Need some information on Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu

[Brian R. VanCise]

No false diplomacy of hypocrisy on my part here Chris. (and you are starting to hijack this thread as well) I actually do believe you are knowledgeable. Unfortunately since you do not train in Budo Taijutsu and are not in the Buijinkan I do not believe you are in the best position to have any idea what is currently going on in it! Sorry but that is the way I see it! How long ago did your instructor leave the Bujinkan? How long have you personally been out of the Bujinkan? If you are not training with Hatsumi Sensei or an instructor that currently trains with him how can you be current with the flow of what is going on in it. Simply, you can't! Doesn't mean you can't have an opinion just that it might not be right.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think you will find that as you practice your backward roll more and more it will become substantially easier. That and some correction from your instructor!

 

[Chris Parker]

No false diplomacy of hypocrisy on my part here Chris.

Yes, Brian, there is both false diplomacy and hypocrisy. You claim that "we all have something worth listening to" (diplomatic language/diplomacy), then follow that almost immediately by saying that what I might offer isn't really worth listening to (which negates the diplomatic comment, making it false). As for hypocrisy, you state that (in one moment) you know better because you're not listening to people intimately involved, and then immediately turn around and say that I can't know what's going on because I'm not intimately involved. That's a damn double standard, and hypocrisy. If you don't want to acknowledge it, fine... but hell, I'm only using your words here.

(and you are starting to hijack this thread as well)

Well, as you started this line of reasoning (before I even joined this thread), I don't think I can really be blamed for firstly defending my status and validity, and then continuing to defend against your abject denials of your own words.

I actually do believe you are knowledgeable.

Well, there's the diplomacy again...

Unfortunately since you do not train in Budo Taijutsu and are not in the Buijinkan I do not believe you are in the best position to have any idea what is currently going on in it!

... and the negation of it. Again. Really, you should pick a single message and stick to it. This all comes across as inconsistent... which has it's own issues. But, more to the point, if you can't actually show where I'm not correct, what reasoning do you have for trying to undermine comments I hadn't even made yet?

Sorry but that is the way I see it!

Don't apologize if you don't mean it... nor if you don't know what you're apologizing for.

How long ago did your instructor leave the Bujinkan? How long have you personally been out of the Bujinkan?

The answer to both is the same, a bit over a decade. But, more importantly, my contact with the Bujinkan remains to today, on a range of different levels.

If you are not training with Hatsumi Sensei or an instructor that currently trains with him how can you be current with the flow of what is going on in it. Simply, you can't!

Remind me to talk to you about emic versus etic knowledge, Brian... and, bluntly, with the amount of information/resources that are put out there, it's easy to see the "current flow". But that's not something I've addressed (except to say that the most important thing Kframe can do is to listen to his new teacher right now... any argument with that?), so I can't see what your point is...

Doesn't mean you can't have an opinion just that it might not be right.

Rich... you might want to remember this, Brian.

 

[Kframe]

I appreciate all of you guys help. Im at the point were questions are not needed. I have only to train. I will keep the community updated on my progress as time unfolds.

Off topic, I found a BJJ course that has part time admissions. I can only afford 1 full time school, so I think training part time in BJJ to sharpen my ground skills will be handy.

I can tell there is some tension in the air. The reason I wanted your advice both you and Chris Parker is because you both have a good understanding of Japanase arts in general. What does it matter if Chris is or is not up to date with the lastest Yari training progression or what have you. You and he are more then capable of giving me the gist of what it is like to train, the history and what not. Its all I have asked for. No need for discourse. I thank and appreciate all of you.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Thanks KFrame. Keep training and have fun.

 

[Kframe]

I will say this. I am kind of bummed about one thing regarding the Bunjinkan, and that is they don't teach the silent walking and stealth stuff any more. LOL.

 

[Chris Parker]

See, that's the thing with the Bujinkan... you can't make statements like that... While such skills might not be taught (presently) at your current dojo, that doesn't mean that they're not taught in the Bujinkan. I know of a couple of teachers that refuse to teach them due to the lack of (perceived) need and the potential for them to be used for less than savoury purposes, I know of some who will teach them, but on a case-by-case basis, I know of some who teach it as part of a historical study, some who teach them as modern applications, some who know them and don't teach them, some who don't know them and purport to, and some who don't teach them because they don't know them.

You may also find that a particular teacher might offer such skills to more senior students, but doesn't mention them (or even denies them) early on in order to weed out certain types of students... so I wouldn't necessarily rule it out even of your new dojo yet. Oh, and for the record, I've taught such skills myself... both as historical study, and in a more modern context/application, for differing reasons. It's not a common area of study... but it's there, if you can find it.

 

[gapjumper]

I'm not so sure I'd class it as a basic concept... fundamental, sure, but not necessarily basic... eh, semantics...

Ah yes...such an easlity misunderstood term, "basic". Indeed, fundamental/foundation is a better word in this case. But as a wonderfully self assured and vocal person...you would assume he at least understood some fundamental foundational basics

Oh, I'm aware of that... however, it's the exception in that the rest of the syllabus is almost entirely paired kata (no solo form - although, of course, you can train them solo should you wish, they're not designed that way).

Aye that

There's a lot of indicators I see, but no need to get too far into that...

Not yet anyway.

Honestly, there's a lot that I wouldn't worry about for a long time... the priority needs to be the guidance your instructor is giving you at this point... things will make more sense when you have more exposure. In many cases, this comes down to the idea of esoteric knowledge... in essence, esoteric knowledge is knowledge that can only be understood when you have some required knowledge/experience to refer to.

Bingo!

Ha, well, we'll need to wait to see if he jumps over... as he's running his own forum, I don't think it's likely... especially considering the way he runs it.

The miserable have no other medicine
But only hope.
~Shakespeare

Hmm... honestly, it seems that way from the inside...

And... which Ryu would you say has groundwork (ne waza) there? I'm not saying that ne waza hasn't been a part of the Bujinkan (Budo Taijutsu) for a while... but that also doesn't mean it's from any of the Ryu-ha...

Ah, no, what I meant was witjout seeing the waza, and what was being described/considered as "groundwork", it would be difficult to know if it was from the schools of the Bujinkan, "made up" stuff, something that soke has showed or not, or something from the teacher who has learned it elsewhere and is showing it in a "Bujinkan" class.

If he is meaning BJJ-esque I am guessing the instructor learned it from...BJJ

If by "groundwork", he is meaning waza that do not start from standing up then there is plenty, as you know. And always has been...nothing has been added

If he is meaning restraint techniques, then there is that too. And always has been...nothing has been added.


Problems arise when people (western teachers, often with little ability and limited training) show things from other sources and present it as "Bujinkan". Maybe to cover gaps in their knowledge. Maybe they just forget to make it clear that it is not Bujinkan.

Some just think they can make stuff up.

 

[gapjumper]

I trained in the Bujinkan from about 1984-1994 including regular classes, seminars with high-ranked teachers, reading every book and watching every video available. In that time I never saw any real groundwork or heard any rumors of it even existing. Hatsumi had a big hardback book out in Japanese which included a few oddball techniques from the ground, but no mount escapes or guard passing.

So someone is teaching "guard passing" as a bujinkan thing? If a westerner then it is probably BS, if they are saying it is from the 9 schools. If soke showed something similar it could be using the taijutsu priciples/mechanics, but would not name the waza and pretend it is from the schools. I somehow doubt it.

I've kept an curious eye on developments in the Bujinkan since I moved on and in the last decade or so I've started seeing some Bujinkan practitioners teaching groundfighting techniques. Some may claim that the techniques were in the system all along and , just coincidentally, were only revealed around the same time that BJJ and MMA became popular. The same sorts of claims have been made by some karate & kung fu instructors who never taught any ground techniques until the same time period. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

There is a difference between "made up" and "not previously taught"

In the early days soke taught things under the umbrella term of togakure ryu, when in fact it came from other sources within the schools. Look at the TCJRNM, it only contains snippets (at best!) from each school, not the shoden, chuden etc etc etc of each school. Another example is "koku", originally shown on the "togakure ryu" videos, but does NOT appear in the togakure ryu densho. However it is the first kata from the Joryaku no maki level of gyokko ryu.



Can you give an example of some technique, by name or just by description/video that you have seen presented as explicitly Bujinkan that you believe to have been "added" around the time BJJ became popular?

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, no, what I meant was witjout seeing the waza, and what was being described/considered as "groundwork", it would be difficult to know if it was from the schools of the Bujinkan, "made up" stuff, something that soke has showed or not, or something from the teacher who has learned it elsewhere and is showing it in a "Bujinkan" class.

If he is meaning BJJ-esque I am guessing the instructor learned it from...BJJ

If by "groundwork", he is meaning waza that do not start from standing up then there is plenty, as you know. And always has been...nothing has been added

If he is meaning restraint techniques, then there is that too. And always has been...nothing has been added.


Problems arise when people (western teachers, often with little ability and limited training) show things from other sources and present it as "Bujinkan". Maybe to cover gaps in their knowledge. Maybe they just forget to make it clear that it is not Bujinkan.

Some just think they can make stuff up.

Well, the description was "some mount escapes and some guard passes"... which doesn't match anything in any of the Ryu-ha (the closest would be one or two kata from Bokuden Ryu, not officially taught...), so I think we have some idea of what form the "groundwork" took. And remember, suwarigata are not ne waza... nor are osae komi/kime waza... while they appear in the Ryu-ha, ne waza does not. And, for the record, there's plenty that Hatsumi has "made up" or "added"... and there's no problem with that either, provided it's understood what it is that's being shown, which isn't always the case.... as Tony said.

 

[gapjumper]

"Made up"?

Or spur-of-the-moment, based soundly on the fundamental priciples?

Do you have an example? I might be misunderstanding you both/all.

 

[gapjumper]

I think we have some idea of what form the "groundwork" took. And remember, suwarigata are not ne waza... nor are osae komi/kime waza... while they appear in the Ryu-ha, ne waza does not.

Which was why I was seeking clarification of what exactly was meant and what he had been shown.

I ad not read the original closely and thought the poster was implying that guard passing and mount escapes were just a couple of the things he had been shown, but not all. As he comes from MMA/BJJ I considered it possible he was drawing from his previous learning and comparing the waza to the closest thing he has seen previously, even though it could vary hugely in purpose.

 

[Chris Parker]

So someone is teaching "guard passing" as a bujinkan thing? If a westerner then it is probably BS, if they are saying it is from the 9 schools. If soke showed something similar it could be using the taijutsu priciples/mechanics, but would not name the waza and pretend it is from the schools. I somehow doubt it.

Well, for the record, I've seen Hatsumi teaching things like guard passing (and variants upon that), as well as other teachers in the Bujinkan, but are you saying that if a Westerner showed it, it's BS, but if Hatsumi did it, it's fine? Seems a bit of a double standard... what if the Westerner teaches it as an application of the principles/riai/heiho of, say, Shinden Fudo Ryu, but Hatsumi teaches it as part of Shinden Fudo Ryu, but ignoring the riai/heiho of the Ryu? Which is BS then? How about if the Westerner has trained in BJJ to gain an understanding of the context of the ground as a range, as well as gain an understanding of what works and what doesn't, and then goes on to adapt those mechanics to the Ryu they're exploring? Is it still BS? Is it still BJJ? Or is it now more Budo Taijutsu, as it's been imported and adapted to fit the framework, even though it wasn't expressly from Japan?

The idea of it being a Westerner, therefore it's BS, I feel is a dangerous concept to cling to... especially considering some recent announcements, and the implications for the future... I mean, I've seen Japanese instructors at the highest level completely miss the principles of the Ryu they're meant to be showing... so to assume that, just because they're Japanese, they're getting it right, but Westerners aren't, is just going to lead you to miss what's really happening...

There is a difference between "made up" and "not previously taught"

Now, that takes us into a range of controversial concepts...

In the early days soke taught things under the umbrella term of togakure ryu, when in fact it came from other sources within the schools. Look at the TCJRNM, it only contains snippets (at best!) from each school, not the shoden, chuden etc etc etc of each school. Another example is "koku", originally shown on the "togakure ryu" videos, but does NOT appear in the togakure ryu densho. However it is the first kata from the Joryaku no maki level of gyokko ryu.

Except that's a completely different idea, and completely misses the point.

While it's true that the Togakure Ryu name was originally used to refer to the entire collection of material found in what's now called the Bujinkan, the reason for that was that Togakure Ryu was the first Ryu that Hatsumi was granted Soke-ship of (1968, he then promptly awarded Menkyo Kaiden to Tanemura and Manaka... Hatsumi himself was awarded Menkyo Kaiden in the Ryu in 1959, less than two years after meeting Takamatsu), so that was the "titular Ryu" for what he taught. It should be remembered that, at that point, Hatsumi was realistically running a training group for Takamatsu, rather than necessarily teaching under his own authority... with his being awarded Sokeship of Togakure Ryu, he was then able to do things under his own authority. Same as with Toda's dojo using the Shinden Fudo Ryu name, but multiple arts being taught (albeit apparently not particularly openly), or the Shinto Muso Ryu being the titular Ryu, with Ittatsu Ryu, Ikkaku Ryu, Uchida Ryu, Isshin Ryu, and Shinto Ryu Kenjutsu all being taught there, the idea that Togakure Ryu was used as a single name, even if what was being taught wasn't completely from that Ryu, isn't an issue. On the other hand, the teaching of things like Iai, which is not found in any of the Ryu (except in the claims of a very few in the Bujinkan... no other lines contain such waza... and the claims made are not verifiable in any meaningful way), would be more an example of something being added, or created... same with a range of other methods...

As far as the Ten Chi Jin, Koku etc, that's really besides the point... again, those videos date from the usage of the term "Togakure Ryu" to refer to all the teachings. "Bujinkan" was originally the name for Hatsumi's personal dojo only... it only later was used to apply to a larger group of dojo's, beginning with Hayes' move back to the US from Japan. Since then, Hatsumi's personal dojo has been named the "Bujinden", of course, and the application of the Togakure Ryu name has been removed as an overall title.

Can you give an example of some technique, by name or just by description/video that you have seen presented as explicitly Bujinkan that you believe to have been "added" around the time BJJ became popular?

Honestly, I'd show you pretty much any Kacem Zoughari clip... nothing to do with BJJ/groundwork, but still quite a bit that seems added... to say the least.

 

[Chris Parker]

"Made up"?

Or spur-of-the-moment, based soundly on the fundamental priciples?

Do you have an example? I might be misunderstanding you both/all.

See the additional material on the Ken Tachi Katana DVD, or on the Naginata Nagamaki Bisento DVD... many things on the Naginata/Daisho Sabaki Daikomyosai (1995)...

Which was why I was seeking clarification of what exactly was meant and what he had been shown.

I ad not read the original closely and thought the poster was implying that guard passing and mount escapes were just a couple of the things he had been shown, but not all. As he comes from MMA/BJJ I considered it possible he was drawing from his previous learning and comparing the waza to the closest thing he has seen previously, even though it could vary hugely in purpose.

Ha, cool.

 

[gapjumper]

Well, for the record, I've seen Hatsumi teaching things like guard passing (and variants upon that), as well as other teachers in the Bujinkan, but are you saying that if a Westerner showed it, it's BS, but if Hatsumi did it, it's fine?

Nope, and that is not what I said. It's certainly not what I meant. I meant westerners may present non-bujinkan material and claim it is bujinkan.

Seems a bit of a double standard... what if the Westerner teaches it as an application of the principles/riai/heiho of, say, Shinden Fudo Ryu, but Hatsumi teaches it as part of Shinden Fudo Ryu, but ignoring the riai/heiho of the Ryu? Which is BS then? How about if the Westerner has trained in BJJ to gain an understanding of the context of the ground as a range, as well as gain an understanding of what works and what doesn't, and then goes on to adapt those mechanics to the Ryu they're exploring? Is it still BS? Is it still BJJ? Or is it now more Budo Taijutsu, as it's been imported and adapted to fit the framework, even though it wasn't expressly from Japan?

Again no.

If someone teaches BJJ in a Bujinkan class and lets people know where it is from, that is fine. To claim it is from the schools is wrong.

If someone bases a demo on the priciples of, say, SDFR then that is ok (probably, if they really understand those priciples), but claiming it as an actual named waza in the densho would be incorrect.

Si Yeo for instance teaches both BJK and BJJ but clearly separates the class into two sections.

People fitting things to the framework is often an issue...do they really know the "framework"?

The idea of it being a Westerner, therefore it's BS, I feel is a dangerous concept to cling to... especially considering some recent announcements, and the implications for the future... I mean, I've seen Japanese instructors at the highest level completely miss the principles of the Ryu they're meant to be showing... so to assume that, just because they're Japanese, they're getting it right, but Westerners aren't, is just going to lead you to miss what's really happening...

I was not making that point that anything from a westerner is BS. I apologise that I have not been understood on this point. Being Japanese is no validation, there are some very poor Japanese. I guess I may have had specific people in mind as I wrote something that you took to mean that!

Except that's a completely different idea, and completely misses the point.

Really, because what you then type seems to be kinda the same point I was trying to make. My post was not aimed at yourself, remember, but at others in the thread who may, like AC, be unaware of the naming conventions over the years.

While it's true that the Togakure Ryu name was originally used to refer to the entire collection of material found in what's now called the Bujinkan, the reason for that was that Togakure Ryu was the first Ryu that Hatsumi was granted Soke-ship of (1968, he then promptly awarded Menkyo Kaiden to Tanemura and Manaka... Hatsumi himself was awarded Menkyo Kaiden in the Ryu in 1959, less than two years after meeting Takamatsu), so that was the "titular Ryu" for what he taught. It should be remembered that, at that point, Hatsumi was realistically running a training group for Takamatsu, rather than necessarily teaching under his own authority... with his being awarded Sokeship of Togakure Ryu, he was then able to do things under his own authority. Same as with Toda's dojo using the Shinden Fudo Ryu name, but multiple arts being taught (albeit apparently not particularly openly), or the Shinto Muso Ryu being the titular Ryu, with Ittatsu Ryu, Ikkaku Ryu, Uchida Ryu, Isshin Ryu, and Shinto Ryu Kenjutsu all being taught there, the idea that Togakure Ryu was used as a single name, even if what was being taught wasn't completely from that Ryu, isn't an issue. On the other hand, the teaching of things like Iai, which is not found in any of the Ryu (except in the claims of a very few in the Bujinkan... no other lines contain such waza... and the claims made are not verifiable in any meaningful way), would be more an example of something being added, or created... same with a range of other methods...

Most of that extra detail, though, IS besides the point in regard to this thread. No?

As far as the Ten Chi Jin, Koku etc, that's really besides the point... again, those videos date from the usage of the term "Togakure Ryu" to refer to all the teachings. "Bujinkan" was originally the name for Hatsumi's personal dojo only... it only later was used to apply to a larger group of dojo's, beginning with Hayes' move back to the US from Japan. Since then, Hatsumi's personal dojo has been named the "Bujinden", of course, and the application of the Togakure Ryu name has been removed as an overall title.

I'm sorry, I thought that WAS EXACTLY the point I was trying to make! Apologies I did not make myself clearer. For the record I agree with you in this regard.

Honestly, I'd show you pretty much any Kacem Zoughari clip... nothing to do with BJJ/groundwork, but still quite a bit that seems added... to say the least.

Hehehe. I will pm you

But agreed. Kacem shows many things. From many places.

 

[Chris Parker]

Nope, and that is not what I said. It's certainly not what I meant. I meant westerners may present non-bujinkan material and claim it is bujinkan.

Cool... but, as the Bujinkan is based on the idea of adaptability, and free-variation (henka) within the framework, if it comes from a Westerner, or a Japanese instructor, isn't it still Bujinkan? It may well not be from any of the Ryu-ha or related material, but it can still be Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu without needing to be taught by a Japanese teacher...

Again no.

If someone teaches BJJ in a Bujinkan class and lets people know where it is from, that is fine. To claim it is from the schools is wrong.

Cool, agreed.

If someone bases a demo on the priciples of, say, SDFR then that is ok (probably, if they really understand those priciples), but claiming it as an actual named waza in the densho would be incorrect.

Yep, same.

Si Yeo for instance teaches both BJK and BJJ but clearly separates the class into two sections.

Yeah, I know Simon's approach.

People fitting things to the framework is often an issue...do they really know the "framework"?

True. But the idea of a requirement being "not Western" I feel is a rather false requirement... and, sadly, I see it a lot in the Bujinkan.

I was not making that point that anything from a westerner is BS. I apologise that I have not been understood on this point. Being Japanese is no validation, there are some very poor Japanese. I guess I may have had specific people in mind as I wrote something that you took to mean that!

Ha, fair enough.

Really, because what you then type seems to be kinda the same point I was trying to make. My post was not aimed at yourself, remember, but at others in the thread who may, like AC, be unaware of the naming conventions over the years.

Sure... and my comments weren't necessarily to educate you, either.

Most of that extra detail, though, IS besides the point in regard to this thread. No?

Kinda... but as this thread was started by a new student to the art, hopefully he'll get some historical understanding from it.

I'm sorry, I thought that WAS EXACTLY the point I was trying to make! Apologies I did not make myself clearer. For the record I agree with you in this regard.

Yeah... honestly, it wasn't that clear. You said that there's a difference between "made up" and "not been taught before", then went through a list of examples which were really neither, simply mislabeled and misunderstood. I was clarifying what they actually were.

Hehehe. I will pm you

Ha, cool.

But agreed. Kacem shows many things. From many places.

That's one way of saying it...

 

[Kframe]

Sorry for the confusion on the ground work stuff. I was just using terms im familiar with. The techniques clearly were from MACP, which is basically the Gracie combative course with some extras thrown in. This makes sense as my instructor has 11 years as a infantry soldier. The mount escape was a basic trap and roll. The guard pass, was just so that he could get out from the guard and stand up and back off. He never passed it off as official Bujinkan, just something that he taught.

Chris Parker, your point about the stealth techniques is duly noted. In honesty that is far from a priority any ways. More like my inner child came out. I get plenty of stealth practice ground stalking deer during the season.. I don't like deer stands..

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Sorry for the confusion on the ground work stuff. I was just using terms im familiar with. The techniques clearly were from MACP, which is basically the Gracie combative course with some extras thrown in. This makes sense as my instructor has 11 years as a infantry soldier. The mount escape was a basic trap and roll. The guard pass, was just so that he could get out from the guard and stand up and back off. He never passed it off as official Bujinkan, just something that he taught.

Chris Parker, your point about the stealth techniques is duly noted. In honesty that is far from a priority any ways. More like my inner child came out. I get plenty of stealth practice ground stalking deer during the season.. I don't like deer stands..

If you are already a hunter and have been doing it for a long time then you are already learning serious stealth skills. Personally I feel that everyone who is interested in this matter should practice hunting as it definitely a skill set worth having.

As to stealth skills in the Bujinkan if you train long enough then you probably have a good chance. Just train and enjoy your training along the way!

 

[skuggvarg]

As far as the Ten Chi Jin, Koku etc, that's really besides the point... again, those videos date from the usage of the term "Togakure Ryu" to refer to all the teachings. "Bujinkan" was originally the name for Hatsumi's personal dojo only... it only later was used to apply to a larger group of dojo's, beginning with Hayes' move back to the US from Japan. Since then, Hatsumi's personal dojo has been named the "Bujinden", of course, and the application of the Togakure Ryu name has been removed as an overall title.



Honestly, I'd show you pretty much any Kacem Zoughari clip... nothing to do with BJJ/groundwork, but still quite a bit that seems added... to say the least.

I think this explanation is a bit strange and may lead to people getting the wrong perception of how things are/were. The Bujinkan has been around for quite some time now (mid 1970-ies) and that name should not be confused with the name of the Ryu-ha: Togakure. Originally created in honor of Takamatsu sensei (after his passing) The Bujinkan has been used as an umbrella term. Hatsumi sensei operates the Bujinkan Dojo and the teachings are called Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. Older diplomas and such used to say Togakure Ryu ninpo taijutsu if I remember correctly (Im sure your teacher has a diploma or two with that title Chris?) but this was changed later (around 1984???). There are plenty of good reasons Im sure of it which does not diminish the Togakure ryu name. Its the Hombu Dojo that is named Bujinden.

Regarding Dr Zoughari, you know my position I guess. His knowledge about what is and isnt in the Bujinkan Ryu-ha is in my opinion totally unmatched by any other westener. I had the opportunity to witness that first-handedly less than a month ago again.

Regards / Skuggvarg

 

[Kframe]

I have not heard back from my boss as to weather or not im going to get the schedule change I requested. If I don't get it, I will only be able to make it to one class on Saturday. Not good for development but at least I get in the door. If that situation develops, what things can I do at home till my schedule situation clears up?

Right now I have been working the Sanshin no Kata and the basic punching drill I was taught. (on top of my normal shadow boxing)

I did find a Gracie JJ place in town, and thought that could be a good filler till my schedule gets fixed. Im not a big fan on ground fighting but that will atleast give me something should I end up there. As I do not know what many BBT instructors teach for escapes from various positions such as side mount or full mount of half guard or guard. I know my bbt instructor does teach a little but I don't know the full extant of it.

I hate that my schedule is interfering. Im working on it, but it will probably take a while.