Ninjutsu good for security agent?

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

This was going to be my post. Tony saved me some typing.

 

[Paul_D]

I disagree.

That's fine

 

[Tarrycat]

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.

Which is why I posted it, but didn't add anything. Good to know though.

I read a lot of articles, & it seems like security agents use more modernised styles such as Krav Maga, Eskrima, basically their own formulation of systems.

I watched a Youtube video of a man who is a seal; he said the FIRST basic form of protection is a GUN... & then he recommended the various martial arts styles in the following order:

1) BJJ
2) Western Boxing
3) Muay Thai
4) Wrestling
5) Eskrima.

The OP specifically wanted to know about whether or not Ninjutsu would be a good option for security training, but I can't answer that as far as my experience & knowledge extends. If I knew someone who trained in Ninjutsu who worked in the security field, I could've given advice on behalf of them, but I can't. I just did some research & that's what I found. My teacher was in the special forces, he now teaches Ninjutsu, so he must have found that the style worked for him in a lot of ways.

I think every art is effective in its own way. A girl I train with & her friend were confronted by two men. They were hiking. The one man attacked her friend, the other went for her & her natural reaction was to kick him (I think she said it was a kick to the groin) & roll out of the way (the zenpo & koho kaiten we practice in class); & somehow it helped her to get away.

It took something so small, but at the end of the day it saved her from being attacked.

I don't have any further information to share on security work.

By the way, WHERE is the OP? I haven't seen her commenting on here? ...

 

[jobo]

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.

your not comparing like with like, self defence is fighting, that's if the don't put yourself in danger bit doesn't work, and it doesn't always work, you can even if you are careful find yourself at the wrong place at the wrong time. You need to be confident that what you have leaned for such circumstances actually work when you do it, its the wrong time to come to the conclusion that the wrist lock or escape doesn't work.

there are people teaching fantasy moves, that they have never used against a serious attacker,, generaly simplest is best and a good standard of fitness is a lot better than a box full of tricks that won't work

 

[Paul_D]

self defence is fighting

No it isn't, fighting and SD are two different things, with different objectives and two different skill sets.

there are people teaching fantasy moves, that they have never used against a serious attacker

That's true, which is why I did acknowledge that.

 

[jobo]

No it isn't, fighting and SD are two different things, with different objectives and two different skill sets.

i said, those you chose to omit, that after the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is then fighting.

it has EXACTLY the same OBJECTIVE, which is the attacker hurt and you not and it has exactly the same skill set, that is hitting with out being hit.

you seem to have set yourself up as an expert on SD, though what qualifies you to consider yourself such is not apparent

 

[Tarrycat]

First off the fact that he is a Navy Seal or ex-Navy Seal doesn't mean that HIS list should be YOUR list. (the ex- Navy Seal name is probably Jocko Willink)

BJJ may work perfectly for him does it work for other people as well? Same goes for the rest of that list.

Same applies to Ninjutsu, I have had a couple of lessons here and there and maybe not enough to judge it completely but I do know it isn't my cup of tea.

Yes! It was Jocko!

Which art did you end up doing?

I agree. It depends on your preferences. I'm more open-minded with regards to MA. If I could do more than one art, I would. I'm just scared that it will interfere with one another.

 

[Paul_D]

i said, those you chose to omit, that after the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is then fighting.

No, it isn't. To clarify, if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight. You find yourself defending yourself from an assault. That's why when you go to work you don't ask your friends if they watched that boxing assault on TV at the weekend. A fight is when you agree to take part in the violence, either in the ring, the street or the dojo. SD is when you did not agree and do not want to take part in the violence. Consensual violence is fighting. Protecting yourself form non consensual criminal violence is SD. They are not the same. When your experience of "SD" is getting into fights with men in the street you might think fighting is SD, but that doesn't make it so. Male MAs, particularity young male MAs, are particularity guilty of this assumption.

If I tell someone not to accept lifts from strangers that is SD, and it works. I don't need to have accepted a lift form a stranger and have it gone horribly wrong to justify my ability to impart that advice. The advice is sound, and it works, and it has absolutely nothing to do with men fighting in a bar/the street. But that is all you are able to see SD as and that is were your problem lies. If your 80yo Gran is worried about having her handbag stolen you don't her to join a boxing club. You teach her what muggers look for when selection their victims, so she can avoid being selected as a victim. That's called Target Hardening, and is well document, accepted and recognised SD skill, it also has not one single thing to do with men fighting each other in the street.

it has EXACTLY the same OBJECTIVE,

No, it doesn't The purpose of a fight is to win by deafening your opponent. The purpose of SD is to create the opportunity to escape. If in a fight if you knock your opponent to the ground you rush over and keep hitting them until the ref stops you. Then you win.

If you knock someone down in SD and have the opportunity to flee, but instead choose to stay and mount them so you can keep hitting them then you have broken the law, as you have gone beyond "reasonable" SD and have now committed assault yourself.

If I am in a SD situation if I run away and get home safely that counts a win. If I step into the ring and then spend the rest of the round running away from my opponent I will eventually get disqualified for failing to engage.

What counts as a "win" in fighting is not the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa.

The two have completely different objectives. But we keep coming back to the same problem. When you are only able to view SD in terms of fighting, you view "winning a fight" as the same objective as SD, but it isn't.

it has exactly the same skill set

No it doesn't. Preemptive striking is a SD skill, it is not a fighting skill as you can't become World Champion with a record of 0 wins, 0 loses and 17 disqualifications for hitting your opponent before the bell sounds. Bobbing in and out of striking range, and throwing an exploratory jab to see how your opponent reacts and spot potential weakness in his response that you can exploit it is a valid fighting skill. But you don't bob in an out of range throwing exploratory jabs to test you rapists reaction. That's a fighting skill, not a SD skill.

If I submit my opponent with a triangle choke in the ring I win. If I triangle choke someone outside the chip shop on a Friday night his mates come out and stomp my head flat. What works in a fight/in the ring does not necessarily work for SD, what works for SD does not necessarily work in a fight/the ring.

There is a whole area of soft SD skills (i.e. no physical SD skills) that have absolutely nothing to do with agreeing to fight someone in a pub car park.

Learning the warning signs of a potentially abusive relationship, so you can get out of it early, is a SD skill. It has nothing to do with fighting. You don't teach women in a SD class to become MMA fighters so if there bf turns out to be abusive and controlling they can get him to tap out. You teach them to spot the warning signs so they can get out of the relationship.

Different problems, different skill sets.

Yes there are some overlaps, a good punch is always a good punch of course, but consensual fighting skills are no the answer to all of lifes SD problems, and good SD skills do not make you good at consensual sparring/fighting/sporting contests. Unless of course you are only able to view SD in terms of men fighting each other.

Fighting makes you good at fighting. SD makes you good at SD.

They do not have "exactly the same skill set" Not even close.

you seem to have set yourself up as an expert on SD

The problem is you have a very very narrow one dimensional view of SD. You are only able to think of SD in terms of getting into a fight with other men on the street or in a bar, so anytime anyone suggest SD can possibly be anything other than that you refuse to accept that because it does not match your own personal experience of violence. There are other people that need to protect themselves, (older/female/children) and they need to protect themselves from a variety of things; things other than bar fights. The fact then that someone may have some SD advice that does not directly relate to bar fights does not mean it is not SD, anymore than the only things that can relate directly to to bar/street fights can be classed as SD. And the fact someone may be more knowledgeable,and experienced, about these other aspects (shock horror, how can that be?) does not mean they have set themselves up as an expert.

Of course you will disagree, and continue to argue. But I have no interest in wasting more time or crayons explaining it, so enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

At 1.24 when he uses "double under hooks on one shoulder" to take his opponent down, if he can use his right leg to "spring" his opponent's left leg back, the take down will be more effective.

When your opponent has good rooting such as "shoulder width parallel feet", it's better to alter his stance into "bow arrow stance - one leg forward and one leg backward" before you take him down.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

To clarify, if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight. You find yourself defending yourself from an assault.

If you resist that assault through the application of violence (as opposed to just running away or crying for help), then you are now in a fight.

A fight is when you agree to take part in the violence, either in the ring, the street or the dojo. SD is when you did not agree and do not want to take part in the violence.

That's your own personal definition, but not the common usage. You are totally correct that there is a useful distinction to be made between consensual and non-consensual violence, but you can't expect that you can redefine the meaning of a common English word and have everybody go along with it.

If I tell someone not to accept lifts from strangers that is SD, and it works. I don't need to have accepted a lift form a stranger and have it gone horribly wrong to justify my ability to impart that advice. The advice is sound, and it works, and it has absolutely nothing to do with men fighting in a bar/the street. But that is all you are able to see SD as and that is were your problem lies. If your 80yo Gran is worried about having her handbag stolen you don't her to join a boxing club. You teach her what muggers look for when selection their victims, so she can avoid being selected as a victim. That's called Target Hardening, and is well document, accepted and recognised SD skill, it also has not one single thing to do with men fighting each other in the street.

There is a whole area of soft SD skills (i.e. no physical SD skills) that have absolutely nothing to do with agreeing to fight someone in a pub car park.

Learning the warning signs of a potentially abusive relationship, so you can get out of it early, is a SD skill. It has nothing to do with fighting. You don't teach women in a SD class to become MMA fighters so if there bf turns out to be abusive and controlling they can get him to tap out. You teach them to spot the warning signs so they can get out of the relationship.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that lifestyle choices, awareness, target hardening, avoidance, and verbal de-escalation don't count as self-defense. I believe Jobo was making the point that if those all fail then fighting ability is the next level of self-defense. Thus his phrasing that "after the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is then fighting". (I will concede that comments from Jobo in other threads seem to indicate he doesn't try that hard to succeed with those non-violent options in his daily life.)

No, it doesn't The purpose of a fight is to win by deafening your opponent. The purpose of SD is to create the opportunity to escape.

If you knock someone down in SD and have the opportunity to flee, but instead choose to stay and mount them so you can keep hitting them then you have broken the law, as you have gone beyond "reasonable" SD and have now committed assault yourself.

A lot may depend on where you are, but many jurisdictions do not impose a duty to flee an attacker. I'm not familiar with U.K. law, but in many areas of the U.S. you are allowed to stand your ground against an assailant.

The law in most places allows the use of "reasonable" force in self-defense. "Reasonable" is generally what might be required to keep yourself or another person safe, and that can be very situationally dependent. If I take an attacker down but I believe he is likely to get back up and attack me again before I can escape, then I may very well be legally justified in mounting him and continuing the fight until he is no longer a danger. Even if he surrenders I may be allowed to keep him pinned until help arrives.

(Knowing the local laws and other practical considerations which determine appropriate levels of force and the advisability of fleeing is of course a valuable aspect of self-defense.)

If I am in a SD situation if I run away and get home safely that counts a win. If I step into the ring and then spend the rest of the round running away from my opponent I will eventually get disqualified for failing to engage.

In general, I agree, although I could come up with exceptions for both of those scenarios.

What counts as a "win" in fighting is not the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa.

I would correct that to say "What counts as a "win" in fighting is not always the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa"

The two have completely different objectives.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In general, the objective of self-defense is to keep yourself safe. Fighting can have a lot of different objectives. Sometimes that objective is to keep yourself safe.

If I submit my opponent with a triangle choke in the ring I win. If I triangle choke someone outside the chip shop on a Friday night his mates come out and stomp my head flat.

On the other hand, if a young woman is faced with a would-be date rapist in her home, then a triangle choke may resolve the issue nicely. In fact, there have been several news reports of this happening.

The appropriate techniques and tactics for a given fight are always situationally dependent. The best approach for a MMA match, a boxing match, a woman fending off a rapist in her bedroom, an ER nurse restraining a mentally ill patient, a pair of unarmed passengers on a train taking down an armed terrorist, a two-on-three sword fight on a medieval battlefield, a prisoner facing a beatdown by a gang in the prison yard, etc, etc are all different*. Part of being an effective fighter is knowing how to judge the situation, whether it is a self-defense scenario or not.

*(That said, many skills and attributes are transferable between scenarios.)

What works in a fight/in the ring does not necessarily work for SD, what works for SD does not necessarily work in a fight/the ring.

Agreed, with emphasis on the "necessarily." I'd argue that there is value for martial artist in knowing what skills transfer and which do not. I'd also argue that attribute development (physical, mental, and emotional) is just as important as specific skills for both.

 

[drop bear]

No it isn't, fighting and SD are two different things, with different objectives and two different skill sets.


That's true, which is why I did acknowledge that.

If self defence and fighting are different things then we are back to the veracity of self defence.

A self defence instructor would have to have knowledge and experience in that specific function. Which pretty much most don't.

Go out their get mugged twenty times and then come back with your results. Or dont claim to know what self defence is.

I mean if they are two different animals then you would need to treat it as such.

 

[drop bear]

No, it isn't. To clarify, if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight. You find yourself defending yourself from an assault. That's why when you go to work you don't ask your friends if they watched that boxing assault on TV at the weekend. A fight is when you agree to take part in the violence, either in the ring, the street or the dojo. SD is when you did not agree and do not want to take part in the violence. Consensual violence is fighting. Protecting yourself form non consensual criminal violence is SD. They are not the same. When your experience of "SD" is getting into fights with men in the street you might think fighting is SD, but that doesn't make it so. Male MAs, particularity young male MAs, are particularity guilty of this assumption.

Can you procces what the training for that would look like if self defence and consensual fighting were treated differently?

Turning up to self defence class makes it consensual. Which then makes it fighting class. Not self defence.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

if SD doesn't work you don't find yourself in a fight. You find yourself defending yourself from an assault.

When your fist meets on your opponent's face, will he feel any difference between whether you are doing self-defense, or you are doing fighting?

 

[drop bear]

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

Ok. My point is that it is about the best tool for security work. And especially grappling based sparring. And grappling based sparring against strikes.

Because when it comes to the bread and butter of the physical component. That is what you do. You spar with guys as a security guard. That is how you manhandle them without crippling them.

And I am the ex bouncer. The guy you saw wresling is the current bouncer. And this element is continually reflected within the security industry. So where there are booj security and cops. They guys who are the most consistant go to guys for violence are sports fighters.

 

[dunc]

I’m sorry but I think I’m missing your point

The booj has a very large grappling component and mixes striking with this

 

[drop bear]

I’m sorry but I think I’m missing your point

The booj has a very large grappling component and mixes striking with this

Resisted?

Grappling at potentially a world class level?

My double leg isn't GSP's double leg. So saying I do grappling and he does grappling so therefore the training will be equal is not true.

 

[dunc]

Resisted - sure
World class in competitive terms - no because it doesn’t translate well to competition, but competent yes

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They guys who are the most consistant go to guys for violence are sports fighters.

I have a theory, entirely unsubstantiated, that there's a mindset match between sport/competition and taking on jobs like bouncing. It's a risk-taking/risk-acceptance factor. It would be interesting to study that - I have never found research that touched on a similar match (I'd assume there's some cross-over with LEO, but not more than half).

 

[drop bear]

I have a theory, entirely unsubstantiated, that there's a mindset match between sport/competition and taking on jobs like bouncing. It's a risk-taking/risk-acceptance factor. It would be interesting to study that - I have never found research that touched on a similar match (I'd assume there's some cross-over with LEO, but not more than half).

I don't think you will find a correlation other than the qualities that make a person succesful at sport make them successful at dealing with drunks.

You also get non sport big dudes. Because mass makes the job easier.

 

[jobo]

If you resist that assault through the application of violence (as opposed to just running away or crying for help), then you are now in a fight.


That's your own personal definition, but not the common usage. You are totally correct that there is a useful distinction to be made between consensual and non-consensual violence, but you can't expect that you can redefine the meaning of a common English word and have everybody go along with it.






I don't think anyone here is arguing that lifestyle choices, awareness, target hardening, avoidance, and verbal de-escalation don't count as self-defense. I believe Jobo was making the point that if those all fail then fighting ability is the next level of self-defense. Thus his phrasing that "after the being careful stuff doesn't work, sd is then fighting". (I will concede that comments from Jobo in other threads seem to indicate he doesn't try that hard to succeed with those non-violent options in his daily life.)




A lot may depend on where you are, but many jurisdictions do not impose a duty to flee an attacker. I'm not familiar with U.K. law, but in many areas of the U.S. you are allowed to stand your ground against an assailant.

The law in most places allows the use of "reasonable" force in self-defense. "Reasonable" is generally what might be required to keep yourself or another person safe, and that can be very situationally dependent. If I take an attacker down but I believe he is likely to get back up and attack me again before I can escape, then I may very well be legally justified in mounting him and continuing the fight until he is no longer a danger. Even if he surrenders I may be allowed to keep him pinned until help arrives.

(Knowing the local laws and other practical considerations which determine appropriate levels of force and the advisability of fleeing is of course a valuable aspect of self-defense.)


In general, I agree, although I could come up with exceptions for both of those scenarios.


I would correct that to say "What counts as a "win" in fighting is not always the same as what counts as a "win" in SD and vice versa"


Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In general, the objective of self-defense is to keep yourself safe. Fighting can have a lot of different objectives. Sometimes that objective is to keep yourself safe.


On the other hand, if a young woman is faced with a would-be date rapist in her home, then a triangle choke may resolve the issue nicely. In fact, there have been several news reports of this happening.

The appropriate techniques and tactics for a given fight are always situationally dependent. The best approach for a MMA match, a boxing match, a woman fending off a rapist in her bedroom, an ER nurse restraining a mentally ill patient, a pair of unarmed passengers on a train taking down an armed terrorist, a two-on-three sword fight on a medieval battlefield, a prisoner facing a beatdown by a gang in the prison yard, etc, etc are all different*. Part of being an effective fighter is knowing how to judge the situation, whether it is a self-defense scenario or not.

*(That said, many skills and attributes are transferable between scenarios.)


Agreed, with emphasis on the "necessarily." I'd argue that there is value for martial artist in knowing what skills transfer and which do not. I'd also argue that attribute development (physical, mental, and emotional) is just as important as specific skills for both.

when i have,a reflective time over the regrets in my life, they generaly split in to two main groups, the, women i should have,slept with whilst i was being faithful to people who weren't being faithful to me and people i really should have punched when i had the,chance, .

if i had been more of a violent lover boy , i would now have very few regrets at all