# Modernization of Ninjutsu



## Yamabushii (Sep 7, 2021)

Hi All,

A bit of background to set some context from my position first. I haven't posted here in a very long time. I used to post on martial arts forums quite often when I first began my training in Ninpo in 2012. At that time, as a complete novice to the art (not in martial arts as a whole), I thought I had all the answers and everyone else sharing their opposing opinions online about Ninpo were wrong. A few years later my teacher left the Genbukan and I with him. It was at that point that I truly began to realize how much fluff and nonsense is in the world of traditional Ninpo within the big three Takamatsuden orgs today (though admittedly I have no experience with the Jinenkan). Don't get me wrong - there are tons of incredibly effective techniques. I love the art, but, respectfully, I don't think Soke Hatsumi or Tanemura are running their organizations in a manner that is relevant to today's world. Living in Japan I wonder if they are sort of stuck in their own bubble.

Living in the U.S., many of us are fortunate enough to be a part of a mixing bowl of martial arts. We have almost every single major to minor martial arts style in every major metropolitan area of the U.S. This opens the doors to quite a bit of additional knowledge for us to take advantage of compared to people in some other countries. In our current organization, for the physical techniques we focus heavily on Jujutsu. We're in the process of becoming certified to teach a few additional modern systems as well, but when it comes specifically to the shinobi techniques, I've found myself teaching it less and less. Now, we just had our annual shinobi seminar which is around 30 hours of training in a single weekend, both indoors and outdoors, but most of the "ninjutsu" we teach is primarily strategy, philosophy, history, and sometimes spirituality if someone specifically asks about it. Of course there are more "shinobi-centric" weapons techniques, and a bit of taijutsu, but again most of the physical techniques are really just some forms of jujutsu. 

With that said, my opinion is that we live in a time of relative peace, compared to feudal Japan at least. In most countries today, you can walk around safely to and from your home to the grocery store and back. In some areas you may get jumped, but at least you're probably not worrying about an entire clan on horseback sacking your apartment the moment you leave. Shinobi no mono/Samurai essentially trained 24/7 and lived for a single purpose. That type of training was incredibly different. It required a level of mastery obtained through countless hours of shedding actual blood, sweat, and tears on a daily basis for many years. Our lives aren't that way, unless you're in military special forces. We pay $XXX to train, often times under a legal agreement, and do it either as a hobby, for fitness, for clout, or, sometimes, some of us are truly passionate. Most of us also have our "main" lives which is supporting our families and working, most of the times having nothing to do with our training. However, many practitioners are posting videos doing funky hand signs, wearing black shinobi shozoku in broad day light, and/or sitting on broken tree trunks doing awful ukemi, meanwhile hash tagging everything and end up getting laughed at online. 

Regardless, I find that Ninpo is still incredibly useful today as long as you're teaching it from a realistic perspective. I advertise my school as a Japanese Jujutsu school even though we cover a lot of Ninpo, but I don't segregate the two when I teach them, often times not even mentioning it. The problem I have with some of the traditional X-kans is the manner in which they teach. They discourage tournaments/competitions, so few people actually spar. My students are constantly sparring and doing randori drills. I encourage them to go out and learn other things as well. It's a very Jeet Kune Do approach (take what's useful and discard what isn't). We train with compliant uke to let people get techniques down then switch to randori or sparring so they learn how to do them without compliant uke as well. Our students will throw a boxing jab and cross instead of a traditional tsuki (lunging in straight hand punch and waiting for eternity), and the uke's attacks are always some form of a realistic attack. This prepares my students for knowing how to actually put someone in a position to go for an omote gyaku or waki gatame or goja dori or oni kudaki or seoi nage or kubi nage or ganseki nage, etc. I find all of these are severely lacking in your average X-kan school and I have rarely seen that kind of training being pushed from top-down leadership as well. 

So my questions for anyone willing to answer:

1) Do you find the traditional teachings of Ninjutsu are still applicable and effective in today's world? 
    1a) If so, do you have successful real-world experience in applying your techniques in self-defense or in the defense of someone else? 
2) Do you think Ninjutsu needs a massive modernization in its methods of teachings in the big 3 X-kans?

Disclaimer: No disrespect to anyone in the Buj/Gen/Jin orgs since I know some folks in the orgs that thankfully don't fit the description above. They are, however, the minority exception.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 7, 2021)

There hasn't been a change in effectiveness or applicable ideas in martial arts. (Sort of. Obviously it has gotten better but that is a different argument)

We can look at three thousand year old pictures of wrestling for example that show techniques that are still used today.

If whatever it is you are doing isn't relevant or working it is the training model or the system.

Which is easily fixed by training via a scientific method.


----------



## Yamabushii (Sep 10, 2021)

drop bear said:


> There hasn't been a change in effectiveness or applicable ideas in martial arts. (Sort of. Obviously it has gotten better but that is a different argument)
> 
> We can look at three thousand year old pictures of wrestling for example that show techniques that are still used today.
> 
> ...



I agree completely. Techniques that broke bones a thousand years ago will still break bones today. My issue is particularly with the lack of emphasis on realistic attackers/training methods from some of the more traditional large orgs today. Every now and then if you go to a taikai you may learn some incredible moves from one of the Soke, but the issue isn't their skill level, it is how their orgs are run. It is a top-down leadership issue.

For example, there is no Gracie school where you are not constantly doing randori, so Gracie white belts tend to be much more effective and comfortable with resistance training/sparring than *most* Ninpo practitioners still in their kyu ranks. Admittedly, and obviously, I have not met every Ninpo-ka out there so I base my views off what I have seen at multiple taikai that I have been to as well as workshops and seminars with other orgs.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 11, 2021)

Yamabushii said:


> Hi All,



Hi. Omar, yeah?



Yamabushii said:


> A bit of background to set some context from my position first. I haven't posted here in a very long time. I used to post on martial arts forums quite often when I first began my training in Ninpo in 2012. At that time, as a complete novice to the art (not in martial arts as a whole), I thought I had all the answers and everyone else sharing their opposing opinions online about Ninpo were wrong.



Ha, not uncommon... a bit of a look has you posting here in 2017, where you said you had been training in martial arts for 10 years... so that's 5 years of "martial arts" before joining the Genbukan in 2012, teaching from 2017 or earlier. Cool.



Yamabushii said:


> A few years later my teacher left the Genbukan and I with him. It was at that point that I truly began to realize how much fluff and nonsense is in the world of traditional Ninpo within the big three Takamatsuden orgs today (though admittedly I have no experience with the Jinenkan).



So that was 2018, cool. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "fluff and nonsense"... depending on the context, that could be any of a number of things, some more valid than others.



Yamabushii said:


> Don't get me wrong - there are tons of incredibly effective techniques. I love the art, but, respectfully, I don't think Soke Hatsumi or Tanemura are running their organizations in a manner that is relevant to today's world. Living in Japan I wonder if they are sort of stuck in their own bubble.



Well, everyone's in their own bubble, realistically... as far as "running their organisations in a manner that is relevant to today's world", well,  that's really a matter of expectations more than anything else. For them to be run in a way that is relevant, then all that means is that some people find relevance in them to their modern lives... which a large number of people certainly seem to. Mind you, as you're focusing on the techniques, then it's not a matter of how the organisations themselves are run, but how the arts are taught within them, and how you perceive their connection to modern violence... correct?



Yamabushii said:


> Living in the U.S., many of us are fortunate enough to be a part of a mixing bowl of martial arts. We have almost every single major to minor martial arts style in every major metropolitan area of the U.S. This opens the doors to quite a bit of additional knowledge for us to take advantage of compared to people in some other countries.



Hmm... to be honest, I don't think this "additional knowledge" is what you're making it out to be, nor is it something that really has a lot of relevance to the discussion.

Here's what I mean: You seem to be doing what a lot of people do, which is fixate on a single context, whether understood or not, and expecting all martial systems to be answers to the same questions... they're not. But misunderstanding the context that they're meant to be applied in, and expecting them to have some relevance in that different context, then you'll never really get anything close to any understanding of these other arts, no matter what "access" you have to them might be. Additionally, access to a wider selection can also be a bad thing... not to pull too much of the curtain back here, but one of your affiliated dojo teachers proudly talks about his rank in a particular art, listing the teacher as well... thing is, that particular art is a fake system created in the 1980's, and will only give a rather inaccurate understanding of the entire field if it's followed... despite other, more solid teachers and arts this teacher in your affiliation has.



Yamabushii said:


> In our current organization, for the physical techniques we focus heavily on Jujutsu. We're in the process of becoming certified to teach a few additional modern systems as well, but when it comes specifically to the shinobi techniques, I've found myself teaching it less and less.



"Shinobi techniques"? Can you clarify? Are you meaning the physical techniques from the Genbukan Ninpo Taijutsu syllabus? If so, most of those are still what I would classify as "jujutsu", just with a bit of a flavour to them.



Yamabushii said:


> Now, we just had our annual shinobi seminar which is around 30 hours of training in a single weekend, both indoors and outdoors, but most of the "ninjutsu" we teach is primarily strategy, philosophy, history, and sometimes spirituality if someone specifically asks about it. Of course there are more "shinobi-centric" weapons techniques, and a bit of taijutsu, but again most of the physical techniques are really just some forms of jujutsu.



Well, yeah, they are going to be dominantly jujutsu.. with only a very small number of exceptions, most "ninja" weapons were samurai ones... after all, most "ninja" were samurai, just engaged in a particular more information-gathering activity. When it comes to "strategy, philosophy, history, spirituality", those are all very much parts of "samurai" arts, so should form a reasonable part of their teaching as well.



Yamabushii said:


> With that said, my opinion is that we live in a time of relative peace, compared to feudal Japan at least. In most countries today, you can walk around safely to and from your home to the grocery store and back. In some areas you may get jumped, but at least you're probably not worrying about an entire clan on horseback sacking your apartment the moment you leave.



While it is overall safer, I don't think it was as bad as all that "back in the day"... 



Yamabushii said:


> Shinobi no mono/Samurai essentially trained 24/7 and lived for a single purpose.



Er... no.



Yamabushii said:


> That type of training was incredibly different.



Was it? What I mean by that is, what are you basing this assumption on?



Yamabushii said:


> It required a level of mastery obtained through countless hours of shedding actual blood, sweat, and tears on a daily basis for many years.



Not really. And exactly what was required would vary greatly based on the period, domain, role, rank, and so on... but, in the main, no.



Yamabushii said:


> Our lives aren't that way, unless you're in military special forces. We pay $XXX to train, often times under a legal agreement, and do it either as a hobby, for fitness, for clout, or, sometimes, some of us are truly passionate. Most of us also have our "main" lives which is supporting our families and working, most of the times having nothing to do with our training.



Yep, agreed.



Yamabushii said:


> However, many practitioners are posting videos doing funky hand signs, wearing black shinobi shozoku in broad day light, and/or sitting on broken tree trunks doing awful ukemi, meanwhile hash tagging everything and end up getting laughed at online.



Firstly, it seems you're watching different videos than I am, and I'm rather glad of that, ha! Secondly, if they're doing things like that, then, yeah, I'd laugh at them too... thirdly, and this is the important one... so what? Are they members of your dojo?



Yamabushii said:


> Regardless, I find that Ninpo is still incredibly useful today as long as you're teaching it from a realistic perspective.



Okay. I would say that what needs qualification is "realistic perspective".



Yamabushii said:


> I advertise my school as a Japanese Jujutsu school even though we cover a lot of Ninpo, but I don't segregate the two when I teach them, often times not even mentioning it. The problem I have with some of the traditional X-kans is the manner in which they teach.



And, honestly, a lot of criticisms of their teaching methodology can be quite valid... but it needs to be valid in the context in which it's intended. As the, likely apocryphal quote from Einstein says, "Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend the entirety of it's life thinking it's an idiot."... likewise, here, the criticisms have to match the aims... and, to be honest, I don't know that that's always the case... a good case in point these days is the Martial Arts Journey you-tube channel, where the you-tuber, Rokas, only sees his own particular (and, to a degree, inaccurate) beliefs, and judges things based on an expectation that should never be applied.



Yamabushii said:


> They discourage tournaments/competitions, so few people actually spar. My students are constantly sparring and doing randori drills. I encourage them to go out and learn other things as well. It's a very Jeet Kune Do approach (take what's useful and discard what isn't). We train with compliant uke to let people get techniques down then switch to randori or sparring so they learn how to do them without compliant uke as well. Our students will throw a boxing jab and cross instead of a traditional tsuki (lunging in straight hand punch and waiting for eternity), and the uke's attacks are always some form of a realistic attack. This prepares my students for knowing how to actually put someone in a position to go for an omote gyaku or waki gatame or goja dori or oni kudaki or seoi nage or kubi nage or ganseki nage, etc. I find all of these are severely lacking in your average X-kan school and I have rarely seen that kind of training being pushed from top-down leadership as well.



Yeah... look, I'll be honest here, and say that you're looking in the wrong place, so no wonder you're not finding your answers there... 

I'll put it this way: Why would you expect an art, or series of arts, taught in a traditional manner, from a different culture and time, dealing with a different cultural approach to violence, a different cultural approach to passing on traditions, with the emphasis being the continuation of traditions themselves, including traditional skills, to actually be something geared up for what would be a completely alien context to the one they were created for? It's the equivalent of complaining that the course in classic French cuisine didn't teach you to make a pizza or hamburger, and that's what you want to eat... 



Yamabushii said:


> So my questions for anyone willing to answer:
> 
> 1) Do you find the traditional teachings of Ninjutsu are still applicable and effective in today's world?



This needs major qualification... what teachings of "ninjutsu" are you referring to? Climbing castle walls? Silent running? Water concealment methods? Disguise? Weather prediction? Next, what kind of application are you expecting them to have? There are traditional methods for lighting fire, or a candle that always stays upright (and lit)... but today we have flashlights on our phones, and lighters and matches... so... no? Yes? As far as "effective", well, that depends on the first two parts... the candle still works, but it's not as effective as a powered light, so, how does that work?

Of course, if you're talking combative techniques, then there's a whole other mess of things to go through... including whether or not that's actually the point of the techniques themselves...



Yamabushii said:


> 1a) If so, do you have successful real-world experience in applying your techniques in self-defense or in the defense of someone else?



Yes, but it's not likely in the way you might think.



Yamabushii said:


> 2) Do you think Ninjutsu needs a massive modernization in its methods of teachings in the big 3 X-kans?



It's a traditional martial art... to "massively modernise" it would take it away from being a traditional art... so, if the point is that it's a traditional art, and people study it because it's a traditional art, then... no. I would probably argue that a number of the methods of teaching that traditional art are sub-optimal, or overtly geared towards one facet over others (including image projection, but that's another conversation), but we're now back to the idea of looking for answers in the wrong area. If you want something geared towards modern violence and self defence needs, well, don't do a traditional art. You don't have to change them, just do something different.



Yamabushii said:


> Disclaimer: No disrespect to anyone in the Buj/Gen/Jin orgs since I know some folks in the orgs that thankfully don't fit the description above. They are, however, the minority exception.



Okay.



drop bear said:


> There hasn't been a change in effectiveness or applicable ideas in martial arts. (Sort of. Obviously it has gotten better but that is a different argument)



Well... yes, there has... primarily cultural. This whole "it's gotten better", frankly, I would dispute pretty strongly... it's more that many modern systems are geared towards a similar (relatively small) application, with little grasp of much beyond that... and, you know what, those modern arts, designed for application in their context, are "better" in that context... big surprise there... but we're back to a fish in a tree here... 



drop bear said:


> We can look at three thousand year old pictures of wrestling for example that show techniques that are still used today.



That just tells you that biomechanics haven't changed much, which is not the factor that determines what has (or hasn't) changed.



drop bear said:


> If whatever it is you are doing isn't relevant or working it is the training model or the system.



Or you're expecting the fish to climb a tree.



drop bear said:


> Which is easily fixed by training via a scientific method.



Er... no. The scientific method would only apply if you can have a control group, strict parameters, and a repeatable result... none of which are possible in this area. There are just too many factors involved... oh, and that video shows, well, nothing that has any relevance to your comments... unless you're saying the police officer applied a "scientific method" to training a highly unlikely and unusual technique in a situation that is almost equally unlikely... so... huh?



Yamabushii said:


> I agree completely. Techniques that broke bones a thousand years ago will still break bones today.



To be honest, this argument (and this is far from the first time I've heard it) is deeply lacking in understanding how violence changes... sure, mechanics are still mechanics... application, however, is in the cultural context... 



Yamabushii said:


> My issue is particularly with the lack of emphasis on realistic attackers/training methods from some of the more traditional large orgs today.



You said it yourself; they're traditional. Why would you expect them to have modern attacks? I don't expect my seniors in Katori Shinto Ryu to suddenly start teaching me how to use a naginata against a FMA guy, just in case...



Yamabushii said:


> Every now and then if you go to a taikai you may learn some incredible moves from one of the Soke, but the issue isn't their skill level, it is how their orgs are run. It is a top-down leadership issue.



No, it's a disconnect in expectation (and the image you have in your head of "martial arts" and "self defence") and the reality of a traditional art.



Yamabushii said:


> For example, there is no Gracie school where you are not constantly doing randori, so Gracie white belts tend to be much more effective and comfortable with resistance training/sparring than *most* Ninpo practitioners still in their kyu ranks.



So, a competition based system, which trains for competition, and has competitive training methods, is better at a competitive application and training context than ones that don't? Okay... but how's their swordsmanship? What's their appreciation of cultural aspects? How's their sense of ma-ai when dealing with different weapons? What's their reigi and zanshin like? Can we see how one approach might be more geared towards development of different things than another?

Again, to me, this is pretty simple... if you are training in a traditional system, and are upset that you're not likely to monster someone in the Octagon, well, no kidding? Similarly, if you're training for the UFC, don't expect to learn much that's outside of that context either... both are great for different people, but expecting them to be equally applicable across the board is to fundamentally misunderstand martial arts and their scope.



Yamabushii said:


> Admittedly, and obviously, I have not met every Ninpo-ka out there so I base my views off what I have seen at multiple taikai that I have been to as well as workshops and seminars with other orgs.



And fair enough. And, just so it doesn't seem like I'm just making excuses for these arts, the idea of not really getting the difference in contexts is pretty rampant through even these organisations, trying to be all things to all people, so it doesn't overly surprise me that you might be having these (to my mind, unrealistic) expectations. One of the most senior Genbukan instructors in the US, Michael Coleman, has recently started doing a series of videos, starting with some ryu-ha ones that I linked on another thread... slightly more recently, he's put up three videos looking at the Genbukan Goshinjutsu (Self Defence) program that Tanemura created... and, watching them, all I could think of was that there is absolutely no appreciation for the different forms of violence today in the West, as it's all still very much "traditional" in execution and application... and, honestly, I feel sad for people who think that that equates to a modern self defence approach, as it frankly isn't. And I like Michael... this is just... bad information.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 11, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Er... no. The scientific method would only apply if you can have a control group, strict parameters, and a repeatable result.



That is pretty much the definition of sparring resisted drills and cross training.

The flying kick was in relation to a comment made about horses and out dated techniques.

There is an ide that the flying kick is out dated because it was a technique to unseat horsemen. 

But here it is being used in a modern context.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 11, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Well... yes, there has... primarily cultural. This whole "it's gotten better", frankly, I would dispute pretty strongly... it's more that many modern systems are geared towards a similar (relatively small) application, with little grasp of much beyond that... and, you know what, those modern arts, designed for application in their context, are "better" in that context... big surprise there... but we're back to a fish in a tree here...



Nope. Definitely better. Better athletes. More depth of knowledge, easier access to innovation, better technology, more time spent training the right way and doing it earlier. 

Better all round martial artists. And they are getting better still.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 11, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> So, a competition based system, which trains for competition, and has competitive training methods, is better at a competitive application and training context than ones that don't? Okay... but how's their swordsmanship? What's their appreciation of cultural aspects? How's their sense of ma-ai when dealing with different weapons? What's their reigi and zanshin like? Can we see how one approach might be more geared towards development of different things than another?



Yeah. But just being athletic. Having a huge gas tank helps you win a fight when the other person has more of a technical advantage.

And that is a trained skill.

If you wanted to develop a catch all system to encompass all the elements of martial arts for every context in one drill. The closest would be hill sprints.

And you would be developing your mental stoicism game along the way.


----------



## Mider (Sep 11, 2021)

Stephen Hayes does modern form of ninjutsu, people will say he’s bs yet The Pit where Chuck Liddell trained didn’t think so.


----------



## BrendanF (Sep 11, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But just being athletic. Having a huge gas tank helps you win a fight when the other person has more of a technical advantage.
> 
> And that is a trained skill.



What does that have to do with different activities being explicitly intended to operate in specific contexts?

Pretty sure I've heard military folks saying something about outrunning a bullet?


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 12, 2021)

drop bear said:


> That is pretty much the definition of sparring resisted drills and cross training.



No, it's not. It would be considered a sample study at best, and not definitively conclusive. In other words, no, this is not the "scientific method". 



drop bear said:


> The flying kick was in relation to a comment made about horses and out dated techniques.
> 
> There is an ide that the flying kick is out dated because it was a technique to unseat horsemen.
> 
> But here it is being used in a modern context.



What? 

The whole "knock people off horses" is utter garbage, so, no, there is no claim that "flying side kicks are outdated" due to such an apocryphal misinterpretation of reality is, well, meaningless. Additionally, the clip proved nothing other than that, at one point, a somewhat overzealous police officer decided to launch a fairly badly done jumping kick against a non-fleeing suspect...



drop bear said:


> Nope. Definitely better. Better athletes. More depth of knowledge, easier access to innovation, better technology, more time spent training the right way and doing it earlier.
> 
> Better all round martial artists. And they are getting better still.



Frankly, you are looking at one context only... in a number of other contexts, it's actually the opposite. Of course, this is the issue with only having one view of what martial arts are...



drop bear said:


> Yeah. But just being athletic. Having a huge gas tank helps you win a fight when the other person has more of a technical advantage.



So... you missed the point entirely. Okay.



drop bear said:


> And that is a trained skill.



No, it's not. It's a developed trait, and one that can be developed in martial arts, out of martial arts, and completely independent of anything related to martial arts. But, for the record, this is hardly a new idea... the longer kata of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu were developed, at least in part, to help with developing endurance and stamina for fighting in armour over the course of a long battle... Yagyu Shingan Ryu has a whole set of exercises based on developing such concepts and traits... Araki Ryu uses a series of exercises designed to develop an "Araki Ryu body", including such concepts... and, on this topic, the concept of body conditioning, including a set of specific exercises known as Ryutai Undo ("Dragon Body Conditioning"), focused more on flexibility and suppleness, are a part of the study.



drop bear said:


> If you wanted to develop a catch all system to encompass all the elements of martial arts for every context in one drill. The closest would be hill sprints.



Your deep ignorance of 95% of martial arts notwithstanding, hill sprints don't do anything for developing "all the elements of martial arts"... they can be a great workout/exercise to develop a number of physical fitness traits that can help in (especially) competitive martial arts... but to say that it's a "catch all system" for all martial arts? Dude, you don't even know how much you don't know here...



drop bear said:


> And you would be developing your mental stoicism game along the way.



How unique do you think that would be? I mean... you do realise that such mental considerations are a large part of traditional and classical martial arts, yeah? So... your point is?


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> What does that have to do with different activities being explicitly intended to operate in specific contexts?
> 
> Pretty sure I've heard military folks saying something about outrunning a bullet?



I have heard military folks stress the importance of fitness for combat. Is that what you mean?


----------



## Cynik75 (Sep 12, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> One of the most senior Genbukan instructors in the US, Michael Coleman, has recently started doing a series of videos, starting with some ryu-ha ones that I linked on another thread... slightly more recently, he's put up three videos looking at the Genbukan Goshinjutsu (Self Defence) program that Tanemura created...


This man should not learn how to escape from the mount...


----------



## BrendanF (Sep 12, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I have heard military folks stress the importance of fitness for combat. Is that what you mean?



I mean you're talking apples while the thread is about oranges.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> How unique do you think that would be? I mean... you do realise that such mental considerations are a large part of traditional and classical martial arts, yeah? So... your point is?



Yes the concepts are not unique hence why I used that training exercise as an example of catch all training. 

So if you can perform that one function for example it makes you better at other aspects of martial arts. 

The mental considerations are a large part of traditional martial arts. 

So that one exercise makes you fitter. Makes you mentally tougher and more disciplined. Will make you last longer in a fight. Makes you able to train for longer with better results. 

So while you might suggest you have advantages out side of context.(in this case being running up and down a hill) 

You actually kind of don't have as much advantage as you think you do. 

Basically you might have studied mental toughness and be an expert on the subject. But are not as mentally tough as that person who isn't an expert but just grinds harder. 

Quite often this idea of specialist skill in context turns out to be not true and is more of an ego stroking exercise.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> I mean you're talking apples while the thread is about oranges.



No. The specificity can be a false choice. Designed to market a product dishonestly.

Think along the lines of female razors that cost more than male razors.

They invent a context that doesn't exist in any practical sense.

Why is one more expensive than the other. Well you can't compare apples to oranges.

If you are going to modernise a system you need to remove these conceptual falsehoods and marketing gimmicks or all you do is replace one mess with another.






So if for example you replace swords with body armour and machine guns. But still dedicate your training to a bunch of compliant drills. You don't really get an improvement.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Frankly, you are looking at one context only... in a number of other contexts, it's actually the opposite. Of course, this is the issue with only having one view of what martial arts are...



Well if OP discussing a modern approach I would suggest he is asking for a practical approach. 

And honestly modern and practical are kind two different things. 

So practical honest training, honest evaluation and efficient development, ego free culture, cult free culture all that kind of thing is kind of the context I am discussing here. 

How to be a better martial artist and how to be a better person.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> No, it's not. It would be considered a sample study at best, and not definitively conclusive. In other words, no, this is not the "scientific method".



It doesn't have to be definitively conclusive. It is a structure to build personal development honestly. Not a peer reviewed paper.

So you observe your historical technique. 

Research what it is supposed to do.

Suggest if it is going to work or not.

Go fight a whole bunch of guys and try to make that work.

Figure out if it was you hin or the technique that failed. 

Then do the whole thing again.

Once you get a bunch of guys doing that. You can get a general feel as to what is going to work and what isn't. 

Like fly kicks. Which have a lot of very interesting preconceptions around them. Designed for horses, doesn't work on the streets and so on.


----------



## dunc (Sep 12, 2021)

Cynik75 said:


> This man should not learn how to escape from the mount...


Yes I agree
Not the best series unfortunately


----------



## dunc (Sep 12, 2021)

Yamabushii said:


> Hi All,
> 
> A bit of background to set some context from my position first. I haven't posted here in a very long time. I used to post on martial arts forums quite often when I first began my training in Ninpo in 2012. At that time, as a complete novice to the art (not in martial arts as a whole), I thought I had all the answers and everyone else sharing their opposing opinions online about Ninpo were wrong. A few years later my teacher left the Genbukan and I with him. It was at that point that I truly began to realize how much fluff and nonsense is in the world of traditional Ninpo within the big three Takamatsuden orgs today (though admittedly I have no experience with the Jinenkan). Don't get me wrong - there are tons of incredibly effective techniques. I love the art, but, respectfully, I don't think Soke Hatsumi or Tanemura are running their organizations in a manner that is relevant to today's world. Living in Japan I wonder if they are sort of stuck in their own bubble.
> 
> ...


Hi
I do think there is scope for (& value to be created by) updating the lessons from our traditions
Learning how to deal with attacks that are not really present in the old forms is an obvious place to start
There are clearly areas that have been further developed over recent times. most notably ground fighting and the use of protective gear in training 
Finally I’d suggest that there may be benefits from devoting more time to weapons such as hanbo and knife compared to the traditional mix which focused more on old weapons like sword and spear


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 12, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> It's a traditional martial art... to "massively modernise" it would take it away from being a traditional art... so, if the point is that it's a traditional art, and people study it because it's a traditional art, then... no. I would probably argue that a number of the methods of teaching that traditional art are sub-optimal, or overtly geared towards one facet over others (including image projection, but that's another conversation), but we're now back to the idea of looking for answers in the wrong area. If you want something geared towards modern violence and self defence needs, well, don't do a traditional art. You don't have to change them, just do something different.


By your own argument in the other thread, the curriculum in the various X-kans is really a modern synthesis rather than an authentic transmission of the historical ryu-ha. That being the case, wouldn't it make sense for such a modern synthesis to be functional for addressing modern violence? If it's already been changed as much from its historical antecedents as you argue, then further change to achieve such functionality seems reasonable. (Especially since so many instructors within the X-kans promote their art as being functional against modern violence.)


Chris Parker said:


> So, a competition based system, which trains for competition, and has competitive training methods, is better at a competitive application and training context than ones that don't? Okay... but how's their swordsmanship? What's their appreciation of cultural aspects? How's their sense of ma-ai when dealing with different weapons?


I can appreciate an historical art which focuses on aspects of violence which are not so relevant to modern usage, such as swordsmanship. I think such an art can be enjoyed for its own sake and can even lead to insights into principles of fighting in other contexts. However I do want such an art to be functional on its own terms. If you teach a sword art, it should work for actual sword fighting. Unfortunately I have seen numerous high-ranking X-kan instructors teaching swordsmanship which is ludicrously bad. The ma-ai is completely wrong for the historical weapons being used and some of the techniques would literally only work if the opponent happened to have a stroke in the middle of his attack. I'm not saying this is true of all X-kan instructors. I'm just saying that it's widespread enough that an X-kan student with no relevant outside experience will have a hard time recognizing which techniques being taught are valid and which are bogus.


Chris Parker said:


> One of the most senior Genbukan instructors in the US, Michael Coleman, has recently started doing a series of videos, starting with some ryu-ha ones that I linked on another thread... slightly more recently, he's put up three videos looking at the Genbukan Goshinjutsu (Self Defence) program that Tanemura created... and, watching them, all I could think of was that there is absolutely no appreciation for the different forms of violence today in the West, as it's all still very much "traditional" in execution and application... and, honestly, I feel sad for people who think that that equates to a modern self defence approach, as it frankly isn't. And I like Michael... this is just... bad information.


I finally got around to watching these and I have to agree. He seems to be a sincere guy and the quality of his movement isn't bad, but the majority of the techniques shown will not work the way he thinks they will. It's not even just a matter of "modern" vs "traditional". Yes, the attacks shown are mostly not typical of modern violence. However even if he were transported to some historical/cultural scenario where someone came at him with kind of the attacks shown, he would have a very low success rate, assuming the attackers were even halfway competent and determined.

BTW - Michael clearly has a high regard for his instructor. That's not a bad thing, but too much faith can lead to blind spots. According to what he says in the first video, Tanemura created this self-defense curriculum based just on moves that he had personally used successfully more times than he can remember, presumably during his career as a police officer. It's possible that Michael may have misinterpreted what Tanemura meant. If Tanemura actually is making those claims ... I don't want to violate the MartialTalk TOS, so let's just say that I would have a very hard time believing him without some solid evidence. There are way too many techniques in the curriculum, a large percentage are against attacks that a police officer is unlikely to encounter, and a large number are techniques which have a very low percentage chance of success. It's theoretically possible that a criminal tried to wristlock Tanemura and he successfully countered with a Kani Basami into an incompetently applied ankle lock, but I doubt it.  It's theoretically possible that a criminal tried to stab him with a knife and he successfully defended by delivering a shuto to the bicep so powerfully that the suspect not only dropped the knife but fell down and stopped fighting, but I doubt it. It's theoretically possible that a criminal attacked him with a sword (very poorly) and he was able to evade, grab the wrist, and disarm the suspect using a technique where his leverage was inferior to that of the swordsman, but I doubt it. I really, really doubt that these and others happened more times than he can remember.


----------



## Yamabushii (Sep 12, 2021)

> Ha, not uncommon... a bit of a look has you posting here in 2017, where you said you had been training in martial arts for 10 years... so that's 5 years of "martial arts" before joining the Genbukan in 2012, teaching from 2017 or earlier. Cool.



Cute. Subtle, but nice try I suppose. Great way to start off your response post. 



> Well, everyone's in their own bubble, realistically... as far as "running their organisations in a manner that is relevant to today's world", well,  that's really a matter of expectations more than anything else. For them to be run in a way that is relevant, then all that means is that some people find relevance in them to their modern lives... which a large number of people certainly seem to. Mind you, as you're focusing on the techniques, then it's not a matter of how the organisations themselves are run, but how the arts are taught within them, and how you perceive their connection to modern violence... correct?



I wasn't referring solely to physical techniques. For example, the Genbukan holds a large say over how you advertise your dojo, what you can say, how you can or can't recruit, who you're allowed or not allowed to associate with, etc. 



> Hmm... to be honest, I don't think this "additional knowledge" is what you're making it out to be, nor is it something that really has a lot of relevance to the discussion.



I find this statement quite surprising. I take it you're one of those that believe traditional Ninpo is completely all encompassing. 



> Here's what I mean: You seem to be doing what a lot of people do, which is fixate on a single context, whether understood or not, and expecting all martial systems to be answers to the same questions... they're not. But misunderstanding the context that they're meant to be applied in, and expecting them to have some relevance in that different context, then you'll never really get anything close to any understanding of these other arts, no matter what "access" you have to them might be. Additionally, access to a wider selection can also be a bad thing... not to pull too much of the curtain back here, but one of your affiliated dojo teachers proudly talks about his rank in a particular art, listing the teacher as well... thing is, that particular art is a fake system created in the 1980's, and will only give a rather inaccurate understanding of the entire field if it's followed... despite other, more solid teachers and arts this teacher in your affiliation has.



You are making quite a bit of inaccurate generalizations. For the first part of this paragraph, you aren't seeing the bigger picture and this is exactly the type of mentality that I am referring to. Every martial art came from a specific region of the world for a specific purpose. In order for Ninpo bugei to have been effective, shinobi had to learn an incredibly wide range of skills. Today, the purpose of Ninpo must be different since society is different, and safer. Hence, it becomes a more self-defense based system unless you are solely training soldiers. To remain effective as a self-defense system, it would be incredibly foolish not to learn concepts from other martial arts available to us. Ninpo constantly evolved throughout history, so why stop now? 

For the second part of the paragraph, I know that quite a few people have been pretty bitter about "the teacher" that I believe you're referring to in our organization for having received his rank. If we're thinking of the same person, then I can tell you that it's very much so a legitimate system having seen photos and documents as proof. Let me remind you, however, that ryu-ha tend to grow/evolve when ownership is passed from teacher to student, which is the way it should be in order to remain relevant with the times. The system is taught with separation between both the old and new ways, as they are both taught and pointed out for the sake of preservation but also practicality/evolution. 




> Was it? What I mean by that is, what are you basing this assumption on?



We are speaking about people training as soldiers in a warrior society, not students paying to train as a hobby. These people were actual soldiers. This concept was not solely restricted to Japan either. Any warrior society or warrior class in history would have been the same, from the Romans to Indians to Aztecs, etc.  



> Not really. And exactly what was required would vary greatly based on the period, domain, role, rank, and so on... but, in the main, no.



Yes, training was dependent on other factors, I agree. But, yet again, we're talking about soldiers. Soldiers living in a warrior society, in a warrior class, practicing a martial system born from centuries of constant civil war. It's fairly self-explanatory.




> Firstly, it seems you're watching different videos than I am, and I'm rather glad of that, ha! Secondly, if they're doing things like that, then, yeah, I'd laugh at them too... thirdly, and this is the important one... so what? Are they members of your dojo?



To your last question, people can do whatever they choose to even if they are making fools of themselves. I'm not very judgmental so I don't care at all from a personal level. I don't know how it is in Melbourne or your part of Australia but out here in the U.S., public perception is sadly a huge factor in determining how many people want to walk in through your doors. Out here everyone just wants to do Krav Maga, BJJ, or MMA. Even I attend a local BJJ/MMA school myself. But we have another teacher in our org that offers a Krav Maga program and older people with no martial arts experience drive over 40 minutes away to take Krav with him simply because they say they "it's the most effective self-defense in the world". Crazy. Krav is successful because it's marketed that way. The same with BJJ. I would love to see Ninpo become a more household and respectable name. This is how we can continue to preserve Ninpo.



> Okay. I would say that what needs qualification is "realistic perspective".



Overly compliant uke. Enforcing more pressure testing. Tests shouldn't be completely kata-based. This is why there are so many dan ranks that are absolutely horrible in randori/sparring but can perform kata very well. I refer to them as "kata heroes". Our curriculum is very different. There is randori/sparring required for literally every section in every rank. This is why when Ninpo practitioners from other orgs say they have "x" amount of years experience in the art more than me, it doesn't phase me the least bit. How you spend your years training is more important than the number of years. BJJ white belts are a great representation of that.  Recently it was just my assistant instructor and I in class so we decided to just spar with our bokken for the whole hour and a half of class. I have people brand new to classes doing randori in their first few days as well. 



> And, honestly, a lot of criticisms of their teaching methodology can be quite valid... but it needs to be valid in the context in which it's intended. As the, likely apocryphal quote from Einstein says, "Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend the entirety of it's life thinking it's an idiot."... likewise, here, the criticisms have to match the aims... and, to be honest, I don't know that that's always the case... a good case in point these days is the Martial Arts Journey you-tube channel, where the you-tuber, Rokas, only sees his own particular (and, to a degree, inaccurate) beliefs, and judges things based on an expectation that should never be applied.



Personally I am not a fan of Rokas' content though I respect his honesty and humility quite a bit. It shows good character but he tends to lump in all traditional MAs together based on his experience specifically in Aikido. Again, this proves my recent point about how you spend your years training is more important than the number of years. But I think my previous response answers this as well.



> Yeah... look, I'll be honest here, and say that you're looking in the wrong place, so no wonder you're not finding your answers there...
> 
> I'll put it this way: Why would you expect an art, or series of arts, taught in a traditional manner, from a different culture and time, dealing with a different cultural approach to violence, a different cultural approach to passing on traditions, with the emphasis being the continuation of traditions themselves, including traditional skills, to actually be something geared up for what would be a completely alien context to the one they were created for? It's the equivalent of complaining that the course in classic French cuisine didn't teach you to make a pizza or hamburger, and that's what you want to eat...



Correct me if I'm wrong but it almost sounds like you are saying you study Ninpo for the sake of preservation. I mean, if that is true then, well...you do you...

Now, I understand you can't practice many skills in Ninpo by competing in tournaments so I could care less about them. I will say that I have gotten into more scuffles than your average person prior to my Ninpo training. Everything was always in self-defense of myself or someone else. Things I know that are true that you won't learn from purely training against compliant uke: your opponents don't hold their limbs out for you to grab, you probably won't catch someone's punch mid-air, no one overextends themselves and lunges in for a straight forward punch, the importance of kyo. Nowadays, many people with no martial arts experience know how to perform single/double-leg takedowns and rear naked chokeholds. Before the 2000s a lot of people knew how to jab, hook, cross, so it's typically already on top of that. The basics of what society is learning about fighting is increasing year by year. You fight how you train, and if you can't train against realistic attacks and build the proper muscle memory to deal with them, then your training amounts to nothing (not you, just in general).



> This needs major qualification... what teachings of "ninjutsu" are you referring to? Climbing castle walls? Silent running? Water concealment methods? Disguise? Weather prediction? Next, what kind of application are you expecting them to have? There are traditional methods for lighting fire, or a candle that always stays upright (and lit)... but today we have flashlights on our phones, and lighters and matches... so... no? Yes? As far as "effective", well, that depends on the first two parts... the candle still works, but it's not as effective as a powered light, so, how does that work?
> 
> Of course, if you're talking combative techniques, then there's a whole other mess of things to go through... including whether or not that's actually the point of the techniques themselves...



I'm strictly referring to combatives. You can't always escape and walking away isn't always the best option.



> Yes, but it's not likely in the way you might think.



How might I think?



> It's a traditional martial art... to "massively modernise" it would take it away from being a traditional art... so, if the point is that it's a traditional art, and people study it because it's a traditional art, then... no. I would probably argue that a number of the methods of teaching that traditional art are sub-optimal, or overtly geared towards one facet over others (including image projection, but that's another conversation), but we're now back to the idea of looking for answers in the wrong area. If you want something geared towards modern violence and self defence needs, well, don't do a traditional art. You don't have to change them, just do something different.



This is a common response from many people who choose to protect their years of training in a traditional art. However, they fail to look back at history and realize throughout the centuries of warfare where our arts were born were still constantly adapting and modernizing in order to remain effective and relevant. What makes an art "traditional"? Is it rei-ho? Spirituality? Does it have to be koryu/pre-Edo? Again, I get the impression that you don't truly feel there's much in your Ninpo training outside of traditional preservation. Ninpo bugei have always evolved and adapted but for some reason that seems to have stopped some time in the late 20th century.




> To be honest, this argument (and this is far from the first time I've heard it) is deeply lacking in understanding how violence changes... sure, mechanics are still mechanics... application, however, is in the cultural context...



Once again going to point out your constant inaccurate generalizations. I am fully aware of what it means. My entire post has basically been me speaking to Ninpo within the big 3 x-kans needing an overhaul on application of what are great techniques. 



> You said it yourself; they're traditional. Why would you expect them to have modern attacks? I don't expect my seniors in Katori Shinto Ryu to suddenly start teaching me how to use a naginata against a FMA guy, just in case...



Again, referring to one of my earlier responses, who is to say Ninpo has to remain koryu forever? Did it not constantly evolve over several centuries? This is a huge issue in the Ninpo community, this over-romanticization of Ninpo forever having to remain completely koryu. 



> No, it's a disconnect in expectation (and the image you have in your head of "martial arts" and "self defence") and the reality of a traditional art.



That's incorrect. I'm referring to quite a lot more than just the physical, combative techniques such as (but not limited to) bureaucracy, favoritism, micro-management.



> So, a competition based system, which trains for competition, and has competitive training methods, is better at a competitive application and training context than ones that don't? Okay... but how's their swordsmanship? What's their appreciation of cultural aspects? How's their sense of ma-ai when dealing with different weapons? What's their reigi and zanshin like? Can we see how one approach might be more geared towards development of different things than another?
> 
> Again, to me, this is pretty simple... if you are training in a traditional system, and are upset that you're not likely to monster someone in the Octagon, well, no kidding? Similarly, if you're training for the UFC, don't expect to learn much that's outside of that context either... both are great for different people, but expecting them to be equally applicable across the board is to fundamentally misunderstand martial arts and their scope.



I think you took what I said out of context. While I mostly agree with your statement, I think you missed my overall point. Whatever their art is, their purpose, they train by constant randori/sparring. I also make points about tournament-centric MAs lacking things like zanshin or how to deal with multiple attackers, or not having weapons training as well, don't get me wrong. At the end of the day, I prefer MAs born from battlefields more than competition-centric MAs. But this mindset that they cannot or should not evolve is very closed-minded.



> And fair enough. And, just so it doesn't seem like I'm just making excuses for these arts, the idea of not really getting the difference in contexts is pretty rampant through even these organisations, trying to be all things to all people, so it doesn't overly surprise me that you might be having these (to my mind, unrealistic) expectations. One of the most senior Genbukan instructors in the US, Michael Coleman, has recently started doing a series of videos, starting with some ryu-ha ones that I linked on another thread... slightly more recently, he's put up three videos looking at the Genbukan Goshinjutsu (Self Defence) program that Tanemura created... and, watching them, all I could think of was that there is absolutely no appreciation for the different forms of violence today in the West, as it's all still very much "traditional" in execution and application... and, honestly, I feel sad for people who think that that equates to a modern self defence approach, as it frankly isn't. And I like Michael... this is just... bad information.



Oh I know what my expectations are and they are not unrealistic at all. I know this because much of what I said aren't solely my own views, and the purpose of our organization seeks to ensure Ninpo remains relevant to produce modern Ninpo-ka in a modern world here in the U.S. My intention isn't to completely change traditional Ninpo, but I would laugh at anyone who would dares to tell me there doesn't need to be revisions/updates.  

As for Kyoshi Coleman, I saw those videos when they were posted and yes, I agree.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2021)

Yamabushii said:


> We are speaking about people training as soldiers in a warrior society, not students paying to train as a hobby. These people were actual soldiers. This concept was not solely restricted to Japan either. Any warrior society or warrior class in history would have been the same, from the Romans to Indians to Aztecs, etc.



This is an interesting distinction as I know soldiers who train in martial arts. (There is a club up in Townsville, not ninjitsu, that is run by an ex soldier as has huge links to current serving members.)

But they have a policy that everyone is required to train together from hobbiests to soldiers to proffesional fighters.

So the ethos of the club seems to be broad enough to accommodate all these different sorts of mindsets. And I have trained there. It is a proffesional, friendly non toxic atmosphere.

So this guy is the person who trains the Australian army.






The guy who runs the gym is an ex soldier buy also had an extensive sports fighting career.


----------



## Yamabushii (Sep 13, 2021)

drop bear said:


> This is an interesting distinction as I know soldiers who train in martial arts. (There is a club up in Townsville, not ninjitsu, that is run by an ex soldier as has huge links to current serving members.)
> 
> But they have a policy that everyone is required to train together from hobbiests to soldiers to proffesional fighters.
> 
> ...



Great stuff. Nowadays I know it's different for soldiers as martial arts are optional or if you're in the special forces (outside of basics). I work almost entirely with current or prior military in my classes. I know it's also a great escape for a lot of folks after retiring or a deployment or something.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 14, 2021)

I don't want to put words in Mr. Parker's mouth, so I am sure he will correct me if I am interpreting this wrong.

In reference to historical context vs. modern:  Yamabushii talked about training against a boxer's jabs and crosses.  This is the whole point...ninjutsu would not have been designed or used against a toe to toe confrontation like that.  It is a COMPLETLEY different mindset, not to mention different strategies and tactics.  Ninjutsu techniques were designed for escape and evasion.  It would have been designed and used if you did get seen/caught by the guards to get away as quickly as possible.  

Look at a "streetfight" and what it typically looks like and then find some videos of a suspect just trying to get away from the police to escape and avoid being arrested.  Talk to any LEO and they can verify that there is a big difference between a person struggling to try and get away and a person wanting to actively fight with you.

I see this as well in other arts.  For example, if you look at older military combatives (Not talking about the newer stuff in the military based on GJJ/MMA that the military admits is used because they want the competition to develop a fighting spirit).  It was designed to crush windpipes, gouge out eyes, use whatever you could find as an improvised weapon to kill and take out the enemy.  How does that translate into civilian self-defense?  It doesn't unless you completely change what it is and then still try and call it by the original name.  If you have been around MA for awhile, there was a HUGE trend for awhile on "Reality Based Self-Defense" (RBSD) and they basically did take the old military combatives and teach those for civilian self-defense.  BUT, they understood the disconnect, so they taught it as EVERY attacker is someone out to kill you and you are in fear for your life to justify using it.

So, if you REALLY wanted to use Ninjutsu for self-defense and "modernize" it.  Your classes would be on emotional intelligence (seeing things from another's perspective), how to read people and body language, de-escalation tactics, understanding set up tactics for a mugging and other scams.  You would train them in how to be a  "gray man" (term coined by preppers/survivalists) and blend in with your surroundings so you don't stand out.  The physical stuff would be very similar to what the original techniques were in learning how to defeat holds, how to distract and/or stun your attacker and get away.  Your classes would also teach how to run "smart" and use the environment to their advantage, where to run to get away, even how to safely hide if you got away and can't get back to your car/home right away.


----------



## Yamabushii (Sep 15, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> I don't want to put words in Mr. Parker's mouth, so I am sure he will correct me if I am interpreting this wrong.
> 
> In reference to historical context vs. modern:  Yamabushii talked about training against a boxer's jabs and crosses.  This is the whole point...ninjutsu would not have been designed or used against a toe to toe confrontation like that.  It is a COMPLETLEY different mindset, not to mention different strategies and tactics.  Ninjutsu techniques were designed for escape and evasion.  It would have been designed and used if you did get seen/caught by the guards to get away as quickly as possible.
> 
> ...



It depends on your perspective. I am not going to say mine is the only correct one, but I certainly am not a hardcore traditionalist. I do appreciate the traditional aspects of the art very much so, but for me, practicing the art isn't for the sake of preservation, it's for practicality. But regarding utilizing boxers' jabs and crosses, you can say the same about the Jujutsu that's a part of most Ninpo schools as well. Why stand there and engage with someone when you can just throw some metsubushi and run away or hide? The idea behind teaching aspects of boxing is to incorporate realistic attacks from the uke, as well as utilizing shoulders rolls and bobbing and weaving to close the distance on someone to go for a takedown. You can't always escape. Sometimes you have to engage, and it's not usually as simple as grabbing someone. 

Chris and I may disagree on preservation vs practicality, but that's okay.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 20, 2021)

Yamabushii said:


> So my questions for anyone willing to answer:
> 
> 1) Do you find the traditional teachings of Ninjutsu are still applicable and effective in today's world?
> 1a) If so, do you have successful real-world experience in applying your techniques in self-defense or in the defense of someone else?
> ...



A "massive modernization" would have to be something along the lines of Kano's modernization of Judo, where you reject the fluff and focus on maximizing the most effective techniques utilizing a modern methodology. This is a concept that I find rather interesting, and I would be very interested in seeing what would develop from it. And yes, I believe that Ninjutsu definitely needs it. As it stands, I feel the art is slowly fading into obscurity and dillution.

I had hoped that Stephen Hayes would go that route with Toshindo, but that has largely been a bust. That said, I don't know what lane a modernized Ninjutsu could occupy. Currently you have four major martial arts that are descended from Jujutsu; Judo, Aikido, BJJ, and Sambo. If self defense and effectiveness is your goal, you should look at Judo and its descendant styles of BJJ and Sambo. If modernization with a strong traditional aesthetic is your gaol, Aikido would be a good model to look upon. I think following a mixed path that blends the effectiveness of the Judo-based systems and the traditional aesthetic of Aikido would be the best way to modernize the art. However, what would this system be like? Would it include striking? Would it only be throws? Would it contain kata? Would it provide some level of weapon training?

These are all questions that would need to be answered. Obviously the main thing that would need to happen would be the community having a desire to modernize.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 21, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> A "massive modernization" would have to be something along the lines of Kano's modernization of Judo, where you reject the fluff and focus on maximizing the most effective techniques utilizing a modern methodology. This is a concept that I find rather interesting, and I would be very interested in seeing what would develop from it. And yes, I believe that Ninjutsu definitely needs it. As it stands, I feel the art is slowly fading into obscurity and dillution.
> 
> I had hoped that Stephen Hayes would go that route with Toshindo, but that has largely been a bust. That said, I don't know what lane a modernized Ninjutsu could occupy. Currently you have four major martial arts that are descended from Jujutsu; Judo, Aikido, BJJ, and Sambo. If self defense and effectiveness is your goal, you should look at Judo and its descendant styles of BJJ and Sambo. If modernization with a strong traditional aesthetic is your gaol, Aikido would be a good model to look upon. I think following a mixed path that blends the effectiveness of the Judo-based systems and the traditional aesthetic of Aikido would be the best way to modernize the art. However, what would this system be like? Would it include striking? Would it only be throws? Would it contain kata? Would it provide some level of weapon training?
> 
> These are all questions that would need to be answered. Obviously the main thing that would need to happen would be the community having a desire to modernize.



I think Dog brothers or even a hema would be the modernisation of Ninjutsu.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 21, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I think Dog brothers or even a hema would be the modernisation of Ninjutsu.



Yeah, I know Akban is Ninjutsu/Bjj/hema.

I dunno, guess I was just thinking more along the lines of Judo and Aikido.


----------



## dunc (Sep 21, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I know Akban is Ninjutsu/Bjj/hema.
> 
> I dunno, guess I was just thinking more along the lines of Judo and Aikido.


The issue is that going down those kind of routes means removing key parts of techniques (eg striking in the case of judo and a whole load of other stuff in the case of Aikido) 
Which is essentially the steps that their founders took
And by doing that you lose what makes the art distinct 

Having said that I do think there’s scope to add more realism in the training methods and to integrate obvious gaps like newaza. Is this modernisation? Maybe

If you really wanted to modernise it then you’d focus on using / dealing with weapons that are available nowadays (no more swords and spears etc). Which might be an interesting journey to go down
When do we replace the jutte with a beer bottle, or really study how to use an umbrella for example?


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 21, 2021)

dunc said:


> The issue is that going down those kind of routes means removing key parts of techniques (eg striking in the case of judo and a whole load of other stuff in the case of Aikido)
> Which is essentially the steps that their founders took
> And by doing that you lose what makes the art distinct
> 
> ...



Would it be possible to relegate striking to kata like Judo, and utilize weapons to expand unarmed concepts like Aikido does with the bokken and still retain the flavor/distinctiveness of the system?


----------



## drop bear (Sep 21, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Would it be possible to relegate striking to kata like Judo, and utilize weapons to expand unarmed concepts like Aikido does with the bokken and still retain the flavor/distinctiveness of the system?



You could do striking like kudo. And probably even do padded weapons.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 21, 2021)

dunc said:


> The issue is that going down those kind of routes means removing key parts of techniques (eg striking in the case of judo and a whole load of other stuff in the case of Aikido)
> Which is essentially the steps that their founders took
> And by doing that you lose what makes the art distinct
> 
> ...



I think if you could actually sword fight or take a weapon off someone that would be a modern applicable skill  

Rather than replace the sword with a beer bottle but not update the expectations of results.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 22, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Yes the concepts are not unique hence why I used that training exercise as an example of catch all training.



So... you recognise that the benefit you're claiming is found in hill sprints is found in all manner of martial arts, modern, traditional, classical, competitive, non-competitive... which is why you suggest a non-martial art training method as a "catch-all exercise" for all martial arts? What?



drop bear said:


> So if you can perform that one function for example it makes you better at other aspects of martial arts.



How does hill sprints help with my te no uchi? What aspect of te hodoki is benefitted from hill sprints? How do hill sprints help in my sense of ma-ai, kime, seme? How am I advantaged by doing hill sprints with regards to suri ashi? If you don't get any of those words, then you're in no position to even start to enter this conversation, by the way... 



drop bear said:


> The mental considerations are a large part of traditional martial arts.



Yes, they are. Far more than you understand or realise, frankly... 



drop bear said:


> So that one exercise makes you fitter. Makes you mentally tougher and more disciplined. Will make you last longer in a fight. Makes you able to train for longer with better results.



This is the problem with you only having one frame of reference... within our arts, we have methods to address such aspects... they are approached and addressed in a particular way (unique to each school), in a way that is congruent with the school itself, and geared up to the specific needs and ideals of that school. In other words, each of the aspects you're talking about are not considered "general" in classical (or many traditional) arts... "mentally tougher" is a small part of the overall mindset, but you need to understand what the school itself means by that... same with "fitness"... "discipline"... and hill sprints are a rather indirect way of addressing such an idea when it comes to these arts.

In other words, get out of your own head if you want to be seen as speaking in any way intelligently in this area.



drop bear said:


> So while you might suggest you have advantages out side of context.(in this case being running up and down a hill)
> 
> You actually kind of don't have as much advantage as you think you do.



Are you just making up other people's comments as you go along? And, I really have to say, you don't know anything like what you think you do... nor do you have any clue what "advantage" might be present.



drop bear said:


> Basically you might have studied mental toughness and be an expert on the subject. But are not as mentally tough as that person who isn't an expert but just grinds harder.



Wow... what on earth are you talking about? You say that the reason hill sprints are the best "catch-all" exercise for martial arts is due to the mental forbearance that can be attained by simply "grinding it out", and I say that such things are addressed in classical arts training... you think this means "studying mental toughness"?!?!

Dude.... men of straw do not an argument make.



drop bear said:


> Quite often this idea of specialist skill in context turns out to be not true and is more of an ego stroking exercise.



You mean like BJJ's specialist skill in ground work? Are you kidding? Do you know what you're talking about?



drop bear said:


> Well if OP discussing a modern approach I would suggest he is asking for a practical approach.



Potentially... but from their perspective of what that means, of course.



drop bear said:


> And honestly modern and practical are kind two different things.



So... you're arguing against the exact sentence you just said?



drop bear said:


> So practical honest training, honest evaluation and efficient development, ego free culture, cult free culture all that kind of thing is kind of the context I am discussing here.



HA!!! Yeah... cause modern arts don't have any cult cultures, or ego issues, and are all honest in how they train and assess themselves..... right....



drop bear said:


> How to be a better martial artist and how to be a better person.



This is so devoid of the necessary context as to be completely meaningless. A "better martial artist"? What does that mean? Not to put too fine a point on it, but I would suggest that I know a hell of a lot more about the variety of martial arts, their history, methodologies, training ideologies and pedagogies from a wider variety of cultures and contexts than you have a clue of even existing in the first place... does that make me a better martial artist? I might be ranked in 10 different systems, does that make me a better martial artist? I might only know one area, and be incredibly good at that, but be clueless about the rest of the topic and subject of martial arts, only knowing my one system and one context... does that make me a better martial artist? What is a "better martial artist" at all? 

Look, the point is that "better" needs to be qualified to a great degree... if your qualification is "can beat up a lot of people", then we have wildly different views as to what makes someone a "better martial artist"... as opposed to a better fighter... and, even then, context is important... competition isn't really "fighting", as far as I'm concerned... it's competing in a particular field. This, of course, gets even more complicated when it comes to "a better person"... as, bluntly, your approach is more the former, whereas we've (classical arts) been far more concerned with the latter for centuries.



drop bear said:


> It doesn't have to be definitively conclusive. It is a structure to build personal development honestly. Not a peer reviewed paper.
> 
> So you observe your historical technique.
> 
> ...



This is so far outside of how any of this works that I hardly know where to start... especially when talking classical arts... frankly, in this context, this is meaningless, and you don't have a clue what you're talking about.



drop bear said:


> Once you get a bunch of guys doing that. You can get a general feel as to what is going to work and what isn't.



In a particular context. Within certain conditions and parameters. Which could easily not match anything close to the way the techniques are designed, the cultural expectations that surrounded the development of the methodology, and far more. In other words, you could end up with an expectation that fish should all climb trees...



drop bear said:


> Like fly kicks. Which have a lot of very interesting preconceptions around them. Designed for horses, doesn't work on the streets and so on.



You keep going back to that, and mis-represent every aspect of them... including the way you presented the video you linked earlier. Wasn't one of your first steps "research what it's supposed to do"? Have you considered doing that for any of these conversations, or are you just going to keep telling people doing something that it doesn't match your (incorrect) expectations, like in the sword thread where you were trying to tell us what sword training was about?


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 22, 2021)

Hey Tony,



Tony Dismukes said:


> By your own argument in the other thread, the curriculum in the various X-kans is really a modern synthesis rather than an authentic transmission of the historical ryu-ha. That being the case, wouldn't it make sense for such a modern synthesis to be functional for addressing modern violence? If it's already been changed as much from its historical antecedents as you argue, then further change to achieve such functionality seems reasonable. (Especially since so many instructors within the X-kans promote their art as being functional against modern violence.)



Ha, I was kinda expecting that argument to come up... in this case, it's less about the literal "letter of the law" look at the curriculum, but more in the way it is presented (marketed?), which is as a traditional, historically (classically) based system. Do I think they are an accurate representation of such? That's a different discussion (hopefully I'll get back to that one in a bit). But the important factor here is that they are presented as historical, traditional methods... so to go to something that markets and presents itself as such, but also expect it to be a modern-focused (non-traditional) method for dealing with modern contexts and situations is, I would suggest, demanding to know why your crepe suzette isn't a chocolate mud cake... well, which did you order?

As far as many X-Kan (especially, but not limited to Bujinkan membership) promoting themselves and the system as "functional against modern violence" I would put down to more ignorance of context and lack of understanding than anything else... as well as a fair bit of Kool aid drinking, and taking Hatsumi's (bluntly, largely uninformed and off-base) statements on face value, accepting them uncritically... couple that with the well-worn (and, again, wildly inaccurate) idea of "these techniques are battle-tested!!!" (they're not) as some kind of evidence to back up their claims... so, yeah, frankly? They're not really correct at all. Now, as a caveat, can the methods be utilised in some way that proves functional? Sure. But that's more a side-benefit that is both largely incidental, and not reliable enough to back consistently.

Of course, this does muddy the waters here a lot... to be completely frank, the vast majority of Bujinkan instructors that I've come across I would describe as lacking in their ability to grasp either context (traditional or modern... with the "traditional" being largely superficial and lacking in appreciation, and the "modern" being overly lip service without insight). Additionally, the changes that I describe in the other thread isn't anything to do with "modernisation", or dealing with modern violence at all... it's more to have a consistent base to build the "traditional" approach on.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I can appreciate an historical art which focuses on aspects of violence which are not so relevant to modern usage, such as swordsmanship.



Sure. Of course, something so removed as swordsmanship might not be as far removed as one might think... and a fair bit of the unarmed approaches might be a lot more removed than one might believe... it depends how you interpret the ri-ai... 



Tony Dismukes said:


> I think such an art can be enjoyed for its own sake and can even lead to insights into principles of fighting in other contexts.



This is very true. In fact, I would posit that training in such arts gives a more realistic understanding and appreciation for a number of aspects of violence than many of the "more realistic" approaches found today...



Tony Dismukes said:


> However I do want such an art to be functional on its own terms. If you teach a sword art, it should work for actual sword fighting.



Taking it out of the arena of the X-Kan's, yep. That's precisely what we do. The biggest challenge is coming to terms with exactly what that means in the first place... 



Tony Dismukes said:


> Unfortunately I have seen numerous high-ranking X-kan instructors teaching swordsmanship which is ludicrously bad. The ma-ai is completely wrong for the historical weapons being used and some of the techniques would literally only work if the opponent happened to have a stroke in the middle of his attack. I'm not saying this is true of all X-kan instructors. I'm just saying that it's widespread enough that an X-kan student with no relevant outside experience will have a hard time recognizing which techniques being taught are valid and which are bogus.



Oh.... you really don't want to hear my critiques... on this, or many other facets... 



Tony Dismukes said:


> I finally got around to watching these and I have to agree. He seems to be a sincere guy and the quality of his movement isn't bad, but the majority of the techniques shown will not work the way he thinks they will. It's not even just a matter of "modern" vs "traditional". Yes, the attacks shown are mostly not typical of modern violence. However even if he were transported to some historical/cultural scenario where someone came at him with kind of the attacks shown, he would have a very low success rate, assuming the attackers were even halfway competent and determined.



I think a big part of that is the lack of awareness of the role of uke/uchidachi/teki in the various X-Kan's... as well as the somewhat false belief that the techniques represent anything like an actual violent encounter, even "back in the day"... they don't. More often, they are illustrating a principle or point, and re-enforcing other aspects and underlying concepts... especially at the levels we're looking at, they're, to a great degree, preparatory methods to work towards something more approximating something that suits a violent encounter... but not in the way that something like, say, BJJ operates. I'll see if I can explain... 

BJJ is focused pretty much entirely on "functional" actions... something that can be used in a practical sense. Of course, the unspoken part there is "used in what context?", as that affects things more than many of the "modern" proponents would like to recognise or admit... but that's another discussion. Importantly, the pedagogy of BJJ is one where you get taught a movement (an escape, a sweep, a choke, a submission, whatever), you drill it, and then you should be able to apply it in the context of the training (rolling, competition, etc). That's great... but it's not how traditional/classical arts operate. These arts are more about building a body structure and mentality by using what I would refer to as "representative" techniques... they aren't about how you would actually do anything, although you might do something that is pretty much exactly the way the technique "works". They're about developing a way of engaging, not a set of techniques. In this way, the two approaches are pretty much as directly opposite as you can possibly get... although it could be argued that the end result is very similar.

A modern "functional" system works by giving you practical, immediate use techniques... and, over time (months, years, decades), you develop a sense of the underlying principles and concepts, enabling you to come up with any of a myriad of variations in the moment, where you aren't relying on knowing this escape, or that choke, but instead know (internally, in a body-sense) how escapes operate, and how chokes work, how to defend against an opponent's attempt to counter, and so on. The "technique" starts as the most important facet, and becomes the least. In a traditional/classical art, however, the techniques themselves are not overly important... they're simply a way of expressing the principles and concepts in a consistent fashion. They're far from the only possible expression, and the major emphasis is in ensuring that all your movements and actions include and embody these principles and concepts, more than "doing the technique". This is why Musashi's system, for example, even after decades of life-and-death duelling, and then even more decades of teaching, basically boiled down to 5 postures and 5 "kata". That's it. Those 5 techniques weren't in any way the entirety of his technical repertoire, but they did embody and represent all the most important principles and concepts... so you didn't need a whole bunch of techniques. However, by exploring the principles, at the end of the day, you also developed a series of physical responses and mechanical skills that could then be used in a "real" situation.

In other words, modern "functional" schools start with techniques to lead to principles, and classical/traditional arts start with principles and explore them by adding technical skills... at the end of the day, though, neither are restricted to the technical side, but are expressions of the principles of that art. The biggest problem is when people get them confused... thinking the techniques of traditional systems are geared around the same "functional" ideals as a modern (typically competitive) one... which is where the disconnect happens as indicated above.



Tony Dismukes said:


> BTW - Michael clearly has a high regard for his instructor. That's not a bad thing, but too much faith can lead to blind spots. According to what he says in the first video, Tanemura created this self-defense curriculum based just on moves that he had personally used successfully more times than he can remember, presumably during his career as a police officer. It's possible that Michael may have misinterpreted what Tanemura meant. If Tanemura actually is making those claims ... I don't want to violate the MartialTalk TOS, so let's just say that I would have a very hard time believing him without some solid evidence. There are way too many techniques in the curriculum, a large percentage are against attacks that a police officer is unlikely to encounter, and a large number are techniques which have a very low percentage chance of success. It's theoretically possible that a criminal tried to wristlock Tanemura and he successfully countered with a Kani Basami into an incompetently applied ankle lock, but I doubt it.  It's theoretically possible that a criminal tried to stab him with a knife and he successfully defended by delivering a shuto to the bicep so powerfully that the suspect not only dropped the knife but fell down and stopped fighting, but I doubt it. It's theoretically possible that a criminal attacked him with a sword (very poorly) and he was able to evade, grab the wrist, and disarm the suspect using a technique where his leverage was inferior to that of the swordsman, but I doubt it. I really, really doubt that these and others happened more times than he can remember.



Ha, that was far more diplomatic than I would have put it... but, yes, absolutely.

And, here's the thing... anyone teaching a "self defence system" as a series of techniques has no clue what they're doing. I've mentioned many times that, in my dojo, "self defence" and "martial arts" are completely separate... they are different sections of the class, and are separated by other sections so they don't get confused (and to provide more distinction internally/mentally between them)... but here's the real thing... I don't really teach any techniques. I teach with techniques, but I don't teach techniques... because that doesn't work. Is what I teach "functional"? Yeah, I like to think so... but it's only so due to an understanding of the contexts and principles that I'm working within. "Technical" teaching needs to be kept to a minimum, as techniques are specific answers, and, as such, suited to specific applications... and self defence methodologies offer no real guarantee of such defined situations, so they can't be relied upon. Lucky for me, classical arts have the same attitude... work with principles, and let the techniques match the situation...


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 22, 2021)

drop bear said:


> You could do striking like kudo. And probably even do padded weapons.



Yeah, with modern technology, striking is relatively safe, so you could incorporate it into sparring practice.

I do feel that the weapon training is better left to kata practice, or as an exercise to further practice unarmed skills. Aikido has the right approach IMO.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 22, 2021)

Yamabushii said:


> Cute. Subtle, but nice try I suppose. Great way to start off your response post.



You may have missed the point... 

You stated that, in 2012, you had just started, and came onto forums thinking you had all the answers... I was pointing out that, really, you're still pretty green, all things considered... and, to be honest, still buying into a lot of the imagery, despite the protestations.



Yamabushii said:


> I wasn't referring solely to physical techniques. For example, the Genbukan holds a large say over how you advertise your dojo, what you can say, how you can or can't recruit, who you're allowed or not allowed to associate with, etc.



Oh, I know... I have a number of friends and acquaintances who have left, and have heard plenty of similar stories... 



Yamabushii said:


> I find this statement quite surprising. I take it you're one of those that believe traditional Ninpo is completely all encompassing.



Ha! That's heading in exactly the wrong direction there... 



Yamabushii said:


> You are making quite a bit of inaccurate generalizations. For the first part of this paragraph, you aren't seeing the bigger picture and this is exactly the type of mentality that I am referring to. Every martial art came from a specific region of the world for a specific purpose. In order for Ninpo bugei to have been effective, shinobi had to learn an incredibly wide range of skills. Today, the purpose of Ninpo must be different since society is different, and safer. Hence, it becomes a more self-defense based system unless you are solely training soldiers. To remain effective as a self-defense system, it would be incredibly foolish not to learn concepts from other martial arts available to us. Ninpo constantly evolved throughout history, so why stop now?



Okay, let's break this down a bit...

"Every martial art came from a specific region of the world for a specific purpose." 

Yep, agreed. Of course, you need to look beyond just geography and to the cultural context... but that's a deeper question...

"In order for Ninpo bugei to have been effective, shinobi had to learn an incredibly wide range of skills." 

No. This is a completely false understanding of history... for one thing, "shinobi" were simply anyone engaging in the act of gathering information... which could be scouting, infiltration, or just asking questions... the idea of the "unstoppable warrior" is a fantasy trope. Most "shinobi" were simply samurai checking out how many troops in the other guys camp, or asking about the schedule of someone or other. "Ninpo bugei" is largely a modern construct, and is neither larger nor smaller in terms of skills than any other martial system (in other words, we use the term "ninpo bugei" to refer to martial systems that are linked historically with the people of Iga and related areas... who weren't really "ninja", but bushi, warriors... their connection to what would later be classified/described as "ninja/shinobi" is not reflective of them being "ninja").

"Today, the purpose of Ninpo must be different since society is different, and safer." 

Must it? Why?

"Hence, it becomes a more self-defence based system unless you are solely training soldiers." 

Why? I'm serious here... if you're wanting a self-defence oriented system, why train in one that is claiming to be techniques from Japan from centuries ago? And why should it change just because you have a value that isn't the same as the way the system is designed in the first place?

"To remain effective as a self-defence system, it would be incredibly foolish not to learn concepts from other martial arts available to us."

Firstly, you're again applying a value you hold, and insisting that it be applied to something that is, in pretty much every way, not designed to be suited to that value. Secondly, no, that's not really how you deal with creating an effective self-defence system... you start by understanding the context, modern forms of violence, the legal system in the area you're teaching, psychology, both of the victim and the predator, behavioural psychology as it relates to processes and development, and so on. "Techniques" are the least important aspect... so mining other arts, especially without a lot of involvement in said arts, is, simply, a superficial approach with limited advantages.

 "Ninpo constantly evolved throughout history, so why stop now?"

Has it? What do you base that on? And, again, why would it need to conform to a situation that isn't present in it's native land, let alone being relevant to it's position as teaching classical/traditional arts?



Yamabushii said:


> For the second part of the paragraph, I know that quite a few people have been pretty bitter about "the teacher" that I believe you're referring to in our organization for having received his rank. If we're thinking of the same person, then I can tell you that it's very much so a legitimate system having seen photos and documents as proof.



No, I'm not talking about Mark. I know the response he got when he received his rank a couple of years back, and I was one of the ones pointing out that it was perfectly legitimate. I'm talking about "Itto Tenshin Ryu", which Luiz is now training in... we don't fraud bust here, but... yeah... looking into the school and Fred Louvret might reveal some things... 



Yamabushii said:


> Let me remind you, however, that ryu-ha tend to grow/evolve when ownership is passed from teacher to student, which is the way it should be in order to remain relevant with the times. The system is taught with separation between both the old and new ways, as they are both taught and pointed out for the sake of preservation but also practicality/evolution.



Yeah... so... you might have a bit of an unrealistic understanding of what any of that entails... 



Yamabushii said:


> We are speaking about people training as soldiers in a warrior society, not students paying to train as a hobby. These people were actual soldiers. This concept was not solely restricted to Japan either. Any warrior society or warrior class in history would have been the same, from the Romans to Indians to Aztecs, etc.



Yeah... considering your overly romanticised and largely inaccurate descriptions of such training (describing it as "24/7"), as well as the above, I'm not sure you have much of a sense of what such training actually was, how it was conducted, and so forth... 



Yamabushii said:


> Yes, training was dependent on other factors, I agree. But, yet again, we're talking about soldiers. Soldiers living in a warrior society, in a warrior class, practicing a martial system born from centuries of constant civil war. It's fairly self-explanatory.



Except we're not talking about "soldiers"... we're talking about a warrior class of society, but most of the ryu that we have were formed or solidified in the Edo period, particularly unarmed systems (yeah, we're ignoring the stated histories... they are... not accurate), which makes much of their history, if not all of it, removed from anything like battlefield usage. But we need to focus on what that actually means... people get fixated on the "warrior" part, equating it to soldiers and persons plying their trade on the battlefield (which is, believe it or not, not what the systems themselves were designed for), however the part that needs to be taken into account is the second part... "class of society". In other words, training in a ryu was as much a part of fulfilling your societal role than anything to do with engaging in violence... with many schools acting as overall education systems as anything else.

In other words, this is overly romanticised and rather inaccurate.



Yamabushii said:


> To your last question, people can do whatever they choose to even if they are making fools of themselves. I'm not very judgmental so I don't care at all from a personal level.



Er... I don't think you got what I meant when I asked if they were members of your dojo (putting out "videos doing funky hand signs, wearing black shinobi shizoku, in broad day light, and/or sitting on broken tree trunks doing awful ukemi, meanwhile hash tagging everything and getting laughed at online."... I was saying that, unless the people putting these videos out are members of your dojo, why do you care? Oh, and for someone not being very judgmental, you certainly seem to have a judgement of the videos you've seen... 



Yamabushii said:


> I don't know how it is in Melbourne or your part of Australia but out here in the U.S., public perception is sadly a huge factor in determining how many people want to walk in through your doors.



I don't think that's too different... probably a bit more overt in the US, but that's about it.



Yamabushii said:


> Out here everyone just wants to do Krav Maga, BJJ, or MMA. Even I attend a local BJJ/MMA school myself.



So, if you've got the "modern" thing covered there, why do you think a different art needs to turn into another version of one of those?



Yamabushii said:


> But we have another teacher in our org that offers a Krav Maga program and older people with no martial arts experience drive over 40 minutes away to take Krav with him simply because they say they "it's the most effective self-defense in the world". Crazy. Krav is successful because it's marketed that way. The same with BJJ. I would love to see Ninpo become a more household and respectable name. This is how we can continue to preserve Ninpo.



So... you want to "preserve Ninpo" by changing it? Does that sound like a contradictory statement to you?



Yamabushii said:


> Overly compliant uke.



Okay, you kinda go back and forth with things that you would want changed, and things you would have added... without clarifying any of it... but lets see how we go.

Overly compliant uke... well, that's not a facet of the art, it's a failing of the teachers not understanding the actual teaching structure of these arts... so, yeah, that shouldn't be there in the first place. In regards to "realistic", though, that's a different idea... you can have completely non-compliant uke, and it's nothing close to realistic... what's more important is understanding the roles, and working to a realism with regards to the context and aims of the methodology itself... it's not designed like BJJ, and shouldn't be looked at in the same way.



Yamabushii said:


> Enforcing more pressure testing.



This term gets thrown around without really understanding (or clarifying) what is meant by it... more often than not, it's seen as a term implying a sparring/rolling format... which can be a kind of pressure-testing, but you need to be very clear on, firstly, what's being tested, secondly what the aims of the test would be, and then, how the test is done. For example, in kata-geiko, "pressure testing" should always be present... even if the roles and actions are completely determined and defined.



Yamabushii said:


> Tests shouldn't be completely kata-based.



It's a kata-based art. It teaches via kata. Techniques and tactics are learnt by kata. Refinement of ma-ai, ri-ai, suki, tsuyoshi, and so on are achieved via kata. Thing is, of course, understanding how kata tests should be done... as it's not just a matter of "repeat the actions"... 



Yamabushii said:


> This is why there are so many dan ranks that are absolutely horrible in randori/sparring but can perform kata very well. I refer to them as "kata heroes".



Okay.



Yamabushii said:


> Our curriculum is very different. There is randori/sparring required for literally every section in every rank.



How do you structure this randori? And how do you ascertain it's connection to the "ninpo" methods? 



Yamabushii said:


> This is why when Ninpo practitioners from other orgs say they have "x" amount of years experience in the art more than me, it doesn't phase me the least bit. How you spend your years training is more important than the number of years.



While years aren't the be-all, end-all, ideally, they will give an idea of the amount of immersion and understanding the person will have, and have been exposed to. Traditionally speaking, it would give an indication how far through the school's teachings they've gone, but such things aren't really followed that way in most of the X-Kan's... Genbukan a little more than the others (hence your own ranking listing individual ranking levels in Daito Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, Mugen Shinto Ryu, separate to the Ninpo and Jujutsu ranks (and others)... of course, looking through them, you've basically (in this scale) gotten halfway through primary/elementary school in regards to the actual total curriculum... traditionally speaking, the upper levels are where you actually get to the "core" of the school, with the lower levels little more than basic introductions and preparations for the student to make sure they're ready for the actual lessons later on... that's why many schools only allowed fully licenced members to teach... they were the ones who understood what was important in the early levels, as they could see how they related to the later methods in a way that junior students simply didn't have the experience to.



Yamabushii said:


> BJJ white belts are a great representation of that.  Recently it was just my assistant instructor and I in class so we decided to just spar with our bokken for the whole hour and a half of class. I have people brand new to classes doing randori in their first few days as well.



I don't allow anyone to head into free-form study until they're a senior kyu grade... before that, I'm risking reinforcing behaviours and patterns that run contrary to what I'm trying to teach. Of course, to each their own, and if you have found a way that works for you, great! Mind you... sparring with bokuto... yeah... not a fan of that... I can pretty much guarantee that if I was to do that, either someone is going to get hurt, or the approach would be so curtailed that it would be pointless... 



Yamabushii said:


> Personally I am not a fan of Rokas' content though I respect his honesty and humility quite a bit. It shows good character but he tends to lump in all traditional MAs together based on his experience specifically in Aikido. Again, this proves my recent point about how you spend your years training is more important than the number of years. But I think my previous response answers this as well.



I'm not a fan of Rokas' videos either, although I wouldn't say that the issue is him painting all arts with his experience in Aikido, it's more the issue you're having, where you chose an art that doesn't match the image and ideals you have in your head, and have either not looked into it enough to understand the difference (definitely the case in Rokas' situation), or are so locked into the image and values you have that you aren't able to appreciate a different approach. This isn't a bad thing, of course, but we end up (again) with a fish trying to climb a tree...



Yamabushii said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but it almost sounds like you are saying you study Ninpo for the sake of preservation. I mean, if that is true then, well...you do you...



Well... firstly, I wouldn't say I study "Ninpo"... the term I use in the dojo for my school is "Budo Heiho", for the record (study of martial strategies is a good enough translation)... and my view is that, well, much of what is found is a combination of arts that have been created/re-constructed/substantially altered in the last 70 years or so (at least), so, no, "preservation" isn't the major factor... instead, I would say that I study the arts to gain insight from the concepts and principles enshrined within. It's the same reason I also study Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Muso Shinden Ryu, Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, and Shindo Muso Ryu... 

Here's the thing, though... I look at how the arts are designed, and expect them to be that... not anything else.



Yamabushii said:


> Now, I understand you can't practice many skills in Ninpo by competing in tournaments so I could care less about them. I will say that I have gotten into more scuffles than your average person prior to my Ninpo training. Everything was always in self-defense of myself or someone else. Things I know that are true that you won't learn from purely training against compliant uke: your opponents don't hold their limbs out for you to grab, you probably won't catch someone's punch mid-air, no one overextends themselves and lunges in for a straight forward punch, the importance of kyo. Nowadays, many people with no martial arts experience know how to perform single/double-leg takedowns and rear naked chokeholds. Before the 2000s a lot of people knew how to jab, hook, cross, so it's typically already on top of that. The basics of what society is learning about fighting is increasing year by year. You fight how you train, and if you can't train against realistic attacks and build the proper muscle memory to deal with them, then your training amounts to nothing (not you, just in general).



What you're talking about there is cultural understanding of violence... and, if you're going to build a self defence system, an understanding of that (often referred to as an understanding of HAOV, or Habitual Acts Of Violence), as they pertain to your particular culture, is important. But learning a traditional system doesn't mean that you necessarily have to apply the system against such things... a traditional system does things the way it does for it's own (internal) reasons... which are often culturally based in the origins of the art itself.  So, yes, people have shifted the way they express violence in the last, probably, 30 years or so... but that doesn't then follow that the older, or more traditional arts, have to follow suit... if they did, they're no longer the traditional art they were. That's the point.



Yamabushii said:


> I'm strictly referring to combatives. You can't always escape and walking away isn't always the best option.



Yeah... my point was that you talk about "ninjutsu techniques", but aren't actually referring to anything that would be classed as "ninjutsu"... as far as combative techniques (not, and this should be absolutely clear, "combatives", as that's another topic and area altogether) are concerned, well, in the X-Kan's you have a wide variety of methods from a range of schools to discuss... so it becomes a rather difficult thing to discuss... do the techniques of the various schools "work"? Yes. But you have to understand the context that they're designed for... Are they effective for modern violence? Maybe. It depends on a lot of factors... 



Yamabushii said:


> How might I think?



In the sense of a physical altercation/violent sudden attack. 



Yamabushii said:


> This is a common response from many people who choose to protect their years of training in a traditional art. However, they fail to look back at history and realize throughout the centuries of warfare where our arts were born were still constantly adapting and modernizing in order to remain effective and relevant. What makes an art "traditional"? Is it rei-ho? Spirituality? Does it have to be koryu/pre-Edo? Again, I get the impression that you don't truly feel there's much in your Ninpo training outside of traditional preservation. Ninpo bugei have always evolved and adapted but for some reason that seems to have stopped some time in the late 20th century.



Please.

I've already covered the fact that, well, these are not "born" in warfare... and that the idea of them "constantly adapting and modernising" is also complete bunkum (Hatsumi has said it for ages, but honestly, there's little to support that..). When it comes to "(evolving) seems to have stopped some time in the late 20th century", well, no... most arts stopped much in the way of contextual alteration within a few generations of their development... the main "evolution" that any art went through was in additions to the curriculum in order to either make teaching the inner methods more reliable and consistent, or to facilitate teaching larger numbers... but once you got to the end of the Edo period, and the Meiji Restoration, there was a big push-back against aspects of the samurai culture... so most arts that survived this period were pretty much locked into what they were... honestly, you're still rather romanticising a lot of this, and not overly accurately.

As far as what makes an art "traditional", well, that's simple... it is an art that is focused on working within a cultural context, and is set up with a set of traditions (ongoing practices for cultural reasons, largely). Koryu would be classed as classical, referring to a particular age, as well as a number of aspects relating to teaching methodologies and concepts.



Yamabushii said:


> Once again going to point out your constant inaccurate generalizations. I am fully aware of what it means. My entire post has basically been me speaking to Ninpo within the big 3 x-kans needing an overhaul on application of what are great techniques.



What exactly are you pointing out? You make the statement that "techniques that broke bones hundreds of years ago will break bones now", and I said that the technical aspect isn't the difference... it's in how cultural understandings and expressions of violence change over time and in different situation... for example, Western cultural violence has often been more geared towards striking and pugilistic methods, whereas Japanese cultural violence has either been weapons or grabbing/grappling, not striking... then you get into social situations, sense of social distancing, types of clothes worn, and more. And, frankly, I don't think you're aware of much of how that actually affects the expressions and applications of violence... so, no, "techniques that broke bones" isn't what makes a technique "work" or not.



Yamabushii said:


> Again, referring to one of my earlier responses, who is to say Ninpo has to remain koryu forever?



Leaving off that it's not koryu, albeit being based in some koryu and some koryu derived or related arts, the point is that if you change the art to the point where it has nothing left connecting it to what it was, then it's no longer the same art... if you want to study something different, go for it. If you want to create something new without any of the cultural information, training methodologies, focus on historical weaponry, and so forth, again, go for it... but don't think that it's the same thing, as it literally is not. That's the point. You change the thing into something else, it's no longer the thing in the first place. Oh, and considering "koryu" means "old school", referring to the age of the arts, then, well, yeah... once something is old enough to be considered "koryu", then it's kinda that way forever... that's how age works, after all... 



Yamabushii said:


> Did it not constantly evolve over several centuries?



Nope.



Yamabushii said:


> This is a huge issue in the Ninpo community, this over-romanticization of Ninpo forever having to remain completely koryu.



Please. A bigger issue is the over-romanticisation of a false narrative, and a complete lack of understanding of the realities of the situation... combined with expectations that don't match reality (which, I have to say, are often fostered and supported by teachers in the various groups).



Yamabushii said:


> That's incorrect. I'm referring to quite a lot more than just the physical, combative techniques such as (but not limited to) bureaucracy, favoritism, micro-management.



I'm not disputing any of those issues, but that hasn't come across in any of your posts... you talk about the training and teaching methodology, the techniques, the application in a modern context... so... why the other organisational aspects should be read in your comments, I don't know... 



Yamabushii said:


> I think you took what I said out of context. While I mostly agree with your statement, I think you missed my overall point. Whatever their art is, their purpose, they train by constant randori/sparring. I also make points about tournament-centric MAs lacking things like zanshin or how to deal with multiple attackers, or not having weapons training as well, don't get me wrong. At the end of the day, I prefer MAs born from battlefields more than competition-centric MAs. But this mindset that they cannot or should not evolve is very closed-minded.



None of the arts you study are "born from battlefields". None of them. That's a deeply inaccurate romantic image you have. Next, what makes you think there's much in the way of "sparring/randori/rolling" in the training methods of these older schools? Especially when it comes to weapons, a number of schools would go so far as to forbid any kind of competition/duelling (even friendly)... some would emphasise it, of course, but honestly, they were in the minority, and were largely peace-time developments. Certain jujutsu schools would have some free-form training, typically for students of a mid-rank or higher... it would not be common to get it early in the training... 

Honestly, I don't think I took you out of context... you stated that BJJ trains with rolling/sparring from the beginning, so students in such schools are more comfortable rolling than schools that don't... well, yeah. But you have to take into account their purpose... which is largely competitive. 



Yamabushii said:


> Oh I know what my expectations are and they are not unrealistic at all. I know this because much of what I said aren't solely my own views, and the purpose of our organization seeks to ensure Ninpo remains relevant to produce modern Ninpo-ka in a modern world here in the U.S. My intention isn't to completely change traditional Ninpo, but I would laugh at anyone who would dares to tell me there doesn't need to be revisions/updates.



I'll be a bit blunt; to change the technical expression of the arts to conform to your desires/expectations, then you remove the very "flavour" that makes these arts what they are... in other words, yes, it's unrealistic to expect to be able to both dramatically change the way the arts are trained, taught, applied, and structured, but not expect them to change from being what they are. And, as I said, this idea isn't exactly rare... Stephen Hayes promoted the art the same way in the 80's and later... he still does today with his Toshindo approach... and, yes, you can certainly work on how they're trained, but you need to keep them to the same established methods, by and large, or, at least, within the construct of the arts themselves.

It's a matter, really, of choosing one of a few paths... you can make the most of your training in a traditional art by understanding the structure, and training it as authentically as you can... you can add a more modern "self defence" component to your training (this is the one chosen by my teacher, and continued by myself, for the record)... you can train in something else to "fill" that perceived gap... or you can stop entirely and do something that suits your views better.  Any of those can work... but trying to force a square peg in a round hole isn't a great way to go about getting a good result... and, bluntly, with your few years of training and involvement, you're not in that much of a position to laugh at people who have have been doing it a lot longer, and understand the layout a lot better than you do.



Yamabushii said:


> As for Kyoshi Coleman, I saw those videos when they were posted and yes, I agree.



Good to know.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 22, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, with modern technology, striking is relatively safe, so you could incorporate it into sparring practice.
> 
> I do feel that the weapon training is better left to kata practice, or as an exercise to further practice unarmed skills. Aikido has the right approach IMO.



How come?

I would have said that like anything. Learning timing and strategy is very important to success. Which you don't get from kata.






Even a ludo sports approach would work. So they still try to maintain an adherence to a thematic ideal. But within that ideal they develop a measurable skill. 

And look. Within that there will be a core basic principle that applies outside the fantasy.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 22, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> I don't want to put words in Mr. Parker's mouth, so I am sure he will correct me if I am interpreting this wrong.
> 
> In reference to historical context vs. modern:  Yamabushii talked about training against a boxer's jabs and crosses.  This is the whole point...ninjutsu would not have been designed or used against a toe to toe confrontation like that.  It is a COMPLETLEY different mindset, not to mention different strategies and tactics.  Ninjutsu techniques were designed for escape and evasion.  It would have been designed and used if you did get seen/caught by the guards to get away as quickly as possible.



Sort of... yeah. The idea of even going against strikes would be kinda alien to Classical Japanese arts... most "striking" attacks actually represent (often short) bladed weapon attacks, or are designed to provide preparatory skills for learning methods against weapon attacks... which means that, not only is the distance and form of violence very different, but the distancing, observational concepts, social setttings, and more are all quite different. Personally, I wouldn't get too bogged down in the labelling of "ninjutsu"... you're right that anything related to actual ninjutsu would be more escape, evasion kinda thing... but much of what's taught in the X-Kan's is not anything really that related to ninjutsu or similar (most is more "samurai") that that becomes a minor point here. There's more, really, but look to my answer to Tony for some of that.



punisher73 said:


> Look at a "streetfight" and what it typically looks like and then find some videos of a suspect just trying to get away from the police to escape and avoid being arrested.  Talk to any LEO and they can verify that there is a big difference between a person struggling to try and get away and a person wanting to actively fight with you.



This is very true. Rarely does anything "in the street" resemble much like a competitive format (such as BJJ) other than in some superficial aspects... it's rarely symmetrical (which is what you get in competitive formats, by and large), nor is it a case of both participants being "willing"... the aims are different (predatory assault, escape, resource predation, social beatdowns, and so on)... 



punisher73 said:


> I see this as well in other arts.  For example, if you look at older military combatives (Not talking about the newer stuff in the military based on GJJ/MMA that the military admits is used because they want the competition to develop a fighting spirit).  It was designed to crush windpipes, gouge out eyes, use whatever you could find as an improvised weapon to kill and take out the enemy.  How does that translate into civilian self-defense?  It doesn't unless you completely change what it is and then still try and call it by the original name.  If you have been around MA for awhile, there was a HUGE trend for awhile on "Reality Based Self-Defense" (RBSD) and they basically did take the old military combatives and teach those for civilian self-defense.  BUT, they understood the disconnect, so they taught it as EVERY attacker is someone out to kill you and you are in fear for your life to justify using it.



RBSD, by and large, didn't actually operate in that fashion... some people took the name and applied to things like Krav Mags-like approaches (which came out of the very real violence of the Middle East) and older Combatives methods (which, themselves, came from a time where war meant you had a reasonable expectation of getting "up close and personal" with the enemy, so had a real application in mind)... but RBSD, as it was coined by Jim Wagner and employed by Geoff Thompson, Richard Dmitri, Deane Lawler, and others was more about understanding the nature of modern violence... something that, as Rory Miller puts it, happens faster, closer, more suddenly, and more aggressively than people realise (although he's talking about opportunity predation more than anything else there... resource predation often employs more intimidation tactics, for example), and being able to gear your training towards that... often, there was minimal "technique" involved... a teacher might have a preferred one or two technical things that they did, but it was far more about understanding how to handle sudden onslaughts... as well as understanding the social, legal, and psychological aspects and ramifications.



punisher73 said:


> So, if you REALLY wanted to use Ninjutsu for self-defense and "modernize" it.  Your classes would be on emotional intelligence (seeing things from another's perspective), how to read people and body language, de-escalation tactics, understanding set up tactics for a mugging and other scams.  You would train them in how to be a  "gray man" (term coined by preppers/survivalists) and blend in with your surroundings so you don't stand out.  The physical stuff would be very similar to what the original techniques were in learning how to defeat holds, how to distract and/or stun your attacker and get away.  Your classes would also teach how to run "smart" and use the environment to their advantage, where to run to get away, even how to safely hide if you got away and can't get back to your car/home right away.



That's RBSD... and not too far off from my own self defence sections in my school, for the record. Which is, to be absolutely clear, not the martial arts side of things.



Yamabushii said:


> It depends on your perspective. I am not going to say mine is the only correct one, but I certainly am not a hardcore traditionalist. I do appreciate the traditional aspects of the art very much so, but for me, practicing the art isn't for the sake of preservation, it's for practicality.



Then, honestly, you're in the wrong art.



Yamabushii said:


> But regarding utilizing boxers' jabs and crosses, you can say the same about the Jujutsu that's a part of most Ninpo schools as well. Why stand there and engage with someone when you can just throw some metsubushi and run away or hide?



Now, I'm just going to pull this part out to examine it here.... this is a good question. Why would you just stand there and engage with someone? Why would you not just throw metsubishi and run away? Or, more to the point, why would you throw metsubishi and run away? What is the real difference there? When you can answer this, then you will be starting to understand the way these arts work.



Yamabushii said:


> The idea behind teaching aspects of boxing is to incorporate realistic attacks from the uke, as well as utilizing shoulders rolls and bobbing and weaving to close the distance on someone to go for a takedown. You can't always escape. Sometimes you have to engage, and it's not usually as simple as grabbing someone.



Which is a completely different distancing, angling concept, footwork concept, body movement idea, attacking range, and more... making what you're doing not even close to related to the art you're purporting to be doing.



Yamabushii said:


> Chris and I may disagree on preservation vs practicality, but that's okay.



No, that's not the case... you're arguing that you want the art to be a different art for the sake of "practicality", and I'm saying, okay, then do a different art... or at least acknowledge that you're not doing the same one. I'm not saying anything in regards to "preservation"... I'm saying that a traditional art from another culture, representing violence from another time and place, is the wrong choice for a "modern, practical" application... if that's what you're after, great... but it means you train in something else.



Hanzou said:


> A "massive modernization" would have to be something along the lines of Kano's modernization of Judo, where you reject the fluff and focus on maximizing the most effective techniques utilizing a modern methodology.



There's a lot to unpack here... the first would be to define "fluff"... what do you think Kano "rejected"?

Next would be recognising that the very model of "modern methodology" (especially as I described earlier) really started with Kano in the first place... and was based more in his work in the education department than anything to do with martial arts and "practicality"... his reasons were actually quite different to that.



Hanzou said:


> This is a concept that I find rather interesting, and I would be very interested in seeing what would develop from it. And yes, I believe that Ninjutsu definitely needs it. As it stands, I feel the art is slowly fading into obscurity and dillution.



"Fading into obscurity"? "Dillution"? Er.... what? There's probably more practitioners now than there's ever been before... it's hardly "fading into obscurity"... and, really, you're arguing for dilution of the methodologies by arguing that they arts are being diluted? Huh?



Hanzou said:


> I had hoped that Stephen Hayes would go that route with Toshindo, but that has largely been a bust.



Steve's good at the marketing, and has some good ideas, but implementation has been... lacking. Unfortunately, he fell into the trap of thinking he had the answers already, and just reworked what he already had, rather than exploring the area he wanted to move into thoroughly... 



Hanzou said:


> That said, I don't know what lane a modernized Ninjutsu could occupy.



Good question. Realistically, I'd say that Hatsumi wanted it to be like Aikido, but didn't have the teaching skills or (likely) disciplined focus to make it that... besides, Aikido didn't really become Aikido until Kisshomaru began giving it some structure... before that, it was Ueshiba-ryu, and Ueshiba-ryu only (as in it was him only). To make it a "modern combat" art, though, it would take it more towards Krav Maga... there's actually a fair bit of similarity when you get down to it, with some differences in teaching approaches and methodology, as well as contextual application... but the technical and tactical approaches are largely in sync with each other.



Hanzou said:


> Currently you have four major martial arts that are descended from Jujutsu; Judo, Aikido, BJJ, and Sambo. If self defense and effectiveness is your goal, you should look at Judo and its descendant styles of BJJ and Sambo. If modernization with a strong traditional aesthetic is your gaol, Aikido would be a good model to look upon. I think following a mixed path that blends the effectiveness of the Judo-based systems and the traditional aesthetic of Aikido would be the best way to modernize the art. However, what would this system be like? Would it include striking? Would it only be throws? Would it contain kata? Would it provide some level of weapon training?



Well, the arts that make up the Takamatsuden (X-Kan) systems are all kata based... and include a fair amount of weapons and striking... so I'm not sure how you can remove them and claim it's even close to the same art... it's like taking punches out of boxing and still thinking it's boxing... 

Here's the thing... not only are you not in a position to discuss what "changes" should happen, or what it should be like, what you're describing means we don't even have the same art anymore... we have something completely different. If that's what someone wants to do, hey, great... but it's not the same thing anymore at all. It's not a "modernised form" of Takamatsuden arts, it's a completely new and different art entirely. Potentially partially technically based, but even that would be a stretch once you've removed 80% of the art's methods.



Hanzou said:


> These are all questions that would need to be answered. Obviously the main thing that would need to happen would be the community having a desire to modernize.



And understand what is meant by that. But, again, if people are training in a traditional art, they signed up to a traditional art (and dojo), with traditional methods and techniques, what makes you think they'd be overly interested in "modernizing"? Oh, and I get the immediate answer of "well, just look at this thread"... but, to be frank, I don't think Omar really wants to modernise in that sense... he just wants the art to be what he considers practical, and is looking at surface, superficial aspects (dominantly) regarding that... to do what is being proposed is to create a new martial art, not modernise an existing one.



drop bear said:


> I think Dog brothers or even a hema would be the modernisation of Ninjutsu.



Then you would be wrong. Quite badly, really... especially thinking of HEMA as a "modernisation" of anything... if anything, it's an attempt to go back in time... 



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I know Akban is Ninjutsu/Bjj/hema.



I'd disagree with that... for one thing, there is no BJJ or HEMA in Akban at all... its basically Bujinkan with some Judo approaches and a healthy randori aspect... I don't agree with a number of their applications and conclusions, but that's a different discussion... I'm also not fond of their stealing other arts methods and passing off their lacking versions as something they actually teach... 



Hanzou said:


> I dunno, guess I was just thinking more along the lines of Judo and Aikido.



While there's some superficial similarities (more than in some of the other proposals), there's still a major separation between these approaches and those of the Takamatsuden arts.



dunc said:


> The issue is that going down those kind of routes means removing key parts of techniques (eg striking in the case of judo and a whole load of other stuff in the case of Aikido)
> Which is essentially the steps that their founders took
> And by doing that you lose what makes the art distinct



Yep. And, in doing so, create a new art, not "modernise" an existing one.



dunc said:


> Having said that I do think there’s scope to add more realism in the training methods and to integrate obvious gaps like newaza. Is this modernisation? Maybe



It comes down to your reasons, really... I mean... why would you need to add ne-waza? Culturally, it doesn't match the arts... nor does it really match tactically... so why would you do it? The most common reason is that it becomes a perceived lack, mainly as you see all the other arts doing it, and get the impression that it's "needed"... while I do teach a limited amount of BJJ-derived ground work, it's all in the context of the self-defence portion of my classes... adding it to classical (or classically-structured) arts is, to my mind, rather redundant.



dunc said:


> If you really wanted to modernise it then you’d focus on using / dealing with weapons that are available nowadays (no more swords and spears etc). Which might be an interesting journey to go down
> When do we replace the jutte with a beer bottle, or really study how to use an umbrella for example?



Ha, I wouldn't suggest replacing the jutte with a beer bottle, unless you want the students good at getting stitches (glassing someone is usually just as bad for the glasser as the glassee...), however a security baton, or flashlight, or rolled up magazine... that is a good option. And an exploration of the traditional methods utilising more modern weapons and attacks is good, really... a wholesale change of the art to that, on the other hand, is not the way to go about it. And, of course, you still run the risk of instructors not knowing enough to really do anything like these explorations in a realistic fashion... 



Hanzou said:


> Would it be possible to relegate striking to kata like Judo, and utilize weapons to expand unarmed concepts like Aikido does with the bokken and still retain the flavor/distinctiveness of the system?



90+% of what we do is kata... really, it should be over 95%... so where do you think our striking is? And, no, utilising weapons the way Aikido does is far from an answer... the reasons for the weapon training is exactly opposite, so is nothing like a workable comparison.



drop bear said:


> You could do striking like kudo. And probably even do padded weapons.



Again, I don't think you know how we train... 



drop bear said:


> I think if you could actually sword fight or take a weapon off someone that would be a modern applicable skill
> 
> Rather than replace the sword with a beer bottle but not update the expectations of results.



Yeah... what exactly do you know of our kata, and what such an expectation of results (whatever that means) would be?


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 22, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, with modern technology, striking is relatively safe, so you could incorporate it into sparring practice.



The more important thing to look at is the aim of the sparring, if it were to be integrated, then look at the methodology...



Hanzou said:


> I do feel that the weapon training is better left to kata practice,



So do most koryu, but probably not the kata you're thinking...



Hanzou said:


> or as an exercise to further practice unarmed skills. Aikido has the right approach IMO.



Er.... no. At least, not in respect to studying weapons.



drop bear said:


> How come?
> 
> I would have said that like anything. Learning timing and strategy is very important to success. Which you don't get from kata.



Er... that's precisely what you get from kata... as well as distancing... 



drop bear said:


> Even a ludo sports approach would work. So they still try to maintain an adherence to a thematic ideal. But within that ideal they develop a measurable skill.



It helps when you start from fantasy... with regards to actual weapon use, kendo would have been a better example... and also shows the problem with thinking of kendo as swordsmanship... 



drop bear said:


> And look. Within that there will be a core basic principle that applies outside the fantasy.



But not actual weapon usage (in a realistic fashion - here meaning with a realistic appreciation of how these weapons work, distancing, targeting, tactical methodologies, where you are or are not safe, and so on).


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 22, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> There's a lot to unpack here... the first would be to define "fluff"... what do you think Kano "rejected"?



He removed the dangerous techniques and focused on techniques that could be practiced relatively safely. This increased the general skill level of his practitioners. 




Chris Parker said:


> Next would be recognising that the very model of "modern methodology" (especially as I described earlier) really started with Kano in the first place... and was based more in his work in the education department than anything to do with martial arts and "practicality"... his reasons were actually quite different to that.



I would happily argue that Judo and it's descendant systems have done a very good job of proving their worth in the practicality department.

Ninjutsu on the other hand....



Chris Parker said:


> "Fading into obscurity"? "Dillution"? Er.... what? There's probably more practitioners now than there's ever been before... it's hardly "fading into obscurity"... and, really, you're arguing for dilution of the methodologies by arguing that they arts are being diluted? Huh?



I'm arguing for a refinement of the methodology in order to bring it into the modern era. As for Ninjutsu not fading into obscurity, we'll just have to agree to disagree.




Chris Parker said:


> 90+% of what we do is kata... really, it should be over 95%...



Didn't Judo's success show that a high level of safe sparring and a minor emphasis on kata created more effective martial artists whom were far more capable of executing their techniques under duress?


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 22, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> The more important thing to look at is the aim of the sparring, if it were to be integrated, then look at the methodology...



The aim of the sparring would the same aim as in other MAs like Judo, BJJ, Boxing, Muay Thai, etc. It is all done to enhance the general skill of the practitioners, and teach them how to apply those techniques under duress. That in turn increases the general effectiveness of the system.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 22, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Then you would be wrong. Quite badly, really... especially thinking of HEMA as a "modernisation" of anything... if anything, it's an attempt to go back in time...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd disagree with that... for one thing, there is no BJJ or HEMA in Akban at all... its basically Bujinkan with some Judo approaches and a healthy randori aspect... I don't agree with a number of their applications and conclusions, but that's a different discussion... I'm also not fond of their stealing other arts methods and passing off their lacking versions as something they actually teach...








						AKBAN Ninjutsu Academy | Researching Martial arts, Emotion Regulation and Conflicts
					

The AKBAN academy site is an expert level martial arts research database. AKBAN was founded at 1986 in Israel and teaches hard core Ninjutsu based martial art as a way of life.



					www.akban.org


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 22, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> RBSD, by and large, didn't actually operate in that fashion... some people took the name and applied to things like Krav Mags-like approaches (which came out of the very real violence of the Middle East) and older Combatives methods (which, themselves, came from a time where war meant you had a reasonable expectation of getting "up close and personal" with the enemy, so had a real application in mind)... but RBSD, as it was coined by Jim Wagner and employed by Geoff Thompson, Richard Dmitri, Deane Lawler, and others was more about understanding the nature of modern violence... something that, as Rory Miller puts it, happens faster, closer, more suddenly, and more aggressively than people realise (although he's talking about opportunity predation more than anything else there... resource predation often employs more intimidation tactics, for example), and being able to gear your training towards that... often, there was minimal "technique" involved... a teacher might have a preferred one or two technical things that they did, but it was far more about understanding how to handle sudden onslaughts... as well as understanding the social, legal, and psychological aspects and ramifications.



I should have been more clear on my usage and discussion of the term, "RBSD" and elaborated a bit more.  Those guys (the ones you mentioned) developed a "civilian self-defense" model appropriate for more modern times and use that term to describe it.  My reference was to those instructors who use the term "RBSD" and teach things like WW2 combatives AS a civilian self-defense model as it was taught and meant to be used by the soldiers back then and the disconnect between the two methods (wartime military vs. civilian) and the trouble you could get into if you try to use them on someone to protect yourself in most situations (for example, eye gouging in response to a shove).

We are in agreement that systems are designed for a specific environment and function.  When you change those parameters the system doesn't always function the way it was meant to be used.  I always remember reading an interview with Rickson Gracie (its been years and I can't remember the martial arts magazine it was in).  but basically he said that BJJ was designed for the Brazilian culture where everyone would circle up and watch the fight and not get involved (question was along the lines of bystanders and kicking you on the ground) he also said that if he ever got in a fight in the US, he would punch and run and also probably carry a weapon because other people like to get involved.


----------



## Buka (Sep 22, 2021)

This thread makes me realize how little I know about anything.

It makes my head go like this.....


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 22, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> I should have been more clear on my usage and discussion of the term, "RBSD" and elaborated a bit more.  Those guys (the ones you mentioned) developed a "civilian self-defense" model appropriate for more modern times and use that term to describe it.  My reference was to those instructors who use the term "RBSD" and teach things like WW2 combatives AS a civilian self-defense model as it was taught and meant to be used by the soldiers back then and the disconnect between the two methods (wartime military vs. civilian) and the trouble you could get into if you try to use them on someone to protect yourself in most situations (for example, eye gouging in response to a shove).
> 
> We are in agreement that systems are designed for a specific environment and function.  When you change those parameters the system doesn't always function the way it was meant to be used.  I always remember reading an interview with Rickson Gracie (its been years and I can't remember the martial arts magazine it was in).  but basically he said that BJJ was designed for the Brazilian culture where everyone would circle up and watch the fight and not get involved (question was along the lines of bystanders and kicking you on the ground) he also said that if he ever got in a fight in the US, he would punch and run and also probably carry a weapon because other people like to get involved.



To be fair, people circle around and watch people fight in the US too. It ain’t just Brazil.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 22, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, people circle around and watch people fight in the US too. It ain’t just Brazil.



Didn't say they didn't.  Rickson's point was that (at the time of his interview/experience) bystanders didn't get involved at all in Brazil and he felt that they did in the US and didn't want to risk going to the ground because of that.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 22, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> Didn't say they didn't.  Rickson's point was that (at the time of his interview/experience) bystanders didn't get involved at all in Brazil and he felt that they did in the US and didn't want to risk going to the ground because of that.


It's also probably relevant that Rickson (and other Gracies who tended to get into fights on the beach and in the streets) often traveled with a posse of friends and family members who could enforce the "let those guys fight it out one on one" code. For example, check out Rickson's famous fight on the beach with Hugo Duarte.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 22, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> Didn't say they didn't.  Rickson's point was that (at the time of his interview/experience) bystanders didn't get involved at all in Brazil and he felt that they did in the US and didn't want to risk going to the ground because of that.



The core principles still basically work though. 

You are going to have a hard time holding Rickson down so your friends can womp him. 

Where you would have a much easier time with your average ninja. 

Which I think is the difference between modernization vs just working well.


----------



## Buka (Sep 22, 2021)

drop bear said:


> The core principles still basically work though.
> 
> You are going to have a hard time holding Rickson down so your friends can womp him.
> 
> ...


As a related aside, when Rickson goes knee on belly to you - it's like being an insect stuck with a pin in science class.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 23, 2021)

Hanzou said:


> He removed the dangerous techniques and focused on techniques that could be practiced relatively safely. This increased the general skill level of his practitioners.



And this is what you refer to as the "fluff"? The dangerous techniques... are the "fluff"? You, er, do get the idea of "martial art", yeah?

Besides which, did he? Did he "remove" them? Or just remove them from randori practice? There's a big difference there... was it that he "rejected" anything, as you suggested?



Hanzou said:


> I would happily argue that Judo and it's descendant systems have done a very good job of proving their worth in the practicality department.
> 
> Ninjutsu on the other hand....



Snide digs aside, did you want to read what I actually wrote? What I said was that the reasons for the changes were largely pedagogical, based in Kano's work in the education system in Japan, rather than for the reason of "practicality"... I said nothing about whether or not anything was or wasn't "practical", or had any results one way or the other... so, sure, argue away... but, once again, you're arguing with something that no-one has ever said... 



Hanzou said:


> I'm arguing for a refinement of the methodology in order to bring it into the modern era. As for Ninjutsu not fading into obscurity, we'll just have to agree to disagree.



Agree to disagree? No. I'm speaking from a factual standpoint regarding the membership on a global scale, and you're thinking that, as it's not represented in areas you inhabit, it's not still around. One is a comment based in reality, the other on a limited perspective giving a skewed understanding... and, again, practitioners of an art that is not in line with your own doesn't mean it needs to change to be what you do in order to "bring it into the modern era"... if people want to train in something like Judo, or BJJ, or MMA, then guess what? They will. But if they want something more along the lines of what is found in the Takamatsuden arts, then guess what? They'll end up there. And if they want something different again? This is why there are so many options... and if you've found what you like, that's great! It doesn't mean anything other than that you've found what you like, though... so, perhaps you should try to understand what something else is, and (more importantly) why it is what it is, before you insist on changes to bring it into line with your limited approach?



Hanzou said:


> Didn't Judo's success show that a high level of safe sparring and a minor emphasis on kata created more effective martial artists whom were far more capable of executing their techniques under duress?



Kano didn't think so. Randori was only meant to be a minor aspect, a limited approach with limited (realistic) value... it was a training method that was, by definition, only really usable in a small facet of martial art study... and was never meant to be the focus or defining factor of Judo or the Kodokan. 

In fact, Kano didn't consider randori to be the most important aspect... he felt that the Kime no Kata, followed by the Katame no Kata, were the real "heart" of the Kodokan's methods... as that was where the actual "martial art" of Judo lay (especially in Kime no Kata). He also wanted the Kodokan to not just be Judo, but to be a kind of central location for all Japanese martial arts. He felt that only training Judo would lead someone to be a rather one-trick martial artist, incomplete, and that would be further amplified by focusing on randori as a primary focus. This is why he maintained the Koshiki no Kata (Kito Ryu), and developed another dozen or so sets of kata, either newly created (Kime, Katame, Nage, Ju), or were imported from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (Itsutsu no Kata) or Kito Ryu (Koshiki no Kata). He also wanted the Kodokan to be the central base for the newer, and newly developing arts, such as Kendo, Jodo, and later Iaido, as well as a number of koryu. This is why he sent students to Ueshiba, why he brought in Shimizu Takauji to teach Jodo to his Yondan and above students, why he invited four shihan of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu to the Kodokan to teach his senior students "real" martial arts... 

Randori, really, was just a training method that could be utilised by any school... Kano talked the newly formed Butokukai into having a jujutsu division (initially it was focused on what they referred to as "kenjutsu", basically early kendo), and brought in a number of teachers of a range of koryu to help preserve them in some fashion. Remember, the samurai era had ended less than half a century before, and many of the old generation teachers were wondering if they had a place anymore... Kano was convinced they did, and that what they taught had value, so he worked with them, and created the Randori no Kata (Nage no Kata and Katame no Kata) to get a core, somewhat simplified set of techniques that could be drilled in randori, and the Kime no Kata to preserve the "heart" of Japanese jujutsu (I've had some great conversations with members of the schools whose techniques went into the formation of the Kime no Kata, comparing how they were altered, and so on... very interesting!). But randori wasn't really meant to be it's own thing, and especially not a focus... back in those days, you only competed with it up to Yondan at the most... and weren't a teacher until Sandan... it was, really, for early development, to be done while you were still young enough... but has come to signify "Judo". It's the beginners version, really.

When it comes to the idea of "high level of safe sparring and a minor emphasis on kata creat(ing) more effective martial artists", well... no. It created competitors who got good at applying a more limited skill set in a restricted format... if that's the same thing to you, though, that's going to be your perspective... it wasn't Kano's...



Hanzou said:


> The aim of the sparring would the same aim as in other MAs like Judo, BJJ, Boxing, Muay Thai, etc. It is all done to enhance the general skill of the practitioners, and teach them how to apply those techniques under duress. That in turn increases the general effectiveness of the system.



So... Judo... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... BJJ... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... Boxing... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... muay Thai... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... really, the only thing you can say is that training in a sporting, competitive format helps you in performing in a sporting, competitive format... uh... okay....

But, more to the point, you've basically looked at one aim, one context, and looked at four different variations of the same thing. That's not the same as looking at what the randori aims would be in an art that doesn't fit that context or mentality at all... which is my point. You aren't looking at the art itself, you're looking at your (bluntly) very limited and narrow perspective and value set.

In other words, there are any number of other aims for various "sparring"/free-form/randori approaches, each of which will alter the structure employed... and that aim has to be congruent with the art, otherwise, what's the point? You want to to BJJ, do BJJ, you want to do MMA, do MMA, you want to do Judo, do Judo... but thinking something different is going to necessarily match it in aim, mentality, approach? You're doing a disservice to all involved there.

I also note you've linked a BJJ page from the Akban site... okay, so they may have begun to work with someone from BJJ... it's not featured in any of their approach that I've seen, but it's possible... of course, they have a habit of putting things up to claim they are teaching (and have been taught) a number of things, such as Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu (Portal:Traditional weapons)... and, believe me, they haven't (I do kinda love the comment about "all criticism is welcome"... when I called Yossi out for his Katori posting, he blocked me... ha!). 

Yossi started under Doron Navon, a judoka and Feldenkrais teacher who was one of the first non-Japanese training with Hatsumi in Japan, starting around 1966, for the record... which is where the Bujinkan and Judo comes from. BJJ? Without listing who the teacher is? Any rank? Affiliation? Yeah... not sold. And absolutely no HEMA in their work at all. So I still hold that, no, Akban is not what you claimed.



punisher73 said:


> I should have been more clear on my usage and discussion of the term, "RBSD" and elaborated a bit more.  Those guys (the ones you mentioned) developed a "civilian self-defense" model appropriate for more modern times and use that term to describe it.



Cool.



punisher73 said:


> My reference was to those instructors who use the term "RBSD" and teach things like WW2 combatives AS a civilian self-defense model as it was taught and meant to be used by the soldiers back then and the disconnect between the two methods (wartime military vs. civilian) and the trouble you could get into if you try to use them on someone to protect yourself in most situations (for example, eye gouging in response to a shove).



Yeah... that ain't RBSD, no matter what they call it. Really not too dissimilar to people with a bit of karate, maybe some TKD, possibly a bit of Judo, suddenly claiming to be teaching "ninjitsu"... it ain't, no matter what they call it... 



punisher73 said:


> We are in agreement that systems are designed for a specific environment and function.  When you change those parameters the system doesn't always function the way it was meant to be used.



Yep!



punisher73 said:


> I always remember reading an interview with Rickson Gracie (its been years and I can't remember the martial arts magazine it was in).  but basically he said that BJJ was designed for the Brazilian culture where everyone would circle up and watch the fight and not get involved (question was along the lines of bystanders and kicking you on the ground) he also said that if he ever got in a fight in the US, he would punch and run and also probably carry a weapon because other people like to get involved.



And this is what I was referring to when I spoke about cultural understandings of violence... Brazil has a fairly major focus on "machismo" and "manliness/toughness" as part of it's image, tempered with a sense of fairness in conjunction... so fights between young men in public is just an expression of that... the circling is both so there could be witnesses to the toughness and macho-ness of the men, as well as to enforce the societal expectations and rules... all of which leads to the adoption of tactics that are allowable (and safe) in such a situation that might be a bad idea in others... to go back to the beginning of this post, the idea of a limited repertoire to enable a form of free-training (randori) in Judo has the same result... things that work well in that environment, but aren't necessarily the best plan in others (which is why Kano didn't want it to be the big aspect... Kime no Kata teaches the "martial art" side of Judo... randori doesn't).

Now, we're talking here about a modern, largely Westernised culture, in the last half century... what happens when you look at a cultural understanding of violence from a completely different (Eastern) culture, with a completely different social structure and expectation, from centuries ago?



Buka said:


> This thread makes me realize how little I know about anything.
> 
> It makes my head go like this.....



Ha! We're only scratching the surface here....



drop bear said:


> The core principles still basically work though.
> 
> You are going to have a hard time holding Rickson down so your friends can womp him.
> 
> ...



Rickson is much harder to hold down because he trains in that environment. It's not a matter of a difference between "modernisation vs just working well", as you haven't really differentiated them for one thing, but more importantly, you're just saying that training to a focus and a context works better for that focus and context... well, yeah. The biggest issue is you guys all want to use your focus and context to represent all martial approaches... and the world is a lot bigger than that.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> I should have been more clear on my usage and discussion of the term, "RBSD" and elaborated a bit more.  Those guys (the ones you mentioned) developed a "civilian self-defense" model appropriate for more modern times and use that term to describe it.  My reference was to those instructors who use the term "RBSD" and teach things like WW2 combatives AS a civilian self-defense model as it was taught and meant to be used by the soldiers back then and the disconnect between the two methods (wartime military vs. civilian) and the trouble you could get into if you try to use them on someone to protect yourself in most situations (for example, eye gouging in response to a shove).
> 
> We are in agreement that systems are designed for a specific environment and function.  When you change those parameters the system doesn't always function the way it was meant to be used.  I always remember reading an interview with Rickson Gracie (its been years and I can't remember the martial arts magazine it was in).  but basically he said that BJJ was designed for the Brazilian culture where everyone would circle up and watch the fight and not get involved (question was along the lines of bystanders and kicking you on the ground) he also said that if he ever got in a fight in the US, he would punch and run and also probably carry a weapon because other people like to get involved.


There's always a transfer of learning going on, whether someone is going from being a ninja or competing in cage fighting.  If a ninja is confronted with real world violence, he or she will rely only on their ability to transfer what they've learned from a guy like Chris Parker (who has said in the past he's never even been in a fight).   That's all they get, so in a moment of genuine crisis, it's in their best interest to have a realistic idea of what they can actually do, and what they cannot.  I don't believe they can get that from someone who doesn't even have a realistic impression of what he can do himself.   The pernicious thing here is that they are being told they are better prepared than someone who trains for sport, and that is borderline criminal in my opinion.  It's the same as telling someone they are safer from COVID by drinking Ivermectin than getting vaccinated.

People who train in BJJ or MMA, if confonted with violence outside of the gym, are in the same boat.  They are also transferring skills from one context to another.  The advantage that a person who trains BJJ has is that he or she has actually applied their skills in context, and so they know how good they are and what they are able to do, because they do it in competition. 

Let's say we have two guys, one is an experienced farrier who has never made a knife, but is experienced working with iron and steel, and one who has practiced making knives for years, but has never actually turned on the forge.  The former guy doesn't know much about knives. He's familiar with them because he uses them, but he's very comfortable working with metal.  The latter knows all the jargon and can talk for hours about the theory involved.

If you point a gun at both of them and say, the first person to make a functional knife will live.  The other one dies.  Who do you think, under extreme pressure and stress, is best prepared?  I know I'd expect the experienced farrier to succeed.  He understands how to make things with iron and steel and can transfer his practical expertise to making something different.  The latter guy is still at a comprehension level, able to talk about things, but never having done it.  Given time... and experience... he could probably figure it out.  But under pressure, and with no option for failure (such as in a self defense situation), he is not well prepared.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 23, 2021)

Steve said:


> There's always a transfer of learning going on, whether someone is going from being a ninja or competing in cage fighting.  If a ninja is confronted with real world violence, he or she will rely only on their ability to transfer what they've learned from a guy like Chris Parker (who has said in the past he's never even been in a fight).   That's all they get, so in a moment of genuine crisis, it's in their best interest to have a realistic idea of what they can actually do, and what they cannot.  I don't believe they can get that from someone who doesn't even have a realistic impression of what he can do himself.   The pernicious thing here is that they are being told they are better prepared than someone who trains for sport, and that is borderline criminal in my opinion.  It's the same as telling someone they are safer from COVID by drinking Ivermectin than getting vaccinated.
> 
> People who train in BJJ or MMA, if confonted with violence outside of the gym, are in the same boat.  They are also transferring skills from one context to another.  The advantage that a person who trains BJJ has is that he or she has actually applied their skills in context, and so they know how good they are and what they are able to do, because they do it in competition.
> 
> ...



Are you genuinely unable to read simple English, Steve? Really?

"... a guy like Chris Parker (who has said in the past that he's never even been in a fight)"

Dude. Stop. For one thing, that has never been said by me. In addition. I have stated, directly, to you, multiple times that that is far from the case. I have listed numerous physical encounters, and ones that I have managed to avoid physical conflict in. 

You constantly lie regarding what I've claimed, and have no clue what the hell you're talking about. Get over whatever the hell your problem is. Now.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you genuinely unable to read simple English, Steve? Really?


Me fail English?  That's unpossible!


Chris Parker said:


> "... a guy like Chris Parker (who has said in the past that he's never even been in a fight)"
> 
> Dude. Stop. For one thing, that has never been said by me. In addition. I have stated, directly, to you, multiple times that that is far from the case. I have listed numerous physical encounters, and ones that I have managed to avoid physical conflict in.
> 
> You constantly lie regarding what I've claimed, and have no clue what the hell you're talking about. Get over whatever the hell your problem is. Now.


Calm down.  You've also claimed expertise in BJJ, as well.  Hard to keep up with what you claim, to be honest.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 23, 2021)

EXPERIENCE in BJJ, Steve... seriously, you seem to try to go out of your way to discredit me at every opportunity, despite it all being refuted and refutable. Whatever the hell your problem is, get over it. Now.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> And this is what you refer to as the "fluff"? The dangerous techniques... are the "fluff"? You, er, do get the idea of "martial art", yeah?



Yes, the techniques that you can never practice at full power because they're too dangerous to your partner. Thus you never really practice them, nor do you ever gain enough proficiency to use them effectively. Which is why it has been proven to be better to practice techniques that can be repeated in a safe environment over and over in order to gain a high level of proficiency against a resisting partner.



Chris Parker said:


> Besides which, did he? Did he "remove" them? Or just remove them from randori practice? There's a big difference there... was it that he "rejected" anything, as you suggested?



He removed them from randori practice. Considering that Judoka don't get tested for Kata knowledge until their Shodan rank (and its only the first kata) that means that the vast majority of the time Judoka are doing randori instead of kata. Heck, some Judo schools have removed kata entirely.



Chris Parker said:


> Snide digs aside, did you want to read what I actually wrote? What I said was that the reasons for the changes were largely pedagogical, based in Kano's work in the education system in Japan, rather than for the reason of "practicality"... I said nothing about whether or not anything was or wasn't "practical", or had any results one way or the other... so, sure, argue away... but, once again, you're arguing with something that no-one has ever said...



I would argue that importing new techniques, removing techniques, removing kata, creating new kata, and relegating certain techniques to kata go quite a bit beyond merely pedagogical. You're in fact creating an entirely new martial art. And the point remains, the result was simply a more effective system of martial arts that in turn spawned other highly effective forms of martial arts.



Chris Parker said:


> Agree to disagree? No. I'm speaking from a factual standpoint regarding the membership on a global scale, and you're thinking that, as it's not represented in areas you inhabit, it's not still around. One is a comment based in reality, the other on a limited perspective giving a skewed understanding... and, again, practitioners of an art that is not in line with your own doesn't mean it needs to change to be what you do in order to "bring it into the modern era"... if people want to train in something like Judo, or BJJ, or MMA, then guess what? They will. But if they want something more along the lines of what is found in the Takamatsuden arts, then guess what? They'll end up there. And if they want something different again? This is why there are so many options... and if you've found what you like, that's great! It doesn't mean anything other than that you've found what you like, though... so, perhaps you should try to understand what something else is, and (more importantly) why it is what it is, before you insist on changes to bring it into line with your limited approach?



I said we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm not even sure Ninutsu practitioners themselves even know what Ninjutsu is these days. There has been a constant debate about who is teaching the "real" stuff, and it's an argument I simply don't want to get mired into. What I do know is that if someone states that they practice anything related to the Bujinkan, they simply aren't taken seriously. Individuals obtaining 20th degree black belts and being unable to fight out of a paper bag will do that to a system.




Chris Parker said:


> Kano didn't think so. Randori was only meant to be a minor aspect, a limited approach with limited (realistic) value... it was a training method that was, by definition, only really usable in a small facet of martial art study... and was never meant to be the focus or defining factor of Judo or the Kodokan.
> 
> In fact, Kano didn't consider randori to be the most important aspect... he felt that the Kime no Kata, followed by the Katame no Kata, were the real "heart" of the Kodokan's methods... as that was where the actual "martial art" of Judo lay (especially in Kime no Kata). He also wanted the Kodokan to not just be Judo, but to be a kind of central location for all Japanese martial arts. He felt that only training Judo would lead someone to be a rather one-trick martial artist, incomplete, and that would be further amplified by focusing on randori as a primary focus. This is why he maintained the Koshiki no Kata (Kito Ryu), and developed another dozen or so sets of kata, either newly created (Kime, Katame, Nage, Ju), or were imported from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (Itsutsu no Kata) or Kito Ryu (Koshiki no Kata). He also wanted the Kodokan to be the central base for the newer, and newly developing arts, such as Kendo, Jodo, and later Iaido, as well as a number of koryu. This is why he sent students to Ueshiba, why he brought in Shimizu Takauji to teach Jodo to his Yondan and above students, why he invited four shihan of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu to the Kodokan to teach his senior students "real" martial arts...
> 
> Randori, really, was just a training method that could be utilised by any school... Kano talked the newly formed Butokukai into having a jujutsu division (initially it was focused on what they referred to as "kenjutsu", basically early kendo), and brought in a number of teachers of a range of koryu to help preserve them in some fashion. Remember, the samurai era had ended less than half a century before, and many of the old generation teachers were wondering if they had a place anymore... Kano was convinced they did, and that what they taught had value, so he worked with them, and created the Randori no Kata (Nage no Kata and Katame no Kata) to get a core, somewhat simplified set of techniques that could be drilled in randori, and the Kime no Kata to preserve the "heart" of Japanese jujutsu (I've had some great conversations with members of the schools whose techniques went into the formation of the Kime no Kata, comparing how they were altered, and so on... very interesting!). But randori wasn't really meant to be it's own thing, and especially not a focus... back in those days, you only competed with it up to Yondan at the most... and weren't a teacher until Sandan... it was, really, for early development, to be done while you were still young enough... but has come to signify "Judo". It's the beginners version, really.



Kano's intentions aside, the fact remains that you aren't really tested on kata in Judo until you're testing for you first black belt, and even then, you're only tested on the first kata. So that means from your first day in Judo until the middle of brown you're doing far more randori than kata, if you're doing kata at all. That's my point, and it's a far different situation than the 90-95% kata situation you're describing.



Chris Parker said:


> When it comes to the idea of "high level of safe sparring and a minor emphasis on kata creat(ing) more effective martial artists", well... no. It created competitors who got good at applying a more limited skill set in a restricted format... if that's the same thing to you, though, that's going to be your perspective... it wasn't Kano's...
> 
> So... Judo... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... BJJ... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... Boxing... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... muay Thai... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... really, the only thing you can say is that training in a sporting, competitive format helps you in performing in a sporting, competitive format... uh... okay....



This comes down to what we consider martial skill. If a BJJ black belt enters a classical JJ school and can easily submit everyone in there, then clearly the martial skill has been better taught to the BJJ black belt. Now we can toss in a bunch of nonsense to attempt to counter this point, but the simple reality is that most people enter martial arts in order to increase their fighting ability, and in the grand scheme of martial arts history, the martial arts that have less reliance on kata have performed better in terms of fighting effectiveness. Further, most of those competitive sports you mentioned were created for self defense purposes. Kano said Judo can be used for self defense, and the Gracies obviously viewed BJJ as being applicable to self defense. Considering that Toshindo and the Akban have adopted BJJ into their curriculums, it would appear that they have a similar view, despite its sportive aspects.



Chris Parker said:


> But, more to the point, you've basically looked at one aim, one context, and looked at four different variations of the same thing. That's not the same as looking at what the randori aims would be in an art that doesn't fit that context or mentality at all... which is my point. You aren't looking at the art itself, you're looking at your (bluntly) very limited and narrow perspective and value set.
> 
> In other words, there are any number of other aims for various "sparring"/free-form/randori approaches, each of which will alter the structure employed... and that aim has to be congruent with the art, otherwise, what's the point? You want to to BJJ, do BJJ, you want to do MMA, do MMA, you want to do Judo, do Judo... but thinking something different is going to necessarily match it in aim, mentality, approach? You're doing a disservice to all involved there.



Shouldn't the aim be to create better martial artists? Wouldn't better martial artists be those that can properly defend themselves if attacked? Isn't that the aim of the majority of people who venture into martial art schools?




Chris Parker said:


> I also note you've linked a BJJ page from the Akban site... okay, so they may have begun to work with someone from BJJ... it's not featured in any of their approach that I've seen, but it's possible... of course, they have a habit of putting things up to claim they are teaching (and have been taught) a number of things, such as Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu (Portal:Traditional weapons)... and, believe me, they haven't (I do kinda love the comment about "all criticism is welcome"... when I called Yossi out for his Katori posting, he blocked me... ha!).
> 
> Yossi started under Doron Navon, a judoka and Feldenkrais teacher who was one of the first non-Japanese training with Hatsumi in Japan, starting around 1966, for the record... which is where the Bujinkan and Judo comes from. BJJ? Without listing who the teacher is? Any rank? Affiliation? Yeah... not sold. And absolutely no HEMA in their work at all. So I still hold that, no, Akban is not what you claimed.



The link says that BJJ is now part of the syllabus of Akban. I did read somewhere that they have also incorporated HEMA into their teachings, however that's rather irrelevant. The relevant point is that you have a Ninjutsu organization actively incorporating outside, modern methods to enhance their perceived effectiveness. Toshindo has also done this (but they hilariously claim it is some Earth-based Ninja style or something) for the same goal. I have seen the newaza from both schools, and yeah the influence of BJJ is very clear, and pretty much proves the point that there are Ninjutsu orgs out there that see a problem with their standard teaching methods and are looking for solutions.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> EXPERIENCE in BJJ, Steve... seriously, you seem to try to go out of your way to discredit me at every opportunity, despite it all being refuted and refutable. Whatever the hell your problem is, get over it. Now.


You're just a convenient example of a larger point, which is that instructors can only share with their students what they really know.  And the students will only be able to do what they gain expertise in doing themselves.  You can't transfer their learning to practice for them.  You can't fake experience, and where the stakes are potentially dire, it's irresponsible to give people an unrealistic impression of what they're really learning.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Rickson is much harder to hold down because he trains in that environment. It's not a matter of a difference between "modernisation vs just working well", as you haven't really differentiated them for one thing, but more importantly, you're just saying that training to a focus and a context works better for that focus and context... well, yeah. The biggest issue is you guys all want to use your focus and context to represent all martial approaches... and the world is a lot bigger than that.



That is a highly narrow view of looking at Rickson's skill set, and what can be applied with that skill set. The ability to hold someone down who is being aggressive and the ability to not be pinned down when someone is on top of you is applicable to a LOT of self defense situations. Frankly it is an invaluable skill to have.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 23, 2021)

Steve said:


> There's always a transfer of learning going on, whether someone is going from being a ninja or competing in cage fighting.  If a ninja is confronted with real world violence, he or she will rely only on their ability to transfer what they've learned from a guy like Chris Parker (who has said in the past he's never even been in a fight).   That's all they get, so in a moment of genuine crisis, it's in their best interest to have a realistic idea of what they can actually do, and what they cannot.  I don't believe they can get that from someone who doesn't even have a realistic impression of what he can do himself.   The pernicious thing here is that they are being told they are better prepared than someone who trains for sport, and that is borderline criminal in my opinion.  It's the same as telling someone they are safer from COVID by drinking Ivermectin than getting vaccinated.
> 
> People who train in BJJ or MMA, if confonted with violence outside of the gym, are in the same boat.  They are also transferring skills from one context to another.  The advantage that a person who trains BJJ has is that he or she has actually applied their skills in context, and so they know how good they are and what they are able to do, because they do it in competition.
> 
> ...


I think we are more in agreement than disagreement with the point I was trying to make.  I didn't say that there was no transfer of skills to a closely associated environment. Nor did I say that it couldn't be adapted or used.  The context of what I was saying is that when you transfer an art out of the specific cultural and specific environment it was created in, the system doesn't always function the way it was meant to.  I gave an example of how Rickson would change his approach because it would be different than how it was in Brazil.  Didn't say it wasn't effective.  Rickson understood that there are certain dynamics that come into play in the US that he didn't have to worry about in Brazil.  That was also the point of the WW2 combatives.  You must adapt arts to fit into a new set of circumstances when you remove them from their original context.  Some arts require very little modification or adjustments (many combat sports for example). Other arts are so far removed culturally and historically that you would be better off not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Let's use Shotokan Karate as an example of that.  Historically, Shotokan came from Shuri-te karate in Okinawa.  It was developed based on indigenous self-defense methods of Okinawa and influenced by chinese arts to create something new, but still held to their cultural environment.  It was a close in system that incorporated striking, stand up grappling and groundfighting (avoiding the ground and how to get up quickly, NOT ground grappling like we think of today).  Funakoshi took it over to Japan and changed the art to fit in with the paradigm shift that was happening there.  Shotokan became more focused on character development aimed at young military age males.  The class structure was completely changed and how classes were done reflected military training at the time (lining up according to rank, drills done by a number count, everything done the same way etc.).  Katas were changed and moved away from their combative focus (for example, Wansu kata used to have a dump/throw in it and it was renamed Empi and the throw was replaced with a jumping spin to work on athleticism).  To make it more in line with Kano and his approach to Judo, Funakoshi removed the grappling aspect of the art and focused only on the block/punch/kicking of the art to distinguish it and make it unique.  Since young males liked to spar, the distance was increased and the distance used was the distance used by kendo and not its original close quarter range.  My point?  The traditional kata were still kept as a training tool, but the applications didn't make sense most of the time because of the changes.  To make Shotokan's applications more workable, you have to remove the elements that Funakoshi put into his art to make it unique in the first place.  The question then becomes at what point do the changes give you a new system/art?


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2021)

punisher73 said:


> I think we are more in agreement than disagreement with the point I was trying to make.  I didn't say that there was no transfer of skills to a closely associated environment. Nor did I say that it couldn't be adapted or used.  The context of what I was saying is that when you transfer an art out of the specific cultural and specific environment it was created in, the system doesn't always function the way it was meant to.  I gave an example of how Rickson would change his approach because it would be different than how it was in Brazil.  Didn't say it wasn't effective.  Rickson understood that there are certain dynamics that come into play in the US that he didn't have to worry about in Brazil.  That was also the point of the WW2 combatives.  You must adapt arts to fit into a new set of circumstances when you remove them from their original context.  Some arts require very little modification or adjustments (many combat sports for example). Other arts are so far removed culturally and historically that you would be better off not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
> 
> Let's use Shotokan Karate as an example of that.  Historically, Shotokan came from Shuri-te karate in Okinawa.  It was developed based on indigenous self-defense methods of Okinawa and influenced by chinese arts to create something new, but still held to their cultural environment.  It was a close in system that incorporated striking, stand up grappling and groundfighting (avoiding the ground and how to get up quickly, NOT ground grappling like we think of today).  Funakoshi took it over to Japan and changed the art to fit in with the paradigm shift that was happening there.  Shotokan became more focused on character development aimed at young military age males.  The class structure was completely changed and how classes were done reflected military training at the time (lining up according to rank, drills done by a number count, everything done the same way etc.).  Katas were changed and moved away from their combative focus (for example, Wansu kata used to have a dump/throw in it and it was renamed Empi and the throw was replaced with a jumping spin to work on athleticism).  To make it more in line with Kano and his approach to Judo, Funakoshi removed the grappling aspect of the art and focused only on the block/punch/kicking of the art to distinguish it and make it unique.  Since young males liked to spar, the distance was increased and the distance used was the distance used by kendo and not its original close quarter range.  My point?  The traditional kata were still kept as a training tool, but the applications didn't make sense most of the time because of the changes.  To make Shotokan's applications more workable, you have to remove the elements that Funakoshi put into his art to make it unique in the first place.  The question then becomes at what point do the changes give you a new system/art?


I agree, and I'm sorry it sounded like I didn't (don't).  I think the only real point I was trying to make is that training for a context is still not performing in that context.  So, we agree (I think) that if you train for, let's say BJJ, and you only really use your BJJ in competition, there's a gap between competition and a street fight.  

You trained for one context, and you're using the skills in another, and so there's the potential for failure.  How likely are you to succeed?  Well, hard to say for sure, but you can look at things like your skill level in context A, the other person or people's skill in context B, how similar context A and context B are, and the cost of failure (i.e, the stakes involved).

All that said, this presumes your skill in context A is functional skill based on real experience... skill level that can be evaluated independently and objectively.    Where things go awry is if you train for context B, (i.e, "real world self defense") , but have no opportunity to perform in that context, you are stuck.  If you have little or no opportunity to apply your skills, what actually happens is you end up creating a new context... which is super sketchy.  

This is the "self defense' training context.  At best, you have some skills in a complimentary skill set, much like the BJJ guy.  At worst, you have no actual skill set, and don't know it.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2021)

Buka said:


> As a related aside, when Rickson goes knee on belly to you - it's like being an insect stuck with a pin in science class.


Giva Santana would make guys tap just from shoulder pressure in side control.  He would say he was just giving you a hug.


----------



## Jusroc (Sep 23, 2021)

back to the original intention of the post. 
I think that Ninjutsu could be resigned for the modern world.

Not sport orientated 
But for helping people become effective at defending themselves, others and society under various different circumstances.

Problem with sport is that the strong willed, intelligent and strong bodied often prevail. 
The problem with that, is that those who are already superior intellectually, and physically, with stronger will power aren't the most vulnerable.

Through life, being diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, and coming into contact with loads of other people with ASD. I have realised that the people who need to learn to defend themselves the most, can often be those who will not flourish in a competitive combat sport environment, no matter how good the style is.

That is a flaw with a lot of martial art classes, is that in some cases, the students (and sometime even the instructors) turn into even bigger bullies.

I think that Stephen K Hayes is an interesting guy, open minded to developments. but also has a strong focus in the moral / spiritual aspects of ninjutsu.

As Ninjutsu, learnt un-tethered to a good honest spiritual path, can be extremely dangerous, especially to self stylist wanna be ninja's who learn the style so to use the art for their own selfish purposes. 

People forget, Ninjutsu really was ancient spy craft, which in its full authenticity does teach people how to murder and ruin peoples lives.

People who are not grounded with strong spiritual values, may be endanger of being tempted into using illegal harmful ancient ninja strategy to get what they want out of life.

I have seen it myself, with several of the people whom i grew up with.
Several of the people are now psychotic, and I believe it is possible that they have taken life or lives,
while experimenting with strategies they have picked up from reading in the historical books on ninjutsu.

Note. The type of things these people have done they learnt from historical stories rather than direct teachings from a qualified and grounded instructor.

That is a danger with the arts that are associated with the Historical Ninja.
Tend to attract more than their fare share of nuts, who are attracted to the covert criminal methodology.

Nothing against legitimate schools.
The nuts would argue (using volatile mind science arguments) that in reality, their is no difference in them making up their own style or practising an established style. both were created by men after all.

This being true the authentic ninjutsu however has a lineage and a responsibility is there for the instructors to teach morally, ideally, while giving spiritual guidance to ensure that no one ends up on the wrong path.

This perhaps is something that needs to be emphasised in all martial arts.
Especially in this day and age of MMA (which i also like)

That is my take on it anyhow, for what its worth.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Rickson is much harder to hold down because he trains in that environment. It's not a matter of a difference between "modernisation vs just working well", as you haven't really differentiated them for one thing, but more importantly, you're just saying that training to a focus and a context works better for that focus and context... well, yeah. The biggest issue is you guys all want to use your focus and context to represent all martial approaches... and the world is a lot bigger than that.



Ok. It was suggested here somewhere that say instead of learning sword defense you would learn beer bottle defence. 

But in essence if you have the base components right it doesn't matter that much.

And if you don't then modernisation won't help. 

Which leads on to BJJ. As a general the guys doing grappling for self defense have nowhere near the knowledge of the Rickson gracies. 

And so you are better off training with the knowledgeable guy and converting it. Rather than train the conversion with a less knowledgeable guy. 

And so when you are modernising your system. It has to work first.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 23, 2021)

Jusroc said:


> back to the original intention of the post.
> I think that Ninjutsu could be resigned for the modern world.
> 
> Not sport orientated
> ...



What exactly is "sport oriented"?

BJJ has a sport _*component*_, but it also has a self defense component. The benefit of the sport component is that it keeps the martial art sharp and enhances the overall skill of the participants. The sport component also allows quite a bit of innovation because competitors are constantly trying to find ways to be better than their competition. This bleeds back into the self defense portion of the art. Leg locks are a prime example of this.

Also any martial art worth its salt should make you strong willed, intelligent, and strong bodied. If it doesn't, then it isn't doing its job and you should look elsewhere.

The problem with arts like Ninjutsu is that there isn't a competitive impetus for new ideas and concepts to flourish. Nor is there a true testing ground to make sure that even the old methods are sound and practical. Thus the art stagnates and it begins to devolve instead of evolve.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2021)

Jusroc said:


> back to the original intention of the post.
> I think that Ninjutsu could be resigned for the modern world.
> 
> Not sport orientated
> ...



In relation to this. Here is a segment on gendered marketing.






See if you can work out how it applies.


----------



## Jusroc (Sep 24, 2021)

I think that many of the traditional jiu jitsu techniques (including the ones that come from Ninjutsu)
technically work, as the body physiology hasn't changed.

What has changed is how people attack. 
So its not necessarily the techniques that need to change, its how people attack / i.e. how you train to use the techniques.

Years ago I did aikido for two years, after haven trained in Kenpo for 10 years, and later I did BJJ and Judo.

It is my opinion that the aikido techniques work (mostly as arm locks) because they are technically correct,
the way that the Aikidoka trains however, often isn't as realistic as they could do, which means that the Aikidoka doesn't pick up as much experience applying their techniques against a realistic full forcefully resisting moving, thinking, free fighting opponent. 

Although arguably it may be hard to realise such a latter training method due to the lethality of some of the techniques used. Even in Judo,and BJJ which has taken out a great deal of the more dangerous techniques, it is still easy to get injured if one is not careful.

I do think that for some techniques however, it would be possible to pressure test them to a level 
(for example, ikkyo and sankyo could be applied with control against a simulated free fighting attacker, as long as the attacker is aware of the dangers and learns not to be cocky and not submit / be careful when put into a lock).

That is what i recommend, although, needs to be approached progressively. and apply extreme caution at every step of the way, as if you do not, you can do a great deal of damage to your opponents body including permanent damage to your partners limbs / ligaments / bones.


----------



## Yamabushii (Sep 27, 2021)

> In the sense of a physical altercation/violent sudden attack.


Wait...so you have never had to physically use your Ninpo training to defend yourself or someone else?




> bluntly, with your few years of training and involvement, you're not in that much of a position to laugh at people who have have been doing it a lot longer, and understand the layout a lot better than you do.



Bluntly, you're too arrogant for your own good. I have spent about 15-17 years in martial arts as a whole at this point. Your three decades in Ninpo means very little when you have admitted in this very thread that you practice 95% just kata in your training, and also that you have never even had to use your physical techniques against a stranger whose intentions you know nothing about. There are sadly many people who have spent several years just practicing kata only to find out their techniques don't actually work against people resisting. I am starting to see quite a bit of similarity between yourself and Rokas before he realized his years of practicing kata did very little for him. You are not my senior, my friend.

Best of luck to you in your training.


----------



## Jusroc (Sep 27, 2021)

Yamabushii said:


> Wait...so you have never had to physically use your Ninpo training to defend yourself or someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hello Mr Yamabushi
Just out of interest, is your last post aimed at me?
There are some quotes in your post which are nothing to do with me. So am a little confused.


----------



## Yamabushii (Sep 28, 2021)

Jusroc said:


> Hello Mr Yamabushi
> Just out of interest, is your last post aimed at me?
> There are some quotes in your post which are nothing to do with me. So am a little confused.



No, apologies. Still learning how to quote properly in this forum. That message was intended for @Chris Parker


----------



## Jusroc (Sep 28, 2021)

Hi Mr Yamabushii 
I understand. I also can find forums a bit of a challenge at times. 
I don't always do what I am supposed and am sometimes oblivious to people's 
expectations due to rules. 
Thanks


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 28, 2021)

Yamabushii said:


> Still learning how to quote properly in this forum.


If you want to just quote selected text rather than an entire post, first select the text you wish to quote. You should then get a little pop-up offering you the choice to "quote" or "reply". If you choose "reply", then you will begin a new post with just that selection quoted. If you choose "quote", then the selection will be added to a sort of clipboard and you can select/quote other pieces of text as you wish. Then when you are ready to make a post, use the "Insert quotes" button at the bottom of the Post Reply text box. This will allow you to insert whichever selected quotes you like in whatever order.


----------



## Jusroc (Sep 28, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you want to just quote selected text rather than an entire post, first select the text you wish to quote. You should then get a little pop-up offering you the choice to "quote" or "reply". If you choose "reply", then you will begin a new post with just that selection quoted. If you choose "quote", then the selection will be added to a sort of clipboard and you can select/quote other pieces of text as you wish. Then when you are ready to make a post, use the "Insert quotes" button at the bottom of the Post Reply text box. This will allow you to insert whichever selected quotes you like in whatever order.


Thanks for the advice. I shall keep it in mind the next time i need to quote.
Thanks


----------



## Yamabushii (Sep 29, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you want to just quote selected text rather than an entire post, first select the text you wish to quote. You should then get a little pop-up offering you the choice to "quote" or "reply". If you choose "reply", then you will begin a new post with just that selection quoted. If you choose "quote", then the selection will be added to a sort of clipboard and you can select/quote other pieces of text as you wish. Then when you are ready to make a post, use the "Insert quotes" button at the bottom of the Post Reply text box. This will allow you to insert whichever selected quotes you like in whatever order.


Thank you 🙏


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 14, 2022)

Yamabushii said:


> Hi All,
> 
> A bit of background to set some context from my position first. I haven't posted here in a very long time. I used to post on martial arts forums quite often when I first began my training in Ninpo in 2012. At that time, as a complete novice to the art (not in martial arts as a whole), I thought I had all the answers and everyone else sharing their opposing opinions online about Ninpo were wrong. A few years later my teacher left the Genbukan and I with him. It was at that point that I truly began to realize how much fluff and nonsense is in the world of traditional Ninpo within the big three Takamatsuden orgs today (though admittedly I have no experience with the Jinenkan). Don't get me wrong - there are tons of incredibly effective techniques. I love the art, but, respectfully, I don't think Soke Hatsumi or Tanemura are running their organizations in a manner that is relevant to today's world. Living in Japan I wonder if they are sort of stuck in their own bubble.
> 
> ...


Sorry for raising a zombie thread. The topic somewhat reminds me of a video I saw recently about early Daito Ryu practitioners testing their skills by competing in Sumo matches.

Here it is in fact:






I think, to an extent, for someone looking to pressure test their skills there are modern outlets that, though limited, can help refine techniques against a resisting opponent.

Standing armlocks, wristlocks, and throws can be practiced in a BJJ setting. Plenty of schools start standing, particularly in competition training. I'd consider BJJ a better environment than Judo for working throws as giving up your back to get the ippon- which isn't uncommon in Judo- is undesirable in BJJ and not great for self defense either.

Nippon Kempo is another sport that allows both strikes and throws. I'm not sure about standing locks but I recall seeing some before. I just don't know the full ruleset.

I think the general point being that, while yes, sport settings have their limitations, if you use them as a training tool to refine what you've learned in your X-kan training (I presume you mean X-kan when you say Ninjutsu) they can be useful by providing resisting opponents.

I think in that regard there are plenty of kata that can be applied either directly or with a bit of alteration (like maybe grabbing the collar and pushing the head back vs striking with an an ura shuto in a BJJ setting)...

And some that maybe don't work so well under pressure. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Anyway, point being, if Daito Ryu guys could do it back in the day, it doesn't seem like it should be off limits nowdays either.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 14, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> Anyway, point being, if Daito Ryu guys could do it back in the day, it doesn't seem like it should be off limits nowdays either.



They won't. I mean can you see your average ninja subjecting themselves to this?





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2429158743810084


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> They won't. I mean can you see your average ninja subjecting themselves to this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do I think the average ninja would subject themselves to that?

No. But that’s not exclusive to the x-kans. I think the majority of people who study kata based arts are not interested in pressure testing.

But there are some, like the OP, who are. My point is that there is already a methodology for it, and has been for quite some time.

Although in the specific case of Sumo, that’s probably pretty hard to find. Lots of other options these days though.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 14, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> I think the majority of people who study kata based arts are not interested in pressure testing.


Personally I wouldn’t presume to know what the majority of a whole category of people are interested in.  I suspect interests and motivations run a broad range.


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 14, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Personally I wouldn’t presume to know what the majority of a whole category of people are interested in.  I suspect interests and motivations run a broad range.


Ok, to better phrase that, a majority of people who I have met that train kata based arts are not interested in pressure testing, or at least the kind of pressure testing that judo style randori and/or soaring offers.

But actually I think the larger point is something we can probably agree on. There are plenty of people in the x-kans or other TMA that are both interested and perfectly happy to test their skills under pressure.

Also- and I should have mentioned this in my first post- the argument that being unable to do eye gouges or finger locks while sparring means you can’t pressure test these arts is- in my opinion at least- not entirely valid. There is plenty that you can test and it was done in the past as well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 14, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> Ok, to better phrase that, a majority of people who I have met that train kata based arts are not interested in pressure testing, or at least the kind of pressure testing that judo style randori and/or soaring offers.
> 
> But actually I think the larger point is something we can probably agree on. There are plenty of people in the x-kans or other TMA that are both interested and perfectly happy to test their skills under pressure.
> 
> Also- and I should have mentioned this in my first post- the argument that being unable to do eye gouges or finger locks while sparring means you can’t pressure test these arts is- in my opinion at least- not entirely valid. There is plenty that you can test and it was done in the past as well.


I can find agreement there.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 14, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> Do I think the average ninja would subject themselves to that?
> 
> No. But that’s not exclusive to the x-kans. I think the majority of people who study kata based arts are not interested in pressure testing.
> 
> ...



That is Australia. Apparently we have a pretty robust amateur Sumo scene.



			https://m.facebook.com/sumoaustralia/


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> That is Australia. Apparently we have a pretty robust amateur Sumo scene.
> 
> 
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/sumoaustralia/


It's been growing rapidly in the mainland U.S. over the last few years as well. (Hawaii has long had a strong Sumo tradition.) It's still pretty niche compared to most other combat sports but we're making progress.


----------



## Steve (Jan 14, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's been growing rapidly in the mainland U.S. over the last few years as well. (Hawaii has long had a strong Sumo tradition.) It's still pretty niche compared to most other combat sports but we're making progress.


Nothing near me, unfortunately.  I'm game to give it a shot.


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> That is Australia. Apparently we have a pretty robust amateur Sumo scene.
> 
> 
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/sumoaustralia/


That’s pretty cool. I’m in the states and while I know they exist, I’ve never seen a sumo school anywhere near where I live.

it genuinely seems like it would be a lot of fun.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 14, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> That’s pretty cool. I’m in the states and while I know they exist, I’ve never seen a sumo school anywhere near where I live.
> 
> it genuinely seems like it would be a lot of fun.



I mean hey if you really wanted to call yourself a samurai.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 14, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> That’s pretty cool. I’m in the states and while I know they exist, I’ve never seen a sumo school anywhere near where I live.
> 
> it genuinely seems like it would be a lot of fun.


Right now it's more local clubs than dedicated schools in most places.


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 14, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Right now it's more local clubs than dedicated schools in most places.


Honestly that would be enough for me. It’s not like I’m looking to compete in sumo tournaments.

And regardless, Sumo aside there are lots of other options for people looking to branch out and pressure test these days.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 14, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> Honestly that would be enough for me. It’s not like I’m looking to compete in sumo tournaments.
> 
> And regardless, Sumo aside there are lots of other options for people looking to branch out and pressure test these days.



Yeah but if we are talking about having some sort of link to traditional Japanese martial arts, samurai and all that goes with it. Sumo would probably be closer to the real thing than ninjitsu.


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 14, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but if we are talking about having some sort of link to traditional Japanese martial arts, samurai and all that goes with it. Sumo would probably be closer to the real thing than ninjitsu.


Yes, you are absolutely right. But I wasn't trying to address the whole samurai/ninja thing, which may not have come across so apologies on that.

My main point was more along the lines of, if you want to modernize ninjutsu or (x-kan training) as the OP suggested, it's not so much trying to turn it into MMA (in which case just do MMA) but finding ways to work the techniques you've learned in an environment that allows for proper resistance. And far from being a new thought even for classical budo, it was done with Daito Ryu and Sumo long ago. There's also plenty of evidence various jujutsu schools had some type of randori. It's not that Kano invented it as a concept, just took it to another level as a training tool (in Japan, at the time I should add).


----------



## drop bear (Jan 15, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> Yes, you are absolutely right. But I wasn't trying to address the whole samurai/ninja thing, which may not have come across so apologies on that.
> 
> My main point was more along the lines of, if you want to modernize ninjutsu or (x-kan training) as the OP suggested, it's not so much trying to turn it into MMA (in which case just do MMA) but finding ways to work the techniques you've learned in an environment that allows for proper resistance. And far from being a new thought even for classical budo, it was done with Daito Ryu and Sumo long ago. There's also plenty of evidence various jujutsu schools had some type of randori. It's not that Kano invented it as a concept, just took it to another level as a training tool (in Japan, at the time I should add).



You could also do in house sumo. Keeping the style and live training within the same sort of theme.


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 15, 2022)

drop bear said:


> You could also do in house sumo. Keeping the style and live training within the same sort of theme.


True.

I’d personally be a bit wary of any kind of in house training of an art that I hadn’t already had fairly comprehensive formal training in under a qualified instructor.

But I live in an area inundated with judo and bjj so I can be a bit more picky in that regard. If that weren’t the case then yeah, train however you can.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 17, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> The topic somewhat reminds me of a video I saw recently about early Daito Ryu practitioners testing their skills by competing in Sumo matches.


BTW, Sumo is actually a pretty cool development/testing environment for aiki based arts because the ruleset incentivizes super-committed full body attacks. It's harder to get that aiki-style blending with the attack from a boxer or a judoka because they will typically stay more moderated. In Sumo, there are rewards for coming in 100% which also creates opportunities for someone who can time a counter successfully.


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 17, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> BTW, Sumo is actually a pretty cool development/testing environment for aiki based arts because the ruleset incentivizes super-committed full body attacks. It's harder to get that aiki-style blending with the attack from a boxer or a judoka because they will typically stay more moderated. In Sumo, there are rewards for coming in 100% which also creates opportunities for someone who can time a counter successfully.


That’s a good point. I think that aspect of sumo is in some ways closer to a brawl than any kind of sparring.

It also does show someone how difficult it is to time some of those techniques against a fully committed opponent 😀


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 17, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> That’s a good point. I think that aspect of sumo is in some ways closer to a brawl than any kind of sparring.
> 
> It also does show someone how difficult it is to time some of those techniques against a fully committed opponent 😀


Yep. One of the challenges in Sumo is that you only have a split second to stop or redirect your opponent before he puts you out of the ring. After that it doesn't matter if you manage to reverse your opponent, you've already lost.


----------



## LeftHandFree (Jan 17, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep. One of the challenges in Sumo is that you only have a split second to stop or redirect your opponent before he puts you out of the ring. After that it doesn't matter if you manage to reverse your opponent, you've already lost.



It’s kind of like Judo ne waza to me through the lens of bjj. Having such a short time on the ground I think forces you to be really quick with the submissions. No dilly dallying.

I did actually get to try a bit of sumo at a festival in Little Tokyo years ago. It was super fun and the actual sumo wrestlers dialed it back a bit for us newbies so we could get the hang of it without being overwhelmed.

I did okay thanks to a judo background though, interestingly, I did mostly stay in much deeper stances closer to what you find in classical jujutsu schools.

If there was a regular dojo by me I’d try to go like two or three times a month.


----------



## Yamabushii (Jan 26, 2022)

LeftHandFree said:


> Do I think the average ninja would subject themselves to that?
> 
> No. But that’s not exclusive to the x-kans. I think the majority of people who study kata based arts are not interested in pressure testing.
> 
> ...



I agree with this completely, especially the part about those who study [primarily] kata-based arts. When my teacher left our former Japan-based Ninpo organization and we with him, in designing our new curriculum we made sparring mandatory for every single rank, but in different categories (e.g. striking, standing/seated grappling, throws, sword evasions, etc.). The quality of our students in our org now are far superior than the students produced when we were with our previous Ninpo org.


----------



## Yamabushii (Jan 26, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but if we are talking about having some sort of link to traditional Japanese martial arts, samurai and all that goes with it. Sumo would probably be closer to the real thing than ninjitsu.



*Slightly edited because I misread a bit of what you said, but leaving most of my reply below intact.

I agree. The knowledge for ninjutsu is still preserved and passed on, but just be wary of people who are serious when they refer to themselves as "ninja" or "shinobi no mono" in today's world. Anyone still studying Ninpo today is a "Ninpo-ka", a student of Ninpo. But a lot of the knowledge can still be utilized in the modern day as Ninjutsu was primarily a set of strategies, not so much their own physical techniques as many people incorrectly believe. Ninja were Samurai, but not all Samurai were Ninja. From a modern sense though, in comparing Sumo, as it wasn't a battlefield art, it's still definitely closer to the real thing than any other Japanese martial art today.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2022)

Yamabushii said:


> *Slightly edited because I misread a bit of what you said, but leaving most of my reply below intact.
> 
> I agree. The knowledge for ninjutsu is still preserved and passed on, but just be wary of people who are serious when they refer to themselves as "ninja" or "shinobi no mono" in today's world. Anyone still studying Ninpo today is a "Ninpo-ka", a student of Ninpo. But a lot of the knowledge can still be utilized in the modern day as Ninjutsu was primarily a set of strategies, not so much their own physical techniques as many people incorrectly believe. Ninja were Samurai, but not all Samurai were Ninja. From a modern sense though, in comparing Sumo, as it wasn't a battlefield art, it's still definitely closer to the real thing than any other Japanese martial art today.



The thing about non battle field arts is that soldiers still did them


----------



## Yamabushii (Jan 27, 2022)

drop bear said:


> The thing about non battle field arts is that soldiers still did them


That's certainly true. You can't argue that at all.


----------

