Ninjutsu vs BJJ

[flashlock]

Pure hogwash. Please provide a source of information that is not characterized by selection bias (see below).



What would be even better is if individuals posting statistics actually understood what "selection bias" is....

There is a best-selling business book entitled, "From Good to Great" that is a great example of selection bias.

The author of this book took a bunch of then "successful firms" (GE, Xerox, etc.), looked at what they had in common, and then wrote a book saying, "If you do what they do and have X (e.g., a dedicated M&A division, international operations, skunks works, separated CEO-Chairman positions, and a thousand other things), you will be successful too!"

The problem is that he didn't "control for" all of the firms that also had X but FAILED. Moreover, he didn't "control for" all the firms that elected *NOT* to have X in the first place, but succeeded.

That means that there are two types of "selection bias." The former is known as "survival bias" because you are only looking at firms that have X *AND* are successful. The latter is known as "self-selection bias" because whether or not a firm chooses to engage in a behavior (i.e., X) affects the results if you are only looking at those who choose to engage in such behavior.



Precisely. This is "self-selection bias"--cops will grab because they have to subdue the guy....

Similarly, it is not surprising that grunts will grab, and then report back to their superiors that the confrontation involved grappling. If a grunt has his weapon, he's going to shoot it. The only reason he is grappling is that is what he was trained to do.

I doubt highly that some dude in a robe in Iraq is going to willingly tackle a U.S. grunt wearing 100+ pounds of gear. So it is the grunts who are tackling people. Why? Because they are trained to do that....



If you can't see how statistics need to be interpreted in light of various caveats, then I guess the conversation stops there...and your statistics need to be flushed down the toilet.

Sorry, dude.



Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is, at base, at weapons art. Even a child will pick up something and want to use it as a weapon to give itself an advantage. Why not learn to use things around you to advantage? You've based your arguments on supposed "logic". It seems pretty logical to me to want to learn how to use things around you to advantage and would prefer to keep that advantage even in a "fake experiment" of 50 people in a crowded place or open field....



Wow! What a great post!!!

I don't know who you are, meta asethete, but you are a very wise creature..... Thanks for posting!

-ben

I have not seen the raw data, and I don't know if it's possible to do so--maybe it's classified. The reports, from my understanding of them, were not regarding police type actions (I must tackle the Afghani and not shoot him so I can question him), but rather getting ambushed, the gun jams, and you're fighting. The US Army has shifted to BJJ as its core, and even trains its special forces in these methods now.

So the US military is putting its soldier's lives on the line to promote Gracie JJ? They biased the data, at the risk of lives, for that? Maybe I should be more cynical... would you be if they were training everyone in Taijutsu? Maybe then it wouldn't seem so biased...

I stand by the material: the soldiers were given detailed questions about specifics during their conflicts, and they discovered that 100% of the fights had elements of grappling (most grappling mixed with striking); NONE had striking alone. 0. Nada. Zilch.

Where's the bias? I don't know how many out here would agree, but in very full on sparring, things naturally go to grappling when one striker starts striking better--at least I've experienced that (been on both ends). You don't have to believe in those stats, but can you show evidence where real life or death altercations had only elements of striking? I'll even let you sway the results in your favor for your bias... cite one source that shows that, and I'll agree with you.

Otherwise, you should take back your comments.

 

[flashlock]

From what I understand so does BBT principles.

Yes, I agree--but I was just tyring to answer someones question--one I've had--concerning BJJ beyond the ground.

 

[flashlock]

So H2H page 9 is an official Army documentation of all the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan? Ben Cole touched on the subject better than I.

And your question about which would do better in a street fight- as I said, if you want to toss out the possibility of multiple opponents, weapons and running away- then your idea of a street fight is different than mine. I always train with the idea that there may be a weapon pulled in the middle of it, other guys might jump in and I always try to leave open the idea of getting the hell out of there rather than try to beat the other guy into the ground.

Well, fine, that's another question (multiple opponents, weapons)--let's start with my scenario, or do you concede that I am right? BTW, why does everyone think the BJJ artist is so useless in a multiple fight scenario? They can lock someone up standing just as well as they can on the ground, and shove him into the other attackers or use him as a shield, or run from a knife just like anyone. I don't see ninjas having a huge advantage in that department, if any.

 

[flashlock]

Thats ok, as it wasnt bait but a legit question. Experience has alot to do with comments. Basically the more exp. one has, the more weight the comments hold. By your lack of a reply, that speaks enough.

Mike

Actually, it's not a legitimate question. It's a rhetorical mistake in debates--you attack your opponent for who he or she is, not their argument itself, as you should. It's so simple: most fights involve grappling, grapplers should have an advantage in most fights. Can we go into that and not how many belts I have in this or that art, please?

If you base who you believe on what so-called experts say, what do you do when two equal experts totally disagree? Forget it--look at the argument, not the man.

 

[Don Roley]

I have not seen the raw data, and I don't know if it's possible to do so--maybe it's classified.

I doubt it. Classified? I take it you have never served in the military.

The reports, from my understanding of them, were not regarding police type actions (I must tackle the Afghani and not shoot him so I can question him), but rather getting ambushed, the gun jams, and you're fighting.

You just got finished saying you have no idea about the raw data, and in the next sentence you go on to try to speculate about what the accounts are from?!?!?!?! And FYI- the number of times that type of thing goes on is extremely low- too low really to state anything with a great statistical base.

Lets say I hit someone from behind with my fist and he is knocked out cold. So I can say that in 100 percent of fights I have been involved in there was no grappling, only striking. Mark Twain had a great saying that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[flashlock]

I can see the error of your logic.

First of all, grappling can be defined as one guy grabbing the other guy in any way, manner or form. You watch some of those police reality shows and you will most often see them roll up on two guys grabbing each other with one hand and trying to hit with the other.

Hitting and striking seems to be a big part of every conflict as well as grabbing. BBT has both in about equal measures. The advantage BJJ has in in newaza.

And of course, if you simply want to define a street fight as one on one, then you are trying to define something so that it fits your prefered bias instead of looking at it realistically.

Your bias seems obvious. How many fights did your sources say were only one on one? Or had no weapons? Or had no hitting? I would say it probably was not covered and yet you assumed that this is the situation.

Those are some great points, Don, and I hadn't thought of them.

I also know taijutsu does spend a lot of time grappling.

My argument is strongest against arts that have very little grappling, not really due to the idea of any little grab = grappling (a very good point you made), but the startlingly revealing outcome that NO fights involved striking alone.

Maybe this debate is a little misguided. Is it now really striker vs grappler, or specialist (BJJ) vs generalist (Nin)? If that is the case, then if the specialist can force his came on the generalist, the generalist is in deep dookie.

Then we're back to the high % of grappling again... I think the grappler has a better chance of forcing his game because, really, it's just simpler and easier. Not always, but it looks like a majority of the time.

 

[Don Roley]

BTW, why does everyone think the BJJ artist is so useless in a multiple fight scenario? They can lock someone up standing just as well as they can on the ground, and shove him into the other attackers or use him as a shield, or run from a knife just like anyone. I don't see ninjas having a huge advantage in that department, if any.

Well, a few posts ago you stated that BJJ specializes in grappling. When dealing with multiple people you can grab someone and use them as a shield. But you also have to be able to drop them, hit and run instead of staying in one place. If you stay in one place and grapple, the others will merely surround you and do a beat down from behind you. BBT does not specialize in grappling but has it in the toolbox. It does do striking, but does not specialize in it as well.

 

[Flying Crane]

I've got one comment to make, and then I'll just back away from this one.

Anybody who believes that a particular art is somehow, measureably, "Better" than other arts, is displaying his tremendous ignorance. This is the type of attitude often shown by insecure, know-nothing beginners who want to jump on the hype and believe that what they began doing a month ago is the "best". People at this stage actually don't deserve to have an opinion, because they have no knowledge or experience upon which to base an opinion. While nobody has the right or authority to actually shut them up, their opinion is truly worthless.

If they actually manage to stick with their training for a few years, and don't get bored or frustrated because their instant gratification mentality and Attention Deficit Disorder that they developed thru playing too many video games doesn't allow them to develop the dedication to keep at it thru the tough times, then they just might get the proper experience they need to understand that their art is not superior to others. Different arts have certain strengths and weaknesses, but it boils down to the person, and how well they can utilize and adapt what they have trained to an unpredictable situation.

Statistics supporting these Superiority Theories are garbage, plain and simple, and I really don't give two poops about what the US military is using as a basis to teach H2H skills to soldiers. What is taught to a large number of soldiers has to be simple enough to be taught in a short period of time, to a bunch of people who run a very large range of intelligence and physical ability in learning such skills. Sure, it can be effective, but it is also very limited by the teaching requirements. An art that requires a longer period of time, a good deal of thought and sophisticated training, and is too detailed to be grasped by the average schmoe, often gives much better results in the long run. But the Military doesn't have the time to teach that kind of thing to the average soldier, and not every soldier will be able to grasp the intricacies of the art. So all I'm saying here is that basing your evaluation of an art on whether or not the Military teaches it to soldiers, is probably not the best thing to do. In fact, you just might end up with something that is watered down and simplified, altho reasonably effective at a low level. That's the best they can do, considering their circumstances.

That's all I gots to say.

 

[flashlock]

I doubt it. Classified? I take it you have never served in the military.



You just got finished saying you have no idea about the raw data, and in the next sentence you go on to try to speculate about what the accounts are from?!?!?!?! And FYI- the number of times that type of thing goes on is extremely low- too low really to state anything with a great statistical base.

Lets say I hit someone from behind with my fist and he is knocked out cold. So I can say that in 100 percent of fights I have been involved in there was no grappling, only striking. Mark Twain had a great saying that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

I inferred that from the book which contains some techniques influenced by said data; it just wasn't spelled out.

If you went up behind someone and punched them in the back of the head--you weren't in a fight, you're just an *******.

Kidding aside, statistics have more weight the more data you have, of course! I guess it was good enough for the US Military, I figured it was good enough for little ol' me. I wish I had more reports and things, I just don't. Personally, I don't really need those reports because I have common sense (I'm not implying people here don't, just that mine tells me fights tend to go to grappling).

 

[Senin]

It's a rhetorical mistake in debates--you attack your opponent for who he or she is, not their argument itself, as you should.

I agree, such as the senior grandmaster super moderator grand llama. Please stick to logical facts-- even if they aren't what you want.

 

[Don Roley]

I've got one comment to make, and then I'll just back away from this one.

Anybody who believes that a particular art is somehow, measureably, "Better" than other arts, is displaying his tremendous ignorance. This is the type of attitude often shown by insecure, know-nothing beginners who want to jump on the hype and believe that what they began doing a month ago is the "best". People at this stage actually don't deserve to have an opinion, because they have no knowledge or experience upon which to base an opinion. While nobody has the right or authority to actually shut them up, their opinion is truly worthless.

Good points. People try to rely on the art. "If I study XXX then I must be a bad ***," seems to be the thinking. They are insecure and know nothing and that insecurity is the source for them trying to make comparisons and tout their way of doing things while those that are far more experienced and far more secure about themselves just don't care to make comparisons.

Even worse are those that do not do well in an art because they rely on it and expect it to be the magic bullet instead of relying on themselves and their efforts. They then switch to another art in search for something to rely on and can't help but go back and trash their old art. I was just recently reminded of a guy who switched from TKD to BBJ and made trouble on another message board by going to the TKD section and telling them how their art sucked. All the folks from both BBJ and TKD wanted to stomp that guy.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Attention all users:

Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MT Moderator-

 

[Don Roley]

I inferred that from the book which contains some techniques influenced by said data; it just wasn't spelled out.

You really need to look at the data instead of infering a lot of times. For example, you pointed to the authors not being aware of a single instance of a fight not having grappling. From there, you concluded that an art that specializes in grappling would be a better choice. But is there any cases that the author is aware of that did not have striking as well? If there are no fights on record without striking (as I think we will find) then it seems that to ignore striking and going for an art that specializes in striking would be a recipe for getting your head handed to you.

In reality, many arts have both grappling and striking in them. A few arts tend to only have striking and I do not study them for that reason. I only know of the judo that is taught at my schools here in Japan for an art that only has grappling. Other judo groups still have the atemi methods as layed out by Kano.

But my point is about being careful about the sources and what you infer from them.

If you went up behind someone and punched them in the back of the head--you weren't in a fight, you're just an *******.

I think you will find that most street fights go more like my example of an ambush from behind than anything you see at the UFC. You need to consider these things when defining the problem. Some of us really do not care how well we would do against someone else in a UFC training. We only care about getting home alive and in one piece. Our training reflects this.

 

[Bigshadow]

I think you will find that most street fights go more like my example of an ambush from behind than anything you see at the UFC. You need to consider these things when defining the problem. Some of us really do not care how well we would do against someone else in a UFC training. We only care about getting home alive and in one piece. Our training reflects this.

Amen brother!

 

[evenflow1121]

If you went up behind someone and punched them in the back of the head--you weren't in a fight, you're just an *******.

Sure you were in a fight, you just struck him, the question is, is he getting back up, that is has his training prepared him for such a scenario, and if you ve been in a few real fights on the street you will realize that most of the people you will fight will try to ambush you and are for the most part dishonorable *******s that I can agree with.

 

[flashlock]

I've got one comment to make, and then I'll just back away from this one.

Anybody who believes that a particular art is somehow, measureably, "Better" than other arts, is displaying his tremendous ignorance. This is the type of attitude often shown by insecure, know-nothing beginners who want to jump on the hype and believe that what they began doing a month ago is the "best". People at this stage actually don't deserve to have an opinion, because they have no knowledge or experience upon which to base an opinion. While nobody has the right or authority to actually shut them up, their opinion is truly worthless.

If they actually manage to stick with their training for a few years, and don't get bored or frustrated because their instant gratification mentality and Attention Deficit Disorder that they developed thru playing too many video games doesn't allow them to develop the dedication to keep at it thru the tough times, then they just might get the proper experience they need to understand that their art is not superior to others. Different arts have certain strengths and weaknesses, but it boils down to the person, and how well they can utilize and adapt what they have trained to an unpredictable situation.

Statistics supporting these Superiority Theories are garbage, plain and simple, and I really don't give two poops about what the US military is using as a basis to teach H2H skills to soldiers. What is taught to a large number of soldiers has to be simple enough to be taught in a short period of time, to a bunch of people who run a very large range of intelligence and physical ability in learning such skills. Sure, it can be effective, but it is also very limited by the teaching requirements. An art that requires a longer period of time, a good deal of thought and sophisticated training, and is too detailed to be grasped by the average schmoe, often gives much better results in the long run. But the Military doesn't have the time to teach that kind of thing to the average soldier, and not every soldier will be able to grasp the intricacies of the art. So all I'm saying here is that basing your evaluation of an art on whether or not the Military teaches it to soldiers, is probably not the best thing to do. In fact, you just might end up with something that is watered down and simplified, altho reasonably effective at a low level. That's the best they can do, considering their circumstances.

That's all I gots to say.

Yes, name calling: the last refuge of the inarticulate and frustrated.

I'm not going to respond to your petty insults beyond that; people can read these posts and judge for themselves who the insecure ignoramous is.

 

[flashlock]

You really need to look at the data instead of infering a lot of times. For example, you pointed to the authors not being aware of a single instance of a fight not having grappling. From there, you concluded that an art that specializes in grappling would be a better choice. But is there any cases that the author is aware of that did not have striking as well? If there are no fights on record without striking (as I think we will find) then it seems that to ignore striking and going for an art that specializes in striking would be a recipe for getting your head handed to you.

In reality, many arts have both grappling and striking in them. A few arts tend to only have striking and I do not study them for that reason. I only know of the judo that is taught at my schools here in Japan for an art that only has grappling. Other judo groups still have the atemi methods as layed out by Kano.

But my point is about being careful about the sources and what you infer from them.



I think you will find that most street fights go more like my example of an ambush from behind than anything you see at the UFC. You need to consider these things when defining the problem. Some of us really do not care how well we would do against someone else in a UFC training. We only care about getting home alive and in one piece. Our training reflects this.

Thanks, Don. I'm actually going to email the author and ask him about this data--valid question, thanks!

It's funny how everyone else keeps bringing up UFC, as if I think that is a real street fight even though I specifically pointed out the difference early on. UFC's rules favor the grappler over the striker. Nowadays, this distinction is pretty silly, because all of those fighters now have both skills to varying degrees.

I stand by the book; they based their program on BJJ for a reason, and I am assuming the reports weighed heavily toward grappling.

I just want to finish up now that things have reached sort of a head (and degenerated into insults on some poster's part)-- that I loved ninjutsu, I have practiced it for years and had one opportunity to study it for a day with the first westerner awardered a 10th Dan, Mr. Doron Norvon. That was a great experience and I'll never forget it! (Any of you there? Lansing, MI 1992?)

I have been holding back on what I really think--because unlike my previous posts--it's really based on total opinion without a hint of documentation. I've seen the youtube videos, I've seen the UFC stuff, I've done 2 years of free style wrestling, and 3 little BJJ classes in my whole life--I've been in a few little street fights when I was a few years younger--and I've done a lot of sparring, aikido, and used to teach TKD--out of my little experience, I think the grappler's advantage is HUGE, way more than ninjutsu practioners want to admit. I love ninjutsu, but, for me, I found it ineffective vs well trained grapplers. I'm sure you'd all do better than me--and all you have to do is go down to a BJJ club, tell them you want to do an experiment (put on those 2 ounce gloves) and go at it with a white belt with 3 months experience. I've got one last thing to say for those of you who take up that challenge: good luck (you will need it)!

 

[Cryozombie]

I've been staying out of this mess... but I feel I would like to make an observation based on experience... (I know I know, experience doesnt mean anything just the data in a book)

I'd been working the door of a local club here up until a couple weeks ago... I participated in a good number of "altercations"...

Few of them had any more "grappling" than either them grabbing us as we tried to steer them out the door to stablize us for a punch, or me applying a lock. Most of them were punches being thrown... and none of us went to the ground. Most of the fights between the patrons were all strking... I saw ONE instance of a guy grabbing another dude in a bear hug, slamming him down to the ground, and then kicking at him.

So... yeah... I know fights DO go to the ground, but I'm gonna disagree with flashlocks comments that most fights include grappling, and no fight has striking alone...

 

[smacktap]

Brad,

Ninjutsu can't and does not train to win no rules sports fights. There is no relationship between the training methods of a Mixed Martial Artist and a one that follows the "traditional" ninjutsu styles.

Cheers.

 

[Senin]

Sorry to disagree with ya Flying Crane, but.....

I remember when the first UFC fights started- alot less rules (I remember one guy get groin punched repeatedly). And basically it was a test of one style against another-- they had boxers, kung fu guys, karate fighters, etc. And the Gracies came in and cleaned their clocks. Just like the Gracies have been doing over and over. They would go to martial arts schools and challenge their top fighters (few if any rules) and win. Is it the fighter? No, it's the style. Why do you think everyone is incorperating BJJ. How many times have I heard, yeah BJJ would be a great complliment to our art. That's because that particular art is lacking. Why do you start taking martial arts to begin with? Uhh, to learn to fight. "But it's the fighter that counts." No, you are learning effective skills. It would be ignorant to say the style is doesn't matter. Put that boxer back in the ring with BJJ'er again and see.

Actually I started this thread because I was a bit curious on how a ninjutsu fighter would fight a BJJ'er. Because on the surface it would appear that the BBJ'er would take him down and submit him. But I have respect for the Bujinkan. I figured an authority on Bujinkan would have a means, but what do I hear? You need to train more. That is like saying nothing. I felt the Ninjer would have a few "dirty tricks" for the BBJ'er (which I do not consider bad in a street fight). But then I am told, no those wouldn't work once he got a hold of you. So, it seems pretty evident. Once the BJJ'er gets a hold of you.......

I've got one comment to make, and then I'll just back away from this one.

Anybody who believes that a particular art is somehow, measureably, "Better" than other arts, is displaying his tremendous ignorance. This is the type of attitude often shown by insecure, know-nothing beginners who want to jump on the hype and believe that what they began doing a month ago is the "best". People at this stage actually don't deserve to have an opinion, because they have no knowledge or experience upon which to base an opinion. While nobody has the right or authority to actually shut them up, their opinion is truly worthless.

If they actually manage to stick with their training for a few years, and don't get bored or frustrated because their instant gratification mentality and Attention Deficit Disorder that they developed thru playing too many video games doesn't allow them to develop the dedication to keep at it thru the tough times, then they just might get the proper experience they need to understand that their art is not superior to others. Different arts have certain strengths and weaknesses, but it boils down to the person, and how well they can utilize and adapt what they have trained to an unpredictable situation.

Statistics supporting these Superiority Theories are garbage, plain and simple, and I really don't give two poops about what the US military is using as a basis to teach H2H skills to soldiers. What is taught to a large number of soldiers has to be simple enough to be taught in a short period of time, to a bunch of people who run a very large range of intelligence and physical ability in learning such skills. Sure, it can be effective, but it is also very limited by the teaching requirements. An art that requires a longer period of time, a good deal of thought and sophisticated training, and is too detailed to be grasped by the average schmoe, often gives much better results in the long run. But the Military doesn't have the time to teach that kind of thing to the average soldier, and not every soldier will be able to grasp the intricacies of the art. So all I'm saying here is that basing your evaluation of an art on whether or not the Military teaches it to soldiers, is probably not the best thing to do. In fact, you just might end up with something that is watered down and simplified, altho reasonably effective at a low level. That's the best they can do, considering their circumstances.

That's all I gots to say.