# Question regarding Bushindo vs Toshindo



## TheStudent (Nov 29, 2008)

Can someone explain this to me?
1. Stephen K. Hayes, the #1 individual who brought the Bujinkan to US attention, starts his own variant, which is supposed to be a distilled version focusing on specifically what works in modern situations, against modern attacks.
2. Richard Van Donk, the most publicly visible bujinkan representative, starts his own variant, which is supposedly a combination of Bujinkan and techniques and skills from multiple other grandmasters. This is designed to meet today's needs and be effective against modern attacks.

With this situation, Hayes seems to recieve very negative reactions from most bujinkan members, while Van Donk is accepted as being 100% bujinkan, even if some seem to question his methods.

To me, they seem the same, as far as going and starting their own system. so why are the reactions so different?

Thanks,
TheStudent


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 30, 2008)

TheStudent said:


> To me, they seem the same, as far as going and starting their own system. so why are the reactions so different?
> 
> Thanks,
> TheStudent


 
AFAIK, Von Donk wasn't removed from the Bujinkan, the way Hayes was.  

So, I'd bet that's a start.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 30, 2008)

VanDonk also get quite a bit of criticism too!


----------



## kenjutsushi (Nov 30, 2008)

From my perspective the difference is in the continued connection with the source.  Van Donk sells his own version of BBT as well as maintaining his connection to Soke Hatsumi by offering ranks through the hombu as well as a source for Soke's DVDs, books, etc, etc.  Hayes has always promoted a seperation from the source.  Originally, he claimed soke wasn't accepting anymore new students.  Then he changed the name to something else claiming it more modern than what soke was teaching.  He gives out seperate ranking and doesn't promote any of the already available information from soke.  Kind of like a middle man.  Van Donk continues to train with soke regualarly in Japan.  Hayes was lucky to visit once or twice a year and only breifly if that.  Something just isn't right when you cut your students off from the source like that.  Soke always says come to the source but Hayes said, I'm the only source you need.  That's how I see it anyway.  See this blog, it says alot about how Hayes wants us to view Soke.  http://www.stephenkhayes.com/page/3/  read the one entitled "Masaaki Hatsumi visit"


----------



## KevinCasey (Nov 30, 2008)

That To-Shin Do vs. Bujinkan argument on the Internet is pretty interesting, isn't it?  I started in To-Shin Do from day one, so I never really got what the big deal of this supposed "split" is all about.  I've trained with some Bujinkan folks over the years too, and we certainly recognize each other's techniques.  

I'm reminded of when I traveled to Ireland and met all the white, red-haired, freckled people that viciously hated and discriminated against the other white, red-haired, freckled people.   Growing up with the race tension of southern California, black vs. white vs. hispanic vs. asian, it was ridiculous to me that the Irish could get so worked up over small differences.  But, I guess maybe something similar but not-quite-the-same is the most offensive.


----------



## TheStudent (Nov 30, 2008)

So, based on responses so far, the views seem to be:
1) Hayes left/was removed from Bujinkan, so he is no longer a trusted source of information. and Van Donk may recieve criticism (never heard or read any, so curious what they might be), but he is still bujinkan, so it's OK.
or
2) The split is people argueing over differences that aren't really that important.

What I think is interesting is that Van Donk has clearly stated he added material from other sources, renamed what he teaches to "Bushindo" and no one seems to care or even notice. I wonder if Hatsumi knows he has changed and added material? Of course I'm curious what exactly he added as well. He also markets a membership in the ABDA, which is not the same as the Hombu Dojo Membership.  He states all you need is an ABDA membership to qualify to train and advance up through 4th Dan. But the Humbu says that membership in the Hombu is a requirement for belt levels and to be considered an active member of the Bujinkan (http://www.bujinkandojo.ca/learn5_join.php is my source for this).

It is this type of stuff that got me started wondering and prompted this thread.  Because I see both as valuable, but also equally non-traditional Bujinkan. The difference (to me) seems to be that Hayes is honest about his position and his differences from Bujinkan, while Van Donk seems to be cloaking himself with the legitamacy of Hatsumi (DVDs books, etc.) while actually focusing on his personal variation.

I personally would like to master Toshindo (but lose the verbal "stop!", "No!" and such) as well as master the 9 ryu of Bujinkan in a fashion that both are realistic and useable in today's world. But, I want my Bujinkan qualifications to be legitamate if that is what I am told I am being taught.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 30, 2008)

TheStudent said:


> It is this type of stuff that got me started wondering and prompted this thread.  Because I see both as valuable, but also equally non-traditional Bujinkan. The difference (to me) seems to be that Hayes is honest about his position and his differences from Bujinkan, while Van Donk seems to be cloaking himself with the legitamacy of Hatsumi (DVDs books, etc.) while actually focusing on his personal variation.


I'm not going to try to address who is or isn't on good terms with the Bujinkan Hombu.  There are folks who can do so much better than I, if they choose to do so.  But, in the end, the simple truth is that it's a matter between the individual and the Bujinkan.





> I personally would like to master Toshindo (but lose the verbal "stop!", "No!" and such) as well as master the 9 ryu of Bujinkan in a fashion that both are realistic and useable in today's world. But, I want my Bujinkan qualifications to be legitamate if that is what I am told I am being taught.


If you want legitimate Bujinkan qualifications -- the only place to get them is through the Bujinkan and its licensed instructors.  That's not suggesting that Toshindo, the Genbukan, Jinenkan or any of the others that are derived from the Bujinkan don't have good material or something to offer; it's just that the only way to get the Bujinkan credentials is from the Bujinkan.

(By the way... that verbalization of "stop" and the rest is actually a pretty good thing to have in the US.  It can be a big factor in documenting that you were defending yourself...)


----------



## TheStudent (Nov 30, 2008)

JKS,

Good points.  I hadn't thought about the legal documentation aspect of self defense.  I come from a tournament background (primarily forms), so the words sound misplaced to me.  But I see how that makes it clearly obvious to passersby who was attacking who.

As far as certification, my point was specifically Van Donk's DVD course.  It includes a membership in HIS program, but doesn't include one in the actual Bujinkan. People who have never seen or read up on Bujinkan wouldn't realize their ranks aren't recognized by the hombu.  It seems overly nitpicky, but to be FULLY legal within the bujinkan, I would have to get a separate membership for the Bujinkan (which he offers, but doesn't mention how they tie together), as well as the course.

And, unless I missunderstand, if I get that same membership, then a toshindo blackbelt would be recognized with the hombu. That is the sticking point from what I have read - both sides seem to argue over whether or not the toshindo is recognized within the hombu. But the membership would eliminate one hurdle, and Hayes is still recognized as a shidoshi for the 9 ryu of Bujinkan. It was his 10th dan plaque that was taken down, not his teaching license.

So, could I just simply get a Hombu membership, take Toshindo (focusing on both the modern and the classical to make sure there's no holes) and have both Bujinkan rank and Toshindo as well?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2008)

TheStudent said:


> And, unless I missunderstand, if I get that same membership, then a toshindo blackbelt would be recognized with the hombu. That is the sticking point from what I have read - both sides seem to argue over whether or not the toshindo is recognized within the hombu. But the membership would eliminate one hurdle, and Hayes is still recognized as a shidoshi for the 9 ryu of Bujinkan. It was his 10th dan plaque that was taken down, not his teaching license.


 
It seems to me you are far more "educated" on the subject than you initially pretended, so I can only assume you posted this "question" to which you seem to already believe you have the answer to stir the pot.

Go you!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 1, 2008)

Well VanDonk is still a part of the Bujinkan.  He also sells Bujinkan memberships, makes many trips to the hombu and is an *active member* of the Bujinkan.  *Thus he is still Bujinkan*.

Hayes teaches To Shin Do and is not a part of the Bujinkan.  It seems that you wish to over look this.  



If you wish Bujinkan certification you need to go through an *active* Bujinkan instructor.  That is exactly what Jks9199 said above.  If you wish to have current teachings within the Bujinkan the instructor that you choose would also need to be current!  That is training regularly with Sensei.

If you wish to be ranked in To Shin Do then train with Stephen Hayes.

Both are excellent choices in my book.  However, there is a difference between the two and they are not connected anymore.

Good luck!


----------



## TheStudent (Dec 1, 2008)

Cryo, 
I wasn't trying to pretend more or less knowledge.  My question was prompted by having just enough knowledge to evaluate and question, but not enough experience or details to have a clear answer. I wasn't trying to stir the pot, but see if there was some glaring issue I was missing or if my information was skewed. Seems a bit of it was.

Brian,
Thank you for the clarification.  I have read multiple places where Toshindo students claim their rank is recognized within the Bujinkan, while Bujinkan members say they are not. Trying to nail down the details (some of the research I did while this thread has been growing) seemed to suggest the Bujinkan membership was the missing piece. Guess not.

In the end, my problem is this: I became aware of Ninjutsu back in the day from reading Hayes' books and truly respect him. But I want the traditional because I like the idea of a connection with a lineage 1,500 years old. Van Donk seems to be a solution, but reading the details in his site seemed to say he was doing the same as Hayes (doing his own variant), but not as openly.

Since I work insane hours, have a family and my free time is very limited, traveling to train is out of the realistic question. So going Long Distance is the only solution. I just have to decide if I want to stay with Hayes, who started my passion, or move to Van Donk, who feels like a "me too" but still has direct ties to the Hombu.

I do appreciate the honest and polite answers I've experienced here.  Most other sites are filled with venom and antagonism to the point I don't want to interact with them, just read to see if any facts are mixed in the mud slinging.

Maybe I'll just take both, one after the other. Suggestions on whether I should start modern/distilled then move traditional, or start traditional and move to modern?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 1, 2008)

My advice in your situation would be to find a local Bujinkan Dojo and train when you can and attend seminars.  Then supplement that training with videos.  Personally I would go with Hatsumi Sensei videos but you could also supplement with VanDonks videos. (note I have not seen them)  Bottom line though to even have a chance at learning this system you need an instructor.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Hope that helps.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2008)

TheStudent said:


> Cryo,
> I wasn't trying to pretend more or less knowledge. My question was prompted by having just enough knowledge to evaluate and question, but not enough experience or details to have a clear answer. I wasn't trying to stir the pot, but see if there was some glaring issue I was missing or if my information was skewed. Seems a bit of it was.


 
I apologise then, you just seemed to have your mind made up, and when people pointed the truth out you continued to argue.  I hate the politics ******** between the arts, but I also know what the "rules" say and feel like saying "eh do what you want" like so many others is doing a disservice to people who really want to train. 

FWIW, I have had Bujinkan Shihan with highly respected names who train regularly at the Hombu, tell me Hatsumi has stated to them that people who train in Toshindo are not welcome to train in the Bujinkan.  I'm not talking 8 levels of the Telephone game here... Hatsumi told them, I asked, They told me.  1 step removed from the source.  Based on that piece of information, My *personal* inference is that if they cannot train with us, why would their rank be recognized as Bujinkan rank?


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 1, 2008)

As a side note...

Sometimes we in the West have a lot of trouble understanding Japanese behavior and actions.  I don't pretend to have any extensive insight -- but from what little I do have, I could see where someone from Toshindo who showed up at the Bujinkan Hombu dojo or another class in Japan being permitted inside out of politeness -- but not really permitted to train.  They may not recognize what's going on, because from a Western viewpoint, they showed up, paid the class fee, and were inside during the training.  But they didn't realize that they weren't really part of the training...

I'm probably not being very clear about this...    THIS article by Don Roley might be better.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 1, 2008)

Mr. Roley would definitely be considered a reliable source on the matter.

I want to thank everyone here for refraining from charging forth into the typical internet squabble in comparing these three schools. Thus far, it is the most polite exchange on the matter I've seen in a while.

:asian:


----------



## KevinCasey (Dec 1, 2008)

As a To-Shin Do guy, I can say that To-Shin Do ranks are totally seperate from Bujinkan ranks.  That is also true in the classical programs offered - the classical taijutsu, the bojutsu, etc.  We offer a Kihon license in classical material, followed by a Shoden license.

There are To-Shin Do practitioners, especially old-timers, who also have Bujinkan rank.  Despite people saying this is impossible, Mr. Hayes has ordered and received Bujinkan rank certificates on behalf of his students, even in recent times. 

What that means politically, I don't know.  Most To-Shin Do folks just train in To-Shin Do these days.  There is still, however, a very powerful sense of lineage rolling back through the centuries and the nine ryu.  Especially in black belt training, we feel ourselves strongly and vividly connected to the lineage, historical material, and teachers from whom it comes.  I am educated with regard to the publicly taught historical ryu material - yet, I have no Bujinkan rank.

Hope that helps clarify the situation on the ground.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2008)

*Edit*

Nevermind, Its not my place to say this.


----------



## TheStudent (Dec 1, 2008)

Sadly, this is very frustrating to me.  I really do want to study with Hayes, but it is the direct link to tradition that appeals the most about Ninjutsu.

It looks as though I will be going Bujinkan through Van Donk then. Perhaps I will still "visit" toshindo and Hayes occaisionally, but it is the art he presented *first* that has the greatest appeal.

Further reading seems to point that Hatsumi is very open to what is taught in the local schools, as long as the bujinkan ryu content stays accurate. So Van Donk's additions would be OK, as long as I can identify them . And, Concepts from Hayes that help me are acceptable as long as they *do not contradict* the original ryus. So maybe I can find a balance that works.

 Thanks to everyone for the info and the insight.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2008)

TheStudent said:


> It looks as though I will be going Bujinkan through Van Donk then. Perhaps I will still "visit" toshindo and Hayes occaisionally.
> 
> So Van Donk's additions would be OK, as long as I can identify them . And, Concepts from Hayes that help me are acceptable as long as they *do not contradict* the original ryus. So maybe I can find a balance that works.
> 
> Thanks to everyone for the info and the insight.



*Sigh* I give up.


----------



## TheStudent (Dec 1, 2008)

Cryo,

Maybe I'm being dense. What do you give up on?

I've shifted my position almost 180 degrees. From originally wanting to go toshindo and getting Bujinkan rank through it. Now I am going to go Straight Bujinkan, with just using the traditional pieces from Hayes as an extra resource.

So, I've listened to the responses, read the links posted while also searching for additional info, and come to a new decision. I didn't close my mind or my ears (eyes, whatever). So why would you feel like giving up?

One thing I have found in searching the web is that no one does the forms, kamae, etc. exactly the same. One person even posted something about each person finds their own personal form (or something like that). So I am thinking the best way to master something that is NOT easy to learn by video is to find as many sources for the same thing and watch ALL of them. If Van Donk is the shidoshi I am studying with, then his standards are what I need to meet. But seeing others do ichimonji no kata or sanshin no kata or any of the other forms would give me a different angle that may perhaps help the technique contained in the forms "click"so that I execute a true techinique, not a series of rote movements.

I want to include Hayes' traditional work as one of the resources. But that does not mean I'm not listening. So, Cryo, don't give up because I am thick headed. If I missed a point somewhere, explain what I am being dense about, or PM me if you would prefer.

Now to just wait for the year end bonus :boing1which shows up AFTER Christmas, grrr.) so I can start training.

Thanks again!


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 2, 2008)

TheStudent said:


> Cryo,
> 
> Maybe I'm being dense. What do you give up on?
> 
> I want to include Hayes' traditional work as one of the resources. But that does not mean I'm not listening. So, Cryo, don't give up because I am thick headed. If I missed a point somewhere, explain what I am being dense about, or PM me if you would prefer.


 
Basically dude, it's your training, I'm not gonna tell you what to do.  I pointed out the rule as it was laid out by Hatsumi; If you train in the bujinkan you are NOT supposed to train with Hayes.  

If you don't care about that, fine... don't care about it.  Now, if it were me, I also wouldn't go broadcasting that I was doing both openly...  but I choose not to, simply out of respect for Hatsumi's wishes.  It's not meant to be a slam on Hayes, or a "swallowing of the Hatsumi Kool-aid" as I have heard it referred to... *It's simply a measure of respect for the rules of the organization that Is training me.*  If I were doing Epak and they said "Don't study with non Epak Kempo teachers" I would feel the same way for the durration of my Epak training.


----------



## KevinCasey (Dec 2, 2008)

I actually feel the same way as CryoZombie.  Your personal teacher is your most important martial arts relationship.  I strongly advise finding a teacher you believe in and respect, and then following their instructions carefully to become what they offer.  It's too easy to chase your own tail as a beginner if you pick and choose based on personality inclinations.

I also think it's confusing for beginners to study in both the Bujinkan and To-Shin Do.  Pick one thing and get awesome at it.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Dec 2, 2008)

It was my understanding that Hayes and Hatsumi were still on good terms with each other, I hear from others there was some sort of ugly split up with them but I've never heard any details on the matter, so I'm not sure why some people don't view Hayes as a ligitimate instructor in bujinkan seeing as how Hatsumi trained him, and gave him the titles of shidoshi and an-shu.

Ninjutsu is ninjutsu. The organization itself isn't what really matters what is important is the study of the legitimate ryu-ha which can be found in a variety of places whether it be bujinkan, to shin do, jinekan, jizaikan, genbukan, or any other ground that can trace itself back to the original ninja and samurai lineages.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 2, 2008)

Himura Kenshin said:


> It was my understanding that Hayes and Hatsumi were still on good terms with each other, I hear from others there was some sort of ugly split up with them but I've never heard any details on the matter, so I'm not sure why some people don't view Hayes as a ligitimate instructor in bujinkan seeing as how Hatsumi trained him, and gave him the titles of shidoshi and an-shu.



In regards to Hayes and his relationship with Hatsumi Sensei please look back to post #10 on this thread and see what George Ohashi the Bujinkan Hombu Dojo Administrator wrote on his message board regarding it.  It is pretty clear where the relationship is.  In the Bujinkan you must be current and training with someone who trains with the source.  You must also keep up your license.  Those are the rules!!!

Stephen Hayes is excellent at what he does.  

Nor could you go wrong in training and studying in the Bujinkan under an instructor that regularly trains with Hatsumi Sensei.  

Now having said that I agree with *Kevin Casey* and *Cryomzombie* in that find a good teacher and study with them.  Practice and get better. Personally if you find a *good teacher* in the Takamatsuden lineage and there are lots of them from the Bujinkan, Jinekan, Genbukan and To Shin Do.  Then you are setting yourself up for success!


----------



## Aiki Lee (Dec 2, 2008)

TheStudent said:


> Cryo,
> 
> 
> One thing I have found in searching the web is that no one does the forms, kamae, etc. exactly the same. One person even posted something about each person finds their own personal form (or something like that). So I am thinking the best way to master something that is NOT easy to learn by video is to find as many sources for the same thing and watch ALL of them. If Van Donk is the shidoshi I am studying with, then his standards are what I need to meet. But seeing others do ichimonji no kata or sanshin no kata or any of the other forms would give me a different angle that may perhaps help the technique contained in the forms "click"so that I execute a true techinique, not a series of rote movements.
> ...


 
This is what Thomas Miaenza founder of the Jizaikan and former operator of the To-shin-do hombu dojo did. Mr. Maienza trained with various bujinkan shidoshi and found that their kata or techniques were all slightly different, but there was always at least one thing they did the same. From these observations Mr. Maienza extracted what he believes the principles are for each kata he has learned which shapes the way he teaches the material in our art of aiki-ninjutsu. 
There is nothing wrong with training with multiple teachers so long as they do not contradict each other. I recomend picking a "primary" teacher whom you feel is competent and then trying to add on to what he teaches you by look at the way others do the same techniques.

As long as you reach the true principles that the techniques are trying to impart on you, you will do fine no matter what path you decide take.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Dec 2, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> In regards to Hayes and his relationship with Hatsumi Sensei please look back to post #10 on this thread and see what George Ohashi the Bujinkan Hombu Dojo Administrator wrote on his message board regarding it. It is pretty clear where the relationship is.


 
I understand that the two arts are not connected anymore, I just didn't know if the stories about hatsumi and hayes being on friendly terms was true or not.

Perhaps what I said earlier was misunderstood. I don't think Hayes should be allowed to give rank in the bujinkan or teach "officially" for the organization. I simply thought that since hatsumi trained him, it could be agreed that Hayes is a legitimate teacher of ninjutsu, so I don't understand the problem of not being "allowed" to train with him if you are a bujinkan member.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 2, 2008)

Himura Kenshin said:


> It was my understanding that Hayes and Hatsumi were still on good terms with each other, I hear from others there was some sort of ugly split up with them but I've never heard any details on the matter, so I'm not sure why some people don't view Hayes as a ligitimate instructor in bujinkan seeing as how Hatsumi trained him, and gave him the titles of shidoshi and an-shu.
> 
> Ninjutsu is ninjutsu. The organization itself isn't what really matters what is important is the study of the legitimate ryu-ha which can be found in a variety of places whether it be bujinkan, to shin do, jinekan, jizaikan, genbukan, or any other ground that can trace itself back to the original ninja and samurai lineages.


 
Please bear in mind the following contains a lot of OPINION, so feel free to ignore it as much as you like.

It's an intersting viewpoint and somthing I can almost agree with... but I'd also express the following:

Assume I'm the Personal Student of Sum Dum Goy, in the Art of Mada Stufup.  I study with Master Goy for 10 years, and decide to branch off and teach, but I contiue to go to Master Goy for Training.   My counterpart, Big Zombie Bob does the same, but then says "This Mada Stufup isn't really effectivlt taught anymore.  I'm gonna modernize it, and maybe stop in and see Master Goy on rare occasions."

Now, neither of us have seen the full extent of Mada Stufup, but I continue to learn it, and Big Zombie Bob fills the holes in his knowlage with whatever he feels works from other sources.

Which one of us is closer to traching "the study of the legitimate ryu-ha" as you put it? Who has seen more of the teachings and is keeping current with their training?

And, no offense to guys like the Jizaikan, but my understanding (and I could be wrong) was the their organization was the Naperville quest center, and they purchased it and then converted it to Jizaikan, so now we are talking an art created from another art created from the original art... that's even further away from the original teachings than Toshindo right? 

Then there are the issues (which were discussed to death here years ago by former Shadows of Iga students who witnessed this first hand and left Hayes when the Quest centers were formed because of it, I have no intention of rehashing the arguments) of Hayes "selling Quest" to various Karate/TaeKwondo schools after a weekend/week long "seminar" and a payment to become a "Quest School/Instructor" so I'd question the background of some of the quest centers and them teaching "the study of the legitimate ryu-ha".

On a final note... IMO: I don't care if its Toshindo, Bushindo, or even Bujinkan... You just don't get good with a Home Study Course DVD and no instruction beyond that, and the instructors who use them as money making tools are doing both the art and these students a HUGE disservice.  I have never seen a HSC student who came to a seminar who's ability was notable.  The DVDs can be GREAT training aids, I use them myself... but in conjunction with real lessons several times a week with a real instructor.


----------



## KevinCasey (Dec 2, 2008)

Wow, Cryo.  Your post made me think for a good while.  Lots of themes in there.

Like Cryo, I've always been uncomfortable when someone asserts that  To-Shin Do and the Bujinkan are "basically the same thing".  It doesn't make sense - common sense, just looking at the experiences of students in the two organizations - dictates that they are clearly not the same thing.  Belts are different, culture on the mat is different, some content is different, and the leadership is different.  

It's often beginners in To-Shin Do trying to assert that they are "the same thing", and my sense is that this is because we want to lay claim to equal validity and legitimacy as the Bujinkan practitioners.  I get that.

The To-Shin Do assertion is that the principles are intended to be interpreted by the teachers, even down to the belt colors and stated goals of the training.  It's a bold assertion.  In the senior leadership of the organization, we are well aware that we take a risk in doing so - that we have to self-police so that we stay true to the principles of our ninja ancestors and not veer off into "flavor of the week" techniques or ego-driven personality content.  

We do not follow Dr. Hatsumi's day to day work anymore because we believe we have something valuable and well-tuned to a certain population in modern Western culture, something that will work for many (not all) people better than what is happening in Noda City.  We believe that we are in touch with Dr. Hatsumi's vision, and in fact, if he were born and raised in America, this is what he would have done.  Again, it's a bold assertion, and we know that. 

So, as part of that, I'm open to an informed argument that we've gotten off-track.  We're explorers, and explorers get off track sometimes, and we adjust all the time.  I'm not open to the assertion that "we're doing the same thing as the Bujinkan", because the whole point was to change things.  Our whole assertion is that we are adapting in a positive way.

I can also understand if someone says, "Wow, that assertion is way too bold for me.  There are too many fakers and liars out in the martial arts world, and the only safe way to be sure that I'm getting the real stuff is to stick to the most strictly pedigreed lineage I can find."  Okay.  Our assertion is that it's valid to judge the teachers, as human beings, and then follow their martial journey based on that, but someone might not agree.  That's fair.

I am attracted to Stephen K. Hayes because I've come to know him well, and I've always had a positive experience with him.  I want to be more like him, so I follow his path.  So, that's why I always tell people, "Go find a hero that you believe in, get to know them personally, verify that they really are heroic, and then follow their instructions."  I believe in the people side of martial arts, and that the techniques and principles come to life based on that.


----------



## TheStudent (Dec 2, 2008)

Kevin et al,
I also agree with finding a teacher you believe in. I also now understand a bit more about Toshindo than I did when I started. I respect Stephen Hayes and feel he has a large area of expertise.

But my passion is to learn an art that has roots 1,500 years old. So that is where I am going.

Cryo,
Love the "last Dragon" reference! As far as the earlier post, I will not be training with Hayes. I was referring to watching videos of his traditional work, as they are readily available. No training, ranking, etc. will go on. I am going straight Bujinkan. 

As far as the home study course, I understand your point. But, there are other factors in my decision. 

First of all, I am an eLearning Specialist who designs distance training programs for a living. I am certified in both ISD (Instructional Systems Design, the method used by the US military) and to train others in ISD. I was trained by the Ph.D. (lt. Col. Bruce Jaeger) who ran the distance learning program at Brooks AFB for the Air Force in the 80's. So, I know what works and what doesn't in distance learning. With that said, I don't plan to rely on Van Donk videos, but to use his as my "training manual" and primary resource. Adding and adjusting as necessary to make this a truly effective program where-ever his program falls short.

Secondly, I am actively involved in other martial arts training. Currently with an XMA studio (the kids like it, so we do it together). Before that I have experience in Tae Kwon Do, Wing Tsun, Shotokan Karate, Escrima, Kempo, and a smattering from other arts. But none of them ever truly lit the fire inside. Sport Tae Kwon Do came close in my teen years doing tournaments, but it was the camaraderie of the school, not the art. I am very familiar with the basics common to almost all martial arts, as well as recognizing the differences based on varying philosophies. So I am not some neophyte hoping to become a master just from watching a video.

Thirdly, I am not training alone. I have a friend who trained in Bujinkan for about 2 years who will help me get the basics down. He also might start training with me seriously when I start. Another friend who has been training in Wing Tsun, Chinese Kempo, and Escrima for 20 years is willing to buddy up with me to train. So I am looking at starting a small training group. 

The choice of Distance Learning is not my first choice. Economics and family dictate my travel budget (or lack thereof). So I take what I can get. When I reach Black Belt level, I will then travel as necessary to be tested.

In the meantime, before Shodan testing, I will be posting videos on a website for critiques and assistance from qualified, recommended and willing shidoshi. These will not be YouTube videos of a single technique. I plan to film videos of myself doing the technique from front, side, and then basically "training" my understanding of it to the viewer. This ensures any misunderstandings are caught, clarified and corrected before they become learned habits.

So, I agree that a video is NOT a substitute for a real instructor who can see the technique real-time and give immediate feedback, and correct the little things not visible in video. However; given my situation, I plan to make the best of it and learn the art despite my circumstances. It is the art and the skill, not the "magic belt" that motivates me.

With that said, anyone who is a Shidoshi, licensed through Hatsumi, who is also willing to critique this thick headed student, please PM me so I can actually follow-through with my boast above.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 3, 2008)

TheStudent said:


> Cryo,
> Love the "last Dragon" reference!


 
I wasn't sure anyone would get that... LOL.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Dec 3, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Assume I'm the Personal Student of Sum Dum Goy, in the Art of Mada Stufup. I study with Master Goy for 10 years, and decide to branch off and teach, but I contiue to go to Master Goy for Training. My counterpart, Big Zombie Bob does the same, but then says "This Mada Stufup isn't really effectivlt taught anymore. I'm gonna modernize it, and maybe stop in and see Master Goy on rare occasions."
> 
> Now, neither of us have seen the full extent of Mada Stufup, but I continue to learn it, and Big Zombie Bob fills the holes in his knowlage with whatever he feels works from other sources.
> 
> ...


 
I can see your point on the first part of this statement, but if both of those masters had a high level understanding of the material, both of their respective versions could be considered correct even though they are different. If the principle of kata remains, the core of what the system teaches is passed on, even if the method in which it is presented changes.
On the other hand techniques and kata should not be so different that they are unrecognizable to people who saw them in the first place. My opinion is that someone should look for the method that makes the most sense to him and go with that method (so pick a teacher and stick with him), but don't forget that seeing someone different teach it might impart some new realization on what the technique is about or how better to use it.

Now as for the Jizaikan, Thomas Maienza has studied both Bujinkan and To-Shin-do, and was highly ranked in both. Mr. Maienza has several other blackbelts in other martial arts including two 7th degree blackbelts in two seperate Aiki-jujutsu schools. Through years of study Mr. Maienza took what he believed the principles of each kata and technique and based his system off of his interpretations.

We teach all the same ninjutsu ryu found in the bujinkan, genbukan, and jinekan, but like those other schools we show "our" way of doing it. We are in no way based on To-shin-do either. Mr. Maienza's versions of things look slightly different, but you compared one person's ganseki nage to his, you could see how they are derived from the same source.

We teach the kata both the traditional way, and in our "personalized" "jizai" way. You can look up some videos of Mr. Maienza performing techniques and kata on the jizaikan myspace account if your interested.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 3, 2008)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Now as for the Jizaikan, Thomas Maienza has studied both Bujinkan and To-Shin-do, and was highly ranked in both. Mr. Maienza has several other blackbelts in other martial arts including two 7th degree blackbelts in two seperate Aiki-jujutsu schools. Through years of study Mr. Maienza took what he believed the principles of each kata and technique and based his system off of his interpretations.
> 
> We teach all the same ninjutsu ryu found in the bujinkan, genbukan, and jinekan, but like those other schools we show "our" way of doing it. We are in no way based on To-shin-do either. Mr. Maienza's versions of things look slightly different, but you compared one person's ganseki nage to his, you could see how they are derived from the same source.
> 
> We teach the kata both the traditional way, and in our "personalized" "jizai" way. You can look up some videos of Mr. Maienza performing techniques and kata on the jizaikan myspace account if your interested.


 
Thanks.  I only knew about the Naperville Quest center purchase when Wayne moved out of state, I didn't know about his background with the Bujinkan as well.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Dec 3, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Thanks. I only knew about the Naperville Quest center purchase when Wayne moved out of state, I didn't know about his background with the Bujinkan as well.


 
Yes, Mr. Eichenberg, the owner of Warrior's Edge Dojo (formally Naperville Quest Center), purchased the dojo from Mr. Bearstler and decided to switch the school over to the jizaikan curriculum created by Thomas Maienza.


----------



## Obi Wan Shinobi (Dec 4, 2008)

Obviously with people's bodies built differently no two punches are the same. With that said  I believe that if you are taught a technique it should be taught in the original manner intended. And as the student progresses in his/her training they can tailor the technique to their particular body structure and movement to produce the best possible results. In other words learn the technique as it was taught to you and as you futher begin to understand the principles and dynamics of the technique you make it your own. But you do not want to teach someone how to do a technique in the manner that you adapted to  suit you because what may work for you may not necessarily work for the next person. I sometimes think that is what some teachers tend to do unintentionally. There is so much that can't be taught but only understood with practice and dedication. Now I don't know what Jinenkan, Genbukan and TSD do or don't do in their training but I do remember reading Hatsumi say that he teaches his art in the same way he was taught by O'Sensei Takamatsu. But at the same time I do believe if you decide to train in the Jinenkan, Genbukan or TSD that you will receive quality training but what you receive in the Bujinkan from a legit teacher will be as close as it gets to the source.


----------



## TheStudent (Dec 4, 2008)

Obi Wan Shinobi brought up a good point. Mind if I spin it a bit and take the other side?  

I have heard  many people say that as you grow and become expert, you adapt your techniques to match your body and that is the epitome of the art.  (I am paraphrasing, but hopefully you get what I mean.)

I believe a little different.  Not saying I'm right, just tossing out a different opinion to get your thoughts on it.  I see it this way: The human body is designed to function a certain way, the ideal. The better your physical shape, the closer to the ideal function and capability. Physical impairments or disabilities remove some of that capabilitie. Lower physical condition also lowers the capability. For any technique, there is a single, perfect execution. This is the ideal and ultimate expression of that technique. It is that "dream" each person is attempting to execute when they train that technique. If your physical condition is reduced, your ability to reach that level is reduced. At that point, you have three choices. 1, give up and quit trying; 2, adapt the technique to your physical limitations; or 3, improve your physical condition to reach that goal. If you have a physical impairment (glasses, flat feet, shortened tendons from birth, wheelchair, past smoking, deafness, excess weight, etc.) then there is a limit to what you can do and your altered version of the technique may be the best version you can execute, your limit. And you should be judged on how close to the limit you can reach. But, when you teach a new student. You should teach the ideal, so that they are aiming for the same ideal.

In other words, I believe the perfect vertical/chinese/(insert other name here) punch ALWAYS looks exactly the same and is executed exactly the same. If your wrist, shoulder, or other area has a restricted motion, your punch may be below that perfect level. If your tricep is weak, the puch is below that level. If your elbow cannot extend fully, or tends to hyperextend, you may be below that level. But the punch should look exactly the same in your mind, and the only variation is your limitation.

Anything else is allowing mediocrity. I believe we should accept our differences and individual limitations, but not lower our ideals. That is what allows an art to survive and remain consistent over 1,500 years. I believe the third soke of Gyokko should be able to see any student of the 20th soke of Gyokko, or any student today and see the exact same technique. The only differences should be physical limitations (or possibly improved physical limits). I believe that thinking each person can make it unique to them and that it is just as good as anyone else's means in 5 generations, you won't recognize a technique.

(And yes, that is part of why, after seeing all the arguements for both sides, I decided to go strictly bujinkan. If I believe Hatsumi is the true Soke, then unless HE says someone else is more qualified, it is his approval and ideals I am working towards. If I had gone TSD, and it is already "slightly" different due to changes, distilling, or improvement after just one generation, then in 5, how different will it be? Not better or worse, but definately different.  And what I seek is the original and true 9 Ryuha that Masaaki Hatsumi is Soke of.)


----------



## KevinCasey (Dec 5, 2008)

Well, I certainly understand your line of thinking.  I would like it if it seemed to work that way, but history shows that the consistency that you speak of does not exist.  There actually are variations through the centuries even in a single ryu, even when it stays in the country of Japan.  So, that makes it really hard to be a purist with regard to the exact appearance of the form.  You are forced to pick a certain moment in time - say the 1300s version, or the 1500s version, or the 1700s version - and then follow that with unswerving loyalty.  But, the moment picked is necessarily arbitrary.

On top of that, the ryu themselves are not always perfect unbroken chains of pure knowledge.  They inform and affect each other, and sometimes there are spin-offs centuries ago.  Kukishinden Ryu is a good example of convoluted history.  I don't think there is an academically rigorous way to pick a single branch of history and say, "This is the pure form - all others are impure offshoots."  I mean, certainly one can just declare that - that's why politics and even wars erupt - but it's a religious conversion rather than something that one could document and pin down.

That said, lineage really, really, really matters.  I'm just speaking to the idea that exact literal form is ever-shifting, so lineage can't live through literal form.  It must be principle-based, and annoyingly for many of us strong intellects, the principles must then be interpreted by humans in order to take form - which leaves the door open to human corruption.


----------



## nitflegal (Dec 5, 2008)

The controversy is interesting.  If you want to study Bujinkan, find a teacher you can visit with some degree of frequency and study with them.  If you have multiple options, pick the one with the best teaching style and most developed taijutsu.  If you want to study Toshindo, substitute it for Bujinkan in the above sentences.  If you want to study by video, well, good luck with that and try not to hurt yourself.

Beyond that, I am grateful to Mr Hayes for bringing the art of Hatsumi to the US so I would have the great good fortune to study it today.  I am also grateful for the kindness he showed me at the '96 TaiKai when I needed assistance with one of the sequences and for being so encouraging to a hero-worshipping wannabe ninja.  Those things eclipse any care I have about the politics today.  I am grateful to Mr. Van Donk for being such a reliable source of Quest videos back in the 90's before the internet took over for their purchase.

Matt


----------



## nitflegal (Dec 5, 2008)

KevinCasey said:


> Well, I certainly understand your line of thinking.  I would like it if it seemed to work that way, but history shows that the consistency that you speak of does not exist.  There actually are variations through the centuries even in a single ryu, even when it stays in the country of Japan.  So, that makes it really hard to be a purist with regard to the exact appearance of the form.  You are forced to pick a certain moment in time - say the 1300s version, or the 1500s version, or the 1700s version - and then follow that with unswerving loyalty.  But, the moment picked is necessarily arbitrary.
> 
> On top of that, the ryu themselves are not always perfect unbroken chains of pure knowledge.  They inform and affect each other, and sometimes there are spin-offs centuries ago.  Kukishinden Ryu is a good example of convoluted history.  I don't think there is an academically rigorous way to pick a single branch of history and say, "This is the pure form - all others are impure offshoots."  I mean, certainly one can just declare that - that's why politics and even wars erupt - but it's a religious conversion rather than something that one could document and pin down.
> 
> That said, lineage really, really, really matters.  I'm just speaking to the idea that exact literal form is ever-shifting, so lineage can't live through literal form.  It must be principle-based, and annoyingly for many of us strong intellects, the principles must then be interpreted by humans in order to take form - which leaves the door open to human corruption.


  Beyond that, while I'd easily agree that there are concepts and structure that are "ideal", every variation of body-type will induce changes to the overall movement that has nothing to do with an ideal but rather approaching the perfection of the application of the concept.  Also, every technique seems to have variations to fit a specific circumstance; the concept stays the same but the physical situation is adjusted to the opponent, angle, environment, etc.  I want to grow up to be a thinking warrior, not a robot.  

None of this applies to the fabled static Bujinkan lunge punch of course, the epitome of the art. . .  

God help me, I am so going to get beat down tomorrow!  :angel:

Matt


----------



## TheStudent (Dec 5, 2008)

Matt and Kevin, good points.

Kevin,
In regards to lineage and the strictest execution of a form and how you would be forced to pick a specific time period. While I see your point, I think they would be closer than that. I see that there would be differences, but I suspect the differences would be due to external factors and individual bodies. If armor shape and positioning changes over the centuries, the exact positioning of the arms, hands, etc. will change to match in the executuon of the technique. But the concept and how to execute beyond the physical changes will remain the same. If the armor covers the neck, the hand may cover the lower face. If the armor stops at the top of the chest, the hand may cover the neck. But the hand will be in position at the top of the armor, wherever that may be.

Matt,
I agree with the thinking warrior vs. robot. I'm looking at an ideal in specific movements, not a robotic repetition of a series of movements. Let me give an example, which will also expand on my point to Kevin.

Lets look (for the moment) at a Tae Kwon Do front leg thrust kick (as opposed to snap kick). The "Ideal" (as I understand it) is as follows:
1. Shifting weight to the rear leg, square the hips to face the target. This maximizes the range and potential angle the kick can be fired at.
2. Raise the kicking leg, foot aimed down with the toes pulled up. Lifting flat and positioning afterwards slows the kick.
3. The knee should be raised so that it points directly up to the ceiling. This extends the glute for maximum power and removes the ability of the target from guessing where the kick is aimed.
4. The foot, ankle and calf should be locked into position forming a perfectly solid unit. being relaxed below the knee prior to kicking increases speed, but tighten before firing the kick, in case the target moves in, changing the timing. A rigid foot 3/4 extended at impact does damage. But a relaxed foot extended 3/4 at impact damages the foot or ankle.
5. contract the Gluteus Maximus and the quadricept to forcefully extend the foot forward in a thrusting motion aimed at the target. Lower the knee to point directly at the target as the foot extends, ending in a straight line from hip to toe to target.
6. As the foot starts to make contact, shift the hips pushing the kicking hip forward, adding the power of the hips and rear leg into the kick.
7. Maintain correct upper body posture, as hunching or pulling away saps power from the actual kick.
8. Raise the knee back to the ceiling, pulling the foot back under the knee. This removes the foot from being grabbed, and allows a second kick to be fired if necessary.
9. Lower the foot to the ground.

Now, a variation might be taught "point at your target with your knee." But this reduces the power to only the quad, since the glute is already in position by aiming the knee at the target rather than higher. Not ideal or truly acceptable.

A PERSON might raise their knee to point at the head, rather than the ceiling, because they are not limber enough to go all the way up. This is an attempt to reach the ideal, and an acceptable adaptation.  As long at the ideal of "knee as high as possible" is taught to the next generation.

A different variation might be taught, where the kick looks the same, but no mention of the rotated hips is made. This is not acceptable, because a large addition of power is lost.

A PERSON might lift and instead of squaring hips, pull the kicking hip BACK and simply square at the moment the ideal says to rotate forward. This is due to a weak leg, or perhaps a poor sense of balance, or some other issue with hip positioning.This is less than the ideal, because the kicking leg is not 100% in line with the target, until the moment of impact; meaning if the target moves, less range of motion is available to compensate in mid-kick. It is acceptable, because a rotation is happening, adding the desired force. The kicker will be limited in responding to some opponents, but have a successful kick. The key is that the knowledge be taught to the next generation, as well as the correct, ideal positioning. If a student asks, explain the change, why it was done and explain the reason the ideal is correct.

So, over years and generations, specific kicks will look different, but the IDEAL remains the same. Anyone from any age can look at a front thrust kick and identify what it is, what is accurate or different about it and be able to tell if the student has been taught correctly, regardless of their EXACT execution.

So, how the kick is used, when it is used, what follows the kick, etc. are the thinking warrior's skill and abilities. But the execution and the ideal are always the same. Not Robotic, simply correct and expected.

Sport (point sparring) people will drop the rotating hips, because they are rushing for multiple kicks, and 100% potential power is not needed. They might also simplify to just point at head, since the extra motion higher and back down is slower with "wasted" motion and the head is high enough to hit any lower point when actually fired. But, while the variation is the ideal for point sparring, that is not the ideal for a traditional power kick. So, their ideal will be different, because it has a different purpose.  Any traditionalist will see the kicks and call them sloppy. Especially when they see an entire school doing it, showing it is a style, not a personal adaptation. But a traditionalist can leave any studio in any city and find another studio that is quality simply by watching to see how the kick is performed by the majority of the students. (and vice versa for a sport fighter. If the kicks always point at the target, they know the students are not being taught to "hide" the aim, allowing them to be predictable abnd easily blocked.)

Does that help illustrate my theory about techniqe and the ideal we should all be striving for, regardless of what style?  There is not ONE perfect kick. There is ONE perfect kick for a specific style based on the goal and desired outcome of the kick.


----------

