# Ninjutsu vs BJJ



## Senin

I was wondering how a ninjutsu fighter would stack up against a BBJ fighter.  

Obviously the BBJer would come in for a take down.  The nin-fighter would try some sort of counter manouver (during the takedown), possibly throat strike, eye gouch, or ear slap.  Would that work, depends on the fighters.  If not, then the fight would be on the ground, BBJ territory and he would have relative control.  Of course, the nin-fighter doesn't have to play by rules-- that is what makes taijutsu the art it is-- and I am sure more eyes gouches, etc would follow.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Senin said:


> I was wondering how a ninjutsu fighter would stack up against a BBJ fighter.


 
 Ask Marcus Widengren. Oh, and ninjutsu isn't about physical techniques.



Senin said:


> Obviously the BBJer would come in for a take down.


 
Or, the whole incident takes place in Brazil, he's a member of the Comando Vermelho and pulls out an Uzi. Sorry to be blunt, but you really need to lay off this black-and-white view of the world you seem to be espousing, as indicated by your recent posts.



Senin said:


> The nin-fighter would try some sort of counter manouver (during the takedown), possibly throat strike, eye gouch, or ear slap.


 
Or a sprawl. :erg: The ear slap worked for me once, but that was purely accidental.


----------



## rutherford

C'mon.  Do you really believe that a Brazilian criminal is going to use an Israeli gun?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

I've seen images of them holding Desert Eagles...


----------



## Bigshadow

Senin said:


> Obviously the BBJer would come in for a take down.  The nin-fighter would try some sort of counter manouver (during the takedown), possibly throat strike, eye gouch, or ear slap.



Not necessarily.  Not giving them what they expect and letting them move as they wish is quite likely. 



Senin said:


> and I am sure more eyes gouches, etc would follow.




Again, not necessarily.  I don't believe BBT is about pain compliance, it is certainly there, but someone who is good doesn't have to create pain to control their attacker, the attacker creates their own pain.


----------



## rutherford

Nimravus said:


> I've seen images of them holding Desert Eagles...



Sorry.  I wasn't really asking about the gun.  Obviously, you use what works.


----------



## jks9199

Nimravus said:


> Sorry to be blunt, but you really need to lay off this black-and-white view of the world you seem to be espousing, as indicated by your recent posts.


 
I've been thinking the same thing.  I think every thread Sennin starts begins the same "What would x do against y?"  I don't know about anyone else, but it gets old fast for me...

Each art has its own approaches; some arts cover one range exhaustively (like BJJ, judo, or jiujutsu), others cover more ranges less deeply.  Every fighter has to solve the problems of strikes, blows, and throws.  Each will do so within the scope of their own training.


----------



## Senin

jks,
Thanks great, but how about a response.  Tell us, with your martial arts expertise, how a Nin-fighter and a BJJ-fighter would go at it.

If you have something to contribute.


----------



## MJS

Nimravus said:


> Ask Marcus Widengren.


 
Ok, you've sparked my curiosity.   I'm interested in hearing this story. 

Mike


----------



## Don Roley

jks9199 said:


> I've been thinking the same thing.  I think every thread Sennin starts begins the same "What would x do against y?"  I don't know about anyone else, but it gets old fast for me...



For me, it reminds me of the line from the movie "Stand by Me" that goes, 'who would win in a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse.

For Cuthulu's sake, what are the circumstances? What are the many, many variables that could change things a hell of a lot?

If a bouncer took me to the ground because a woman told them I had slapped her I would respond a hell of a lot differnetly than the ex- boyfriend of a girl I was seeing that had three guys with him that were concealing thier hands. In the later case, the guy might find out how fast I could draw and use my Spyderco while on my back. But not in the first example. There are too many damn variables in a real situation to make any realistic statement. And those that do sound to me like the kids in the movie talking about Superman and Mighty Mouse.


----------



## rutherford

MJS said:


> Ok, you've sparked my curiosity.   I'm interested in hearing this story.
> 
> Mike



He's a scandanavian BJJ fighter who has extensive Bujinkan experience, including a year of study in Japan.  

Having direct, top-rank, experience with both would probably lead him to have some insights on the matter.


----------



## shesulsa

Senin said:


> I was wondering how a ninjutsu fighter would stack up against a BBJ fighter.
> 
> Obviously the BBJer would come in for a take down.  The nin-fighter would try some sort of counter manouver (during the takedown), possibly throat strike, eye gouch, or ear slap.  Would that work, depends on the fighters.  If not, then the fight would be on the ground, BBJ territory and he would have relative control.  Of course, the nin-fighter doesn't have to play by rules-- that is what makes taijutsu the art it is-- and I am sure more eyes gouches, etc would follow.



*Asst. Admin Note:

So you know, MartialTalk tries to discourage these style-vs-style discussions as it usually proves to be a pointless conversation and an argument of theory, especially when the philosophies are so vastly different.

Please ensure your discussion remains polite, respectful and within our posting rules.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assistant Administrator*


----------



## MJS

rutherford said:


> He's a scandanavian BJJ fighter who has extensive Bujinkan experience, including a year of study in Japan.
> 
> Having direct, top-rank, experience with both would probably lead him to have some insights on the matter.


 
Thanks for the reply.

Mike


----------



## Bujingodai

Don is right, it is a completely fruitless discussion unless you provide the variables.

IE in a MMA sanctioned match, UFC style rules and reffing. In most cases, IMO the BJJ would own the Ninpo practitioner. Many of the tools we are trained to use are not allowed, silly rules like not kicking while on your back etc, gouging, hooking, minor joint manipulation etc.
Also in Ninjutsu a great deal of it is not getting hit in the 1st place, whether in the ring that is just not how a fight is fought. Not to mention that BJJ guys train to get their heads knocked about and their cardio is great. This is what they do. Comparing these styles in this matter is like asking a pilot to do heart surgery.

Ninjutsu, Ninpo whatever you call it is about survivial not competition. You do not learn auxillary skills, or skills of strategy from BJJ you learn how to fight.

On the other hand lets take what Ninpo might train for. What if a BJJ guy broke into your house into the middle of the night and now there is no ref, who would win? I think the Ninpo guy have an advantage here

But again it depends on the fight in the dog not the size right? 

There are some arts that are better suited for competition on the mats. But it depends on the style of competition too.

BJJ isn't even that effective on the mats anymore in sports today. Look at Royce, who is the quinticential (sp) BJJ guy who was owned by Hughes. They all cross train in something else now. BJJ is just an element on it's own. Much like in Ninpo there is not just one element to battle, it is in effect a cross trained system built into one.

Enough of my babble.


----------



## Symbiote_X

I always thought that Ninjutsu was the same thing that Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. I tought only the name Ninjutsu was changed to BJJ because of the bad rep/misconceptions that arise in the last decades (movies, etc). So when I red the first post I thought:" Why in the world someone would ask Ninjutsu (BJJ) vs BJJ (Ninjutsu)?" 

If someone could tell if my initial tought was right, I would be happy...
(BTW I know that there is different school/tradition in Ninjutsu (X-kan and others))

Maybe the initial question was not precise or clear enough?

Remember I am just a newb!


----------



## Bujingodai

I think for the matter that we are all speaking of the same thing. No the question was clear just undefined.


----------



## rutherford

Symbiote_X said:


> Why in the world someone would ask Ninjutsu (BJJ) vs BJJ (Ninjutsu)?"



Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is sometimes written as BBT.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is sometimes written as BJJ.

See the difference?


----------



## Bujingodai

Ah thank you for pointing that out I guess I didn't see what he was asking properly.
That does look confusing sometimes.


----------



## rutherford

Bujingodai said:


> Ah thank you for pointing that out I guess I didn't see what he was asking properly.
> 
> That does look confusing sometimes.



As long as you don't get it confused with a BBBJ . . . 


iratelau


----------



## DWeidman

rutherford said:


> Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is sometimes written as BBT.
> 
> Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is sometimes written as BJJ.
> 
> See the difference?



Abbreviations:

Bujinkan = BJK
Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu = BBT
Brazillian JuiJutsu = BJJ
Gracie JuiJutsu = GJJ
Japanese Jujutsu = JJJ

-DW

PS.  To answer the OT:  BJJ wins if it is a ground game.  All other arenas are up for grabs.


----------



## flashlock

There's nothing really wrong with this question, and it could be pursued as a kind of thought experiment (in Roman times, a real experiment!).

ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL--does one system have an advantage over the other?  They are so different, I find it difficult to believe they are equal in terms of street fighting.  Let's limit it to that basic scenario (not sports matches, not running away, not fighting on an ice pond).

Take the 50 most athletic, best trained ninjutsu practitioners and the 50 most athletic BJJ rollers.  Have 50 fight in a cramped area (mimicking a bar or parking lot situation), and have 50 fight in an open arena--of course, absolutely no rules, to the death--ugh!

If you could do such a ridiculous experiment, I think you could discover which system, *in general* was better for a street type conflict.

But we don't really need to do it--there is documented evidence to help support our imaginations, as well as experiments you can do yourself.

I have practiced a little ninjutsu, and even a little BJJ--and I compared the two and came to my own conclusions--others, much more qualified, I'm sure could reach totally different conclusions.

If you practice ninjutsu and are curious, go to a BJJ club and roll with those guys.  I guarantee you, you will be surprised at how difficult it is to use a "dirty trick" on them (i.e., eye gouges, biting, etc.)  In fact, even against a middle ranked BJJ guy, I found it almost impossible to get my fingers even near their faces, or to bite anywhere (you don't have to really bite or gouge to see if it's positionally possible).

Now, BJJ took on many challengers with less rules in the beginning in Brazille than they now have in the UFC.  The stuff has been tested and tested and tested.  There is no guarantee, but, personally (and I've made this choice after much consideration), if you had to pick one system for overall health, well being, and self defense (OK, FUN too!), I picked BJJ.  Just my personal thing.  But think about it:  isn't it odd how every system is now "incorporating" BJJ into itself?  Why not just join BJJ?

That was my conclusion, and I'm sure there are just as many to pursue other arts, and I respect that.  I'm just laying out why I choose BJJ over Ninjutsu--please do not take offence!  Ninjutsu is fantastic, and there is a great spiritual dimension quite unique to it.

Back to my silly experiment.  I think out of those 50 fights, the ninjutsu practioner will be at a distinct disadvantage because his grappling will be weaker than the BJJ fighters, and 99% fights end up in grappling range.  This has been documented by the US Army in Iraq--and, less convincingly, in ultimate fighting competitions.  Every documented fight had elements of grappling, NONE were just striking.  Interesting!

I believe the ninjutsu grappling will be slightly weaker because the ninja guy/ gal doesn't specialize in that range.

If I were a taijutsu practioner, I would try my best to intercept the BJJ guy with eye jabs and shin kicks from those ranges, moving back in "water mode", and ready to sprawl and deliver elbows when he came in for a double leg take down.  The ninja will win fights where his strikes nail the mark, and he can keep away; also, the fight has to be short, or it will degenerate into grappling.  All this is possible, but it is very, very difficult to prevent the natural flow to grappling between (otherwise) equally matched fighters.

I would say the BJJ people would probably when over 50% of those battles based on the chances things go to grappling range alone.

Other thoughts?


----------



## DWeidman

flashlock said:


> Take the 50 most athletic, best trained ninjutsu practitioners and the 50 most athletic BJJ rollers.  Have 50 fight in a cramped area (mimicking a bar or parking lot situation), and have 50 fight in an open arena--of course, absolutely no rules, to the death--ugh!
> 
> I would say the BJJ people would probably when over 50% of those battles based on the chances things go to grappling range alone.
> 
> Other thoughts?



If those 50 fights are one after the other - fair rules (no weapons) - I would agree with you.

If you put all 50 in the same room and just say "kill" -- I put my money on the BJK guys.

If you simply let each of them bring in bladed weapons... I REALLY put my money on the BJK guys.

But yes - for the UFC -- BJJ everytime.

Depends on what you are doing it for.  I am happy for you.

-DW


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Why do so many people seem to assume that all taijutsu ground tactics are based around eye pokes, biting and groin attacks?


----------



## zDom

flashlock said:


> ... and 99% fights end up in grappling range....



Oh, now its up to 99 percent, eh? 

Not even 99 percent of UFC fights end up in grappling range, much less 99 percent of ALL fights.

What is that signature someone has? Something like 67 percent of statistics are made up


----------



## flashlock

DWeidman said:


> If those 50 fights are one after the other - fair rules (no weapons) - I would agree with you.
> 
> If you put all 50 in the same room and just say "kill" -- I put my money on the BJK guys.
> 
> If you simply let each of them bring in bladed weapons... I REALLY put my money on the BJK guys.
> 
> But yes - for the UFC -- BJJ everytime.
> 
> Depends on what you are doing it for. I am happy for you.
> 
> -DW


 
Sorry, I don't understand.  What do you mean "fair rules (no weapons)"?  True, my experiment takes out weapons, because we're talking about H2H combat, but I specifically stated no rules and went into how eye gouges and things are no antidote (necessarily) to grappling.

Now, I'm assuming you don't mean having people fight sword vs sword.  Most realistically it could be knife vs stick, or knife vs knife, or club vs club.  If the BJJ guy has no training in weapons - which is possible - then I agree, the ninja guy/ gal would have an advantage.

My experiment is about two guys, no weapons, no rules, two different systems--a simple, basic test.  Let's stick to that for the sake of arguement.  So, I ask you, without going into other options, in H2H combat, no weapons, no rules, you think they have equal chances (or an advantage to one side or the other)?  And what do you base your opinion on?

Thanks!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Really this discussion can go no where!  Unfortunately it has more to do with the individual practitioner than the *style* that they train in.  Personally I have extension experience in both, over 13 years in Budo Taijutsu and over eleven years in Brazilian Jiujitsu.  Both have things they are very good at and both arts are beautiful in and of themselves.  However, it does come down to the individual in the end and if they can *apply* what they do.  No doubt in one situation a BJJ guy might survive the encounter and in another situation a Budo Taijutsu practitioner might survive.  I agree with Don that there are two many variables at play and to many things that could happen to really qualify one as better than the other.


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean "fair rules (no weapons)"? True, my experiment takes out weapons, because we're talking about H2H combat, but I specifically stated no rules and went into how eye gouges and things are no antidote (necessarily) to grappling.
> 
> Now, I'm assuming you don't mean having people fight sword vs sword. Most realistically it could be knife vs stick, or knife vs knife, or club vs club. If the BJJ guy has no training in weapons - which is possible - then I agree, the ninja guy/ gal would have an advantage.
> 
> My experiment is about two guys, no weapons, no rules, two different systems--a simple, basic test. Let's stick to that for the sake of arguement. So, I ask you, without going into other options, in H2H combat, no weapons, no rules, you think they have equal chances (or an advantage to one side or the other)? And what do you base your opinion on?
> 
> Thanks!


 
The experiment in and of itself is really a moot point.  You could have 2 people fight each other 10 times and the outcome can vary from time to time.  Its not so much the art, but instead the person. In addition, if this was really going to be a no rules fight, why are you limiting it to no weapons?  In a real fight, with no rules, I'm going to use whatever is available to me.

Mike


----------



## flashlock

zDom said:


> Oh, now its up to 99 percent, eh?
> 
> Not even 99 percent of UFC fights end up in grappling range, much less 99 percent of ALL fights.
> 
> What is that signature someone has? Something like 67 percent of statistics are made up


 
"For instance, every hand-to-hand fight we have documented has involved grappling, but not a single one has involved only striking..." H2H combat, p. 9 (Greg Thompson and Ked Peligro).

Thank you, saying "ended up" in grappling range is imprecise.  I should have said 100% of all documented H2H fights in Afghanistan and Iraq had involved grappling and or grappling and striking, but no conflicts involved striking alone.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

flashlock said:


> Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean "fair rules (no weapons)"? True, my experiment takes out weapons, because we're talking about H2H combat, but I specifically stated no rules and went into how eye gouges and things are no antidote (necessarily) to grappling.
> 
> Now, I'm assuming you don't mean having people fight sword vs sword. Most realistically it could be knife vs stick, or knife vs knife, or club vs club. If the BJJ guy has no training in weapons - which is possible - then I agree, the ninja guy/ gal would have an advantage.
> 
> My experiment is about two guys, no weapons, no rules, two different systems--a simple, basic test. Let's stick to that for the sake of arguement. So, I ask you, without going into other options, in H2H combat, no weapons, no rules, you think they have equal chances (or an advantage to one side or the other)? And what do you base your opinion on?
> 
> Thanks!


 
Brad,

*Why* would anyone want to be in an experiment where it was *fair*?  If I was part of this (in the real world) I would want an advantage.  A Budo Taijutsu practitioner is rarely if ever going to be without some kind of tool to use.  So the experiement you propose is not really an accurate one.  Plus H2H does not connotate without any sort of variables of picking up tools to use to your advantage.

The reality is that this always comes down to the individual.  I have met pracitioner's from *any style* that simply put could not protect themselves.  I have also met pracitioners from *every style* that would be a formidable opponent at the right time.  It will always come down to the *individual!*


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

flashlock said:


> "For instance, every hand-to-hand fight we have documented has involved grappling, but not a single one has involved only striking..." H2H combat, p. 9 (Greg Thompson and Ked Peligro).
> 
> Thank you, saying "ended up" in grappling range is imprecise. I should have said 100% of all documented H2H fights in Afghanistan and Iraq had involved grappling and or grappling and striking, but no conflicts involved striking alone.


 
This backs up Greg Thompson's point.  Unfortunately he is trying to sell grappling and his system in particular.  I know several vets who engaged enemies and did not end up on the ground.  To many variables and the world does not work with any kind of *absolute*!


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> "For instance, every hand-to-hand fight we have documented has involved grappling, but not a single one has involved only striking..." H2H combat, p. 9 (Greg Thompson and Ked Peligro).


 
These fights that were documented...who were they between?  Grappler vs. Grappler, Grappler vs. Striker, Striker vs. Striker??


----------



## terryl965

Ok I have read and I have a question, why would anybody with any kind of training go to the ground with there enemies. I mean if I was in a defense mode I would put the other on the ground but would stay up to make sure no-one else is coming at me, also why would we have a fair fight with all the variable known to each other, I mean no two people are going to know each other moves.

I know I do not train the same as most of you but I would appreciate some real answers to mu questions.
Thanks
Terry


----------



## flashlock

MJS said:


> The experiment in and of itself is really a moot point. You could have 2 people fight each other 10 times and the outcome can vary from time to time. Its not so much the art, but instead the person. In addition, if this was really going to be a no rules fight, why are you limiting it to no weapons? In a real fight, with no rules, I'm going to use whatever is available to me.
> 
> Mike


 
Thanks, Mike!

It seems to me a lot of people are saying there are so many different crazy factors it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any logical conclusion about what is more effective in a H2H combat situation.  I don't buy it, and the US Army doesn't buy it, based on statistics.

Can't we say Ninjutsu probably has a better chance in a street fight than coperaria (sorry for my spelling).

Each fight you look at could be completely different, however, you can see trends of success.

For example, in chess, some openings are better than others because % wise, they win more than others.  Each game is vastly different, with billions and billions and billions of different possibilities, and different opponents.  However, we can say all in all, in general, the sicilian najdorf defense increases your chances of winning a chess game as black than if you were to play, say, the risky Latvian gambit. 

Hardly "moot" at all.

Yes, sometimes the Latvian gambit has brilliant succes, but overall, in grand master games, it is a piece of garbage compared to the Najdorf!

We can do the same with martial arts.  Of course, 100 fighters is still probably too small.  Maybe look at 500.

I think things like weapons don't really solve anything.  You can grab a pool cue or a rock, or unsheath your blade, but so can anyone else.  Let's look at the core issue--in this case unarmed taijutsu vs unarmed BJJ.


----------



## flashlock

Nimravus said:


> Why do so many people seem to assume that all taijutsu ground tactics are based around eye pokes, biting and groin attacks?


 
I don't assume that, but someone mentioned it as an option in street fights that you wouldn't have in the UFC, so I addressed it.  There is some good grappling in ninjutsu, but it's not a specailty as it is in BJJ.  In fact, I know To Shin Do "incorporates" many positions from BJJ for its ground game, along with eye gouges and strikes.


----------



## flashlock

MJS said:


> These fights that were documented...who were they between? Grappler vs. Grappler, Grappler vs. Striker, Striker vs. Striker??


 
The soldiers came back after H2H conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and described what occured in detailed reports, and gave feedback on what worked and what didn't.  This was used to re-haul the US Army and Special Forces H2H combat training, which now has BJJ as its core, again, according to the people who designed the prgram and teach it to the army (Matt Larson [a ranger] and Greg Thompson).

I don't know anything about it beyond this source.


----------



## itengu

Having trained in both styles I have a few observations:

- BJJ is designed to satisfy a one on one unarmed duel, which is does very very well, attempting to engage in this situation without having a ground game would be foolish
- Bujinkan provides a complete framework embracing ground , stand up, weapons etc etc. Different world. 
- There seem an odd perception of pure stylists. Many many Bujinkan people cross train in BJJ or other grappling arts as do other styles even if only to find out what those pesky grapplers are up to.
- I would be surprised if many BJJ persons did not also cross train to have a good stand up game
- The biting, the gourging argument fails to solve a single problem "You are in an inferior position and if thats all you got you are in trouble" ... it also annoys grapplers, pain and nasty tricks will not make one give up a superior position, I will swap a bite for an arm bar anyday.
- As for eye gourges if you can't dominate position on the groud you mostly certainly won't have the leverage to remotely pull anything like this off
- I have observed Bujinkan people who cross train in BJJ quickly develop a strategy to get back up on their feet and not play the cuddling game
- If you have a Shihan that can't get out of a side mount find a new one.
- In a reality based combat situation you must have the tools to take the engagement to a more tactical position. If you have a ground game it is easier to take the fight up to a better range. i.e Standing

Cheers...


----------



## Flying Crane

flashlock said:


> Can't we say Ninjutsu probably has a better chance in a street fight than coperaria (sorry for my spelling).


 

Yes, is is spelled CAPOEIRA, you managed to slaughter it pretty bad.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




But I would say no to this, it cannot be assumed.  I know some seriously scary capoeiristas, against whom nobody sane would want to fight.  But I also know a lot of really lousy capoeiristas.  The problem is that, in my opinion, the training methods in many capoeira schools don't train with a life-and-death fight in mind.  They train for the "game", in the roda.  Some of them that train this way can be pretty tough, but it's still not the same.

But in the end, it really depends on the person, and how well they have trained and developed their skills, in whichever art they have chosen.  I wouldn't count the capoeiristas out of it...


----------



## flashlock

terryl965 said:


> Ok I have read and I have a question, why would anybody with any kind of training go to the ground with there enemies. I mean if I was in a defense mode I would put the other on the ground but would stay up to make sure no-one else is coming at me, also why would we have a fair fight with all the variable known to each other, I mean no two people are going to know each other moves.
> 
> I know I do not train the same as most of you but I would appreciate some real answers to mu questions.
> Thanks
> Terry


 
Hi, Terry!  I asked that question many times myself before I decided on my personal trip, BJJ.

Sometimes you have no choice.  You get tackled out of the blue, and man, you are on the ground!  You better have some skills.  Or maybe it's a crazy relative you don't want to hurt, you just want to contain, so you bring him down while your aunt Fifi calls the police.

But the best thing is, the principles of BJJ work on the ground or upright.  You can throw them while still standing and run, you can arm bar someone standing up, or get behind them and choke them out while on your feet.  It works on the ground, but also standing up!

I'm just a newbie at this, so I hesitate to go into it, but I did ask these questions, and that is what I discovered.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

flashlock said:


> The soldiers came back after H2H conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and described what occured in detailed reports, and gave feedback on what worked and what didn't. This was used to re-haul the US Army and Special Forces H2H combat training, which now has BJJ as its core, again, according to the people who designed the prgram and teach it to the army (Matt Larson [a ranger] and Greg Thompson).
> 
> I don't know anything about it beyond this source.


 

Brad both Matt and Greg also say that the one who survives in a grappling encounter in the military is the one whose friends show up first. (scary if your only H2H skills are grappling)  Simply put on a battlefield grappling with the enemy is not a good idea unless or course it goes there and then yes you had better have some skill and or hope that his/her friends do not show up first.  Even then if you are grappling on a battlefield in a combative situation you had better understand how and when you could pull out your tactical sidearm or knife to increase your advantage.  These skills would be essential and something that should be taught in every grappling class for real world personal protection and combative measures.
This is something by the way that you will find in Budo Taijutsu or what I teach in IRT!


----------



## flashlock

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, is is spelled CAPOEIRA, you managed to slaughter it pretty bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I would say no to this, it cannot be assumed. I know some seriously scary capoeiristas, against whom nobody sane would want to fight. But I also know a lot of really lousy capoeiristas. The problem is that, in my opinion, the training methods in many capoeira schools don't train with a life-and-death fight in mind. They train for the "game", in the roda. Some of them that train this way can be pretty tough, but it's still not the same.
> 
> But in the end, it really depends on the person, and how well they have trained and developed their skills, in whichever art they have chosen. I wouldn't count the capoeiristas out of it...


 
My appologies to the capoeiristas (for the misspelling and counting them out).  I know a couple of guys who practice it, and they don't think most of it would work in a fight--but that of course is not the real point for them.  I just couldn't think of anything else that was related to martial arts, but not really too practical for a real fight.  I'll make something up, uh, one armed, one legged blind boxing, how is that?


----------



## flashlock

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Brad both Matt and Greg also say that the one who survives in a grappling encounter in the military is the one whose friends show up first. (scary if your only H2H skills are grappling) Simply put on a battlefield grappling with the enemy is not a good idea unless or course it goes there and then yes you had better have some skill and or hope that his/her friends do not show up first. Even then if you are grappling on a battlefield in a combative situation you had better understand how and when you could pull out your tactical sidearm or knife to increase your advantage. These skills would be essential and something that should be taught in every grappling class for real world personal protection and combative measures.
> This is something by the way that you will find in Budo Taijutsu or what I teach in IRT!


 
Hi, Brian!

It's funny how posts spiral out of control, I can't keep up!

Yes, that's a great quote (friends showing up).

I agree with everything you say, and those special forces guys altered BJJ to fit US Army needs--still, the core is BJJ.

I'm probably suffering a little bit from zealotry, as I've just made the decision to go 100% for BJJ--I have a lot of holes in my theory, yes, but I still stand by what I have said based on what evidence is out there, the opinions of experts, and my own instincts and experiences.

I DO think it is possible to see what increases your chances of success in terms of what art you pick.  Another factor is your own body and ability.  Maybe BJJ is not the best for you if you can strike and kick like a Bruce Lee.  But I am only talking in generalities, see the chess analogy in my previous post.  Yes, take stats with a big grain of salt, but don't totally ignore them!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

flashlock said:


> Hi, Brian!
> 
> It's funny how posts spiral out of control, I can't keep up!
> 
> Yes, that's a great quote (friends showing up).
> 
> I agree with everything you say, and those special forces guys altered BJJ to fit US Army needs--still, the core is BJJ.
> 
> I'm probably suffering a little bit from zealotry, as I've just made the decision to go 100% for BJJ--I have a lot of holes in my theory, yes, but I still stand by what I have said based on what evidence is out there, the opinions of experts, and my own instincts and experiences.
> 
> I DO think it is possible to see what increases your chances of success in terms of what art you pick. Another factor is your own body and ability. Maybe BJJ is not the best for you if you can strike and kick like a Bruce Lee. But I am only talking in generalities, see the chess analogy in my previous post. Yes, take stats with a big grain of salt, but don't totally ignore them!


 
In the end though Brad what will really matter is if you can perform in the moment of truth.  Everything else is just theory, statistics, etc.  Training in any art is just that training a simulation so to speak.  Nothing is quite as real as the moment when something happens.


----------



## KenpoGunz

My money is on the Ninja. I doubt the BJJer would even see him coming. A puff of smoke, two throwing stars and one dead BJJer. LOL :rofl:

Sorry guys I couldnt resist.


----------



## Flying Crane

flashlock said:


> My appologies to the capoeiristas (for the misspelling and counting them out). I know a couple of guys who practice it, and they don't think most of it would work in a fight--but that of course is not the real point for them. I just couldn't think of anything else that was related to martial arts, but not really too practical for a real fight. I'll make something up, uh, one armed, one legged blind boxing, how is that?


 

I completely understand, I just couldn't resist jumping in there and giving you a hard time over it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.

I don't want to hijack the thread, it's not about capoeira.  I've written about it here in the forums, regarding some of these issues, if anyone happens to be curious, let me know and I will direct you to some of the threads already in existence.  I've spent a number of years training in capoeira, in addition to a number of other arts, so I feel I can make a pretty good comparison and discuss the matter.


----------



## flashlock

itengu said:


> Having trained in both styles I have a few observations:
> 
> - BJJ is designed to satisfy a one on one unarmed duel, which is does very very well, attempting to engage in this situation without having a ground game would be foolish
> - Bujinkan provides a complete framework embracing ground , stand up, weapons etc etc. Different world.
> - There seem an odd perception of pure stylists. Many many Bujinkan people cross train in BJJ or other grappling arts as do other styles even if only to find out what those pesky grapplers are up to.
> - I would be surprised if many BJJ persons did not also cross train to have a good stand up game
> - The biting, the gourging argument fails to solve a single problem "You are in an inferior position and if thats all you got you are in trouble" ... it also annoys grapplers, pain and nasty tricks will not make one give up a superior position, I will swap a bite for an arm bar anyday.
> - As for eye gourges if you can't dominate position on the groud you mostly certainly won't have the leverage to remotely pull anything like this off
> - I have observed Bujinkan people who cross train in BJJ quickly develop a strategy to get back up on their feet and not play the cuddling game
> - If you have a Shihan that can't get out of a side mount find a new one.
> - In a reality based combat situation you must have the tools to take the engagement to a more tactical position. If you have a ground game it is easier to take the fight up to a better range. i.e Standing
> 
> Cheers...


 
Thank you, great, fair post!


----------



## flashlock

Brian R. VanCise said:


> In the end though Brad what will really matter is if you can perform in the moment of truth. Everything else is just theory, statistics, etc. Training in any art is just that training a simulation so to speak. Nothing is quite as real as the moment when something happens.


 
Absolutely!


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> Thanks, Mike!
> 
> It seems to me a lot of people are saying there are so many different crazy factors it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any logical conclusion about what is more effective in a H2H combat situation. I don't buy it, and the US Army doesn't buy it, based on statistics.


 
So, like so many others, you're basing your thoughts off of what others have found?  Wouldn't it make more sense to research for yourself?  Its impossible to know how everyone trains.



> Can't we say Ninjutsu probably has a better chance in a street fight than coperaria (sorry for my spelling).


 
Again, as others have said, as well as myself, its not the art, its the person.



> Each fight you look at could be completely different, however, you can see trends of success.


 
I'm afraid you're missing the point.



> For example, in chess, some openings are better than others because % wise, they win more than others. Each game is vastly different, with billions and billions and billions of different possibilities, and different opponents. However, we can say all in all, in general, the sicilian najdorf defense increases your chances of winning a chess game as black than if you were to play, say, the risky Latvian gambit.
> 
> Hardly "moot" at all.
> 
> Yes, sometimes the Latvian gambit has brilliant succes, but overall, in grand master games, it is a piece of garbage compared to the Najdorf!
> 
> We can do the same with martial arts. Of course, 100 fighters is still probably too small. Maybe look at 500.


 
Just because something works for one person does not ensure that its going to work for the next.  As I said, we can have any number of fights, the outcome will vary.




> I think things like weapons don't really solve anything. You can grab a pool cue or a rock, or unsheath your blade, but so can anyone else. Let's look at the core issue--in this case unarmed taijutsu vs unarmed BJJ.


 
Weapons do make a big difference.  In addition, you're correct on one part, yes, anyone can grab something, but the difference lies in the person that is skilled with the weapon.  Big difference.  If you're going to say no rules, but then say unarmed, that contradicts itself a bit.


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> The soldiers came back after H2H conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and described what occured in detailed reports, and gave feedback on what worked and what didn't. This was used to re-haul the US Army and Special Forces H2H combat training, which now has BJJ as its core, again, according to the people who designed the prgram and teach it to the army (Matt Larson [a ranger] and Greg Thompson).
> 
> I don't know anything about it beyond this source.


 
So with gear and other equipment, they still rolled on the ground with someone hell bent on killing them?


----------



## Symbiote_X

rutherford said:


> Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is sometimes written as BBT.
> 
> Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is sometimes written as BJJ.
> 
> See the difference?



Thanks I think I was a little mixed up in the abbreviation!


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

flashlock said:


> It seems to me a lot of people are saying there are so many different crazy factors it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any logical conclusion about what is more effective in a H2H combat situation.


 
It's impossible to tell beforehand if it's going to be purely H2H.



flashlock said:


> I think things like weapons don't really solve anything.


 
"At least, they help you do less talking." :ultracool 



flashlock said:


> You can grab a pool cue or a rock, or unsheath your blade, but so can anyone else.


 
It's not a matter of someone else being able to do it too. It's about who does it first.



flashlock said:


> There is some good grappling in ninjutsu, but it's not a specailty as it is in BJJ.


 
No style owns the sole right to specific techniques.


----------



## flashlock

MJS said:


> So, like so many others, you're basing your thoughts off of what others have found? Wouldn't it make more sense to research for yourself? Its impossible to know how everyone trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as others have said, as well as myself, its not the art, its the person.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're missing the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because something works for one person does not ensure that its going to work for the next. As I said, we can have any number of fights, the outcome will vary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weapons do make a big difference. In addition, you're correct on one part, yes, anyone can grab something, but the difference lies in the person that is skilled with the weapon. Big difference. If you're going to say no rules, but then say unarmed, that contradicts itself a bit.


 
I'm going to squash this "it's not the art, it's the person" cop out, right here.

The question is not about the individual, it's about the art.  The only way that I can think of to test what art has a better chance of winning in unarmed H2H combat would be to have a large number of subjects from those arts duke it out, then analyse the data (Win, loss, mutual slaying).

Some of you with this weak argument are like smokers who say, "Some % might get lung cancer, but not me, because I X."

I don't know what the data would show in my experiment, but because grappling occurs so often in fighting (as documented), and because BJJ specializes in grappling and ninjutsu does not, I would guess, logically, that the BJJ would have the advantage, perhaps an even overwhelming one.  Could be wrong, won't be the first time!

We can look at chess data because people just lose, win or draw--they usually walk away from the board alive!  We can see huge advantages of one chess opening over others, sometimes even to the specifics of differences within those opening's variations.  One variation moves a pawn one square forward, the other two, with vastly different % of wins vs losses (all palyed by different individuals in different tournaments).

Chess Grand Masters rely on statistics to guide their individual tastes and abilities.

I believe the martial artist should as well.  These % have nothing to do with "Oh, but I would grab a rock and bludgeon him!"  They are only indications... yes, take them with a grain, but do take them.

This is not "BJJ is better than Ninjutsu".  This is a thought experiment.  This is: If I were a general, had all the time in the world, and I had to train many individuals to be the best overall fighters in the world, what system would I pick?"

My experiment is limited, but you cannot say its results are completely useless.  I'm really curious.  Is the grappling over rated?  Or would the ninjas get creamed?  Would it be pretty 50/ 50?

If you can't see how statistics of groups can guide an individual in choices, than I guess the conversation stops there.  There are always exceptional individuals and circumstances, where, for example, someone armed with a kitchen fork kills someone armed with a Glock.  But overall, can't we see if we had forkists vs guys armed with Glocks, the guys with the forks are going to fair worse, and wouldn't we want to be the guys with the guns?  That's all I'm asking:  Who has the fork? (and let's not be that guy if we can help it as the data indicates most likely you will be killed).

God this is stupid!


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> I'm going to squash this "it's not the art, it's the person" cop out, right here.
> 
> The question is not about the individual, it's about the art. The only way that I can think of to test what art has a better chance of winning in unarmed H2H combat would be to have a large number of subjects from those arts duke it out, then analyse the data (Win, loss, mutual slaying).
> 
> Some of you with this weak argument are like smokers who say, "Some % might get lung cancer, but not me, because I X."
> 
> I don't know what the data would show in my experiment, but because grappling occurs so often in fighting (as documented), and because BJJ specializes in grappling and ninjutsu does not, I would guess, logically, that the BJJ would have the advantage, perhaps an even overwhelming one. Could be wrong, won't be the first time!
> 
> We can look at chess data because people just lose, win or draw--they usually walk away from the board alive! We can see huge advantages of one chess opening over others, sometimes even to the specifics of differences within those opening's variations. One variation moves a pawn one square forward, the other two, with vastly different % of wins vs losses (all palyed by different individuals in different tournaments).
> 
> Chess Grand Masters rely on statistics to guide their individual tastes and abilities.
> 
> I believe the martial artist should as well. These % have nothing to do with "Oh, but I would grab a rock and bludgeon him!" They are only indications... yes, take them with a grain, but do take them.
> 
> This is not "BJJ is better than Ninjutsu". This is a thought experiment. This is: If I were a general, had all the time in the world, and I had to train many individuals to be the best overall fighters in the world, what system would I pick?"
> 
> My experiment is limited, but you cannot say its results are completely useless. I'm really curious. Is the grappling over rated? Or would the ninjas get creamed? Would it be pretty 50/ 50?
> 
> If you can't see how statistics of groups can guide an individual in choices, than I guess the conversation stops there. There are always exceptional individuals and circumstances, where, for example, someone armed with a kitchen fork kills someone armed with a Glock. But overall, can't we see if we had forkists vs guys armed with Glocks, the guys with the forks are going to fair worse, and wouldn't we want to be the guys with the guns? That's all I'm asking: Who has the fork? (and let's not be that guy if we can help it as the data indicates most likely you will be killed).
> 
> God this is stupid!


 
The problem here sir, is that you choose not to see anything that we're saying.  Instead, you choose to just go off things that others have found, rather than keeping an open mind, and seeing for yourself if these things really work.  The argument is not a cop out as you say.  I train in BJJ.  That does not mean that I can grapple like Rickson.  We both do BJJ, but its apparent that he is better due to time in.  Therefore, you are incorrect.  It is the person, not the art.  Kenpo is my base art.  Kenpo is the base art of Larry Tatum.  There are things that he is going to do much better than I due to time in, differences in speed, body structure, etc.  The same can be said about boxing.  Tyson and Holyfield both box, but there is a winner and a loser.  Its the person, not the art.

Mike


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

I'd wager it's not very often that you really have no choice but to grapple with someone who isn't under the influence.


----------



## flashlock

Hi, Mike:

You are telling me if you had 100 boxers the same sex, height, weight, and general physical fitness (they could be tested on stamina, power, etc.)--trained 50 of them under coach A, and 50 of them under coach B, had the A team fight the B team, tabulate the results--are you telling me you coudln't tell which coach might be better than the other?

What if coach A's fighters won 75% of the boxing matches?  That's a huge advantage!  Then you were asked, without being able to get any other information, to pick a boxing coach with the aim of being a winning fighter, which coach do you pick, A or B?

Maybe the A fighters just got a little bit more lucky on match day!  Maybe the B fighters felt psychologically second class because they were labled "B".  I don't know, but me, I'm going with coach A based on the statistics.

Tell me, why did you pick ninjutsu?  Because back hundreds of years ago it was MOSTLY ineffective?  Hell no!  Statistically, under real life conditions, ninjutsu was formidible in that context.  The systems that weren't as good, either mutated to fit with what was succesful, or died out.  You wouldn't have ninjutsu if the majority of ninjas were failures.  Did it ever fail?  Damn right it did!  Many, many times.  All in all, statistically, we can say, it was successful, and survived (sort of).

You don't pick any art because most people who use it get their butts kicked.  You picked ninjutsu for the same reasons I am saying you might drop it and change to BJJ if it was proved overwhelmingly superior in MOST cases (which I'm sure it isn't).

But let's say ninjas won 25% more death matches than BJJ guys.  Me, I'd want to study ninjutsu over BJJ IF my goal was looking for the best system/ better system.

We'll never know, but again, because of the grappling issue, I think BJJ has an advantage.  Will ninja mutate and practice more ground fighting than they would have before seeing so much successful BJJ?  It's already happening!

Thanks for all the posts... I don't really have any thing else to say about this, starting to get circular from my point of view.


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> Hi, Mike:
> 
> You are telling me if you had 100 boxers the same sex, height, weight, and general physical fitness (they could be tested on stamina, power, etc.)--trained 50 of them under coach A, and 50 of them under coach B, had the A team fight the B team, tabulate the results--are you telling me you coudln't tell which coach might be better than the other?
> 
> What if coach A's fighters won 75% of the boxing matches? That's a huge advantage! Then you were asked, without being able to get any other information, to pick a boxing coach with the aim of being a winning fighter, which coach do you pick, A or B?
> 
> Maybe the A fighters just got a little bit more lucky on match day! Maybe the B fighters felt psychologically second class because they were labled "B". I don't know, but me, I'm going with coach A based on the statistics.


 
Yes, thats what I'm telling you.  I refer you back to my past examples.



> Tell me, why did you pick ninjutsu? Because back hundreds of years ago it was MOSTLY ineffective? Hell no! Statistically, under real life conditions, ninjutsu was formidible in that context. The systems that weren't as good, either mutated to fit with what was succesful, or died out. You wouldn't have ninjutsu if the majority of ninjas were failures. Did it ever fail? Damn right it did! Many, many times. All in all, statistically, we can say, it was successful, and survived (sort of).
> 
> You don't pick any art because most people who use it get their butts kicked. You picked ninjutsu for the same reasons I am saying you might drop it and change to BJJ if it was proved overwhelmingly superior in MOST cases (which I'm sure it isn't).
> 
> But let's say ninjas won 25% more death matches than BJJ guys. Me, I'd want to study ninjutsu over BJJ IF my goal was looking for the best system/ better system.
> 
> We'll never know, but again, because of the grappling issue, I think BJJ has an advantage. Will ninja mutate and practice more ground fighting than they would have before seeing so much successful BJJ? It's already happening!
> 
> Thanks for all the posts... I don't really have any thing else to say about this, starting to get circular from my point of view.


 
Sir, its apparent that you are set in your ways and you do not wish to see anything else.  I wish you the best in your training.


----------



## itengu

I think it really comes down to the problem you want to solve. If somebody asks me which is the best martial art I would ask them what are their goals. If I wanted to compete in mixed martial arts competition Ninjutsu would be off my consideration list. If I wanted to learn to use various weapons Ninjutsu might rate alot higher. I would not ask Royce Gracie to teach me how to use a Naginata as much as I would not ask Hatsumi how to defend against omaplata.

Comparing two approaches to combat is an interesting but unanswerable question.


----------



## Senin

Well, this just goes to show ya that these types of threads can be productive.  No, I don't think this line of thought was a waste of time.

Thanks flash, you made some very good and interesting points.  Greatly appreciated.

We can all very well say, that it is up to the individual fighter, but that doesn't tell us much.  The fighter does fight in a distinctive style.  Just as you know how a boxer will fight (stand up and punch) and you know how a BJJ'er will fight (shoot for your legs and take you down).  These styles have distinctive and predictable actions.  And even with the predictability of the BJJ they still do very very well.  You know in a fight the BJJer will shoot for the Ninjer's legs and try to take him down.  And if he does, the Ninjer will be in deep crap.

As a defense of Taijitsu, I said that maybe he might get in a "dirty" strike (eye gouge, throat poke, etc).  Maybe he really would and would be able to fend off the BJJer.  But someone said that if the Ninjer was taken down, even an eye gouges wouldn't help him at that stage.  Well, this being the case................... case closed.

Unfortunately, this isn't really a glowing endorsement for Taijitsu.


----------



## itengu

Senin,

Do both. At the end of it not only will you able to fight in unarmed duels, you will also have collected an arsonal of cool weapons to impress your friends. Ninjutsu is also a great introduction to the world of weapons and just like ground fighting, understanding weapons is also very important to being a more complete fighter.


----------



## meta_aesthete

flashlock said:


> 99% fights end up in grappling range. This has been documented by the US Army in Iraq. Every documented fight had elements of grappling, NONE were just striking. Interesting!


 
If 99% of our soldiers are trying to put Iraqi insurgents into arm bars, then it's no wonder we're having trouble over there. If they're not using all those assault rifles, APCs, and attack helicopters my tax dollars paid for, I daresay I should get a fatter refund this year.

From my studies so far, BBT is not solely focused on "dirty tricks." My understanding is that if an opportunity opens itself to strike a sensitive area such as the eyes/small joints/groin, then you capitalize on it. But you don't go into a confrontation obsessing over how to hit your opponent in the jibblies. My rudimentary training has just taught me to stay off the vector of an incoming attack, and attempt to find the best positioning and/or leverage for a counterattack. 

"Dirty tricks," as far as I understand so far, are only simulated so that you'll instinctively capitalize on them if an opportunity opens. Many other arts don't train you to capitalize on these -- it's not that an eye gouge requires a ton of training to understand, but a BBT'er may be more aware of spotting an opening for such an attack.

My real problem with this scenario is that I don't see how this came to be in the first place. Does the BJJ guy want my wallet? He can have it. $25 and a credit card that will be null and void as soon as I get to the phone. Big score.

Also -- why am I alone? Why is he? Why don't I have my keys and cell phone if I'm outdoors? If I scream, will people hear me nearby? Can I outrun this guy? If I offended this dude at a bar, then why am I stupid enough to get into beefs if I don't have friends to back me up? Why did I let this turn into a bar beef anyway?

Maybe these aren't typical "warrior" reactions, but they fulfill my objective of staying safe and thwart his objective of harming me. Voluntarily getting into a to-the-death fight with a BJJer is not a way to stay safe, so I wouldn't do it.

And if the guy ambushes me into a ground match, well, I'm at a disadvantage already. If I were to ambush him out of the blue with a knife or "dirty trick," he'd be pretty screwed too. 

I dunno. It's a question that will never be satisfied. But the problem I have here is that these two arts, in some ways, have conflicting objectives. *COMPETITIVE *BJJ, as I understand it (and how it has been framed here), is to overcome your opponent in a 1v1 unarmed fight. BBT is to stay safe and do whatever you wanted to do with the rest of your day, be that political espionage or going to the grocery store. 

So, in a forced 1v1 fight in a vacuum, yeah, BJJ will have an edge. But unless the BBT'er FEELS LIKE having an unarmed 1v1 match that starts on equal terms, the chances of that scenario being forced upon them in the day to day world seems pretty slim if they're smart. So trying to weigh one over the other doesn't work -- it's a context-specific question.

Bleh.


----------



## jks9199

MJS said:


> These fights that were documented...who were they between?  Grappler vs. Grappler, Grappler vs. Striker, Striker vs. Striker??


And what was the goal?

For example, if you decide to study real-world fights by looking at police officer use of force reports -- almost any of them will necessarily involve some form of grappling.  Why?  'Cause a cop's goal is to contain, control and arrest the suspect.  But -- if you somehow study military use of hand to hand combat, I bet you'll get a much greater variety; some will be striking only (probably with a weapon like a knife, admittedly), others will be only grappling, and many will contain both.  The soldier's goal is generally to survive and kill his enemy.  He's not worried about getting him into position to be cuffed, and a soldier has much wider latitude in use of force.  What were the goals and missions of the soldiers whose accounts were studied?  

It's also important to consider how the fight came about...  There's a big difference between a cop called to domestic who gets assaulted and the party who started the domestic.  There's a difference between a mugger hitting someone on the back of the head with a baseball bat and a soldier sneaking up and removing a sentry.

I agree with the others; general "what if" questions on a message board are pointless.  It's fun to sit down with some buddies from different martial traditions and compare responses to a situation -- but to simply ask "what would a x-practitioner do against a y-practitioner?" or any similar question without a detailed scenario just goes nowhere.


----------



## flashlock

MJS said:


> Sir, its apparent that you are set in your ways and you do not wish to see anything else. I wish you the best in your training.


 
I'm not too set in anything--that's what's great about being a beginner, no agenda; I can be a bit more objective since I have no major investment in BJJ or Ninjutsu.  I looked at whatever theoretical facts I could, I've studied both systems and practiced with some of the best advocates of Ninjutsu and BJJ, and this is the conclusion I've reached based on some of the factors I've outlinned above.

I wish you success and happiness in your training, sir!


----------



## flashlock

itengu said:


> I think it really comes down to the problem you want to solve. If somebody asks me which is the best martial art I would ask them what are their goals. If I wanted to compete in mixed martial arts competition Ninjutsu would be off my consideration list. If I wanted to learn to use various weapons Ninjutsu might rate alot higher. I would not ask Royce Gracie to teach me how to use a Naginata as much as I would not ask Hatsumi how to defend against omaplata.
> 
> Comparing two approaches to combat is an interesting but unanswerable question.


 
You know, one major thing I have learned from this thread that I had no idea about was how interested in weapons ninjutsu practioners are.  Seems like a whole other thread, so I won't go into it now, but vadee intervesting...


----------



## Kreth

flashlock said:


> I'm not too set in anything--that's what's great about being a beginner, no agenda;


But as a beginner, do you have enough experience to form an opinion?


----------



## Senin

Jks, I hate to disagree with ya, but.....
pointless?  60 replies in a couple of days.  I think it struck a nerve with some people.

Here is the crux of the issue.  What would a BBJ'er do against a Hapkido guy, or a karate guy, or a kung fu guy?  Who knows?  It is up to the individual fighter.  Nooooo.  You can go to Youtube and see the BBJ'ers fight over and over again.... the same way..... and win.  They don't mask their style.  The are predictable.  So the only question is.... what would the Nin'jer do in response?

Somebody said, why even worry about it.... I don't go to bars where there are fights, if I were to get robbed on the street they could have my money, etc.  Okay, fair enough. Let's say your car breaks down in a bad neighborhood.  Or you get into a heated with that other Little League Dad?  Or, you just meet a crazy in a Costco.  Or, you are a cop and you need to arrest this guy.  And the guy happens to be a BJJ'er.  Which you wouldn't know until the grabbling starts.   At that point, I hope your ninjutsu skills serve you well.

Anyway, I think it is a fair debate.

And by the way, to the guy who seemed to take offense at the "dirty tricks" term, then what the heck would you do against the BJJ'er?


----------



## flashlock

Kreth said:


> But as a beginner, do you have enough experience to form an opinion?


 
You should judge an argument on the strength of its logic, not the resume of the one who said it.  You'll have to judge for yourself if my opinions have any value.


----------



## Kreth

flashlock said:


> You should judge an argument on the strength of its logic, not the resume of the one who said it.


You offered an opinion. I questioned whether you had the experience to form that opinion. It's a valid question.


----------



## flashlock

Senin said:


> .
> 
> Thanks flash, you made some very good and interesting points. Greatly appreciated.quote]
> 
> Thanks, I appreciate that, mate--I've really enjoyed this thread and the others' interesting views.


----------



## itengu

Regretfully presenting a logical position seems often to take second best to your wall of credentials in the world of forums. Essentially you may not describe the mating habits of a Panda unless you are a zoologist  

As for the comment regarding Weapons, "I had no idea about was how interested in weapons ninjutsu practioners are". I feel that ninjutsu provides broad exposure to various aspects of combat in which ultimatly involves an greater degree of weapon training than what does not exist in BJJ ( Bringing us back to the topic at hand ).


----------



## flashlock

Kreth said:


> You offered an opinion. I questioned whether you had the experience to form that opinion. It's a valid question.


 
Well, it was more than an opinion, it was backed up by some US Army research, and a little logic (at least I thought so).  Frankly, I was taught that you're ALWAYS a beginner...


----------



## itengu

I think it is always good to get opinions from outside one's realm of undersanding and also respect new questions. This tread brings out some very interesting characteristics in people. 

But I love this:

"But as a beginner, do you have enough experience to form an opinion?"

Welcome to the collective .. opinions or in fact any independant thought are banned.


----------



## flashlock

itengu said:


> Regretfully presenting a logical position seems often to take second best to your wall of credentials in the world of forums. Essentially you may not describe the mating habits of a Panda unless you are a zoologist
> 
> As for the comment regarding Weapons, "I had no idea about was how interested in weapons ninjutsu practioners are". I feel that ninjutsu provides broad exposure to various aspects of combat in which ultimatly involves an greater degree of weapon training than what does not exist in BJJ ( Bringing us back to the topic at hand ).


 
HA!  Actually, I think you would have to BE a panda for anyone to take you seriously re their mating habits.

Hm... so you're sort of suggesting, and maybe that's what some others were hinting at, that your practice in weapons will balance out or give you an edge over a BJJ-er?

This is interesting, but a little afield of the thought experiment which limited it to H2H combat (BJJ vs unarmed taijutsu).  I'm not really interested in that question--who is better with a samurai sword, or an aquebus... because it doesn't seem relavent in our modern times.  Is it supposed to be that the BJJ person is going to grapple you, and you have time to find a tree branch or broom handle or something that he's not clever enough to see and utilize as a weapon for himself?  I don't quite get it...


----------



## meta_aesthete

I think the nerve you're hitting has more to do with the fact that this question gets tossed around here a lot -- the BJJ/MMA/Bullshido crowd likes to come here to prove how weak and old and pitiful our art is. 

Personally, I think it's because MMA is going to end up a fad once the money in UFC/Pride dries up, just like the money in '80s ninja movies dried up. And then the new popular guys will harp on MMA for being limited to octagons, and harp on BJJ for "what if there's a second guy kicking your brains in." 

This isn't an attack on the arts in MMA -- they're great, beautiful arts. But all have their weaknesses, and anything, with enough marketing hype, can be posited as "t3h b3st3st."

Anyway, even if you are interested in a more legitimate inquiry, months and months of accumulated irritation from troublemakers is coming out on you. This isn't a new question that we're scrambling to cope with -- people are just flustered because it seems like people don't get that these questions are of limited value. 

And frankly, I don't come to a Ninjutsu forum to spend all day discussing BJJ. So here's my closing thought. I'm confident in my choice. BJJ will have an advantage in isolated grappling situations, because it's a specialized art for isolated grappling sitautions. Ninjutsu has a lot of other training that you probably won't get in a pure BJJ school (for example: weapons, striking, conflict management/evasion), which I personally find more interesting and useful.

That's my answer. If that doesn't answer all your questions, then I guess you're free to think whatever you want.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

I truly think these debates are Apples to Oranges type comparisons. The arts are so different and, as I understand it, BBT spends a significant amount of time on weapon's training. Were they training for the ring, as many BJJ folks do, they would not be able to dedicate precious training time to this. That being said, I would take Kreth as my backup in a dark alley over most ring fighters.


----------



## Kreth

flashlock said:


> Well, it was more than an opinion, it was backed up by some US Army research, and a little logic (at least I thought so).  Frankly, I was taught that you're ALWAYS a beginner...


The army was doing research on ninjutsu vs. BJJ? :idunno:



itengu said:


> But I love this:
> 
> "But as a beginner, do you have enough experience to form an opinion?"
> 
> Welcome to the collective .. opinions or in fact any independant thought are banned.


I'd no more take the opinion of a self-described beginner as fact on this topic, than I would ask a paper MCSE for help with a major computer upgrade. Or to put it another way, who would you want advice from on how to sell your first novel, an unpublished freelance writer, or Stephen King?


----------



## itengu

Kreth,

this is not about "taking" an opinion, just respecting it. Flashlocks "opinion" as somebody evaluating new arts is always good information. We sometimes can develop a stale perspective being involved in something for such a long period of time. 

I wonder sometimes what my mindset was when I first started training, everything looked confusing and complicated.


----------



## Don Roley

flashlock said:


> ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL--does one system have an advantage over the other?  They are so different, I find it difficult to believe they are equal in terms of street fighting.  Let's limit it to that basic scenario (not sports matches, not running away, not fighting on an ice pond).



Right from the start you lost me. I do not fight to prove myself against others. I do not fight to feed my ego. I fight only if it is the last option and I need to get home to my family alive and in one piece. Running away is a damn good option for me in that case. If I can't run away, then the other guy using a weapon is a very, very real option I need to be aware of and train against. You throwing out all of that reduces it to a case where one person wants to prove him manhood over someone else. I avoid that by swallowing some pride if needed and expecting anything else if that does not work.



flashlock said:


> Back to my silly experiment.  I think out of those 50 fights, the ninjutsu practioner will be at a distinct disadvantage because his grappling will be weaker than the BJJ fighters, and 99% fights end up in grappling range.  This has been documented by the US Army in Iraq--and, less convincingly, in ultimate fighting competitions.  Every documented fight had elements of grappling, NONE were just striking.  Interesting!



Back to this statement. Where is the documentation that the US Army has on the matter? I looked through this thread and despite calls for you to produce facts to back up what you said, you seem to have missed posting any sort of proof for the above statement.

Before we go any farther, please back up what you say or admit you can't and drop the subject, eh?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Senin said:


> And by the way, to the guy who seemed to take offense at the "dirty tricks" term, then what the heck would you do against the BJJ'er?


 
If you need to ask, it is very likely that you need to train more Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

One thing I will say on this matter is that the ground game of BJJ does mesh nicely with Budo Taijutsu's overall Taijutsu skills.  They meld together nicely actually.  There  is also a huge advantage *when* bringing the non sporting mind set of the Budo Taijutsu pracitioner and pairing it up with the newaza skills of the BJJ'er.  The only problem is getting rid of the competitive sport only mindset of the BJJ practitioner.  However if you have left that behind there is quite a bit to learn from BJJ.


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> I'm not too set in anything--that's what's great about being a beginner, no agenda; I can be a bit more objective since I have no major investment in BJJ or Ninjutsu. I looked at whatever theoretical facts I could, I've studied both systems and practiced with some of the best advocates of Ninjutsu and BJJ, and this is the conclusion I've reached based on some of the factors I've outlinned above.
> 
> I wish you success and happiness in your training, sir!


 
A few questions for you.  You state that you have studied both Ninjutsu and BJJ.  How much time have you put into each art?  How long have you been training overall?

And thanks, I am have much success and happiness in the arts I do. 

Mike


----------



## MJS

Don Roley said:


> Right from the start you lost me. I do not fight to prove myself against others. I do not fight to feed my ego. I fight only if it is the last option and I need to get home to my family alive and in one piece. Running away is a damn good option for me in that case. If I can't run away, then the other guy using a weapon is a very, very real option I need to be aware of and train against. You throwing out all of that reduces it to a case where one person wants to prove him manhood over someone else. I avoid that by swallowing some pride if needed and expecting anything else if that does not work.


 
Thank you Don! I agree with you.  Likewise, I do not fight to prove myself against others either.  I'm sure that you and I are both confident in what we do, although are arts are different.:asian:  





> Back to this statement. Where is the documentation that the US Army has on the matter? I looked through this thread and despite calls for you to produce facts to back up what you said, you seem to have missed posting any sort of proof for the above statement.
> 
> Before we go any farther, please back up what you say or admit you can't and drop the subject, eh?


 
Well, this is exactly what I said earlier.  I'd like to know how someone can base everything on the findings of someone else.  Much better IMO to form ones own opinion.

Mike


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> You should judge an argument on the strength of its logic, not the resume of the one who said it. You'll have to judge for yourself if my opinions have any value.


 
The point is this.  If someone who has 3 months training in an art, how can they honestly know the ins and outs of the system?  This is all compared to someone that has 20yrs in a system.  I have over 20yrs put into Kenpo.  IMHO, I feel that I'm much more qualified to comment on that art than say someone with 1 month.  

Mike


----------



## Rubber Tanto

Brian R. VanCise said:


> One thing I will say on this matter is that the ground game of BJJ does mesh nicely with Budo Taijutsu's overall Taijutsu skills. They meld together nicely actually. There is also a huge advantage *when* bringing the non sporting mind set of the Budo Taijutsu pracitioner and pairing it up with the newaza skills of the BJJ'er. The only problem is getting rid of the competitive sport only mindset of the BJJ practitioner. However if you have left that behind there is quite a bit to learn from BJJ.


 

You know, Brian...I have been thinking this very thought the whole time while reading this thread. This has been my experience too...in particular when being taken down...you suddenly see all these opportunities, know what I mean?
Awesome post. Couldn't agree more.


----------



## bencole

flashlock said:
			
		

> grappling occurs so often in fighting (as documented)


 
Pure hogwash. Please provide a source of information that is not characterized by selection bias (see below).



MJS said:


> So, like so many others, you're basing your thoughts off of what others have found? Wouldn't it make more sense to research for yourself? Its impossible to know how everyone trains.


 
What would be even better is if individuals posting statistics actually understood what "selection bias" is....

There is a best-selling business book entitled, "From Good to Great" that is a great example of selection bias.

The author of this book took a bunch of then "successful firms" (GE, Xerox, etc.), looked at what they had in common, and then wrote a book saying, "If you do what they do and have X (e.g., a dedicated M&A division, international operations, skunks works, separated CEO-Chairman positions, and a thousand other things), you will be successful too!"

The problem is that he didn't "control for" all of the firms that also had X but FAILED. Moreover, he didn't "control for" all the firms that elected *NOT* to have X in the first place, but succeeded.

That means that there are two types of "selection bias."  The former is known as "survival bias" because you are only looking at firms that have X *AND* are successful. The latter is known as "self-selection bias" because whether or not a firm chooses to engage in a behavior (i.e., X) affects the results if you are only looking at those who choose to engage in such behavior.



			
				jks9199 said:
			
		

> For example, if you decide to study real-world fights by looking at police officer use of force reports -- almost any of them will necessarily involve some form of grappling. Why? 'Cause a cop's goal is to contain, control and arrest the suspect.


 
Precisely. This is "self-selection bias"--cops will grab because they have to subdue the guy....

Similarly, it is not surprising that grunts will grab, and then report back to their superiors that the confrontation involved grappling. If a grunt has his weapon, he's going to shoot it. The only reason he is grappling is that is what he was trained to do. 

I doubt highly that some dude in a robe in Iraq is going to willingly tackle a U.S. grunt wearing 100+ pounds of gear. So it is the grunts who are tackling people. Why? Because they are trained to do that....



			
				flashlock said:
			
		

> If you can't see how statistics of groups can guide an individual in choices, than I guess the conversation stops there.


 
If you can't see how statistics need to be interpreted in light of various caveats, then I guess the conversation stops there...and your statistics need to be flushed down the toilet.

Sorry, dude.



			
				flashlock said:
			
		

> You know, one major thing I have learned from this thread that I had no idea about was how interested in weapons ninjutsu practioners are.


 
Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is, at base, at weapons art. Even a child will pick up something and want to use it as a weapon to give itself an advantage. Why not learn to use things around you to advantage? You've based your arguments on supposed "logic". It seems pretty logical to me to want to learn how to use things around you to advantage and would prefer to keep that advantage even in a "fake experiment" of 50 people in a crowded place or open field.... 



			
				meta asethete said:
			
		

> My real problem with this scenario is that I don't see how this came to be in the first place. Does the BJJ guy want my wallet? He can have it. $25 and a credit card that will be null and void as soon as I get to the phone. Big score.
> 
> Also -- why am I alone? Why is he? Why don't I have my keys and cell phone if I'm outdoors? If I scream, will people hear me nearby? Can I outrun this guy? If I offended this dude at a bar, then why am I stupid enough to get into beefs if I don't have friends to back me up? Why did I let this turn into a bar beef anyway?
> 
> Maybe these aren't typical "warrior" reactions, but they fulfill my objective of staying safe and thwart his objective of harming me. Voluntarily getting into a to-the-death fight with a BJJer is not a way to stay safe, so I wouldn't do it.
> 
> And if the guy ambushes me into a ground match, well, I'm at a disadvantage already. If I were to ambush him out of the blue with a knife or "dirty trick," he'd be pretty screwed too.


 
Wow! What a great post!!! 

I don't know who you are, meta asethete, but you are a very wise creature..... Thanks for posting!

-ben


----------



## DWeidman

flashlock said:


> If the BJJ guy has no training in weapons - which is possible - then I agree, the ninja guy/ gal would have an advantage.



Who said anything about No training?  How much training is part of BJJ for weapons -- or multiple attackers - for that matter).  

Group on Group fighting favors strikers.



flashlock said:


> My experiment is about two guys, no weapons, no rules, two different systems--a simple, basic test.



You are talking about the elite of our system and the elite of BJJ - right?  So... Spec Ops v. Vale Tudo winners?  Outdoors?  Natural weapons included (tree branches - sticks)?

There is virtually no doubt that BJJ will win against a BJKer in a fair, vale tudo fight.  The more elements we add into the mix - however - the BJK guy gains percentages back.  The easiest example is our art doesn't fall apart with the inclusion of a knife.  BJJ falls apart as soon as a knife (or a friend) is introduced...

So the question remaining is how often do you see fair, one on one fights (outside of the ring)?

By the way -- I love rolling.  I just know where the boundaries for its usefulness end.

-DW


----------



## Bigshadow

Nimravus said:


> Why do so many people seem to assume that all taijutsu ground tactics are based around eye pokes, biting and groin attacks?



I don't know... Trying to figure that one out myself...


----------



## Bigshadow

flashlock said:


> But the best thing is, the principles of BJJ work on the ground or upright.



From what I understand so does BBT principles.


----------



## Senin

Bigshadow said:


> I don't know... Trying to figure that one out myself...


 
I keep hearing, "who said that the ninjutsu practioner will do eye pokes, biting, groin attackes".  Okay then, what would the ninjutsu practioner do?  I have yet to hear that one.  I think it is pretty obvious what the BJJer will do.  I have yet to hear a defense.

And who was it that said: "The easiest example is our art doesn't fall apart with the inclusion of a knife. BJJ falls apart as soon as a knife (or a friend) is introduced..."  I would beg to differ.  Those Brazilian BJJ'ers are some of the toughest bad asses around.... learned on the tough streets in Brazil.  Do you really think they haven't trained for the real world?  Do you really think they haven't thought about what to do against a knife?  Come on, get real.  I certainly wouldn't say their art falls apart when a knife is introduced.


----------



## Bigshadow

Senin said:


> I keep hearing, "who said that the ninjutsu practioner will do eye pokes, biting, groin attackes".  Okay then, what would the ninjutsu practioner do?  I have yet to hear that one.  I think it is pretty obvious what the BJJer will do.  I have yet to hear a defense.



A defense to what specifically?  I gave you an answer in my first post in this thread, it was vague, I know...  Sort of like your scenario...  You can glean the answers from my initial post.


----------



## Kreth

Senin said:


> And who was it that said: "The easiest example is our art doesn't fall apart with the inclusion of a knife. BJJ falls apart as soon as a knife (or a friend) is introduced..."  I would beg to differ.  Those Brazilian BJJ'ers are some of the toughest bad asses around.... learned on the tough streets in Brazil.  Do you really think they haven't trained for the real world?  Do you really think they haven't thought about what to do against a knife?  Come on, get real.  I certainly wouldn't say their art falls apart when a knife is introduced.


So now we're only talking about Brazilian BJJ practitioners? :idunno: 
Why don't you just ask how a BJK practitioner would do against one of the Gracies and get it over with.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Bigshadow said:


> From what I understand so does BBT principles.


 
Absolutely!


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Senin said:


> Okay then, what would the ninjutsu practioner do?


 
Now I'm convinced. You really do need to train more.



Senin said:


> I think it is pretty obvious what the BJJer will do.


 
You don't know that for sure either. Flying armbar, anyone?


----------



## bencole

Senin said:


> I keep hearing, "who said that the ninjutsu practioner will do eye pokes, biting, groin attackes". Okay then, what would the ninjutsu practioner do? I have yet to hear that one. I think it is pretty obvious what the BJJer will do. I have yet to hear a defense.


 
So what exactly do you want us to write? Precise locations that we would strike on our opponent's body when they came in for a takedown and we sprawled? Silly....

Or how about: When he comes in to do a takedown, I control the distance and then knee him in the face. Is that what you want us to write? Silly mathematical equations of "they do this, I do that"? 

I've definitely learned a few things in our art that would not benefit someone with his head near my waist....

Naturally, what I will do is determined at the point in time when I face the danger. If this guy is trying to kill me, honestly kill me, [unmentionables will happen].

-ben


----------



## flashlock

Don Roley said:


> Right from the start you lost me. I do not fight to prove myself against others. I do not fight to feed my ego. I fight only if it is the last option and I need to get home to my family alive and in one piece. Running away is a damn good option for me in that case. If I can't run away, then the other guy using a weapon is a very, very real option I need to be aware of and train against. You throwing out all of that reduces it to a case where one person wants to prove him manhood over someone else. I avoid that by swallowing some pride if needed and expecting anything else if that does not work.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to this statement. Where is the documentation that the US Army has on the matter? I looked through this thread and despite calls for you to produce facts to back up what you said, you seem to have missed posting any sort of proof for the above statement.
> 
> Before we go any farther, please back up what you say or admit you can't and drop the subject, eh?


 
The question wasn't why someone studies Ninjutsu or BJJ, the question that I posed was simply which would be better in a street fight.

You should look through the thread again, I cite a book, the authors, and the page number where I got my information from.  Do you need me to post you the book itself with a bow on it?


----------



## flashlock

Brian R. VanCise said:


> One thing I will say on this matter is that the ground game of BJJ does mesh nicely with Budo Taijutsu's overall Taijutsu skills. They meld together nicely actually. There is also a huge advantage *when* bringing the non sporting mind set of the Budo Taijutsu pracitioner and pairing it up with the newaza skills of the BJJ'er. The only problem is getting rid of the competitive sport only mindset of the BJJ practitioner. However if you have left that behind there is quite a bit to learn from BJJ.


 
I agree, and that's how I first started really looking at BJJ--through SKH's blackbelt DVD course--he covers it pretty well at an elementary level, and it fits in well with ninjutsu/ to-shin do.


----------



## flashlock

MJS said:


> A few questions for you. You state that you have studied both Ninjutsu and BJJ. How much time have you put into each art? How long have you been training overall?
> 
> And thanks, I am have much success and happiness in the arts I do.
> 
> Mike


 
Not biting, good try though!  My experience has nothing to do with the argument; I find it rather ugly that you're asking.  If I studied under Hatsumi for 10 years, it would not make my argument any stronger or weaker, so I will avoid this silly bait, ta.


----------



## MJS

Senin said:


> And who was it that said: "The easiest example is our art doesn't fall apart with the inclusion of a knife. BJJ falls apart as soon as a knife (or a friend) is introduced..." I would beg to differ. Those Brazilian BJJ'ers are some of the toughest bad asses around.... learned on the tough streets in Brazil. Do you really think they haven't trained for the real world? Do you really think they haven't thought about what to do against a knife? Come on, get real. I certainly wouldn't say their art falls apart when a knife is introduced.


 
Big difference between the arts.  BJJ is primarily a grappling based art not a weapon based one.  BTW, how much time have you spent training in BJJ or BBT for that matter?  Seeing that you didn't seem to hold much faith in parries, I dont think you will hold much faith in what people are saying here either.

Mike


----------



## MJS

flashlock said:


> Not biting, good try though! My experience has nothing to do with the argument; I find it rather ugly that you're asking. If I studied under Hatsumi for 10 years, it would not make my argument any stronger or weaker, so I will avoid this silly bait, ta.


 
Thats ok, as it wasnt bait but a legit question.  Experience has alot to do with comments.  Basically the more exp. one has, the more weight the comments hold.  By your lack of a reply, that speaks enough.

Mike


----------



## flashlock

MJS said:


> The point is this. If someone who has 3 months training in an art, how can they honestly know the ins and outs of the system? This is all compared to someone that has 20yrs in a system. I have over 20yrs put into Kenpo. IMHO, I feel that I'm much more qualified to comment on that art than say someone with 1 month.
> 
> Mike


 
You don't need to know the ins and outs of a system to look at data that says most fights have aspects of grappling, no fights have striking alone (in a life and death war situation).  Then to hypothosize that since grappling is so crucial to fighting, a grappler (BJJ) should have an advantage over an art that does not specialize in grappling (Ninpo).  Ergo, BJJ has an advantage over Ninjutsu for one on one street fighting (the point of my thought experiment).  You require no experience or a blackblet, only a few facts (see previous posts, i.e US Military reports) and some logic.


----------



## Don Roley

flashlock said:


> The question wasn't why someone studies Ninjutsu or BJJ, the question that I posed was simply which would be better in a street fight.
> 
> You should look through the thread again, I cite a book, the authors, and the page number where I got my information from.  Do you need me to post you the book itself with a bow on it?



So H2H page 9 is an official Army documentation of *all* the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan? Ben Cole touched on the subject better than I.

And your question about which would do better in a street fight- as I said, if you want to toss out the possibility of multiple opponents, weapons and running away- then your idea of a street fight is different than mine. I always train with the idea that there may be a weapon pulled in the middle of it, other guys might jump in and I always try to leave open the idea of getting the hell out of there rather than try to beat the other guy into the ground.


----------



## Don Roley

flashlock said:


> You don't need to know the ins and outs of a system to look at data that says most fights have aspects of grappling, no fights have striking alone (in a life and death war situation).  Then to hypothosize that since grappling is so crucial to fighting, a grappler (BJJ) should have an advantage over an art that does not specialize in grappling (Ninpo).  Ergo, BJJ has an advantage over Ninjutsu for one on one street fighting (the point of my thought experiment).



I can see the error of your logic.

First of all, grappling can be defined as one guy grabbing the other guy in any way, manner or form. You watch some of those police reality shows and you will most often see them roll up on two guys grabbing each other with one hand and trying to hit with the other.

Hitting and striking seems to be a big part of every conflict as well as grabbing. BBT has both in about equal measures. The advantage BJJ has in in _newaza._

And of course, if you simply want to define a street fight as one on one, then you are trying to define something so that it fits your prefered bias instead of looking at it realistically.

Your bias seems obvious. How many fights did your sources say were only one on one? Or had no weapons? Or had no hitting? I would say it probably was not covered and yet you assumed that this is the situation.


----------



## flashlock

bencole said:


> Pure hogwash. Please provide a source of information that is not characterized by selection bias (see below).
> 
> 
> 
> What would be even better is if individuals posting statistics actually understood what "selection bias" is....
> 
> There is a best-selling business book entitled, "From Good to Great" that is a great example of selection bias.
> 
> The author of this book took a bunch of then "successful firms" (GE, Xerox, etc.), looked at what they had in common, and then wrote a book saying, "If you do what they do and have X (e.g., a dedicated M&A division, international operations, skunks works, separated CEO-Chairman positions, and a thousand other things), you will be successful too!"
> 
> The problem is that he didn't "control for" all of the firms that also had X but FAILED. Moreover, he didn't "control for" all the firms that elected *NOT* to have X in the first place, but succeeded.
> 
> That means that there are two types of "selection bias." The former is known as "survival bias" because you are only looking at firms that have X *AND* are successful. The latter is known as "self-selection bias" because whether or not a firm chooses to engage in a behavior (i.e., X) affects the results if you are only looking at those who choose to engage in such behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely. This is "self-selection bias"--cops will grab because they have to subdue the guy....
> 
> Similarly, it is not surprising that grunts will grab, and then report back to their superiors that the confrontation involved grappling. If a grunt has his weapon, he's going to shoot it. The only reason he is grappling is that is what he was trained to do.
> 
> I doubt highly that some dude in a robe in Iraq is going to willingly tackle a U.S. grunt wearing 100+ pounds of gear. So it is the grunts who are tackling people. Why? Because they are trained to do that....
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't see how statistics need to be interpreted in light of various caveats, then I guess the conversation stops there...and your statistics need to be flushed down the toilet.
> 
> Sorry, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is, at base, at weapons art. Even a child will pick up something and want to use it as a weapon to give itself an advantage. Why not learn to use things around you to advantage? You've based your arguments on supposed "logic". It seems pretty logical to me to want to learn how to use things around you to advantage and would prefer to keep that advantage even in a "fake experiment" of 50 people in a crowded place or open field....
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! What a great post!!!
> 
> I don't know who you are, meta asethete, but you are a very wise creature..... Thanks for posting!
> 
> -ben


 
I have not seen the raw data, and I don't know if it's possible to do so--maybe it's classified.  The reports, from my understanding of them, were not regarding police type actions (I must tackle the Afghani and not shoot him so I can question him), but rather getting ambushed, the gun jams, and you're fighting.  The US Army has shifted to BJJ as its core, and even trains its special forces in these methods now.

So the US military is putting its soldier's lives on the line to promote Gracie JJ?  They biased the data, at the risk of lives, for that?  Maybe I should be more cynical... would you be if they were training everyone in Taijutsu?  Maybe then it wouldn't seem so biased...

I stand by the material:  the soldiers were given detailed questions about specifics during their conflicts, and they discovered that 100% of the fights had elements of grappling (most grappling mixed with striking); NONE had striking alone.  0.  Nada.  Zilch.

Where's the bias?  I don't know how many out here would agree, but in very full on sparring, things naturally go to grappling when one striker starts striking better--at least I've experienced that (been on both ends).  You don't have to believe in those stats, but can you show evidence where real life or death altercations had only elements of striking?  I'll even let you sway the results in your favor for your bias... cite one source that shows that, and I'll agree with you.

Otherwise, you should take back your comments.


----------



## flashlock

Bigshadow said:


> From what I understand so does BBT principles.


 
Yes, I agree--but I was just tyring to answer someones question--one I've had--concerning BJJ beyond the ground.


----------



## flashlock

Don Roley said:


> So H2H page 9 is an official Army documentation of *all* the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan? Ben Cole touched on the subject better than I.
> 
> And your question about which would do better in a street fight- as I said, if you want to toss out the possibility of multiple opponents, weapons and running away- then your idea of a street fight is different than mine. I always train with the idea that there may be a weapon pulled in the middle of it, other guys might jump in and I always try to leave open the idea of getting the hell out of there rather than try to beat the other guy into the ground.


 
Well, fine, that's another question (multiple opponents, weapons)--let's start with my scenario, or do you concede that I am right?  BTW, why does everyone think the BJJ artist is so useless in a multiple fight scenario?  They can lock someone up standing just as well as they can on the ground, and shove him into the other attackers or use him as a shield, or run from a knife just like anyone.  I don't see ninjas having a huge advantage in that department, if any.


----------



## flashlock

MJS said:


> Thats ok, as it wasnt bait but a legit question. Experience has alot to do with comments. Basically the more exp. one has, the more weight the comments hold. By your lack of a reply, that speaks enough.
> 
> Mike


 
Actually, it's not a legitimate question.  It's a rhetorical mistake in debates--you attack your opponent for who he or she is, not their argument itself, as you should.  It's so simple: most fights involve grappling, grapplers should have an advantage in most fights.  Can we go into that and not how many belts I have in this or that art, please?

If you base who you believe on what so-called experts say, what do you do when two equal experts totally disagree?  Forget it--look at the argument, not the man.


----------



## Don Roley

flashlock said:


> I have not seen the raw data, and I don't know if it's possible to do so--maybe it's classified.



I doubt it. Classified? I take it you have never served in the military.



flashlock said:


> The reports, from my understanding of them, were not regarding police type actions (I must tackle the Afghani and not shoot him so I can question him), but rather getting ambushed, the gun jams, and you're fighting.



You just got finished saying you have no idea about the raw data, and in the next sentence you go on to try to speculate about what the accounts are from?!?!?!?! And FYI- the number of times that type of thing goes on is extremely low- too low really to state anything with a great statistical base.

Lets say I hit someone from behind with my fist and he is knocked out cold. So I can say that in 100 percent of fights I have been involved in there was no grappling, only striking. Mark Twain had a great saying that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.


----------



## flashlock

Don Roley said:


> I can see the error of your logic.
> 
> First of all, grappling can be defined as one guy grabbing the other guy in any way, manner or form. You watch some of those police reality shows and you will most often see them roll up on two guys grabbing each other with one hand and trying to hit with the other.
> 
> Hitting and striking seems to be a big part of every conflict as well as grabbing. BBT has both in about equal measures. The advantage BJJ has in in _newaza._
> 
> And of course, if you simply want to define a street fight as one on one, then you are trying to define something so that it fits your prefered bias instead of looking at it realistically.
> 
> Your bias seems obvious. How many fights did your sources say were only one on one? Or had no weapons? Or had no hitting? I would say it probably was not covered and yet you assumed that this is the situation.


 
Those are some great points, Don, and I hadn't thought of them.

I also know taijutsu does spend a lot of time grappling.

My argument is strongest against arts that have very little grappling, not really due to the idea of any little grab = grappling (a very good point you made), but the startlingly revealing outcome that NO fights involved striking alone.

Maybe this debate is a little misguided.  Is it now really striker vs grappler, or specialist (BJJ) vs generalist (Nin)?  If that is the case, then if the specialist can force his came on the generalist, the generalist is in deep dookie.

Then we're back to the high % of grappling again... I think the grappler has a better chance of forcing his game because, really, it's just simpler and easier.  Not always, but it looks like a majority of the time.


----------



## Don Roley

flashlock said:


> BTW, why does everyone think the BJJ artist is so useless in a multiple fight scenario?  They can lock someone up standing just as well as they can on the ground, and shove him into the other attackers or use him as a shield, or run from a knife just like anyone.  I don't see ninjas having a huge advantage in that department, if any.



Well, a few posts ago you stated that BJJ _*specializes*_ in grappling. When dealing with multiple people you can grab someone and use them as a shield. But you also have to be able to drop them, hit and run instead of staying in one place. If you stay in one place and grapple, the others will merely surround you and do a beat down from behind you. BBT does not specialize in grappling but has it in the toolbox. It does do striking, but does not specialize in it as well.


----------



## Flying Crane

I've got one comment to make, and then I'll just back away from this one.

Anybody who believes that a particular art is somehow, measureably, "Better" than other arts, is displaying his tremendous ignorance.  This is the type of attitude often shown by insecure, know-nothing beginners who want to jump on the hype and believe that what they began doing a month ago is the "best".  People at this stage actually don't deserve to have an opinion, because they have no knowledge or experience upon which to base an opinion.  While nobody has the right or authority to actually shut them up, their opinion is truly worthless.

If they actually manage to stick with their training for a few years, and don't get bored or frustrated because their instant gratification mentality and Attention Deficit Disorder that they developed thru playing too many video games doesn't allow them to develop the dedication to keep at it thru the tough times, then they just might get the proper experience they need to understand that their art is not superior to others.  Different arts have certain strengths and weaknesses, but it boils down to the person, and how well they can utilize and adapt what they have trained to an unpredictable situation.

Statistics supporting these Superiority Theories are garbage, plain and simple, and I really don't give two poops about what the US military is using as a basis to teach H2H skills to soldiers.  What is taught to a large number of soldiers has to be simple enough to be taught in a short period of time, to a bunch of people who run a very large range of intelligence and physical ability in learning such skills.  Sure, it can be effective, but it is also very limited by the teaching requirements.  An art that requires a longer period of time, a good deal of thought and sophisticated training, and is too detailed to be grasped by the average schmoe, often gives much better results in the long run.  But the Military doesn't have the time to teach that kind of thing to the average soldier, and not every soldier will be able to grasp the intricacies of the art.  So all I'm saying here is that basing your evaluation of an art on whether or not the Military teaches it to soldiers, is probably not the best thing to do.  In fact, you just might end up with something that is watered down and simplified, altho reasonably effective at a low level.  That's the best they can do, considering their circumstances.

That's all I gots to say.


----------



## flashlock

Don Roley said:


> I doubt it. Classified? I take it you have never served in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> You just got finished saying you have no idea about the raw data, and in the next sentence you go on to try to speculate about what the accounts are from?!?!?!?! And FYI- the number of times that type of thing goes on is extremely low- too low really to state anything with a great statistical base.
> 
> Lets say I hit someone from behind with my fist and he is knocked out cold. So I can say that in 100 percent of fights I have been involved in there was no grappling, only striking. Mark Twain had a great saying that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.


 
I inferred that from the book which contains some techniques influenced by said data; it just wasn't spelled out.

If you went up behind someone and punched them in the back of the head--you weren't in a fight, you're just an *******. 

Kidding aside, statistics have more weight the more data you have, of course!  I guess it was good enough for the US Military, I figured it was good enough for little ol' me.  I wish I had more reports and things, I just don't.  Personally, I don't really need those reports because I have common sense (I'm not implying people here don't, just that mine tells me fights tend to go to grappling).


----------



## Senin

flashlock said:


> It's a rhetorical mistake in debates--you attack your opponent for who he or she is, not their argument itself, as you should.


 
I agree, such as the senior grandmaster super moderator grand llama.  Please stick to logical facts-- even if they aren't what you want.


----------



## Don Roley

Flying Crane said:


> I've got one comment to make, and then I'll just back away from this one.
> 
> Anybody who believes that a particular art is somehow, measureably, "Better" than other arts, is displaying his tremendous ignorance.  This is the type of attitude often shown by insecure, know-nothing beginners who want to jump on the hype and believe that what they began doing a month ago is the "best".  People at this stage actually don't deserve to have an opinion, because they have no knowledge or experience upon which to base an opinion.  While nobody has the right or authority to actually shut them up, their opinion is truly worthless.



Good points. People try to rely on the art. "If I study XXX then I must be a bad ***," seems to be the thinking. They are insecure and know nothing and that insecurity is the source for them trying to make comparisons and tout their way of doing things while those that are far more experienced and far more secure about themselves just don't care to make comparisons.

Even worse are those that do not do well in an art because they rely on it and expect it to be the magic bullet instead of relying on themselves and their efforts. They then switch to another art in search for something to rely on and can't help but go back and trash their old art. I was just recently reminded of a guy who switched from TKD to BBJ and made trouble on another message board by going to the TKD section and telling them how their art sucked. All the folks from both BBJ and TKD wanted to stomp that guy.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Attention all users:*

*Moderator Note. 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MT Moderator-*


----------



## Don Roley

flashlock said:


> I inferred that from the book which contains some techniques influenced by said data; it just wasn't spelled out.



You really need to look at the data instead of infering a lot of times. For example, you pointed to the authors not being aware of a single instance of a fight not having grappling. From there, you concluded that an art that _specializes_ in grappling would be a better choice. But is there any cases that the author is aware of that did not have striking as well? If there are no fights on record without striking (as I think we will find) then it seems that to ignore striking and going for an art that _specializes_ in striking would be a recipe for getting your head handed to you.

In reality, many arts have both grappling and striking in them. A few arts tend to only have striking and I do not study them for that reason. I only know of the judo that is taught at my schools here in Japan for an art that only has grappling. Other judo groups still have the _atemi_ methods as layed out by Kano.

But my point is about being careful about the sources and what you infer from them.



flashlock said:


> If you went up behind someone and punched them in the back of the head--you weren't in a fight, you're just an *******.



I think you will find that most _*street*_ fights go more like my example of an ambush from behind than anything you see at the UFC. You need to consider these things when defining the problem. Some of us really do not care how well we would do against someone else in a UFC training. We only care about getting home alive and in one piece. Our training reflects this.


----------



## Bigshadow

Don Roley said:


> I think you will find that most _*street*_ fights go more like my example of an ambush from behind than anything you see at the UFC. You need to consider these things when defining the problem. Some of us really do not care how well we would do against someone else in a UFC training. We only care about getting home alive and in one piece. Our training reflects this.



Amen brother!


----------



## evenflow1121

flashlock said:


> If you went up behind someone and punched them in the back of the head--you weren't in a fight, you're just an *******.



Sure you were in a fight, you just struck him, the question is, is he getting back up, that is has his training prepared him for such a scenario, and if you ve been in a few real fights on the street you will realize that most of the people you will fight will try to ambush you and are for the most part dishonorable *******s that I can agree with.


----------



## flashlock

Flying Crane said:


> I've got one comment to make, and then I'll just back away from this one.
> 
> Anybody who believes that a particular art is somehow, measureably, "Better" than other arts, is displaying his tremendous ignorance. This is the type of attitude often shown by insecure, know-nothing beginners who want to jump on the hype and believe that what they began doing a month ago is the "best". People at this stage actually don't deserve to have an opinion, because they have no knowledge or experience upon which to base an opinion. While nobody has the right or authority to actually shut them up, their opinion is truly worthless.
> 
> If they actually manage to stick with their training for a few years, and don't get bored or frustrated because their instant gratification mentality and Attention Deficit Disorder that they developed thru playing too many video games doesn't allow them to develop the dedication to keep at it thru the tough times, then they just might get the proper experience they need to understand that their art is not superior to others. Different arts have certain strengths and weaknesses, but it boils down to the person, and how well they can utilize and adapt what they have trained to an unpredictable situation.
> 
> Statistics supporting these Superiority Theories are garbage, plain and simple, and I really don't give two poops about what the US military is using as a basis to teach H2H skills to soldiers. What is taught to a large number of soldiers has to be simple enough to be taught in a short period of time, to a bunch of people who run a very large range of intelligence and physical ability in learning such skills. Sure, it can be effective, but it is also very limited by the teaching requirements. An art that requires a longer period of time, a good deal of thought and sophisticated training, and is too detailed to be grasped by the average schmoe, often gives much better results in the long run. But the Military doesn't have the time to teach that kind of thing to the average soldier, and not every soldier will be able to grasp the intricacies of the art. So all I'm saying here is that basing your evaluation of an art on whether or not the Military teaches it to soldiers, is probably not the best thing to do. In fact, you just might end up with something that is watered down and simplified, altho reasonably effective at a low level. That's the best they can do, considering their circumstances.
> 
> That's all I gots to say.


 
Yes, name calling:  the last refuge of the inarticulate and frustrated.

I'm not going to respond to your petty insults beyond that; people can read these posts and judge for themselves who the insecure ignoramous is.


----------



## flashlock

Don Roley said:


> You really need to look at the data instead of infering a lot of times. For example, you pointed to the authors not being aware of a single instance of a fight not having grappling. From there, you concluded that an art that _specializes_ in grappling would be a better choice. But is there any cases that the author is aware of that did not have striking as well? If there are no fights on record without striking (as I think we will find) then it seems that to ignore striking and going for an art that _specializes_ in striking would be a recipe for getting your head handed to you.
> 
> In reality, many arts have both grappling and striking in them. A few arts tend to only have striking and I do not study them for that reason. I only know of the judo that is taught at my schools here in Japan for an art that only has grappling. Other judo groups still have the _atemi_ methods as layed out by Kano.
> 
> But my point is about being careful about the sources and what you infer from them.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find that most _*street*_ fights go more like my example of an ambush from behind than anything you see at the UFC. You need to consider these things when defining the problem. Some of us really do not care how well we would do against someone else in a UFC training. We only care about getting home alive and in one piece. Our training reflects this.


 
Thanks, Don.  I'm actually going to email the author and ask him about this data--valid question, thanks!

It's funny how everyone else keeps bringing up UFC, as if I think that is a real street fight even though I specifically pointed out the difference early on.  UFC's rules favor the grappler over the striker.  Nowadays, this distinction is pretty silly, because all of those fighters now have both skills to varying degrees.

I stand by the book; they based their program on BJJ for a reason, and I am assuming the reports weighed heavily toward grappling.

I just want to finish up now that things have reached sort of a head (and degenerated into insults on some poster's part)-- that I loved ninjutsu, I have practiced it for years and had one opportunity to study it for a day with the first westerner awardered a 10th Dan, Mr. Doron Norvon.  That was a great experience and I'll never forget it!  (Any of you there?  Lansing, MI 1992?)

I have been holding back on what I really think--because unlike my previous posts--it's really based on total opinion without a hint of documentation.  I've seen the youtube videos, I've seen the UFC stuff, I've done 2 years of free style wrestling, and 3 little BJJ classes in my whole life--I've been in a few little street fights when I was a few years younger--and I've done a lot of sparring, aikido, and used to teach TKD--out of my little experience, I think the grappler's advantage is HUGE, way more than ninjutsu practioners want to admit.  I love ninjutsu, but, for me, I found it ineffective vs well trained grapplers.  I'm sure you'd all do better than me--and all you have to do is go down to a BJJ club, tell them you want to do an experiment (put on those 2 ounce gloves) and go at it with a white belt with 3 months experience.  I've got one last thing to say for those of you who take up that challenge:  good luck (you will need it)!


----------



## Cryozombie

I've been staying out of this mess... but I feel I would like to make an observation based on experience... (I know I know, experience doesnt mean anything just the data in a book)

I'd been working the door of a local club here up until a couple weeks ago... I participated in a good number of "altercations"... 

Few of them had any more "grappling" than either them grabbing us as we tried to steer them out the door to stablize us for a punch, or me applying a lock.  Most of them were punches being thrown... and none of us went to the ground.  Most of the fights between the patrons were all strking... I saw ONE instance of a guy grabbing another dude in a bear hug, slamming him down to the ground, and then kicking at him.

So... yeah... I know fights *DO* go to the ground, but I'm gonna disagree with flashlocks comments that most fights include grappling, and no fight has striking alone...


----------



## smacktap

Brad,

Ninjutsu can't and does not train to win no rules sports fights. There is no relationship between the training methods of a Mixed Martial Artist and a one that follows the "traditional" ninjutsu styles. 

Cheers.


----------



## Senin

Sorry to disagree with ya Flying Crane, but.....

I remember when the first UFC fights started- alot less rules (I remember one guy get groin punched repeatedly).  And basically it was a test of one style against another-- they had boxers, kung fu guys, karate fighters, etc.  And the Gracies came in and cleaned their clocks.  Just like the Gracies have been doing over and over.  They would go to martial arts schools and challenge their top fighters (few if any rules) and win.  Is it the fighter?  No, it's the style.  Why do you think everyone is incorperating BJJ.  How many times have I heard, yeah BJJ would be a great complliment to our art.  That's because that particular art is lacking.  Why do you start taking martial arts to begin with?  Uhh, to learn to fight.  "But it's the fighter that counts."  No, you are learning effective skills.  It would be ignorant to say the style is doesn't matter.  Put that boxer back in the ring with BJJ'er again and see.

Actually I started this thread because I was a bit curious on how a ninjutsu fighter would fight a BJJ'er.  Because on the surface it would appear that the BBJ'er would take him down and submit him.  But I have respect for the Bujinkan.  I figured an authority on Bujinkan would have a means, but what do I hear?  You need to train more.  That is like saying nothing.  I felt the Ninjer would have a few "dirty tricks" for the BBJ'er (which I do not consider bad in a street fight).  But then I am told, no those wouldn't work once he got a hold of you.  So, it seems pretty evident.  Once the BJJ'er gets a hold of you....... 




Flying Crane said:


> I've got one comment to make, and then I'll just back away from this one.
> 
> Anybody who believes that a particular art is somehow, measureably, "Better" than other arts, is displaying his tremendous ignorance. This is the type of attitude often shown by insecure, know-nothing beginners who want to jump on the hype and believe that what they began doing a month ago is the "best". People at this stage actually don't deserve to have an opinion, because they have no knowledge or experience upon which to base an opinion. While nobody has the right or authority to actually shut them up, their opinion is truly worthless.
> 
> If they actually manage to stick with their training for a few years, and don't get bored or frustrated because their instant gratification mentality and Attention Deficit Disorder that they developed thru playing too many video games doesn't allow them to develop the dedication to keep at it thru the tough times, then they just might get the proper experience they need to understand that their art is not superior to others. Different arts have certain strengths and weaknesses, but it boils down to the person, and how well they can utilize and adapt what they have trained to an unpredictable situation.
> 
> Statistics supporting these Superiority Theories are garbage, plain and simple, and I really don't give two poops about what the US military is using as a basis to teach H2H skills to soldiers. What is taught to a large number of soldiers has to be simple enough to be taught in a short period of time, to a bunch of people who run a very large range of intelligence and physical ability in learning such skills. Sure, it can be effective, but it is also very limited by the teaching requirements. An art that requires a longer period of time, a good deal of thought and sophisticated training, and is too detailed to be grasped by the average schmoe, often gives much better results in the long run. But the Military doesn't have the time to teach that kind of thing to the average soldier, and not every soldier will be able to grasp the intricacies of the art. So all I'm saying here is that basing your evaluation of an art on whether or not the Military teaches it to soldiers, is probably not the best thing to do. In fact, you just might end up with something that is watered down and simplified, altho reasonably effective at a low level. That's the best they can do, considering their circumstances.
> 
> That's all I gots to say.


----------



## Cryozombie

Senin said:


> "But it's the fighter that counts."  No, you are learning effective skills.  It would be ignorant to say the style is doesn't matter.  Put that boxer back in the ring with BJJ'er again and see.



Ok, so if its just the art, Senin, then, by your example, a guy with a month of BJJ training is gonna be able to take on someone like Nagato sensei?

LOL.  OHHHHHH KAY.


----------



## Senin

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, so if its just the art, Senin, then, by your example, a guy with a month of BJJ training is gonna be able to take on someone like Nagato sensei?
> 
> LOL. OHHHHHH KAY.


 
Geez, where is the common sense?  

I understand that Nagato sensei, along with ninjutsu, had some prior martial arts experience-- Judo, etc.  I am sure that Nagato sensei has probably grabbled at least over a month's worth of time.  

You don't get the art in a month.  Let's be at least somewhat reasonable and compare black belts vs black belts.  Not novice vs nearly grandmaster.


----------



## Jonathan Randall

Senin said:


> Geez, where is the common sense?
> 
> I understand that Nagato sensei, along with ninjutsu, had some prior martial arts experience-- Judo, etc. I am sure that Nagato sensei has probably grabbled at least over a month's worth of time.
> 
> You don't get the art in a month. Let's be at least somewhat reasonable and compare black belts vs black belts. Not novice vs nearly grandmaster.


 
It sounds like your saying his early Judo training - and ONLY his Judo training - would be the reason he would prevail. If so, I'd have to ask why your arguing in the Ninjutsu forum if you've already made up your mind that it is worthless?

IMO, these arguments are silly. What does it matter to BJJ/MMA folks what BBT folks do?


----------



## The Master

It's funny that the Gracies are mentioned so often. I've heard that in the "old days" that most if not all the fights were Gracies vs their students. It was rare to see a Gracie do real no-rules fighting outside their circle.  Less embarassing when the fight is semi-fixed.

As to BJJ vs Ninjutsu, in a ground fight, the BJJer may win. But what weapon techniques does BJJ have again? I'm not personally aware of any. How would a BJJer handle a knife weilding ninja? Ninja with sword? Ninja with caltrops, or shirken, or shinken or whatever they are called? How about if the ninja threw salt or used pepper spray first?

How would The Master fight a Ninja?
As dirty as possible.
How would he fight a BJJer?
From 25 feet away with a 45.
Tap that out brother!
Booyah!


----------



## Andrew Green

Jonathan Randall said:


> IMO, these arguments are silly. What does it matter to BJJ/MMA folks what BBT folks do?



Generally, it doesn't. 

Which is why these tend to get started by and dominated by people that practice Ninjitsu.  Oddly enough there is very little discussion on MMA boards about what to do if you fight a ninja.

Forgive me if I missed anyone here, but I skimmed the thread and I don't see any MMA stylists.  I see a couple people that have some minimal BJJ training, as well as training in something else.  

So I think the question should be, What does it matter to BBT folk what MMA/BJJ fighters do?


----------



## shesulsa

Anyone can type anything they want to into the "style" field in their own profile.  I could type that I were the Super De-Dooper De-Pooper Scooper Poop-ahh of Kaht Bahks Dough.  Doesn't mean that's what I am.


----------



## Andrew Green

So...  this thread was all MMA guys in dressed as ninjas then?  Sounds more like a ninja tactic


----------



## shesulsa

Andrew Green said:


> So...  this thread was all MMA guys in dressed as ninjas then?  Sounds more like a ninja tactic


LOL!

I'm just pointing out that a duck can waddle and call itself a goose if it wants to ... and ninjas aren't the only sneaky bastards out there ... they just make an art of it ....  :ultracool


----------



## Andrew Green

Nope, many forms of sneaky buggers.

But when I see a bunch of Ducks, my first thought isn't usually, "Wow, those cats have really good duck outfits"


----------



## meta_aesthete

Andrew, 

I think you raise a valid point in that (from my newb observations) this forum spends waaaaaay too much time debating BJJ/MMA/MT. The issue is that, as in this case, people come to the ninjutsu threads to start these debates. Debates that have been re-hashed a million times. And I think the dominating response is one of frustration, one of "here we go again."

But I agree that it happens too much. Even as I was typing my last post on this thread, I realized that I didn't care. It's a waste of energy to argue these things, because it's all rhetorical. Combat is the opposite of rhetorical. 

I don't think this community HAS to deal with each outside critic who comes here with a chip. But for some reason we do, and I think it's getting silly. 

I, for one, am going to try to ignore it now. If the OP is interested enough in ninjutsu's grappling defenses, he can research it or take classes. Has he considered looking up his local BJK instructor and asking for a demonstration? That's the only real way to evaluate, IMHO.

Maybe it'll work for him, maybe it won't. But my training so far has worked for me, and if something happens that makes me change that view, I'll adapt.

But the combined experience and intelligence of the practitioners in this forum is far too often wasted on this sort of junk. 

Everyone here has to make a choice: is our objective to help each other become better practitioners, or to shout down critics? 

If our objective is TRULY the first one, then there's no need for us to engage in these rhetorical fights -- winning or losing them doesn't accomplish our goal, so there's no reason to engage.


----------



## MJS

Andrew Green said:


> So I think the question should be, What does it matter to BBT folk what MMA/BJJ fighters do?


 
Well Andrew, last time I checked, I haven't seen any BBT members, running over to the MMA/Grappling section and starting flames over there.  Why is it that certain folks come over the the BBT thread, with little to no BBT experience, and cause flames?  Rather than ask a sincere question about BBT, they're more interested in tearing apart the art.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Senin said:


> I figured an authority on Bujinkan would have a means, but what do I hear? You need to train more. That is like saying nothing.


 
If you want to find out, training will answer your question better than anyone can do online.


----------



## Andrew Green

MJS said:


> Well Andrew, last time I checked, I haven't seen any BBT members, running over to the MMA/Grappling section and starting flames over there.  Why is it that certain folks come over the the BBT thread, with little to no BBT experience, and cause flames?  Rather than ask a sincere question about BBT, they're more interested in tearing apart the art.



I'm not going to claim no MMA practitioner has ever gone to a BBT section to start a fight, but in this case, there was no MMA person starting it.  Same for the last few style vs style fights in here.  So why is it that MMA / Grappling people get pointed at as the guilty party when they where no where to be seen?  Usually when a MMA person does pick the fight, they are not actually a practitioner, but a UFC fan who has watched the reality series and played the video game.  I really don't think it is at all fair to blame the art and its practitioners for them though, no more then it is to blame ninjutsu for the guys that think the 80's ninja movies where pretty much accurate, and want to argue that point to anyone that disagrees.

That said, the MMA section has quite a few enteries from people that butt in to remind everyone that MMA is just a sport with rules and that in a real fight all those fouls we are forbidden by sacred law to execute, even in a no rules fight, will be the death of us.  That and 3 guys with weapons on a glass covered floor.


----------



## Flying Crane

flashlock said:


> Yes, name calling: the last refuge of the inarticulate and frustrated.
> 
> I'm not going to respond to your petty insults beyond that; people can read these posts and judge for themselves who the insecure ignoramous is.


 

I apologize if my post came across as a personal attack.  Frustrated?  Yes, simply because, as another poster mentioned, we see way too many threads turn into a "my style is better than your style" type of argument.  These have been rehashed over and over, and it seems that more often than not, it is a BJJ, or MMA vs. everything/anything else argument, and it's just kicking a dead horse.  Let's just bury that carcass and leave it alone.  I guess the best thing for me is to refrain from entering these kinds of threads, which I do for the most part, and pretty much stayed out of this one too.  Just finally couldn't resist, I guess.

I didn't mean my post as a personal attack at you, but I otherwise stand by everything that I said.


----------



## Flying Crane

Senin said:


> Sorry to disagree with ya Flying Crane, but.....


 
Fair enough, I can agree to disagree and leave it at that.


----------



## Cryozombie

Senin said:


> I keep hearing, "who said that the ninjutsu practioner will do eye pokes, biting, groin attackes".  Okay then, what would the ninjutsu practioner do?  I have yet to hear that one.  I think it is pretty obvious what the BJJer will do.  I have yet to hear a defense.



Ok, Bujinkan People, I'm horribly sorry, but I can't take the lies and secrecy anymore... I'm going to let the cat out of the bag, and answer senin so this can be laid to rest once and for all... please forgive me if I misspell the name of our technique, I dont really speak japanese.  Since you want a canned answer, please understand that this technique should be assumed to be applied all the time everytime.

The BJJ practitioner would probably enter in to grapple, and the ninja, if he were unarmed would shift kamae to avoid the inital attack and if successful, apply kouro, and that would most likely be the end of the fight, because if Kouro is applied _correctly_ it ALWAYS ends a fight.  

And, Everyone thats it, right there.  The way a BBT guy would fight a BJJr.  Its our secret... and I told, so I will be scolded.  

Question asked and answered, lets move on.


----------



## jks9199

flashlock said:


> I inferred that from the book which contains some techniques influenced by said data; it just wasn't spelled out.
> 
> If you went up behind someone and punched them in the back of the head--you weren't in a fight, you're just an *******.
> 
> Kidding aside, statistics have more weight the more data you have, of course!  I guess it was good enough for the US Military, I figured it was good enough for little ol' me.  I wish I had more reports and things, I just don't.  Personally, I don't really need those reports because I have common sense (I'm not implying people here don't, just that mine tells me fights tend to go to grappling).



Guess what?  The reality of most street attacks is some guy sneaking up on an unaware victim, and pouncing.  Often with a weapon of some sort.

The relative handful where folks square off and "settle things like men" in some fashion are typically bar or school yard fight scenarios.  

As to choices in military or police training -- those are often driven by a few people whose interests or personal biases shape the course or selection.  Studies can be constructed to support those views...  The reality is that the last thing a cop or a soldier wants is to go hands-on with someone.  When that's happening -- it means everything else has failed.  And, currently, I'd suspect that when our soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and similar combat arenas are attacked and forced into a hand-to-hand situation, the assailant has a goal of getting the soldier's weapons or equipment, meaning that they're likely to move it into a grabbing/grappling situation.

For real world application, some form of fundamental grappling skill is indeed a necessity.  But many systems contain at least the basics -- if you know where and when to look.  

As I've said previously -- it's fun to sit down with a couple of buddies from different styles and say "what would you do if I did this..." and compare and contrast your solutions to the problem.  This generic idea of "this is better than that" or "what you a x-er do against a y-er" is non-productive.  It's too generic...  (And, you might note, this thread hasn't really ended up addressing that question which started it very much... h'mm.)

Somehow, I suspect I know where this thread's destined to end up...


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, Bujinkan People, I'm horribly sorry, but I can't take the lies and secrecy anymore... I'm going to let the cat out of the bag, and answer senin so this can be laid to rest once and for all... please forgive me if I misspell the name of our technique, I dont really speak japanese. Since you want a canned answer, please understand that this technique should be assumed to be applied all the time everytime.
> 
> The BJJ practitioner would probably enter in to grapple, and the ninja, if he were unarmed would shift kamae to avoid the inital attack and if successful, apply kouro, and that would most likely be the end of the fight, because if Kouro is applied _correctly_ it ALWAYS ends a fight.
> 
> And, Everyone thats it, right there. The way a BBT guy would fight a BJJr. Its our secret... and I told, so I will be scolded.


 
Mind telling me just what exactly "kouro" is, so I can scold you for it?


----------



## MJS

Andrew Green said:


> I'm not going to claim no MMA practitioner has ever gone to a BBT section to start a fight, but in this case, there was no MMA person starting it. Same for the last few style vs style fights in here. So why is it that MMA / Grappling people get pointed at as the guilty party when they where no where to be seen? Usually when a MMA person does pick the fight, they are not actually a practitioner, but a UFC fan who has watched the reality series and played the video game. I really don't think it is at all fair to blame the art and its practitioners for them though, no more then it is to blame ninjutsu for the guys that think the 80's ninja movies where pretty much accurate, and want to argue that point to anyone that disagrees.


 
Andrew, I'm more than sure you know exactly what I'm referring to.  It does not matter if its a MMA person or someone that worships MMA, the fact remains that there have been a number of threads in this section, in GMA and CMA.  For someone that has access to all of the RTMs that have been generated, you should now better than anyone!



> That said, the MMA section has quite a few enteries from people that butt in to remind everyone that MMA is just a sport with rules and that in a real fight all those fouls we are forbidden by sacred law to execute, even in a no rules fight, will be the death of us. That and 3 guys with weapons on a glass covered floor.


 
Andrew, come on man!  Its the same debate all the time, just with a different title!  By this point and time, I'm more than sure we all know how each side feels, but why is it necesary to constantly debate it?????  So before this thread gets locked, I suggest this discussion ends and returns to the topic!

Nuff said!!!!!


----------



## Andrew Green

MJS said:


> It does not matter if its a MMA person or someone that worships MMA,




Yes, it does.

We don't blame the JKD people everytime some karate practitioner shows up armed with a copy of the Tao of JKD and proceeds to tell all the karate people how to reform there art do we?


----------



## Don Roley

flashlock said:


> So the US military is putting its soldier's lives on the line to promote Gracie JJ?



Ah, you poor naive waif.

I can tell you have never been in the military. For that matter, you do not seem to have remembered all the many stories of people in the military selling out the service for their own gain. There is actually a guy registered here who was caught in a sting operation trying to sell secrets to someone he thought might be hostile to his country.

But you have also missed the more likely chance that it is a case of a *True Believer*tm looking at things through the eyes of his obsession.

You see, the military really does not put things together. People in the military put things together for the military. And if those people have  a deeply held belief that something is a certain way, they will see it in any data they pick up. They do not mean to lie, they just have those preconceptions.

Take a look at yourself. You heard that there were no cases of a fight that did not have grappling. Let us put aside the definition of grappling (grabbing) for a second. You heard that and then made the assumption that an art that *specialized* in grappling would be more effective. Of course, to specialize in one thing means to leave others lagging behind so striking would be left behind in an art that that specialized in grappling. But of course as we said, there seems to be no mention of whether there were *any* fights that did not involve striking. You see how your preconceived notions and desires clouded your way of looking at things? Do you realize that people involved in something like putting together an art for the military might suffer the same problems?

Next, you should consider what the sample for the studies is. You may be surprised, but grappling has been in the military H2H manuals for several years. I remember reading a thread at e-budo maybe 4-5 years ago where one of the participants in putting together the system talked about why they put in the groundfighting stuff. So it looks like the guys that were taken  for the sample already were learning some GJJ. So stories of them using it if that is the case, is only to be expected. 

What if the sample had instead looked at the H2H experiences over the decades that  the ROK had while fighting North Korean commandos, VC and others? They learn TKD. I dare say I would expect that a series of interviews with ROK soldiers who fought bare handed might reveal that they used a lot more kicks than grappling. People do as they are trained.

Finally, do not put your faith in anything. Some people seem to grab some sort of security blanket to try to convince themselves that what they do is the baddest thing in town. Some Bujinkan members try to say that an art as old as ours claims to be *must* be good otherwise it would not have survived. Having seen a few who spout that, I have to say the art would have died off long ago if they were the ones in charge of staying alive long enough to train a replacement. Pointing to the military as some sort of proof that what you do is combat effective sounds like that kind of reliance I am talking about. Do you even know the huge amount of idiots that taught stupid things to the military based on some sort of proof of its effeciency? Having gone through some of the military training firsthand, I can't say that the military gets things right all the time. So my advice would be to not rely on what others do or their perceived successes to bolster your case for your training.


----------



## Bigshadow

*Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-David Russ
-MT Moderator-*


----------



## bencole

Flashlock said:
			
		

> I stand by the material: the soldiers were given detailed questions about specifics during their conflicts, and they discovered that 100% of the fights had elements of grappling (most grappling mixed with striking); NONE had striking alone. 0. Nada. Zilch.


 


Don Roley said:


> What if the sample had instead looked at the H2H experiences over the decades that the ROK had while fighting North Korean commandos, VC and others? They learn TKD. I dare say I would expect that a series of interviews with ROK soldiers who fought bare handed might reveal that they used a lot more kicks than grappling. People do as they are trained.


 
This is what I referred to as "self-selection," wherein an individual *CHOOSES* a given action from a set of actions. I agree that if the military had interviewed Korean cammandos, most of them would say that the fight included kicking. LOL! People will do as they are trained!!!



			
				flashlock said:
			
		

> Otherwise, you should take back your comments.


 
Huh? No, you really need to go and re-read my comments and understand what they said. Your response shows that you *REALLY* did not understand what "statistical bias" entails.

This is particularly important if you are going to claim that you are using "data and logic" to make your arguments. If your data is flawed, any logic used to exploit the data will be flawed in the end.

-ben


----------



## Cryozombie

Here guys, Let me rephrase it in a way that I BELIEVE makes the argument more clear:

"Ok, so in a fair kitchen battle, who would win...

Iron Chef Morimoto, or that Kid from McDonalds...  But let me just define fair, they only get to use a microwave, a frozen beef patty and a spatula."

I mean, Its OBVIOUS Mcdonalds is better, because they train the way that the kitchen battle will happen, *and* the largest food industrys ALL use those techniques, so they MUST be superior to what Morimoto does right?​


----------



## LuzRD

well that really depends on whether Chef Morimoto can use his own spatula or if he is required to use an acceptable McSpatula. 
and are the beef patties frozen in the same frezer to the same core temp???


----------



## zDom

Cryozombie said:


> Here guys, Let me rephrase it in a way that I BELIEVE makes the argument more clear:
> 
> "Ok, so in a fair kitchen battle, who would win...
> 
> Iron Chef Morimoto, or that Kid from McDonalds...  But let me just define fair, they only get to use a microwave, a frozen beef patty and a spatula."
> 
> I mean, Its OBVIOUS Mcdonalds is better, because they train the way that the kitchen battle will happen, *and* the largest food industrys ALL use those techniques, so they MUST be superior to what Morimoto does right?​



LOL, Cryo-Z.

Funny and yet an apt analogy  

Woulda rep'd ya but I can't (again) yet.


----------



## DWeidman

flashlock said:


> BTW, why does everyone think the BJJ artist is so useless in a multiple fight scenario?  They can lock someone up standing just as well as they can on the ground, ...



???

I will pretend you aren't this dense.

Let me repeat what you said for clarity:

_"They can lock someone up standing just as well as they can on the ground"_

What???  When was the last time you even HEARD of a BJJer winning standing with a standing lock?  

It is true that they CAN use standing locks -- but they aren't NEARLY as effective as when they are on the ground... 

This should be a "Doh!" moment for you - for saying something so ignorant...

As to part 2:



flashlock said:


> ...and shove him into the other attackers or use him as a shield, or run from a knife just like anyone.  I don't see ninjas having a huge advantage in that department, if any.



Really?

How many classes have you seen of where this is practiced by BJJers?    Anyone?  Brian?

Or -- for some reason this doesn't need to be drilled at all???

Bleh.  I will debate the facts with you as soon as you level up your _common sense_.

-DW


----------



## DWeidman

Senin said:


> And who was it that said: "The easiest example is our art doesn't fall apart with the inclusion of a knife. BJJ falls apart as soon as a knife (or a friend) is introduced..."  I would beg to differ.  Those Brazilian BJJ'ers are some of the toughest bad asses around.... learned on the tough streets in Brazil.  Do you really think they haven't trained for the real world?  Do you really think they haven't thought about what to do against a knife?  Come on, get real.  I certainly wouldn't say their art falls apart when a knife is introduced.



I did.

Again - let me repeat this slowly for you:

BJJ or GJJ is rarely taught against the knife (if ever).  Again, for those that have YEARS training in BJJ/GJJ - please correct me:  I am interested in how many classes you have personally witnessed that deal specifically with knife fighting.

But somehow - the mythical Brazilian BadAsses -- picked up knife fighting how?  If it isn't taught in class... ... 

Hm.  

You mean that the art doesn't define the fighter?  Say it isn't so!

-DW

PS.  This is mostly _common sense_ again (see a trend to my posts?).  An art that "needs" to close the distance to be effective at all is at a disadvantage when you make the "penalty" for closing that distance as pricey as it is when you are looking at the business end of a knife...  So -- how much of BJJ is useful at distances greater than the "grapple range"?

Hmmm....  Level up your "_common sense_" as well...  Or just quit the Gracie nutriding?  Toodles...

PPS.  As to Brazilian BadAsses:  I would rather face the baddest BJJer unarmed then just a pretty good "Escrimador" with his knives.  Or Joe Average from down the street with his Glock.  There is a trend here... Your homework is to figure out what the trend is?  Good luck.


----------



## Andrew Green

Yeah, well how does Ninjutsu deal with Tanks?  Huh?  It doesn't does it?  That's what I thought 

Seriously guys come on, this is silly.  BJJ does what it does, and it does it very well.  It is a specialized art, but it's strategies can be implemented into other things if you like.  The Dog brothers, for example, have put out material on mixing Machado brand BJJ with weapons fighting, it works.  But if you don't train it, it won't.  Same goes for everything.  

And, let's be honest here, if the other guy has a knife and you don't, your odds are not good no matter what you train in.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Andrew Green said:


> Yeah, well how does Ninjutsu deal with Tanks? Huh? It doesn't does it? That's what I thought
> 
> Seriously guys come on, this is silly. BJJ does what it does, and it does it very well. It is a specialized art, but it's strategies can be implemented into other things if you like. The Dog brothers, for example, have put out material on mixing Machado brand BJJ with weapons fighting, it works. But if you don't train it, it won't. Same goes for everything.
> 
> And, let's be honest here, if the other guy has a knife and you don't, your odds are not good no matter what you train in.


 
Andrew no doubt if you take the principles of BJJ and train it with a stick or knife they do work (but only if you train that way) if you pay close attention to the details! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It is also true Andrew that it is hard to disagree with your analogy that if the other guy has a knife and you do not that you are at a distinct disadvantage.  I can see all sides to this argument as I train in both Budo Taijutsu and BJJ.  Having said that I do not like to *think* in generalities as I have seen some sorry BJJ people and some great Budo Taijutsu grappling and vice versa going the opposite way.  The reality will always be that it does come down to the *individual* in the moment and if you cannot implement your training in that *violent encounter* then you probably will be at a distinct disadvantage if the other person can!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

DWeidman said:


> As to part 2:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> How many classes have you seen of where this is practiced by BJJers? Anyone? Brian?
> 
> Or -- for some reason this doesn't need to be drilled at all???
> 
> -DW


 
A number of times but *not nearly* as much time as is spent on just plain unarmed jiujitsu.


----------



## DWeidman

Brian R. VanCise said:


> A number of times but *not nearly* as much time as is spent on just plain unarmed jiujitsu.



So how many times in the past 11  yrs?  rough estimation?

-DW


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

DWeidman said:


> So how many times in the past 11 yrs? rough estimation?
> 
> -DW


 
I could not give you a rough number count but if I were to break down an percentage of my BJJ training nearly 90% to 95% is with ground techniques and the other 5 to 10% is with standing self defense.  That is probably a pretty accurate percentage across the board in most BJJ good BJJ schools.


----------



## Odin

DWeidman said:


> I did.
> 
> Again - let me repeat this slowly for you:
> 
> BJJ or GJJ is rarely taught against the knife (if ever). Again, for those that have YEARS training in BJJ/GJJ - please correct me: I am interested in how many classes you have personally witnessed that deal specifically with knife fighting.
> 
> But somehow - the mythical Brazilian BadAsses -- picked up knife fighting how? If it isn't taught in class... ...
> 
> Hm.
> 
> You mean that the art doesn't define the fighter? Say it isn't so!
> 
> -DW
> 
> PS. This is mostly _common sense_ again (see a trend to my posts?). An art that "needs" to close the distance to be effective at all is at a disadvantage when you make the "penalty" for closing that distance as pricey as it is when you are looking at the business end of a knife... So -- how much of BJJ is useful at distances greater than the "grapple range"?
> 
> Hmmm.... Level up your "_common sense_" as well... Or just quit the Gracie nutriding? Toodles...
> 
> PPS. As to Brazilian BadAsses: I would rather face the baddest BJJer unarmed then just a pretty good "Escrimador" with his knives. Or Joe Average from down the street with his Glock. There is a trend here... Your homework is to figure out what the trend is? Good luck.


 
Gracie barra london teaches knife defence.


----------



## DWeidman

Odin said:


> Gracie barra london teaches knife defence.



How often?

Any Martial Arts school that is even attempting to pass itself off as a self-defense school will have to touch on "other" aspects occasionally.

-DW

PS.  I am going to take a bit of a vacation from this board (temporary).  Apologies to all -- if you want to continue discussion of any of this -- hit me up on kutaki.org or martialartsplanet.com.  Later   -DW


----------



## Highland Ninja

Hope you'll all forgive the thread necromancy here. 

A couple of insights I wanted to share though.

First, a lot of emphasis is being placed on BJJ in the ring, as people will say that the BJJ guys beat boxers, karateka, etc. But what would happen if you put a BJJ practitioner in the ring with Lennox Lewis, Tyson, or Holyfield under boxing rules? Or with any good boxer? The BJJ guy would be "owned" by the boxer. Why? _Because the fight would be under boxing rules and the BJJ guy has no training in that aspect of the fight_. 

So we can't look at sports to define "my art can kick your art's ***". True, MMA and UFC fights use both striking and grappling. But there are plenty of techniques that are banned. Are eye gouges, strikes to the throat, groin crushing, hair grabbing, ear biting, and other such techniques allowed? If not, it's not real combat and cannot be used as an indicator of what works on the street. So clearly, it isn't. 

People also poo-poo on pain compliance techniques and "dirty tactics" as "ineffective" against a well-conditioned fighter. But let's look at the second Holyfield/Tyson fight though, to put this in perspective. Holyfield is used to being punched in the head repeatedly by some of the most devastating one-punch knock-out fighters in his era (Bowe, Tyson, etc). _The man is trained to endure vast amounts of pain_. And yet when Tyson bit off the tip of his ear, he recoiled, grabbed his ear, and did a pain dance across the ring. He didn't just stand there and pound Tyson into dogmeat a second time. Is anyone going to tell me that Royce Gracie would simply grin and continue applying an arm bar if someone bit his ear off, gouged out an eye, or used some such vicious technique? Please!

We also need to look at reality and forget theory, Army studies, sports, and other nonsense. In _real life_, the situation is that usually there are multiple attackers, environmental concerns, weapons, etc. I'd hardly want to grapple with 3 enemies, or even one armed with a knife!

Getting back to BJK, perhaps some things are emphasized less these days, but I've always been trained with an eye towards taking advantage of any environmental factors, any handy makeshift weapons, etc. If I find myself in a situation and there are loose rocks, dirt, or sand on the ground, you can bet your behind that I am going to grab a handful and make use of it. Perhaps roll and grab some so you don't know I even have it in my hand. Kinda hard to do a takedown when your eyes are full of dirt, sand, etc!

If there's anything laying around that can be thrown, _it's getting thrown at you_! Pencils, pens, forks, the drink I'm holding in my hand, etc. To this very day, whenever I'm in a situation where there is any possibility of combat (however unlikely at the moment), I'm trained to see improvised weapons, tactical positioning, environmental concerns, and other issues. It happens automatically. I was on the subway train recently, it was very crowded and I was standing. I instinctively started seeing scenarios, how it would best be handled, ways to optimize my advantages, etc. I doubt the old guy dozing would care if I "borrowed" his walking cane to fend off an attacker who thought I was "unarmed", for example. I had a water bottle with that pop-up sip-cap, that could be used to spray into the attacker's eyes. Considering that it contained fresh squeezed, home-made lemonade (and quite potent!), I'd say that qualifies as mitsubishi! I started noticing how if anyone attacked me from in front, I could easily use the holding bar as a weapon, since they'd have had to reach around it to grab me (or strike me). 

So it makes no sense to compare BJJ to BJK when ninjutsu training includes weapons and other concerns. Any attempt to do so it akin to reducing combat to sport rules. You gotta take the _whole _art, not just _part _of it, into these "comparisons" that people seem so obsessed with. 

People argue that the BJJ grappler has an advantage because he studies only that one thing, grappling. But that's a weakness, in my eyes. That's like having an Air Force but no Army, Navy, or Marines. People from the grappling arts who so love to come to the ninjutsu forum to proclaim - 

"But if the BJJ guy gets you on the ground, he has a HUGE advantage"

- tend to forget that in order to get that advantage, he must indeed get the fight to the grappling stage. If all he is trained to do is grapple, then he is at a disadvantage against someone with a wider array of skills. As long as the opponent has at least some competency at grappling, it's going to be very hard for the pure grappler to throw his opponent to the ground and pin or submit him. The grappler is at a distinct disadvantage. 

This is why I chose ninjutsu as my art. It covers everything. Srtikes, grappling, groundfighting, joint locks/breaks, weapons, environmental concerns, mental tactics, you name it!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I have often told people that I believe BJJ compliments Budo Taijutsu very nicely.  The ground movement is similar and yet more refined in BJJ and Budo Taijutsu brings a real world approach that is essential for personal protection skills.


----------



## DWeidman

Highland Ninja said:


> Hope you'll all forgive the thread necromancy here.
> 
> A couple of insights I wanted to share though.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> This is why I chose ninjutsu as my art. It covers everything. Srtikes, grappling, groundfighting, joint locks/breaks, weapons, environmental concerns, mental tactics, you name it!



Dude - 

I appreciate your renewed vigor and fervor in your return to the BJK.

You haven't said anything that hasn't already been said (and put in its place).

BJJ people by far and large don't claim to be the end all be all to all forms of self defense.  Weapons fighting is clearly one of those areas they are weak in.

It doesn't take a genius to put the sharp end of a pen into someone else. 

As for the gouging and such - again - the BJJ-er will be in a better position to dirty trick  you than you will be to cheap shot him.  

Anyway - this horse has been dead for awhile.  I don't see anything positive coming up around starting another "yeah, but I will tear your eyes out if you shoot in on me - Ninja FTW" thread.  

It will only bring another round of "LOLz - ninjers...."

If you are happy with your training - so be it.  No need to try and convince others you are right.

When you are ready - just suit up and head to a good BJJ club.  When you are on the far side of a year's training with the BJJ club - then come back and talk to us.

-Daniel Weidman


----------



## Ronnin

Senin said:


> jks,
> Thanks great, but how about a response. Tell us, with your martial arts expertise, how a Nin-fighter and a BJJ-fighter would go at it.
> 
> If you have something to contribute.


 
I haven't posted in a while, it's good to be here non the less. Anyway, Senin, you keep questioning everything, after all through debate is how one gains intelligence. People who just, take thier Sensie's word for practicality without ever testing themselves are in for a rude awakening in a real life situation. Unfortunatly there are far more of them out there, then those that have truly tested themselves, although 99% percent of people will tell you they have used some sort of Taijutsu, but that's easy to say over the computer. Now, there are some guys here that really have used thier skill in a real situation, but they may have never been to Japan, or may not be a Godan, so some may disregard thier opinion. Some people in the community have a GREAT deal of knowladge on Taijutsu which is extremely helpful when you develope your skill. But my advice is this: don't for one second take ANYONE'S word for law. There is no such thing in a real fight, and people who try to illude your question with insult are people who don't know how thier art would stack up, and damn you for questioning !! Now here come all of my bashings, it just proves my point, hey guys I'm not pointing a finger at ANYONE here, I'm just talking from my past experiences, you cant very well say THOSE are wrong, can you? Anyway, I think ALL arts are great AND practicle if one "understands" their art. All arts are based on the same principal, don't ger hit, and cause as much damage as possible while exerting the least amount of effort, basic. So I think, what it comes down to weather it'a a BBT practioner vs. a BJJ, or Taekwondo vs. Muay Thai, or even Boxing vs. Capoeria, it's who _"understands"_ what is happening at that moment and who can capitalize on thier realization. Just my 376 cents.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Ronnin said:


> hey guys I'm not pointing a finger at ANYONE here, I'm just talking from my past experiences, you cant very well say THOSE are wrong, can you?


 
No, but we can question the validity of the conclusions you've drawn from said experiences.


----------



## Ronnin

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> No, but we can question the validity of the conclusions you've drawn from said experiences.


 
Yes of course you can. And we can all do that to everyone here 'till the end of time. So at what point do we as martial artists begin to look at other artists experiences as learning tools, and try to test them ourselves, and take whatever conclusions we come up with that fit your own style, and pass your info along to others instead of just disregarding what someone has to say, because we've all heard it before, sick of the same old questions, yaddah yaddah.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Ronnin said:


> And we can all do that to everyone here 'till the end of time.


 
You're making it sound like that isn't the purpose of a discussion forum...?



Ronnin said:


> So at what point do we as martial artists begin to look at other artists experiences as learning tools, and try to test them ourselves,


 
You can have your experiences. I want my own.


----------



## Ronnin

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> You're making it sound like that isn't the purpose of a discussion forum...?
> 
> The purpose of a discussion is to relay experiences, theories, probloems and solutions. The problem is, and don't take my word for it just look at the past threads, people go into a massive defence mode and begin to put down and insult. That is a problem.
> 
> You can have your experiences. I want my own.


 
That was my whole point with this thread, this guy was asking a question and got slandered for it.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

It was a question asked out of what I at least perceived as coming out of a very black-and-white position, and as such the topic does not lend itself to very nuanced discussions.


----------

