Ninjutsu vs BJJ

[flashlock]

Brad both Matt and Greg also say that the one who survives in a grappling encounter in the military is the one whose friends show up first. (scary if your only H2H skills are grappling) Simply put on a battlefield grappling with the enemy is not a good idea unless or course it goes there and then yes you had better have some skill and or hope that his/her friends do not show up first. Even then if you are grappling on a battlefield in a combative situation you had better understand how and when you could pull out your tactical sidearm or knife to increase your advantage. These skills would be essential and something that should be taught in every grappling class for real world personal protection and combative measures.
This is something by the way that you will find in Budo Taijutsu or what I teach in IRT!

Hi, Brian!

It's funny how posts spiral out of control, I can't keep up!

Yes, that's a great quote (friends showing up).

I agree with everything you say, and those special forces guys altered BJJ to fit US Army needs--still, the core is BJJ.

I'm probably suffering a little bit from zealotry, as I've just made the decision to go 100% for BJJ--I have a lot of holes in my theory, yes, but I still stand by what I have said based on what evidence is out there, the opinions of experts, and my own instincts and experiences.

I DO think it is possible to see what increases your chances of success in terms of what art you pick. Another factor is your own body and ability. Maybe BJJ is not the best for you if you can strike and kick like a Bruce Lee. But I am only talking in generalities, see the chess analogy in my previous post. Yes, take stats with a big grain of salt, but don't totally ignore them!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hi, Brian!

It's funny how posts spiral out of control, I can't keep up!

Yes, that's a great quote (friends showing up).

I agree with everything you say, and those special forces guys altered BJJ to fit US Army needs--still, the core is BJJ.

I'm probably suffering a little bit from zealotry, as I've just made the decision to go 100% for BJJ--I have a lot of holes in my theory, yes, but I still stand by what I have said based on what evidence is out there, the opinions of experts, and my own instincts and experiences.

I DO think it is possible to see what increases your chances of success in terms of what art you pick. Another factor is your own body and ability. Maybe BJJ is not the best for you if you can strike and kick like a Bruce Lee. But I am only talking in generalities, see the chess analogy in my previous post. Yes, take stats with a big grain of salt, but don't totally ignore them!

In the end though Brad what will really matter is if you can perform in the moment of truth. Everything else is just theory, statistics, etc. Training in any art is just that training a simulation so to speak. Nothing is quite as real as the moment when something happens.

 

[KenpoGunz]

My money is on the Ninja. I doubt the BJJer would even see him coming. A puff of smoke, two throwing stars and one dead BJJer. LOL :rofl:

Sorry guys I couldnt resist.

 

[Flying Crane]

My appologies to the capoeiristas (for the misspelling and counting them out). I know a couple of guys who practice it, and they don't think most of it would work in a fight--but that of course is not the real point for them. I just couldn't think of anything else that was related to martial arts, but not really too practical for a real fight. I'll make something up, uh, one armed, one legged blind boxing, how is that?

I completely understand, I just couldn't resist jumping in there and giving you a hard time over it

.

I don't want to hijack the thread, it's not about capoeira. I've written about it here in the forums, regarding some of these issues, if anyone happens to be curious, let me know and I will direct you to some of the threads already in existence. I've spent a number of years training in capoeira, in addition to a number of other arts, so I feel I can make a pretty good comparison and discuss the matter.

 

[flashlock]

Having trained in both styles I have a few observations:

- BJJ is designed to satisfy a one on one unarmed duel, which is does very very well, attempting to engage in this situation without having a ground game would be foolish
- Bujinkan provides a complete framework embracing ground , stand up, weapons etc etc. Different world.
- There seem an odd perception of pure stylists. Many many Bujinkan people cross train in BJJ or other grappling arts as do other styles even if only to find out what those pesky grapplers are up to.
- I would be surprised if many BJJ persons did not also cross train to have a good stand up game
- The biting, the gourging argument fails to solve a single problem "You are in an inferior position and if thats all you got you are in trouble" ... it also annoys grapplers, pain and nasty tricks will not make one give up a superior position, I will swap a bite for an arm bar anyday.
- As for eye gourges if you can't dominate position on the groud you mostly certainly won't have the leverage to remotely pull anything like this off
- I have observed Bujinkan people who cross train in BJJ quickly develop a strategy to get back up on their feet and not play the cuddling game
- If you have a Shihan that can't get out of a side mount find a new one.
- In a reality based combat situation you must have the tools to take the engagement to a more tactical position. If you have a ground game it is easier to take the fight up to a better range. i.e Standing

Cheers...

Thank you, great, fair post!

 

[flashlock]

In the end though Brad what will really matter is if you can perform in the moment of truth. Everything else is just theory, statistics, etc. Training in any art is just that training a simulation so to speak. Nothing is quite as real as the moment when something happens.

Absolutely!

 

[MJS]

Thanks, Mike!

It seems to me a lot of people are saying there are so many different crazy factors it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any logical conclusion about what is more effective in a H2H combat situation. I don't buy it, and the US Army doesn't buy it, based on statistics.

So, like so many others, you're basing your thoughts off of what others have found? Wouldn't it make more sense to research for yourself? Its impossible to know how everyone trains.

Can't we say Ninjutsu probably has a better chance in a street fight than coperaria (sorry for my spelling).

Again, as others have said, as well as myself, its not the art, its the person.

Each fight you look at could be completely different, however, you can see trends of success.

I'm afraid you're missing the point.

For example, in chess, some openings are better than others because % wise, they win more than others. Each game is vastly different, with billions and billions and billions of different possibilities, and different opponents. However, we can say all in all, in general, the sicilian najdorf defense increases your chances of winning a chess game as black than if you were to play, say, the risky Latvian gambit.

Hardly "moot" at all.

Yes, sometimes the Latvian gambit has brilliant succes, but overall, in grand master games, it is a piece of garbage compared to the Najdorf!

We can do the same with martial arts. Of course, 100 fighters is still probably too small. Maybe look at 500.

Just because something works for one person does not ensure that its going to work for the next. As I said, we can have any number of fights, the outcome will vary.

I think things like weapons don't really solve anything. You can grab a pool cue or a rock, or unsheath your blade, but so can anyone else. Let's look at the core issue--in this case unarmed taijutsu vs unarmed BJJ.

Weapons do make a big difference. In addition, you're correct on one part, yes, anyone can grab something, but the difference lies in the person that is skilled with the weapon. Big difference. If you're going to say no rules, but then say unarmed, that contradicts itself a bit.

 

[MJS]

The soldiers came back after H2H conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and described what occured in detailed reports, and gave feedback on what worked and what didn't. This was used to re-haul the US Army and Special Forces H2H combat training, which now has BJJ as its core, again, according to the people who designed the prgram and teach it to the army (Matt Larson [a ranger] and Greg Thompson).

I don't know anything about it beyond this source.

So with gear and other equipment, they still rolled on the ground with someone hell bent on killing them?

 

[Symbiote_X]

Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is sometimes written as BBT.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is sometimes written as BJJ.

See the difference?

Thanks I think I was a little mixed up in the abbreviation!

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

It seems to me a lot of people are saying there are so many different crazy factors it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any logical conclusion about what is more effective in a H2H combat situation.

It's impossible to tell beforehand if it's going to be purely H2H.

I think things like weapons don't really solve anything.

"At least, they help you do less talking." :ultracool

You can grab a pool cue or a rock, or unsheath your blade, but so can anyone else.

It's not a matter of someone else being able to do it too. It's about who does it first.

There is some good grappling in ninjutsu, but it's not a specailty as it is in BJJ.

No style owns the sole right to specific techniques.

 

[flashlock]

So, like so many others, you're basing your thoughts off of what others have found? Wouldn't it make more sense to research for yourself? Its impossible to know how everyone trains.



Again, as others have said, as well as myself, its not the art, its the person.



I'm afraid you're missing the point.



Just because something works for one person does not ensure that its going to work for the next. As I said, we can have any number of fights, the outcome will vary.




Weapons do make a big difference. In addition, you're correct on one part, yes, anyone can grab something, but the difference lies in the person that is skilled with the weapon. Big difference. If you're going to say no rules, but then say unarmed, that contradicts itself a bit.

I'm going to squash this "it's not the art, it's the person" cop out, right here.

The question is not about the individual, it's about the art. The only way that I can think of to test what art has a better chance of winning in unarmed H2H combat would be to have a large number of subjects from those arts duke it out, then analyse the data (Win, loss, mutual slaying).

Some of you with this weak argument are like smokers who say, "Some % might get lung cancer, but not me, because I X."

I don't know what the data would show in my experiment, but because grappling occurs so often in fighting (as documented), and because BJJ specializes in grappling and ninjutsu does not, I would guess, logically, that the BJJ would have the advantage, perhaps an even overwhelming one. Could be wrong, won't be the first time!

We can look at chess data because people just lose, win or draw--they usually walk away from the board alive! We can see huge advantages of one chess opening over others, sometimes even to the specifics of differences within those opening's variations. One variation moves a pawn one square forward, the other two, with vastly different % of wins vs losses (all palyed by different individuals in different tournaments).

Chess Grand Masters rely on statistics to guide their individual tastes and abilities.

I believe the martial artist should as well. These % have nothing to do with "Oh, but I would grab a rock and bludgeon him!" They are only indications... yes, take them with a grain, but do take them.

This is not "BJJ is better than Ninjutsu". This is a thought experiment. This is: If I were a general, had all the time in the world, and I had to train many individuals to be the best overall fighters in the world, what system would I pick?"

My experiment is limited, but you cannot say its results are completely useless. I'm really curious. Is the grappling over rated? Or would the ninjas get creamed? Would it be pretty 50/ 50?

If you can't see how statistics of groups can guide an individual in choices, than I guess the conversation stops there. There are always exceptional individuals and circumstances, where, for example, someone armed with a kitchen fork kills someone armed with a Glock. But overall, can't we see if we had forkists vs guys armed with Glocks, the guys with the forks are going to fair worse, and wouldn't we want to be the guys with the guns? That's all I'm asking: Who has the fork? (and let's not be that guy if we can help it as the data indicates most likely you will be killed).

God this is stupid!

 

[MJS]

I'm going to squash this "it's not the art, it's the person" cop out, right here.

The question is not about the individual, it's about the art. The only way that I can think of to test what art has a better chance of winning in unarmed H2H combat would be to have a large number of subjects from those arts duke it out, then analyse the data (Win, loss, mutual slaying).

Some of you with this weak argument are like smokers who say, "Some % might get lung cancer, but not me, because I X."

I don't know what the data would show in my experiment, but because grappling occurs so often in fighting (as documented), and because BJJ specializes in grappling and ninjutsu does not, I would guess, logically, that the BJJ would have the advantage, perhaps an even overwhelming one. Could be wrong, won't be the first time!

We can look at chess data because people just lose, win or draw--they usually walk away from the board alive! We can see huge advantages of one chess opening over others, sometimes even to the specifics of differences within those opening's variations. One variation moves a pawn one square forward, the other two, with vastly different % of wins vs losses (all palyed by different individuals in different tournaments).

Chess Grand Masters rely on statistics to guide their individual tastes and abilities.

I believe the martial artist should as well. These % have nothing to do with "Oh, but I would grab a rock and bludgeon him!" They are only indications... yes, take them with a grain, but do take them.

This is not "BJJ is better than Ninjutsu". This is a thought experiment. This is: If I were a general, had all the time in the world, and I had to train many individuals to be the best overall fighters in the world, what system would I pick?"

My experiment is limited, but you cannot say its results are completely useless. I'm really curious. Is the grappling over rated? Or would the ninjas get creamed? Would it be pretty 50/ 50?

If you can't see how statistics of groups can guide an individual in choices, than I guess the conversation stops there. There are always exceptional individuals and circumstances, where, for example, someone armed with a kitchen fork kills someone armed with a Glock. But overall, can't we see if we had forkists vs guys armed with Glocks, the guys with the forks are going to fair worse, and wouldn't we want to be the guys with the guns? That's all I'm asking: Who has the fork? (and let's not be that guy if we can help it as the data indicates most likely you will be killed).

God this is stupid!

The problem here sir, is that you choose not to see anything that we're saying. Instead, you choose to just go off things that others have found, rather than keeping an open mind, and seeing for yourself if these things really work. The argument is not a cop out as you say. I train in BJJ. That does not mean that I can grapple like Rickson. We both do BJJ, but its apparent that he is better due to time in. Therefore, you are incorrect. It is the person, not the art. Kenpo is my base art. Kenpo is the base art of Larry Tatum. There are things that he is going to do much better than I due to time in, differences in speed, body structure, etc. The same can be said about boxing. Tyson and Holyfield both box, but there is a winner and a loser. Its the person, not the art.

Mike

 

[Grey Eyed Bandit]

I'd wager it's not very often that you really have no choice but to grapple with someone who isn't under the influence.

 

[flashlock]

Hi, Mike:

You are telling me if you had 100 boxers the same sex, height, weight, and general physical fitness (they could be tested on stamina, power, etc.)--trained 50 of them under coach A, and 50 of them under coach B, had the A team fight the B team, tabulate the results--are you telling me you coudln't tell which coach might be better than the other?

What if coach A's fighters won 75% of the boxing matches? That's a huge advantage! Then you were asked, without being able to get any other information, to pick a boxing coach with the aim of being a winning fighter, which coach do you pick, A or B?

Maybe the A fighters just got a little bit more lucky on match day! Maybe the B fighters felt psychologically second class because they were labled "B". I don't know, but me, I'm going with coach A based on the statistics.

Tell me, why did you pick ninjutsu? Because back hundreds of years ago it was MOSTLY ineffective? Hell no! Statistically, under real life conditions, ninjutsu was formidible in that context. The systems that weren't as good, either mutated to fit with what was succesful, or died out. You wouldn't have ninjutsu if the majority of ninjas were failures. Did it ever fail? Damn right it did! Many, many times. All in all, statistically, we can say, it was successful, and survived (sort of).

You don't pick any art because most people who use it get their butts kicked. You picked ninjutsu for the same reasons I am saying you might drop it and change to BJJ if it was proved overwhelmingly superior in MOST cases (which I'm sure it isn't).

But let's say ninjas won 25% more death matches than BJJ guys. Me, I'd want to study ninjutsu over BJJ IF my goal was looking for the best system/ better system.

We'll never know, but again, because of the grappling issue, I think BJJ has an advantage. Will ninja mutate and practice more ground fighting than they would have before seeing so much successful BJJ? It's already happening!

Thanks for all the posts... I don't really have any thing else to say about this, starting to get circular from my point of view.

 

[MJS]

Hi, Mike:

You are telling me if you had 100 boxers the same sex, height, weight, and general physical fitness (they could be tested on stamina, power, etc.)--trained 50 of them under coach A, and 50 of them under coach B, had the A team fight the B team, tabulate the results--are you telling me you coudln't tell which coach might be better than the other?

What if coach A's fighters won 75% of the boxing matches? That's a huge advantage! Then you were asked, without being able to get any other information, to pick a boxing coach with the aim of being a winning fighter, which coach do you pick, A or B?

Maybe the A fighters just got a little bit more lucky on match day! Maybe the B fighters felt psychologically second class because they were labled "B". I don't know, but me, I'm going with coach A based on the statistics.

Yes, thats what I'm telling you. I refer you back to my past examples.

Tell me, why did you pick ninjutsu? Because back hundreds of years ago it was MOSTLY ineffective? Hell no! Statistically, under real life conditions, ninjutsu was formidible in that context. The systems that weren't as good, either mutated to fit with what was succesful, or died out. You wouldn't have ninjutsu if the majority of ninjas were failures. Did it ever fail? Damn right it did! Many, many times. All in all, statistically, we can say, it was successful, and survived (sort of).

You don't pick any art because most people who use it get their butts kicked. You picked ninjutsu for the same reasons I am saying you might drop it and change to BJJ if it was proved overwhelmingly superior in MOST cases (which I'm sure it isn't).

But let's say ninjas won 25% more death matches than BJJ guys. Me, I'd want to study ninjutsu over BJJ IF my goal was looking for the best system/ better system.

We'll never know, but again, because of the grappling issue, I think BJJ has an advantage. Will ninja mutate and practice more ground fighting than they would have before seeing so much successful BJJ? It's already happening!

Thanks for all the posts... I don't really have any thing else to say about this, starting to get circular from my point of view.

Sir, its apparent that you are set in your ways and you do not wish to see anything else. I wish you the best in your training.

 

[itengu]

I think it really comes down to the problem you want to solve. If somebody asks me which is the best martial art I would ask them what are their goals. If I wanted to compete in mixed martial arts competition Ninjutsu would be off my consideration list. If I wanted to learn to use various weapons Ninjutsu might rate alot higher. I would not ask Royce Gracie to teach me how to use a Naginata as much as I would not ask Hatsumi how to defend against omaplata.

Comparing two approaches to combat is an interesting but unanswerable question.

 

[Senin]

Well, this just goes to show ya that these types of threads can be productive. No, I don't think this line of thought was a waste of time.

Thanks flash, you made some very good and interesting points. Greatly appreciated.

We can all very well say, that it is up to the individual fighter, but that doesn't tell us much. The fighter does fight in a distinctive style. Just as you know how a boxer will fight (stand up and punch) and you know how a BJJ'er will fight (shoot for your legs and take you down). These styles have distinctive and predictable actions. And even with the predictability of the BJJ they still do very very well. You know in a fight the BJJer will shoot for the Ninjer's legs and try to take him down. And if he does, the Ninjer will be in deep crap.

As a defense of Taijitsu, I said that maybe he might get in a "dirty" strike (eye gouge, throat poke, etc). Maybe he really would and would be able to fend off the BJJer. But someone said that if the Ninjer was taken down, even an eye gouges wouldn't help him at that stage. Well, this being the case................... case closed.

Unfortunately, this isn't really a glowing endorsement for Taijitsu.

 

[itengu]

Senin,

Do both. At the end of it not only will you able to fight in unarmed duels, you will also have collected an arsonal of cool weapons to impress your friends. Ninjutsu is also a great introduction to the world of weapons and just like ground fighting, understanding weapons is also very important to being a more complete fighter.

 

[meta_aesthete]

99% fights end up in grappling range. This has been documented by the US Army in Iraq. Every documented fight had elements of grappling, NONE were just striking. Interesting!

If 99% of our soldiers are trying to put Iraqi insurgents into arm bars, then it's no wonder we're having trouble over there. If they're not using all those assault rifles, APCs, and attack helicopters my tax dollars paid for, I daresay I should get a fatter refund this year.

From my studies so far, BBT is not solely focused on "dirty tricks." My understanding is that if an opportunity opens itself to strike a sensitive area such as the eyes/small joints/groin, then you capitalize on it. But you don't go into a confrontation obsessing over how to hit your opponent in the jibblies. My rudimentary training has just taught me to stay off the vector of an incoming attack, and attempt to find the best positioning and/or leverage for a counterattack.

"Dirty tricks," as far as I understand so far, are only simulated so that you'll instinctively capitalize on them if an opportunity opens. Many other arts don't train you to capitalize on these -- it's not that an eye gouge requires a ton of training to understand, but a BBT'er may be more aware of spotting an opening for such an attack.

My real problem with this scenario is that I don't see how this came to be in the first place. Does the BJJ guy want my wallet? He can have it. $25 and a credit card that will be null and void as soon as I get to the phone. Big score.

Also -- why am I alone? Why is he? Why don't I have my keys and cell phone if I'm outdoors? If I scream, will people hear me nearby? Can I outrun this guy? If I offended this dude at a bar, then why am I stupid enough to get into beefs if I don't have friends to back me up? Why did I let this turn into a bar beef anyway?

Maybe these aren't typical "warrior" reactions, but they fulfill my objective of staying safe and thwart his objective of harming me. Voluntarily getting into a to-the-death fight with a BJJer is not a way to stay safe, so I wouldn't do it.

And if the guy ambushes me into a ground match, well, I'm at a disadvantage already. If I were to ambush him out of the blue with a knife or "dirty trick," he'd be pretty screwed too.

I dunno. It's a question that will never be satisfied. But the problem I have here is that these two arts, in some ways, have conflicting objectives. COMPETITIVE BJJ, as I understand it (and how it has been framed here), is to overcome your opponent in a 1v1 unarmed fight. BBT is to stay safe and do whatever you wanted to do with the rest of your day, be that political espionage or going to the grocery store.

So, in a forced 1v1 fight in a vacuum, yeah, BJJ will have an edge. But unless the BBT'er FEELS LIKE having an unarmed 1v1 match that starts on equal terms, the chances of that scenario being forced upon them in the day to day world seems pretty slim if they're smart. So trying to weigh one over the other doesn't work -- it's a context-specific question.

Bleh.

 

[jks9199]

These fights that were documented...who were they between? Grappler vs. Grappler, Grappler vs. Striker, Striker vs. Striker??

And what was the goal?

For example, if you decide to study real-world fights by looking at police officer use of force reports -- almost any of them will necessarily involve some form of grappling. Why? 'Cause a cop's goal is to contain, control and arrest the suspect. But -- if you somehow study military use of hand to hand combat, I bet you'll get a much greater variety; some will be striking only (probably with a weapon like a knife, admittedly), others will be only grappling, and many will contain both. The soldier's goal is generally to survive and kill his enemy. He's not worried about getting him into position to be cuffed, and a soldier has much wider latitude in use of force. What were the goals and missions of the soldiers whose accounts were studied?

It's also important to consider how the fight came about... There's a big difference between a cop called to domestic who gets assaulted and the party who started the domestic. There's a difference between a mugger hitting someone on the back of the head with a baseball bat and a soldier sneaking up and removing a sentry.

I agree with the others; general "what if" questions on a message board are pointless. It's fun to sit down with some buddies from different martial traditions and compare responses to a situation -- but to simply ask "what would a x-practitioner do against a y-practitioner?" or any similar question without a detailed scenario just goes nowhere.