# Was Ninjutsu EVER Effective?



## Stealthy (Apr 29, 2011)

Unfortunately for many the sad truth is, so called "modern attacks" are not modern at all and unless "modern science" can be debunked and it can be proven that hundreds of years ago humans did not come with two arms and two legs as they do now then the fact remains that "street fights" have remained essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years.

Granted over the course of history the choices of weapons have undergone minor refinements like the advent of iron instead of bronze culminating with a particularly game changing inclusion of firearms.

To assume that Feudal Ninja somehow faced attacks different to what are found on the streets today is sheer fantasy.

The fact remains if you walked into a public drinking hole at any time in Earths history and got in a fight you would be greeted with exactly the same techniques that you would find today as human bodies have not discernably changed.

In fact to assume fighters trained in Ninjutsu techniques somehow now face problems which they did not in Feudal Japan is to assume that they ONLY ever fought Samurai, which if it is the truth is rather bizarre and ultimately a waste of learning how to fight as, well lets face it, that is to assume you are spending years learning how to fight but still have less ability than some random street brawler out for a night of heavy drinking.

Where a martial arts club/specialty would fit in historically(as they should today) is as an entity/group which possessed the ability to train it's members to the point of actually being able to fight off not just common thugs but also preferrably some of the more advanced threats as well. Which according to popular pulp fiction for the Ninja would entail Samurai(who for arguments sake are assumed to be elite fighters with highly advanced systems of combat).

Since there are SO many clubs allegedly altering techniques to make Ninjutsu "work" on the streets today leads me to ponder if my belief in Ninjutsu is a fantasy or is it just that the heart of the art truly is lost.

So which is it, was Ninjutsu a truly effective fighting system of which the majority of practitioners today are no longer privy to, or has Ninjutsu never been effective, with the Scrolls written by people that would get hammered by any random street brawler, kung fu student or MMA fighter?

For the record I am not an X-kan fan boy,it is not my intention to put clubs practicing the "modernization" of their art in disrepute(as I am a firm advocate of modernization) but rather this is a calling to ALL schools to come clean with your beliefs. "Do you believe in your hearts that Ninjutsu did work?" if so what has gone wrong?

With Respect,
Anonymous.
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 29, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Unfortunately for many the sad truth is, so called "modern attacks" are not modern at all and unless "modern science" can be debunked and it can be proven that hundreds of years ago humans did not come with two arms and two legs as they do now then the fact remains that "street fights" have remained essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years.



You are correct. Today, just like on the battlefields of 17th century Japan, battles were 1 on 1, with everyone in jeans and tee shirts. Those pictures of people wearing armor, and swinging long swords? All an invention of Hollywood.



> Granted over the course of history the choices of weapons have undergone minor refinements like the advent of iron instead of bronze culminating with a particularly game changing inclusion of firearms.



That is why every ninja preferred the smooth action of the 357 to the more common 38.



> To assume that Feudal Ninja somehow faced attacks different to what are found on the streets today is sheer fantasy.



Exactly. There is no difference at all between a group of heavily armored and armed Samurai, and a group of Hells Angels, other than the Angels horses make cool "Vroom Vroom" sounds, rather than whinny.



> The fact remains if you walked into a public drinking hole at any time in Earths history and got in a fight you would be greeted with exactly the same techniques that you would find today as human bodies have not discernably changed.



And in each one of those public drinking holes, there would be a fat guy named Norm who has a reserved seat.



> In fact to assume fighters trained in Ninjutsu techniques somehow now face problems which they did not in Feudal Japan is to assume that they ONLY ever fought Samurai, which if it is the truth is rather bizarre and ultimately a waste of learning how to fight as, well lets face it, that is to assume you are spending years learning how to fight but still have less ability than some random street brawler out for a night of heavy drinking.


 
This is true, because today just like then, one regularly runs into heavily armed military troops on the streets, and must hide in the shadows or face being turned into noodle slaw. If fact, the movements to disarm a soldier with an Uzi are the exact same movements used to disarm someone with a sword.



> Where a martial arts club/specialty would fit in historically(as they should today) is as an entity/group which possessed the ability to train it's members to the point of actually being able to fight off not just common thugs but also preferrably some of the more advanced threats as well. Which according to popular pulp fiction for the Ninja would entail Samurai(who for arguments sake are assumed to be elite fighters with highly advanced systems of combat).



You left out Mongols, a common problem on the West Coast I hear.



> Since there are SO many clubs allegedly altering techniques to make Ninjutsu "work" on the streets today leads me to ponder if my belief in Ninjutsu is a fantasy or is it just that the heart of the art truly is lost.



No. Please, continue. Better yet, you should seek out some Samurai at a watering hole and see how well your skillz work.  They may be in disguise though.



> So which is it, was Ninjutsu a truly effective fighting system of which the majority of practitioners are no longer privy to, or has Ninjutsu never been effective, with the Scrolls written by people that would get hammered by any random street brawler, kung fu student or MMA fighter?


 
Well, if I though you were serious for a moment, I'd point out the 400 year+ history, numerous actual historical records, and so on. But I don't, so I will say "Nope". Stuff never worked. Was all a boogeyman tale that short Japanese mothers would use to scare their kids if they wouldn't eat their rice balls and tuna.



> For the record I am not an X-kan fan boy,it is my intention to put clubs practicing the "modernization" of their art in disrepute(as I am a firm advocate of modernization) but rather this is a calling to ALL schools to come clean with your beliefs. "Do you believe in you hearts that Ninjutsu did work?" if so what has gone wrong?
> 
> With Respect,
> Anonymous.



Dumb *** trolls would be my guess.  Next.


----------



## Stealthy (Apr 29, 2011)

Okay. Next.


----------



## stephen (Apr 29, 2011)

You're right. It's a complete fantasy, move along. Hombu is crowded enough as it is.


----------



## Stealthy (Apr 29, 2011)

stephen said:


> You're right. It's a complete fantasy, move along. Hombu is crowded enough as it is.


 
I didn't say whether I think it is a fantasy or not, in fact I think I said I did believe that Ninjutsu worked and I ponder if I may be dreaming in assuming that because with all the in-fighting and carry-on within the Ninjutsu community around modernizing it and thus far the complete lack of anyone standing forward and actually proving it's worth for all the world to see, it is fair for some people to assume that it does not work unless you modify it.

So no I am not saying Ninjutsu never worked, I am not even saying it doesn't work today. I am saying it has not been shown publicly to work today without altering it.

So I ask why? Is it because the essence has been lost? Is it because in its current form it is merely a clever shroud to keep all but the inner circle out? Is it because Ninjutsu is in fact NOT a workable system that can accomodate all possible weapon combinations and variations of attacks without altering it from its core? Or dare I say any one of the infinite possibilities I have yet to entertain?


----------



## Benevolentbob (Apr 30, 2011)

I don't have any training in ninjutsu so you'll have to take what I say with a rather large grain of salt. I do however have a strong interest in the subject and have read books by Hatsumi and Tanemura, several history books relating to the subject, and I have watched many videos online. Oh and I've been lurking around here for a little over a year or so now. Essentially the conclusion I've come to is that yes Ninjutsu was and is an effective form of combat. However, I would never want to learn it from a modern day instructor, especially here in the states. The quality of the instructors out there seems to be almost universally bad. Even high ranking and highly respected instructors look like they wouldn't do well in a real confrontation. Sometimes I'll see someone who can perform the techniques fairly well and even do some very clean looking taijutsu but I still have to call into question if they could ever really use it when it counted. When I watch people practice the techniques it just comes across as scripted and most of the time it looks like uke just gives it to them. The randori videos I find are mostly embarrassing. Like I said I haven't trained in ninjutsu so I can't know for sure but there just has to be a level of reality lacking in today's training for things to be this way. I really feel that if they trained differently and held higher standards of instruction we would see the quality of practitioners rise alongside the reputation of the art.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 30, 2011)

If you would want to learn the original, unmodified forms, then you'd have to go with Genbukan or Jinenkan. I am in Genbukan, and we learn the techniques and forms as they were transmitted in the original arts.

However, there are important differences between what was realistic then and what is realistic now.

In feudal Japan, actual ninja -if they had to fight- would probably face armed and armoured opponents; Not unarmed unarmoured persons. This has several implications what those opponents would try to do to you. Another difference is that if it came to fighting, it didn't matter what you did or what anyone saw, as long as you managed to get out. Anyone being attacked and defending himself today would face a police inquiry where their actions would be judged on their lawfulness and force level. And there are more issues.

So while the art itself is still as effective today as it was then, we live in a different time with different restrictions and different context. If you teach the art for modern scenarios, you pretty much have to take all those things into account to make it suitable for todays use.


----------



## Stealthy (Apr 30, 2011)

Thanks for your insight Bruno, I suppose what I am getting at is that while a Ninja in Feudal Japan would have faced some techniques unique to their place and time they would have also faced problems which remain constant today.

A brawl in a Sake Den would still involve dealing with threats from unarmed unarmored semi-trained adversaries as it does today. The use of edged weapons be they pocket knives or broken pieces of pottery still remains essentially the same and as such the passage of time has left some threats intact. Also, getting caught by the local constabulary would have had repercussions just as it does today.

I find the idea that a Feudal Ninja was capable of dealing with a highly trained expert in combat armed to the teeth but was incapable of fending off a random and essentially untrained but battle hardened street fighter in a sushi bar, unlikely.

I find it equally unlikely that the Ninja of old had two completely different systems of fighting one of which was never passed on.

As such I find it highly unlikely that any modern iteration of Ninjutsu incapable of holding its own against moderately trained enemies is an accurate representation of the same fighting systems employed by Ninja in Feudal Japan.

While I can appreciate that many techniques, flavors and styles may be accurate renditions of techniques employed in the past, if they do not work then it is likely that the framework is incomplete.

Since these are merely some observations which do not tell a story but rather raise a few questions, I ask "if we truly believe the Ninja of old were the force to be reckoned with we feel in our hearts they were, then why is it that it doesn't seem to work anymore? where have we gone wrong? what is missing?"


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 30, 2011)

Right. There's a lot of problems with this entire post, as most of it's basis is frankly wrong. Let's take it apart, shall we?



Stealthy said:


> Unfortunately for many the sad truth is, so called "modern attacks" are not modern at all and unless "modern science" can be debunked and it can be proven that hundreds of years ago humans did not come with two arms and two legs as they do now then the fact remains that "street fights" have remained essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years.




This is the single biggest misconception I have come across in old-style martial art training. While the "two arm, two legs" thing is fine, it's very much besides the point. You get closer in the next section, but then completely miss reality again after that.

Street fights now are actually radically different to the way they were even 50 or so years ago, 450 years ago and in a completely different country, and it was even more the case. Oh, and the idea that the body shape hasn't changed is actually wrong as well, so you know, most of all when it comes to the Japanese (which is fairly relevant here).




Stealthy said:


> Granted over the course of history the choices of weapons have undergone minor refinements like the advent of iron instead of bronze culminating with a particularly game changing inclusion of firearms.


 
"Minor refinements"? Really? Wow, are you out of your depth here.... And, to clarify, the weapons used are not the only, or even greatest influence on different attack methods.




Stealthy said:


> To assume that Feudal Ninja somehow faced attacks different to what are found on the streets today is sheer fantasy.


 
For you to say things like "the Feudal Ninja... faced attacks... on the streets" shows a gigantic gap in what these arts teach, the historical reality of ninja/ninjutsu, and far more. You have a fair amount more research and study to do before you're even close to getting some understanding here.




Stealthy said:


> The fact remains if you walked into a public drinking hole at any time in Earths history and got in a fight you would be greeted with exactly the same techniques that you would find today as human bodies have not discernably changed.


 
No, you wouldn't. 

Different cultures (and at different times in history) had different cultural preferences for combat and attack. A modern street assault simply does not resemble an old Japanese attack. There is a different preference with regard to grappling or striking, lead or rear hand as power-dominant, the types of weapons encountered, the clothing worn, the cultural and social stigma or expectations, and so on.

In terms of "human bodies have not discernably changed", let's look at that. In European swordsmanship, such as fencing, one of the major aspects is the lunge. However, this is not a common attack or action in Japanese sword arts. Now, the lunge is a particularly powerful long range attack, so why is it not found in Japanese arts? Well, simply speaking, Japanese bodies tended towards much longer torsos, and shorter legs and arms, than their Western counterparts, and a lunge relies on the reach of your legs (primarily), as well as your arms. So it was not really a good attack for them.... because their bodies were discernably different.

If we combine that with Japanese blade work being based around slicing and cutting, and more Western blade work being more reliant on thrusting actions, that culturally leads towards different attacking and fighting methods. And really, placing a martial art (designed with a battlefield in mind) and then trying to place it in a bar-room brawl situation is, once more, completely misunderstanding the very first thing about the context of the art itself, which once more makes your entire argument moot.




Stealthy said:


> In fact to assume fighters trained in Ninjutsu techniques somehow now face problems which they did not in Feudal Japan is to assume that they ONLY ever fought Samurai, which if it is the truth is rather bizarre and ultimately a waste of learning how to fight as, well lets face it, that is to assume you are spending years learning how to fight but still have less ability than some random street brawler out for a night of heavy drinking.


 
Once again, you show a complete lack of understanding here. So let's clear a few things up for you.

Ninjutsu (as an art/skill set) is a range of strategies, tactics, and methods based around espionage, scouting, sabotage, infiltration, and information gathering. It really has nothing to do with fighting on any level there. These skills would often be learnt by those regarded or classed as samurai (yes, ninja were samurai in far more cases than not), who trained as professional warriors, not as street brawlers. Their job was to go into battle, and they trained accordingly, not to "defend themselves in a bar". Ask yourself, is it "rather bizarre and ultimately a waste of learning how to fight" by joining the army? That's really the context you should look at the fighting aspect here.




Stealthy said:


> Where a martial arts club/specialty would fit in historically(as they should today) is as an entity/group which possessed the ability to train it's members to the point of actually being able to fight off not just common thugs but also preferrably some of the more advanced threats as well. Which according to popular pulp fiction for the Ninja would entail Samurai(who for arguments sake are assumed to be elite fighters with highly advanced systems of combat).


 
Who says? You're buying into the idea that all martial arts produce the same all-purpose skill set, which, in reality, is never the case. Every single art is geared up for a particular use, or environment/situation, not an across-the-board aspect. And forget the pulp fiction definitions, that one is way out as well. the term "samurai" could just as easily apply to a sandal bearer as a highly skilled general, and anywhere in between. There is no reality in your entire paragraph there, so you know.




Stealthy said:


> Since there are SO many clubs allegedly altering techniques to make Ninjutsu "work" on the streets today leads me to ponder if my belief in Ninjutsu is a fantasy or is it just that the heart of the art truly is lost.


 
Well, there's a lot of fantasy, or imagined understanding in this post of yours, and very little reality, so take that as it is.




Stealthy said:


> So which is it, was Ninjutsu a truly effective fighting system of which the majority of practitioners today are no longer privy to, or has Ninjutsu never been effective, with the Scrolls written by people that would get hammered by any random street brawler, kung fu student or MMA fighter?


 
Wow, I really don't know where to start with how completely off base that entire paragraph is.... Ninjutsu is an espionage skill set, not a fighting skill set (there were martial skill sets associated with the Ninja as well, or more accurately, the Bushi of the Iga and Koga regions, but that's a little different), and the associated fighting systems were (and are) highly effective in their context. But if that context changes, then the art needs to be adapted, so changing it for modern attacks (as well as modern legal systems, modern social conditioning and expectations, modern context, modern weaponry, and so on) is perfectly valid and what is required for it to be a modern self defence system. I've seen street brawlers and kung fu students get hammered just as easily as anyone else, and MMA fighters are far from immune from danger (a case of a fighter and his friend beign killed on the Mexican border comes sadly to mind). Again, it's all context, the MMA guy will be in his element in a ring, and yes those skills can translate quite nicely, but that doesn't make them unbeatable, or even the best at something like self defence.




Stealthy said:


> For the record I am not an X-kan fan boy,it is not my intention to put clubs practicing the "modernization" of their art in disrepute(as I am a firm advocate of modernization) but rather this is a calling to ALL schools to come clean with your beliefs. "Do you believe in your hearts that Ninjutsu did work?" if so what has gone wrong?


 
What has gone wrong? Nothing. You just don't seem to understand the realities of what you're discussing here. To recap:

Yes, fighting and assault methods have changed quite drastically, and are radically different today in the West than in old Japan.

Yes, human bodies have changed in ways that affect the combative preferences.

You are not aware of what Ninjutsu is, in context.

You are not aware of old-style Japanese martial arts, in context.

You are not aware of the reasons things are done the way they are, in context.

You have made consistently bad and false analogies here which have no place in any argument.

Your initial question and belief is based on knowing, frankly, nothing about what you're asking about, and your belief is completely flawed from the outset.

For the record, though, "realistic training" is not something that is always found in these arts, but it should be determined what realistic training actually is (it is very different in a modern or traditional context).



Stealthy said:


> With Respect,
> Anonymous.


 
If you're going to start your time here with something like this, please have the decency to have something to stand behind. Your profile lists your "primary art and ranking" as Ninjutsu, with no rank or experience listed, and your training states that you "once did a pushup". Then you sign this "Anonymous". Frankly, this combined with your way off base post gives you no credibility at all, and may have you labeled a troll very quickly. Perhaps you could visit the "Meet and Greet" section and clear this up?


----------



## Stealthy (Apr 30, 2011)

Thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 30, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Thank you for clearing that up.


 
Not a problem, let's keep it going then.

To preface this, I'm going to suggest not making assumptions about situations you have no idea of. Let's see if I can demonstrate.



Stealthy said:


> Thanks for your insight Bruno, I suppose what I am getting at is that while a Ninja in Feudal Japan would have faced some techniques unique to their place and time they would have also faced problems which remain constant today.


 
Not as much as you might think... but really, you're covering over a thousand years of history here, how can you generalise so much about these aspects? We're not talking about a twenty year period.



Stealthy said:


> A brawl in a Sake Den would still involve dealing with threats from unarmed unarmored semi-trained adversaries as it does today. The use of edged weapons be they pocket knives or broken pieces of pottery still remains essentially the same and as such the passage of time has left some threats intact. Also, getting caught by the local constabulary would have had repercussions just as it does today.


 
A brawl in a Sake Den? Really? Who do you think may have been involved? Samurai didn't really socialise with non-Samurai, so the attacks would still be of a particular type, not the same as would be found today. As far as being caught, a small fight today may result in a day or two in jail, in old Japan simply starting to draw your sword in the wrong place is an instant death sentence. Such things tend to change whether or not there was even a likelihood of such events. 

If you read Hagakure, there are a few accounts, and they almost universally are between samurai, and almost universally end in the deaths of everyone involved (typically ordered by the local lord, or the Shogun, depending on the story, if not in the fight itself). Encounters between "untrained" people, peasants, farmers etc, and warriors, such as samurai (who, as said, may have also been classed as ninja, depending on context) were more often the samurai killing the peasant for not bowing low enough... hardly someone likely to attack the warrior in a bar (even if the very rare occasion happened that they were in the same place at the same time, which was incredibly unlikely). Watch Seven Samurai... the way the villagers got the armour and weapons was by stripping it off dead warriors from battles, not by fighting samurai themselves.



Stealthy said:


> I find the idea that a Feudal Ninja was capable of dealing with a highly trained expert in combat armed to the teeth but was incapable of fending off a random and essentially untrained but battle hardened street fighter in a sushi bar, unlikely.


 
The "battle hardened street fighter in a sushi bar" simply didn't exist, though. And you are still not understanding what a ninja really was here.



Stealthy said:


> I find it equally unlikely that the Ninja of old had two completely different systems of fighting one of which was never passed on.


 
I really don't know where you're getting these ideas from, honestly. What?



Stealthy said:


> As such I find it highly unlikely that any modern iteration of Ninjutsu incapable of holding its own against moderately trained enemies is an accurate representation of the same fighting systems employed by Ninja in Feudal Japan.


 
Everything is context. What type of modern enemies? And why would a fighting system from another time and place in history mean that it would be effective without alteration here and now? Context is everything.



Stealthy said:


> While I can appreciate that many techniques, flavors and styles may be accurate renditions of techniques employed in the past, if they do not work then it is likely that the framework is incomplete.


 
Oh boy, where to start here? First off, the traditional kata (techniques) are more realistically thought of as a series of strategic and tactical lessons, as well as philosophic ones, dressed up as combative methods. The skills from the techniques can be used quite effectively, but not simply cut-and-pasted into a fight. And in terms of the framework not being complete, what is missing is understanding on your part here, not any gap in the methods themselves.



Stealthy said:


> Since these are merely some observations which do not tell a story but rather raise a few questions, I ask "if we truly believe the Ninja of old were the force to be reckoned with we feel in our hearts they were, then why is it that it doesn't seem to work anymore? where have we gone wrong? what is missing?"


 
That is a very long answer.... honestly, the answer revolves around context. Both ancient and modern context needs to be understood, as well as the context of the art, and it's training methods. Frankly, what I feel is missing is understanding, from a great number of people in and out of the arts.

But I will address one thing here, and it has a fair amount of influence on both your (and others) understanding and impression of ninja/ninjutsu, as well as part of why fighting methods are the way they are today, and that is the media (movies, TV, comics etc).

For the first time in history, fighting is starting to look very much the same around the world. This is mainly due to the same type of images being used to represent "fighting" in the media (typically a karate/TKD style with possibly some weapons, and different costumes). Due to the prominence of boxing on TV (and live events etc), pretty much everyone these days is familiar with jabs, crosses, hooks, uppercuts etc.... that was not the case 100 years ago. Wrestling was more familiar in many places, due to travelling carnivals as so on. But these days, everyone knows what a jab looks like... as well as what a roundhouse or side kick looks like, a double leg takedown, and so on (thanks to the rise of MMA over the last 15 years or so). This has shaped the types of attacks you may face.... but that is not the same as meaning you'll face skilled attacks. That point needs to be made as well.

Incidentally, have you ever seen old-style boxing? With the hands held out almost straight from the hips, palms facing up, and not guarding the head? Thats because boxing originally included a lot of grappling, and other nastier tactics, and that posture was a way to maintain distance so such things couldn't be used against you. These days that posture looks comical, but it was very common and common sense in it's context and day. When the grapping and other tactics were removed under the Marquise of Queensbury rules, the posture started to change to what we see now. And that was only really in the last 100 years or so.

Your understanding here (asking such things as "if we believe the ninja of old were a force to be reckoned with...") seems to have come completely from these media images as well. That's normal, it's where we all start, but it's also not reality at all. Without understanding what a ninja really was, and what they may have expected to encounter, you really can't make any comments along these lines. This belief is yours, based on your exposure to less-than-authentic sources and images. First thing is to stop thinking what is in the movies is anything to do with the reality, then we can start getting somewhere.


----------



## Stealthy (Apr 30, 2011)

This answers my question perfectly, thank you.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 30, 2011)

All us monkeys dance pretty much the same...always have. IMO our conception of how "ninja..samurai..knights...mongols...roman soldiers...etc, etc,etc" REALLY FOUGHT is all tainted by the media and our fantasies of how we like to think that we are learning the exact same stuff.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 30, 2011)

I really don't know that I'd agree with that. To begin with, the idea of "all of us monkeys dance pretty much the same", well, to begin with the monkey dance isn't fighting.... kinda by definition there! Additionally, it being "all the same" these days is something that I addressed at the end of my last post.

However the "always have" bit I have some trouble with. Even here in Australia, the way a fight would occur, and what may be expected in one, is quite different now than it was in the 40's and 50's (from conversations with men who were in their youth then, to clarify the source). So even within a single culture that doesn't apply. And when we deal with a culture from another place, as well as time, it is even less likely to be the same as encountered today.

I do agree completely that our perceptions (at least initially) of how various groups engaged in fights comes from the media... however when dealing with Japanese arts, the concept of correct transmission from generation to generation does provide a clearer idea of what it was like, and the common attacks found in classical Japanese arts are not like those found in modern assaults. This is why "arts" that are modern creations trying to pass themselves off as old systems stand out so much, they are removed from the source of the contextual culture they are trying to emulate, so what they do makes no sense at all. The "bogus" Ninjutsu groups are classic cases in point.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 30, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> If you would want to learn the original, unmodified forms, then you'd have to go with Genbukan or Jinenkan. I am in Genbukan, and we learn the techniques and forms as they were transmitted in the original arts.


 
*I think your off base there Bruno*.  Way off base!  In the Genbukan and Jinenkan you are learning a line or lines or ryu that were passed on to Tanemura Sensei and Manaka Sensei *via Hatsumi Sensei*. (irregardless of whom Tanemura later went to train with)  Manaka Sensei also verfies this in his book as he gives credit to Hatsumi Sensei!  In the Bujinkan people have and are learning the origional unmodified forms as well as henka and variations off the origional kata.  While quality in the Genbukan or Jinenkan is higher because they are small organizations in comparison you can find *equal or even better* quality in the Bujinkan if you know where to look!


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 30, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> I do agree completely that our perceptions (at least initially) of how various groups engaged in fights comes from the media... however when dealing with Japanese arts, *the concept of correct transmission from generation to generation *does provide a clearer idea of what it was like, and the common attacks found in classical Japanese arts are not like those found in modern assaults. This is why "arts" that are modern creations trying to pass themselves off as old systems stand out so much, they are removed from the source of the contextual culture they are trying to emulate, so what they do makes no sense at all. The "bogus" Ninjutsu groups are classic cases in point.



And thats where I find the large ASSUMPTION in all of this. And in the "authenticity" of most trad arts in general.

You ever play the grade school game of whispering a message from student to student then comparing the original message with the end result?


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 30, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> You ever play the grade school game of whispering a message from student to student then comparing the original message with the end result?


 
I here this arguement alot in the context of religion, but my same answer works here too. While I understand that through the very nature of mankind, some change and distortion of details are expected the main ideas that people consider important will be kept the same. If your way of life depends on the correct transmision of things and you deem it important you will make sure that the key components remain.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 1, 2011)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I think your off base there Bruno*.  Way off base!  In the Genbukan and Jinenkan you are learning a line or lines or ryu that were passed on to Tanemura Sensei and Manaka Sensei *via Hatsumi Sensei*. (irregardless of whom Tanemura later went to train with)  Manaka Sensei also verfies this in his book as he gives credit to Hatsumi Sensei!  In the Bujinkan people have and are learning the origional unmodified forms as well as henka and variations off the origional kata.  While quality in the Genbukan or Jinenkan is higher because they are small organizations in comparison you can find *equal or even better* quality in the Bujinkan if you know where to look!



Hi Brian,
my post was not a dig at Bujinkan, I was only pointing out that the way things are taught were different. We learn the techniques exactly as they are taught in the original ryuha. There is no adaptation. We learn what was taught originally. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bujinkan teaches the same things, but in a different concept. You and many other Bujinkan people say that Bujinkan focuses on the concepts and principles of the arts, rather than the actual techniques. The bujinkan also seems to have much more freedom for individual teachers to add gun / disarm training and other things based on those principles, whereas we tend to stick to the curriculum.

From that point of view, I think it would be fair to say that if you want to learn the techniques in their original format, Genbukan and Jinenkan, and any koryu which is taught separately like Takagi Yoshin ryu etc. would be a better fit than Bujinkan. Because from what I understood from you and many others, that type of training is unavailable to people in the Bujinkan outside perhaps a happy few in Japan.

My remark was about the way of teaching, not quality or anything like that. I hope that clears it up.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> And thats where I find the large ASSUMPTION in all of this. And in the "authenticity" of most trad arts in general.
> 
> You ever play the grade school game of whispering a message from student to student then comparing the original message with the end result?



That is a fair point.
However I would point out that that is why Menkyo Kaiden are given out very sparingly and only after many years of personal tuition: to make sure that the one whispering on the message fully understood it before he is allowed to pass it on to the next.


----------



## Akatombo (May 1, 2011)

If we come back to the title of the post, the first step is, obviously, to define the meaning of the term ninjutsu. Do we all agree that ninjutsu is a military science? Do we agree that a military science is matter of common sense to consider that was developed by the military men? (with all the preventions and mutatis mutandis, of course)

Hatsumi Sensei changed the name of his art long time ago. It´s truth that the explanation was not very clear; in fact I´m not sure there is an official explanation. But if we go to his books, we can see that all the 9 schools arrived to him in history through members of the samurai class (or descendants after Meiji). Togakure Daisuke was a samurai, was he not? and so Mizuta sensei, Toda sensei, Mizutani...., Ishitani,...If even the grandfather of Takamatsu sensei -Masamitsu Toda- was of samurai lineage...why some people insist nowadays in the idea of the "ninja" as a different thing of the samurai? Ninja, the "farmers fighting for justice comunist rebels" of the feudal Japan...ja! something the shinobi never was is a rebel against the militarized system which provided his job and proffessional status.

For people like me, who studies a different school with shinobi no den in its curricula, its very easy to understand that the classic shinobi no mono was not other think but a samurai (servant). But in Takamatsu den schools, you have three schools which say that ninjutsu is a kind of individual fighting system. I think it´s the reason why we can not get a common point of view.

But, please, I would not like anybody to be offended. To have different points of view is not at all a bad thing.

So, to answer the question of the post, ninjutsu was a very effective art of strategy, military inteligence, assassination, sabotage,... and the shinobi no samurai used to study -besides-the most effective martial arts he could get access to. 

This is just the poor opinion of a student.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> And thats where I find the large ASSUMPTION in all of this. And in the "authenticity" of most trad arts in general.
> 
> You ever play the grade school game of whispering a message from student to student then comparing the original message with the end result?


 


Bruno@MT said:


> That is a fair point.
> However I would point out that that is why Menkyo Kaiden are given out very sparingly and only after many years of personal tuition: to make sure that the one whispering on the message fully understood it before he is allowed to pass it on to the next.


 
Actually, Bruno, no it's not a fair point. It's frankly a false analogy, and is incorrect.

In the game (Chinese Whispers), the phrase is heard once, possibly misunderstood, and passed on based on this possibly incorrect reception. In Koryu training, the message is repeated constantly, and refined and corrected constantly. It is also written down, rather than just being heard. So the only way that analogy actually works is if the children have the message written down for them, and they pass along another written form of it after having it cross-checked and corrected before it gets passed on, ensuring that it is actually a direct copy of the original.

This is really the basis of Koryu (traditional Japanese martial art training) transmission, so to assume that things may not have been passed along due to your not understanding how they actually were is rather presumptuous, honestly.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 1, 2011)

Hey Bruno,

I understand that you were trying to represent it a certain way so that is cool!

In the Bujinkan the kata are learned exactly as they are supposed to be done.  However, there is a lot more emphasis placed on the concept and henka. That does not mean that the core kata from the ryu-ha are not trained.  Just that there is more freedom for movement and exploration within the concepts taught witin the kata!  There are plenty of Bujinkan practitioners who know the core kata's very well and perform them with exacting discipline and yet they also explore beyond!


----------



## Archangel M (May 1, 2011)

The belief that ya'll are doing the EXACT same art as the ancient Ninja/Samurai..unchanged down the eons because of the Japanese method of teaching/scrolls etc. is the foundation of martial fantasy. Folks will do as many mental gymnastics to preserve their cherished mental picture of doing EXACTLY as the ancients did as they will defending their political views. I'll even admit to THAT myself. 

IMO

And if you think I was using the Chinese Whisper game as an exact analogy you are being intentionally obtuse. Nothing passed that far through time is going to be "pure" at the other end. Koryu fails to take human nature into account IMO. I cant get 3 witnesses to recall the same event that happed 5 minutes ago the same way. Chances are they would STILL have different stories even if they all had video of the event to watch.

Your stuff may have many of the characteristics of the "original" art but if this were sci-fi and you hopped into a time machine I'd wager that it would have more characteristics of pantomime than you would like.


----------



## Archangel M (May 1, 2011)

Akatombo said:


> Hatsumi Sensei changed the name of his art long time ago.




I believe he has "Changed" a number of things about his art since the 70's-80's hasn't he?


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The belief that ya'll are doing the EXACT same art as the ancient Ninja/Samurai..unchanged down the eons because of the Japanese method of teaching/scrolls etc. is the foundation of martial fantasy. Folks will do as many mental gymnastics to preserve their cherished mental picture of doing EXACTLY as the ancients did as they will defending their political views. I'll even admit to THAT myself.
> 
> IMO
> 
> ...




Let me use a different analogy.
Suppose you see maths as an art. Say... differential equations.
Every teacher has his own ways of teaching, and the examples in the class may or may not be 100% the same. But every student who makes it to graduation has a correct and complete understanding of the principles of differential equations.

Traditional arts are imo the same. Kukishin ryu is a good example because there are so many lineages. Or Takagi Yoshin ryu. Those arts are represented in a technical way by the kata from which they are made up. But the kata exemplify underlying concepts and techniques.

In kukishin ryu, kata may be performed in a nearly identical manner, but with superficial differences. Kata from different lineage may end in a different kamae, or target a different body part with a certain strike. But at heart it is still kukishin ryu, built on the same concepts.

So in a manner, yes you are correct that what there are bound to be differences creeping in along the years. But the underlying concepts will be identical. Or at least I think so. That is the whole point of koryu transmission.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I believe he has "Changed" a number of things about his art since the 70's-80's hasn't he?


 
The following is only MY OPINION and may or may not reflect the truth as a whole:

Yes and No.  Things have changed in the way they are trained, what the focus of the training is on, etc... the schools and techniques, and the principles of timing distance and balance that makes them work have not.


----------



## ganglian (May 1, 2011)

never mind


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 1, 2011)

One thing that is true is that nothing remains *exactly* the same over long periods of time.  Things do change, different teachers may put in their input.  In the case of the Japanese martial arts each new Soke may make changes and that is their right as the leader of a system.  However, other systems may keep it very close to how it was origionally done but...... knowing peolple like I do they like to have input and there will always be some that are more creative and do not want to be stifled! 

In the case of the Bujinkan people follow Hatsumi Sensei lead.  The same holds true for the Genbukan and Jinenkan with their respective leaders!


----------



## Chris Parker (May 2, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The belief that ya'll are doing the EXACT same art as the ancient Ninja/Samurai..unchanged down the eons because of the Japanese method of teaching/scrolls etc. is the foundation of martial fantasy. Folks will do as many mental gymnastics to preserve their cherished mental picture of doing EXACTLY as the ancients did as they will defending their political views. I'll even admit to THAT myself.
> 
> IMO
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure how much exposure you have had to the Koryu, and the mentality associated with them, Angel, but I can assure you that your expectations are incorrect here. Koryu does not fail to take into account human nature at all, it's the basis of the teaching methods. What is more likely to have changed over time are the training methods, but not the art itself (and even then not as much as you may think... the biggest influence would be the amount of time that could be dedicated to the training, and that frankly wouldn't even be much different to today). Many Koryu retain not only the documents that state the way training was conducted, but the actual training methods themselves, as well as the kata and techniques.

Once again the very concept of Koryu is that the teachings and Ryu are passed down unaltered in many cases, to change them (without very good reason) is rather anathema to most Koryu traditions. That's not to say that there hasn't been any change in any Koryu system (I've detailed a list or two around here of some of the more well known changes, as well as the reasons they happened), but they are rarely the norm, more the notable exception. In fact, I'd wager that in the hypothetical tmie machine trip, the Koryu systems would be very recognisable, and be rather devoid of "pantomime".... although, honestly, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that.

When it comes to your witnesses and their different accounts, again, this is not a good example to use. They aren't the Koryu, nor are they the transmission. The video in your example is the Koryu, and the transmission would be to get everyone to say what they think happened, then show them the video to correct them. Ask them again, and then show the video to correct them. Ask them again, and then show them the video again to correct them.... and so on, and so on. Although you'd start out with very different accounts, I'm sure that by the end there'd be a rather constistent version, wouldn't you?



Bruno@MT said:


> Let me use a different analogy.
> Suppose you see maths as an art. Say... differential equations.
> Every teacher has his own ways of teaching, and the examples in the class may or may not be 100% the same. But every student who makes it to graduation has a correct and complete understanding of the principles of differential equations.


 
Hmm, honestly Bruno, that's closer to, say, a Karate class than Koryu. Koryu tend to have their traditional training drills/exercises/methods, as well as the kata/techniques, so the maths classes would be of very similar methods of teaching, with the same examples for the most part, if it was to be Koryu. As with everything, though, the caveat has to be made that it really does depend on the Ryu in question....



Bruno@MT said:


> Traditional arts are imo the same. Kukishin ryu is a good example because there are so many lineages. Or Takagi Yoshin ryu. Those arts are represented in a technical way by the kata from which they are made up. But the kata exemplify underlying concepts and techniques.
> 
> In kukishin ryu, kata may be performed in a nearly identical manner, but with superficial differences. Kata from different lineage may end in a different kamae, or target a different body part with a certain strike. But at heart it is still kukishin ryu, built on the same concepts.
> 
> So in a manner, yes you are correct that what there are bound to be differences creeping in along the years. But the underlying concepts will be identical. Or at least I think so. That is the whole point of koryu transmission.


 
Actually different branches can be rather radically different. Shinkage Ryu is different to Yagyu Shinkage Ryu (although technically it is just a different branch), and the differences between the various Kukishin lineages can be huge! Really, you can look at two different Kukishin branches next to each other and barely recognise the connection, often it is present most obviously in the names of the kata. This, really, is what happens when Koryu change (as Archangel M is putting forth), it typically becomes either a new branch of the Ryu, or a new Ryu altogether.


----------



## EWBell (May 3, 2011)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I think your off base there Bruno*. Way off base! In the Genbukan and Jinenkan you are learning a line or lines or ryu that were passed on to Tanemura Sensei and Manaka Sensei *via Hatsumi Sensei*. (irregardless of whom Tanemura later went to train with) Manaka Sensei also verfies this in his book as he gives credit to Hatsumi Sensei! In the Bujinkan people have and are learning the origional unmodified forms as well as henka and variations off the origional kata. While quality in the Genbukan or Jinenkan is higher because they are small organizations in comparison you can find *equal or even better* quality in the Bujinkan if you know where to look!


 

I can't agree.  What we do in the Genbukan sometimes looks nothing like the Bujinkan or the Jinenkan.  If it was _exactly_ as they were passed then we'd all look essentially the same.  I personally believe that Tanemura Soke's way is an amalgamation of what he's learned from Hatsumi and the other students of Takamatsu Sensei.

I also don't necessarily believe that the quality is all together better in the Jinenkan and Genbukan because of their size.  I think a lot of it has to do with having *standards* across the board as to what passes the mustard and what doesn't.  I always see this, "we have it if you know where to look" phrase a lot, but that's about as useful as a radar detector in a Yugo to a beginner.  No one ever says WHO these uber-instructors are, so how is one supposed to get t3h r34lz?


----------



## Dean Whittle (May 3, 2011)

Another take on this is that what has changed since the feudal battlefields of Japan is what we scientifically know about how the human body responds under stress, ie within a conflict, and after conflict.

I think it's fair to say that information is readily available to those who look for it about the effects of adrenaline on the body during stress and how this affects our ability to respond to violence. This information, in it's present 'scientific' form was not available to our martial forebears, although I'm sure those with combative experience had some understanding of it. The question is though, if Ninjutsu is being taught as a form of self protection, either in a cilivian or military/LEO/security context, is this invaluable knowledge incorporated into the curriuculum? Does it inform what is taught and how it is taught?

Furthermore, I know that some koryu had practices, both physical and spiritual, that attempted to innoculate their practitioners from the stress of conflict, or what we know now to be Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, however I think it's fair to say that these methods are not widely practiced or disseminated. And they're certainly not covered in your average class. Again, if Ninjutsu is being taught as a form of self protection, either in a cilivian or military/LEO/security context, is this invaluable knowledge incorporated into the curriuculum? Does it inform what is taught and how it is taught?

Whilst we can argue until the cows come home about whether what is taught in koryu/ninjutsu dojo is what was used on the battlefields of Japan, the fact is, regardless of that, is it appropriate/suitable, legally and morally, for the confrontations it's practitioners are likely to face in their particular environments.

With respect


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 3, 2011)

EWBell said:


> I can't agree. What we do in the Genbukan sometimes looks nothing like the Bujinkan or the Jinenkan. If it was _exactly_ as they were passed then we'd all look essentially the same. I personally believe that Tanemura Soke's way is an amalgamation of what he's learned from Hatsumi and the other students of Takamatsu Sensei.
> 
> I also don't necessarily believe that the quality is all together better in the Jinenkan and Genbukan because of their size. I think a lot of it has to do with having *standards* across the board as to what passes the mustard and what doesn't. I always see this, "we have it if you know where to look" phrase a lot, but that's about as useful as a radar detector in a Yugo to a beginner. No one ever says WHO these uber-instructors are, so how is one supposed to get t3h r34lz?


 
*It is all good and well to be proud* of your organization but*......* trust me in the Bujinkan there are excellent places to learn with people that have been training with Hatsumi Sensei for a long, long, long time.  Actually one of the greatest strengths of the Bujinkan is that people explore......  This exploration leads to some incredible practitioners at the higher level.  Maybe you have not experienced them but I certainly have going way back in the day to Doron Navon, Mark O'Brien, etc.  Plus there is a whole new generation coming out that are very, very good too!  What one person may see as a weakness actually may be a great strength.  Plus most Dojo's in the Bujinkan have standards and train quite hard *at least the ones I am familiar with*! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




As for t3h r34lz you train in the Genbukan so what really is it to you? (by the way I can list lot's of t3h r34lz) 

Tanemura Sensei spent all of his *fundamental* time with Hatsumi Sensei.  That is his line and the small time he spent with other Takmatsu Sensei students does not negate that.  *That is reality!*  Plus he is an exceptional martial practitioner because of it! (having spent time with Hatsumi Sensei)  They had their issues went their seperate ways and hey that is what happens in this world!  At some point a student should go out and explore and learn and pass on their teachings and not all students are meant to stay in one place forever!  I like the Genbukan and the Jinenkan and have a lot of respect for both Tanemura Sensei and Manaka Sensei even though I do not train with them.  Tanemura Sensei went out and is now doing his own thing based on his interpretation of the Takmatsuden arts.  Hey that is great more power to him.  The same applies for Manaka Sensei!  Having said that it does come down to size as there are some mediocre Genbukan practitioners and not so good Jinenkan practitioners but both organizations are very, very small in comparison to the behomoth that is the Bujinkan!  They are also well more controlled because of this small size. *That is just the way it is!*


----------



## Chris Parker (May 4, 2011)

To be honest, Brian, that is not strictly true in the case of Tanemura Sensei. Looking at his lineages, only one of them (Gyokko, I believe) relies on Hatsumi Sensei for it's lineage, the others all come from outside of his training with Hatsumi (Koto Ryu from Sato Kinbei, same with Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Togakure Ryu from Fukumoto Sensei, etc - for clarification, this is from memory, any Genbukan members please correct this if needed. Any corrections from the Genbukan should be considered accurate). So while it's certainly true that his training in these arts is rooted in his training with Hatsumi, the lines Tanemura teaches don't actually come from him. I'm not commenting on the reasons I've heard for why that is, though....

With Manaka Sensei, absolutely it comes from Hatsumi. But the lines in the Genbukan are rather different in a number of cases.


----------



## Indagator (May 4, 2011)

The Last Legionary said:


> Exactly. There is no difference at all between a group of heavily armored and armed Samurai, and a group of Hells Angels, other than the Angels horses make cool "Vroom Vroom" sounds, rather than whinny.


 
FWIW, not all members of all "one percenter" motorcycle clubs are violent thugs; many, in fact, are not even remotely criminally involved. 
Our local bike mechanic, who runs a thriving legitimate business, is widely known as a reliable mechanic, family man, and full member of HAMC for over 20 years. The man is clean as a whistle, doesn't even use cannabis (which is certainly common amongst what we could call "fringe society"...) - heck, I wouldn't go to a mechanic or be involved whatsoever with any infdividual that is involved in illegal activity. Of course, I didn't come down in the last shower and am well aware that many of his fellow club members would most certainly be involved in dodgy doings, however I felt it was worth pointing out that not all bikers are violent thugs!

In regards to whether or not the Bujinkan has decent practitioners all I can say is that the Shidoshi I train under is an exceptionally talented martial artist. The sempai where I train also display exceptional skill. Some of these people certainly use what they learn out in the field in various volunteer and career roles, from community patrols, to the security sector and even prison work.

IM-very-HO what I have observed, however, is that as opposed to some other MAs most of the truly capable/fearsome ninjutsu practitioners have been in the art for at least a decade. What I am saying here is that it takes time to develop and build the skills, a lot of time.
Also, a lot of Bujinkan videos out there on sites such as Youtube &c. are quite terrible.

I saw one the other day with a bunch of Americans training with Soke. He was absolutely sublime, a purity and fluidity of movement and excellence of execution (to borrow a phrase or two) whereas a few of those Americans were absolutely shocking. Really lousy to watch, punches directed at some mysterious point half a foot above the other man's head &c. 

As for Genbukan and Jinenkan I have never seen or experienced anything whatsoever from them, however I do not believe that any inter-organisational comparisons are relevant at all. 

My .02, it is what it is lol.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> To be honest, Brian, that is not strictly true in the case of Tanemura Sensei. Looking at his lineages, only one of them (Gyokko, I believe) relies on Hatsumi Sensei for it's lineage, the others all come from outside of his training with Hatsumi (Koto Ryu from Sato Kinbei, same with Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Togakure Ryu from Fukumoto Sensei, etc - for clarification, this is from memory, any Genbukan members please correct this if needed. Any corrections from the Genbukan should be considered accurate). So while it's certainly true that his training in these arts is rooted in his training with Hatsumi, the lines Tanemura teaches don't actually come from him. I'm not commenting on the reasons I've heard for why that is, though....
> 
> With Manaka Sensei, absolutely it comes from Hatsumi. But the lines in the Genbukan are rather different in a number of cases.


 
*Chris some of those lines* may come from Sato Kinbei and Fukumoto Sensei *yet......* I wonder how much in depth time he actually trained with them.  You see I feel he came to them from Hatsumi Sensei with a *vast knowledge of some of those lines* already as while there are differences I see more of it as a way that his system (Genbukan) trains in comparison to how vastly different the lines are.  Understand that Tanemura Sensei trained with Hatsumi Sensei for a long, long, long time.  So even if the lines that he has do not come from Hatsumi Sensei he trained in a similar (ie. very similar) line with Hatsumi Sensei where he received his *fundamental training*!  This takes nothing away from Tanemura Sensei as we all know he is a great martial practitioner who is now the Soke of his own organization!  It is just that they parted ways and Tanemura Sensei found a way to distinguish himself by having some training with former Takamatsu Sensei students.  That also does not in turn change the fact that Takamatsu named Hatsumi Sensei as his successor!

In my opinion Budo Taijutsu has put out some tremendous practitioners of which Tanemura Sensei, Manaka Sensei, etc. are a part of that group.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 4, 2011)

Hey Brian,

I really don't want to turn this into a Bujinkan versus Genbukan/Jinenkan discussion, however there are a few things to mention.

The lines that Tanemura teaches are not from Hatsumi, even though his initial (and formative) exposure was under Hatsumi for a number of them. I also wouldn't necessarily agree about Budo Taijutsu "producing" Manaka Sensei and Tanemura Sensei, as Budo Taijutsu didn't exist when Tanemura left, and Manaka left at about the time it matured in the Bujinkan. And neither Tanemura in the Genbukan, nor Manaka in the Jinenkan teach Budo Taijutsu. And one tiny correction, Tanemura is not Soke of his organisation, the same way that Hatsumi Sensei is not Soke of the Bujinkan. Both are Presidents (Kancho) of their respective organisations, and Soke of the lineages they hold.

None of this takes away from any of the men themselves, of course, nor Takamatsu's choice of successor in the lines he passed on as well.


----------



## EWBell (May 4, 2011)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> That also does not in turn change the fact that Takamatsu named Hatsumi Sensei as his successor!


 

Well his successor in what he gave to Hatsumi Sensei.  Obviously there are other things he didn't give him, just like he didn't give his other students things he gave Hatsumi Sensei.  Gikan Ryu might be a point of contention though. 

Brian I understand what you're saying, I really do.  I agree with it somewhat.  However, I believe that Tanemura Soke was highly influenced by his other teachers as well, not JUST Hatsumi Sensei.  

Also, I know there are some high quality Bujinkan schools around.  However, I'm am just going to point blank disagree with why the quality in a great number of dojo is just plain awful.  Sure size is a factor, but so is handing out grades, mail order black belts, etc.  That stuff would not fly in either the Jinenkan or Genbukan.  I'm not saying every Genbukan dojo is absolutely stellar, but there are organizational wide goals and standards to shoot for. Without that I believe you're pissing up a rope.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 4, 2011)

Yes I would agree with you Chris on the semantics that Budo Taijutsu did not produce Tanemura Sensei.  However we both know that his training with Hatsumi Sensei did produce him as a fine martial practitioner! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (excuse me for the errors in the above post as I typed whilst taking care of my children this morning  )

Personally, I think any Genbukan member should be proud of their organization as well as any Jinenkan member too.  Just as any Bujinkan member should also be proud of their organization.

There are effective practitioners from all of them!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 4, 2011)

*EWBell I am sure you and I agree on most points*! There are certain things I have a great disliking for myself!  Van Donks mail order stuff is *repulsive!*  The handing out of grades is ridiculous as well and yet at the top I think it matters not a bit to Hatsumi Sensei as he has kept very careful control of who has been given Menkyo Kaiden.  I would also say that I know quite a few high ranking Bujinkan practitioners who are fantastic people and martial practitioners who also maintain very high standards.  Personally, I am on the fringe of the organization but also train as much as possible with people that I trust and also who maintian high standards.  The Takamatsuden arts can be incredibly effective when taught and trained with passion!


----------



## EWBell (May 4, 2011)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> EWBell I am sure you and I agree on most points! There are certain things I have a great disliking for myself!


 

Oh I'm sure we do.  You'll have to forgive my jumpiness, just went through a rough round of 6 days with no power due to a round of "tatsumaki" through Alabama.


----------



## shirobanryunotora (May 11, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> Unfortunately for many the sad truth is, so called "modern attacks" are not modern at all and unless "modern science" can be debunked and it can be proven that hundreds of years ago humans did not come with two arms and two legs as they do now then the fact remains that "street fights" have remained essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years.
> 
> Granted over the course of history the choices of weapons have undergone minor refinements like the advent of iron instead of bronze culminating with a particularly game changing inclusion of firearms.
> 
> ...


greetings and kudos for approaching this touchy subject in a respectful manner.for me-having worked in the security field for many years(retired now) bujinkan ninpo techniques taught to me by the likes of soke hatsumi and shihan nagato-i began training in bujinkan in 1983 btw-only needed slight tweaking to be street and personal effective- this tweaking involved simply changing form depth to suit modern combat situations etc whilst the techniques suited unarmed and weapon attacks quite admirably-til the next rr


----------



## shirobanryunotora (May 11, 2011)

more on this subject-much of my security work involved handling drunks-the way that worked for me was to keep in motion at all times-this upset their targeting and balance enough that their attempts at attacks were often inept and unco.etc; then using basic bujinkan techniques of locks holds and body manipulations worked very well with lil need for any real combat adaptions etc-i do find myself agreeing with chris parker though in regards to modern combat and ninpo techniques elsewhere needing refinement to be effective still-his answer is long etc but valid-many factors need to be taken into account when adapting older styles and approaches-but thats what training is for


----------

