I'll come back to Brian's other posts, but to look at the second conversation going on here first...
I think brian, that while the actual as shown kata of the Bujinkan may not be modern but they are not the sole method of teaching. As you know, around here (im part of that core group in the Michigan area, they all train together) that the teachers are also responsible for teaching application out side of the kata. Just look at the videos of soke. He is not doing just simple kata, he is applying the methods in the ryu.
Hmm... To be honest, Kframe, this is a bit above your pay grade still, but this isn't exactly true... it can be quite a mistake to confuse training in the Bujinkan with training in the methods of the Ryu... or to mistake what Hatsumi shows as being the methods of the Ryu themselves as well. In short, kata are the primary method of teaching/training in the Ryu-ha of the Bujinkan, however henka (variations) are a more common teaching/training method of the Bujinkan itself... and there is no application outside of the kata, as the kata is very specifically the application itself. To apply methods that are found in the kata outside of the kata is to not be training the kata, but something else... and what Hatsumi shows is different again, as it is less about what is found in the Ryu, or even in the kata, but are more about exploration of the essence of martial arts as he understands it, from many decades and wide-reaching experiences across a number of arts.
I feel that there is not much that is not applicable to real modern defense.
Sojutsu, Naginatajutsu, Kusarigama, Bisento, Suwarigata (from seiza), huge numbers of the traditional kata, sword work, jutte, shinodake, shuko, and much, much more... My point is that, well, you've seen pretty much nothing of the scope of the art yet, so saying that you don't feel there's much that's not applicable to real, modern self defence might not be the most informed statement you could make. I'll put it this way: I know and am familiar with all of the kata from all of the commonly taught Ryu-ha within the Bujinkan, as well as a large number of related systems not officially taught within the auspices of the organisation, armed, unarmed, and non-combative, as well as quite a bit of the non-kata material from each as well. Additionally, our organisation has a great focus on understanding and having awareness of the realities of modern violence, which affords me access to a lot of information and insight into that side of things as well... which is where I'm coming from. When I say that the traditional material isn't suited to modern self defence, I'm not saying that as an attack or insult, but a recognition of the reality of the situation (on both sides).
I have come to appreciate the distancing of this art, and while that distance is the one we practice the most, we do practice in the other ranges as well. I am not totally sure about the step punch , but that dos not mean it does not work. I am just used to a more boxing style. There is something to be said about well placed precision strikes over a barrage of missed ones.
Okay, then, how would you describe the distancing of the art? And, when you've done that, can you contrast it with the distancing that common assaults take place from? There's a reason that the distancing is different between a modern assault, traditional Taijutsu, and boxing (as well as others)...
Brian I think you and I will agree that at current time, it is intended that as Bujinkan members(I don't remember if your still a member or not, forgive me if im wrong), we are expected to learn the classical ryu-ha material and then learn how to apply it. So far my understanding and the feeling im getting from those around me is that we practice applying the material in both the old context and the context of our modern lives and modern violence.
I don't think you're expected to learn the classical Ryu-ha material, really, unless you're interested in it... there just isn't any such dictate in the organisation, nor does Hatsumi's methodology support such an idea. To learn from it, to explore martial arts using the classical material as a starting point, that I'd agree with...
Oh, but for the record, learning the classical Ryu-ha and it's methods is learning it's application... giving a different application in a different context is not learning the Ryu-ha.
I just don't see much that isn't or cant be used for modern self defense or violence.
See above.
I feel just because some of the arts were designed for a older context, does not mean that the material taught with in them is not able to be used for modern defense or violence.
Hmm. Actually, that's exactly what it means. What it doesn't mean is that the principles and concepts/ideas there can't be adapted to modern application, but that's something else again.
Now ill throw out my own critique, a small one. As im being taught it, I find the various parries to be more use full then the jodan uke. I find it to slow to get into deployment vs faster striking. Now it might just be my low level of understanding and that im only at the beginner stage of learning it(learning it in a bigger more exaggerated form right now) , but I feel that right now it is just to slow.. Now im sure as I learn the move more correctly as time goes on, in a more compact form I may find my view change.
Even then the various parries we are taught I feel would be better suited to modern violence.
Jodan Uke simply means "High Level Receiving", and can refer to a range of different actions within the curriculum of the Bujinkan's methods... it can be a forearm deflection, a circular counter-strike (sometimes called a "knuckle block"), a gentle "checking" action, or a range of others... and even within this short list, there are a range of different ways they're done, depending on the Ryu that it's being taken from (Gyokko Ryu has a preferred method, Koto does it differently, it's quite different again for Kukishinden and so on)... so without seeing exactly what it is you're being shown as "Jodan Uke" in this instance, it's hard to say what it's best applied for, or how it should be altered for other situations. The reason that it's done differently is, well, because each of the systems has a different context itself (there is no single "Bujinkan Ryu" context)... Kukishinden's version of Jodan Uke is due to the attacks it faces... Shinden Fudo's is due to the "natural movement" ideals of the system... Takagi Yoshin is based on a closer, faster form of attack (non-battlefield, unarmoured), and so on. The "slower" versions are commonly found in systems with armoured combat at their core, so you know...
Thank you Brain for the Insights! Just using my own past mma experience I can see your point about the jab it is incredibly hard to deal with. How ever that is not the same for the cross. This very thing is why we have more then just a few ways to defend a punch. One set way is not enough. I wonder though with enough practice and condensing of the form if you can get Jodan compact enough to use it on more faster striking styles. I was told a story about the way Nagato Shihan throws his in practice and that his form is so compact and fast that I can be hard to pick out the movement, yet still hit like a hammer.
Depends on the form of Jodan Uke you're talking about when it comes to jabs... some adapt pretty nicely (small forearm deflections), others not so much. As far as Nagato's Jodan Uke still "hitting like a hammer", that's because it's not his arm doing the hitting...
Things may have to be modified, but that modification may not have to be large. Say a shift in weight, or a bend in the knee or some thing small. I Like the fact that I don't bend over to far, or in a lot of cases don't turn my back to my opponent.. I also know that, a quality trained Bujinkan member who doesn't want to be thrown, will be hard to throw. (as I found out recently.) I think in some cases, they don't need much modification, which is still that same technique, just henka!
No, it's both more and less than that... what is needed is a complete change of context... which might mean a slight change to mechanics, or a large one, or anything in between.
I am starting to move away from set in stone, black and white views of this art. Thanks in large part to the discussion and teachings from my teachers. I am starting to feel that here is no black and white, nothing set in stone. It seams, at least were I am, everything can be varied in a way as to be made applicable to any marital situation. Which I feel is what, maybe is the point of this art.
Okay.
Either way right or wrong, it doesn't matter. What happens when the hammer drops is up to you.
Well, sorta, but not necessarily. The training has to be geared towards the intended result... if it's not, there's no point saying "well, it was up to you to make it work" if it just wasn't intended to do the job you expect.