Right...
If this were the description of a school someone shared with you and asked you if you'd recommend it, what would you say? This is an actual description of a school posted on their site. I edited out the identifying information, as that's not the point.
Frankly, Steve, go to hell.
For those unaware, a number of years back, Steve decided that it was impossible to teach self defence, and that anyone claiming to do so was a "fraud"/"dishonest". He decided, for his own little reasons, to focus that on me, and, over the years, has continually had multiple passive attacks on myself, using my school and comments as some kind of example of what he considers evidence of his views (in that he presents my comments, or my school, without specifically naming it, as an example of "can you believe this?" in order to get people to agree with him, devoid of the actual context in each case). Here, he is doing it again with my school's website... something he could not have "stumbled across", and that he got directly from my signature.
This childish, pathetic behaviour is a major reason I don't post much these days. There is simply no discussing anything with him, and he derails any thread I am in (he joined in a discussion on Japanese sword work, with no experience, knowledge, or understanding, something he freely admitted, in order to argue against what was being said... a few days ago, he resurrected a thread on "Can You Be An Expert?" in order to demonstrate that he still didn't understand what was being said then... but in a way that he seems to feel shows that he was somehow right?). That said, as this is my school, and a number of questions have been raised, I am happy to answer any that anyone has on the blurb on my website. We'll start with a few comments already posted.
As far as giving a recommendation goes, it would depend on who is asking my opinion and what their goals are. If someone asked me if I would want to train with this place then these are the parts I'd talk about:
The parts in bold here are things I would see as being mild red flags. The first sentence would make me want some clarification about what they see as the difference between "sport" and "real world" situations. They might have a great answer for that or they might be selling a fantasy. It get's a bit more concerning with the next part, when I see someone talk about "military", "real world" and "ancient weapons" all in the same sentence it makes me wonder whether they're LARPing or not. I also find the verbiage of "build your confidence and put you in control" a little off putting based on past experience with other schools but it's hardly a deal breaker.
Again, the sentence in bold is another sour note for me. It may just be poor marketing and/or poor writing skills but it comes across as overblown and on top of that I have no interest in training with people who need to work on their self control.
Over all most martial artists can't put together a good website to save their lives and their copywriting skills aren't usually much better and they frequently can't pay professionals to do either of these things for them. I don't make recommendations strictly based on websites as a general rule. I do filter my own choices based on them, though I recognize that I probably filter out some perfectly good schools because of this. Without knowing more it wouldn't make the cut for my current list of the schools I intend try out as soon as I'm fully vaccinated, but as I said in another thread I've got more than 20 good looking schools within about 10-15 minutes of my house so that's a not a particularly low bar. I can't say much about this school without any further context and I would neither recommend nor discourage someone else from trying them out based on what little is here. I would recommend that they look out for signs of LARPing and not sign any contracts if they were to give them a try but I say that about most places.
So... first things first. I wrote a copy, and the guy in charge of the website then rewrote some of it to include a number of SEO-oriented terms and phrases... that said, I don't disavow anything written there, as I okayed it myself.
Next, some context and background for who I am, and what the school is.
The Jukuren Dojo is an independent school teaching the Takamatsuden martial arts... what is commonly referred to as "ninjutsu" (we don't use that term, as it's not overly accurate considering the scope of material covered), and best known through the larger "X-Kan's" (Bujinkan, being the oldest, the Genbukan, and the Jinenkan), but also through Steve Hayes' Toshindo, and a few other groups. We were the original Bujinkan schools in Australia, under Wayne Roy, the first Australian to study in Japan and bring the art back, opening schools here in the very early 80's. The Melbourne dojo opened in 1984.
In 2001, after a more tumultuous relationship for a number of years, Mr Roy decided to formally resign his schools from the Bujinkan, and continued to operate under the name Jyukutatsu Dojos. This continued, with myself being his representative in Melbourne from 2003 (when my teacher retired), until Mr Roy disbanded the organisation at the end of 2016. From the beginning of 2017, the Melbourne dojo has continued as an independent dojo under the name Jukuren Dojo. This was one of a number of options presented to us, including re-joining the Bujinkan, and the unanimous decision from all members was to remain independent. At this stage, I have been involved in studying and teaching these arts for around 3 decades.
Like all other X-Kan groups, the curriculum/syllabus of the school is made up of a number of classical traditions, covering a wide array of unarmed and weaponry skills (as well as weapon defence). In addition to this, Mr Roy had a great deal of focus and emphasis on modern application (self defence), and I would put his prescience up there with people like Geoff Thompson, Richard Dmitri, Deane Lawler, and others at the forefront of the RBSD movement... except we were already employing that approach before any except perhaps Geoff (by the mid-90's at the latest). As a result, each individual class is divided up into four primary sections, in addition to things like the warm-up, breakfalls and rolling skills, and so on that are ever present for a safe training experience.
These four sections are:
Fundamental Skills, covering the basic aspects of our unarmed methods; strikes, postures, throws, locks, chokes, escapes, etc)
Ryu-ha Study, teaching the tactical lessons from the classical schools that make up our syllabus
Weaponry Study, looking at classical weapons, such as staff, sword, naginata, and modern applications of weapons such as knives, improvised weapons, everyday carry objects, up to and including defensive methods against firearms
Modern Self Defence, looking at how the traditional movements need to adapt to a modern environment, focusing on HAOV (Habitual Acts of Violence, understanding common threats), pre- and post-fight realities, awareness of threat indicators, psychology (both yourself and the assailants), legal repercussions, verbal and physical de-escalation, and more. Like the Ryu-ha Study, this is a tactical approach in the main, as most of the mechanical lessons come from the Fundamental Skills section (with some adaptation, highlighted as needed).
Like almost all classical (and classical based) Japanese arts, there is no competitive side to the training at all. There is a form of free-form training (not what I would class as "sparring" in the common sense), both in our traditional and modern methods, however the basis of training is kata-geiko. Bear in mind, kata in Classical Japanese arts is not the same as systems like karate... to that end, there are a number of reasons we specifically comment that we do not engage in sport training... it's because we don't. And, for many people, that's what they expect when they look for a martial art, even to the point of thinking that without it, it's not a martial art (which, frankly, is very funny to those of us that train in the older systems... which are, bluntly, a lot more "martial art" than any of the modern ones).
A sporting context, versus a "real world" context, are notably different, in pretty much all ways you might choose to look at it. A sporting contest involves a known opponent, at a known time, in a known place, with a known set of parameters, a known (or expected) set of potential threats, techniques, and tactics that you will encounter, and so on. A "real world" situation has none of that surety. A sporting contest has an aim of "win", with a need to engage (in fact, being penalised for not being "aggressive" enough). In a real world encounter, that can get you hurt or killed... your priority is to get away safely, not to needlessly engage... in fact, that turns quickly from defence to assault, legally speaking, which is again something to be avoided. The sense of adrenaline is different, due to the very different time-line. The tactics used are different. The length of the encounter is different. The number of variables goes up exponentially for "real world", whereas, due to the smaller number of variables in a sport context, there can be a wider variety of expressions of the more limited skillsets, leading to a greater sophistication in technique... which is largely meaningless in reality, but a great boon in a competition against similarly trained competitors. Hopefully that explains why we don't have a "sporting" focus, whereas many modern arts do (Kendo, Judo, Karate, MMA, Kickboxing, and so on).
With regards to the comment about "some come with strength, but not control" (paraphrasing), that is actually in reference to a particular student, and what he has gained with me... his background included some "hard" kung fu systems, Judo, and a few others, and came in with a lot of physical strength and power, which he relied upon to the detriment of applying technique... he could simply "out muscle" most people... I highlighted the shortcomings there, demonstrated to him how it was a limited approach, and encouraged him to work more on his control... the strength is still there, if he needs it, but it had other students less worried about being injured with him, and he improved immensely in all aspects. So, if it sounds "overblown", okay... but it's also a pretty direct account of a current student.
Problem I see is that this kind of rhetoric specifically markets itself as being somehow MORE effective for self defense and also not hard. It's that kind of language that seems overtly dishonest to me.
And the problem there, Steve, is that, despite having it spoon-fed and explained to you ad nauseam for literally years, you still don't have the first clue what self defence means, how it differentiates from sporting methodologies, and what's required for it. It's not "dishonest", it's simply outside of your experience and understanding... and that, frankly, is down to your own stubbornness.
Sounds like they're trying to be all things for all people, covering all the bases. To actually do this effectively is next to impossible. To paraphrase: "Ancient armor AND real world situations? Military...hand to hand combat, swift and final AND safe...minimizing impact of physical training?" Reminds me of ads promising weight loss without exercising or dieting. I find this kind of ad an insult to my intelligence.
This school may teach some good things, but the wide net they cast turns me off. Experience has shown me that outfits that over promise usually under deliver. Can't see this ad attracting focused, serious-minded students.
From a marketing perspective, a single ad targeting a large demographic is ineffective for many product types. It would be smarter to have separate ads for different demographics -one ad for the touchy feely crowd and kids, another ad for the no-nonsense physical combat oriented crowd, and another for those seeking a traditional MA approach. Not saying this would make this school any better, just saying it would be smarter advertising.
I don't think we cater to everyone... people who want a sports system, for example, won't be happy with us. People who want a lot of sparring won't be staying long either... people who think that ground fighting is the be-all, end-all, same... we do some, but it's quite rudimentary, and geared around getting up and away more than actually fighting there... but hopefully a look at the above list of how a regular class is laid out should give some idea as to how much is actually covered each class (which runs around 2 and a half to 3 odd hours, depending on how chatty I get...).
The issue I have with your paraphrasing, though, is the seeming link of certain comments, where they're rather separate. Yes, some of our classical arts incorporate training in armour... especially the weaponry systems. And yes, we also deal with modern situations... in a different section of the class. Military? Occasionally touched upon, but I'm not military myself, and the only mention in the blurb linked is the comment that the classical arts studied were the military technologies (tools) of their day... not that they are modern military approaches or methods. And the "hand to hand combat, swift and final AND safe... minimising impact of physical training" section... yeah, you're conflating a range of sections there... Yes, we teach hand-to-hand (unarmed) combative methods, both in modern contexts, and in classical techniques, and in a number of the classical methods, they are designed to be "swift and final"... a number of throws are designed to end in a broken neck, for example... not so much in the modern context, as there are certain legal considerations... then it skips a bit before it talks about the safe training methods that "minimise the impact of physical training". By that, we mean that you won't (often) have to go into work the next day with a black eye... or broken fingers... consideration is given to the safety factor each time, whether in kata-geiko, or in free-form training, with safety equipment allowing for more "rough and ready" training at certain times.
Got to agree. Recommend it? Don't know, I'd have to jump in a class and see (I've always been put off by schools that tell me "you can watch a class", when I am wearing sweats and a T shirt) BUT I would be curious. There's nothing in that description that really turns me off. It sounds like typical sales play but nothing over the top. I'd check the place out.
We advise that potential students watch a class first to get a "feel" for the kind of things we cover... then that they try a class or two to see how they enjoy being a part of the group, before finally deciding to join officially. Most do that, although some want to just join in straight away, which is also okay. Of course, this comes from the way we do things in koryu... in which case, watching one class is considered light, ha!
The one thing very few places ever tell you is that it takes a lot of training and hard practice before what you have learnt in self defence can be utilised swiftly and instinctively when you need it.
This place like many others implies they can give you the tools to defend yourself quite quickly is 'directly'.
The military part always makes me smile, conjuring up spec forces creeping around bumping off the enemy when as a whole the military really doesn't use much hand to hand now but it does make clubs/schools sound tough.
Again, the only mention of "military" is in regards to the way the classical techniques were regarded in their day, Tez...
The first word that caught my attention is "independant." I'm sure I'll catch some flack for this, but I take "independant" to mean that what they teach is not recognized by anyone outside of the school, which I don't see as a good thing.
If these Japanese-sounding words are words that I've never heard before, I'd definitely Google them to find out what they are, and then judge the statement from there.
I'm sure I'll catch some flack for this too: if a particular martial art can't (or, more realistically, won't) be used in sport, it's probably because they're trying to hide something from public scrutiny.
See the above history for how we became an independent dojo, and if you have further questions, please ask them.
The "Japanese sounding words" are Budo Heiho (ę¦éå
µę³), pretty literally "martial art (budo) strategies (heiho)", with the full name of the dojo being Jukuren Dojo Budo Heiho, or the "Jukuren Dojo Study of Martial Strategies". This was chosen for a few reasons, one of which was to both acknowledge our heritage as Bujinkan (they refer to their arts as Budo Taijutsu) by having the term "budo" in, but also to differentiate us, as we are not a part of the Bujinkan, we do not claim to be teaching their Budo Taijutsu system.
Again, if you genuinely think that "not being used in sport" means there's something to hide, then you really only see a very small part of what martial arts actually entails... these are classical and traditional systems, and none of them have ever been sports. To become so would alter the arts to the point where they are no longer the same thing... and one of the points of doing an old art is to help preserve it... which is why our "modern self defence" section is, well, a different section. But again, as listed above, if that was treated as a sport, it would not really be something that should be described as "self defence" either.
They could be just a school that's not part of an association. That means they can solve that problem and create their own association. School of 1. That would be one of the questions I would ask the schools though. I would curious to know why they stress Independent.
See above.
I'd only accept that new association if they were previously part of an older existing one and had split off from it. Even then, I'd do some digging around to find the reason behind the split.
An association of one school, I'd never accept. The way I see it, an association would admit them as a member if they believed that what they were teaching was legit. On the flipside, if they start their own association, other schools would join if they believed in it.
We aren't an association, we're a dojo. We have no interest in either joining a large group, or having other groups join us.
Yeah, I noticed the same thing. To me, that comes across as "we don't spar", with a possible side of "because our super secret ninja moves are too deadly and we'd kill each other if we sparred".
But, it's also possible that they're trying to differentiate themselves from a competitor that's very tournament-orientated, and they just mean that they have a different focus. (Same with the "independent" thing that someone pointed out - it could mean anything from "I made this style up myself from watching action movies" to "we're a small locally-owned business, not a big franchise like those other guys down the road".)
As you say, and you're totally right about this:
I took some marketing and design classes in college, and it was still extremely helpful to get some professional help in this regard when my other half and I started a school (edit: actually, a few years after we started it lol....). The things that a martial artist of many years think make their school sound good are.... often not the actual things that new prospects want to know.
Ha, no, it's not that the techniques are "too deadly" (that idea is just... wrong), it's that the concept of sporting aims seeks to develop a set of tactics and approaches that are, at best tangential to the aims of self defence, and, commonly, directly opposed to it. As a result, we do not enter into anything we see as counter-productive to our aims... and, really, if someone wants a sporting system, no problem. I'm happy to recommend any of the BJJ, MMA, Judo, TKD, or other schools around me that I know.
If you're advertising a certain service or benefit, and you're not actually providing that, it will eventually catch up with you. If someone hears "our program will help you lose weight fast" and wants to sign up, and then they don't lose any weight, they won't continue. Now, most people don't get into fights very often, so they may not realize for a while that the self-defense training they signed up for.... isn't.
But if you can find a way to market the benefits that you're actually offering, you'll get loyal customers who love you.
I don't have "customers", I have students and training partners. Slightly different mentality.
That's true for most things, but martial arts has an advantage in this, for 2 reasons. The second one is what you wrote, but I just want to reiterate it/expand on it. Also, I'm using the general you below-I don't know you're school and am not suggesting this to your actual school.
1: The bread and bones of most schools is kids. You don't really need to keep kids for too long, as there's always new kids on the way. So you get the new batch of 4-5 year olds, they stick around for 3 years or so move on, and you get the next kids.
2: For both kids and adults, most people aren't testing their skills. With kids the type of fights that they're getting in, if they lose it's not blamed on MA since there are a lot of other things going on. For adults, the likelihood that you'll actually need to defend yourself is a lot lower than the fear of needing to/motivation to learn how to. So as long as it's not tested people believe they're receiving the benefits you offer, and you end up with those loyal customers that love you.
I also don't teach kids. The youngest I'll accept (excepting very unusual circumstances) would be 16... but I prefer if they're over 18, really. At 16 they're still going through the last years of High School, which is enough pressure as it is, so I prefer that to be behind them.
