The Problem with Today's Ninjutsu...

[Hot Lunch]

Were ninja warrior types? Does that matter? Modern Thuggee martial artists can basically be whatever we want them to be.


All of that makes it ideal for a budding, entrepreneurial grandmaster.

Of course, I'm being facetious. The larger point I'm trying to make is that, in my opinion, the only real issues with ninjutsu occur when the customer doesn't get what they believe they are paying for. I would bet that most people who train in ninjutsu are primarily interested in the myth and apocryphal trappings of ninja. Historical accuracy is, at most, a way to reverse engineer a little bit of legitimacy into it. Just enough to make it cool.

Some people want to train in a style that is historically accurate. Some people think they want that, but really what they're looking for is something that FEELS historically accurate (but really isn't).

My only worry is that if someone learning how to stealthily trespass onto other people's property in order gain intel or perform recon for personal reasons, then we've got some serious problems to deal with. Luckily, their intent is the only problem. The ability to do stuff like that these days is carried out by professionals who receive training that probably costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for each agent. I'd actually love for such an agent to make a YouTube reaction video to some of the training that goes on in these places.

 

[Steve]

My only worry is that if someone learning how to stealthily trespass onto other people's property in order gain intel or perform recon for personal reasons, then we've got some serious problems to deal with. Luckily, their intent is the only problem. The ability to do stuff like that these days is carried out by professionals who receive training that probably costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for each agent. I'd actually love for such an agent to make a YouTube reaction video to some of the training that goes on in these places.

So, what I hear you saying is that the NSA are modern day ninja. You know, if I were a GS-12 analyst at the NSA, I would lean into that hard!

 

[Yamabushii]

So, what I hear you saying is that the NSA are modern day ninja. You know, if I were a GS-12 analyst at the NSA, I would lean into that hard!

Anyone that's performing any type of spying, infiltration, bodyguard(ing), assassinating, information gathering, or espionage in a professional sense can essentially be considered modern day ninja. The Japanese, nor the Chinese, were the first to employ these kinds of people to their advantage. So folks like military Special Forces, CIA, DIA, MI6, NSA, professional hackers, etc., they may all fall under that category.

Personally I have trained with, and still am associated with, people who work for intelligence agencies and others who also provide training to private American military/civilian contractors. There's a surprising amount of overlap in what methods and tactics they use with traditional ninjutsu methods, but obviously also very modernized with a broader range of skillsets as well.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Were ninja warrior types? Does that matter? Modern Thuggee martial artists can basically be whatever we want them to be.


All of that makes it ideal for a budding, entrepreneurial grandmaster.

Of course, I'm being facetious. The larger point I'm trying to make is that, in my opinion, the only real issues with ninjutsu occur when the customer doesn't get what they believe they are paying for. I would bet that most people who train in ninjutsu are primarily interested in the myth and apocryphal trappings of ninja. Historical accuracy is, at most, a way to reverse engineer a little bit of legitimacy into it. Just enough to make it cool.

Some people want to train in a style that is historically accurate. Some people think they want that, but really what they're looking for is something that FEELS historically accurate (but really isn't).

Shaolin training is for this exact reason a very sticky subject. You're dealing with a very lucrative copycat industry, leeching off one of the most impressive physical and mental art forms man has ever created.

Remember there was a time when Shaolin vs. Ninja was an actual debate topic? Good grief. It goes to show how dualistic people can be.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Shaolin training is for this exact reason a very sticky subject. You're dealing with a very lucrative copycat industry, leeching off one of the most impressive physical and mental art forms man has ever created.

Remember there was a time when Shaolin vs. Ninja was an actual debate topic? Good grief. It goes to show how dualistic people can be.

They had the option to resolve this once and for all on the deadliest warrior. But no, they had to put the ninja against a spartan, while they put the shaolin monk against a maori warrior. Lame.

 

[drop bear]

My only worry is that if someone learning how to stealthily trespass onto other people's property in order gain intel or perform recon for personal reasons, then we've got some serious problems to deal with. Luckily, their intent is the only problem. The ability to do stuff like that these days is carried out by professionals who receive training that probably costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for each agent. I'd actually love for such an agent to make a YouTube reaction video to some of the training that goes on in these places.

Spartans basically are ninjas.

"To make life even tougher, Spartan boys were fed a meager diet. Xenophon, a philosopher and historian who lived from the late 400s to mid-300s B.C., noted that one purpose was to keep them slim, which Lycurgus, the founder of the Spartan system, believed would make them grow taller. But the boys’ hunger was also intended to embolden them to steal food from gardens and other places “in order to make the boys more resourceful in getting supplies, and better fighting men,” Xenophon wrote. But to make sure they learned cunning, boys who were caught stealing were whipped."

 

[dunc]

Yes

Amazon.com

And Jesse Enkamp has also spoken of this.

You previously mentioned that ninjas basically stopped being a thing after the Meiji Restoration. Think about the possible reasons for this. During Sengoku, if a ninja assassinated someone from an enemy province, think about what the consequences were for the entity that sent the ninja. Then, think about what the consequences would be if they were sent to China for that purpose. Consequences are much bigger, correct?

Now, imagine what they would be after the Meiji Restoration where Japan was now acting on an international scale. Let's say they send one to Europe to assassinate a high ranking noblemen. What would be the consquences for Japan for doing this? Let's say today: Japan sends one to North Korea to take out Kim Jong-un. Is Japan ready for full-scale war with not only North Korea, but also two other nuclear armed countries (Russia and China) that would undoubtedly rain down the wrath of god upon them? They have no use today.

I’m sorry but how does this prove that the Japanese government considers that he was the last ninja?

 

[Hot Lunch]

I’m sorry but how does this prove that the Japanese government considers that he was the last ninja?

You win, the sources not being to your liking means ninjas are still a thing.

 

[drop bear]

We have a local ninja kind of sort of opened up near by.

He is definitely an interesting guy.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Spartans basically are ninjas.

"To make life even tougher, Spartan boys were fed a meager diet. Xenophon, a philosopher and historian who lived from the late 400s to mid-300s B.C., noted that one purpose was to keep them slim, which Lycurgus, the founder of the Spartan system, believed would make them grow taller. But the boys’ hunger was also intended to embolden them to steal food from gardens and other places “in order to make the boys more resourceful in getting supplies, and better fighting men,” Xenophon wrote. But to make sure they learned cunning, boys who were caught stealing were whipped."

The big difference between Spartan life and Ninjutsu is the solo aspect. Spartan soldiers operated in big groups, Shinobi were solo infiltrators.

Which is why that damn Ninja vs. Spartan episode of Deadliest Warrior was so dumb. They basically argued bronze armor is better than wooden and leather armor, there the mid 16th century ninja loses to 650 BC military tech. Yeah right.

 

[Oily Dragon]

They had the option to resolve this once and for all on the deadliest warrior. But no, they had to put the ninja against a spartan, while they put the shaolin monk against a maori warrior. Lame.

I think the Shaolin and Maori would get along great.

Very dangerous.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh boy... didn't we do this one already?

Lots to clear up here... we'll see how we go.

...is marketing (mostly).

In your view... of course, your understanding of "marketing" is a highly limited sample, and is coloured by your personal beliefs, expectations, and lack of fundamental understanding of the actual subject.

Let me digress for a moment and explain a few details of where I'm coming from. I was formerly a member of one of the "big three". My former teacher in Ninpo was a member of most of them. My school was once a full-on Ninpo school, although I had been making many adjustments to the way the techniques were taught for some time, even teaching my students different from what was expected as per the curriculum. After my most recent organization disbanded a couple months ago, I was finally free to teach how I want with no restrictions. In the two or so months I've been on my own, I've seen tremendous growth in my students and their sparring. I don't teach Ninpo as it's taught by the major organizations today nor do I market it as such. My Jujutsu was always stronger than my "Ninpo Taijutsu", so I was able to combine that with my other former martial arts experiences to develop a new combatives-focused curriculum.

To put this is even more context, the separation of "ninpo" and "jujutsu" is a largely artificial one employed by the Genbukan to separate and segregate differing traditions held (and ostensibly taught) by Tanemura-s. It is based on historical claims and associations more than anything technical between them, as, at the end of the day, there is as much difference between a "ninpo" school and a "jujutsu" school as there is between two different "jujutsu" schools.

Next, you've been training for a bit over 10 years (starting in 2012), with various changes to your schools organisational structure over that time. You've been teaching for a few years, but have not followed the actual methodology of the schools themselves, and, now that you have "finally" been able to do whatever you want, that lack of grounding and understanding of the methodology is on full display, as you feel your students have had "tremendous growth" in a couple of months in "sparring"?

So... you're not teaching the arts you're just a bit beyond a beginner in, haven't really taught them at any point, have had beliefs (based in not actually grasping what the arts are genuinely about, or how they work), and are thinking you know well enough to create your own approach? Okay... but what does that have to do with "the problem with today's ninjutsu"? Considering you don't seem overly interested in it in the first place, I have to ask (again), what exactly are you doing training it (or, at least, training what you think it is)? It doesn't suit your ideals, your understanding, your expectations, your fantasies, or anything else... so why are you clinging to it?

For a while now, I've realized the flaws in the training methodology of most of the techniques in Ninpo.

See, here's the first problem... the methodology and the techniques are not the same thing. The techniques are the physical methods, the methodology is how they're trained. You can have great techniques with terrible methodology, great methodology with poor/suboptimal techniques, bad methodology and bad techniques, great techniques with well designed methodology, and anywhere in between.

And, to be clear, you're discussing methodology... but, even there, I'd question how much of it you've understood (or how much your teachers have).

Unrealistic attacks by your partner,

First thing you'd have to define is "realistic attacks". For most (and, in previous discussions, I'd say this is you as well, Omar), this means "modern attacks (as the person in question understands them to be)". If this is the case, again, a traditional based art will have traditional-style attacks... expecting it to have "modern attacks" is like asking a pizza to be a hamburger, then complaining that it's not an ice-cream. This also ties into the whole "well, if I can't use it in sparring/MMA, it's not realistic", which is a whole mess of inaccurate statements in itself, for much the same reasons.

The other way to look at it is to accept that the manner of violence is highly dependent on the culture that it is derived from, so may not look like the style you'd expect in a modern setting, but that the cultural/traditional attacks need to be done in a realistic (targeting, distancing, intent, relevant contextual awareness of potential influence of clothing, weapons etc, and so on) manner, in which case, I'd agree. But I don't think that's what you mean.

little to no resistance,

What do you understand "resistance" to be? If the kata are understood properly, resistance (or, more realistically, response) is (or, at least, should be) a constant in their study. If you mean in the form of "fighting/sparring", then I'd suggest you didn't understand the kata enough in the first place if you think it was lacking. Resistance, at the end of the day, is unrealistic.

too much role-play,

I don't quite know what you mean by this... it's a comment most commonly used to express disdain for poorly performed and poorly understood kata geiko. In this style of practice (again, pretty much the primary method of training and transmission for all classical and traditional Japanese martial arts... so it must have some benefits!), the partners each take a "role", as the attacker or defender (simplified), but the core of it is the role of teacher/student, or parent/child. One guides and assists the other, helping them to develop through the lessons of the kata itself. Where it falls down is when the "attacker" side (the teacher/parent side) doesn't understand this, and simply goes through the motions of the initial attack, and "falls over" when the defence is applied.

This isn't compliant training, it's not even training, it's just poor choreography. It also isn't "role playing", as that would involve each side taking on a character, rather than remaining themselves through the exercise. If the complaint is that the kata training is done as I described (in its "falling down" state), then, yeah, that's a big problem throughout the X-kans... something I lay squarely at the teachers feet for not properly educating their students about... but it's not "role-play". Nor is it "marketing". It's a methodology and educational failure endemic throughout these arts.

too much theory,

Honestly, I'd doubt that... if anything, there's not enough, which leads to the education issues mentioned above. I would say that some schools (particularly the Genbukan) tend to do a fair bit of lip service to the idea of theory, but not overly relevant in what is covered, and it's connection to the actual training is limited as a result.

and not enough Shinken Gata or true Randori.

Do you think they are the same thing? What do you think Shinken Gata is? What do you class as "true randori"?

If you're talking about a free-for-all style of sparring, do you think that's actually beneficial for the study of a traditional art? We've all seen the discussions of karate kata versus sparring, and how they look like unrelated arts to a fair degree... what would you consider this method of sparring to aid with? This takes us back to the "unrealistic techniques" thing... if you're expecting it to look like an MMA contest, you're in the wrong art. If you think you should be training like MMA, and also think that you should be using a traditional framework for it, then you're in denial about the reality of what you're expecting. And if you think sparring is anything like what Shinken Gata is, then you don't understand Shinken Gata (the clue is in the name, by the way).

I learned a lot of concepts, but because I come from prior martial arts experience as well, I was able to associate the concepts with what can and can't work,

From your limited exposure to some previous modern arts, and your impression of what "works" means. For the record, "works" means very different things to different arts, with different contexts and ideals.

What you're really saying is that you were exposed to some other ideas and ways of doing things, didn't bother to learn how they operated within their own context, and instead tried to apply them to your previous ideas. The whole "full cup/empty cup" thing applies here.

although I saw most students with no other martial arts experience had trouble converting the theoretical concepts into practical application (Shinken Gata).

Then that's an issue of teaching. Perhaps the instruction wasn't great? Not saying yours, as you're not seeming to discuss your own students here.

I'm still just a student and learning as I go along,

One of the first things I can agree with completely.

but I came to a realization that Ninpo, from the big three orgs, are actually just arts for the sake of historical preservation.

This, I would not agree with, on a number of levels. Firstly, it would require the arts to be historical ones. Second, it would require them to have been preserved correctly in the first place. Thirdly, it would require people who were interested in actual historical preservation. Fourthly, that's simply not how martial arts (historical, classical) work in the main... they aren't "just... for the sake of historical preservation", they are maintained and protected for the sake of the arts themselves. They're not museum pieces to be held for future generations to look at.

However, I find it incredibly misleading how so many Ninpo schools advertise themselves as catering to the modern martial arts community as an effective martial art for self-defense.

Sure... but I'd level that complaint against ALL martial arts that describe themselves as "effective... for self defence". No martial art is designed for self defence, they're designed for a whole range of contexts of various combative engagements, from battlefields, to duelling, to methods of policing, and beyond. Even those ostensibly designed for "civilian protection" were designed for a different culture, a different form of violence, a different expression of societal norms and legal realities, and much, much more. More to the point, once things have gotten to a physical stage, most self defence is left behind, and now it's about the "fight" portion.

That said, the public still has the impression that "martial arts = self defence", without actually knowing anything about either... so it's hardly surprising that most arts, other than those that are obviously not so well suited (weapon arts, for example... Kendo doesn't really market itself as a self defence system!), utilise this way of getting into the public perception. It's really just a matter of working with the (mis)understanding that is already present. And, who knows, it's likely that many of the instructors have their own reasons for believing such things about their art. You don't share that impression? That's okay. But it doesn't mean that others are marketing it in a misleading way, just that your experience and beliefs don't share that feeling.

Heck, in actual Ninjutsu, if you had to fight toe-to-toe then there's a high probability you messed up somewhere. And in those situations, Shinobi would always seek to employ some kind of force multiplier, so why is there such a heavy emphasis on "Budo Taijutsu", "Taijutsu", "Jutaijutsu", etc?

Well, that's a lot of jumbled up ideas and misunderstandings of pretty much everything.

"Actual ninjutsu"? Meaning what, precisely? Most historical applications and examples of ninjutsu are methods and cases of information gathering, espionage, infiltration, and no combative aspect whatsoever. It was simply a part of how military groups operated. You would no more use "actual ninjutsu" to "fight toe-to-toe" with someone than you would expect a Navy SEAL to use his scuba diving to take out an enemy combatant... they'd use their combative methods for that, the scuba diving might just be how they get there in the first place.

The whole idea of "in those situations, shinobi would always seek to employ some kind of force multiplier" is also similarly flawed... "shinobi" was a job description, you would be engaged as a shinobi to do a job, once that job was done, that was kinda that. It's like saying that, if a plumber was in a fight, they'd seek to use a force multiplier... okay, but does that mean that he's plumbing when he's fighting? Or are we now talking about something different? And, considering that most (employed) shinobi (or, more clearly, those engaged in shinobi-style actions) were actually samurai, just doing the job required, then... yeah, big fans of weapons, those guys... so, your point is...?

Lastly, why is there so much emphasis on the taijutsu side of things? Cause those are the arts taught in the various X-kans? Kukishin has a large weapon contingent, and Togakure has a few, but pretty much everything else is some kind of taijutsu/jujutsu. So... if I go to a restaurant, and it's an Italian one, should I be surprised when there's such an emphasis on pasta and pizza, when I really want some Beef Teriyaki? It serves what it has, and what it offers. Is that really a question?

If Ninpo schools were more honest about their training being primarily for the sake of historical preservation, I wouldn't really have any disagreement with it.

Except you do. You've been told before that expecting a traditional art to be just like a modern one is unrealistic (again, leaving off the issues with thinking it's anything related to "historical preservation"). Bluntly, you haven't the first clue what the training is actually for, how it's designed and structured, what the reasoning is, or why it's trained by the majority of its practitioners. This is partially because you're still incredibly new to it, but also because you have not been able, at any point, to look past your own preconceptions and prior beliefs to actually take on board how things work. Now, that's okay, but it's not a failing of the art.

I do have a new Ninpo teacher now (I have multiple teachers from different disciplines) who is certainly more real-world focused, but it's also because to find value in Ninpo, you have to be able to grasp the concepts and then change them into ways that work in the modern world, something that inexperienced martial artists typically can't, and shouldn't be expected to, be able to do.

Why do you have to "change (the concepts) into ways that 'work' in the modern world" to "find value" in these arts? Really, it seems that you only find value in them if you try to force them to be something they're not, as you can't reconcile a traditional art with your preconceived notions about what martial arts should be. Again, this is all on you here. These are your values, and hardly universal.

For those who members here who are a part of the Bujinkan, Genbukan, or Jinenkan, how are your schools marketed?

Well, not a member of any of those (at this exact moment...), but my school is presented dominantly as a traditional school of Japanese martial arts. We do cover modern self defence, which is presented as a separate section to the rest of the curriculum, as it needs to be, and I will state that my personal expression of the schools taught is not the same as in the various Takamatsuden organisations... but not for the sake of "modern", more for the sake of authenticity (as I see it) to the arts themselves.

All that said, marketing needs to be done in a way that is going to have resonance for the audience, by linking it with concepts and ideas they already hold... so, while the marketing lists things like "Unarmed Defensive Techniques... Weapon Defence and Usage... Meditation... Philosophy... Modern Self Defence..." and so on, I don't really think of the classes and lessons in such simplistic, superficial ways... but it helps make more sense to those reading the ads. So it gets used.

PS - For the record, my slate isn't completely clean either. I was once guilty of this for a couple years after I opened my dojo as well.

Guilty of what? You've listed a number of issues you see with other dojo (I'd wonder how many you'd actually seen?), most not really tied into your overall complaint of "marketing", other than your feeling that the methods are sub-optimal for what you perceive as a modern self defence ideal, so are you guilty of having bad methodologies and marketing them as if they're good? Or just that you marketed a traditional art as a modern self defence one? Or that you just had bad methodologies, and didn't know how to fix them?

I'd question exactly how accurate the X-kan arts are in terms of historical preservation.

Agreed.

The Bujinkan may be rooted in 3 verifiable koryu arts

Less agreed... we've covered this before, but only two are genuinely verified (Takagi Ryu and Kukishin Ryu), and, even there, how they have been transmitted are not great examples of authenticity... then you look at how much was added to them (Kukishin in particular), and most of what is taught as these historical arts aren't overly historical... the Keiko Sabaki Gata of Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu is the only really authentically "Kukishin Ryu" found in the Bujinkan...

(and 6 more which may be recreations based on Takamatsu's research, although we probably will never know for sure). But Hatsumi has put so much of his own spin and creativity and personal interpretation into the system that it's hard to argue in favor of it being historical unless you limit your study to the specific techniques in the scrolls from the foundation arts. (Even for those, I've read that Takamatsu made changes from the main lines of those ryu when he made his own branches. I don't know how significant those changes were, so they may or may not affect the historicity of the arts.)

They do, but that's not the reason.

Unfortunately, Hatsumi's personal creative interpretation and blending of the systems doesn't appear to be based in any sort of real life fight experience or stress testing, so it's also hard to argue that they amount to any sort of update for modern combative needs.

Agreed.

I don't have any experience with the Genbukan or Jinenkan, so I can't comment on how much the same might apply to them.

They both strive to keep more closely to the kata as they understand them, but also seem to believe that they then automatically translate to modern application without adaptation... which is just as lacking in understanding, I feel. The real root of that, though, is how safe Japan is today... there just isn't much understanding of modern violence, especially as can be experienced in the West, which is where the majority of the students looking for that are.

I'm gonna second the historical preservation skepticism. Keep in mind, I love ninjas almost as much as Kung Fu, but I really don't like the schools for the same seasons you guys mentioned.

I think the big ninja orgs are mostly anachronistic role playing, with dabbles of people with actual jujutsu/judo skills, which rarely get used in class (because as OP pointed out, if they did actual randori etc, people would complain less). And things like the magic sword test are just silly imho.

There are definitely people in the big orgs that devote themselves to historical research (for better or worse), but as far as I know no modern ninjutsu "lineage" is considered historical by Japanese authorities.

Which "authorities" are you talking about? The only groups that come to mind are things like the Nippon Kobudo Kyokai and Shinkokai, which are, at the end of the day, private promotional organisations with no real authority to declare anything legit or not, outside of allowing or disallowing membership on their own grounds. Now, it's true that none of them allow the various Kan's into their folds (and that speaks volumes, especially when you get into the why and wherefores), but they aren't any kind of legitimizing bodies in the sense that you seem to be implying.

There are legit ninja relics out there, in museums, old literature, wood block art, etc, but nothing really in terms of people, which differs ninjutsu from pretty much every single other Japanese art.

I'd disagree with a couple of things there, depending on what relics you're talking about, as that's nowhere near as clear-cut as some make out, but also with the idea of "nothing in terms of people"... ninjutsu teachings are still present in a range of koryu arts, where there are certainly people around... the idea of a separate, distinct art of "pure ninjutsu" existing historically is, largely, a fantasy in the first place. Most historical forms of ninjutsu were part of larger transmissions, not stand-alone systems.

Now, people will make the argument that ninjutsu was a secret and that explains things. But there were all sorts of secrets in ancient Japan that didn't stay that way, so reasonably there should be whole clans of ninjas on record, and lots of people with historical ties. What we actually have are people claiming things without evidence.

Bujinkan in particular, mostly falls on the claims of one guy, which in any other situation would be sus. And I remember when Hatsumi used to claim he had special ninja scrolls etc that proved his claims. But of course, no one is allowed to see the scroll! And as soon as someone did, it was not impressive to an objective person, rather something of a macguffin.

I can't think of any "ninjutsu" school that doesn't hinge on one guy... all three of the X-Kan's are also known as Takamatsuden, as they are all transmissions from Takamatsu, with any history prior to him being somewhat more difficult to get to (other than Ishitani/Ishiya, although that is where the Takagi Ryu and Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu come from, not any of the rest... hmm...). Kawakami traces himself back to a mysterious man in a park when he was a child... Fujita Seiko also learnt from an older family member (grandfather) when a youngster, only coming out publicly much later in life... interesting, neh?

There are none. The last legit ninja was Seiko Fujita, and he died in 1966 with no heirs to carry on Koga-ryu. The last intel missions he was sent on by the Japanese government was during World War II. Anyone claiming to be a ninja now is just as credible as someone claiming to be a Persian Immortal.

Er.................................................................................... no.

Fujita Seiko was, indeed, employed by the Japanese government in WWII... as a guest instructor at the Nakano Military Academy. To teach karate. As one of a couple of dozen martial art instructors there. He was never sent on any "ninja missions".

His claim to be the 14th (and final) head of Wada-ha Koga Ryu Ninjutsu is also something that was virtually impossible to verify, and much of his actual status within the Japanese martial community was to do with his research and scholarship, as well as some of the other (more mainstream) arts he practiced. He was on record stating that he never taught the ninjutsu side of things to anyone (although there are some stories of his karate students, who said that he would occasionally say things like "in ninjutsu, we would do things like this instead" to show some variation, but again, the veracity, or, indeed, what was shown is lost to time).

I'll come back to more later... probably over the weekend.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Relying on doubt to maintain hope? I'm sure that psychologists have a word for this.

You choose to interpret "I wonder" as "I hope"? Why?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What they're asking for is something that emphatically states "the Japanese govermnent states that he's the last ninja," and not "he was the last ninja employed by the Japanese government." In reality, they're the same statement. But logic is that if the sources only state the latter, then ninjas must still exist.

Hence, why I brought up Buffalo Soldiers. I've got a better example than that: musketeers.

The last war where muskets were used in Europe was the Crimean War. In the US, the Civil War. Those were your last musketeers, and infantry units eventually converted them to riflemen.

Is it possible to get trained on using a musket today? Yes. People do it all the time. But are they musketeers? No. Because, by definition, a musketeer is a profession. Specifically, a soldier (i.e., an enlisted member or commissioned officer of a nation's army) who wields a musket in battle. If someone claimed to be a musketeer today, what would they be doing with their lives? Passing time until the military needs their services (which is likely doing to be never)?

Same thing with ninjas. If ninjas still existed, what would they be doing right now if the Japanese government isn't employing them? Being Peeping Toms and snapping nude photos through people's windows while hiding in their backyards?

Firstly, you're purposely creating a strawman (nobody has said that it's either "government said they no longer exist" or "they still exist".

Secondly, there's still an issue in the overall logic that I've been hoping you'd close up. It's an academic curiosity, which I enjoy. It's this: so far as I know (and I'm far from an expert) shinobi/ninja were not exclusively employed by the national government. That being the case (and that's the logic gap I was hoping you'd be able to close - is there a reason to think ninja can only be employed by the government?), would the national government necessarily know when the last one was employed?

Of course, this also gets to the issue you mention in this post: we need to define what qualifies as a "ninja". To be a musketeer, you'd need to be using a musket (and we could easily argue you'd need to be employed doing it for combat). But the terms ninja/shinobi aren't linguistically tied to a specific implement or method, so would likely have evolved over time to include changing circumstances. So, if we don't define it as tied to a time period, the term could have continued use up to today for the same basic activities (though it hasn't). That makes it harder to define where to draw the line on the last "ninja". It's like if the term "musketeer" had been something more like "long-gun shooter" - that term could have carried over to almost any modern infantry that uses long guns, so we'd have a hard time defining when the last one was, even if the term itself went out of use.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Firstly, you're purposely creating a strawman (nobody has said that it's either "government said they no longer exist" or "they still exist".

Secondly, there's still an issue in the overall logic that I've been hoping you'd close up. It's an academic curiosity, which I enjoy. It's this: so far as I know (and I'm far from an expert) shinobi/ninja were not exclusively employed by the national government. That being the case (and that's the logic gap I was hoping you'd be able to close - is there a reason to think ninja can only be employed by the government?), would the national government necessarily know when the last one was employed?

To my knowledge, was either by the national government, the domain (now prefecture) level, or daimyos. If anyone else here knows different, I'm listening.

But here's something else to consider: if there were ninjas doing "ninja stuff" on their own with no authorization from those who held some form of legitimate office, then wouldn't that reduce them to thugs, criminals, and gang members? A precursor to the Yakuza, if you will?

 

[Yamabushii]

Oh boy... didn't we do this one already?

Lots to clear up here... we'll see how we go.



In your view... of course, your understanding of "marketing" is a highly limited sample, and is coloured by your personal beliefs, expectations, and lack of fundamental understanding of the actual subject.



To put this is even more context, the separation of "ninpo" and "jujutsu" is a largely artificial one employed by the Genbukan to separate and segregate differing traditions held (and ostensibly taught) by Tanemura-s. It is based on historical claims and associations more than anything technical between them, as, at the end of the day, there is as much difference between a "ninpo" school and a "jujutsu" school as there is between two different "jujutsu" schools.

Next, you've been training for a bit over 10 years (starting in 2012), with various changes to your schools organisational structure over that time. You've been teaching for a few years, but have not followed the actual methodology of the schools themselves, and, now that you have "finally" been able to do whatever you want, that lack of grounding and understanding of the methodology is on full display, as you feel your students have had "tremendous growth" in a couple of months in "sparring"?

So... you're not teaching the arts you're just a bit beyond a beginner in, haven't really taught them at any point, have had beliefs (based in not actually grasping what the arts are genuinely about, or how they work), and are thinking you know well enough to create your own approach? Okay... but what does that have to do with "the problem with today's ninjutsu"? Considering you don't seem overly interested in it in the first place, I have to ask (again), what exactly are you doing training it (or, at least, training what you think it is)? It doesn't suit your ideals, your understanding, your expectations, your fantasies, or anything else... so why are you clinging to it?



See, here's the first problem... the methodology and the techniques are not the same thing. The techniques are the physical methods, the methodology is how they're trained. You can have great techniques with terrible methodology, great methodology with poor/suboptimal techniques, bad methodology and bad techniques, great techniques with well designed methodology, and anywhere in between.

And, to be clear, you're discussing methodology... but, even there, I'd question how much of it you've understood (or how much your teachers have).



First thing you'd have to define is "realistic attacks". For most (and, in previous discussions, I'd say this is you as well, Omar), this means "modern attacks (as the person in question understands them to be)". If this is the case, again, a traditional based art will have traditional-style attacks... expecting it to have "modern attacks" is like asking a pizza to be a hamburger, then complaining that it's not an ice-cream. This also ties into the whole "well, if I can't use it in sparring/MMA, it's not realistic", which is a whole mess of inaccurate statements in itself, for much the same reasons.

The other way to look at it is to accept that the manner of violence is highly dependent on the culture that it is derived from, so may not look like the style you'd expect in a modern setting, but that the cultural/traditional attacks need to be done in a realistic (targeting, distancing, intent, relevant contextual awareness of potential influence of clothing, weapons etc, and so on) manner, in which case, I'd agree. But I don't think that's what you mean.



What do you understand "resistance" to be? If the kata are understood properly, resistance (or, more realistically, response) is (or, at least, should be) a constant in their study. If you mean in the form of "fighting/sparring", then I'd suggest you didn't understand the kata enough in the first place if you think it was lacking. Resistance, at the end of the day, is unrealistic.



I don't quite know what you mean by this... it's a comment most commonly used to express disdain for poorly performed and poorly understood kata geiko. In this style of practice (again, pretty much the primary method of training and transmission for all classical and traditional Japanese martial arts... so it must have some benefits!), the partners each take a "role", as the attacker or defender (simplified), but the core of it is the role of teacher/student, or parent/child. One guides and assists the other, helping them to develop through the lessons of the kata itself. Where it falls down is when the "attacker" side (the teacher/parent side) doesn't understand this, and simply goes through the motions of the initial attack, and "falls over" when the defence is applied.

This isn't compliant training, it's not even training, it's just poor choreography. It also isn't "role playing", as that would involve each side taking on a character, rather than remaining themselves through the exercise. If the complaint is that the kata training is done as I described (in its "falling down" state), then, yeah, that's a big problem throughout the X-kans... something I lay squarely at the teachers feet for not properly educating their students about... but it's not "role-play". Nor is it "marketing". It's a methodology and educational failure endemic throughout these arts.



Honestly, I'd doubt that... if anything, there's not enough, which leads to the education issues mentioned above. I would say that some schools (particularly the Genbukan) tend to do a fair bit of lip service to the idea of theory, but not overly relevant in what is covered, and it's connection to the actual training is limited as a result.



Do you think they are the same thing? What do you think Shinken Gata is? What do you class as "true randori"?

If you're talking about a free-for-all style of sparring, do you think that's actually beneficial for the study of a traditional art? We've all seen the discussions of karate kata versus sparring, and how they look like unrelated arts to a fair degree... what would you consider this method of sparring to aid with? This takes us back to the "unrealistic techniques" thing... if you're expecting it to look like an MMA contest, you're in the wrong art. If you think you should be training like MMA, and also think that you should be using a traditional framework for it, then you're in denial about the reality of what you're expecting. And if you think sparring is anything like what Shinken Gata is, then you don't understand Shinken Gata (the clue is in the name, by the way).



From your limited exposure to some previous modern arts, and your impression of what "works" means. For the record, "works" means very different things to different arts, with different contexts and ideals.

What you're really saying is that you were exposed to some other ideas and ways of doing things, didn't bother to learn how they operated within their own context, and instead tried to apply them to your previous ideas. The whole "full cup/empty cup" thing applies here.



Then that's an issue of teaching. Perhaps the instruction wasn't great? Not saying yours, as you're not seeming to discuss your own students here.



One of the first things I can agree with completely.



This, I would not agree with, on a number of levels. Firstly, it would require the arts to be historical ones. Second, it would require them to have been preserved correctly in the first place. Thirdly, it would require people who were interested in actual historical preservation. Fourthly, that's simply not how martial arts (historical, classical) work in the main... they aren't "just... for the sake of historical preservation", they are maintained and protected for the sake of the arts themselves. They're not museum pieces to be held for future generations to look at.



Sure... but I'd level that complaint against ALL martial arts that describe themselves as "effective... for self defence". No martial art is designed for self defence, they're designed for a whole range of contexts of various combative engagements, from battlefields, to duelling, to methods of policing, and beyond. Even those ostensibly designed for "civilian protection" were designed for a different culture, a different form of violence, a different expression of societal norms and legal realities, and much, much more. More to the point, once things have gotten to a physical stage, most self defence is left behind, and now it's about the "fight" portion.

That said, the public still has the impression that "martial arts = self defence", without actually knowing anything about either... so it's hardly surprising that most arts, other than those that are obviously not so well suited (weapon arts, for example... Kendo doesn't really market itself as a self defence system!), utilise this way of getting into the public perception. It's really just a matter of working with the (mis)understanding that is already present. And, who knows, it's likely that many of the instructors have their own reasons for believing such things about their art. You don't share that impression? That's okay. But it doesn't mean that others are marketing it in a misleading way, just that your experience and beliefs don't share that feeling.



Well, that's a lot of jumbled up ideas and misunderstandings of pretty much everything.

"Actual ninjutsu"? Meaning what, precisely? Most historical applications and examples of ninjutsu are methods and cases of information gathering, espionage, infiltration, and no combative aspect whatsoever. It was simply a part of how military groups operated. You would no more use "actual ninjutsu" to "fight toe-to-toe" with someone than you would expect a Navy SEAL to use his scuba diving to take out an enemy combatant... they'd use their combative methods for that, the scuba diving might just be how they get there in the first place.

The whole idea of "in those situations, shinobi would always seek to employ some kind of force multiplier" is also similarly flawed... "shinobi" was a job description, you would be engaged as a shinobi to do a job, once that job was done, that was kinda that. It's like saying that, if a plumber was in a fight, they'd seek to use a force multiplier... okay, but does that mean that he's plumbing when he's fighting? Or are we now talking about something different? And, considering that most (employed) shinobi (or, more clearly, those engaged in shinobi-style actions) were actually samurai, just doing the job required, then... yeah, big fans of weapons, those guys... so, your point is...?

Lastly, why is there so much emphasis on the taijutsu side of things? Cause those are the arts taught in the various X-kans? Kukishin has a large weapon contingent, and Togakure has a few, but pretty much everything else is some kind of taijutsu/jujutsu. So... if I go to a restaurant, and it's an Italian one, should I be surprised when there's such an emphasis on pasta and pizza, when I really want some Beef Teriyaki? It serves what it has, and what it offers. Is that really a question?



Except you do. You've been told before that expecting a traditional art to be just like a modern one is unrealistic (again, leaving off the issues with thinking it's anything related to "historical preservation"). Bluntly, you haven't the first clue what the training is actually for, how it's designed and structured, what the reasoning is, or why it's trained by the majority of its practitioners. This is partially because you're still incredibly new to it, but also because you have not been able, at any point, to look past your own preconceptions and prior beliefs to actually take on board how things work. Now, that's okay, but it's not a failing of the art.



Why do you have to "change (the concepts) into ways that 'work' in the modern world" to "find value" in these arts? Really, it seems that you only find value in them if you try to force them to be something they're not, as you can't reconcile a traditional art with your preconceived notions about what martial arts should be. Again, this is all on you here. These are your values, and hardly universal.



Well, not a member of any of those (at this exact moment...), but my school is presented dominantly as a traditional school of Japanese martial arts. We do cover modern self defence, which is presented as a separate section to the rest of the curriculum, as it needs to be, and I will state that my personal expression of the schools taught is not the same as in the various Takamatsuden organisations... but not for the sake of "modern", more for the sake of authenticity (as I see it) to the arts themselves.

All that said, marketing needs to be done in a way that is going to have resonance for the audience, by linking it with concepts and ideas they already hold... so, while the marketing lists things like "Unarmed Defensive Techniques... Weapon Defence and Usage... Meditation... Philosophy... Modern Self Defence..." and so on, I don't really think of the classes and lessons in such simplistic, superficial ways... but it helps make more sense to those reading the ads. So it gets used.



Guilty of what? You've listed a number of issues you see with other dojo (I'd wonder how many you'd actually seen?), most not really tied into your overall complaint of "marketing", other than your feeling that the methods are sub-optimal for what you perceive as a modern self defence ideal, so are you guilty of having bad methodologies and marketing them as if they're good? Or just that you marketed a traditional art as a modern self defence one? Or that you just had bad methodologies, and didn't know how to fix them?

Your entire post reeks of personal feelings and assumptions. For anyone that didn't know, based off your response they would assume you knew me...except you don't and we have never met. I'm perplexed at the amount of inaccurate accusations and assumptions you've lumped in together, both about my experiences and/or those I've met and trained with. FTR, I haven't been training for only 10 years lol. As I've said in a previous post to you a while back, if you consider me so "inexperienced", you're more than welcome to stop in by my dojo if you're ever in the Washington D.C. area. Associating number of years of your experience in martial arts doesn't make you a good martial artist. I know many people like you who are just "kata heroes". You even admitted yourself before you've never had to employ your martial arts in a physical sense, which alone speaks volumes. But, quite frankly, I'm not really interested in engaging in this kind of discussion with you.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Your entire post reeks of personal feelings and assumptions. For anyone that didn't know, based off your response they would assume you knew me...except you don't and we have never met. I'm perplexed at the amount of inaccurate accusations and assumptions you've lumped in together, both about my experiences and/or those I've met and trained with. FTR, I haven't been training for only 10 years lol. As I've said in a previous post to you a while back, if you consider me so "inexperienced", you're more than welcome to stop in by my dojo if you're ever in the Washington D.C. area. Associating number of years of your experience in martial arts doesn't make you a good martial artist. I know many people like you who are just "kata heroes". You even admitted yourself before you've never had to employ your martial arts in a physical sense, which alone speaks volumes. But, quite frankly, I'm not really interested in engaging in this kind of discussion with you.

Well, I thought his comments to me were pretty legit.

Chris posts, like, 1-2 per year. There is a lot of value in there when he does. Like an uncut gem. The last time he posted, I read it in a US National Guard curated vaccination line.

To answer Chris' questions to me personally, if say that yeah, there are no authorities on ninjutsu. Which makes it very unique, because every other martial art has some sort of authority.

 

[Yamabushii]

Well, I thought his comments to me were pretty legit.

Chris posts, like, 1-2 per year. There is a lot of value in there when he does. Like an uncut gem. The last time he posted, I read it in a US National Guard curated vaccination line.

To answer Chris' questions to me personally, if say that yeah, there are no authorities on ninjutsu. Which makes it very unique, because every other martial art has some sort of authority.

I was specifically referring to his personal comments and assumptions about me, which of course isn't his first offense either.

 

[Steve]

Well, I thought his comments to me were pretty legit.

Chris posts, like, 1-2 per year. There is a lot of value in there when he does. Like an uncut gem. The last time he posted, I read it in a US National Guard curated vaccination line.

To answer Chris' questions to me personally, if say that yeah, there are no authorities on ninjutsu. Which makes it very unique, because every other martial art has some sort of authority.

Chris is an excellent academic.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Next, you've been training for a bit over 10 years (starting in 2012)

the arts you're just a bit beyond a beginner in

For anyone that didn't know, based off your response they would assume you knew me...except you don't and we have never met. I'm perplexed at the amount of inaccurate accusations and assumptions you've lumped in together, both about my experiences and/or those I've met and trained with. FTR, I haven't been training for only 10 years lol.

Omar, I think 10 years of training is what you mentioned when you joined this site 6 years ago, right?

I have also never met Yamabushii in person, so I have no particular knowledge of or opinion regarding his skill level.

What I will say, from my perspective of having trained martial arts for 42 years and BJJ for 24 years, is that I know people who have "only" been training for 10-15-20 years who are much more skilled, more accomplished, and more knowledgeable in their martial art(s) than I am in mine. Mat hours, quality of instruction, and even natural talent all play a role.

It can be fun to play the "I've been training longer than you've been alive, kid" card. But I know all too well how much I have to learn from some of these "kids,"