ridiculous. The truth lies in the kata, I believe. If it were not applicable or efficient in any way, it would not have existed. I would also like to see what @Chris Parker says, as he's the only reliable & most knowledgeable source here to comment on all things Ninjutsu related.
> 
> It's just ironic to me that the people who make the most accusations, know nothing about the subject at hand, nor do they have any physical experience with it.
> 
> It's true what they say; "Empty vessels make the most noise".



Eh, I wouldn't say I'm the most reliable or most knowledgeable... @dunc  has many years experience, similar to me, @Brian R. VanCise  has trained for many years as well, @Tony Dismukes has a wealth of experience and knowledge.... it's dangerous looking to just one source...



Steve said:


> Chris Parker has never worked in security, but he seems to know about ninjutsu.   Important distinction there.  Others in this thread are very experienced in security, but not as knowledgeable about ninjutsu.
> 
> You’re on the right track, but I’d suggest being a little more discriminating.



So, while I agree with the advice to be more discriminating, I will put out my credentials in this regard.

In terms of understanding the requirements and needs of a security agent, you're right that I've never professionally engaged as a security agent, however my background does cover pretty much everything other than working a door each night. 

So, I think the background in the actual art being questioned is pretty much accepted, yeah? So the question is how can I know that it's applicable to use in a security setting? Well... over the last 25 years, I have covered a number of security courses, as my Chief Instructor is government accredited to create such programs. That has given me a great amount of insight into what is required (legally, strategically, tactically, technically, and so on), through both discussion and physical experience. I have had many discussions with security guards of various levels in many contexts to ensure that the information I was given matched the reality. I have taught security methodologies for 15 years. I have employed those same security techniques and methods in real life, including detaining and restraining shoplifters in my workplace, and using it in parties when things have gotten out of hand. Senior members of my organisation have worked in security, including the most senior instructor in Sydney who worked doors for over a decade, employing the skills of our ninjutsu teachings, an instructor in Queensland who also employed our security teachings in his job as a bouncer for 15 years, and so on.

So what I have is education, experience, corroborating accounts, supporting accounts, and, of course, knowledge of the subject at hand. But please, continue to tell me what I don't know.



Dirty Dog said:


> Chris is very knowledgeable about ninjutsu, but he's hardly the only one here... Brian and Hyoho (just as a two examples) both have a great deal of knowledge about the Koryu arts.



Hmm... Hyoho has an incredible amount of information and knowledge in Koryu, but might not take the idea of knowing about ninjutsu all that well... ha! And Brian has some understanding of Koryu (better than a number), but more in the ninjutsu area... 



Dirty Dog said:


> Chris has (so far as I know) never worked in security. Brian has LEO experience. But even given those facts, it's also important to remember that the laws in your area might very well be totally different, resulting in drastic changes in how security issues are approached.



And LEO is not security, of course.... and never having worked in security isn't the same as not having insight into the question at hand...


----------



## Steve

So, you have academic experience and no actual p, practical experience.  That's what I said.   It is an important distinction.


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve, I have practical experience. I also have the reference point of others with practical experience over a longer time period than myself. I also have experience in the training and requirements (needs and applicability) of the security industry. Your refusal to acknowledge this is frankly your own issue.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Steve, I have practical experience. I also have the reference point of others with practical experience over a longer time period than myself. I also have experience in the training and requirements (needs and applicability) of the security industry. Your refusal to acknowledge this is frankly your own issue.


Look.  My intent is not to take anything away from you.  But you appear to have a blind spot when it comes to your own credentials.  You don't apply the rigorous standards you insist for others to yourself. For someone who is looking for information on ninjutsu and security, you can certainly inform with authority on the former.  Someone with actual experience in the field would be a much better source for the latter.  Perhaps one of your students who has actually applied the techniques.


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve.

I 
Have
Applied
The 
Techniques.

Dude. Read.


----------



## Chris Parker

I mean, seriously... the question is simple... is Ninjutsu (Takamatsuden martial arts) suited to a security agent?

My answer... yes, it can be.

My basis for this includes my use of our methods in security settings and contexts.
It also includes senior members of our organisation who have employed our methods in security work for a decade or more in cases.
It also includes my training in a number of security courses.
It also includes my knowledge of the requirements of security guards, coming from the security guards themselves, and my organisations history with creating and presenting government accredited courses in this field.
It also includes a focus on security use and application in my training for the past 2 decades plus.
It also includes my 25 years in the art.

But, of course, I have a blind spot for my credentials. Right.


----------



## Tarrycat

Chris Parker said:


> Er... you do know that that list has come basically from the modern (combative) "ninjutsu" arts, yeah? And that numbers 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are all specifically combative methods (staff fighting, sword fighting, composite chain and sickle fighting, pole arm/glaive fighting, throwing blades, spear fighting, and unarmed combat)? So... not even a real martial art? Interesting....
> 
> That said, some discernment in the use of terminology can be useful... historically speaking, the term "ninjutsu"/"shinobi-no-jutsu"/"shinobi no ho" and other terms used to describe the activities of "ninja"/"rappa"/"suppa"/"kusa"/"shinobi no mono"/"Iga no mono"/"Koga no mono"/"o-metsuke", and a number of other terms largely referred to the methods and activities of information gathering, espionage, occasionally sabotage, and so on... not combative engagements. Additionally, most historically, there were no "ninja" as such in the main... it was simply a way to describe anyoe performing the job. Same way any soldier on a scouting mission is a "scout", regardless of other roles they may be employed in... many "ninja" were simply samurai (or non-samurai in cases) in the act of obtaining information in various ways.
> 
> To take the modern usage, though, the term today largely refers to the methods of the so-called Takamatsuden arts. These systems, which are a variety of more "orthodox" bushi systems (such as Kukishin Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu, both branches of systems which are taught in other lines as distinct Koryu arts), arts which claim a heritage based in the traditional "homeland" of the ninja of Iga and Koga (Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu, for example, both claim to have been developed in the Iga region, linking them with the social groups most commonly associated with "ninja", including the Hattori and Momochi "ninja" families and leaders), and a few arts that claim to be specifically "ninjutsu" (namely Togakure Ryu in most cases). Today, due to it's marketing and promotion, particularly in the 70's and 80's, with the use of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu as the "banner name", the more generic term "ninjutsu" has come to represent the whole group of teachings, regardless of the historical aspects or make up of the art.
> 
> Just for fun, though, the syllabus of Togakure Ryu, although it does include some combative methods, is not really geared up for engaging an opponent in any real "martial art" method... instead, the combative techniques are more a stop-gap measure if you find yourself discovered or caught when on an espionage action... which is really the primary emphasis of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu... and matches much of the historical view of ninjutsu itself. Hmm. Oh, and for the record, the list you give from Wikipedia? That's directly from Togakure Ryu.... just sayin'....
> 
> 
> 
> Jujutsu. Not jujitsu.
> 
> Oh, and, as said above, many "ninja" were samurai.... so the idea of "ninja didn't learn unarmed combat" is like saying that a modern soldier, when acting as a scout, never learnt how to fire a gun...
> 
> 
> 
> No. Really, not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> In very limited circumstances, such as that, there may be some overlap... but in the main, no, Special Forces are not really like "ninja" at all. "Ninja" would be closer to spies, CIA etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing. Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> First you'd need to define "feudal period".... there were a range of different periods in Japanese history that that covers... but, really, yeah... just in different contexts and ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, movies are movies... it's rare for them to be that historically well researched or accurate if being entertaining is an option.... that said, regardless of your ethnic background, trying to clear the air in a topic you admit to not really knowing is a bit less than ideal, yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, Wiki... half a step above a movie for credibility....
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, I wouldn't say I'm the most reliable or most knowledgeable... @dunc  has many years experience, similar to me, @Brian R. VanCise  has trained for many years as well, @Tony Dismukes has a wealth of experience and knowledge.... it's dangerous looking to just one source...
> 
> 
> 
> So, while I agree with the advice to be more discriminating, I will put out my credentials in this regard.
> 
> In terms of understanding the requirements and needs of a security agent, you're right that I've never professionally engaged as a security agent, however my background does cover pretty much everything other than working a door each night.
> 
> So, I think the background in the actual art being questioned is pretty much accepted, yeah? So the question is how can I know that it's applicable to use in a security setting? Well... over the last 25 years, I have covered a number of security courses, as my Chief Instructor is government accredited to create such programs. That has given me a great amount of insight into what is required (legally, strategically, tactically, technically, and so on), through both discussion and physical experience. I have had many discussions with security guards of various levels in many contexts to ensure that the information I was given matched the reality. I have taught security methodologies for 15 years. I have employed those same security techniques and methods in real life, including detaining and restraining shoplifters in my workplace, and using it in parties when things have gotten out of hand. Senior members of my organisation have worked in security, including the most senior instructor in Sydney who worked doors for over a decade, employing the skills of our ninjutsu teachings, an instructor in Queensland who also employed our security teachings in his job as a bouncer for 15 years, and so on.
> 
> So what I have is education, experience, corroborating accounts, supporting accounts, and, of course, knowledge of the subject at hand. But please, continue to tell me what I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... Hyoho has an incredible amount of information and knowledge in Koryu, but might not take the idea of knowing about ninjutsu all that well... ha! And Brian has some understanding of Koryu (better than a number), but more in the ninjutsu area...
> 
> 
> 
> And LEO is not security, of course.... and never having worked in security isn't the same as not having insight into the question at hand...



Oh, I wasn't aware that there were more  experienced folks like you here in Ninjutsu. Thank you for the references.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Steve.
> 
> I
> Have
> Applied
> The
> Techniques.
> 
> Dude. Read.


"you're right that I've never professionally engaged as a security agent." - Chris Parker

Son, the rest is you fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between academic experience and practical experience.  This thread is about security agents.  You have zero actual experience in that field.  It is that simple.

Training is not application.  It is training.  Lest the point be lost, I'm not taking away anything from you here.  You seem to know ABOUT a lot of stuff.  But for someone who is a stickler regarding the credentials and credibility of others, you have a gaping blind spot with regards to yourself, and continually speak with authority on topics you admit have no actual experience with.

You have, if I understand correctly, no actual experience in LEO, in the military or in security.  You allege to have a lot of training and seem to have been around some of those folks.  That's not the same thing.

I think it's very important for folks to know what you do and don't have experience with.  And this is speaking as someone who has worked professionally in the business of training, professional development and building expertise in people for their jobs, from technicians to executives and managers at all levels in between.  I am telling you that, as an expert in the area of professional training and building expertise, there is a real difference between practical experience and academic expertise that you understand intuitively when you see it in others, but fail to recognize in yourself.

This entire string of posts is you using a lot of words to try and create a false equivalence between your training background and the real experience that comes from applying skills in their intended context.  As I said above, this thread is about security agents.  You have zero actual experience in that field.  It is that simple.

Why is this important?  As I have said a few times, the point isn't to take anything away from you.  It is to put your critique of others and your opinions in proper context.  When you disagree with others in this thread who do have experience as security agents, it is relevant that you do not have this experience.  It is particularly relevant when you dismiss these informed opinions as uninformed because they are different from your own.  This doesn't mean you're wrong.  It means that your opinions need to stand alone and not rest on some mistaken impression that you are an expert in a field where you are not.  This would be a no-brainer if you were more clear about this yourself, but you just don't seem to have that awareness.  As I said, it's a blind spot.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> I mean, seriously... the question is simple... is Ninjutsu (Takamatsuden martial arts) suited to a security agent?
> 
> My answer... yes, it can be.
> 
> My basis for this includes my use of our methods in security settings and contexts.
> It also includes senior members of our organisation who have employed our methods in security work for a decade or more in cases.
> It also includes my training in a number of security courses.
> It also includes my knowledge of the requirements of security guards, coming from the security guards themselves, and my organisations history with creating and presenting government accredited courses in this field.
> It also includes a focus on security use and application in my training for the past 2 decades plus.
> It also includes my 25 years in the art.
> 
> But, of course, I have a blind spot for my credentials. Right.



So. Skull dragged many guys out of pubs?

My first security course was 4 days. As far as the defensive training goes security industry provides almost nothing good.


----------



## Chris Parker

Chris Parker said:


> Steve.
> 
> I
> Have
> Applied
> The
> Techniques.
> 
> Dude. Read.



You "disagree" with this, Steve? Seriously? Do you have any idea of the level of arrogance to disagree with me when I state what I have actually done?

Steve. You have some issue with me. That's clear, and has been clear for a while. But frankly, you just make yourself look idiotic. You have not been able to counter or even contradict anything I've said, any advice or assessment I've made, or any comment I've given, so you're trying to attack my credibility... by "disagreeing" that I've actually done something. Something you have exactly no idea of whether I'm telling the truth or not (I am, of course, for the record). But you have this obsessive need to argue because it's me... regardless of the simple fact that you have zero experience or knowledge of any of the areas of this thread. You also aren't security, and you have no idea of what Ninjutsu methodology is, or how applicable it is. You simply have no dog in this fight... other than to harass me. Grow up, and get over it.



Steve said:


> "you're right that I've never professionally engaged as a security agent." - Chris Parker



Nice, taking half a sentence out of context, and not allowing the second half.... which, for the record, covers the fact that, despite not working security myself, I have plenty of backup for my claim and assessment that our arts can be very suitable to use in a security context. Which means one of a few things... one, you only read what you want to see, and ignore anything you can't actually argue against. Two, you are purposefully cherrypicking half statements in order to try to present an untruthful image aimed at attacking me. Three, you are simply unable to see any context, or take anything you're told that doesn't suit your own preconceived notions. None of these are good.



Steve said:


> Son, the rest is you fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between academic experience and practical experience.  This thread is about security agents.  You have zero actual experience in that field.  It is that simple.



Don't use the term "son", Steve, you've never understood it, never use it correctly, and just look like a petty child when you try. It's quite sad, really.

The rest is you fundamentally misunderstanding the thread, and the many forms of evidence and support I am offering and speaking from. One more time, it includes practical experience on my part (just not in a professional/paid position context), as well as the personal practical experiences of many ninjutsu practitioners and teachers who HAVE worked as security agents in many different ways, including working doors in the rougher areas of Sydney and Melbourne, that I am personally aware of (my seniors, among them).

The thread is not about security agents. It's about the applicability and suitability of the Takamatsuden arts to someone who is working as a "security agent". As the exact type of "security agent" was never qualified (it might be bouncing at a rough club, it might be a mall cop situation, it might be an armed guard for money transfers, it could be anything else... we never got an answer), all you're doing is using your limited grasp and assuming what you think is meant. And, as my information covers security use (in a number of contexts), from a variety of sources, knowledge of the methods taught, and how they're taught, frankly, you have zero experience or legs to stand on here. It's that simple.



Steve said:


> Training is not application.  It is training.  Lest the point be lost, I'm not taking away anything from you here.  You seem to know ABOUT a lot of stuff.  But for someone who is a stickler regarding the credentials and credibility of others, you have a gaping blind spot with regards to yourself, and continually speak with authority on topics you admit have no actual experience with.



Steve, that's utter crap. You've jumped on sword threads where you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and disagreed, argued, and disliked my posts, despite not wanting to "take anything away from me", and acknowledging my knowledge and expertise. You've done the same on multiple other threads where you don't have any idea what you're talking about, and have no actual argument to counter me, but are seeking only to argue against me because of some kind of issue you have with me personally. Make no mistake, you have so far made exactly zero counter or complaint against anything I've written, but find it necessary to "disagree" with my personal experience, and seek to discredit myself, despite the fact that you're problem is something I've never made any such claim of.

And my being a "stickler for credentials" is applied to myself first and foremost. I have not represented myself as being anything more or less than I am, and have been completely clear as to what level of personal experience I have, as well as where the rest of the support for my statements come from. Once again, grow up, and get over it.



Steve said:


> You have, if I understand correctly, no actual experience in LEO, in the military or in security.  You allege to have a lot of training and seem to have been around some of those folks.  That's not the same thing.



I "allege"?!?! But you're not "looking to take anything away from me", right?

Steve. Your little vendetta against me is ridiculous, baseless, and sad.

But, to be clear one more time, I have never claimed to be LEO, Military (although neither of those are the same as Security either, so not overly relevant either), nor to have ever been employed as a security guard or agent in any professional setting (being paid to be a security guard). What I have done is gained a fair amount of insight into the field, as well as personally having utilised/used/employed/relied upon/however you want it put, the physical methods and techniques of our security teachings in real life engagements and situations... including the restraint and apprehension of an attempted shoplifter at my place of work... in fact, out of all of my personal situations where I have needed to rely on physical techniques from my art, the vast majority of the time it has been a security method/technique that I have employed; or what we refer to as "Non-Violent Restraint and Removal". 



Steve said:


> I think it's very important for folks to know what you do and don't have experience with.



Then maybe you should pay attention to what I've said... I've been incredibly clear about what I have personal experience in, what I have training in, what I have the experiences of others to depend on, and so on.

Seriously... read my posts. You're arguing from a position that I have been giving an impression that I'm highly experienced as a security guard... I have never once stated that, claimed it, or put the idea forth. I have stated exactly where my position is coming from, and you're trying to make it out as if I'm muddying the waters by ignoring what I've said, and insisting that I'm putting forth an idea I simply am not. 

Read the damn posts.



Steve said:


> And this is speaking as someone who has worked professionally in the business of training, professional development and building expertise in people for their jobs, from technicians to executives and managers at all levels in between.  I am telling you that, as an expert in the area of professional training and building expertise, there is a real difference between practical experience and academic expertise that you understand intuitively when you see it in others, but fail to recognize in yourself.



You mean you've allegedly worked professionally in these fields, right?

And do you seriously want to revisit the whole "can you be an expert" thing again? Because that was again simply a case of you ignoring anything anyone said that contradicted or disagreed with your position, and accused them of not listening to you... despite the number of posters who didn't agree with your assessment, based on your lack of appreciation for a great many contexts outside of your small area of "expertise".



Steve said:


> This entire string of posts is you using a lot of words to try and create a false equivalence between your training background and the real experience that comes from applying skills in their intended context.  As I said above, this thread is about security agents.  You have zero actual experience in that field.  It is that simple.



You have zero experience in the art that this thread is actually about, Steve. We're in the Ninjutsu forum... with a question about Ninjutsu... in the context of security use (from a poster who is already in the field, and therefore doesn't really need to be told what is the reality there). And I have created no false equivalence of anything... I have been completely clear about my background. You have misread, deliberately or not, every single occasion. I honestly don't know what else to do to explain this to you....

You really need to take your blinders off when it comes to me, and actually read what I've written.



Steve said:


> Why is this important?  As I have said a few times, the point isn't to take anything away from you.



Crap.



Steve said:


> It is to put your critique of others and your opinions in proper context.



No, it's not. To do that, you'd need to have the first clue what the proper context is. And your failure to read simple words makes it clear you are unable to do that.



Steve said:


> When you disagree with others in this thread who do have experience as security agents, it is relevant that you do not have this experience.



Crap. I have disagreed with drop bear, based not on his security work, but based on his lack of knowledge of the art in question. His comment that he has "never seen ninjutsu work in security" means nothing... I also haven't seen FMA work in security, but I'm sure it could... I've just never seen a security guard use it. In other words, the only security agent I've disagreed with is someone who doesn't have the experience to make the claims he was using. The work as a security agent was not the defining aspect... hence the forum this thread is in.



Steve said:


> It is particularly relevant when you dismiss these informed opinions as uninformed because they are different from your own.



Informed, based on what? Whole context, Steve... you're missing 80% of it.



Steve said:


> This doesn't mean you're wrong.  It means that your opinions need to stand alone and not rest on some mistaken impression that you are an expert in a field where you are not.



What the hell are you going on about?!?! I have never rested my opinion/assessment on simply "me being right"... I have listed the support I have for my opinion multiple times... never once claiming it's because I "worked in security", which you seem to think I've implied.

And, one more time... Ninjutsu forum... Ninjutsu question... the focus is on Ninjutsu, in the context of Security, not Security with the possibility of Ninjutsu. Now tell me what the relevant expertise is.



Steve said:


> This would be a no-brainer if you were more clear about this yourself, but you just don't seem to have that awareness.  As I said, it's a blind spot.



Dude, your inability to actually read what I've written, thanks to that huge chip on your shoulder, deciding I've said things I've never said, or are claiming things I've never claimed, means the blind spot is not mine.



drop bear said:


> So. Skull dragged many guys out of pubs?



So your 20 years in security has told you that's the only application or type of security ever seen or used?



drop bear said:


> My first security course was 4 days. As far as the defensive training goes security industry provides almost nothing good.



Er... okay.... ? And that changes what, exactly?


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> So your 20 years in security has told you that's the only application or type of security ever seen or used?
> 
> Er... okay.... ? And that changes what, exactly?



One leads in to the other. So quite often the people putting together the courses are not working from any idea at all as to what those courses should contain.

But because they put together the courses think they do have a clue. they are an expert because they say they are. And they should know as they are the expert.

Dunning kruger basically.


----------



## dunc

So it seems to me that we don't have folks on this forum who have experience in XKan styles AND have operated as a security / LEO professional

We do have folks, like @Chris Parker and myself, who can contribute on a couple of levels:
a) We know people with a lot of experience in both and can pass on what they tell us (e.g. one of the most prominent UK members of the Bujinkan has extensive experience as a police officer - Bujinkan King Dojo  武神館 キング 道場)
b) We can illustrate specific techniques / principles / strategies that may be appropriate and have a discussion on a technical level

Other than that it's difficult to see where this thread can go as the folks with security experience who are contributing don't seem to have direct experience in what the xkan training entails (forgive me if I've misunderstood or missed something)


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> So it seems to me that we don't have folks on this forum who have experience in XKan styles AND have operated as a security / LEO professional
> 
> We do have folks, like @Chris Parker and myself, who can contribute on a couple of levels:
> a) We know people with a lot of experience in both and can pass on what they tell us (e.g. one of the most prominent UK members of the Bujinkan has extensive experience as a police officer - Bujinkan King Dojo  武神館 キング 道場)
> b) We can illustrate specific techniques / principles / strategies that may be appropriate and have a discussion on a technical level
> 
> Other than that it's difficult to see where this thread can go as the folks with security experience who are contributing don't seem to have direct experience in what the xkan training entails (forgive me if I've misunderstood or missed something)



Ok what techniques do you think will work?


----------



## Steve

dunc said:


> So it seems to me that we don't have folks on this forum who have experience in XKan styles AND have operated as a security / LEO professional
> 
> We do have folks, like @Chris Parker and myself, who can contribute on a couple of levels:
> a) We know people with a lot of experience in both and can pass on what they tell us (e.g. one of the most prominent UK members of the Bujinkan has extensive experience as a police officer - Bujinkan King Dojo  武神館 キング 道場)
> b) We can illustrate specific techniques / principles / strategies that may be appropriate and have a discussion on a technical level
> 
> Other than that it's difficult to see where this thread can go as the folks with security experience who are contributing don't seem to have direct experience in what the xkan training entails (forgive me if I've misunderstood or missed something)


the folks with the training don’t seem to have direct experience with what the job entails.   

Actually, advice could be given if the folks in both areas just acknowledged their own lack of expertise and respected the expertise of the other.   That’s not what happens, though.  @Chris Parker doesn’t do that.  If he states an opinion, regardless of whether he has experience or not, his ego can not accept any push back.  

His critique of my post boils down to one thing.  I must not have read his post.  In his mind, if I read his words and truly understood them, how could I possibly disagree?  Lots of words, for sure.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I think there is a useful distinction to be made between being experienced in a field and being informed (even well-informed) about that field.

Chris is _experienced_ in the study of the Takamatsuden arts ("ninjutsu") and is _informed_ regarding the needs of a security professional and the application of the Takamatsuden arts for those needs based on the experience of others. (I don't really count the apprehension of a shoplifter as significant experience. I dealt with a number of shoplifters back when I worked retail, but I don't count that as having security experience.)

Along similar lines, I could say that I am _well-informed_ regarding the sport of MMA. I've trained in MMA classes. I've sparred and trained with amateur and pro MMA fighters. I've had MMA fighters in classes that I've taught. I know the rules of MMA, I know the history, and I've watched hundreds of MMA fights. _However_, I've never fought an MMA fight in the cage. I've never been the only or primary coach for a MMA fighter. I've never been a referee for a MMA fight. I've never run a MMA promotion or done matchmaking for an MMA event. I'm knowledgeable about MMA, but my understanding of the sport is from an outside perspective. The experience of someone on the inside is qualitatively different.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think there is a useful distinction to be made between being experienced in a field and being informed (even well-informed) about that field.
> 
> Chris is _experienced_ in the study of the Takamatsuden arts ("ninjutsu") and is _informed_ regarding the needs of a security professional and the application of the Takamatsuden arts for those needs based on the experience of others. (I don't really count the apprehension of a shoplifter as significant experience. I dealt with a number of shoplifters back when I worked retail, but I don't count that as having security experience.)
> 
> Along similar lines, I could say that I am _well-informed_ regarding the sport of MMA. I've trained in MMA classes. I've sparred and trained with amateur and pro MMA fighters. I've had MMA fighters in classes that I've taught. I know the rules of MMA, I know the history, and I've watched hundreds of MMA fights. _However_, I've never fought an MMA fight in the cage. I've never been the only or primary coach for a MMA fighter. I've never been a referee for a MMA fight. I've never run a MMA promotion or done matchmaking for an MMA event. I'm knowledgeable about MMA, but my understanding of the sport is from an outside perspective. The experience of someone on the inside is qualitatively different.


This is exactly the distinction I'm pointing out. 

@Chris Parker, you are the flight instructor who has never flown a plane.  This is not a problem at all, provided you understand the very important distinction.  I don't know that you do, though.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> You "disagree" with this, Steve? Seriously? Do you have any idea of the level of arrogance to disagree with me when I state what I have actually done?
> 
> Steve. You have some issue with me. That's clear, and has been clear for a while. But frankly, you just make yourself look idiotic. You have not been able to counter or even contradict anything I've said, any advice or assessment I've made, or any comment I've given, so you're trying to attack my credibility... by "disagreeing" that I've actually done something. Something you have exactly no idea of whether I'm telling the truth or not (I am, of course, for the record). But you have this obsessive need to argue because it's me... regardless of the simple fact that you have zero experience or knowledge of any of the areas of this thread. You also aren't security, and you have no idea of what Ninjutsu methodology is, or how applicable it is. You simply have no dog in this fight... other than to harass me. Grow up, and get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, taking half a sentence out of context, and not allowing the second half.... which, for the record, covers the fact that, despite not working security myself, I have plenty of backup for my claim and assessment that our arts can be very suitable to use in a security context. Which means one of a few things... one, you only read what you want to see, and ignore anything you can't actually argue against. Two, you are purposefully cherrypicking half statements in order to try to present an untruthful image aimed at attacking me. Three, you are simply unable to see any context, or take anything you're told that doesn't suit your own preconceived notions. None of these are good.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't use the term "son", Steve, you've never understood it, never use it correctly, and just look like a petty child when you try. It's quite sad, really.
> 
> The rest is you fundamentally misunderstanding the thread, and the many forms of evidence and support I am offering and speaking from. One more time, it includes practical experience on my part (just not in a professional/paid position context), as well as the personal practical experiences of many ninjutsu practitioners and teachers who HAVE worked as security agents in many different ways, including working doors in the rougher areas of Sydney and Melbourne, that I am personally aware of (my seniors, among them).
> 
> The thread is not about security agents. It's about the applicability and suitability of the Takamatsuden arts to someone who is working as a "security agent". As the exact type of "security agent" was never qualified (it might be bouncing at a rough club, it might be a mall cop situation, it might be an armed guard for money transfers, it could be anything else... we never got an answer), all you're doing is using your limited grasp and assuming what you think is meant. And, as my information covers security use (in a number of contexts), from a variety of sources, knowledge of the methods taught, and how they're taught, frankly, you have zero experience or legs to stand on here. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, that's utter crap. You've jumped on sword threads where you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and disagreed, argued, and disliked my posts, despite not wanting to "take anything away from me", and acknowledging my knowledge and expertise. You've done the same on multiple other threads where you don't have any idea what you're talking about, and have no actual argument to counter me, but are seeking only to argue against me because of some kind of issue you have with me personally. Make no mistake, you have so far made exactly zero counter or complaint against anything I've written, but find it necessary to "disagree" with my personal experience, and seek to discredit myself, despite the fact that you're problem is something I've never made any such claim of.
> 
> And my being a "stickler for credentials" is applied to myself first and foremost. I have not represented myself as being anything more or less than I am, and have been completely clear as to what level of personal experience I have, as well as where the rest of the support for my statements come from. Once again, grow up, and get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> I "allege"?!?! But you're not "looking to take anything away from me", right?
> 
> Steve. Your little vendetta against me is ridiculous, baseless, and sad.
> 
> But, to be clear one more time, I have never claimed to be LEO, Military (although neither of those are the same as Security either, so not overly relevant either), nor to have ever been employed as a security guard or agent in any professional setting (being paid to be a security guard). What I have done is gained a fair amount of insight into the field, as well as personally having utilised/used/employed/relied upon/however you want it put, the physical methods and techniques of our security teachings in real life engagements and situations... including the restraint and apprehension of an attempted shoplifter at my place of work... in fact, out of all of my personal situations where I have needed to rely on physical techniques from my art, the vast majority of the time it has been a security method/technique that I have employed; or what we refer to as "Non-Violent Restraint and Removal".
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should pay attention to what I've said... I've been incredibly clear about what I have personal experience in, what I have training in, what I have the experiences of others to depend on, and so on.
> 
> Seriously... read my posts. You're arguing from a position that I have been giving an impression that I'm highly experienced as a security guard... I have never once stated that, claimed it, or put the idea forth. I have stated exactly where my position is coming from, and you're trying to make it out as if I'm muddying the waters by ignoring what I've said, and insisting that I'm putting forth an idea I simply am not.
> 
> Read the damn posts.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you've allegedly worked professionally in these fields, right?
> 
> And do you seriously want to revisit the whole "can you be an expert" thing again? Because that was again simply a case of you ignoring anything anyone said that contradicted or disagreed with your position, and accused them of not listening to you... despite the number of posters who didn't agree with your assessment, based on your lack of appreciation for a great many contexts outside of your small area of "expertise".
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero experience in the art that this thread is actually about, Steve. We're in the Ninjutsu forum... with a question about Ninjutsu... in the context of security use (from a poster who is already in the field, and therefore doesn't really need to be told what is the reality there). And I have created no false equivalence of anything... I have been completely clear about my background. You have misread, deliberately or not, every single occasion. I honestly don't know what else to do to explain this to you....
> 
> You really need to take your blinders off when it comes to me, and actually read what I've written.
> 
> 
> 
> Crap.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. To do that, you'd need to have the first clue what the proper context is. And your failure to read simple words makes it clear you are unable to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Crap. I have disagreed with drop bear, based not on his security work, but based on his lack of knowledge of the art in question. His comment that he has "never seen ninjutsu work in security" means nothing... I also haven't seen FMA work in security, but I'm sure it could... I've just never seen a security guard use it. In other words, the only security agent I've disagreed with is someone who doesn't have the experience to make the claims he was using. The work as a security agent was not the defining aspect... hence the forum this thread is in.
> 
> 
> 
> Informed, based on what? Whole context, Steve... you're missing 80% of it.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you going on about?!?! I have never rested my opinion/assessment on simply "me being right"... I have listed the support I have for my opinion multiple times... never once claiming it's because I "worked in security", which you seem to think I've implied.
> 
> And, one more time... Ninjutsu forum... Ninjutsu question... the focus is on Ninjutsu, in the context of Security, not Security with the possibility of Ninjutsu. Now tell me what the relevant expertise is.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, your inability to actually read what I've written, thanks to that huge chip on your shoulder, deciding I've said things I've never said, or are claiming things I've never claimed, means the blind spot is not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> So your 20 years in security has told you that's the only application or type of security ever seen or used?
> 
> 
> 
> Er... okay.... ? And that changes what, exactly?


Hey kiddo.  I don't have a problem with you.  I don't know you.  I do have a problem with your unwillingness to acknowledge your lack of expertise in areas where you lack experience.  And honestly, that would be no problem, if you took more care to qualify your areas of expertise.  You mislead people.  I don't know whether you do it intentionally or not.  But you do.  The way you describe your own expertise is misleading.  You once alleged to have trained in BJJ.  I asked you what rank you hold and you never responded.  I suspect you know a couple guys and "work out" with them from time to time.  If that.  But that doesn't stop you from commenting with authority on threads regarding BJJ. 

It's not you I have a problem with.  It's the behavior I'm describing above.  That's a problem for me. 

The other behavior I have a problem with, child, is your intentional use of diminutives to establish dominance over other posters.  Son, it's just rude, and while this has been explained to you many times, champ, you continue to do it.  And you have acknowledged that you do it on purpose.  Right, sport?  It's not okay.  I do have a problem with that.  It's not "friendly."  Rather, it is in my opinion aggressive and unfriendly.


----------



## dunc

drop bear said:


> Ok what techniques do you think will work?



Just re-iterating that I don’t and have never worked in security, law enforcement etc so I can only speak to what’s included in the training that would seem to be relevant

The foundational level of the Buj has several straightforward & structurally sound techniques that are probably helpful for the context

Before we learn the formal techniques we study:

1. Kurai Dori - meaning something like taking the right place (& standing in the right way) in an environment
The essential idea is to maintain some distance, have your arms and legs in a convenient place to provide protection or close down attacks, manoeuvre yourself so you’re not exposed to multiple assailants and have a relaxed, but business like frame of mind
Probably this is the most helpful concept & is quite different from the idea of taking a combat stance

2. Ukemi - ways to absorb strikes, pushes, throws etc. Of particular note is the training to a) receive these from all sorts of difficult and unexpected directions and b) to get back to your feet even if you’re being struck whilst you’re on the floor

3. The basic A, B, Cs of most broad based martial arts. Ways of striking, grip releases, locks etc


The formal techniques typically start with self defence sequences before moving onto the more specialised (& perhaps historically relevant) techniques
These cover a broad range of common situations and compared to many styles there is more of emphasis on
a) grabs &/or pushes followed by punches 
b) being grabbed from behind
c) mixing grappling (mostly gi) with striking and 
d) always assuming that the assailant may be armed in some way (which changes distances and angles somewhat)


By way of an example one of my students who works the doors in Soho, Central London, tells me that:
a) he sees grabs & trips from behind very frequently. Drilling some structural standing work for this situation seems eminently sensible
b) the training we do to deal with strikes from single handed weapons has come in very useful as people have a habit of using their belts & bottles in his line of work
c) the painful-but-not-damaging grips and controls (e.g. the take ori wrist control) regularly come in handy

Of course other styles have similar solutions for these kind of issues, but my assertion is that by offering a rounded curriculum like this the Bujinkan is relevant for folks working in this environment 

What the Bujinkan doesn’t teach are important skills like de-escalation, team working, legal frameworks etc


----------



## Steve

dunc said:


> Just re-iterating that I don’t and have never worked in security, law enforcement etc so I can only speak to what’s included in the training that would seem to be relevant
> 
> The foundational level of the Buj has several straightforward & structurally sound techniques that are probably helpful for the context
> 
> Before we learn the formal techniques we study:
> 
> 1. Kurai Dori - meaning something like taking the right place (& standing in the right way) in an environment
> The essential idea is to maintain some distance, have your arms and legs in a convenient place to provide protection or close down attacks, manoeuvre yourself so you’re not exposed to multiple assailants and have a relaxed, but business like frame of mind
> Probably this is the most helpful concept & is quite different from the idea of taking a combat stance
> 
> 2. Ukemi - ways to absorb strikes, pushes, throws etc. Of particular note is the training to a) receive these from all sorts of difficult and unexpected directions and b) to get back to your feet even if you’re being struck whilst you’re on the floor
> 
> 3. The basic A, B, Cs of most broad based martial arts. Ways of striking, grip releases, locks etc
> 
> 
> The formal techniques typically start with self defence sequences before moving onto the more specialised (& perhaps historically relevant) techniques
> These cover a broad range of common situations and compared to many styles there is more of emphasis on
> a) grabs &/or pushes followed by punches
> b) being grabbed from behind
> c) mixing grappling (mostly gi) with striking and
> d) always assuming that the assailant may be armed in some way (which changes distances and angles somewhat)
> 
> 
> By way of an example one of my students who works the doors in Soho, Central London, tells me that:
> a) he sees grabs & trips from behind very frequently. Drilling some structural standing work for this situation seems eminently sensible
> b) the training we do to deal with strikes from single handed weapons has come in very useful as people have a habit of using their belts & bottles in his line of work
> c) the painful-but-not-damaging grips and controls (e.g. the take ori wrist control) regularly come in handy
> 
> Of course other styles have similar solutions for these kind of issues, but my assertion is that by offering a rounded curriculum like this the Bujinkan is relevant for folks working in this environment
> 
> What the Bujinkan doesn’t teach are important skills like de-escalation, team working, legal frameworks etc


This all sounds very reasonable.  I think it is very important to understand that where you have people who train in a system, they are gaining facility and building expertise within the system.  We teach people systems and models in order to provide structure for skill.  At some point, it's crucial to apply the model in the context for which it is intended.  If this transition doesn't occur, you can only get better at the system.

This could be a conflict resolution model, a martial arts system or the Guest Service Cycle in a retail chain.  The point of these models is to give someone a framework to get started.  All of these systems and models exist because they make sense and are helpful.  But they don't/can't create experts.  They can only get you started. 

So, a guy who is an expert in a system can certainly share this helpful information.  But anything beyond commentary on the system itself needs to be couched carefully or it will be misleading.


----------



## dunc

I think that's a fair point


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> Just re-iterating that I don’t and have never worked in security, law enforcement etc so I can only speak to what’s included in the training that would seem to be relevant
> 
> The foundational level of the Buj has several straightforward & structurally sound techniques that are probably helpful for the context
> 
> Before we learn the formal techniques we study:
> 
> 1. Kurai Dori - meaning something like taking the right place (& standing in the right way) in an environment
> The essential idea is to maintain some distance, have your arms and legs in a convenient place to provide protection or close down attacks, manoeuvre yourself so you’re not exposed to multiple assailants and have a relaxed, but business like frame of mind
> Probably this is the most helpful concept & is quite different from the idea of taking a combat stance
> 
> 2. Ukemi - ways to absorb strikes, pushes, throws etc. Of particular note is the training to a) receive these from all sorts of difficult and unexpected directions and b) to get back to your feet even if you’re being struck whilst you’re on the floor
> 
> 3. The basic A, B, Cs of most broad based martial arts. Ways of striking, grip releases, locks etc
> 
> 
> The formal techniques typically start with self defence sequences before moving onto the more specialised (& perhaps historically relevant) techniques
> These cover a broad range of common situations and compared to many styles there is more of emphasis on
> a) grabs &/or pushes followed by punches
> b) being grabbed from behind
> c) mixing grappling (mostly gi) with striking and
> d) always assuming that the assailant may be armed in some way (which changes distances and angles somewhat)
> 
> 
> By way of an example one of my students who works the doors in Soho, Central London, tells me that:
> a) he sees grabs & trips from behind very frequently. Drilling some structural standing work for this situation seems eminently sensible
> b) the training we do to deal with strikes from single handed weapons has come in very useful as people have a habit of using their belts & bottles in his line of work
> c) the painful-but-not-damaging grips and controls (e.g. the take ori wrist control) regularly come in handy
> 
> Of course other styles have similar solutions for these kind of issues, but my assertion is that by offering a rounded curriculum like this the Bujinkan is relevant for folks working in this environment
> 
> What the Bujinkan doesn’t teach are important skills like de-escalation, team working, legal frameworks etc



The issue I have is we don't see enough of the method to get a clear idea of what you are suggesting. And I am a jaded bastard who then automatically assumes that the techniques have been converted to work unrealistically.

Which is fine for walking around with. Not fine if you actually have to use it.

Bear with me I will see if I can explain this properly.

What I am going to do is try to show you how grappling works with footballers. The reason i am using this model is they are big fit guys with technically no martial arts training. And it is wrestling so people are being contained rather than just flogged.

So exactly what you would want to be able to handle if you were to start using martial arts as a bouncer.






Now the important thing to take away is they will fight you a lot harder than you may have experienced in training. And they will fight you for everything.

So if you are working for say a wrist grab. It had better be solid.

So just you tubing the terms here.
kurai Dori.





This has to be able to work at speed.

And of course they can punch kick bite and call you nasty names. Your training is going to have to look more like this.


----------



## dunc

I think that the question you’re asking is how do you ascertain if it will work in practice

Which is a fair question I think, and probably difficult to answer without direct experience or a lot of CCTV footage of Bujinkan people on the door

TBH I’m not sure that the wrestler and the jabbing boxer clips do answer that question for their respective styles either

We have anecdotal evidence from people we know (not on this forum), the link I posted to Peter King’s dojo in Croydon has a passing reference to the medal he earned for dealing with a machete wielding criminal, etc

I tried to outline the curriculum and hopefully illustrate that it considers useful situations that are often overlooked by styles that folks here assume are good for security work

Perhaps some footage of Bujinkan people sparring would give you some comfort that it’d work under pressure, and I totally agree that all your foundational techniques need to be sufficiently structural and well trained to work against a resisting opponent. You have to be able to strip a moster’s grip, have a good base etc

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, there are not many dojos or people that do train under pressure so I don’t think you’ll get that, although sparring is different to security work I think so, in my view, it’s not the answer really

Here are a couple of clips from my class (just a video camera stuck in the corner of the room) that may illustrate some principles that we use in an average Bujinkan dojo


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> The issue I have is we don't see enough of the method to get a clear idea of what you are suggesting. And I am a jaded bastard who then automatically assumes that the techniques have been converted to work unrealistically.
> 
> Which is fine for walking around with. Not fine if you actually have to use it.
> 
> Bear with me I will see if I can explain this properly.
> 
> What I am going to do is try to show you how grappling works with footballers. The reason i am using this model is they are big fit guys with technically no martial arts training. And it is wrestling so people are being contained rather than just flogged.
> 
> So exactly what you would want to be able to handle if you were to start using martial arts as a bouncer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now the important thing to take away is they will fight you a lot harder than you may have experienced in training. And they will fight you for everything.
> 
> So if you are working for say a wrist grab. It had better be solid.
> 
> So just you tubing the terms here.
> kurai Dori.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has to be able to work at speed.
> 
> And of course they can punch kick bite and call you nasty names. Your training is going to have to look more like this.


What drop bear is explaining here is really, really important.  Why is it important?  Starting worst case to best case:

1:  No one in the system has practical experience.  No one has applied the material in context.  If you're learning "self defense" and no one has ever used the techniques, you are in a true learning vacuum.  You can be an expert in your system, and have learned nothing practical at all.  You just have no idea.  Some of it might work, but that's a true crap shoot.

Now, just to be clear, this can be EXCELLENT training that is very useful.  It's just a complete unknown.

2:  Someone in the past had practical experience, but no one currently has experience.  This is the "founder" or teacher's teacher syndrome.  A guy once made this stuff work, but it's been a few generations and as you look around your school, no one currently has any experience.  If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag.  Particularly if he learned "self defense" from a guy who had no experience, who learned it from the guy who was a bona fide expert.

As above, you are learning a system, and can become an expert in the system.  You should, as above, be very careful to distinguish what you know from what you think you now, as you could be completely wrong and not know it.

3:  Some guys have experience in your school, but not you.  This is actually getting closer to a safe zone.  Pros:  If guys are applying the skills in context, you know the techniques work in context.  Cons:  You don't know if you can make them work in context.  And truly, the answer is you don't know.  Maybe?  50/50?  Who knows?  Some folks in your system are transferring the skills to application, but you aren't.

The real danger here is, these guys are probably doing a whole lot more than just this system.  In other words, this system is a piece of their professional training plan.  A pro-MMA fighter does way more than go to class a few days per week.  A cop or soldier are learning way more than ninjutsu to help them in their jobs.  A bouncer isn't just watching Bas Rutten videos (just kidding on this one).

Point is, if you're an office worker training in a system next to cops, great.  That's a good thing.  But it does not impart skills to you through osmosis.  It also doesn't mean that the techniques and skills being learned in the system translate directly to holistic success in context.  It's impossible to deconstruct what works for a cop, for example.  LEO go to so much training, and learn different things, and gain so much experience on the job, it's just not reasonable to try and ascribe their success to one piece or another.

Danger, Will Robinson, if your instructor has no experience, but thinks that because you do as one of his students, he has gleaned skill from you, that's a big problem. 

4:  You have practical experience and also are an expert in a system.  This is the best situation to be in.  Only thing to consider here is that real life tends to lead to specialization, so the more varied and diverse your experience, the more likely you are in the broader context to be able to synthesize your skills.  What I mean is, if you have been a LEO for a few years, sure, you're applying the skills and are going to have some practical experience, but likely in a fairly consistent context.  A few years LEO and a few years as a Marine, things start to open up.  Add more experiences and more diverse experiences, even better. 

Said the other way, working as LEO doesn't mean expert in all things LEO.  Expertise is a relative spectrum.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> 2: Someone in the past had practical experience, but no one currently has experience.


This is absolute true.

When GM Han Ching-Tang taught "joint locking" in the Taiwan police academy. He could choke his police students out and brought that person back after 5 minutes. None of his teaching assistants and students dared to try that. If you can't wake up your opponent, your opponent may be dead. After GM Han passed away, the skill "how to bring someone back alive after you have choked him out" was lost. It's pretty sad indeed.


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> Perhaps some footage of Bujinkan people sparring would give you some comfort that it’d work under pressure, and I totally agree that all your foundational techniques need to be sufficiently structural and well trained to work against a resisting opponent. You have to be able to strip a moster’s grip, have a good base etc
> 
> Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, there are not many dojos or people that do train under pressure so I don’t think you’ll get that, although sparring is different to security work I think so, in my view, it’s not the answer really




Sparring is different to security work but not as different as not sparring. Being actually able to perform any technique in real time is just better than learning the most suitable technique and never really being able to do it.
So training in our gym would look more like this. 





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1686321538045061
			




Now if I wanted to say train a specific method all I have to do is is change the intent of the session. So I might drill for standing wrist locks. Fine. He can still train his stuff. Take me down, sub me out, punch me in the face,  whatever. I dont go looking for excuses. What I do is place myself in that free environment and work it out.

Because unless you are actually skull dragging guys it is the only way you are going to be able to develop a toolset you can rely on.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> What drop bear is explaining here is really, really important.  Why is it important?  Starting worst case to best case:
> 
> 1:  No one in the system has practical experience.  No one has applied the material in context.  If you're learning "self defense" and no one has ever used the techniques, you are in a true learning vacuum.  You can be an expert in your system, and have learned nothing practical at all.  You just have no idea.  Some of it might work, but that's a true crap shoot.
> 
> Now, just to be clear, this can be EXCELLENT training that is very useful.  It's just a complete unknown.
> 
> 2:  Someone in the past had practical experience, but no one currently has experience.  This is the "founder" or teacher's teacher syndrome.  A guy once made this stuff work, but it's been a few generations and as you look around your school, no one currently has any experience.  If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag.  Particularly if he learned "self defense" from a guy who had no experience, who learned it from the guy who was a bona fide expert.
> 
> As above, you are learning a system, and can become an expert in the system.  You should, as above, be very careful to distinguish what you know from what you think you now, as you could be completely wrong and not know it.
> 
> 3:  Some guys have experience in your school, but not you.  This is actually getting closer to a safe zone.  Pros:  If guys are applying the skills in context, you know the techniques work in context.  Cons:  You don't know if you can make them work in context.  And truly, the answer is you don't know.  Maybe?  50/50?  Who knows?  Some folks in your system are transferring the skills to application, but you aren't.
> 
> The real danger here is, these guys are probably doing a whole lot more than just this system.  In other words, this system is a piece of their professional training plan.  A pro-MMA fighter does way more than go to class a few days per week.  A cop or soldier are learning way more than ninjutsu to help them in their jobs.  A bouncer isn't just watching Bas Rutten videos (just kidding on this one).
> 
> Point is, if you're an office worker training in a system next to cops, great.  That's a good thing.  But it does not impart skills to you through osmosis.  It also doesn't mean that the techniques and skills being learned in the system translate directly to holistic success in context.  It's impossible to deconstruct what works for a cop, for example.  LEO go to so much training, and learn different things, and gain so much experience on the job, it's just not reasonable to try and ascribe their success to one piece or another.
> 
> Danger, Will Robinson, if your instructor has no experience, but thinks that because you do as one of his students, he has gleaned skill from you, that's a big problem.
> 
> 4:  You have practical experience and also are an expert in a system.  This is the best situation to be in.  Only thing to consider here is that real life tends to lead to specialization, so the more varied and diverse your experience, the more likely you are in the broader context to be able to synthesize your skills.  What I mean is, if you have been a LEO for a few years, sure, you're applying the skills and are going to have some practical experience, but likely in a fairly consistent context.  A few years LEO and a few years as a Marine, things start to open up.  Add more experiences and more diverse experiences, even better.
> 
> Said the other way, working as LEO doesn't mean expert in all things LEO.  Expertise is a relative spectrum.



You probably have more wriggle room because the talent you are facing is not as good.

I was watching some mma fights last week and a lot of guys were defending takedowns with guillotines. And of course they would wind up underneath fighting for this sub that they never got and basically got bashed for their trouble.

So here you could definitely argue specificity. What works in the gym or during jits really is a place to be in an mma fight.

But If you were bouncing and got taken down, while it is technically pretty silly, if you can actually do a guillotine you could probably get away with it.

But there is a lot less time spent fixing a guy for security work if he can already fight. Which is why you see those sort of guys in the industry.

I am pretty happy if the instructor can make the technique work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Sparring is different to security work


For security work, it usually means "you attack first". Here is a good example.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For security work, it usually means "you attack first". Here is a good example.



That by the way is a great example of training that includes some stuff that will work, some stuff that wont and some stuff you just are not allowed to do.


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> 1:  No one in the system has practical experience.  No one has applied the material in context.  If you're learning "self defense" and no one has ever used the techniques, you are in a true learning vacuum.  You can be an expert in your system, and have learned nothing practical at all.  You just have no idea.  Some of it might work, but that's a true crap shoot.
> 
> Now, just to be clear, this can be EXCELLENT training that is very useful.  It's just a complete unknown.
> 
> 2:  Someone in the past had practical experience, but no one currently has experience.  This is the "founder" or teacher's teacher syndrome.  A guy once made this stuff work, but it's been a few generations and as you look around your school, no one currently has any experience.  If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag.  Particularly if he learned "self defense" from a guy who had no experience, who learned it from the guy who was a bona fide expert.


The Heimlich Manourve didn't exsist until Heimlich invented it.  Heimlich did not invent his manourve by deliberately causing people to choke so he could test things out until he found something that worked.  He applied his knowledge of the problem, and came up with a solution.  He taught that solution to others, but that doesn't mean it was a "crap shoot" or that they were operating in a "true learning vacuum".  Quite the opposite infact, they were learning from the very best person for the job.

He taught it from 1974 onwards, but only ever used it for the first time for real in  2016.  Learning the Hemlich Manouvre from Heimlch between 1974 and 2916 wasn't a "Red flag" just because he'd never actually used it for real.

Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum".  Or it's a "complete unknown".

The best person to learn SD from isn't the person that's been mugged 10 times because that suggests he is somehow an expert on getting mugged, as clearly he's crap at SD.  He has no idea what muggers look for when they are selecting their victims.  If he did, he would have avoided doing it.  If anything you need to learn what this guy does from this guy and then do the exact opposite.  

To suggest "If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag." is deeply flawed.  Otherwise before someone could become a SD instructor they would first have to get themself beaten, robbed and sexually assaulted.  Lack of first hand experience _can_ be a red flag ofcourse, but to suggest it automatically _must_ be in every case is not correct.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> The Heimlich Manourve didn't exsist until Heimlich invented it.  Heimlich did not invent his manourve by deliberately causing people to choke so he could test things out until he found something that worked.  He applied his knowledge of the problem, and came up with a solution.  He taught that solution to others, but that doesn't mean it was a "crap shoot" or that they were operating in a "true learning vacuum".  Quite the opposite infact, they were learning from the very best person for the job.
> 
> He taught it from 1974 onwards, but only ever used it for the first time for real in  2016.  Learning the Hemlich Manouvre from Heimlch between 1974 and 2916 wasn't a "Red flag" just because he'd never actually used it for real.
> 
> Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum".  Or it's a "complete unknown".
> 
> The best person to learn SD from isn't the person that's been mugged 10 times because that suggests he is somehow an expert on getting mugged, as clearly he's crap at SD.  He has no idea what muggers look for when they are selecting their victims.  If he did, he would have avoided doing it.  If anything you need to learn what this guy does from this guy and then do the exact opposite.
> 
> To suggest "If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag." is deeply flawed.  Otherwise before someone could become a SD instructor they would first have to get themself beaten, robbed and sexually assaulted.  Lack of first hand experience _can_ be a red flag ofcourse, but to suggest it automatically _must_ be in every case is not correct.



Using henry heimlich is a really good example as to how to go about innovating a new procedure.

How Dr. Heimlich got his maneuver 40 years ago

Of course it doesn't really support your point. But hey, whatever.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> The Heimlich Manourve didn't exsist until Heimlich invented it.  Heimlich did not invent his manourve by deliberately causing people to choke so he could test things out until he found something that worked.  He applied his knowledge of the problem, and came up with a solution.  He taught that solution to others, but that doesn't mean it was a "crap shoot" or that they were operating in a "true learning vacuum".  Quite the opposite infact, they were learning from the very best person for the job.
> 
> He taught it from 1974 onwards, but only ever used it for the first time for real in  2016.  Learning the Hemlich Manouvre from Heimlch between 1974 and 2916 wasn't a "Red flag" just because he'd never actually used it for real.
> 
> Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum".  Or it's a "complete unknown".
> 
> The best person to learn SD from isn't the person that's been mugged 10 times because that suggests he is somehow an expert on getting mugged, as clearly he's crap at SD.  He has no idea what muggers look for when they are selecting their victims.  If he did, he would have avoided doing it.  If anything you need to learn what this guy does from this guy and then do the exact opposite.
> 
> To suggest "If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag." is deeply flawed.  Otherwise before someone could become a SD instructor they would first have to get themself beaten, robbed and sexually assaulted.  Lack of first hand experience _can_ be a red flag ofcourse, but to suggest it automatically _must_ be in every case is not correct.


I disagree.  You can learn a system from a person who is an expert in that system.  Full stop.  The point where that person starts selling you more than that it is a red flag.  If the person does t realize he is doing this, that's even more concerning.

Just to add, this is something you guys intuitively understand when it’s a BJJ guy or mma guy mistakenly correlating skill in BJJ or MMA with self-defense, but fail to apply to yourselves, even though the same logic applies.


----------



## Tarrycat




----------



## dunc

drop bear said:


> Sparring is different to security work but not as different as not sparring. Being actually able to perform any technique in real time is just better than learning the most suitable technique and never really being able to do it.
> So training in our gym would look more like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1686321538045061
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if I wanted to say train a specific method all I have to do is is change the intent of the session. So I might drill for standing wrist locks. Fine. He can still train his stuff. Take me down, sub me out, punch me in the face,  whatever. I dont go looking for excuses. What I do is place myself in that free environment and work it out.
> 
> Because unless you are actually skull dragging guys it is the only way you are going to be able to develop a toolset you can rely on.



Please note that I’m not an advocate of “don’t spar” argument

I agree that sparring (well in the case of the Bujinkan specific sparring) is an important learning tool

My point is that this isn’t security work


----------



## dunc

Steve said:


> I disagree.  You can learn a system from a person who is an expert in that system.  Full stop.  The point where that person starts selling you more than that it is a red flag.  If the person does t realize he is doing this, that's even more concerning.
> 
> Just to add, this is something you guys intuitively understand when it’s a BJJ guy or mma guy mistakenly correlating skill in BJJ or MMA with self-defense, but fail to apply to yourselves, even though the same logic applies.



I agree with this


----------



## dunc

dunc said:


> Please note that I’m not an advocate of “don’t spar” argument
> 
> I agree that sparring (well in the case of the Bujinkan specific sparring) is an important learning tool
> 
> My point is that this isn’t security work



Sorry rushing this morning so editing via another post...

My point is that sparring isn’t security work and the curriculum of the Bujinkan probably includes a useful range of techniques for security people

Of course your training needs to try to get you as much parallel experience as possible so as to minimise the amount of adjustments needed

And I agree that training under pressure is an important element of this


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Tarrycat said:


>


Just so you know ...

1) The folks in that video are not training in anything related to the Bujinkan or the Takamatsuden arts. Their "ninjutsu" was invented in the U.S. by Ron Duncan based on unknown sources - probably some combination of kempo, judo, karate, and his own imagination.

2) The "sparring" in that video could better be termed "semi-resisted free form training." You'll notice that the "defender" always wins. That's because the "attacker" is deliberately not using his skills to anticipate or counter his opponent's techniques. Instead he just keeps attacking blindly until he is taken down. There can be some utility to that sort of training, but it is not sparring.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum". Or it's a "complete unknown".


While I agree with the concept in most of this post, this one I have to single out. "Stranger Danger" is a misplaced approach to child safety. There are some issues that appear to have been created by it that may actually make children less safe (not being willing to ask the nearest adult for help if they are lost, for instance). There are some cues that should probably be taught, but the concept that strangers are dangerous is problematic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> 2) The "sparring" in that video could better be termed "semi-resisted free form training." You'll notice that the "defender" always wins. That's because the "attacker" is deliberately not using his skills to anticipate or counter his opponent's techniques. Instead he just keeps attacking blindly until he is taken down. There can be some utility to that sort of training, but it is not sparring.


This was going to be my post. Tony saved me some typing.


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> I disagree.


That's fine


----------



## Tarrycat

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just so you know ...
> 
> 1) The folks in that video are not training in anything related to the Bujinkan or the Takamatsuden arts. Their "ninjutsu" was invented in the U.S. by Ron Duncan based on unknown sources - probably some combination of kempo, judo, karate, and his own imagination.
> 
> 2) The "sparring" in that video could better be termed "semi-resisted free form training." You'll notice that the "defender" always wins. That's because the "attacker" is deliberately not using his skills to anticipate or counter his opponent's techniques. Instead he just keeps attacking blindly until he is taken down. There can be some utility to that sort of training, but it is not sparring.



Which is why I posted it, but didn't add anything. Good to know though. 

I read a lot of articles, & it seems like security agents use more modernised styles such as Krav Maga, Eskrima, basically their own formulation of systems.

I watched a Youtube video of a man who is a seal; he said the FIRST basic form of protection is a GUN... & then he recommended the various martial arts styles in the following order:

1) BJJ
2) Western Boxing
3) Muay Thai
4) Wrestling
5) Eskrima.

The OP specifically wanted to know about whether or not Ninjutsu would be a good option for security training, but I can't answer that as far as my experience & knowledge extends. If I knew someone who trained in Ninjutsu who worked in the security field, I could've given advice on behalf of them, but I can't. I just did some research & that's what I found. My teacher was in the special forces, he now teaches Ninjutsu, so he must have found that the style worked for him in a lot of ways. 

I think every art is effective in its own way. A girl I train with & her friend were confronted by two men. They were hiking. The one man attacked her friend, the other went for her & her natural reaction was to kick him (I think she said it was a kick to the groin) & roll out of the way (the zenpo & koho kaiten we practice in class); & somehow it helped her to get away. 

It took something so small, but at the end of the day it saved her from being attacked.

I don't have any further information to share on security work. 

By the way, WHERE is the OP? I haven't seen her commenting on here? ...


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> The Heimlich Manourve didn't exsist until Heimlich invented it.  Heimlich did not invent his manourve by deliberately causing people to choke so he could test things out until he found something that worked.  He applied his knowledge of the problem, and came up with a solution.  He taught that solution to others, but that doesn't mean it was a "crap shoot" or that they were operating in a "true learning vacuum".  Quite the opposite infact, they were learning from the very best person for the job.
> 
> He taught it from 1974 onwards, but only ever used it for the first time for real in  2016.  Learning the Hemlich Manouvre from Heimlch between 1974 and 2916 wasn't a "Red flag" just because he'd never actually used it for real.
> 
> Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum".  Or it's a "complete unknown".
> 
> The best person to learn SD from isn't the person that's been mugged 10 times because that suggests he is somehow an expert on getting mugged, as clearly he's crap at SD.  He has no idea what muggers look for when they are selecting their victims.  If he did, he would have avoided doing it.  If anything you need to learn what this guy does from this guy and then do the exact opposite.
> 
> To suggest "If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag." is deeply flawed.  Otherwise before someone could become a SD instructor they would first have to get themself beaten, robbed and sexually assaulted.  Lack of first hand experience _can_ be a red flag ofcourse, but to suggest it automatically _must_ be in every case is not correct.


your not comparing like with like, self defence is fighting, that's if the don't put yourself in danger bit doesn't work, and it doesn't always work, you can even if you are careful find yourself at the wrong place at the wrong time. You need to be confident that what you have leaned for such circumstances actually work when you do it, its the wrong time to come to the conclusion that the wrist lock or escape doesn't work.

there are people teaching fantasy moves, that they have never used against a serious attacker,, generaly simplest is best and a good standard of fitness is a lot better than a box full of tricks that won't work


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> self defence is fighting


No it isn't, fighting and SD are two different things, with different objectives and two different skill sets.



jobo said:


> there are people teaching fantasy moves, that they have never used against a serious attacker


That's true, which is why I did acknowledge that.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> No it isn't, fighting and SD are two different things, with different objectives and two different skill sets.


i said, those you chose to omit, that after the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is then fighting.

it has EXACTLY the same OBJECTIVE, which is the attacker hurt and you not and it has exactly the same skill set, that is hitting with out being hit.

you seem to have set yourself up as an expert on SD, though what qualifies you to consider yourself such is not apparent


----------



## Tarrycat

Malos1979 said:


> First off the fact that he is a Navy Seal or ex-Navy Seal doesn't mean that HIS list should be YOUR list. (the ex- Navy Seal name is probably Jocko Willink)
> 
> BJJ may work perfectly for him does it work for other people as well? Same goes for the rest of that list.
> 
> Same applies to Ninjutsu, I have had a couple of lessons here and there and maybe not enough to judge it completely but I do know it isn't my cup of tea.



Yes! It was Jocko! 

Which art did you end up doing? 

I agree. It depends on your preferences. I'm more open-minded with regards to MA. If I could do more than one art, I would. I'm just scared that it will interfere with one another.


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> i said, those you chose to omit, that after the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is then fighting.


No, it isn't.  To clarify, if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight.  You find yourself defending yourself from an assault.  That's why when you go to work you don't ask your friends if they watched that boxing assault on TV at the weekend.  A fight is when you agree to take part in the violence, either in the ring, the street or the dojo.  SD is when you did not agree and do not want to take part in the violence.  Consensual violence is fighting.  Protecting yourself form _non consensual_ criminal violence is SD.  They are not the same.  When your experience of "SD" is getting into fights with men in the street you might think fighting is SD, but that doesn't make it so.  Male MAs, particularity young male MAs, are particularity guilty of this assumption.  

If I tell someone not to accept lifts from strangers that is SD, and it works.  I don't need to have accepted a lift form a stranger and have it gone horribly wrong to justify my ability to impart that advice.  The advice is sound, and it works, and it has *absolutely nothing* to do with men fighting in a bar/the street.  But that is all you are able to see SD as and that is were your problem lies.  If your 80yo Gran is worried about having her handbag stolen you don't her to join a boxing club.  You teach her what muggers look for when selection their victims, so she can avoid being selected as a victim.  That's called Target Hardening, and is well document, accepted and recognised SD skill, it also has not one single thing to do with men fighting each other in the street. 



jobo said:


> it has EXACTLY the same OBJECTIVE,


No, it doesn't  The purpose of a fight is to win by deafening your opponent. The purpose of SD is to create the opportunity to escape.  If in a fight if you knock your opponent to the ground you rush over and keep hitting them until the ref stops you.  Then you win.

If you knock someone down in SD and have the opportunity to flee, but instead choose to stay and mount them so you can keep hitting them then you have broken the law, as you have gone beyond "reasonable" SD and have now committed assault yourself.

If I am in a SD situation if I run away and get home safely that counts a win.  If I step into the ring and then spend the rest of the round running away from my opponent I will eventually get disqualified for failing to engage. 

What counts as a "win" in fighting is not the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa.

The two have *completely different* objectives.  But we keep coming back to the same problem.  When you are only able to view SD in terms of fighting, you view "winning a fight" as the same objective as SD, but it isn't.



jobo said:


> it has exactly the same skill set


No it doesn't.  Preemptive striking is a SD skill, it is not a fighting skill as you can't become World Champion with a record of 0 wins, 0 loses and 17 disqualifications for hitting your opponent before the bell sounds.  Bobbing in and out of striking range, and throwing an exploratory jab to see how your opponent reacts and spot potential weakness in his response that you can exploit it is a valid fighting skill.  But you don't bob in an out of range throwing exploratory jabs to test you rapists reaction.  That's a fighting skill, not a SD skill.  

If I submit my opponent with a triangle choke in the ring I win.  If I triangle choke someone outside the chip shop on a Friday night his mates come out and stomp my head flat.  What works in a fight/in the ring does not necessarily work for SD, what works for SD does not necessarily work in a fight/the ring.

There is a whole area of soft SD skills (i.e. no physical SD skills) that have absolutely nothing to do with agreeing to fight someone in a pub car park.

Learning the warning signs of a potentially abusive relationship, so you can get out of it early, is a SD skill.  It has *nothing* to do with fighting.  You don't teach women in a SD class to become MMA fighters so if there bf turns out to be abusive and controlling they can get him to tap out.  You teach them to spot the warning signs so they can get out of the relationship. 

Different problems, *different *skill sets.  

Yes there are some overlaps, a good punch is always a good punch of course, but consensual fighting skills are no the answer to all of lifes SD problems, and good SD skills do not make you good at consensual sparring/fighting/sporting contests.  Unless of course you are only able to view SD in terms of men fighting each other.

Fighting makes you good at fighting.  SD makes you good at SD.  

They do not have "exactly the same skill set"  Not even close.



jobo said:


> you seem to have set yourself up as an expert on SD


The problem is you have a very very narrow one dimensional view of SD.  You are only able to think of SD in terms of getting into a fight with other men on the street or in a bar, so anytime anyone suggest SD can possibly be anything other than that you refuse to accept that because it does not match your own personal experience of violence.  There are other people that need to protect themselves, (older/female/children) and they need to protect themselves from a variety of things; things other than bar fights.  The fact then that someone may have some SD advice that does not directly relate to bar fights does not mean it is not SD, anymore than the only things that can relate directly to to bar/street fights can be classed as SD.  And the fact someone may be more knowledgeable,and experienced, about these other aspects (shock horror, how can that be?) does not mean they have set themselves up as an expert.

Of course you will disagree, and continue to argue.  But I have no interest in wasting more time or crayons explaining it, so enjoy the rest of your day.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tarrycat said:


>


At 1.24 when he uses "double under hooks on one shoulder" to take his opponent down, if he can use his right leg to "spring" his opponent's left leg back, the take down will be more effective.

When your opponent has good rooting such as "shoulder width parallel feet", it's better to alter his stance into "bow arrow stance - one leg forward and one leg backward" before you take him down.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Paul_D said:


> To clarify, if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight. You find yourself defending yourself from an assault.


If you resist that assault through the application of violence (as opposed to just running away or crying for help), then you are now in a fight.



Paul_D said:


> A fight is when you agree to take part in the violence, either in the ring, the street or the dojo. SD is when you did not agree and do not want to take part in the violence.


That's your own personal definition, but not the common usage. You are totally correct that there is a useful distinction to be made between consensual and non-consensual violence, but you can't expect that you can redefine the meaning of a common English word and have everybody go along with it.



Paul_D said:


> If I tell someone not to accept lifts from strangers that is SD, and it works. I don't need to have accepted a lift form a stranger and have it gone horribly wrong to justify my ability to impart that advice. The advice is sound, and it works, and it has *absolutely nothing* to do with men fighting in a bar/the street. But that is all you are able to see SD as and that is were your problem lies. If your 80yo Gran is worried about having her handbag stolen you don't her to join a boxing club. You teach her what muggers look for when selection their victims, so she can avoid being selected as a victim. That's called Target Hardening, and is well document, accepted and recognised SD skill, it also has not one single thing to do with men fighting each other in the street.





Paul_D said:


> There is a whole area of soft SD skills (i.e. no physical SD skills) that have absolutely nothing to do with agreeing to fight someone in a pub car park.





Paul_D said:


> Learning the warning signs of a potentially abusive relationship, so you can get out of it early, is a SD skill. It has *nothing* to do with fighting. You don't teach women in a SD class to become MMA fighters so if there bf turns out to be abusive and controlling they can get him to tap out. You teach them to spot the warning signs so they can get out of the relationship.


I don't think anyone here is arguing that lifestyle choices, awareness, target hardening, avoidance, and verbal de-escalation don't count as self-defense. I believe Jobo was making the point that if those all fail then fighting ability is the next level of self-defense. Thus his phrasing that "_after_ the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is _then_ fighting". (I will concede that comments from Jobo in other threads seem to indicate he doesn't try that hard to succeed with those non-violent options in his daily life.)



Paul_D said:


> No, it doesn't The purpose of a fight is to win by deafening your opponent. The purpose of SD is to create the opportunity to escape.





Paul_D said:


> If you knock someone down in SD and have the opportunity to flee, but instead choose to stay and mount them so you can keep hitting them then you have broken the law, as you have gone beyond "reasonable" SD and have now committed assault yourself.


A lot may depend on where you are, but many jurisdictions do not impose a duty to flee an attacker. I'm not familiar with U.K. law, but in many areas of the U.S. you are allowed to stand your ground against an assailant.

The law in most places allows the use of "reasonable" force in self-defense. "Reasonable" is generally what might be required to keep yourself or another person safe, and that can be very situationally dependent. If I take an attacker down but I believe he is likely to get back up and attack me again before I can escape, then I may very well be legally justified in mounting him and continuing the fight until he is no longer a danger. Even if he surrenders I may be allowed to keep him pinned until help arrives.

(Knowing the local laws and other practical considerations which determine appropriate levels of force and the advisability of fleeing is of course a valuable aspect of self-defense.)



Paul_D said:


> If I am in a SD situation if I run away and get home safely that counts a win. If I step into the ring and then spend the rest of the round running away from my opponent I will eventually get disqualified for failing to engage.


In general, I agree, although I could come up with exceptions for both of those scenarios.



Paul_D said:


> What counts as a "win" in fighting is not the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa.


I would correct that to say "_What counts as a "win" in fighting is not *always *the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa_"



Paul_D said:


> The two have *completely different* objectives.


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In general, the objective of self-defense is to keep yourself safe. Fighting can have a lot of different objectives. Sometimes that objective is to keep yourself safe.



Paul_D said:


> If I submit my opponent with a triangle choke in the ring I win. If I triangle choke someone outside the chip shop on a Friday night his mates come out and stomp my head flat.


On the other hand, if a young woman is faced with a would-be date rapist in her home, then a triangle choke may resolve the issue nicely. In fact, there have been several news reports of this happening.

The appropriate techniques and tactics for a given fight are always situationally dependent. The best approach for a MMA match, a boxing match, a woman fending off a rapist in her bedroom, an ER nurse restraining a mentally ill patient, a pair of unarmed passengers on a train taking down an armed terrorist, a two-on-three sword fight on a medieval battlefield, a prisoner facing a beatdown by a gang in the prison yard, etc, etc are all different*. Part of being an effective fighter is knowing how to judge the situation, whether it is a self-defense scenario or not.

*(That said, many skills and attributes are transferable between scenarios.)



Paul_D said:


> What works in a fight/in the ring does not necessarily work for SD, what works for SD does not necessarily work in a fight/the ring.


Agreed, with emphasis on the "necessarily." I'd argue that there is value for martial artist in knowing what skills transfer and which do not. I'd also argue that attribute development (physical, mental, and emotional) is just as important as specific skills for both.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> No it isn't, fighting and SD are two different things, with different objectives and two different skill sets.
> 
> 
> That's true, which is why I did acknowledge that.



If self defence and fighting are different things then we are back to the veracity of self defence.

A self defence instructor would have to have knowledge and experience in that specific function. Which pretty much most don't.

Go out their get mugged twenty times and then come back with your results. Or dont claim to know what self defence is.

I mean if they are two different animals then you would need to treat it as such.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> No, it isn't. To clarify, if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight. You find yourself defending yourself from an assault. That's why when you go to work you don't ask your friends if they watched that boxing assault on TV at the weekend. A fight is when you agree to take part in the violence, either in the ring, the street or the dojo. SD is when you did not agree and do not want to take part in the violence. Consensual violence is fighting. Protecting yourself form _non consensual_ criminal violence is SD. They are not the same. When your experience of "SD" is getting into fights with men in the street you might think fighting is SD, but that doesn't make it so. Male MAs, particularity young male MAs, are particularity guilty of this assumption.




Can you procces what the training for that would look like if self defence and consensual fighting were treated differently?

Turning up to self defence class makes it consensual. Which then makes it fighting class. Not self defence.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Paul_D said:


> if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight.  You find yourself defending yourself from an assault.


When your fist meets on your opponent's face, will he feel any difference between whether you are doing self-defense, or you are doing fighting?


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> Please note that I’m not an advocate of “don’t spar” argument
> 
> I agree that sparring (well in the case of the Bujinkan specific sparring) is an important learning tool
> 
> My point is that this isn’t security work



Ok. My point is that it is about the best tool for security work. And especially grappling based sparring. And grappling based sparring against strikes.

Because when it comes to the bread and butter of the physical component. That is what you do. You spar with guys as a security guard. That is how you manhandle them without crippling them.

And I am the ex bouncer. The guy you saw wresling is the current bouncer. And this element is continually reflected within the security industry. So where there are booj security and cops. They guys who are the most consistant go to guys for violence are sports fighters.


----------



## dunc

I’m sorry but I think I’m missing your point

The booj has a very large grappling component and mixes striking with this


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> I’m sorry but I think I’m missing your point
> 
> The booj has a very large grappling component and mixes striking with this



Resisted? 

Grappling at potentially a world class level?

My double leg isn't GSP's double leg. So saying I do grappling and he does grappling so therefore the training will be equal is not true.


----------



## dunc

Resisted - sure
World class in competitive terms - no because it doesn’t translate well to competition, but competent yes


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> They guys who are the most consistant go to guys for violence are sports fighters.


I have a theory, entirely unsubstantiated, that there's a mindset match between sport/competition and taking on jobs like bouncing. It's a risk-taking/risk-acceptance factor. It would be interesting to study that - I have never found research that touched on a similar match (I'd assume there's some cross-over with LEO, but not more than half).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I have a theory, entirely unsubstantiated, that there's a mindset match between sport/competition and taking on jobs like bouncing. It's a risk-taking/risk-acceptance factor. It would be interesting to study that - I have never found research that touched on a similar match (I'd assume there's some cross-over with LEO, but not more than half).



I don't think you will find a correlation other than the qualities that make a person succesful at sport make them successful at dealing with drunks.

You also get non sport big dudes. Because mass makes the job easier.


----------



## jobo

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you resist that assault through the application of violence (as opposed to just running away or crying for help), then you are now in a fight.
> 
> 
> That's your own personal definition, but not the common usage. You are totally correct that there is a useful distinction to be made between consensual and non-consensual violence, but you can't expect that you can redefine the meaning of a common English word and have everybody go along with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here is arguing that lifestyle choices, awareness, target hardening, avoidance, and verbal de-escalation don't count as self-defense. I believe Jobo was making the point that if those all fail then fighting ability is the next level of self-defense. Thus his phrasing that "_after_ the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is _then_ fighting". (I will concede that comments from Jobo in other threads seem to indicate he doesn't try that hard to succeed with those non-violent options in his daily life.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot may depend on where you are, but many jurisdictions do not impose a duty to flee an attacker. I'm not familiar with U.K. law, but in many areas of the U.S. you are allowed to stand your ground against an assailant.
> 
> The law in most places allows the use of "reasonable" force in self-defense. "Reasonable" is generally what might be required to keep yourself or another person safe, and that can be very situationally dependent. If I take an attacker down but I believe he is likely to get back up and attack me again before I can escape, then I may very well be legally justified in mounting him and continuing the fight until he is no longer a danger. Even if he surrenders I may be allowed to keep him pinned until help arrives.
> 
> (Knowing the local laws and other practical considerations which determine appropriate levels of force and the advisability of fleeing is of course a valuable aspect of self-defense.)
> 
> 
> In general, I agree, although I could come up with exceptions for both of those scenarios.
> 
> 
> I would correct that to say "_What counts as a "win" in fighting is not *always *the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa_"
> 
> 
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In general, the objective of self-defense is to keep yourself safe. Fighting can have a lot of different objectives. Sometimes that objective is to keep yourself safe.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if a young woman is faced with a would-be date rapist in her home, then a triangle choke may resolve the issue nicely. In fact, there have been several news reports of this happening.
> 
> The appropriate techniques and tactics for a given fight are always situationally dependent. The best approach for a MMA match, a boxing match, a woman fending off a rapist in her bedroom, an ER nurse restraining a mentally ill patient, a pair of unarmed passengers on a train taking down an armed terrorist, a two-on-three sword fight on a medieval battlefield, a prisoner facing a beatdown by a gang in the prison yard, etc, etc are all different*. Part of being an effective fighter is knowing how to judge the situation, whether it is a self-defense scenario or not.
> 
> *(That said, many skills and attributes are transferable between scenarios.)
> 
> 
> Agreed, with emphasis on the "necessarily." I'd argue that there is value for martial artist in knowing what skills transfer and which do not. I'd also argue that attribute development (physical, mental, and emotional) is just as important as specific skills for both.


when i have,a reflective time over the regrets in my life, they generaly split in to two main groups, the, women i should have,slept with whilst i was being faithful to people who weren't being faithful to me and people i really should have punched when i had the,chance, .

if i had been more of a violent lover boy , i would now have very few regrets at all


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> when i have,a reflective time over the regrets in my life, they generaly split in to two main groups, the, women i should have,slept with whilst i was being faithful to people who weren't being faithful to me and people i really should have punched when i had the,chance, .
> 
> if i had been more of a violent lover boy , i would now have very few regrets at all


I have no regrets about people I didn’t punch.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I have no regrets about people I didn’t punch.


is that coz you punched them at the time?


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I have no regrets about people I didn’t punch.


if i had my time again, id be far less reasonable, , people who know me don't think that is possible, but i know i could do it with a bit of effort


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> is that coz you punched them at the time?


Nope. I don’t regret any violence I didn’t commit.


----------



## Steve

I regret the people I punched, not the people I didn’t punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> I regret the people I punched, not the people I didn’t punch.


I always want to punch one of my elementary school teacher on his face. One day I heard that he had passed away, I regret that I didn't punch him when he was still alive.

Why do I hate that elementary teacher so much? When I was in my 3rd grade in Taiwan, one day I got into a fight with my classmate. The teacher hit that boy once, he then hit me 6 times. The teacher asked me whether if I understood why. I said that I didn't. He said, "Because you are a pig". Back then Taiwanese would call a Chinese who immigrated from China to Taiwan as "pig". All my kid life was the history of "pig fought back against human's racism behavior."



gpseymour said:


> I don’t regret any violence I didn’t commit.


Old Chinese saying said, "It's OK to wait for 3 years to execute your revenge". I assume I have waited too long.


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I always want to punch one of my elementary school teacher on his face. One day I heard that he had passed away, I regret that I didn't punch him when he was still alive.
> 
> Why do I hate that elementary teacher so much? When I was in my 3rd grade in Taiwan, one day I got into a fight with my classmate. The teacher hit that boy once, he then hit me 6 times. The teacher asked me whether if I understood why. I said that I didn't. He said, "Because you are a pig". Back then Taiwanese would call a Chinese who immigrated from China to Taiwan as "pig". All my kid life was the history of "pig fought back against human's racism behavior."
> 
> 
> Old Chinese saying said, "It's OK to wait for 3 years to execute your revenge". I assume I have waited too long.


Live your life how you need to do it.  I’ve punched plenty of people.   There are a few guys around here I really think are not quality human beings.  i don’t want to punch them, however confident I am their training won’t help avoid such punch.  In fact, I think their delusion would make it more cruel.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Malos1979 said:


> EDIT: it was not 15 years ago it was even 18 years ago, damn time flies faster than I would like it to go.


When someone asks how long I've been doing anything (consulting, speaking, martial arts, whatever), the answer has become almost universally too big to say, so my reply is, "About [mumble] years."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't think you will find a correlation other than the qualities that make a person succesful at sport make them successful at dealing with drunks.
> 
> You also get non sport big dudes. Because mass makes the job easier.
> 
> View attachment 21102


That latter supports my hypothesis (because the mass also makes the job somewhat less risky), though that may be nothing more than confirmation bias. In fact, the first statement is pretty close to my point. People tend to be drawn to what they are likely to succeed at.

I suspect that there are few people who get into that line of work (specifically bouncer) who aren't a little bit thrill-seeking and fairly risk-tolerant, and used to being physically competent. I think those are personality traits likely to be common among sport competitors, too. There will certainly be exceptions to that, but those seem likely matches. And I'd expect that - in the current MA environment - folks who match those qualities are more likely to be drawn to the more obvious sports (BJJ, MMA, maybe Judo) and less to TMA. I suspect this actually bleeds some of the likely better competitors/fighters from TMA, increasing the need for inter-style training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't think you will find a correlation other than the qualities that make a person succesful at sport make them successful at dealing with drunks.
> 
> You also get non sport big dudes. Because mass makes the job easier.
> 
> View attachment 21102


Oh, and that dog doesn't seem to mind the big guy. I'm guessing she wasn't being thrown out for bad behavior.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> No, it isn't.  To clarify, if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight.  You find yourself defending yourself from an assault.  That's why when you go to work you don't ask your friends if they watched that boxing assault on TV at the weekend.  A fight is when you agree to take part in the violence, either in the ring, the street or the dojo.  SD is when you did not agree and do not want to take part in the violence.  Consensual violence is fighting.  Protecting yourself form _non consensual_ criminal violence is SD.  They are not the same.  When your experience of "SD" is getting into fights with men in the street you might think fighting is SD, but that doesn't make it so.  Male MAs, particularity young male MAs, are particularity guilty of this assumption.
> 
> If I tell someone not to accept lifts from strangers that is SD, and it works.  I don't need to have accepted a lift form a stranger and have it gone horribly wrong to justify my ability to impart that advice.  The advice is sound, and it works, and it has *absolutely nothing* to do with men fighting in a bar/the street.  But that is all you are able to see SD as and that is were your problem lies.  If your 80yo Gran is worried about having her handbag stolen you don't her to join a boxing club.  You teach her what muggers look for when selection their victims, so she can avoid being selected as a victim.  That's called Target Hardening, and is well document, accepted and recognised SD skill, it also has not one single thing to do with men fighting each other in the street.
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't  The purpose of a fight is to win by deafening your opponent. The purpose of SD is to create the opportunity to escape.  If in a fight if you knock your opponent to the ground you rush over and keep hitting them until the ref stops you.  Then you win.
> 
> If you knock someone down in SD and have the opportunity to flee, but instead choose to stay and mount them so you can keep hitting them then you have broken the law, as you have gone beyond "reasonable" SD and have now committed assault yourself.
> 
> If I am in a SD situation if I run away and get home safely that counts a win.  If I step into the ring and then spend the rest of the round running away from my opponent I will eventually get disqualified for failing to engage.
> 
> What counts as a "win" in fighting is not the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa.
> 
> The two have *completely different* objectives.  But we keep coming back to the same problem.  When you are only able to view SD in terms of fighting, you view "winning a fight" as the same objective as SD, but it isn't.
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  Preemptive striking is a SD skill, it is not a fighting skill as you can't become World Champion with a record of 0 wins, 0 loses and 17 disqualifications for hitting your opponent before the bell sounds.  Bobbing in and out of striking range, and throwing an exploratory jab to see how your opponent reacts and spot potential weakness in his response that you can exploit it is a valid fighting skill.  But you don't bob in an out of range throwing exploratory jabs to test you rapists reaction.  That's a fighting skill, not a SD skill.
> 
> If I submit my opponent with a triangle choke in the ring I win.  If I triangle choke someone outside the chip shop on a Friday night his mates come out and stomp my head flat.  What works in a fight/in the ring does not necessarily work for SD, what works for SD does not necessarily work in a fight/the ring.
> 
> There is a whole area of soft SD skills (i.e. no physical SD skills) that have absolutely nothing to do with agreeing to fight someone in a pub car park.
> 
> Learning the warning signs of a potentially abusive relationship, so you can get out of it early, is a SD skill.  It has *nothing* to do with fighting.  You don't teach women in a SD class to become MMA fighters so if there bf turns out to be abusive and controlling they can get him to tap out.  You teach them to spot the warning signs so they can get out of the relationship.
> 
> Different problems, *different *skill sets.
> 
> Yes there are some overlaps, a good punch is always a good punch of course, but consensual fighting skills are no the answer to all of lifes SD problems, and good SD skills do not make you good at consensual sparring/fighting/sporting contests.  Unless of course you are only able to view SD in terms of men fighting each other.
> 
> Fighting makes you good at fighting.  SD makes you good at SD.
> 
> They do not have "exactly the same skill set"  Not even close.
> 
> 
> The problem is you have a very very narrow one dimensional view of SD.  You are only able to think of SD in terms of getting into a fight with other men on the street or in a bar, so anytime anyone suggest SD can possibly be anything other than that you refuse to accept that because it does not match your own personal experience of violence.  There are other people that need to protect themselves, (older/female/children) and they need to protect themselves from a variety of things; things other than bar fights.  The fact then that someone may have some SD advice that does not directly relate to bar fights does not mean it is not SD, anymore than the only things that can relate directly to to bar/street fights can be classed as SD.  And the fact someone may be more knowledgeable,and experienced, about these other aspects (shock horror, how can that be?) does not mean they have set themselves up as an expert.
> 
> Of course you will disagree, and continue to argue.  But I have no interest in wasting more time or crayons explaining it, so enjoy the rest of your day.


there is just to miffle to go through line by line, so let's look at the major defintion you have just made up to suit your view.

A fight is a physical contest between two or more people, it doesn't require to be consensual to be a fight nether does it require to be in a ring or have a referee. Once you take that as a fact, then most of your points,disappear.

if someone it attacked and FIGHTS back that a,fight, ie

if someone decides to punch me and i react by punching them, its now a fight, if someone menaces me and i punch them before they can punch me, that's, a fight, if i run away , that not a fight, if i run away backwards whilst punching people who are chasing me that's a,fight.

the purposes of a fight out side of a,ring, isn't to win, there are no points and no judges to say who the winner is, its to hurt them more than they hurt you, so they a) give up b) are incapable of continuing c) won't try it again

it can be both a criminal assault and a fight, fighting back doesn't alter the law and make the attacker less guilty.

i think that just about covers your main points.

nb old timers can fight back as well, usually not very well


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I have a theory, entirely unsubstantiated, that there's a mindset match between sport/competition and taking on jobs like bouncing. It's a risk-taking/risk-acceptance factor. It would be interesting to study that - I have never found research that touched on a similar match (I'd assume there's some cross-over with LEO, but not more than half).


bouncing in the UK has a,strong tie in with organised crime, certainly before they tightens up on the certification, the bouncing contract was part of a protection racket payment, that is now less so, but all the " security" companies around this way are run either directly or under cover by people who have a reputation in the under world.
we occasionally have bouncer,wars, were one,security company attacks another to get the good contracts


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> bouncing in the UK has a,strong tie in with organised crime, certainly before they tightens up on the certification, the bouncing contract was part of a protection racket payment, that is now less so, but all the " security" companies around this way are run either directly or under cover by people who have a reputation in the under world.
> we occasionally have bouncer,wars, were one,security company attacks another to get the good contracts


That's old school.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> That latter supports my hypothesis (because the mass also makes the job somewhat less risky), though that may be nothing more than confirmation bias. In fact, the first statement is pretty close to my point. People tend to be drawn to what they are likely to succeed at.
> 
> I suspect that there are few people who get into that line of work (specifically bouncer) who aren't a little bit thrill-seeking and fairly risk-tolerant, and used to being physically competent. I think those are personality traits likely to be common among sport competitors, too. There will certainly be exceptions to that, but those seem likely matches. And I'd expect that - in the current MA environment - folks who match those qualities are more likely to be drawn to the more obvious sports (BJJ, MMA, maybe Judo) and less to TMA. I suspect this actually bleeds some of the likely better competitors/fighters from TMA, increasing the need for inter-style training.


there is quite a possibility they are doing bouncing as they have no other viable alternative employment, certainly it has the,advantage of not having to get up in the morning, getting paid for standing around looking menacing AND seems to attract a fair number of young ladies who like the,strong silent bad boy type, and you occasionally get to punch a few,drunks, what's not to like


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> bouncing in the UK has a,strong tie in with organised crime, certainly before they tightens up on the certification, the bouncing contract was part of a protection racket payment, that is now less so, but all the " security" companies around this way are run either directly or under cover by people who have a reputation in the under world.
> we occasionally have bouncer,wars, were one,security company attacks another to get the good contracts


Lovely. Sounds like feudal-era fun. Remind me not to live where you live, Jobo.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Lovely. Sounds like feudal-era fun. Remind me not to live where you live, Jobo.


yes it can get that way, a good few years ago, one of the foot soldiers decieded to beat me up over a,disputed game of pool i made quite a mess of him and two of his friends, which resulted in a number of very serious people on the look out for me to take revenge, i invoked the family loyalty clause as one of my many cousins is married to the leader of,a rival gang, hadnt seen her in twenty years, but family is family, when the,court case came round, ,there were gangs of twenty a side in court and an armed police presence, the whole thing was resolved when most most the people who were,after me got,10 years for armed robbery,


----------



## Paul_D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your fist meets on your opponent's face, will he feel any difference between whether you are doing self-defense, or you are doing fighting?


If you are defending yourself from a criminal, or have instead chosen to willingly go into the car park and fight to settle an argument, will the courts see the difference?  

Yes, they will.



Tony Dismukes said:


> If you resist that assault through the application of violence (as opposed to just running away or crying for help), then you are now in a fight.


By your definition yes, but my definition I am defending myself from assault.  Putting "fight" in your police statement does not go down quite so well as "defending myself from assault".  Yes, while it is my definition (although not just my definition btw) , the problem with using the word fight is that it causes people to mistakenly believe that the fighting skills they use in the dojo/ring are the right tools for the job when it comes to dealing with SD from non consensual criminal violence, they are not.  So I believe there is an important reason to make the distinction it's not just me being pedantic for the sake of it.  We understand the difference of course, but with others here you have to spell it out for them where the distinction lies.   



Tony Dismukes said:


> That's your own personal definition


No, it's not. 

No I can't expect everyone to accept it, but I do explain _why _I make that definition, certain people just use the word "fight" to mean "agreeing to go out in a car park and fight to settle a disagreement" which is NOT SD, and an actual SD scenario.  Certain posters here however use the same word for both without making the distinction, so you are never sure which they are referring to.  They also assumes the skills set and the objective for both (and indeed the legal ramifications) are the same.  They are not, I try to make the distinction so my position is made clear, even if people chose not to agree with my definition.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't think anyone here is arguing that lifestyle choices, awareness, target hardening, avoidance, and verbal de-escalation don't count as self-defense. I believe Jobo was making the point that if those all fail then fighting ability is the next level of self-defense. Thus his phrasing that "_after_ the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is _then_ fighting". (I will concede that comments from Jobo in other threads seem to indicate he doesn't try that hard to succeed with those non-violent options in his daily life.)


I am not going to be so crass as to mention names, but there are plenty of people here who argue exactly that.  Unless it is men brawling in a bar or the street it is not SD, and they argue it just as vehemently as I argue it is not.



Tony Dismukes said:


> A lot may depend on where you are, but many jurisdictions do not impose a duty to flee an attacker. I'm not familiar with U.K. law, but in many areas of the U.S. you are allowed to stand your ground against an assailant.


My posts are always form the point of view of UK law ( or at least as I understand it to be) I accept and understand laws are different in different locations, and people have to of course bear their own laws in mind at all times.



Tony Dismukes said:


> In general, I agree, although I could come up with exceptions for both of those scenarios.


Of course, there always are, I was generalising to demonstrate the difference between SD and fighting.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I would correct that to say "_What counts as a "win" in fighting is not *always *the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa_"


That would have been better yes, but I was running out of time, I could be here for hours pouring over every word and comma, but eventually you get to the point where you just have to hit post and trust people to get the general jist



Tony Dismukes said:


> On the other hand, if a young woman is faced with a would-be date rapist in her home, then a triangle choke may resolve the issue nicely. In fact, there have been several news reports of this happening.


Yes, of course.  I'm not saying it isn't _one _solution, I am saying however it not the _best _solution.  Waiting until you get attacked and then hoping your MA skills are better than the other persons is not the best way to approach SD.  (I'm not saying that is _your_ approach). That is however the approach of several here who continue to argue that SD only consists of men brawling in a bar/street.  

It is also, in my experience, the solution favoured by many MA instructors who try to teach SD.  They give no thought to (or at best only give lip service to) the soft skills which will keep you out of danger.  We have all been on a course where the instructor says "If you're being strangled this is how you escape."  

Wait, what?  How have I ended up in a situation where I am being strangled. You cannot (in a SD course/lesson) just skip over the the entire sequence of events that has led me to the point where I am being strangled, as there were numerous chances to avoid ending up in the position, if you know what to do.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Agreed, with emphasis on the "necessarily." I'd argue that there is value for martial artist in knowing what skills transfer and which do not.


I would absolutely agree with that as well.  But you cannot for love nor money get certain people here to understand that. They know how to fight, but because their only experience of violence is fighting in the dojo/ring/street, they assume all violence is the same, and the same skills can be applied across the board.  They know a triangle choke works, they have done it in the ring and in the dojo, but try to explain to them that a triangle choke is not ideal in the middle of the street and instead what they hear is "Triangle chokes don't work at all."

I think we are pretty much in agreement, save a few inconsequential details.  You know ultimately what I am trying to say, it's others here who need to understand the umbrella of SD casts its shadow a lot further than the single scenario of drunken men brawling in bars.

Thanks for reply Tony, hope I have clarified things a little better than I did before


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> If you are defending yourself from a criminal, or have instead chosen to willingly go into the car park and fight to settle an argument, will the courts see the difference?
> 
> Yes, they will.


The court's view doesn't change the mechanics of the situation until afterwards. If someone attacks in a car park and you manage to disengage and gain a bit of space (but not enough to escape), the situation is markedly similar to what you'd be in if you stepped in there willingly to settle an argument.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> The court's view doesn't change the mechanics of the situation until afterwards. If someone attacks in a car park and you manage to disengage and gain a bit of space (but not enough to escape), the situation is markedly similar to what you'd be in if you stepped in there willingly to settle an argument.


Perhaps in some circumstances  yes, but in others no.  But mechanics wasn't the point I was demonstrating with this post.  

The point I am making here is that if you willingly agree to fight someone in the street/bar you are not acting in SD, and so become legally responsible for the consequences, both legal and financial.  If you are legally acting in SD then you are not responsible.  So the courts deal with different scenarios in different ways.

Although KFW's question was flippant because he does not understand the difference, it is important to know you cannot just go round hitting people and then legally claiming the act of SD and illegally street fighting are the same just because the mechanics of a punch are the same.  Also KFW, as do many, needs to understand that whilst there are some cross over skills between fighting and SD (a good punch is always a good punch) there are many skills which whilst successful in one arena are wholly unsuited to the other.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> Perhaps in some circumstances  yes, but in others no.  But mechanics wasn't the point I was demonstrating with this post.
> 
> The point I am making here is that if you willingly agree to fight someone in the street/bar you are not acting in SD, and so become legally responsible for the consequences, both legal and financial.  If you are legally acting in SD then you are not responsible.  So the courts deal with different scenarios in different ways.
> 
> Although KFW's question was flippant because he does not understand the difference, it is important to know you cannot just go round hitting people and then legally claiming the act of SD and illegally street fighting are the same just because the mechanics of a punch are the same.  Also KFW, as do many, needs to understand that whilst there are some cross over skills between fighting and SD (a good punch is always a good punch) there are many skills which whilst successful in one arena are wholly unsuited to the other.


I think you have an interesting view on self defense.  In many ways, I agree, but in a few key areas, I just don't.  You continually emphasize that consensual violence is not self defense, but have also said that cops who engage in violence are engaging in self defense.  How is it consensual on one hand and not on the other?  A cop doesn't run away and in fact, often initiates the violence.  How is that self defense?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> The point I am making here is that if you willingly agree to fight someone in the street/bar you are not acting in SD, and so become legally responsible for the consequences, both legal and financial. If you are legally acting in SD then you are not responsible. So the courts deal with different scenarios in different ways.


But this has nothing to do with the overlap in tools between the two, and is why people get frustrated with this argument. Yes, there are considerations in self-defense/self-protection that don't apply for sport fighting. But there's a lot that overlaps in the physical skills of self-defense.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Perhaps in some circumstances  yes, but in others no.  But mechanics wasn't the point I was demonstrating with this post.
> 
> The point I am making here is that if you willingly agree to fight someone in the street/bar you are not acting in SD, and so become legally responsible for the consequences, both legal and financial.  If you are legally acting in SD then you are not responsible.  So the courts deal with different scenarios in different ways.
> 
> Although KFW's question was flippant because he does not understand the difference, it is important to know you cannot just go round hitting people and then legally claiming the act of SD and illegally street fighting are the same just because the mechanics of a punch are the same.  Also KFW, as do many, needs to understand that whilst there are some cross over skills between fighting and SD (a good punch is always a good punch) there are many skills which whilst successful in one arena are wholly unsuited to the other.


I've asked you this before, when you made a similar claim, and you didn't have an answer then, perhaps you do know as you are saying it again, if two blokes take themselves of to aa quite spot for a consensual fight, what specific law have they broken, I'm sure you know as you claim it will land them in court


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I think you have an interesting view on self defense.  In many ways, I agree, but in a few key areas, I just don't.  You continually emphasize that consensual violence is not self defense, but have also said that cops who engage in violence are engaging in self defense.  How is it consensual on one hand and not on the other?  A cop doesn't run away and in fact, often initiates the violence.  How is that self defense?


Il answer that for you as i suspect Paul has no idea, in the UK, cops can use reasonable force to effect an arrest, that is they will make an arrest and any force necessary to make that arrest is reasonable with the exception of shooting them, which is a bit of a no no unless they are believed to have a fire arm ready to discharge.

however the same level of force is available to citizens if they make a citizens arrest .


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think you have an interesting view on self defense.  In many ways, I agree, but in a few key areas, I just don't.  You continually emphasize that consensual violence is not self defense, but have also said that cops who engage in violence are engaging in self defense.  How is it consensual on one hand and not on the other?  A cop doesn't run away and in fact, often initiates the violence.  How is that self defense?



That has to be a bad way to view a self defence situation as you are mentally setting yourself up as the victim.

I prefer the rawshak concept.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> Il answer that for you as i suspect Paul has no idea, in the UK, cops can use reasonable force to effect an arrest, that is they will make an arrest and any force necessary to make that arrest is reasonable with the exception of shooting them, which is a bit of a no no unless they are believed to have a fire arm ready to discharge.
> 
> however the same level of force is available to citizens if they make a citizens arrest .




As a cop they can also act in self defence. So say they are getting toweled and start swinging. They are outside the bounds of an arrest but inside the bounds of self defence. Then once they have defended themselves back to effecting an arrest.

I used this all the time. Saved me having to use wrist locks on guys who were fighting me.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> I think you have an interesting view on self defense.  In many ways, I agree, but in a few key areas, I just don't.  You continually emphasize that consensual violence is not self defense, but have also said that cops who engage in violence are engaging in self defense.  How is it consensual on one hand and not on the other?  A cop doesn't run away and in fact, often initiates the violence.  How is that self defense?



I think most people (and the law in most places) consider 'consensual violence' to be sparring or a competitive match between two or more people. You know... tournaments and such. 
Just because your job exposes you to violence doesn't make it consensual. I've certainly never consented any of the times I've been assaulted.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I think most people (and the law in most places) consider 'consensual violence' to be sparring or a competitive match between two or more people. You know... tournaments and such.
> Just because your job exposes you to violence doesn't make it consensual. I've certainly never consented any of the times I've been assaulted.



You still consent to violence when you train though. Which makes me think that a lot of self deception has to occur.

So I go to training. Consent to violence, then pretend not to consent? While then he is pretending to mug me or something. With no practical experience in either being mugged or being a mugger. It just goes too far into larp for me.

For me I think if the focus is on self defence only, people are not considering the bigger picture.

An arrest isn't self defence but is a legal use of force for a martial artist.


----------



## drop bear

I mean let's just use MMA rules for a moment and look at them in the context of self defence. I could carry a handbag into the cage. And make the victory conditions that I win if I escape with the handbag and he wins if he escapes with the hand bag. Otherwise what would really change?

I could set it up so he gets the first strike and I have to wait until he fires. Again what really changes.

Even for security. I have to get a guy out a door and he can punch kick and grapple my head off.

Bear in mind these drills are consensual so therefore do not have an impact on self defence.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> I think most people (and the law in most places) consider 'consensual violence' to be sparring or a competitive match between two or more people. You know... tournaments and such.
> Just because your job exposes you to violence doesn't make it consensual. I've certainly never consented any of the times I've been assaulted.


I’m actually quite sure that this isn’t how paul d defines it.   You might, but he’s been pretty clear to include more than that.  Edit.   I mean to say that Paul d’s Definition of consensual violence is more broad than “just sparring or a competitive match.  You know... tournaments and such.”


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> You still consent to violence when you train though.



Sure, if you spar. That's pretty much why laws exist to allow consensual violence. Otherwise you could be arrested for sparring.



Steve said:


> I’m actually quite sure that this isn’t how paul d defines it.   You might, but he’s been pretty clear to include more than that.  Edit.   I mean to say that Paul d’s Definition of consensual violence is more broad than “just sparring or a competitive match.  You know... tournaments and such.”



I'm only commenting on the cop example. It's pretty clear (or should be) that being a cop does NOT mean that you're consenting to being assaulted.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure, if you spar. That's pretty much why laws exist to allow consensual violence. Otherwise you could be arrested for sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only commenting on the cop example. It's pretty clear (or should be) that being a cop does NOT mean that you're consenting to being assaulted.


No but being a cop does mean choosing to engage in violence.


----------



## Steve

Lol.  You're disagreeing that Paul has a broader definition than you?  Okay.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> No but being a cop does mean choosing to engage in violence.



I would say that being a cop means accepting the risk of being forced to engage in violence. In no way does it mean you consent to the violence.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> No but being a cop does mean choosing to engage in violence.



Yeah there is sort of a thing there. And I get almost the same thing.

What that leans towards is well bouncers should expect to get punched its their job.

My view is the chick at my local supermarket is an irritating *****, but I can just punch her because it is her job.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> I would say that being a cop means accepting the risk of being forced to engage in violence. In no way does it mean you consent to the violence.


I think you're funny.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> I think you're funny.



Thank you. I think you're funny too.
I just don't think accepting a risk of violence is the same as consenting to it, any more than accepting a risk of being raped is the same as consenting.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Thank you. I think you're funny too.
> I just don't think accepting a risk of violence is the same as consenting to it, any more than accepting a risk of being raped is the same as consenting.


I actually never said otherwise.  However choosing to engage in violence is exactly that.  And also that Paul d's definition consensual violence is broader than yours.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> Perhaps in some circumstances  yes, but in others no.  But mechanics wasn't the point I was demonstrating with this post.
> 
> The point I am making here is that if you willingly agree to fight someone in the street/bar you are not acting in SD, and so become legally responsible for the consequences, both legal and financial.  If you are legally acting in SD then you are not responsible.  So the courts deal with different scenarios in different ways.
> 
> Although KFW's question was flippant because he does not understand the difference, it is important to know you cannot just go round hitting people and then legally claiming the act of SD and illegally street fighting are the same just because the mechanics of a punch are the same.  Also KFW, as do many, needs to understand that whilst there are some cross over skills between fighting and SD (a good punch is always a good punch) there are many skills which whilst successful in one arena are wholly unsuited to the other.


This may answer my previous  question.   Is the key legality vs consent?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This may answer my previous  question.   Is the key legality vs consent?


IIRC, I read somewhere that in UK law, consent is a legal defense (similar to a claim of self-defense), but that defense ends when actual physical harm occurs. Someone more familiar with their laws can probably expand upon or correct that.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> IIRC, I read somewhere that in UK law, consent is a legal defense (similar to a claim of self-defense), but that defense ends when actual physical harm occurs. Someone more familiar with their laws can probably expand upon or correct that.


its murky in law, generaly consent is no defence to any thing equal or exceeding actual bodily harm, that bad bruising significant cuts or similar. There is a,sports defence, that consent to operate with in a defined rule set is a defence, that's really a governing body rule set not just one you made up. So kicking people in the rough vircinity of the ball  is a defence in a football match, but head butting or punching is assault, banging some one in the face with the palm of your hand is ok in rugby, but kicking them is assault.

boxing was given a pass in the 1800s, for no logical reason other than they didn't want to ban it, whilst prize fight is illegal???? There is no established law on other ma including Mma, they seem to be ridding on boxing coat tails, if you have rules and a referee and gloves then its okish. Bare knuckle boxing is considered illegal,  Sparring in a dojo is something of a grey area, especially if its bare fisted and full contact. Probablycovered by the sports defence, but only probably???.

there is a horseplay defence, where you had no intent to cause injury, even if you were recklass in your actions that might cover it as well


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> This may answer my previous  question.   Is the key legality vs consent?


Sorry, missed your question.  

As I see it; the cop does not want to take part in the violence, he has to because the criminal gives him no choice.  Therefore he is protecting himself from violence he does not want to be a part of. So for me this is SD

If you get into an argument in bar (as an example) and the guy offers to "step outside and settle this" if you agree you have consented to take part in the violence.  You could have said no, you could have walked away, but you consented to the fight.  This then makes it very difficulty to claim SD when you get to the Police Station.

Obviously no one consents to being mugged or attacked, so protecting yourself from non consensual criminal violence is SD.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Sorry, missed your question.
> 
> As I see it; the cop does not want to take part in the violence, he has to because the criminal gives him no choice.  Therefore he is protecting himself from violence he does not want to be a part of. So for me this is SD
> 
> If you get into an argument in bar (as an example) and the guy offers to "step outside and settle this" if you agree you have consented to take part in the violence.  You could have said no, you could have walked away, but you consented to the fight.  This then makes it very difficulty to claim SD when you get to the Police Station.
> 
> Obviously no one consents to being mugged or attacked, so protecting yourself from non consensual criminal violence is SD.


Paul you keep banging the same points out with out checking your facts, fighting is not illegal , it may be breech of the peace in the,wrong place, but breach of the peace is not an offence. What is illegal is abh, that is you have hurt the other guy a significant amount, you may have consented to go outside, but that doesn't mean you can't claim sd if the other guy throws the first punch, or even that you feared for your safety if you throw first


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> IIRC, I read somewhere that in UK law, consent is a legal defense (similar to a claim of self-defense), but that defense ends when actual physical harm occurs. Someone more familiar with their laws can probably expand upon or correct that.


I dont know if I get it yet.   It seems like defining something as a legal dsfense against assault is a retrospective determination.  I think I've said before that self defense as a legal term is a tough one precisely because it relies on a retrospective analysis, and really, as a legal term that analysis is done by other people (whether that's cops, lawyers, or a jury).  I mean, it's not reliably tactical.  You don't in a crisis choose fight versus self defense.  You exercise what judgment you can in the moment and hope that others agree after the fact that whatever you did was reasonable.


Paul_D said:


> Sorry, missed your question.
> 
> As I see it; the cop does not want to take part in the violence, he has to because the criminal gives him no choice.  Therefore he is protecting himself from violence he does not want to be a part of. So for me this is SD
> 
> If you get into an argument in bar (as an example) and the guy offers to "step outside and settle this" if you agree you have consented to take part in the violence.  You could have said no, you could have walked away, but you consented to the fight.  This then makes it very difficulty to claim SD when you get to the Police Station.
> 
> Obviously no one consents to being mugged or attacked, so protecting yourself from non consensual criminal violence is SD.


that all makes sense.  Is it self defense for the cop if he/she initiates contact with a person and gets into an altercation?  What about for the person who is not choosing to be physically restrained by a cop?  That's not consensual. 

I understand that this is a nitpicky line of reasoning.  I'm really trying to understand how far the idea of "self defense is a legal term" or "self defense is non-consensual violence" or "self defense is a legal defense against assault" goes.

And, just to be clear, I agree with you completely about all of the other stuff.  I have said many times that if self defense is about being safer, there are a lot of things we can do that don't involve learning to fight.  I'm just thinking through this one facet of your position.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I dont know if I get it yet. It seems like defining something as a legal dsfense against assault is a retrospective determination. I think I've said before that self defense as a legal term is a tough one precisely because it relies on a retrospective analysis, and really, as a legal term that analysis is done by other people (whether that's cops, lawyers, or a jury). I mean, it's not reliably tactical. You don't in a crisis choose fight versus self defense. You exercise what judgment you can in the moment and hope that others agree after the fact that whatever you did was reasonable.


Agreed, on all points.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> Sorry, missed your question.
> 
> As I see it; the cop does not want to take part in the violence, he has to because the criminal gives him no choice.  Therefore he is protecting himself from violence he does not want to be a part of. So for me this is SD
> 
> If you get into an argument in bar (as an example) and the guy offers to "step outside and settle this" if you agree you have consented to take part in the violence.  You could have said no, you could have walked away, but you consented to the fight.  This then makes it very difficulty to claim SD when you get to the Police Station.
> 
> Obviously no one consents to being mugged or attacked, so protecting yourself from non consensual criminal violence is SD.


Paul, sorry.  Another thing bubbled up to the front of my brain regarding this.  In this case, you are suggesting that the cop does not want to take part in the violence, but isn't that an integral part of their profession?  Is it actually true that cops don't want to take part in violence?  Were this so, they could simply choose to be bakers or get a job as a barista.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm glad we have women and men willing to do that job.  But to say it's not a choice is a stretch.  Isn't it?

Compare this with a professional MMA fighter.  Like a cop, they have chosen a profession that is inherently violent.  Like cops, they spend a lot of time training for violence that is specifically preparing them for the brand of violence they are likely to encounter in their profession.  And like a cop, if they truly didn't want to engage in that violence, they could choose to be bakers or a barista.

Now, contrast this with an office worker who is mugged.  The office worker has not chosen a violent profession.  They have every reason to believe that their job is safe and that they will not engage in any violence while sitting in their cubicle.  If the average office worker engages in violence, I would expect that it is not by choice. 

This is also true for a cop who is off duty and is mugged.  Or an MMA fighter who is off duty and is mugged.  I'm distinguishing between the execution of professional duties and off-duty/personal behaviors.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Paul, sorry.  Another thing bubbled up to the front of my brain regarding this.  In this case, you are suggesting that the cop does not want to take part in the violence, but isn't that an integral part of their profession?  Is it actually true that cops don't want to take part in violence?  Were this so, they could simply choose to be bakers or get a job as a barista.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm glad we have women and men willing to do that job.  But to say it's not a choice is a stretch.  Isn't it?
> 
> Compare this with a professional MMA fighter.  Like a cop, they have chosen a profession that is inherently violent.  Like cops, they spend a lot of time training for violence that is specifically preparing them for the brand of violence they are likely to encounter in their profession.  And like a cop, if they truly didn't want to engage in that violence, they could choose to be bakers or a barista.
> 
> Now, contrast this with an office worker who is mugged.  The office worker has not chosen a violent profession.  They have every reason to believe that their job is safe and that they will not engage in any violence while sitting in their cubicle.  If the average office worker engages in violence, I would expect that it is not by choice.
> 
> This is also true for a cop who is off duty and is mugged.  Or an MMA fighter who is off duty and is mugged.  I'm distinguishing between the execution of professional duties and off-duty/personal behaviors.


I think there's a useful distinction between "want to" and "will", Steve. There probably are some cops who enjoy the violence (I know I've met folks with that proclivity outside LE), but they're almost certainly a tiny minority. They accept the need for it, but don't have to like it. They consent to the risk of violence in general by their choice of profession, but that doesn't mean they consent to the violence, itself.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think there's a useful distinction between "want to" and "will", Steve. There probably are some cops who enjoy the violence (I know I've met folks with that proclivity outside LE), but they're almost certainly a tiny minority. They accept the need for it, but don't have to like it. They consent to the risk of violence in general by their choice of profession, but that doesn't mean they consent to the violence, itself.


You're using a lot of subjective language here, my friend.  Want to or will, likes violence...  That's not where I'm at here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You're using a lot of subjective language here, my friend.  Want to or will, likes violence...  That's not where I'm at here.


I think it's a nuance of "consent" - not the legal sense, of course, but I don't think we can ignore these nuances in a non-legal discussion. In a legal sense, it's clear that courts don't consider accepting the position as consent to violence.

But I may be missing what you're looking for. It's been known to happen.


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's Note:*

Thread closed, due to excessive drift.


----------

