The Effectiveness Of BBT.

Hey Mike,

Thanks! Glad I could help at least a bit with the article's wording there... I certainly think that the word acting didn't really give the right image.

Yeah, the pre- and post-fight are something that not enough martial art schools cover, but also missed are the other aspects, such as protecting others, anti carjacking and anti road rage driving skills, counter surveilance so you don't get targeted by criminals, and more. This is a small part of what we cover, by the way.

With sparring, yes, that is part of it. But the biggest thing is that it is simply teaching tactics and strategies that have no place in a self defence/protection situation. That includes training to stay and trade blows when you should be looking to create enough violence to escape and get away. Not an option in sparring, really.

But, no, just training the techniques as drills I don't feel is enough either. That is where the Japanese free form training I have described comes in, it has many of the benefits of sparring in that there is chaos, distancing, timing, angling, targeting on the fly, it can (and should!) be done with contact from both sides, if you don't move from the attack, you get hit! You are simply focused more on acting like a real situation (finish and move on, or avoid and escape) rather than stay and trade blows. Hope this makes a bit more sense. Oh, and this is sparring in a Japanese sense, randori that came before Judo randori. And that just confuses the matter, as the same word is used for both...

But to make one last thing clear, I should stress that my particular school is not Bujinkan, although that is where we started (as Australia's first schools) 3 decades ago. So my descriptions of my training should not be taken as examples of Bujinkan training, although I feel that, certainly in the better schools around, there will be a number of similarities. Thought I should link this back to the origin of the thread...

Great post! Thanks! :) So....seems like we're on the same page in regards to the sparring, and what you will/will not gain from it. I do have a question on the underlined part. Now, when you said doing the techniques as drills, am I correct in saying that you mean....uke throws a punch at tori. Tori does a technique, uke just stands there letting tori do his thing. He offers no resistance, does not react to anything?

Instead, to get more out of it, it should look like: Uke throws any random attack. Tori has no idea what he's being attacked with. This clip may say it better than I can say with words. :) Looks like committed attacks, good power, movement, etc.
 
This is an excellent example of why people say our art isn't about fighting, IMO. Its not. To me a fight is two combatants "duking it out" and while yes, we train that, its not what we train FOR. Great point Chris.

If I may...this is probably because most of, or should I say the majority of folks that are saying that, assume that they are one in the same, when in reality, they are not.

I was thinking about some of the points from JCA's post about things not working against someone who is reisisting a technique, and I think too, that one of the things that is emphasized in our training IS flow, so that if you begin a technique, and the opponent resists you can flow into something that uses that resistance to you advantage. Do schools train this, and do it often enough to make that effective? I don't know if its done in a majority of them or not, but I have seen schools that do, the one I train at included. We are forever exploring "but what happens when he locks down, tightens up, straighens out, muscles thru" etc...

IMHO, this is the ultimate goal that we want to get to. We should be able to shift on the fly, so to speak.
 
I just want to offer something as food for thought for everyone in their training.

Take it for what it is worth as it relates to this and all martial arts training.

Most fights I've seen involve two or more people swinging for the fences.

Most attacks I've seen invlove one or more people throwing punches as fast and as hard as they can.

Does this mean that all self defense situations will involve this?
No.

But it is the most common attack and the one to be handled first if you want to be able to successfully defend yourself today.

Again it is not the only thing you should train for, but the first thing I believe.

I say this because of much of the points and arguments that have been brought up here.

I think it's important to consider this in your training, it doesn't involve the attackers defending themselves in any way.

And looks almost nothing like sport fighting or martial arts.

I love both and I am not bashing either, I'm just offering something to think about.
 
Hey MJS,

The clip you posted, and your description of how you feel things should be done are what I am talking about with the Traditional Free Form training, which is our version of sparring. As you can see, it is random from both sides, and there are clear attackers and defenders (as in an assault). In the beginning of this, though, the trainees start with nominated attacks, then limited free attacks, then finally unnominated, including weapons and groups. But yes, this is exactly what I was describing. Very cool find.

As to training drills, that is more the "learning" stage, and is the way any school teaches a technique. Here you go through the movement as shown by the instructor, and repeat to drill the action. But it is not exactly as you described here: "am I correct in saying that you mean....uke throws a punch at tori. Tori does a technique, uke just stands there letting tori do his thing. He offers no resistance, does not react to anything?"

That, I must say, seems closer to things that I have seen in (predominantly) karate and karate-related systems. In these demonstrations and drills, the attacker moves in with their attack (say, a stepping reverse punch), and the defender evades or blocks, then counters with a variety of strikes and kicks. The attacker stands in exactly the same place, immobile and unaffected by the barrage. This is very good training to develop control, distancing and targeting, but I'm sure most here will point out the obvious flaws in this method. In short, it teaches an unrealistic body shape as a result of your actions, and teaches the unconscious to not believe that the techniques work. So it's use should be limited.

In our schools, on the other hand, we utilise something we refer to as "play-acting". In this concept, the attacker comes in with their attack, and the defender responds with the technique. But each action results in a shift in the attackers body shape, a kick to the knee turns them, and limits their mobility, opening up the head as the arms are brought down, or the kidneys as they turn, and so on. So the students are taught to respond and react realistically to the techniques being applied... and are "gently" reminded what the effects would be if they are not responding realistically. By that I mean that if I hit someone in the throat (gently, with control), and they offer no responce (they don't seem affected by the strike), I let them know the effects of such a strike. Then, if they don't respond again, I let them feel the effects of the strike. That's usually enough.

But that is our standard way of repeatedly drilling our techniques, and resistance is definately there. It is just tempered by the experience level of the students themselves, the newer students have little to no resistance to begin with (to get used to the movements), then a little more added as they become mre confident with the actions. As the experience grows, the students are challenged to offer resistance, but still with the play-acting concept (in other words, the attack will not stop unless the defence is deemed strong or effective enough to work. They are not simply allowed to have the technique work because "that's what it says in the scrolls". But when the defence is effective, the resistance is lowered as appropriate).

The next step is to train the technique failing. In this stage, the technique is done as normal, but the attacker can thwart your efforts (hmm, cool word, not used enough these days...), and the student is shown ways of handling the new circumstances. Eventually, it becomes the free form randori we discussed earlier.

I must say, though, that this is not related to rank, it is a range that a single technique may be trained in in a single session, so every student gets each of these levels. The level of intensity gets raised with rank, though.
 
This thread has actually moved from interesting to everything a thread shouldn't be and now back to interesting. I don't have much to add to this discussion but would like to express my most sincere gratitude to the people that contributed to this discussion in a constructive and meaningful way. I think we finally mananged to phrase the way most of us feel ninpo ought to be trained and experienced, and how all the things that might seem odd to the competitive arts (like play-acting) actually fit in with the learning process. There's a lot here to draw from should somebody ask a similar question in the future.

so here it goes: thanks alot guys!
 
My experience (and I am not experienced),
It was my friend back in 1990 that got me my first lesson in Ninjutsu and the instructor and the training was very physical, very hands on and it was so close to the sparring I experienced in EPAK and WHKD it was very practical, it was effective.

Then I took a break of about a decade and when I came back it wasn't ninjutsu anymore, it was BBT, and we had to sing kuum-bi-ya and hug trees whenever possible while learning 900 year old sword techniques in order to learn how to defend yourself when you are not leaping around or rolling on the floor..... it was strange and not very effective in my personal experience (kidding abou the kuum bi ya part; mostly).

I was once told that BBT was the new name because there was too much bad ju-ju from the whole ninja mythos attached to it, the ninjutsu name. But somewhere in that decade the art changed. It wasn't bad it wasn't good it was just a change put out by the man, the head man. He is Soke and he controls his organization. I think some of the flak comes from this change, for those who liked the way it was, for those who dont know enough either way and for those who want to be a great and feared "ninja" in a "clan of shadow warriors."

The other two arts, Genbukan and Jinenkan are too new for the newbies while Genbukan seems more old school, if militaristic. I cannot comment on Jinenkan.
 
Ok edited the original (somewhat jesting) post to avoid possible miscommunication that could lead to people feeling wronged or anything like that. Basicly, in a more serious tone my point boiled down to the fact that people such as Tanemura sensei and Manaka sensei left Bujinkan with the idea to continue the more traditional line (well, that is to say: I can't really assess jinenkan since i'm not in that organisation.) Still, living styles such as Bujinkan taijutsu and genbukan (with living charismatic leaders) are not static but dynamic, they evolve while the grandmaster gains new insights in both the material as in the way to instruct them, manage a huge organisation and generally do what they do as a soke. Bujinkan has changed, sure. So has genbukan, the same will probably be true to jinenkan, and if it isn't yet, it will probably happen later. Look how people like Chosun miyagi and Gishin funakoshi reformed karate, and while they were active they changed kata, even added new kata of their own.

It happens I suppose it's the prerogative of a soke to do with his school as he sees fit.

peace
 
Last edited:
It happens I suppose it's the prerogative of a soke to do with his school as he sees fit.

Absolutely. What many people fail to realise is that the idea of only teaching exactly as the previous generation did is kind of incorrect in and of itself. Each generation head passes on the school to the individual they believe is the best to keep the art going, and they are free to do as they wish or see fit to do just that. Tanemura Sensei's feeling on what the best method to pass the teachings on are is simply different to Hatsumi Sensei's take on what the best method is (at this point in time... who knows what the future may bring?).

But each generation would change or alter the art they are transmitting in the way they chose. Takagi Yoshin Ryu, for instance, although very well known for their skills in Jujutsu and Jutaijutsu (depending on lineage), wsa originally founded based on the knowledge of a number of weapon schools, particularly Sojutsu systems. It wasn't until the second Soke has a number of encounters with the Takenouchi Ryu that Jujutsu was even included, and later became a focus after the 4th head came in to contact with the 3rd head of Hontai Kukishin Ryu.

There are similar details for most older systems, Kashima Shinryu has had their Jujutsu syllabus altered for each of the last three generations, and most likely in many previous ones as well. In terms of BBT, Hatsumi Sensei feels that the best way to preserve the teachings is by almost completely ignoring the subtleties and individualities of the particular systems, in lieu the focus is on the principles gleaned from each of the disparate sources. That approach will work for some, less for others, but is the way that Hatsumi has decided to go.

This is, I must say though, beside the point of whether or not it is effective, just on why it is the way it is. Any of these approaches could be effective or ineffective depending on how it is trained. And that is the instructor, and their understanding of what makes effective training.
 
Back
Top