Ninjutsu good for security agent?

[dunc]

Ok what techniques do you think will work?

Just re-iterating that I don’t and have never worked in security, law enforcement etc so I can only speak to what’s included in the training that would seem to be relevant

The foundational level of the Buj has several straightforward & structurally sound techniques that are probably helpful for the context

Before we learn the formal techniques we study:

1. Kurai Dori - meaning something like taking the right place (& standing in the right way) in an environment
The essential idea is to maintain some distance, have your arms and legs in a convenient place to provide protection or close down attacks, manoeuvre yourself so you’re not exposed to multiple assailants and have a relaxed, but business like frame of mind
Probably this is the most helpful concept & is quite different from the idea of taking a combat stance

2. Ukemi - ways to absorb strikes, pushes, throws etc. Of particular note is the training to a) receive these from all sorts of difficult and unexpected directions and b) to get back to your feet even if you’re being struck whilst you’re on the floor

3. The basic A, B, Cs of most broad based martial arts. Ways of striking, grip releases, locks etc


The formal techniques typically start with self defence sequences before moving onto the more specialised (& perhaps historically relevant) techniques
These cover a broad range of common situations and compared to many styles there is more of emphasis on
a) grabs &/or pushes followed by punches
b) being grabbed from behind
c) mixing grappling (mostly gi) with striking and
d) always assuming that the assailant may be armed in some way (which changes distances and angles somewhat)


By way of an example one of my students who works the doors in Soho, Central London, tells me that:
a) he sees grabs & trips from behind very frequently. Drilling some structural standing work for this situation seems eminently sensible
b) the training we do to deal with strikes from single handed weapons has come in very useful as people have a habit of using their belts & bottles in his line of work
c) the painful-but-not-damaging grips and controls (e.g. the take ori wrist control) regularly come in handy

Of course other styles have similar solutions for these kind of issues, but my assertion is that by offering a rounded curriculum like this the Bujinkan is relevant for folks working in this environment

What the Bujinkan doesn’t teach are important skills like de-escalation, team working, legal frameworks etc

 

[Steve]

Just re-iterating that I don’t and have never worked in security, law enforcement etc so I can only speak to what’s included in the training that would seem to be relevant

The foundational level of the Buj has several straightforward & structurally sound techniques that are probably helpful for the context

Before we learn the formal techniques we study:

1. Kurai Dori - meaning something like taking the right place (& standing in the right way) in an environment
The essential idea is to maintain some distance, have your arms and legs in a convenient place to provide protection or close down attacks, manoeuvre yourself so you’re not exposed to multiple assailants and have a relaxed, but business like frame of mind
Probably this is the most helpful concept & is quite different from the idea of taking a combat stance

2. Ukemi - ways to absorb strikes, pushes, throws etc. Of particular note is the training to a) receive these from all sorts of difficult and unexpected directions and b) to get back to your feet even if you’re being struck whilst you’re on the floor

3. The basic A, B, Cs of most broad based martial arts. Ways of striking, grip releases, locks etc


The formal techniques typically start with self defence sequences before moving onto the more specialised (& perhaps historically relevant) techniques
These cover a broad range of common situations and compared to many styles there is more of emphasis on
a) grabs &/or pushes followed by punches
b) being grabbed from behind
c) mixing grappling (mostly gi) with striking and
d) always assuming that the assailant may be armed in some way (which changes distances and angles somewhat)


By way of an example one of my students who works the doors in Soho, Central London, tells me that:
a) he sees grabs & trips from behind very frequently. Drilling some structural standing work for this situation seems eminently sensible
b) the training we do to deal with strikes from single handed weapons has come in very useful as people have a habit of using their belts & bottles in his line of work
c) the painful-but-not-damaging grips and controls (e.g. the take ori wrist control) regularly come in handy

Of course other styles have similar solutions for these kind of issues, but my assertion is that by offering a rounded curriculum like this the Bujinkan is relevant for folks working in this environment

What the Bujinkan doesn’t teach are important skills like de-escalation, team working, legal frameworks etc

This all sounds very reasonable. I think it is very important to understand that where you have people who train in a system, they are gaining facility and building expertise within the system. We teach people systems and models in order to provide structure for skill. At some point, it's crucial to apply the model in the context for which it is intended. If this transition doesn't occur, you can only get better at the system.

This could be a conflict resolution model, a martial arts system or the Guest Service Cycle in a retail chain. The point of these models is to give someone a framework to get started. All of these systems and models exist because they make sense and are helpful. But they don't/can't create experts. They can only get you started.

So, a guy who is an expert in a system can certainly share this helpful information. But anything beyond commentary on the system itself needs to be couched carefully or it will be misleading.

 

[dunc]

I think that's a fair point

 

[drop bear]

Just re-iterating that I don’t and have never worked in security, law enforcement etc so I can only speak to what’s included in the training that would seem to be relevant

The foundational level of the Buj has several straightforward & structurally sound techniques that are probably helpful for the context

Before we learn the formal techniques we study:

1. Kurai Dori - meaning something like taking the right place (& standing in the right way) in an environment
The essential idea is to maintain some distance, have your arms and legs in a convenient place to provide protection or close down attacks, manoeuvre yourself so you’re not exposed to multiple assailants and have a relaxed, but business like frame of mind
Probably this is the most helpful concept & is quite different from the idea of taking a combat stance

2. Ukemi - ways to absorb strikes, pushes, throws etc. Of particular note is the training to a) receive these from all sorts of difficult and unexpected directions and b) to get back to your feet even if you’re being struck whilst you’re on the floor

3. The basic A, B, Cs of most broad based martial arts. Ways of striking, grip releases, locks etc


The formal techniques typically start with self defence sequences before moving onto the more specialised (& perhaps historically relevant) techniques
These cover a broad range of common situations and compared to many styles there is more of emphasis on
a) grabs &/or pushes followed by punches
b) being grabbed from behind
c) mixing grappling (mostly gi) with striking and
d) always assuming that the assailant may be armed in some way (which changes distances and angles somewhat)


By way of an example one of my students who works the doors in Soho, Central London, tells me that:
a) he sees grabs & trips from behind very frequently. Drilling some structural standing work for this situation seems eminently sensible
b) the training we do to deal with strikes from single handed weapons has come in very useful as people have a habit of using their belts & bottles in his line of work
c) the painful-but-not-damaging grips and controls (e.g. the take ori wrist control) regularly come in handy

Of course other styles have similar solutions for these kind of issues, but my assertion is that by offering a rounded curriculum like this the Bujinkan is relevant for folks working in this environment

What the Bujinkan doesn’t teach are important skills like de-escalation, team working, legal frameworks etc

The issue I have is we don't see enough of the method to get a clear idea of what you are suggesting. And I am a jaded bastard who then automatically assumes that the techniques have been converted to work unrealistically.

Which is fine for walking around with. Not fine if you actually have to use it.

Bear with me I will see if I can explain this properly.

What I am going to do is try to show you how grappling works with footballers. The reason i am using this model is they are big fit guys with technically no martial arts training. And it is wrestling so people are being contained rather than just flogged.

So exactly what you would want to be able to handle if you were to start using martial arts as a bouncer.

Now the important thing to take away is they will fight you a lot harder than you may have experienced in training. And they will fight you for everything.

So if you are working for say a wrist grab. It had better be solid.

So just you tubing the terms here.
kurai Dori.

This has to be able to work at speed.

And of course they can punch kick bite and call you nasty names. Your training is going to have to look more like this.

 

[dunc]

I think that the question you’re asking is how do you ascertain if it will work in practice

Which is a fair question I think, and probably difficult to answer without direct experience or a lot of CCTV footage of Bujinkan people on the door

TBH I’m not sure that the wrestler and the jabbing boxer clips do answer that question for their respective styles either

We have anecdotal evidence from people we know (not on this forum), the link I posted to Peter King’s dojo in Croydon has a passing reference to the medal he earned for dealing with a machete wielding criminal, etc

I tried to outline the curriculum and hopefully illustrate that it considers useful situations that are often overlooked by styles that folks here assume are good for security work

Perhaps some footage of Bujinkan people sparring would give you some comfort that it’d work under pressure, and I totally agree that all your foundational techniques need to be sufficiently structural and well trained to work against a resisting opponent. You have to be able to strip a moster’s grip, have a good base etc

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, there are not many dojos or people that do train under pressure so I don’t think you’ll get that, although sparring is different to security work I think so, in my view, it’s not the answer really

Here are a couple of clips from my class (just a video camera stuck in the corner of the room) that may illustrate some principles that we use in an average Bujinkan dojo

 

[Steve]

The issue I have is we don't see enough of the method to get a clear idea of what you are suggesting. And I am a jaded bastard who then automatically assumes that the techniques have been converted to work unrealistically.

Which is fine for walking around with. Not fine if you actually have to use it.

Bear with me I will see if I can explain this properly.

What I am going to do is try to show you how grappling works with footballers. The reason i am using this model is they are big fit guys with technically no martial arts training. And it is wrestling so people are being contained rather than just flogged.

So exactly what you would want to be able to handle if you were to start using martial arts as a bouncer.

Now the important thing to take away is they will fight you a lot harder than you may have experienced in training. And they will fight you for everything.

So if you are working for say a wrist grab. It had better be solid.

So just you tubing the terms here.
kurai Dori.

This has to be able to work at speed.

And of course they can punch kick bite and call you nasty names. Your training is going to have to look more like this.

What drop bear is explaining here is really, really important. Why is it important? Starting worst case to best case:

1: No one in the system has practical experience. No one has applied the material in context. If you're learning "self defense" and no one has ever used the techniques, you are in a true learning vacuum. You can be an expert in your system, and have learned nothing practical at all. You just have no idea. Some of it might work, but that's a true crap shoot.

Now, just to be clear, this can be EXCELLENT training that is very useful. It's just a complete unknown.

2: Someone in the past had practical experience, but no one currently has experience. This is the "founder" or teacher's teacher syndrome. A guy once made this stuff work, but it's been a few generations and as you look around your school, no one currently has any experience. If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag. Particularly if he learned "self defense" from a guy who had no experience, who learned it from the guy who was a bona fide expert.

As above, you are learning a system, and can become an expert in the system. You should, as above, be very careful to distinguish what you know from what you think you now, as you could be completely wrong and not know it.

3: Some guys have experience in your school, but not you. This is actually getting closer to a safe zone. Pros: If guys are applying the skills in context, you know the techniques work in context. Cons: You don't know if you can make them work in context. And truly, the answer is you don't know. Maybe? 50/50? Who knows? Some folks in your system are transferring the skills to application, but you aren't.

The real danger here is, these guys are probably doing a whole lot more than just this system. In other words, this system is a piece of their professional training plan. A pro-MMA fighter does way more than go to class a few days per week. A cop or soldier are learning way more than ninjutsu to help them in their jobs. A bouncer isn't just watching Bas Rutten videos (just kidding on this one).

Point is, if you're an office worker training in a system next to cops, great. That's a good thing. But it does not impart skills to you through osmosis. It also doesn't mean that the techniques and skills being learned in the system translate directly to holistic success in context. It's impossible to deconstruct what works for a cop, for example. LEO go to so much training, and learn different things, and gain so much experience on the job, it's just not reasonable to try and ascribe their success to one piece or another.

Danger, Will Robinson, if your instructor has no experience, but thinks that because you do as one of his students, he has gleaned skill from you, that's a big problem.

4: You have practical experience and also are an expert in a system. This is the best situation to be in. Only thing to consider here is that real life tends to lead to specialization, so the more varied and diverse your experience, the more likely you are in the broader context to be able to synthesize your skills. What I mean is, if you have been a LEO for a few years, sure, you're applying the skills and are going to have some practical experience, but likely in a fairly consistent context. A few years LEO and a few years as a Marine, things start to open up. Add more experiences and more diverse experiences, even better.

Said the other way, working as LEO doesn't mean expert in all things LEO. Expertise is a relative spectrum.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

2: Someone in the past had practical experience, but no one currently has experience.

This is absolute true.

When GM Han Ching-Tang taught "joint locking" in the Taiwan police academy. He could choke his police students out and brought that person back after 5 minutes. None of his teaching assistants and students dared to try that. If you can't wake up your opponent, your opponent may be dead. After GM Han passed away, the skill "how to bring someone back alive after you have choked him out" was lost. It's pretty sad indeed.

 

[drop bear]

Perhaps some footage of Bujinkan people sparring would give you some comfort that it’d work under pressure, and I totally agree that all your foundational techniques need to be sufficiently structural and well trained to work against a resisting opponent. You have to be able to strip a moster’s grip, have a good base etc

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, there are not many dojos or people that do train under pressure so I don’t think you’ll get that, although sparring is different to security work I think so, in my view, it’s not the answer really

Sparring is different to security work but not as different as not sparring. Being actually able to perform any technique in real time is just better than learning the most suitable technique and never really being able to do it.
So training in our gym would look more like this.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1686321538045061

Now if I wanted to say train a specific method all I have to do is is change the intent of the session. So I might drill for standing wrist locks. Fine. He can still train his stuff. Take me down, sub me out, punch me in the face, whatever. I dont go looking for excuses. What I do is place myself in that free environment and work it out.

Because unless you are actually skull dragging guys it is the only way you are going to be able to develop a toolset you can rely on.

 

[drop bear]

What drop bear is explaining here is really, really important. Why is it important? Starting worst case to best case:

1: No one in the system has practical experience. No one has applied the material in context. If you're learning "self defense" and no one has ever used the techniques, you are in a true learning vacuum. You can be an expert in your system, and have learned nothing practical at all. You just have no idea. Some of it might work, but that's a true crap shoot.

Now, just to be clear, this can be EXCELLENT training that is very useful. It's just a complete unknown.

2: Someone in the past had practical experience, but no one currently has experience. This is the "founder" or teacher's teacher syndrome. A guy once made this stuff work, but it's been a few generations and as you look around your school, no one currently has any experience. If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag. Particularly if he learned "self defense" from a guy who had no experience, who learned it from the guy who was a bona fide expert.

As above, you are learning a system, and can become an expert in the system. You should, as above, be very careful to distinguish what you know from what you think you now, as you could be completely wrong and not know it.

3: Some guys have experience in your school, but not you. This is actually getting closer to a safe zone. Pros: If guys are applying the skills in context, you know the techniques work in context. Cons: You don't know if you can make them work in context. And truly, the answer is you don't know. Maybe? 50/50? Who knows? Some folks in your system are transferring the skills to application, but you aren't.

The real danger here is, these guys are probably doing a whole lot more than just this system. In other words, this system is a piece of their professional training plan. A pro-MMA fighter does way more than go to class a few days per week. A cop or soldier are learning way more than ninjutsu to help them in their jobs. A bouncer isn't just watching Bas Rutten videos (just kidding on this one).

Point is, if you're an office worker training in a system next to cops, great. That's a good thing. But it does not impart skills to you through osmosis. It also doesn't mean that the techniques and skills being learned in the system translate directly to holistic success in context. It's impossible to deconstruct what works for a cop, for example. LEO go to so much training, and learn different things, and gain so much experience on the job, it's just not reasonable to try and ascribe their success to one piece or another.

Danger, Will Robinson, if your instructor has no experience, but thinks that because you do as one of his students, he has gleaned skill from you, that's a big problem.

4: You have practical experience and also are an expert in a system. This is the best situation to be in. Only thing to consider here is that real life tends to lead to specialization, so the more varied and diverse your experience, the more likely you are in the broader context to be able to synthesize your skills. What I mean is, if you have been a LEO for a few years, sure, you're applying the skills and are going to have some practical experience, but likely in a fairly consistent context. A few years LEO and a few years as a Marine, things start to open up. Add more experiences and more diverse experiences, even better.

Said the other way, working as LEO doesn't mean expert in all things LEO. Expertise is a relative spectrum.

You probably have more wriggle room because the talent you are facing is not as good.

I was watching some mma fights last week and a lot of guys were defending takedowns with guillotines. And of course they would wind up underneath fighting for this sub that they never got and basically got bashed for their trouble.

So here you could definitely argue specificity. What works in the gym or during jits really is a place to be in an mma fight.

But If you were bouncing and got taken down, while it is technically pretty silly, if you can actually do a guillotine you could probably get away with it.

But there is a lot less time spent fixing a guy for security work if he can already fight. Which is why you see those sort of guys in the industry.

I am pretty happy if the instructor can make the technique work.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sparring is different to security work

For security work, it usually means "you attack first". Here is a good example.

 

[drop bear]

For security work, it usually means "you attack first". Here is a good example.

That by the way is a great example of training that includes some stuff that will work, some stuff that wont and some stuff you just are not allowed to do.

 

[Paul_D]

1: No one in the system has practical experience. No one has applied the material in context. If you're learning "self defense" and no one has ever used the techniques, you are in a true learning vacuum. You can be an expert in your system, and have learned nothing practical at all. You just have no idea. Some of it might work, but that's a true crap shoot.

Now, just to be clear, this can be EXCELLENT training that is very useful. It's just a complete unknown.

2: Someone in the past had practical experience, but no one currently has experience. This is the "founder" or teacher's teacher syndrome. A guy once made this stuff work, but it's been a few generations and as you look around your school, no one currently has any experience. If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag. Particularly if he learned "self defense" from a guy who had no experience, who learned it from the guy who was a bona fide expert.

The Heimlich Manourve didn't exsist until Heimlich invented it. Heimlich did not invent his manourve by deliberately causing people to choke so he could test things out until he found something that worked. He applied his knowledge of the problem, and came up with a solution. He taught that solution to others, but that doesn't mean it was a "crap shoot" or that they were operating in a "true learning vacuum". Quite the opposite infact, they were learning from the very best person for the job.

He taught it from 1974 onwards, but only ever used it for the first time for real in 2016. Learning the Hemlich Manouvre from Heimlch between 1974 and 2916 wasn't a "Red flag" just because he'd never actually used it for real.

Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum". Or it's a "complete unknown".

The best person to learn SD from isn't the person that's been mugged 10 times because that suggests he is somehow an expert on getting mugged, as clearly he's crap at SD. He has no idea what muggers look for when they are selecting their victims. If he did, he would have avoided doing it. If anything you need to learn what this guy does from this guy and then do the exact opposite.

To suggest "If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag." is deeply flawed. Otherwise before someone could become a SD instructor they would first have to get themself beaten, robbed and sexually assaulted. Lack of first hand experience can be a red flag ofcourse, but to suggest it automatically must be in every case is not correct.

 

[drop bear]

The Heimlich Manourve didn't exsist until Heimlich invented it. Heimlich did not invent his manourve by deliberately causing people to choke so he could test things out until he found something that worked. He applied his knowledge of the problem, and came up with a solution. He taught that solution to others, but that doesn't mean it was a "crap shoot" or that they were operating in a "true learning vacuum". Quite the opposite infact, they were learning from the very best person for the job.

He taught it from 1974 onwards, but only ever used it for the first time for real in 2016. Learning the Hemlich Manouvre from Heimlch between 1974 and 2916 wasn't a "Red flag" just because he'd never actually used it for real.

Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum". Or it's a "complete unknown".

The best person to learn SD from isn't the person that's been mugged 10 times because that suggests he is somehow an expert on getting mugged, as clearly he's crap at SD. He has no idea what muggers look for when they are selecting their victims. If he did, he would have avoided doing it. If anything you need to learn what this guy does from this guy and then do the exact opposite.

To suggest "If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag." is deeply flawed. Otherwise before someone could become a SD instructor they would first have to get themself beaten, robbed and sexually assaulted. Lack of first hand experience can be a red flag ofcourse, but to suggest it automatically must be in every case is not correct.

Using henry heimlich is a really good example as to how to go about innovating a new procedure.

How Dr. Heimlich got his maneuver 40 years ago

Of course it doesn't really support your point. But hey, whatever.

 

[Steve]

The Heimlich Manourve didn't exsist until Heimlich invented it. Heimlich did not invent his manourve by deliberately causing people to choke so he could test things out until he found something that worked. He applied his knowledge of the problem, and came up with a solution. He taught that solution to others, but that doesn't mean it was a "crap shoot" or that they were operating in a "true learning vacuum". Quite the opposite infact, they were learning from the very best person for the job.

He taught it from 1974 onwards, but only ever used it for the first time for real in 2016. Learning the Hemlich Manouvre from Heimlch between 1974 and 2916 wasn't a "Red flag" just because he'd never actually used it for real.

Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum". Or it's a "complete unknown".

The best person to learn SD from isn't the person that's been mugged 10 times because that suggests he is somehow an expert on getting mugged, as clearly he's crap at SD. He has no idea what muggers look for when they are selecting their victims. If he did, he would have avoided doing it. If anything you need to learn what this guy does from this guy and then do the exact opposite.

To suggest "If you're learning self defense from a guy who has no actual experience, that's a red flag." is deeply flawed. Otherwise before someone could become a SD instructor they would first have to get themself beaten, robbed and sexually assaulted. Lack of first hand experience can be a red flag ofcourse, but to suggest it automatically must be in every case is not correct.

I disagree. You can learn a system from a person who is an expert in that system. Full stop. The point where that person starts selling you more than that it is a red flag. If the person does t realize he is doing this, that's even more concerning.

Just to add, this is something you guys intuitively understand when it’s a BJJ guy or mma guy mistakenly correlating skill in BJJ or MMA with self-defense, but fail to apply to yourselves, even though the same logic applies.

 

[Tarrycat]

 

[dunc]

Sparring is different to security work but not as different as not sparring. Being actually able to perform any technique in real time is just better than learning the most suitable technique and never really being able to do it.
So training in our gym would look more like this.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1686321538045061

Now if I wanted to say train a specific method all I have to do is is change the intent of the session. So I might drill for standing wrist locks. Fine. He can still train his stuff. Take me down, sub me out, punch me in the face, whatever. I dont go looking for excuses. What I do is place myself in that free environment and work it out.

Because unless you are actually skull dragging guys it is the only way you are going to be able to develop a toolset you can rely on.

Please note that I’m not an advocate of “don’t spar” argument

I agree that sparring (well in the case of the Bujinkan specific sparring) is an important learning tool

My point is that this isn’t security work

 

[dunc]

I disagree. You can learn a system from a person who is an expert in that system. Full stop. The point where that person starts selling you more than that it is a red flag. If the person does t realize he is doing this, that's even more concerning.

Just to add, this is something you guys intuitively understand when it’s a BJJ guy or mma guy mistakenly correlating skill in BJJ or MMA with self-defense, but fail to apply to yourselves, even though the same logic applies.

I agree with this

 

[dunc]

Please note that I’m not an advocate of “don’t spar” argument

I agree that sparring (well in the case of the Bujinkan specific sparring) is an important learning tool

My point is that this isn’t security work

Sorry rushing this morning so editing via another post...

My point is that sparring isn’t security work and the curriculum of the Bujinkan probably includes a useful range of techniques for security people

Of course your training needs to try to get you as much parallel experience as possible so as to minimise the amount of adjustments needed

And I agree that training under pressure is an important element of this

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Just so you know ...

1) The folks in that video are not training in anything related to the Bujinkan or the Takamatsuden arts. Their "ninjutsu" was invented in the U.S. by Ron Duncan based on unknown sources - probably some combination of kempo, judo, karate, and his own imagination.

2) The "sparring" in that video could better be termed "semi-resisted free form training." You'll notice that the "defender" always wins. That's because the "attacker" is deliberately not using his skills to anticipate or counter his opponent's techniques. Instead he just keeps attacking blindly until he is taken down. There can be some utility to that sort of training, but it is not sparring.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Teachers teach children about Stranger Danger, but just because they, or the people they learnt from, have never been abducted by strangers that does not mean their students are leaning in a "true learning vacuum". Or it's a "complete unknown".

While I agree with the concept in most of this post, this one I have to single out. "Stranger Danger" is a misplaced approach to child safety. There are some issues that appear to have been created by it that may actually make children less safe (not being willing to ask the nearest adult for help if they are lost, for instance). There are some cues that should probably be taught, but the concept that strangers are dangerous is problematic.