# Question on the usefulness of ninjutsu?



## Gruenewald (Jul 18, 2010)

I have a question for the people that practice ninjutsu: is there anything I would be able to learn through some form of ninjutsu that I would not be able to learn from any other martial art/combination of martial arts? I don't mean to sound disrespectful or condescending here, I'm just wondering if it would be worth taking for the development of my JDK training; I'm already looking into a handful of different martial arts and I was wondering whether or not it would be worth taking ninjutsu if I already (theoretically) had training in all other martial arts.

Any advice would be much appreciated. =)


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 18, 2010)

Yes, you will learn Ninjutsu. In terms of technical details, you will learn many older methods of combat, including a high focus on weapons, fighting against armoured opponents, and lots more, as well as many other aspects. Will it help the development of your JKD? No, your JKD is for that.

Really, my advise is to pick one art and stick with that, the reasons are in many threads here (a search of my posts will reveal quite a few, for example.... look for a thread called "Best Martial Art to Suit My Goals"....).


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 18, 2010)

It's not really a question of whether or not I should learn other MAs at all, it's which ones. I've decided to study various martial arts with the goal of developing my own JDK as opposed to "learning JKD" in a JKD school/class. What I'm wondering is whether or not Ninjutsu would contribute anything unique to my training that I couldn't learn from anything else. I firmly believe that I have the dedication required to study a wide variety of MAs without sacrificing any proficiency in any of them.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 18, 2010)

Every art will have something unique to offer, that's really why there are so many arts.

Oh, and the reason multiple arts are really not a good idea has nothing at all to do with dedication or lack thereof, it's more to do with the way such things are learnt, and to take on multiple arts (particularly in the same range/environment) is detrimental to each art you are studying. I'll try to find a direct link to the above mentioned thread so you can see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 18, 2010)

Cool, please do.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 18, 2010)

Here you go: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78431


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 18, 2010)

What Chris is pointing out is that overall mechanics of movement may be different and may cause a steep learning curve.  People have practiced JKD in the past and then learned Budo Taijutsu.  Many of them that I know eventually left JKD to concentrate solely on Budo Taijutsu as the movement is different.  Budo Taijutsu is composed of nine seperate systems but they do have an underlying operating system that ties everything together.  It is similar to what we do in IRT in that we have an operating system that ties everything together.  While any of my guys are a lot better in six months than they were before it does take three years or more depending on the individual to get that operating system of movement down so that everything can tie together. ie. Weapons/tools, Kicking, Hand Strikes, Trapping Hands & Joint Manipulation and finally Grappling.  All of the X-Kans (Budo Taijutsu, Genbukan, Jinekan) have unique movement that is different from JKD so there would be a large adjustment phase. (but most people love it)  If you have trained in Dan Inosanto's Maphilindo Silat there is some similarity but only some to the movement in the X-Kans.  Hope that helps!


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 18, 2010)

And the reason that the mechanics are so different is that the entire approach (the guiding philosophy that gives the art or system it's beliefs and values, and by extension there it's behaviours, or techiniques) is very different. That is the real difference between any two or more martial arts, and they give very different concepts on what is powerful, effective, fast, strong, weak, and more. So by training various systems, you are telling yourself that one or both are not strong or powerful, as you have another part of your training telling you that it isn't.


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 18, 2010)

Thank you both very much for the helpful advice, but ultimately I will have to act against it (not ignore entirely however, for I will remain aware of the issues you've presented). It will take much more than those issues to dissuade me from my goal. In essence, I believe all martial arts to be connected in their fundamental purpose (through my interpretation, at the very least) and I cannot believe that mere physical (and in some cases chronological or even ideological) seperation will compromise my training to such a height.

Again, thank you.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 18, 2010)

You are of course free to act against it, but to be completely blunt you are rather off in your take on things here. Martial arts have been developed for many different reasons, and the underlying principles (the guiding philosophy) gives huge differences to different systems, even if they are superficially similar.

The issue I am presenting is that by training in different systems (partcularly when you are new to one or another) will actually have you going backwards in your development and training. It will take longer to get any real skill or understanding, and take you further from the benefits you seem to be seeking.

The best reason (and method) for cross training is when you are experienced and skilled in your chosen system (typically I would say after 5 - 10 years, at least), and see that it may have a gap in it's understanding of one element or another, say, ground work. So you'd study BJJ to get an understanding of the environment, but when it came to your actual training it would become your primary art, simply applied with your new understanding of the different environment.

That said, if you still want to go ahead, talk with your potential instructor first. Some may simply not allow it (I highly discourage it, for instance, with my students, although it is almost required for my seniors. I don't forbid it, though), others may ask why you want to do such, and so on. Some may not care. With myself, if I have someone come along and say "I do JKD, and also want to add Ninjutsu to my training", I ask them what they feel they are missing in JKD, how long they have been studying, and so on. If it is a short time, I encourage them to stay where they are, as it is better for them in the long term as well as the short term, because typically they will get what they are after if they just stick it out.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 18, 2010)

You want to "develop your own JKD."  Might I ask what you expect to base your assessment and selection on?

Each martial art represents a particular way of answering the question "How do I defend myself?"  (I'm not including the purely aesthetic or purely health approaches here.)  That answer will reflect the culture, the terrain and environment, and moral principles of the people that created it.  Look at Krav Maga:  it's a very practical system, very direct, and concentrates on massively counterattacking (with discipline) when attacked; it's as subtle as a tank going down Main Street.  But aikido concentrates on harmonizing and moving with and using the opponent's own motion and energy against them.  A perfect aikido response to an attack may be invisible, as the attacker simply appears to stumble and fall.  Boxing reflects the idea that it's unmanly to kick (broadly speaking!).  I could continue.

What question of combat are you trying to answer?  Trying to mix up a bit of this and a bit of that without any underlying principles and focus will make it hard to have unified motion.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> *You want to "develop your own JKD." Might I ask what you expect to base your assessment and selection on?*
> 
> Each martial art represents a particular way of answering the question "How do I defend myself?" (I'm not including the purely aesthetic or purely health approaches here.) That answer will reflect the culture, the terrain and environment, and moral principles of the people that created it. Look at Krav Maga: it's a very practical system, very direct, and concentrates on massively counterattacking (with discipline) when attacked; it's as subtle as a tank going down Main Street. But aikido concentrates on harmonizing and moving with and using the opponent's own motion and energy against them. A perfect aikido response to an attack may be invisible, as the attacker simply appears to stumble and fall. Boxing reflects the idea that it's unmanly to kick (broadly speaking!). I could continue.
> 
> What question of combat are you trying to answer? Trying to mix up a bit of this and a bit of that without any underlying principles and focus will make it hard to have unified motion.


 

Here's me scrolling down reading the posts thinking to myself I've got to ask why this poster wants to develop their own JKD and you asked it much better than I have.  There is surely enough martial arts around that are perfectly suitable without making up a name for another one which will be a mixture of other martial arts anyway!


BTW kicking and takedowns used to be common in boxing until relatively (in martial arts terms)  recently.


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 18, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> You are of course free to act against it, but to be completely blunt you are rather off in your take on things here. Martial arts have been developed for many different reasons, and the underlying principles (the guiding philosophy) gives huge differences to different systems, even if they are superficially similar.


You are correct that the guiding philosophies of each martial art may  be, but remember that I am taking from each style what I believe to be  effective and suited towards my own personal take on martial arts.



Chris Parker said:


> The issue I am presenting is that by training in different systems (partcularly when you are new to one or another) will actually have you going backwards in your development and training. It will take longer to get any real skill or understanding, and take you further from the benefits you seem to be seeking.
> 
> The best reason (and method) for cross training is when you are experienced and skilled in your chosen system (typically I would say after 5 - 10 years, at least), and see that it may have a gap in it's understanding of one element or another, say, ground work. So you'd study BJJ to get an understanding of the environment, but when it came to your actual training it would become your primary art, simply applied with your new understanding of the different environment.


I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but I cannot accept that because I choose study one system or another I'm limited to just that system and nothing else (_Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it  grow, be like water._ - Bruce Lee) My "chosen system" was wrestling/judo (which I've done for about 6 or 7 years now), and so I believe that I have achieved a reasonably deep understanding of grappling. Now I wish to expand my knowledge to other systems, and learn as much as I can about them.



Chris Parker said:


> That said, if you still want to go ahead, talk with your potential instructor first. Some may simply not allow it (I highly discourage it, for instance, with my students, although it is almost required for my seniors. I don't forbid it, though), others may ask why you want to do such, and so on. Some may not care. With myself, if I have someone come along and say "I do JKD, and also want to add Ninjutsu to my training", I ask them what they feel they are missing in JKD, how long they have been studying, and so on. If it is a short time, I encourage them to stay where they are, as it is better for them in the long term as well as the short term, because typically they will get what they are after if they just stick it out.


Well, I wouldn't say that I "do JKD" per se, and I don't know if I want to add Ninjutsu to my training, that's what I was intending to learn when I first made this thread =P. But I understand what you mean. To be honest I wouldn't want to train under an instructor by lying to them or if they didn't feel right about me doing multiple MAs. Who they impart their knowledge upon is their choice. Also I will ask for their opinions and seek advice on what I would be best doing before I dive into a new martial art, worry not.



jks9199 said:


> You want to "develop your own JKD."  Might I ask what you expect to base your assessment and selection on?
> 
> Each martial art represents a particular way of answering the question "How do I defend myself?"  (I'm not including the purely aesthetic or purely health approaches here.)  That answer will reflect the culture, the terrain and environment, and moral principles of the people that created it.  Look at Krav Maga:  it's a very practical system, very direct, and concentrates on massively counterattacking (with discipline) when attacked; it's as subtle as a tank going down Main Street.  But aikido concentrates on harmonizing and moving with and using the opponent's own motion and energy against them.  A perfect aikido response to an attack may be invisible, as the attacker simply appears to stumble and fall.  Boxing reflects the idea that it's unmanly to kick (broadly speaking!).  I could continue.
> 
> What question of combat are you trying to answer?  Trying to mix up a bit of this and a bit of that without any underlying principles and focus will make it hard to have unified motion.


Your question actually reflects my impending answer quite well. What if my immediate situation/surroundings do not reflect the basis of the system I've chosen to study? Am I just screwed? I see no reason not to prepare for every possible scenario by means of every possible martial art (not literally, but I'm sure you understand what I mean). I will answer every question of combat that presents itself to me in this way (in theory), appropriately instead of attempting to bend what I know beyond its scope. That's my idea, anyway.



Tez3 said:


> Here's me scrolling down reading the posts thinking to myself I've got to ask why this poster wants to develop their own JKD and you asked it much better than I have.  There is surely enough martial arts around that are perfectly suitable without making up a name for another one which will be a mixture of other martial arts anyway



To address the question of why I want to develop "my own JKD": For me JKD is a philosophical viewpoint, a "filter" as many have put it through which one sees the martial arts. I do not consider JKD to be a concrete system in and of itself, that would go against the fundamental principles that Bruce attempted to establish. I believe that everybody develops their own JKD, and that that is what JKD is.



> *I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise  that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that"  method.* On the contrary, *I hope to free my followers from clinging to  styles, patterns, or molds.* Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name  used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . *Jeet Kune Do is not an  organized institution that one can be a member of.* Either you understand  or you don't, and that is that. There is no mystery about my style. My  movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part  of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so  of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that  the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct  expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy.  The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression  there is. Finally, *a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is  exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it.* He is still hung up on  his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary  pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and  can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that  truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never  exclusive. Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a  boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to  be carried on one's back.
>  Bruce Lee



I will not struggle with unified motion, for I will discard what is useless to me in relation to the other techniques that I am implementing. That is not to say however that I will ignore the technique completely; on the contrary: I will seek to develop an understanding of the technique, the role it is supposed to fulfill, why it doesn't work for me, and what I can do to fulfill that role using a different technique regardless of what MA that technique may originate from.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 18, 2010)

Allow me to simply suggest that you don't understand what you're talking about as well as you believe you do.  I've got more than 2 decades of training in one style.  I've explored others, looked into them, and taken useful techniques from them.  I spent the last week getting a very intensive introduction to Krav Maga.  For my own personal practice, I'll take some of the principles and ideas and methods of teaching from it -- but my base remains Bando.  For my own personal practice, if it doesn't sync with the principles of Bando, I'll simply find myself fighting it too hard.  

Nobody is suggesting that you don't explore various arts -- but if you simply try to mix and match without an underlying set of principles, you'll find that you've got a mess.  Bruce Lee explored and took things from different styles, but he generally overlayed them onto a solid base of Wing Chun.  Many of his ideas are recognizable to Wing Chun practitioners, even if not expressed the same way.  Indeed, there's a very good argument that he did nothing but describe the journey that anyone makes with serious training as they move deeper into their system.

Let me try an analogy.  Any color can be made by properly combining the three primary colors, right?  Mix blue and red, and you get purple.  Mix yellow and blue and you get green.  And so on.  But if you don't mix them in the proper proportions, you don't get the color you want, do you?  The same thing can happen in your training.  Sure, the human body only comes in so many models that only can move in so many ways.  But if you try to force things together improperly or without common underlying philosophies and principles, you'll get ineffective and messy techniques.  And you'll be tempted to say that "this art" or "that art" is useless.  When the real problem is that you don't understand it properly, and can't mix it together the way you're trying to.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 19, 2010)

I like the paint mixing analogy better. If you start mixing paints of different colors without really knowing what you are doing, you won't get a rainbow but an indistinct brown muck.

It's true that Bruce added outside influences to his own style, but only after he already had a decent level of proficiency at his base style. Until you really have a good understanding of any art, adding something to it will probably make it inferior to the original.


----------



## Hudson69 (Jul 19, 2010)

Just to flog a dead horse here but it really is easier to "master" or attain a strong proficiency in one system before trying to branch out into others. One thing you might try is to just drop what you are doing, if you are not too far along, take a break and then look into a school of x-can ology.

You might want to ask yourself too, why you would want to mix a taijutsu with something like wing chun. The JKD I have seen is direct, to the point and is meant to shut down the fight as quickly and efficiently as possible (Similar to the philosophy of Kenpo, Krav Maga and others) whereas, and tell me if I am wrong here, Taijutsu has a school incorporated into it (but not really [9 schools?]) for different situations (some you will never see in your lifetime, making them extra useful, until you fight someone wearing full body hard armor) making it kind of difficult to "cut and paste from."

JKD is a street fighting system, Ninjutsu is not; in my (worthless) opinion. It takes a really long time to get just decent at self defense using ninjutsu whereas it takes about six months to actually be able to survive/win a street fight with JKD working at either, 2-3 days a week or so and actually practicing on the side.

I have time in Ninjutsu/Budo Taijutsu (so I am biased) and the current theme when I left BBT was a will-o-the-wisp mentallity to training; meaning that whatever mood the instructor was feeling meant that is what we would study at that time. It could run across the board from day to day making it really hard if you like to focus on certain areas and no contact besides slow speed rehearsals was allowed; sparring could get you kicked out....

If you are bent on studying ninjutsu just remember what these board patrons have said.

My .02 only and no disrespects intended.


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 19, 2010)

Thanks again, guys. And again, I understand what you're telling me. Don't think that I intend to merely spatter together a bunch of forms and call it my own. I'm just doing research at the moment, that's what this thread was originally for (and come to think of it, I _still_ don't know if I shoudl look into Ninjutsu or not)... In a sort of misguided way I was looking to see if Ninjutsu would benefit what I'm trying to do. So yeah, I'm not really bent on learning Ninjutsu, haha.

Right now my base is grappling, and what I'm trying to do now (alongside my continuous training in judo) is establish a strong foundation in striking. I wanted to know what kind of unique things Ninjutsu had to offer in order to decide on what I wanted to be my base.

And to jks9199: Don't think I have to illusion of knowing more than anybody else here, I'm quite aware of my own inexperience. Just trying to present what I feel to be a strong argument, and in doing so I've clearly succeeded in receiving some very well though-out answers and insights to my chosen training method.


----------



## ElfTengu (Jul 19, 2010)

After what seems like a lifetime of Bujinkan Ninpo/Budo Taijutsu (on and off since 1986, currently graded 2nd dan and did not exactly rush to get here), I have also been training in JKD under one of Bob Breen's black belts for a few months now.

The kind of JKD I have been doing, including full-on boxing in a boxing gym, a fair bit of judo based groundwork, plus some kali and escrima, has benefitted my taijutsu hugely, and I have taken to a lot of the JKD very quickly, especially once the distance has closed and the pre-takedown grappling is taking place.

My taijutsu is more alive, I am harder to hit and less flat footed, without compromising the movements ingrained into me over more than two decades, and whilst I am stuggling with the footwork, trapping, and Escrima stick usage as opposed to hanbojutsu/sword, it's all going well enough that I already feel I have added to the actual 'toolbox' that I would draw from in a real fight (hint: this toolbox contains no kata or rigid form, just concepts/principles that I can flexibly apply as required).

Someone said recently that sytems do not fight, martial arts do not fight, it is human bodies that fight, and whilst there will be similarities in movement between practitioners of one style/art (far more so in JKD than BJK BBT because of the total lack of control and unilateral agreement over what is the correct way to do just about anything in our vast curriculum, see various forums and youtube fo evidence of this), at the end of the day you will be doing your own version of whatever you are learning, based on your own physiology, skill, aptitude, attitude, experience etc etc and when you are fighting for real it will probably not look like anything and certainly not recogniseable as an identifiable fighting style (unless you do something theatrical before you lose your teeth and fall to the ground)

Look at the clip below:





 
Admittedly Dallas Ninjutsu is not pure Takamatsuden taijutsu, but it is run by an ex Bujinkan 10th dan, but the point is, (and look at all the other bouts linked to this one), can you tell which fighter is using JKD and which is using 'ninjutsu', because I certainly find it very difficult, which should really not be the case with my experience.

I can't rule out what other people have said in this thread, and I can't say how I would be getting on if I was a novice in both arts, but there is certainly no harm in cross training, in fact it is beneficial if you want to 'keep it real' and experience what might be used against you (basic Sun Tzu 101), but I do agree that you should probably have one art as your core art and add aspects from others very carefully.

But even this is difficult to justify when The Bujinkan contain 9 arts which would have been very different originally, and have very different ways of moving etc, but we are not told to concentrate on one in particular and then assimilate the others with caution, so a lot of the preceding advice flies in the face of what many of us struggle with on a daily basis. There is of course the generic art of BBT that most of us are graded in, but it is made up of so many different things that adding something like JKD to the mix is not necessarily the worst thing you could do.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 20, 2010)

Gruenewald said:


> Thanks again, guys. And again, I understand what you're telling me. Don't think that I intend to merely spatter together a bunch of forms and call it my own. I'm just doing research at the moment, that's what this thread was originally for (and come to think of it, I _still_ don't know if I shoudl look into Ninjutsu or not)... In a sort of misguided way I was looking to see if Ninjutsu would benefit what I'm trying to do. So yeah, I'm not really bent on learning Ninjutsu, haha.
> 
> Right now my base is grappling, and what I'm trying to do now (alongside my continuous training in judo) is establish a strong foundation in striking. I wanted to know what kind of unique things Ninjutsu had to offer in order to decide on what I wanted to be my base.
> 
> And to jks9199: Don't think I have to illusion of knowing more than anybody else here, I'm quite aware of my own inexperience. Just trying to present what I feel to be a strong argument, and in doing so I've clearly succeeded in receiving some very well though-out answers and insights to my chosen training method.


 
So what you're asking is if there is anything that you might personally find useful, not if there is anything useful (in general) that Ninjutsu offers? Really, no one can answer that but you. However...

If you are looking for unique "tricks", then Ninjutsu is not for you. What Ninjutsu offers is a unique approach and philosophy, and the only way to get to it's real secrets is to dedicate a long time to training... I mean, I could talk or years on the unique aspects of each of the different Ryuha that make up the systems as they are taught, but without the requisite training in the first place it means very little. 

You also seem to be looking for specific answers to specific situations (grappling, striking, weapons, groups etc) from various sources to make up your "JKD" concept, and frankly that is not the way Ninjutsu works. Ninjutsu is a generalist system, not a specialist one, so probably won't give you anything you are after, unless you want skill involving the use of historical weaponry, and I get the feeling that you would see little of use in that.


----------



## Muawijhe (Jul 20, 2010)

I think that if you are looking to increase your striking and kicking capabilities, ninjutsu might not be for you. Still, continue your research, try out a few dojos, shy away from YouTube clips, and then you'll know.

If you want to improve your striking, then there are plenty of arts that focus really highly on that out there to try. JKD, Tae Kwon Do, Western Boxing, etc.

As such, I wouldn't recommend ninjutsu for someone wishing to increase their grappling skills, either... =P

Mr. Parker really nailed it (in my opinion) by stating that ninjutsu is a "generalist" art. It doesn't do any one specific thing really well, but after years of training and dedication, it does do what it does really well.

You question was on the usefulness of ninjutsu. Well, I believe ninjutsu, like other martial arts, is a tool shaped by the philosophy of the art. And a tool is only as useful as the job it was designed to do. So learn about what ninjutsu is for, and if what it is for is not what you need something for, then it is not the tool of use for you.

Hope that helps with the original post some.


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 20, 2010)

Muawijhe said:


> I think that if you are looking to increase your striking and kicking capabilities, ninjutsu might not be for you. Still, continue your research, try out a few dojos, shy away from YouTube clips, and then you'll know.
> 
> If you want to improve your striking, then there are plenty of arts that focus really highly on that out there to try. JKD, Tae Kwon Do, Western Boxing, etc.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I get it now thanks.

At the moment I'm looking into Western Boxing and Karate.


----------



## Muawijhe (Jul 20, 2010)

Cool stuff. I hope you find something that works for you.

What kind of karate are you looking into?


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 20, 2010)

Muawijhe said:


> Cool stuff. I hope you find something that works for you.
> 
> What kind of karate are you looking into?


I'm doing my best to research Wado-Ryu right now, since I've heard that it incorporates Jujitsu into its attack patterns (which should blend with my judo). Can anybody provide any advice regarding that? I should probably post this in the Karate sub-forums, though...


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 21, 2010)

Due to it's origins, Wado Ryu Karate is sometimes considered a branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, which is probably what you are refering to. It features more circular movement and a higher emphasis on grappling (locks, throws, takedowns etc) than other karate systems.


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 21, 2010)

Thanks. I posted a new thread in the Karate forums where my new questions will have a larger audience, I think this thread has fulfilled its purpose.


----------

