The Effectiveness Of BBT.

[Hudson69]

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.

[savagek]

Hello all,

Look for a teacher that began training before it became BBT when it was BNT this might help.

Ken Savage
Winchendon Massachusetts
www.winmartialarts.com

[Kajowaraku]

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

[Chris Parker]

Originally Posted by Kajowaraku

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.