Modern?

[Dustin]

I'm just curious, the Toshindo is supposed to be a "modern" version of the Bujinkan... my question is, how is soke's teachings not modern? I find this idea of "modern taijutsu" to be strange. I do understand our history and ryuha traditions in the Bujinkan are very old, but I don't see how what Soke is teaching is so "out of date" that it is necessary to begin a whole new organization dedicated to updating it. This seems to be extremely unnecessary.

Here's Shihan Haye's definition of the Toshindo, http://www.skhquest.com/training/ToShinDoDescription.aspx

I read the definition and I find that it is simply a discription of the Bujinkan. I'm asking this only because I've come across a couple of new Toshindo students who wish to train with me at our Bujinkan Dojo. I've never heard anything about the toshindo and after talking with them awhile I found that they had some very strange and distorted views of what the bujinkan really was. Their view was one that felt that we basically bow in, equip our armor, pull out our scrolls, and memorize the names of kata.

So my questions are,
1. Is the Toshindo a Modern interpretation of the Bujinkan (soke's teachings).
2. Does anyone else agree that forming a totally different organization dedicated to an "updated" version of the Bujinkan unnecessary?
3. If it is a "Updated" version, what exactly do they do that is so "Modern".

I'm just curious because I just recently returned from training in Japan and after hearing about kevlar vests, fighting with pins and glasses, and using sweaters and tshirts in our movement just make me curious about how what Soke is teaching is so "outdated".

 

[Dustin]

I would just like to let everyone know that i've viewed some of the other threads comparing the two (which I see were very heated). But none of them directly answered any of the questions I asked in my prior post.

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

This is all I'm going to say for now - I have an ever increasing suspicion that quite a large part in the matter of whether or not you're going to get good at Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu depends on you being at the right place at the right time.

 

[saru1968]

I'm just curious, the Toshindo is supposed to be a "modern" version of the Bujinkan... my question is, how is soke's teachings not modern? I find this idea of "modern taijutsu" to be strange. I do understand our history and ryuha traditions in the Bujinkan are very old, but I don't see how what Soke is teaching is so "out of date" that it is necessary to begin a whole new organization dedicated to updating it. This seems to be extremely unnecessary.

Here's Shihan Haye's definition of the Toshindo, http://www.skhquest.com/training/ToShinDoDescription.aspx

I read the definition and I find that it is simply a discription of the Bujinkan. I'm asking this only because I've come across a couple of new Toshindo students who wish to train with me at our Bujinkan Dojo. I've never heard anything about the toshindo and after talking with them awhile I found that they had some very strange and distorted views of what the bujinkan really was. Their view was one that felt that we basically bow in, equip our armor, pull out our scrolls, and memorize the names of kata.

So my questions are,
1. Is the Toshindo a Modern interpretation of the Bujinkan (soke's teachings).
2. Does anyone else agree that forming a totally different organization dedicated to an "updated" version of the Bujinkan unnecessary?
3. If it is a "Updated" version, what exactly do they do that is so "Modern".

I'm just curious because I just recently returned from training in Japan and after hearing about kevlar vests, fighting with pins and glasses, and using sweaters and tshirts in our movement just make me curious about how what Soke is teaching is so "outdated".

Soke's teachings are not outdated, anyone recently in Japan for more than 2hours in the last year would realise that but by creating a 'modern' version it does funnel the money oneway.

:-0

 

[Fallen Ninja]

From what I've been told it is just a different teaching structure. I have also tried to find the answer to this question and you will find both sides to the coin equally interesting. I guess it boils down to 2 points

1. You want to learn the original kata first and then henka. (BBT)
2. You want to learn henka first and then the root kata. (TSD)

As far as I can see that is what the difference between the 2 are. Maybe not "modern taijutsu" but modern teaching style. And I'm sure you can find the same teaching technique in plenty of BBT dojos througout the world.

Soke's teachings are not outdated or no one would practice them. Hope this takes away your doubts of the Bujinkan or what Soke is teaching.

:ninja:
FN

 

[Dustin]

My question is, is it necessary? I've noticed that many of the Toshindo Dojo website tend to pull the focus of the art away from Soke and put it more on Shihan Hayes. This is understandable because he is the founder, but not the founder of the taijutsu or the teachings. There just seems to be very little emphasis on Soke and the importance of studying with him.

Those of you who have experience in Toshindo, What is the purpose of Toshindo? Is it to;
Learn Soke's Taijutsu or Haye's Taijutsu?

 

[Deaf]

My question is, is it necessary? I've noticed that many of the Toshindo Dojo website tend to pull the focus of the art away from Soke and put it more on Shihan Hayes. This is understandable because he is the founder, but not the founder of the taijutsu or the teachings. There just seems to be very little emphasis on Soke and the importance of studying with him.

Well yeah, there is very little emphasis on Soke since it is not Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. Toshindo is a seperate art all together created by SKH based on his interpretations of what he learned while training under Hatsumi Soke. So this doesn't surprise me.

Those of you who have experience in Toshindo, What is the purpose of Toshindo? Is it to;
Learn Soke's Taijutsu or Haye's Taijutsu?

Learn Toshindo, which is Hayes' taijutsu. Like I mentioned above, it is a totally seperate art form based on SKH's interpretations of what he learned. Granted, Toshindo has it's roots coming from Bujinkan however think about this... As advanced and changing as the Bujinkan has become in the past 10 years, Toshindo is no where near the level of training of what is being taught in Japan now. It is no secret that SKH has not been training at the hombu regularly for quite some time ( asides from his couple of appearances these past couple of years ) so with that knowledge, I think I can safely say that the two are totally different arts with Toshindo having roots from the Bujinkan.

 

[Fallen Ninja]

My question is, is it necessary? I've noticed that many of the Toshindo Dojo website tend to pull the focus of the art away from Soke and put it more on Shihan Hayes. This is understandable because he is the founder, but not the founder of the taijutsu or the teachings. There just seems to be very little emphasis on Soke and the importance of studying with him.

Those of you who have experience in Toshindo, What is the purpose of Toshindo? Is it to;
Learn Soke's Taijutsu or Haye's Taijutsu?

Maybe I'll play Devil's Advocate and say to learn Soke's Taijutsu through Hayes Shihan.

:ninja:
FN

 

[davidg553]

Maybe I'll play Devil's Advocate and say to learn Soke's Taijutsu through Hayes Shihan.

:ninja:
FN

Then you'd only be learning Soke's 10 year old taijutsu.

 

[Connovar]

If both Toshindo and the training under Hatsumi have changed does that mean neither of them are traditional ninjitsu?

 

[Senin]

I keep hearing that Soke's art has been changing in the last 10 years. What is it now--- new and improved? And what was it then--- old and crappy? Sorry but I get wary when I hear things like that. Do you actually think that Soke was teaching bad martial arts in the 70's, 80's and 90's?

If history serves as an example, such as in aikido, the arts actually seem to get more watered down and less useful as a soke ages.

The argument can be made that the old style of training was real training for martial artists and the new style of training is for "everyone", with less ephasis on martial aspects.

I recall one shihan saying that in the old days, training was never fun. Yeah, because it was real training. Now, everyone seems to be having fun (okay, not quite everyone).

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

I keep hearing that Soke's art has been changing in the last 10 years. What is it now--- new and improved?

Let's hope so - why would anyone want to cease getting better?

And what was it then--- old and crappy? Sorry but I get wary when I hear things like that. Do you actually think that Soke was teaching bad martial arts in the 70's, 80's and 90's?

No, but his students were not as experienced.

If history serves as an example, such as in aikido, the arts actually seem to get more watered down and less useful as a soke ages.

Now you're mixing apples with freight trains. Morihei Ueshiba, unlike Soke, never intended his budo to be used as a system for pragmatic, real-world survival skills. Anyone who has been around for some time and actively trained with him often in recent times will tell you that Soke is like a fine wine that gets better and better with age and experience.

The argument can be made that the old style of training was real training for martial artists and the new style of training is for "everyone", with less ephasis on martial aspects.

What facts do you rely on to jump to this conclusion? Have you trained with people from everywhere around the world and talked with them about their motivation for training? Have you heard Hatsumi say that he does NOT want people to be able to protect themselves with the skills that his martial art grants them?

And do you think these guys will agree?
http://specwog.bujinkan.hr/

I recall one shihan saying that in the old days, training was never fun. Yeah, because it was real training. Now, everyone seems to be having fun (okay, not quite everyone).

Do you not in the least bit find this somewhat insulting to all the people nowadays wishing to train in the Bujinkan in order to facilitate survival in hostile situations? Do you not think that most people who perpetually keep going have periods in their training when nothing seems to be going their way?

 

[Connovar]

Traditions or being traditional are not necessarily a bad things. From a psychosocial perspective that provide a connection to valued things of the past etc. From a practical aspect traditions may pass on vitals skills and techniques that have been learned the hard way and prevent rediscovering the wheel so to speak. Its especially helfull however to know what is behind the traditions IMO/

The problem is if you change a tradition I would think it would be best that the change is based upon objective facts that show the change is better. For example I have trained with two different people who taught BJJ. One was trained under the first American to recieve a Black Belt in BJJ. The other is more recently trained in Brazil. The basics are similiar but different. There are things taught now such as open guard that werent taught years ago. This is because experience in Vale Tudo or bjj competitions showed a gap in the old and also adjustments due to changes in tactics of opponents,

With Taijitsu if changes were made IMO it would be hoped that these would based upon facts showing a need and also proof that the changes are in fact better than what had been done before. The problem with taijitsu as I see it is that it was supposed to be based upon proven battlefield techniques from ancient Japan etc. Takamatsu did fight in WW2 and may (if the stories are true) utilized and perhaps could have tested the techniques. Hatsumi however has not fought in any war. I dont know if he actually "street fought" per se. I dont know if he ever used his taijitsu in competition. Therefore the question would be raised that if he indeed has changed and "improved" the training on what basis has he proven the need and whether the change is for better or worse.

I trained in the bujinkan when it was its infant stages here in the US. I see a marked difference in fighting ability between what was shodan then and what is a shodan now. How do we know which one was better?

 

[Don Roley]

I keep hearing that Soke's art has been changing in the last 10 years. What is it now--- new and improved? And what was it then--- old and crappy? Sorry but I get wary when I hear things like that. Do you actually think that Soke was teaching bad martial arts in the 70's, 80's and 90's?

From my viewpoint, what Hatsumi is doing has not changed. The stuff we are ready to hear and learn from him has changed.

At first you have to just learn to get off the line of attack. Later you can worry about the differences between the way Koto ryu and Gyokko ryu recieve an attack. And after that, you can start learning things like juppo sessho.

If you look at the old tapes by Hatsumi, he is not moving differently than he does now. But the students that have learned from him now have the base of understanding more about that movement. Hence the art has not changed, but the stuff we learn is a bit more than what we used to get.

 

[Connovar]

Would it be reasonable to say that the system is softer or more internal in the sense of some of the difference btw a lot of japanese systems and chinese systems. This is not saying softer is worse or better, just different. For example I knew Bud Malstrom when he was only a 1st Dan. The only other 1st Dan at that time I knew was a fellow who last name was Beaver or Beavers if I remember correctly. They both moved and fought in more of harder sort of way. I noticed that newer 1st Dan's appear to move more like an internal system. This is not meant as a criticism it is just something I have observed but then I may be wrong. Perhaps the differences reflect differences in the teaching style then and now or even the differences btw Hayes and Hatsumi.

 

[Senin]

Nim, I have to disagree with you on several issues.

Morihei Ueshiba did intend for his martial arts to be a fighting art-- at the beginning. I understand that his earliy deshi training was brutal-- evidenced by the still tough Yoshinikan school of Aikido. Then it softened and became spiritual.

Is this the same for ninjutsu? Aparently one of Soke's ex-right hand men thought so, and started his own school.

If you truthfully look at Soke's training styles over the years you will see that the toughness of the training now is nothing compared to the toughness of the training then. I wouldn't, but someone else could make the argument the the current Bujinkan with its fun Tai Kai's has turned into something other than budo.

 

[saru1968]

'I wouldn't, but someone else could make the argument the the current Bujinkan with its fun Tai Kai's has turned into something other than budo.'


NO

 

[Don Roley]

Would it be reasonable to say that the system is softer or more internal in the sense of some of the difference btw a lot of japanese systems and chinese systems. This is not saying softer is worse or better, just different. For example I knew Bud Malstrom when he was only a 1st Dan. The only other 1st Dan at that time I knew was a fellow who last name was Beaver or Beavers if I remember correctly. They both moved and fought in more of harder sort of way. I noticed that newer 1st Dan's appear to move more like an internal system. This is not meant as a criticism it is just something I have observed but then I may be wrong. Perhaps the differences reflect differences in the teaching style then and now or even the differences btw Hayes and Hatsumi.

In terms of Japanese systems, no Bujinkan is not "softer" than the rest. If you are comparing it to Okinawan systems like Karate, you have a point. And I would think that when Bud was a first dan it was so early in the art's history in the US that they still were trying to get rid of old habits.

As for what Sennin says- I do not think I would reccomend anyone just go to a Tai Kai for their training. When you get a few hundred people together you need to slow things down to make sure the idiots in the crowd won't kill someone. I have met a few of those idiots.

The smaller training groups are where you can still get some tough training done. I am not saying that everyone is doing it, but the classes I go to can be on the scary side for some people. We even had one guy from Europe show up once, never show up again and later say on the internet that he did not because he was scared that he was going to be injured so bad he could not train for the rest of his stay in Japan.

So there is some groups that take things to the limit. But it is just common sense that when Hatsumi has 600 people he has never seen before he runs training differently than when he has about ten students he has seen and known for years.

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

Morihei Ueshiba did intend for his martial arts to be a fighting art-- at the beginning. I understand that his earliy deshi training was brutal-- evidenced by the still tough Yoshinikan school of Aikido. Then it softened and became spiritual.

Well, without insulting him I think we can say that Soke is not in the beginning of his budo "career". And he still means business, always has and always will be.

BTW, when speaking of "spiritual" training in the Bujinkan, unlike what Ueshiba was getting at, for us it doesn't as much mean living in accordance with divine forces, it means the training of *your* spirit.

If you truthfully look at Soke's training styles over the years you will see that the toughness of the training now is nothing compared to the toughness of the training then.

Can you really take an honest look at your experience with the Bujinkan and still make such a broad statement?

I wouldn't, but someone else could make the argument the the current Bujinkan with its fun Tai Kai's has turned into something other than budo.

Actually, there are some who say that Hatsumi is getting so much better at budo with age that he doesn't need to rely on taijutsu as much...though personally I would say taijutsu and psychological feints and domination of the opponent's mind are delicately intertwined with each other.

And someone could make the argument that you're trying to pass off blanket statements as facts while relying on hearsay. :asian:

 

[Senin]

Great posts.

Thank you.