When the pursuit of "not being a sport" goes wrong...

[Andrew Green]

I am at a loss as to understand why a Ninjutsu Newaza video has been posted in the self defence section of the forum. It is not represented as self defence, makes no claims to be self defence, and is clearly not a self defence.

Well, it's very clearly not sport based stuff. He's not teaching that for MMA or grappling tournaments. It's not some historical cultural piece he is trying to preserve. So that really only leans self-defence. I suppose it could be ninja fantasy fighting... But somehow I doubt Hatsumi is saying "Hey, check this out, it won't work in reality but it looks really dope!"

It's kind of a thing in a lot of traditional styles. The guy with the highest rank becomes infallible and no one questions them and just goes with everything. If it was just some self-trained ninja that read Ashida Kim's books no one would care... but this is a high ranked and very respected person with a ton of followers, and this is being presented as practical and realistic techniques.

 

[Flying Crane]

I, for one, was not aware ALL of Kung Fu competed in UFC 1-4.

Or felt any need to...

 

[Steve]

It's only implied if you don't understand the difference between martial arts and self defence. Is it implied that people who do Kendo or HEMA broadsword training are also training self defence by virtue of the fact they are training a martial art? Of course not, that would be ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than thinking this video is self defence.

I think what they are doing is martial arts, and martial arts and self defence are not the same thing as explained here:-

The Martial Map (Free Audio Book) | Iain Abernethy

The video is not represented as SD, the words SD are not used by it, or in it, and it's clearly not an attempt to recreate the realities of civilian violence, and so should not be critiqued as such.

Can someone here who actually trains in the Bujinkan tell us if the training is intended to be self defense?

From the internet, "Bujinkan Budō Taijutsu (more commonly known as Ninjutsu or combat Jujutsu) it is a Japanese martial art drawing from nine schools of classical Japanese martial arts, along with modern day self defence[sic] techniques together into a single study."

I'm glad we all agree that it's not practical for self defense use, and I understand your assertion. But if it's not self defense. And it's not traditional technique drawing form the nine shools of classical Japanese martial arts, what could it be?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Can someone here who actually trains in the Bujinkan tell us if the training is intended to be self defense?

From the internet, "Bujinkan Budō Taijutsu (more commonly known as Ninjutsu or combat Jujutsu) it is a Japanese martial art drawing from nine schools of classical Japanese martial arts, along with modern day self defence[sic] techniques together into a single study."

I'm glad we all agree that it's not practical for self defense use, and I understand your assertion. But if it's not self defense. And it's not traditional technique drawing form the nine shools of classical Japanese martial arts, what could it be?

See my comment # 70 earlier in the thread.

It can certainly be argued that most Bujinkan training is not really appropriate for modern day self-defense. Nevertheless, it is often presented as being suitable for that purpose.

 

[Steve]

See my comment # 70 earlier in the thread.

It can certainly be argued that most Bujinkan training is not really appropriate for modern day self-defense. Nevertheless, it is often presented as being suitable for that purpose.

Yeah, I get that impression. Paul shared a link to an audio book, which prominently displays a venn diagram, which explores the relationships between martial arts, fighting and self protection.

We agree it's not self defense (self-protection). I think we all agree that it's not fighting. Others have said it's not traditional technique. So, what is it? Is it just goofing around? If so, great. Just say yes, and we'll move on.

 

[Junbu]

There is an emphasis on getting up off the ground.
Demian Maia vs Gunnar Nelson Full Fight UFC 194 Part 4 MMA Video

I must say that all he did in the first video was to show that his martial science is complete you guys must of saw many forced compliance teqnique. He was showing there is nothing new in the martial science putting himself in mount and guard positions to show you how to finish the opponent in 10 seconds not 10 rounds

 

[Hanzou]

We agree it's not self defense (self-protection). I think we all agree that it's not fighting.

Yeah, but what if Hatsumi and co. believe that it is?

 

[Steve]

Yeah, but what if Hatsumi and co. believe that it is?

Couple of things. First, that's why I'm asking the question. It's possible that the video is just goofing around and Hatsumi is trolling the MMA fan boys.

Second, ultimately, it doesn't matter what they believe. I'm kind of interested in what people HERE believe. As I said, it sounds like there is close to a consensus that this isn't practical for self protection, nor for fighting. It's not historical, so there's no real traditional value. Is there any value at all in something like this? If so, I'm interested to know what.

 

[Junbu]

What do you say self defense is? What is practicle for today compared to practicle for yesterday

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Earlier I posted a thread about Bjj ground and pound defenses. Here is a different take on ground and pound from a more "traditional" perspective;

Having been under a mount more times than I care to admit, none of what was shown in that video is effective. Self defense, or otherwise, what was shown wouldn't be much help to you if someone is on top of you trying to bash your head in.

In the description, the poster made it a point to say that this is different than "sport" ground fighting. Imust say, the pursuit of "not being a sport" can be quite detrimental to the development of effective techniques. Clearly these guys were trying to avoid looking like Judo/Bjj newaza which has been proven to be effective on multiple levels from training, to competition, to self defense, and instead developed their own variation and ended up with some rather shoddy results.

Agreed - this isn't a shining example. I can see a few useful bits hidden in there, within the movements. The stuff in that video isn't entirely useless, but obviously doesn't rise to the level you'd want from any ongoing training for groundwork. I have a few basic defenses that I teach very early, which would probably not be effective against a trained ground-fighter, but which are useful tools if someone relatively untrained gets you down. For the ground-fighter, you need more tools, and those develop over time, and the best tools come from the ground-fighting arts. Most of those arts are predominantly sport (which is even better, in this context, since the tools will be meant for working against those same people).

So, the short answer is this: there are a few quick answers that aren't from sport, but all the best answers I know for groundwork can be found in the combat sports.

 

[Andrew Green]

Agreed - this isn't a shining example. I can see a few useful bits hidden in there, within the movements.

Not really. Nothing in there is going to work very well.

For the ground-fighter, you need more tools, and those develop over time, and the best tools come from the ground-fighting arts. Most of those arts are predominantly sport (which is even better, in this context, since the tools will be meant for working against those same people).

Again, not really. A mount escape is a mount escape. You might get better at it and have better timing, but the same escapes taught on day one are used in top level competition. The ones usually taught first are the most important, and work the best in the beginning. You learn to chain them with other things, set them up better, time them better, etc. But at no point does a basic escape just stop working completely. The things in that video are not going to work on a non-compliant opponent, regardless of how trained or untrained they are.

 

[Hanzou]

Couple of things. First, that's why I'm asking the question. It's possible that the video is just goofing around and Hatsumi is trolling the MMA fan boys.

Second, ultimately, it doesn't matter what they believe. I'm kind of interested in what people HERE believe. As I said, it sounds like there is close to a consensus that this isn't practical for self protection, nor for fighting. It's not historical, so there's no real traditional value. Is there any value at all in something like this? If so, I'm interested to know what.

I think Tony's explanation pretty much covers it. Hatsumi just made up some ineffective techniques and his followers are too wrapped up in his mystique to question it.

I mean, here's a vid of Relson Gracie goofing around with one of his students;

Pretty big difference.

 

[elder999]

Earlier I posted a thread about Bjj ground and pound defenses. Here is a different take on ground and pound from a more "traditional" perspective;

Context is everything.

When it comes to traditional Japanese martial arts-and even when it comes to BJJ, which is Basically Just Judo...the original context for throws and groundfighting was being disarmed-or less armed, and in armor. The objective was, generally, to open a place in the opponents armor, and stick a knife in. This is especially true for the traditional arts that form the basis of the arts called "Bujinkan." (To be fair, my exposure to them was over 20 years ago, and they weren't called that then)In any case, when it comes to arts that are koryu, or claim to be, look for armored and armed applications. This is, of course, part and parcel of the " not for sport" mindset, as well as the "preserve for the art's sake" mindset: it's not likely that we'll ever see armed, armored conflict in a modern-day self-defense context. The Bujinkan is full of weapons that will never be carried or used on the street, or in self -defense even in the home, but, what if Hatsumi had a knife in one of his hands, throughout that video? There are places, like Norway, where he couldn't teach that with a knife in his hand-he'd have to talk around it, which brings us to the next bit of context:

What does Hatsumi say these things are about?

Well, there's no explanation of the video from Hatsumi at all. We have no guarantee at all what it means or is meant to present-we have only the poster's notes, and, when it comes to the Bujinkan, consistency and consistent understanding are nonexistent: quality control from Japan is not at all up to the standards of even BJJ or Judo, and one man's nonsense is another man's secret.

Having been under a mount more times than I care to admit, none of what was shown in that video is effective. Self defense, or otherwise, what was shown wouldn't be much help to you if someone is on top of you trying to bash your head in.

We're agreed: what's displayed isn't appropriate (by itself) against the mount, but what if that's not exactly what it's about at all?

Of course, all of this is just my opinion and speculation-I have no dog in this hunt, and no real relationship with the Bukinkan, to speak of, though I am in a position (as @Tony Dismukes is) to have a somewhat informed opinion, and I just thought I'd offer another perspective

 

[Junbu]

Basically just judo there is no such thing as Brazilian jiu jitsu I agree totally with you it came from Japan and they learned it from a japanese man and only got to 1st don the. Opened there own school never entering the menkyosi

 

[Junbu]

Hey just kidding guys as you can see from my amount of post that I don't really have a grip on the more esoteric things of the "arts". Really just kidding ,I agree with you our version's of 2000yeR old teqnique is much better for battle today than it was on an actual battlefield ,

 

[Hanzou]

Basically just judo there is no such thing as Brazilian jiu jitsu I agree totally with you it came from Japan and they learned it from a japanese man and only got to 1st don the. Opened there own school never entering the menkyosi

Yeah, don't believe the hype. Judo and Bjj have diverged to the point where they are two legitimately different styles. Judo's strict rules and Bjj's openess to outside influences have pushed the two into very different directions, despite them having the same root.

 

[Junbu]

Thank you I am just a student and didn't mean to make some of the statements I did , have a nice day nice to meet you Hanzu

 

[Andrew Green]

Basically just judo there is no such thing as Brazilian jiu jitsu I agree totally with you it came from Japan and they learned it from a japanese man and only got to 1st don the. Opened there own school never entering the menkyosi

Well Tae Kwon Do is basically just karate, and that is basically just Kung Fu.... Kickboxing is really just karate too, which is basically TaeKwon Do. Judo is basically wrestling, but with a jacket, so BJJ is basically catch wrestling, and catch wrestling is basically Judo.... ok, my head hurts now.

 

[Buka]

God, I love this place.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not really. Nothing in there is going to work very well.

I didn't say the techniques were good. I said there were bits in there that were useful. They'd have to be done more cleanly, with better set-up, with better control of the attacker. But, I'll concede the point, since I'm cherry-picking a few things I saw that I could find use for, rather than seeing techniques I find useful.

Again, not really. A mount escape is a mount escape. You might get better at it and have better timing, but the same escapes taught on day one are used in top level competition. The ones usually taught first are the most important, and work the best in the beginning. You learn to chain them with other things, set them up better, time them better, etc. But at no point does a basic escape just stop working completely. The things in that video are not going to work on a non-compliant opponent, regardless of how trained or untrained they are.

True, for ground-fighting training. Not necessarily true in every other case. There are some simple techniques I can teach in an afternoon, which are reasonably effective with little training, but which cannot compare to what can be learned in a few weeks. That's the difference I was referring to. In my "Basic Self Defense Set" (mostly, the first parts students learn), I do include a few simple ground defense techniques. Better ground defense waits until later in the curriculum, simply because I cannot teach everything first - something had to wait. Since I can't build on the ground work as fully as (for instance) a BJJ school, I have to make some choices. Could I start from the same place as a BJJ school for groundwork? Perhaps, but I'd need to spend more time on groundwork early, which means less time on something else.