But the FAQ said nuthin about the difference in technique or anything. It just said who the current soketachi or is it "ra" were. I ask those questions because im trying to pick which one i want to study. It doesn't seem to be any addition to technique or is anyone saying anything about that, but of course, noone asks. It seems that you guys are sick of my questions. Thats all I've got are questions.
traditional/Neo
- Thread starter ninhito
- Start date
- Status
You can hit any bookstore and find some books by both Hatsumi and Hayes.
The Ashida Kim stuff is pretty much regarded as junk and bunk by those who have studied the arts.
From what I've seen on video of both Hayes and Hatsumi, they know their stuff.
Some folks don't care for Hayes 'Quest' stuff claiming it's watered down.
The only way you're going to get the indepth info is to actually walk into the school and watch a few classes. Call first and ask if you can. If they say no, then I'd call somewhere else.
Check our "Newbies" FAQ in the Library for more info on 'New student' stuff.
When dealing with the different arts, you will often find the same or very similar technique called by a bazillion different terms and names.
"Trapping hands", "Hubad", "Block-Check-Counter", Etc. all refer to the same basic drill. Just 3 different arts. I've no clue what it is in Japanese, but I can do it in my sleep.
Bester basically did answer your question. Unless one studies all the varients, the only way to find out is to check the roots.
The Ashida Kim stuff is pretty much regarded as junk and bunk by those who have studied the arts.
From what I've seen on video of both Hayes and Hatsumi, they know their stuff.
Some folks don't care for Hayes 'Quest' stuff claiming it's watered down.
The only way you're going to get the indepth info is to actually walk into the school and watch a few classes. Call first and ask if you can. If they say no, then I'd call somewhere else.
Check our "Newbies" FAQ in the Library for more info on 'New student' stuff.
When dealing with the different arts, you will often find the same or very similar technique called by a bazillion different terms and names.
"Trapping hands", "Hubad", "Block-Check-Counter", Etc. all refer to the same basic drill. Just 3 different arts. I've no clue what it is in Japanese, but I can do it in my sleep.
Bester basically did answer your question. Unless one studies all the varients, the only way to find out is to check the roots.
How about this, Ninhito...ninhito said:
What specifically are you looking for in an art, maybe we can direct you twords the school that will best fit your needs.
Shizen Shigoku
Purple Belt
Don Roley: "Not to mention that when Hatsumi says "Hicho" everyone (in the Bujinkan) knows what he is talking about, but the term "flyig bird" would only go over with the English speakers."
Technopunk: "
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronLucia
'Well, if youv'e ever seen Karate Kid you might know what 'Flying Bird' is.'
Ah... Daniel-san...
How you say... WRONG TECHNIQUE."
Yes, & BTW, Daniel-san learned "Crane Technique" not "Flying Bird."
Originally didn't want to touch on this - originally intended just to bust Aaron's balls a little, but I wanted to comment on this:
Don Roley: "And there are concepts such as kuzushi that I do not see in many "neo" arts. ... If you try to do one way of striking without taking the whole art and it's approach towards combat, you end up with something like Frankenstien's monster."
I've seen an example of this phenomenon. There is a so-called "neo-ninja" style (not going to name any names at the moment so I don't stir up any trouble), of which I saw a demonstration, and while they called their combat system "ninjutsu" or "ninjitsu" or claimed that ninja arts are the basis for their art, what I saw demonstrated looked like nothing more than a mix of taekwondo and aikido, along with a little (questionable-looking) weapons skills.
Just to qualify, I have trained in both taekwondo and aikido, and can recognize when one style or the other is used with an absence of internalization or synthesis of both grappling and striking as found in well-rounded jujutsu styles, e.g. Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.
Technopunk: "
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronLucia
'Well, if youv'e ever seen Karate Kid you might know what 'Flying Bird' is.
'Ah... Daniel-san...
How you say... WRONG TECHNIQUE."
Yes, & BTW, Daniel-san learned "Crane Technique" not "Flying Bird."
Originally didn't want to touch on this - originally intended just to bust Aaron's balls a little, but I wanted to comment on this:
Don Roley: "And there are concepts such as kuzushi that I do not see in many "neo" arts. ... If you try to do one way of striking without taking the whole art and it's approach towards combat, you end up with something like Frankenstien's monster."
I've seen an example of this phenomenon. There is a so-called "neo-ninja" style (not going to name any names at the moment so I don't stir up any trouble), of which I saw a demonstration, and while they called their combat system "ninjutsu" or "ninjitsu" or claimed that ninja arts are the basis for their art, what I saw demonstrated looked like nothing more than a mix of taekwondo and aikido, along with a little (questionable-looking) weapons skills.
Just to qualify, I have trained in both taekwondo and aikido, and can recognize when one style or the other is used with an absence of internalization or synthesis of both grappling and striking as found in well-rounded jujutsu styles, e.g. Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.
Questions are good. At the minimum, they will initiate discussion. My thought is that in the neo schools, the reference to Ninjitsu or Ninjutsu is in effect, a moniker. Some neo schools may be more of a mixed martial art school that may have less than 25-30% of the curriculum defined as or taken from Ninjitsu. The rest being a montage of other martial arts. They kind of strip another style of what is usefull and throw out the rest. So you'll have a school with Ninjitsu in its name, but in actuality, you'll see Philipine knife fighting, Jujitsu, Kali and some Escrima, kung fu - Po, karate, Ground fighting, Ninjutsu, Special Forces techniques, Guns, Thai Kickboxing, Sulsa and TKD to name of few. They take what they consider usefull and update the techniques etc for today's human development and disgard the rest. You can imagine the problems you might have trying to call all these facets of different arts by the language of the Country of origin. So, they will usually stick to english translations. If Joe Public comes out with a new style, the neo will look at it; see if there is something that will update what already exist and include it in their school. This may be something as simple as a thought. The rest, they discard as the disgard usually will not fit the school's founding philosophy.ninhito said:
Wait so they basicly make what they call ninjutsu bunch of stuff taken from somebody else great just great. I want the original ninjutsu. The one where they tested you when you were like 15 in a whole bunch of survival techniques that were extrememly useful in japan. O and i see why ninjutsu has no MA type fighting events because ninjutsu is a death blow type thing and isnt for a long battle unless the practitioner does something wrong. Its the little things that count.
Okay this is what im lookin for. A quick-acting-use-what-you-need-to-get-the-job-done that has flow where you can use another punch and/or kick right after that and that fight is history. Dont need anything really big or flashy just extremely effective. O has sparring but i could handle that part heh heh heh (in an evil vioce).
Shizen Shigoku
Purple Belt
Oh well, I guess I'll try to help out a little.
ninhito: "But the FAQ said nuthin about the difference in technique or anything. ... I ask those questions because im trying to pick which one i want to study. It doesn't seem to be any addition to technique or is anyone saying anything about that, but of course, noone asks. It seems that you guys are sick of my questions. Thats all I've got are questions."
I think it would be difficult for a FAQ to compare technical differences between styles. I think they just provide a minimum of information to stimulate further research. For example, one day you hear about ninjutsu, "oh that sounds cool, what's that like?" - so you do some research, "huh, seems there's a couple different schools that teach ninjutsu, what's this one... Bu-jin-kan? Hmm, according to this handy-dandy FAQ, it's an organization headed by one Hatsumi Masaaki, that teaches ninjutsu and a whole lot more. Interesting." - so you use that to do a few internet searches on such things as 'Bujinkan,' 'Hatsumi,' 'Ninjutsu' vs. 'Ninjitsu,' etc.
From there, you'll be able to contact members of whatever organization/school you are researching and ask them about specifics such as what techniques are like, what are the philosophies and training methods, etc.
And don't think that we are sick of your questions because of the way we respond. I think the trouble is that the questions aren't specific enough.
Plus, in the case of discussing technical aspects of ninjutsu, well . . . ninja's are a pretty secretive bunch, and don't like sharing too much specific information like that, so you'll likely hear a lot of vagaries, and misinformation, and other confusing things that will frustrate the snot out of you. I've been studying ninjutsu formally for six years, and through solo research for several years before that, and I still don't know what the heck any of it is about.
sojobow: "... My thought is that in the neo schools, the reference to Ninjitsu or Ninjutsu is in effect, a moniker. Some neo schools may be more of a mixed martial art school that may have less than 25-30% of the curriculum defined as or taken from Ninjitsu. The rest being a montage of other martial arts...
So you'll have a school with Ninjitsu in its name, but in actuality, you'll see Philipine knife fighting, Jujitsu, ... "
...You can imagine the problems you might have trying to call all these facets of different arts by the language of the Country of origin. So, they will usually stick to english translations. ...
They kind of strip another style of what is usefull and throw out the rest...
They take what they consider usefull and update the techniques etc for today's human development and disgard the rest..."
Ya' know, I think that whole post was the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say. You hit the nail right on the head, but not very hard. Allow me to hammer it in just a little further:
These "neo-ninja" schools and mixed martial arts styles that call what they do ninjutsu, or many times ninjitsu (which, if using the same convention of romanized Japanese, means something different. And what it means, btw, is pretty ironic), are doing so because they like to consider what they do to be in the "spirit" of ninjutsu, or are emulating/simulating what they believe ninjutsu to be.
Now, if they are honest and up-front, and explain that reasoning, then most people will kinda let it slide even though it is misleading, and in many cases, fraudulent. I'm one to let it slide for the most part even though it annoys me to some degree. I leave all the fraud-busting stuff to our good friend, Don Roley.
According to your reasoning (the problem of confusion by calling all these different facets of diverse arts by their original culturally-derived names), wouldn't it be less confusing to call a style that is not Japanese in origin by a name other than ninjutsu? If they are already admitting to be a mixed martial arts style and are renaming all the techniques taken from many different arts into English words, then why use the non-English word "ninjutsu?" Wouldn't it be clear and precise to just call it "mixed martial arts?" Then you could even go so far as to say that ninjutsu is one of the many arts borrowed from (as long as that is truly the case - that it was actually ninjutsu and not another neo-ninja style that was studied in-depth before chopping it up into the mixed martial arts salad).
In the case of the Bujinkan, for example. We call our style, "Budou Taijutsu" - which is a very general (and frankly, generic) term. It's sort of like a Japanese way of saying "mixed martial arts." And that's what the Bujinkan style is. It is a mix of at least nine complete martial arts systems. I think we can get away with calling what we do, "ninjutsu" because we do in fact learn real (i.e. authentic/traditional) ninjutsu.
As for other systems 'taking a little of this and a little of that' and throwing out the rest . . . when that happens, I worry that some of what is thrown out or discarded/disregarded (or to use your hybrid word, "disgarded"), is not necessarily useless, but rather not fully understood. Complete martial arts systems work because everything fits together. When you take pieces out and leave behind other pieces, and then try to make them fit with pieces from other styles, well ... there can be cracks, and ill-fitting corners when trying to force circles to fit with squares.
It's like the example I cited earlier of the so-called 'ninjitsu' style that looked to me to be nothing more than taekwondo mixed with aikido. It was glaringly apparent that there were two different shaped things trying to snuggle up close to eachother. There were gaps in the flow as the practicioner had to shift gears to switch between techniques of the different styles.
Again, to make a comparison to the Bujinkan, this problem doesn't really exist, as nothing is really thrown out to mix it all together, and the constituent parts themselves are complete martial arts to begin with that already have a smooth combination of grappling and striking and weapons use.
ninhito: "Wait so they basicly make what they call ninjutsu bunch of stuff taken from somebody else great just great. I want the original ninjutsu."
When you know the whole story, it makes it easier to make a decision. I agree with you. I would rather have the original, so that's what I chose. Others prefer neo-hybrid-mixed styles that just happen to be called ninjutsu when they really aren't. That's cool too. To each his own.
"The one where they tested you when you were like 15 in a whole bunch of survival techniques that were extrememly useful in japan. O and i see why ninjutsu has no MA type fighting events because ninjutsu is a death blow type thing and isnt for a long battle unless the practitioner does something wrong..."
I don't know about all that, but you're on the right track. The original ninjutsu was for survival, and for carrying out specialized tasks. It was not (and is not) meant for fighting. Like you said, if battle is engaged, that means something went wrong. And it's not just that ninjutsu has deadly and devastating techniques and all sorts of ways to do horrible things to another human being that makes it unsuitable for fighting in a contest, but also the philosophy that ninjutsu is not meant for fighting, but for enduring in times of adversity, for being discreet and often anonymous in one's actions, for allowing events to unfold as they should and to sometimes nudge things along in the right direction from time to time.
If a fight does break out, the ninja is more likely to run away, but just in case - in the unfortunate event that a ninja failed to live a peaceful life and failed to remain "in the shadows" and physical conflict is unavoidable - then woe be to any who must face the ninja's combat skills.
ninhito: "Okay this is what im lookin for. A quick-acting-use-what-you-need-to-get-the-job-done that has flow where you can use another punch and/or kick right after that and that fight is history. Dont need anything really big or flashy just extremely effective. O has sparring ..."
What you described could be nearly any martial art that has practical self-defense as its primary goal. Ninjutsu can be fast-acting, or it can be slow depending on what is necessary. It definitely relies on flow for effectiveness (in and out of fights). It certainly isn't big nor flashy, but rather quite subtle and part of ninjutsu invisibility is that techniques are often felt before they are seen (if seen at all).
Since fighting is not the goal, the occasional fight is over quickly, either because it was avoided, evaded, or the assailant has been incapacitated without any fuss. And, since fighting is not the goal, sparring is rare in ninjutsu practice. It just doesn't teach the principles and conditions of an actual self-defense situation. Granted, it is useful for the occasional testing of techniques under pressure (where one has to respond spontaneously, and adjust techniques to fit the ever-changing chaotic situation); however, sparring simulates a fight - which you should understand by now is not what ninjutsu is about, and is not the same as self-defense.
In a fight or in sparring, both participants have agreed to fight, and each has the motivation to win. In a real combat/self-defense situation, one person (or more likely several persons, with unknown motivations, and with unknown weapons and tactics) criminally assails on another person who is a victim whose motivation is not to fight, but rather to survive. He may lose the fight (runs away / gets beat up / etc.) but wins because he survived. The attackers may or may not feel like they won or lost depending on their goals.
So you see, while sparring can help in practicing physical skills that may be useful for self-defense, the whole flavor of the encounter and the mindset of the participants just doesn't match up with reality.
I know I've rambled on long enough (I have way too much free time), but I thought of another perspective on traditional/classical/original vs. modern/"neo"/hybrid arts while I was talking about the "chopped-up pieces in a salad" type of MA style.
Consider this: ninjutsu/budo-taijutsu, as taught in the Bujinkan, has been handed down nearly fully intact for centuries and was built upon real battle-tested techniques and has adapted and evolved over the ages according to changes in real combat conditions.
Now take something like a neo-ninja style that is mostly a mix of taekwondo and aikido (to continue with my previous example). First off, the two were created in different countries. Second, they were created within the last hundred years. Both were based on real combat styles from the past, and both originally had self-defense as their primary goal, but each have evolved along different paths.
Taekwondo practice has been heavily influenced by sport competitions, and aikido was largely created as a means to spiritual development. Now think of all the watering down of combat technique that occured as bujutsu/taijutsu as used by samurai and ninja evolved into jujutsu, and during times of peace, jujutsu was practiced by civilians and out of work samurai as partly self-defense and partly physical and spiritual exercise.
Adapting to peaceful times, the old arts evolved into stylized sport forms such as karate and judo. Instead of remaining complete systems, they specialized in one area of combat. Jujutsu branched into aikijujutsu and the sport form judo. Aikijujutsu was further watered down and specialized into aikijutsu, and then further into the more spiritual art form of aikido.
So now we have all this watering down, over-specialization, multiple degrees of separation from the source arts, and then the mixing of these styles into hybrids that necessarily includes "throwing out" that which is not understood or seen as useful. Granted, they tend to be very adamant about staying current, and adapting the style to fit the times and places in which it will be used (e.g. American self-defense arts that include a lot of defenses against handgun and knife attacks), but still it is easy to see how holes and deficiencies and inadequacies can develop in such arts.
That is all fine and good, but when you realize that the old arts that make up the Bujinkan (including ninjutsu) have also evolved and adapted to fit modern times, then it just seems a lot simpler to stick with the original, time-tested version than to have faith in a new hybrid style that may or may not be based on the arts that they claim to be, might be making fruadulent claims, and possibly was designed by someone very young with (comparitively) very little experience in all the various martial arts that they are attempting to mix together.
Of course, it all depends on your goals. If you want to win a MMA event like the UFC, e.g. then it would of course be prudent to train in a mixed martial arts style that specializes in UFC-like competition fighting. There is plenty of evidence that ninjutsu practicioners don't do well in those events. In fact, the evidence isn't all that good (not statistically viable), because I don't think more than a couple ninjutsuka ever competed in one of those contests.
Whew, that gets a lot off my chest. Thanks for putting up with my verbose writing style.
ninhito: "But the FAQ said nuthin about the difference in technique or anything. ... I ask those questions because im trying to pick which one i want to study. It doesn't seem to be any addition to technique or is anyone saying anything about that, but of course, noone asks. It seems that you guys are sick of my questions. Thats all I've got are questions."
I think it would be difficult for a FAQ to compare technical differences between styles. I think they just provide a minimum of information to stimulate further research. For example, one day you hear about ninjutsu, "oh that sounds cool, what's that like?" - so you do some research, "huh, seems there's a couple different schools that teach ninjutsu, what's this one... Bu-jin-kan? Hmm, according to this handy-dandy FAQ, it's an organization headed by one Hatsumi Masaaki, that teaches ninjutsu and a whole lot more. Interesting." - so you use that to do a few internet searches on such things as 'Bujinkan,' 'Hatsumi,' 'Ninjutsu' vs. 'Ninjitsu,' etc.
From there, you'll be able to contact members of whatever organization/school you are researching and ask them about specifics such as what techniques are like, what are the philosophies and training methods, etc.
And don't think that we are sick of your questions because of the way we respond. I think the trouble is that the questions aren't specific enough.
Plus, in the case of discussing technical aspects of ninjutsu, well . . . ninja's are a pretty secretive bunch, and don't like sharing too much specific information like that, so you'll likely hear a lot of vagaries, and misinformation, and other confusing things that will frustrate the snot out of you. I've been studying ninjutsu formally for six years, and through solo research for several years before that, and I still don't know what the heck any of it is about.
sojobow: "... My thought is that in the neo schools, the reference to Ninjitsu or Ninjutsu is in effect, a moniker. Some neo schools may be more of a mixed martial art school that may have less than 25-30% of the curriculum defined as or taken from Ninjitsu. The rest being a montage of other martial arts...
So you'll have a school with Ninjitsu in its name, but in actuality, you'll see Philipine knife fighting, Jujitsu, ... "
...You can imagine the problems you might have trying to call all these facets of different arts by the language of the Country of origin. So, they will usually stick to english translations. ...
They kind of strip another style of what is usefull and throw out the rest...
They take what they consider usefull and update the techniques etc for today's human development and disgard the rest..."
Ya' know, I think that whole post was the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say. You hit the nail right on the head, but not very hard. Allow me to hammer it in just a little further:
These "neo-ninja" schools and mixed martial arts styles that call what they do ninjutsu, or many times ninjitsu (which, if using the same convention of romanized Japanese, means something different. And what it means, btw, is pretty ironic), are doing so because they like to consider what they do to be in the "spirit" of ninjutsu, or are emulating/simulating what they believe ninjutsu to be.
Now, if they are honest and up-front, and explain that reasoning, then most people will kinda let it slide even though it is misleading, and in many cases, fraudulent. I'm one to let it slide for the most part even though it annoys me to some degree. I leave all the fraud-busting stuff to our good friend, Don Roley.
According to your reasoning (the problem of confusion by calling all these different facets of diverse arts by their original culturally-derived names), wouldn't it be less confusing to call a style that is not Japanese in origin by a name other than ninjutsu? If they are already admitting to be a mixed martial arts style and are renaming all the techniques taken from many different arts into English words, then why use the non-English word "ninjutsu?" Wouldn't it be clear and precise to just call it "mixed martial arts?" Then you could even go so far as to say that ninjutsu is one of the many arts borrowed from (as long as that is truly the case - that it was actually ninjutsu and not another neo-ninja style that was studied in-depth before chopping it up into the mixed martial arts salad).
In the case of the Bujinkan, for example. We call our style, "Budou Taijutsu" - which is a very general (and frankly, generic) term. It's sort of like a Japanese way of saying "mixed martial arts." And that's what the Bujinkan style is. It is a mix of at least nine complete martial arts systems. I think we can get away with calling what we do, "ninjutsu" because we do in fact learn real (i.e. authentic/traditional) ninjutsu.
As for other systems 'taking a little of this and a little of that' and throwing out the rest . . . when that happens, I worry that some of what is thrown out or discarded/disregarded (or to use your hybrid word, "disgarded"), is not necessarily useless, but rather not fully understood. Complete martial arts systems work because everything fits together. When you take pieces out and leave behind other pieces, and then try to make them fit with pieces from other styles, well ... there can be cracks, and ill-fitting corners when trying to force circles to fit with squares.
It's like the example I cited earlier of the so-called 'ninjitsu' style that looked to me to be nothing more than taekwondo mixed with aikido. It was glaringly apparent that there were two different shaped things trying to snuggle up close to eachother. There were gaps in the flow as the practicioner had to shift gears to switch between techniques of the different styles.
Again, to make a comparison to the Bujinkan, this problem doesn't really exist, as nothing is really thrown out to mix it all together, and the constituent parts themselves are complete martial arts to begin with that already have a smooth combination of grappling and striking and weapons use.
ninhito: "Wait so they basicly make what they call ninjutsu bunch of stuff taken from somebody else great just great. I want the original ninjutsu."
When you know the whole story, it makes it easier to make a decision. I agree with you. I would rather have the original, so that's what I chose. Others prefer neo-hybrid-mixed styles that just happen to be called ninjutsu when they really aren't. That's cool too. To each his own.
"The one where they tested you when you were like 15 in a whole bunch of survival techniques that were extrememly useful in japan. O and i see why ninjutsu has no MA type fighting events because ninjutsu is a death blow type thing and isnt for a long battle unless the practitioner does something wrong..."
I don't know about all that, but you're on the right track. The original ninjutsu was for survival, and for carrying out specialized tasks. It was not (and is not) meant for fighting. Like you said, if battle is engaged, that means something went wrong. And it's not just that ninjutsu has deadly and devastating techniques and all sorts of ways to do horrible things to another human being that makes it unsuitable for fighting in a contest, but also the philosophy that ninjutsu is not meant for fighting, but for enduring in times of adversity, for being discreet and often anonymous in one's actions, for allowing events to unfold as they should and to sometimes nudge things along in the right direction from time to time.
If a fight does break out, the ninja is more likely to run away, but just in case - in the unfortunate event that a ninja failed to live a peaceful life and failed to remain "in the shadows" and physical conflict is unavoidable - then woe be to any who must face the ninja's combat skills.
ninhito: "Okay this is what im lookin for. A quick-acting-use-what-you-need-to-get-the-job-done that has flow where you can use another punch and/or kick right after that and that fight is history. Dont need anything really big or flashy just extremely effective. O has sparring ..."
What you described could be nearly any martial art that has practical self-defense as its primary goal. Ninjutsu can be fast-acting, or it can be slow depending on what is necessary. It definitely relies on flow for effectiveness (in and out of fights). It certainly isn't big nor flashy, but rather quite subtle and part of ninjutsu invisibility is that techniques are often felt before they are seen (if seen at all).
Since fighting is not the goal, the occasional fight is over quickly, either because it was avoided, evaded, or the assailant has been incapacitated without any fuss. And, since fighting is not the goal, sparring is rare in ninjutsu practice. It just doesn't teach the principles and conditions of an actual self-defense situation. Granted, it is useful for the occasional testing of techniques under pressure (where one has to respond spontaneously, and adjust techniques to fit the ever-changing chaotic situation); however, sparring simulates a fight - which you should understand by now is not what ninjutsu is about, and is not the same as self-defense.
In a fight or in sparring, both participants have agreed to fight, and each has the motivation to win. In a real combat/self-defense situation, one person (or more likely several persons, with unknown motivations, and with unknown weapons and tactics) criminally assails on another person who is a victim whose motivation is not to fight, but rather to survive. He may lose the fight (runs away / gets beat up / etc.) but wins because he survived. The attackers may or may not feel like they won or lost depending on their goals.
So you see, while sparring can help in practicing physical skills that may be useful for self-defense, the whole flavor of the encounter and the mindset of the participants just doesn't match up with reality.
I know I've rambled on long enough (I have way too much free time), but I thought of another perspective on traditional/classical/original vs. modern/"neo"/hybrid arts while I was talking about the "chopped-up pieces in a salad" type of MA style.
Consider this: ninjutsu/budo-taijutsu, as taught in the Bujinkan, has been handed down nearly fully intact for centuries and was built upon real battle-tested techniques and has adapted and evolved over the ages according to changes in real combat conditions.
Now take something like a neo-ninja style that is mostly a mix of taekwondo and aikido (to continue with my previous example). First off, the two were created in different countries. Second, they were created within the last hundred years. Both were based on real combat styles from the past, and both originally had self-defense as their primary goal, but each have evolved along different paths.
Taekwondo practice has been heavily influenced by sport competitions, and aikido was largely created as a means to spiritual development. Now think of all the watering down of combat technique that occured as bujutsu/taijutsu as used by samurai and ninja evolved into jujutsu, and during times of peace, jujutsu was practiced by civilians and out of work samurai as partly self-defense and partly physical and spiritual exercise.
Adapting to peaceful times, the old arts evolved into stylized sport forms such as karate and judo. Instead of remaining complete systems, they specialized in one area of combat. Jujutsu branched into aikijujutsu and the sport form judo. Aikijujutsu was further watered down and specialized into aikijutsu, and then further into the more spiritual art form of aikido.
So now we have all this watering down, over-specialization, multiple degrees of separation from the source arts, and then the mixing of these styles into hybrids that necessarily includes "throwing out" that which is not understood or seen as useful. Granted, they tend to be very adamant about staying current, and adapting the style to fit the times and places in which it will be used (e.g. American self-defense arts that include a lot of defenses against handgun and knife attacks), but still it is easy to see how holes and deficiencies and inadequacies can develop in such arts.
That is all fine and good, but when you realize that the old arts that make up the Bujinkan (including ninjutsu) have also evolved and adapted to fit modern times, then it just seems a lot simpler to stick with the original, time-tested version than to have faith in a new hybrid style that may or may not be based on the arts that they claim to be, might be making fruadulent claims, and possibly was designed by someone very young with (comparitively) very little experience in all the various martial arts that they are attempting to mix together.
Of course, it all depends on your goals. If you want to win a MMA event like the UFC, e.g. then it would of course be prudent to train in a mixed martial arts style that specializes in UFC-like competition fighting. There is plenty of evidence that ninjutsu practicioners don't do well in those events. In fact, the evidence isn't all that good (not statistically viable), because I don't think more than a couple ninjutsuka ever competed in one of those contests.
Whew, that gets a lot off my chest. Thanks for putting up with my verbose writing style.
i know what you are saying. the thing that is different for us is we have no set patterns to follow on how to defend ourselves. so to name a technique is like naming a recipe. i.e. this is how you make... tuna salad. you get 1 cup of tuna, 2 tps. of salt... etc. in our style we learn what tuna is and how to use it in everything. we don't have recipes but ingrediants. did that make sense? i guess thats why i don't really get the whole naming the technique thing.Technopunk said:
peace
Kizaru
Purple Belt
Alot of times those "names" have a relation to the technique. They may detail the rhythm or the intention of the technique- more ingredients for your salad.Enson said:
When literacy wasn't at the level it is now, they also served as mnemonic devices. Often, easy to remember names were taken from religion to describe strategies or what not to make them easier to remember when you needed them.
Or it could mean "Warrior Path Physical Skills"...we can see the "Physical Skills" in there but what's the other side of the coin we don't see? Maybe "Kakutougi" means something like "mixed martial arts" in Japanese...I don't know...
Shizen Shigoku
Purple Belt
Enson: "...the thing that is different for us is we have no set patterns to follow on how to defend ourselves. so to name a technique is like naming a recipe. i.e. this is how you make... tuna salad. you get 1 cup of tuna, 2 tps. of salt... etc. in our style we learn what tuna is and how to use it in everything. we don't have recipes but ingrediants. did that make sense? i guess thats why i don't really get the whole naming the technique thing."
That really isn't a difference. Kata training are not "set patterns to follow on how to defend ourselves." They are recipes, yes, but the meals you can make out of all the different ingredients are just examples on how different movements can be pieced together. It's like if the techniques are words and the principles the rules of grammar, the kata are like favorite short stories that we like to read once in a while for inspiration. Now if we wanted to write a letter to a friend, of course we're not going to just copy one of those stories, we are going to use the words and grammar we know to put sentences together however we want (as long as they make sense and sound intelligent) - reading those stories shows us how to make our words make sense. We give those stories names, so we can remember them easier.
A common occurance in Bujinkan training is except for a handful of basic forms, one will never see the same kata twice. It's similar to if all you learn was techniques and no kata, at some point you are going to do more than one technique at a time - that's a kata. If you do that same pattern again sometime, you just repeated a set form.
Kizaru: "Alot of times those "names" have a relation to the technique. They may detail the rhythm or the intention of the technique- more ingredients for your salad. .."
Yes, there are many named forms like that. For example, "ate nage" = hit and throw, and that's just what you do, you hit, then you throw. Or "kasumi dori" = fog capture (but kasumi is also a code word for vital point strike to the temple), and the kata starts with a strike to the temple, and then a capturing movement.
"Or it could mean 'Warrior Path Physical Skills'"
"Or it could mean?" That's what it literally means, but still you have to agree it's a very broad and general term, but then we practice a very broad and general range of martial arts.
"...we can see the "Physical Skills" in there but what's the other side of the coin we don't see?"
The other side of the coin is the "Warrior Path."
When I see "budo taijutsu" I don't see "budo-taijutsu," where budo is used as an adjective to describe the taijutsu. I see "budo & taijutsu." One is a path; a way of life (remember it used to be called "ninpo taijutsu?" At that time, I did consider ninpo to be an adjective to describe the taijutsu, since everything had a ninja flavor to it), the other is an art made up of technical skills. We put both together for a complete system.
Just my opinions, of course.
That really isn't a difference. Kata training are not "set patterns to follow on how to defend ourselves." They are recipes, yes, but the meals you can make out of all the different ingredients are just examples on how different movements can be pieced together. It's like if the techniques are words and the principles the rules of grammar, the kata are like favorite short stories that we like to read once in a while for inspiration. Now if we wanted to write a letter to a friend, of course we're not going to just copy one of those stories, we are going to use the words and grammar we know to put sentences together however we want (as long as they make sense and sound intelligent) - reading those stories shows us how to make our words make sense. We give those stories names, so we can remember them easier.
A common occurance in Bujinkan training is except for a handful of basic forms, one will never see the same kata twice. It's similar to if all you learn was techniques and no kata, at some point you are going to do more than one technique at a time - that's a kata. If you do that same pattern again sometime, you just repeated a set form.
Kizaru: "Alot of times those "names" have a relation to the technique. They may detail the rhythm or the intention of the technique- more ingredients for your salad. .."
Yes, there are many named forms like that. For example, "ate nage" = hit and throw, and that's just what you do, you hit, then you throw. Or "kasumi dori" = fog capture (but kasumi is also a code word for vital point strike to the temple), and the kata starts with a strike to the temple, and then a capturing movement.
"Or it could mean 'Warrior Path Physical Skills'"
"Or it could mean?" That's what it literally means, but still you have to agree it's a very broad and general term, but then we practice a very broad and general range of martial arts.
"...we can see the "Physical Skills" in there but what's the other side of the coin we don't see?"
The other side of the coin is the "Warrior Path."
When I see "budo taijutsu" I don't see "budo-taijutsu," where budo is used as an adjective to describe the taijutsu. I see "budo & taijutsu." One is a path; a way of life (remember it used to be called "ninpo taijutsu?" At that time, I did consider ninpo to be an adjective to describe the taijutsu, since everything had a ninja flavor to it), the other is an art made up of technical skills. We put both together for a complete system.
Just my opinions, of course.
Are not all martial arts practiced today a "bunch of stuff taken from somebody else?" Not sure if the original ninjutsu actually exist today, especially in America. According to this Section, all Koga is dead and only one Iga exist. I guess first you'll have to find out if there is a "Ninja" alive and teaching today and enroll in his school.ninhito said:
Grey Eyed Bandit
Master of Arts
The distinction between Iga and Koga is not that easy. Togakure ryu has had grand masters from both provinces.
To a degree, you are correct. I find nothing wrong with someone using the term in the "spirit" of what they believe. There are some schools that have dropped the term "ninjutsu" from there Ficticious Business Name (Ironic isn't it) recorded with the County Recorder's Office. In this spirit, those schools are then letting the other "ninjitsu" schools take the heat from the traditionalist while these non-in-name-only ninjitsu schools go about their business without further comment. Still teaching the same thing though as they've now disappeared in cyberspace and cannot be found using a search engine.Shizen Shigoku said:
Most neo schools don't teach the 18 Samurai Arts nor the 18 Ninjitsu Arts. Their entire schools curriculum may be based strictly in the "nin." Nin as in "stealth." Whatever technique in Spirit, Mind and Body must contain only "stealth." So what is the problem with these schools using the term Ninjitsue with, in actuality, only purpose of this term is to bond the system with "stealth?"
To new students coming into the dojo, this is exactly what is explained to them BEFORE they pay one single dime from training. They are upfront to the inquiring students and do explain their reasoning. But they do not explain this in cyberspace. Again - "Stealth" which says to a degree: do not be seen nor heard. These schools have an obligation to new students who wish to train regardless if the training is paid for or is free. They have no obligation to anyone else not a part of the school (IMHO).
To a complete outside, you may be correct. To an actual student, there is no confusion that I can see. Every martial art in existant today, borrowed from other styles/systems so if you us the term "Ninjutsu" it really makes no difference in that "Ninjutsu" itself was developed (to a great extent) from "other styles and systems not Japanese."
How do you know this to be true? Please explain (in generality only is ok) how one can have "at least nine complete martial arts systems." A "complete" system infers "all-inclusiveness." If one system is "all inclusive", how can there be something out there that is not included in this all-inclusive "complete" system? Then you have 8 other "all-inclusive" systems to make it 9 "all inclusive systems." Actually, this section is only a thought that came to mind reading your post. Its most likely something very simple and would not need answering. But initially interesting to think upon.
Technically its 3...sojobow said:
Togakure Ryu, which is characterized by wide and Low stances, and the "Three treasures"
Kumogakure Ryu, which is characterized by jumping and leaping combat techniques and survival and evasion tactics, as well as headbutts and other attacks not common to Togakure Ruy
Gyokushin Ryu, which is characterized by its espianage teachings.
Those are loose guidelines... perhaps one of the more experienced Ninja folk could expand on that or correct me if I am wrong...
By complete, I believe we are speaking of "Containing all of the original Teachings of the Art" as oppossed to "This Technique from art A, and this Technique from Art B, and these 2 techniques from Art C."sojobow said:
Not "Complete" as in Containing every technique from every art.
Grey Eyed Bandit
Master of Arts
Ninjutsu itself is a small specialized science dealing with the gathering and usage of information, strategy, espionage, etc. Judging from that we can clearly see that most people claiming to practice ninjutsu really don't. Strategy and information gathering has extremely little to do with punches, kicks, throws, strangulations, sweeps, takedowns and the like - even though the philosophy behind it all may be connected to the aforementioned strategy, bodily movements in and of themselves are not ninjutsu and never will be...regardless of how much one would like it to be so.
- Status
