I'm gonna do some Ninjutsu today

[Dylan9d]

Yeah.........a friend of mine saw a Ninjutsu school in the city we live in and he asked me if I could accompany him to a lesson.

I said yes.

It's a Bujinkan Brian Dojo so I'm not really sure what to expect.....

 

[drop bear]

Find out how to do that chicken attack thing.

That looks pretty cool

 

[Dylan9d]

Find out how to do that chicken attack thing.

That looks pretty cool

I'll check if they have some info on that

 

[Buka]

Have fun, bro. Let us know how it was.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah.........a friend of mine saw a Ninjutsu school in the city we live in and he asked me if I could accompany him to a lesson.

I said yes.

It's a Bujinkan Brian Dojo so I'm not really sure what to expect.....

Okay, cool. There are a couple of things to know, though...

The Bujinkan Brian Dojo, despite the name, are not associated with the Bujinkan itself... Brian McCarthy was one of early Bujinkan members in Europe (Ireland), and left the Bujinkan in the 90's (as an 8th Dan). However, he claimed to have copyrighted the name "Bujinkan" in Europe, and therefore continued to use the name for his new schools... the BBD, or Bujinkan Brian Dojos... this has, understandably, led to some rather poor feelings towards them...

The BBD teaches a fair amount of the same content, however Brian has also added a fair bit of his own thing, including a number of methods that are quite different to that found in what are called the "Ninjutsu" schools (the Bujinkan, Genbukan etc...). Over the years, what the BBD represents has moved more and more away from the Bujinkan (and other forms of Ninjutsu), and more into his own creation... so, while you may get something out of the class, it might not be what is recognised as "Ninjutsu" by others...

 

[Dylan9d]

Okay, cool. There are a couple of things to know, though...

The Bujinkan Brian Dojo, despite the name, are not associated with the Bujinkan itself... Brian McCarthy was one of early Bujinkan members in Europe (Ireland), and left the Bujinkan in the 90's (as an 8th Dan). However, he claimed to have copyrighted the name "Bujinkan" in Europe, and therefore continued to use the name for his new schools... the BBD, or Bujinkan Brian Dojos... this has, understandably, led to some rather poor feelings towards them...

The BBD teaches a fair amount of the same content, however Brian has also added a fair bit of his own thing, including a number of methods that are quite different to that found in what are called the "Ninjutsu" schools (the Bujinkan, Genbukan etc...). Over the years, what the BBD represents has moved more and more away from the Bujinkan (and other forms of Ninjutsu), and more into his own creation... so, while you may get something out of the class, it might not be what is recognised as "Ninjutsu" by others...

Thanks for the info Chris.

The lesson I got was boring, really boring. Unrealistic techniques that leaned more towards Judo than anything else.

For example, we got a standing choke from the back, the teacher wanted us to throw the attacker with a should throw, so I grabbed my partner pretty tight and he couldn't throw me because he was shorter and not as strong as me.

I do want to state that this school probably wasn't a good representation of Ninjutsu,

So to make a long story short, I won't be back training there.......

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm... okay... if you didn't enjoy the class, sure, don't head back... but I'd caution against making such critiques, as the description you give indicates that perhaps you were not a particularly good training partner there... without being there, it's not easy to say one way or the other, but if that's all the technique involved, either it was a drill using compliance (not full resistance, and not with you trying to grab "pretty tight") in order to understand the mechanics of the throw and it's application... in actual usage, that's just one part, with a fair bit of set-up in order to overcome the strength of a rear hold... or it was possibly that the teacher was presenting it as the whole answer, in which case, yeah, not a good sign.

Either way, the specifics and context need to be understood in order to know if that's actually a flaw... training in a different context to the intended one is not a good way to ascertain the dojo, or the art...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

For example, we got a standing choke from the back, the teacher wanted us to throw the attacker with a should throw, so I grabbed my partner pretty tight and he couldn't throw me because he was shorter and not as strong as me.

Applied correctly and under the proper circumstances, that technique is totally legitimate. It doesn't require the thrower to be stronger than the attacker and being shorter actually helps.

That said, if the instructor knows what they are doing, they should have been able to come around and sort out the problem. Either your training partner didn't understand the details of the technique (in which case the teacher should have helped correct him) or you were applying the choke in a different way than the technique is meant to counter (in which case the teacher should have corrected your attack and could also have shown the proper counter for the version of the choke you were applying).

For the record, that particular defense only works against an uneducated attack where the attacker stands square to the defender's back and doesn't pre-emptively break the defender's balance backwards to a significant degree. If the attacker stands more perpendicular and pulls the defender backwards, then you use a different defense.

 

[Dylan9d]

Applied correctly and under the proper circumstances, that technique is totally legitimate. It doesn't require the thrower to be stronger than the attacker and being shorter actually helps.

That said, if the instructor knows what they are doing, they should have been able to come around and sort out the problem. Either your training partner didn't understand the details of the technique (in which case the teacher should have helped correct him) or you were applying the choke in a different way than the technique is meant to counter (in which case the teacher should have corrected your attack and could also have shown the proper counter for the version of the choke you were applying).

For the record, that particular defense only works against an uneducated attack where the attacker stands square to the defender's back and doesn't pre-emptively break the defender's balance backwards to a significant degree. If the attacker stands more perpendicular and pulls the defender backwards, then you use a different defense.

So making your story short, it doesn't work that well......

Look if an instructor says to me, literally "this is how you can be grabbed on the street" than it doesnt make any sense training it with a compliant partner ......

 

[Dylan9d]

When my schedule opens up a bit more I'll be doing Pukulan Madura Kombinasi, which is a bit more in line with the stuff that I'm teaching at the moment.

 

[jks9199]

So making your story short, it doesn't work that well......

Look if an instructor says to me, literally "this is how you can be grabbed on the street" than it doesnt make any sense training it with a compliant partner ......

I want to start with a caveat -- I wasn't there, I don't know what was going on, and I don't have anything but your words here to put some pieces together... Don't view this as an attack on you, so much an observation or perhaps a different perspective based on what you've posted. (Yep, that means it may well feel like an attack.)

You're a new student in the class -- but have a base of other experience to draw on. They're teaching a particular move. Not every student in the class has that base of experience. When a technique is first presented -- it's often presented rather unrealistically, and practiced at first in an unrealistic manner. It's possible that the apparent lesson isn't even what the instructor wants the students to get out of it... (I could see, for example, using this particular technique, if I understand it properly, to show some things about leverage and the mechanics of a throw...) So, you proceed to "attack realistically" and your training partner can't make it work. He's missed out on the lesson -- in fact, he's been robbed of the lesson of the day, and been taught instead that it doesn't work. I'll add this on the issue of correction... The worst sign from my teacher is silence. He doesn't tell you you're wrong. He doesn't tell you you're right. He just lets you go. I LOVE being corrected -- because it tells me he still cares whether I'm learning. I've seen him teach seminars, and, at first, wondered why he let some people roll through, doing things that weren't even close to what he was trying to teach. It took me a while to realize that he knew that there's no point in correcting some people -- they simply won't listen.

It can be really hard to step back, and simply do what you're told when you're used to being the front. At the same time -- it's an exercise I encourage people to do. It can be a great grounding experience... and a reminder of our own limits.

 

[Dylan9d]

I want to start with a caveat -- I wasn't there, I don't know what was going on, and I don't have anything but your words here to put some pieces together... Don't view this as an attack on you, so much an observation or perhaps a different perspective based on what you've posted. (Yep, that means it may well feel like an attack.)

You're a new student in the class -- but have a base of other experience to draw on. They're teaching a particular move. Not every student in the class has that base of experience. When a technique is first presented -- it's often presented rather unrealistically, and practiced at first in an unrealistic manner. It's possible that the apparent lesson isn't even what the instructor wants the students to get out of it... (I could see, for example, using this particular technique, if I understand it properly, to show some things about leverage and the mechanics of a throw...) So, you proceed to "attack realistically" and your training partner can't make it work. He's missed out on the lesson -- in fact, he's been robbed of the lesson of the day, and been taught instead that it doesn't work. I'll add this on the issue of correction... The worst sign from my teacher is silence. He doesn't tell you you're wrong. He doesn't tell you you're right. He just lets you go. I LOVE being corrected -- because it tells me he still cares whether I'm learning. I've seen him teach seminars, and, at first, wondered why he let some people roll through, doing things that weren't even close to what he was trying to teach. It took me a while to realize that he knew that there's no point in correcting some people -- they simply won't listen.

It can be really hard to step back, and simply do what you're told when you're used to being the front. At the same time -- it's an exercise I encourage people to do. It can be a great grounding experience... and a reminder of our own limits.

I have no problem at all starting over, I did that multiple times, with Eskrima and Krav Maga. It's just that I won't be starting over in a fantasy club.

 

[dunc]

Which club was it?
Just curious...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So making your story short, it doesn't work that well......

Look if an instructor says to me, literally "this is how you can be grabbed on the street" than it doesnt make any sense training it with a compliant partner ......

In many cases "compliant partner" means providing the attack the technique works against. I often catch students giving attacks that would require a different approach (forward energy not present, etc.). Just because a technique doesn't work on a given attack, that doesn't mean it doesn't work. A rear naked choke doesn't work if the guy is a step away, facing you, has his hands on his own throat, or a hundred other reasons. But it does work when used properly. The same is true of the defense in question. In many standing grappling arts (perhaps all), one of the most important skills is being able to recognize which technique fits a given situation.

 

[drop bear]

I have no problem at all starting over, I did that multiple times, with Eskrima and Krav Maga. It's just that I won't be starting over in a fantasy club.

Sort of. If you know the move is coming ahead of time then you should be able to counter it.

So given that he has let you get the lock on and then told you before hand what defence he is going to use. He would have to be pretty bloody slick to then pull it off if you are actively trying to prevent him from doing so.

And a lot of moves don't just work. It is a fight. You have to be better or more committed to making it work than they are at stopping you.

It has taken me forever to get seonagi even vaguely functional against a resisting guy. There are a lot of elements you need to get right befor it just works.

And I dont even like Ninjutsu.

 

[Dylan9d]

Which club was it?
Just curious...

Home

It's all in Dutch though, and I'm not sure if they are a good representation of the label "ninjutsu" or anything associated with that.

With that being said, next up Pukulan Madura Kombinasi

 

[oaktree]

Thanks for the info Chris.

The lesson I got was boring, really boring. Unrealistic techniques that leaned more towards Judo than anything else.

For example, we got a standing choke from the back, the teacher wanted us to throw the attacker with a should throw, so I grabbed my partner pretty tight and he couldn't throw me because he was shorter and not as strong as me.

I do want to state that this school probably wasn't a good representation of Ninjutsu,

So to make a long story short, I won't be back training there.......

If a person is learning a technique it really is bad etiquette to resist at first. The person is most likely trying to get his footing, and start to work on the breaking of balance. I by chance, also went to a jinenkan dojo the same day you had your lesson, coming from a Daito Ryu and other arts background I went with the pace and flow of the school. What was being taught was a particular technique done with little resistance to ensure the lesson, concepts and foundation were being used. To me, the gem to be found was not so much in technique but the concept of distance and timing and distribution of attack. Seeing an arts public face is not the same as seeing an arts true face which often times is only shown to people who have practiced the art for some time.

 

[Dylan9d]

If a person is learning a technique it really is bad etiquette to resist at first. The person is most likely trying to get his footing, and start to work on the breaking of balance. I by chance, also went to a jinenkan dojo the same day you had your lesson, coming from a Daito Ryu and other arts background I went with the pace and flow of the school. What was being taught was a particular technique done with little resistance to ensure the lesson, concepts and foundation were being used. To me, the gem to be found was not so much in technique but the concept of distance and timing and distribution of attack. Seeing an arts public face is not the same as seeing an arts true face which often times is only shown to people who have practiced the art for some time.

The bold part oaktree, when a school does have so called "public face" and show that on their trial lessons then they aren't showing themselves for what they really are and in my opinion thats usually a red flag.

I don't knwo if you read my posts that well, but if a teacher is telling me to grab as we were in a street fight, then I will resist.

 

[oaktree]

In order to understand a Japanese art and people this article may apply.
www.nakasendoway.com/omote-ura-public-and-private-faces/

Watching say Katori Shinto Ryu, practicing for the first time and being in depth in the Ryu all have different levels of presentation. The public and first timer won't see the true characteristics in depth.

If you are resisting on someone trying to learn a technique it makes the student have a hard time learning the fundamentals of the technique. Say you are doing a knife drill and you are learning the sequence you would go slow, maybe count. After you have got the sequence down then speed it up maybe add a slight variation. For sure would not go full speed. Now for the student not being to apply the technique against a resisting person, possible he sucked but what might have been he was learning the technique.

Anyway I think the dojo was not a good fit for you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The bold part oaktree, when a school does have so called "public face" and show that on their trial lessons then they aren't showing themselves for what they really are and in my opinion thats usually a red flag.

I don't knwo if you read my posts that well, but if a teacher is telling me to grab as we were in a street fight, then I will resist.

The issue here is that there is no technique that will work against every version of that grab. None. So, it's okay to give an appropriate level of resistance, but the resistance has to be in the direction that makes the technique available, or you're just countering the technique and he won't be able to demonstrate it. Let me give you an example. One early application to a Leg Sweep I teach is from a frontal choke (the Hollywood Psycho choke). I use that one because it's an easy one to execute the technique from and tends to show up common errors pretty nicely. The technique will work if the "attacker" stands still, though it's harder to do that way. It works really well if they do a natural choke-and-push attack. There are two things you can do that will stop the technique (as taught) really easily: stiffen your arms, or pull back while choking. Now, there are plenty of things I can do with either of those, but neither lends itself to this technique. One of them is just unrealistic (stiff arms), and the other is awkward and unlikely (pulling back while choking).

So, if I am demonstrating this and you stiffen your arms, I'll just tell you to use your arms naturally and push me back. If you give a giant shove, you're no longer choking, and I'll just choose someone who will give the attack requested so we can work on the technique at hand. You see, for any technique, there's three groups of actions that can be called "resistance":

1. Counters. These are things people can do that aren't necessarily natural responses, but which nullify the technique. That's things like lifting a leg to avoid a sweep, dropping weight abnormally low, etc.
2. Unnatural resistance. I see this one the most. This is stiff arms and such where people say they are providing resistance. But it's not real resistance. It's almost into the counters. People don't normally choke with their arms locked at a 25 degree angle. People don't normally grab with their arms locked out (they normally are either pushing or pulling). People don't punch with all their weight leaning on the block at the end (I see that a lot with advanced students trying to test partners' blocks).
3. Natural resistance. This is the stuff someone would naturally do in the situation. So, if I pull, the natural resistance is to pull back. If I pull and you shove, that's technique, not resistance. Now we're sparring, and that's fine in the right context, but not for learning a new technique.