Questions regarding authentication

[Nigel]

Yep. On multiple occasions.

Question about Japanese Shihan

That's what you get for basing assumptions on video ;)..same point can be applied to yhe Ed Lomax thread ;) Do you know me? Oh, sorry! Just because i said Ed Lomax hasn´t the best Taijutsu that i´ve ever seen, you assumed that i only know him from videos. Well, sorry, but you´re wrong. And...

www.martialtalk.com

I am an instructor under Sensei Wayne Roy, having joined his organsation in 1993, when we were still part of the Bujinkan (hence my ability to answer your history question... and yes, Stephen, it was Nagato. When Nagato accompanied Hatsumi Sensei out here for the first Australian Tai Kai, he used Sensei Roy as uke for the most part, the first thing Nagato Sensei said to Mr Roy was "Well Roy-san, it's been a long time... now, punch!"). I earned my Shodan while still in the Bujinkan, my later grade after we split. To give an idea, though, as I said in the other thread, Sensei Roy stopped at Rokudan, so Godan is as high as we go under him. I am currently a Sandan.

For more details, see the website in my signature.

Ok, did a search on Wayne L Roy and found this. So Chris Parker joined Wayne L Roy (in his own words) in 1993. Apparently when Wayne L Roy was still part of the Bujinkan…I seem to recall (and I can find it if you like) that Chris Parker said he gained his Shodan from the Bujinkan…..

So for Chris Parker to have earned his Shodan in the Bujinkan, it would have been sometime in 1996/1997. Shortly after that, Wayne L Roy was booted out of the Bujinkan so Chris Parker has not been a member of the Bujinkan for at least 20 years yet having gained Shodan rank, he still purports to be an expert on it. Tony Dismukes you say And here we come to the problem I referred to above. How exactly is RogueShooter06 supposed to “do his own research?” He can find the info you listed above on Wikipedia. As far as establishing the historical bona fides of the individual lineages, that’s going to be a bit of a challenge. I’m still reading Askew’s book, but he states early on that none of the history of Togakure Ryu was ever written down before Takamatsu - that it was strictly a secret oral tradition before that. (I haven’t gotten to any mentions of the other 5 associated lineages, but I suspect the same will turn out be true of them as well.) How exactly is a non-Japanese, non-historian supposed to “do his own research” to determine the accuracy of this claimed secret oral tradition? This is why I stated in my original post that we will probably never know the full truth regarding the origins of those 6 of the arts contained within the Bujinkan.

so how can Chris Parker be any more enlightened than the rest of us? Some history to the readers on Wayne L Roys colourful background in Australia

Wayne Roy??

TENCHI
unread,

Jun 13, 1999, 5:00:00 PM

to

Why do they want Wayne Roy out of the Bujinkan???
All I could find about him was at the link below???
http://www.tesoma.com/
--
E
unread,

Jun 14, 1999, 5:00:00 PM


to

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:41:31 -0500, TENCHI <[email protected]>
wrote:

​

gees a reply to that could be a books worth I'll give you some
major points, though it is still long.

- runs his school very much like a cult. in the eraly days some of his
senior students used to call it the 4th Reich, those of us outside the
school have obviously called it worse.
- he then started kicking out his dan ranks for "insubordination" and
training in other styles - no big deal his dojo right, but he told
them that they were also kicked out of the Bujinkan. His cult methods
ensured that most of these people believed him and some even spent
year in therapy.
- told people that without a personal letter from him you could not
train in Japan - same as Hayes here.
- forced his seniors to sign franchise agreements stating that if they
ever left the school that they would never teach martial arts again.
kicked out anybody who did not sign
- ran media campaigns against other Bujinkan instructors - including
paid for adverts in martial arts magazines stating that other specific
instructors were not qualified or recognised by the Bujinkan. one
particular instructor tried to encourage people to go to Japan for
training and offered to help them do so in a martial arts magazine and
was subjected to copious amounts of hate mail and also public attack
in the same magazine. Roy then started attacking the Bujinkan in
general when complaining about some twin 19 yearolds in England that
had passed their godan tests - regardless of the fact that they had
trained for over 10 years with Peter King - I have met one of these
boys and his skill is well above the average godan as is normal for
anybody out of Peter's dojo.
- tried to stop the Adelaide Taikai from happening in 1992 (1st Aussie
Taikai)
- ordered 63 dan ranks before this taikai many being sequences for the
same people - Hatsumi told me that it was obvious therefore that he
had no intention of getting legitimate ranks until he heard of the
Taikai. later Roy's rank fees were told to Hatsumi and myself by some
of his ex-students and you can imagine Hatsumi's reaction to finding
out that 3rd dans were $1000
- snubbed Hatsumi's Shidoshi-kai meeting at said taikai - was seen
entering a restaurant nearby with some friends instead.
- accused me of buying my rank at the time by running the taikai and
then mailed Hatsumi with a request for a higher rank for himself
- upon inviting Charles Daniels and Ed Martin to Australia in early
1993 he told his students to go to that rather than the planned Taikai
in the same year (the last taikai here) - Both Charles and Ed were
unable to convince Roy's students otherwise and if you want more
details on this contact Ed.
- boycotted the 1993 Taikai and threatened his students that if they
went he would remove them from his dojo, they were so cult programmed
that even though he has several dojo's in Sydney only two students of
his turned up and they tried to pass themselves off as kung-fu
students.
- tried to sue me for libel when I made it known before the taikai
that I knew what his intentions were and in the process nearly had his
lawyer dismissed from practice and the case was used as lecture
material by one Australian university for some time.
- has consistently insulted Hatsumi and the Japanese Shihan
- has modified (simplified and mutilated) the Bujinkan arts to the
point where they are only barely recogniseable - Hatsumi is refusing
to recognise the ranks he gives
- has not trained in Japan since 1990 when he turned up for 2 classes
and then took his students on a temple tour of Kyoto etc. heard this
before too eh.
- along with many other Australians that had not paid for their ranks
after 4 years or more he was demoted down to his last paid for rank.
- accused me again of buying ranks by running taikai's here. in fact I
tried to refuse my 8th at the Sydney Taikai but Hatsumi wouldn't allow
me too - anybody that knows me also knows that I was not subtle when
trying to refuse it either.
- since the late eighties Hatsumi has had on student after another of
Roys turning up to Japan - most have had to leave his dojo to do so
and have similar stories to tell. Hatsumi has also been unimpressed by
what these people thought was Bujinkan technique and asked Andrw Young
and Mark O'Brien to tour Australia in 1992 to help fix the standard
here. But what has been most noticeable is the culture of distrust and
aggression towards each other here by Roy people to no-Roy people and
ex-Roy people to everybody and it is quite obviously a product of his
cult teachings and methods. Sure it happens all over the world to an
extent and again I will say that if you want an outsiders view of how
bad it was here ask Ed Martin or Charles Daniels what they gleaned
about it in their 3 weeks here as guests of Roy. Needless to say that
Ed has joined me in voting for Roy's expulsion

so I guess people can come to their own conclusions on Chris Parkers credentials in the Bujinkan. Shodan is hardly an expert, In the Bujinkan, Shodan is just the beginning

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Question about Japanese Shihan

That's what you get for basing assumptions on video ;)..same point can be applied to yhe Ed Lomax thread ;) Do you know me? Oh, sorry! Just because i said Ed Lomax hasn´t the best Taijutsu that i´ve ever seen, you assumed that i only know him from videos. Well, sorry, but you´re wrong. And...

www.martialtalk.com

I am an instructor under Sensei Wayne Roy, having joined his organsation in 1993, when we were still part of the Bujinkan (hence my ability to answer your history question... and yes, Stephen, it was Nagato. When Nagato accompanied Hatsumi Sensei out here for the first Australian Tai Kai, he used Sensei Roy as uke for the most part, the first thing Nagato Sensei said to Mr Roy was "Well Roy-san, it's been a long time... now, punch!"). I earned my Shodan while still in the Bujinkan, my later grade after we split. To give an idea, though, as I said in the other thread, Sensei Roy stopped at Rokudan, so Godan is as high as we go under him. I am currently a Sandan.

For more details, see the website in my signature.

Ok, did a search on Wayne L Roy and found this. So Chris Parker joined Wayne L Roy (in his own words) in 1993. Apparently when Wayne L Roy was still part of the Bujinkan…I seem to recall (and I can find it if you like) that Chris Parker said he gained his Shodan from the Bujinkan…..

So for Chris Parker to have earned his Shodan in the Bujinkan, it would have been sometime in 1996/1997. Shortly after that, Wayne L Roy was booted out of the Bujinkan so Chris Parker has not been a member of the Bujinkan for at least 20 years yet having gained Shodan rank, he still purports to be an expert on it. Tony Dismukes you say And here we come to the problem I referred to above. How exactly is RogueShooter06 supposed to “do his own research?” He can find the info you listed above on Wikipedia. As far as establishing the historical bona fides of the individual lineages, that’s going to be a bit of a challenge. I’m still reading Askew’s book, but he states early on that none of the history of Togakure Ryu was ever written down before Takamatsu - that it was strictly a secret oral tradition before that. (I haven’t gotten to any mentions of the other 5 associated lineages, but I suspect the same will turn out be true of them as well.) How exactly is a non-Japanese, non-historian supposed to “do his own research” to determine the accuracy of this claimed secret oral tradition? This is why I stated in my original post that we will probably never know the full truth regarding the origins of those 6 of the arts contained within the Bujinkan.

so how can Chris Parker be any more enlightened than the rest of us? Some history to the readers on Wayne L Roys colourful background in Australia

Wayne Roy??

TENCHI
unread,

Jun 13, 1999, 5:00:00 PM

to

Why do they want Wayne Roy out of the Bujinkan???
All I could find about him was at the link below???
http://www.tesoma.com/
--
E
unread,

Jun 14, 1999, 5:00:00 PM


to

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:41:31 -0500, TENCHI <[email protected]>
wrote:

​

gees a reply to that could be a books worth I'll give you some
major points, though it is still long.

- runs his school very much like a cult. in the eraly days some of his
senior students used to call it the 4th Reich, those of us outside the
school have obviously called it worse.
- he then started kicking out his dan ranks for "insubordination" and
training in other styles - no big deal his dojo right, but he told
them that they were also kicked out of the Bujinkan. His cult methods
ensured that most of these people believed him and some even spent
year in therapy.
- told people that without a personal letter from him you could not
train in Japan - same as Hayes here.
- forced his seniors to sign franchise agreements stating that if they
ever left the school that they would never teach martial arts again.
kicked out anybody who did not sign
- ran media campaigns against other Bujinkan instructors - including
paid for adverts in martial arts magazines stating that other specific
instructors were not qualified or recognised by the Bujinkan. one
particular instructor tried to encourage people to go to Japan for
training and offered to help them do so in a martial arts magazine and
was subjected to copious amounts of hate mail and also public attack
in the same magazine. Roy then started attacking the Bujinkan in
general when complaining about some twin 19 yearolds in England that
had passed their godan tests - regardless of the fact that they had
trained for over 10 years with Peter King - I have met one of these
boys and his skill is well above the average godan as is normal for
anybody out of Peter's dojo.
- tried to stop the Adelaide Taikai from happening in 1992 (1st Aussie
Taikai)
- ordered 63 dan ranks before this taikai many being sequences for the
same people - Hatsumi told me that it was obvious therefore that he
had no intention of getting legitimate ranks until he heard of the
Taikai. later Roy's rank fees were told to Hatsumi and myself by some
of his ex-students and you can imagine Hatsumi's reaction to finding
out that 3rd dans were $1000
- snubbed Hatsumi's Shidoshi-kai meeting at said taikai - was seen
entering a restaurant nearby with some friends instead.
- accused me of buying my rank at the time by running the taikai and
then mailed Hatsumi with a request for a higher rank for himself
- upon inviting Charles Daniels and Ed Martin to Australia in early
1993 he told his students to go to that rather than the planned Taikai
in the same year (the last taikai here) - Both Charles and Ed were
unable to convince Roy's students otherwise and if you want more
details on this contact Ed.
- boycotted the 1993 Taikai and threatened his students that if they
went he would remove them from his dojo, they were so cult programmed
that even though he has several dojo's in Sydney only two students of
his turned up and they tried to pass themselves off as kung-fu
students.
- tried to sue me for libel when I made it known before the taikai
that I knew what his intentions were and in the process nearly had his
lawyer dismissed from practice and the case was used as lecture
material by one Australian university for some time.
- has consistently insulted Hatsumi and the Japanese Shihan
- has modified (simplified and mutilated) the Bujinkan arts to the
point where they are only barely recogniseable - Hatsumi is refusing
to recognise the ranks he gives
- has not trained in Japan since 1990 when he turned up for 2 classes
and then took his students on a temple tour of Kyoto etc. heard this
before too eh.
- along with many other Australians that had not paid for their ranks
after 4 years or more he was demoted down to his last paid for rank.
- accused me again of buying ranks by running taikai's here. in fact I
tried to refuse my 8th at the Sydney Taikai but Hatsumi wouldn't allow
me too - anybody that knows me also knows that I was not subtle when
trying to refuse it either.
- since the late eighties Hatsumi has had on student after another of
Roys turning up to Japan - most have had to leave his dojo to do so
and have similar stories to tell. Hatsumi has also been unimpressed by
what these people thought was Bujinkan technique and asked Andrw Young
and Mark O'Brien to tour Australia in 1992 to help fix the standard
here. But what has been most noticeable is the culture of distrust and
aggression towards each other here by Roy people to no-Roy people and
ex-Roy people to everybody and it is quite obviously a product of his
cult teachings and methods. Sure it happens all over the world to an
extent and again I will say that if you want an outsiders view of how
bad it was here ask Ed Martin or Charles Daniels what they gleaned
about it in their 3 weeks here as guests of Roy. Needless to say that
Ed has joined me in voting for Roy's expulsion

so I guess people can come to their own conclusions on Chris Parkers credentials in the Bujinkan. Shodan is hardly an expert, In the Bujinkan, Shodan is just the beginning

Ah, so if I am understanding you correctly, your comments about the information in this thread being “skewed towards personal bias and/or ignorance” is aimed at Chris. Specifically, you feel that

• Since Chris’s instructor in the Takamatsuden arts broke off from the Bujinkan under bad terms, that Chris may be biased against the Bujinkan.
• Since Chris held only a low rank in the Bujinkan at the time of the schism, that he may not be particularly knowledgeable regarding Bujinkan history and training methods.

These are reasonable concerns. I’ll let Chris speak for himself on the specifics, but I’ll address what I can.

• If Chris is biased against the Bujinkan based on his membership in a breakaway organization, then Dunc should be biased in favor of the Bujinkan, based on his status as a Bujinkan shihan who has spent decades training and teaching within the organization. Perhaps you can look to the areas where Chris and Dunc agree, on the grounds that their respective biases should cancel out.
• One’s rank within the Bujinkan doesn’t necessarily give much insight into the historical accuracy of the claimed oral traditions of the Takamatsuden lineages. Bujinkan rank isn’t given out for historical research. Chris has spent the time to learn Japanese, study the general nature of historical Japanese arts (including actual training in a couple of koryu arts outside the Takamatsuden traditions), and done a bunch of research regarding the available information regarding Takamatsu’s background. Are his conclusions accurate? I don’t know. If you have concerns about the accuracy of specific assertions he has made (for example, the arts listed on Takamatsu’s name card when he went to China), then you can ask for his sources on that information.
• Regarding Chris’s knowledge of how things are run in the Bujinkan since his departure from the organization, I believe he has maintained contacts and friendships within the Bujinkan (and possibly other X-kans) and has kept abreast of developments. I have done the same to a much lesser extent.
• Regarding Chris’s technical knowledge of the specific Takamatsuden arts and/or Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu (as opposed to his academic historical knowledge), that probably comes down largely to what he learned from Mr. Roy. I have no personal experience with Wayne Roy and I don’t know how technically skilled or knowledgeable he was as an instructor. The complaints you quoted above regarding Mr. Roy are largely concerned with his character, which is a separate matter from his skill and knowledge. I do know that Hatsumi granted Wayne Roy instructor (shidoshi) certification and the rank of rokudan. I also know that Hatsumi handed out a lot of high ranks which didn’t always correspond to high skill or knowledge. So I don’t have any evidence one way or the other on the subject.

I’ll let Chris address any further considerations concerning his opinions and qualifications.

Putting Chris’s views aside, do you have any suggestions regarding your advice that the OP “do his own research” and how he might do that? Perhaps you might clarify your own background in the Bujinkan, your personal experiences with the Takamatsuden arts, and suggest accessible reliable historical resources? That might give the OP another perspective to consider.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh boy.... okay, kid, you want to play?

Just out of interest Chris, you teach these traditions yourself so what difference is there in your teachings as opposed to the Bujinkan teachings? Specifically, Togakure Ryu? Do you follow the scrolls?

• Takagi Yoshin Ryu
• Kukishinden Ryu
• Gyokko Ryu
• Koto Ryu
• Togakure Ryu
• Shinden Fudo Ryu

See, at this point, I was going to answer you candidly, but instead, I'll just say that the way I now teach and train these arts is very, very different to the way the kata from them is presented in the Bujinkan... mainly as I believe the Bujinkan gets them all wrong (Togakure being the main one that is largely unaffected by my changes). Do I follow the scrolls? A hell of a lot more, and, I would posit, more accurately, than anyone I've ever seen in the Bujinkan...

HI RogueShooter06, I don’t think you are going to get any objective or factual information on the Bujinkan from these forums. Some of the information in the thread is skewed to personal bias and/or ignorance. If you are doing research on the authenticity of the Bujinkan then you will need to do a lot on the lineage of each school to satisfy yourself. The 9 schools of the Bujinkan are

• Takagi Yoshin Ryu
• Kukishinden Ryu
• Gyokko Ryu
• Koto Ryu
• Togakure Ryu
• Shinden Fudo Ryu
• Gikan Ryu
• Gyokushin Gyu
• Kumogakure Ryu

The problem there is that most of the "lineage" and "history" you'll come across for the majority is what is put forth by the Bujinkan (and related, such as the Genbukan, Jinenkan, etc)... so it becomes a loop of faith, as there are major historical issues with the claimed lineages and histories presented.

Maasaki (formerly Youshiaki) Hatsumi became Soke of these 9 schools in 1972 when Takamatsu died.

No, he didn't. He became soke of Togakure Ryu in 1961, and was awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Gyokko Ryu some 6 months later... he was awarded the soke title in most of the others over the next 10 years or so, with some reports stating that he didn't actually get Gikan Ryu, but kinda begged for it, so had it added to his existing scrolls without patterns (which is why, when the school came up in a court case in Japan, it was ruled that Tanemura's claim to soke of Gikan Ryu was upheld, and Hatsumi's wasn't). Additionally, while these were all awarded a few years before Takamatsu passed on, even a couple of years after his passing, Hatsumi was presenting himself as the soke of 8 ryu, not 9... then, one day, he walked into the Bujinkan and announced that he was also soke of Gyokushin Ryu... which brought him to 9 ryu-ha... one coming well after the fact, one incomplete (and ruled against him in a court case), and one (Kumogakure) that hasn't been taught, and is said to be little more than a set of principles... rather than a complete ryu itself. Which takes us down to 6... co-incidentally the ones that are actually used as the basis for the Bujinkan's methods.

As you mentioned there is some dispute over the lineage of these schools. Sean Askew, who spent a decade training with Hatsumi before leaving in 2001 to form his own school, wrote a book call Hidden Lineage of the Ninja Toda Clan which claims to have filled in the blanks in the lineage issues. You will have to read it for yourself and decide for yourself.

Hidden Lineage - The Ninja of the Toda Clan: Sean Askew: 9780578513423: Amazon.com: Books

Hmm... haven't heard of Sean "forming his own school"... as to the book, I'll let Tony talk about what he finds there... I've already commented on my take on Sean's research....
Hidden Lineage - The Ninja of the Toda Clan: Sean Askew: 9780578513423: Amazon.com: Books

On the issue of Stephen Hayes, he was 10 Dan in Togakure Ryu in 1993. Stephen Hayes was the person who brought ninjutsu to the US in the 1980’s. It was not under the umbrella of the Bujinkan but Togakure Ryu. Hayes was removed from the Bujinkan in 2006 and the reasons for that removal is still somewhat blurred. Some say he was expelled others say he left.

Yes, it was under the umbrella of the Bujinkan, Togakure Ryu was the "banner school"... you really should learn the difference between those. As for Hayes' departure, that was an interesting time... he had begun to develop his personal approach, which he referred to as Toshindo (using a slightly inaccurate breakdown of the "nin" character), from around the year 2000 or so... but the bigger issue was apparently his issuing rank certificates in the ryu-ha names without Hatsumi's permission... of course, being the consulate marketing guy that he is, Hayes put on a show of visiting Hatsumi in Japan around 2005... in an attempt to show he was still "in"... not long afterwards, he had separated. The word from Japan at the time was that Hatsumi said "people can call it hamon (expulsion) if they want...", but he wasn't officially expelled... it was made clear, though, that training with him was not considered appropriate for Bujinkan members.

Then we have a man called Wayne L Roy, an Australian who brought Togakure Ryu to Australia. Wayne L Roy went to Japan in 1980’s and trained then came back to Australia and started the first Togakure Ryu school. Suffice to say a lot of **** when down with Roy and in 1999 Hatsumi started collecting votes from foreign Shihan to remove Roy from the (now called) Bujinkan. It was a requirement that all Shihan had personal experiences of Roys actions to be able to vote. Only 3 Shihan voted but despite that Roy is no longer a member of the Bujinkan

We're going back to all of this again, some 20 years after the fact... okay....

No, little had "gone down" in 99. No, there was no collection of signatures for Mr Roy to leave. No, Mr Roy was not removed from the Bujinkan. In 2000, after many years of being run down in the media by former students who had garnered high ranks from Hatsumi, and were using that position to discredit Mr Roy, with no intervention from Japan, Mr Roy requested a show of support in recognition of his accomplishments in establishing the third largest group of schools in the world, and the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. There was none. After another year of silence, he resigned himself and his organisation from the Bujinkan. Why stay where you're not appreciated?

It also should be noted that much of the negative commentary towards Mr Roy were by people who had never had any contact with him, never trained with him, not experienced his schools, and were simply upset at the cardinal sin in the Bujinkan of "empire building"... for some reason, Hatsumi doesn't seem to want anyone other than himself to be successful... the other two bigger groups, by the way, were Hayes' and the Spanish group... and all three were eventually taken apart by Japan sowing dissent between "loyal" Bujinkan members and these "empire builders"... in cases, encouraging them to literally invade the schools... in others, "buying" the loyalties of students who would come to Japan if they left their own teachers in their native countries (we had a brown belt go to Japan, and was offered Shodan on his first night... he refused, as he wasn't there for rank... he was offered Nidan the next class... still said no... was offered Yondan, and the ability to test for Godan to have his own school... he left shaking his head). And, really, if you go to Japan, and all of a sudden, the seniors and headmaster are "recognising" your abilities, and offering you such rank, you must be worth it, right? Who are you to say no? And how good do you feel about yourself then! Surely your teacher will understand! See how it works?

Chris Parker is a student of Wayne L Roy and is not a member of the Bujinkan but has his own school which teaches 6 of those 9 schools mentioned.

The only people who claim to teach the last three are lying or delusional. And, bluntly, no-one in the Bujinkan is really teaching even the first six... only teaching sequences from them. But, yes, I am a former student of Wayne Roy's. However, I don't shout it (as I don't need to), mainly as he retired from teaching traditional martial arts at the end of 2016, and there's no reason to bring him into discussions in an area he's no longer active. What I say rests on me, not him.

As far as "not a member of the Bujinkan", that's presently correct. However, you should also note that I hold a Yondan in the Bujinkan, was a member for nearly a decade when I started, have held a personal membership since 2017, have been given authority to rank my students for Bujinkan rank up to Sandan, have a standing invitation to test for Godan the next time I get back to Japan (the only reason I hold a Yondan is that that was as far as I could rank before taking the Godan test, and had to be Yondan for a year first), as well as the fact that I've kept up-to-date with Bujinkan activity, teachers, themes, and more for this entire time. How much do you really know about what we do? Again, though, an argument can be easily made that there is no Bujinkan anymore... but we'll leave that for the moment.

The other 2 “somewhat educated” posters, one is not a member of the Bujinkan and like never has been and the others credentials is dubious considering he apparently is a member but doesn’t seem to like it much.

Er... what? Did you read what was written?

I guess what I am saying RogueShooter06 is to do your own research and come to your own conclusions on this as you will not get any unbiased advice from these forums on the Bujinkan.

Again... did you read what I wrote?

Nothing I have said is incorrect.

Well, that's incorrect...

I am not complaining about bias, only pointing it out.. That’s why I said to Rogueshooter06 to form his own opinions.

I love hypocrisy, don't you?

Absolutely agree that we are all bias in some way. We all put our own slant on things and no matter how much we talk about it there will always be those that disagree, thats the way of things. The Bujinkan does teach all of those 9 school in varying degrees. Why do you say Sean Askew and Kacem Zhoughari are bias?

The Bujinkan teaches none of the ryu. None of them. It teaches Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, a modern semi-traditional art created by Hatsumi Masaaki, starting in the 1970's, and more fully realised in the late 80's and into the 90's, which uses the technical material from primarily 6 schools, as well as a couple of non-listed ones (Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Bokuden Ryu, Judo), and Hatsumi's personal creativity. Should you wish to argue this, please demonstrate the following: What are the ri-ai and mechanical principles of Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu and Kenpo, and how do they relate? What is the structure and an example of a teaching from Gyokushin Ryu, Kumogakure Ryu, or Gikan Ryu that is found in the Bujinkan's teaching? What are you ranked in as part of the Bujinkan?

As for why anyone would say that Kacem and Sean are biased... well... have you read their work? Both have vested interests in supporting the histories and stories of the schools claimed by their teacher... discrediting him isn't a great career move... as well as their own interest in their own investments (emotionally, physically, time-wise...).

just one more thing you quoted BrendanF

Chris Parker said:
My school was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981, however we split from the Bujinkan in 2001, and the organisation as an entity was disbanded when my Chief Instructor retired at the end of 2016. I have trained at the Bujinkan Hombu, with classes held by a number of the senior Japanese instructors, Western instructors, and Hatsumi himself, but am not, technically speaking, a member of the Bujinkan itself (there's a whole other conversation as to whether or not there even is a Bujinkan anymore...).

His school was not the original Bujinkan School in Australia. This is not true. His sensei's (Wayne L Roy) school may have been but not his.

You're kidding, right? "My" school (the school I trained and train at, as well as teach now), the school I belong to, the school of Wayne Roy, was the first Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in Brisbane in 1981, when Wayne Roy returned from his first visit to Japan, where he learnt directly with Nagato Toshiro, including living with him for the first few months upon arriving in Tokyo. The first branch in Melbourne was opened in 1984 after a couple of seminars here and in Sydney, where members travelled to join in, and gained enough rank and experience to open a study group, which became a dojo. I joined 7 years later. Does that help clear it up?

this is Chris Parkers website.

Instruction | Jukuren Dojo Budo Heiho

This is a quote from his website

The instructor at the Jukuren Dojo is Chris Parker. Mr. Parker has been the representative for Mr. Roy’s organization in Melbourne since taking over the school from his instructor in mid-2003.

On the one hand he says he his school.was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, beginning in 1981 but stil from the Bujinkan in 2001

And on the other he says Mr Parker has been a representative ofrm Mr Roys organization in Melbourne since taking over the school from Wayne L Roy in Mid 2003………………………….crickets

Crickets?!?! Dude... what are you going on about? Was I supposed to answer you while you were typing?

Again, are you incapable of following simple rhetoric devices? Mr Roy went to Japan in 1979. He returned to Australia in 1981, and began teaching in Brisbane, as well as travelling around the country presenting seminars, and helping set up study groups to help spread the art (at the direction of Japan, I might add). In 1984, the Melbourne dojo was established, and I joined in 1993. A decade later, I took over teaching when my teacher changed his career, and was unable to continue to maintain the school, at which point I became a student directly under Mr Roy. This is about a 2 and a half years after we left the Bujinkan, becoming Jyukutatsu Dojos. I remained Mr Roy's representative until the end of 2016, when Mr Roy disbanded the organisation, and retired from teaching traditional martial arts. I, in consultation with my students, opted to not bring the group back to the Bujinkan (I rejoined personally for a couple of reasons, but did the dojo did not), instead continuing as a completely independent dojo focusing on continuing Mr Roy's legacy of cutting edge modern self defence training in conjunction with a deeper study of the traditional material and arts (honestly, I was always more interested in that side of things than most of our membership around the country), under the name Jukuren Dojo.

As a result, the school to which I belong, and which my dojo is a direct continuation of, is a part of the original Bujinkan schools in Australia. Does this make sense now?

It was not Bujinkan when it first came to Australia, it was only Togakure Ryu.

Well, that's wrong. Let's see if we can clear up the way the naming structure has developed, and what is actually what, shall we?

As mentioned, Togakure Ryu was the first school that Hatsumi was awarded the soke title for, in 1961 (after training with Takamatsu for about 2 years, for the record). Not long afterwards, he was given full licensing in Gyokko Ryu as well... but wasn't then "soke" of the school. As a result, he would use the title of Togakure Ryu Soke, however what he was training in (and teaching... he was basically running a study group for Takamatsu in Noda) was not necessarily Togakure Ryu itself. It was already a mixture (not a single ryu, nor really a ryu-ha approach) of methods and concepts. By the time Hatsumi established a dojo in the early 70's, he named it the Bujinkan (Hall of the Divine Warrior), ostensibly in honour of Takamatsu himself. Remember that anything with "Kan" in the name is often referring to a specific physical building... such as the Kodokan... or Shotokan, really (it was never a "style" of karate, it was a location where Funakoshi, pen-name "Shoto", taught karate... so it became synonymous with the hall, and Shotokan became the name for the style of karate that Shoto taught at the hall)... making the "banner" art Togakure Ryu taught at the Bujinkan. But, again, that doesn't mean that what was taught was Togakure Ryu...

By the time Hayes came to Japan, he was studying at the Bujinkan Dojo as well. But even then, while Togakure Ryu was used as the catch-all name, most of what he was learning wasn't Togakure Ryu at all. Remember, Togakure Ryu has no strike defence... no kick defence... no blocks... some small kakushi buki... a somewhat unusual sword system... and a lot of non-combative teachings. So, anything with any striking defences, throw defences, kick defences, staff weapons, and so on came from some other system. Four years later, when Mr Roy came to Japan, same thing. In fact, some of his first lessons included hanbo work (Kukishin), and almost no Togakure Ryu at all (in fact, it was his second trip when he saw any actual Togakure Ryu, being taught Santo Tonso no Kata), if anything. So, when he came back to Australia, while the name used was Togakure Ryu, that was just the name on the banner... and, just some insight for you, our first badges said the following: Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu Representing the Bujinkan Dojo... so it was, even just in name, both. But, more importantly, it was never "only Togakure Ryu". Even the first ranks that Hatsumi gave out (to Manaka Fumio, now Unsui) were in Togakure Ryu and Gyokko Ryu...

The point I am making is that someone who comes from the Wayne L Roy "clan" is likely to be bias against the Bujinkan.

Actually, it's kinda the opposite... people coming from the Bujinkan seem to be biased against us. Except, it seems, people who have actually met or trained with Wayne Roy... it's always the ones who never met him... funny about that... in Japan, I was actually quite enjoying talking about Mr Roy with various practitioners... those who trained with him all had good memories of the experience, shared photos and stories with me... amazing how that happens...

Chris would be well aware of this dynamic. Has he ever mentioned he was a student of Wayne L Roy?

Yep. Lots.

Wayne L Roys name in the Bujinkan is mud and someone who teaches 6 of the 9 schools of the Bujinkan himself, then criticized the Bujinkan for its "authenticity" tells a story

Yeah, it says I'm not beholden to towing a company line... oh, and for the record, my observations are more informed by my study of koryu than in Mr Roy's schools... it's been since he retired that I've altered things to the degree that I have... the various lockdowns over the past two years have also helped, I have to say... provided a lot of introspection and thinking time, as well as the ability to look deeper at what is presented, and how accurate it really is... and, if we're going to talk about someone leaving and then "teach(ing) 6 of the 9 schools", you do realise that the Jinenkan also only teaches those 6? Cause, well, they're the only ones that have ever been presented... so forget about the 9... you've never seen them.

Look, if you're a part of the Bujinkan, and you enjoy it, great! And if you are happy with how it's presented, great! Part of training in an organisation, or in a particular art, is to follow the way things are taught there... I am not in a position where I have to hold to that, so I get the freedom to look at things from a wider perspective... but even in my other arts, what is taught is what I follow... I teach and train in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, and there, we know that Musashi was never beaten. I also study Shindo Muso Ryu, and there, we know we're the only school to have beaten Musashi... that's a bit of a thing to get past!

Honest question why does Bujikan always get brought up? I know they sort of shot themselves in the foot with the ninja things and making that their main marketing in the ninja fad phase now that its reversed and become a joke. But if what they say is true, they only have like 2 schools claimed from ninjutsu.

The biggest issue, really, is not so much the credibility of the arts that make up the curriculum, it's the teaching methodology and complete lack of quality control or consistency... the Genbukan and Jinenkan teach much the same arts, but don't suffer as much due to much better quality control. And that, simply, is the truth of the Bujinkan.

(yes i know roughtly how classical japanese arts work with the structuring of many diffrent schools of thing together to make a "art/style", and ninjutsu if it existed would be done like that, hopefully that made sense, im struggling to explain and not using japanese)

Er... no, you don't know "roughly how Classical Japanese arts work" if you think they are achieved by "structuring many different schools of things together to make an art"... that's kinda the exact opposite of the reality there...

Addendum: Basically the last thing i read on this ahd ninjutsu basically be like bushido, its a loos ename given for the ryu a Ninja/Samurai would attend in education to become such.

Leaving off the fact that "bushido" is very much a modern construct, no, that's not really correct either. Ninjutsu, as a skill set, is the skill of espionage and information gathering... it's very much just a part of martial technology, and is present in a number of "samurai" schools. The concept of a "ninjutsu ryu", a school set up pretty much exclusively for this minor part of warfare, is unusual... which is the first place that Togakure Ryu gets into problems... it would usually just be part of the curriculum of a larger school, not one by itself.

And japanese classcialy martiala rts seem to have 1+ schools inside a art.

I don't even know what you mean by that.

Look, an "art", if we're going to separate that from a school (ryu), would then refer to a skill set... such as kenjutsu, or taijutsu/jujutsu, or bojutsu, or sojutsu, and so on. And, while a single ryu may have multiple skills it teaches, it's not a matter of having multiple approaches under one heading... that's not now such things work. What makes it a ryu is that all the various aspects share the same underpinning principles and approaches... a Katori Shinto Ryu practitioner moves the same with a sword, a staff, a naginata, or a spear... but they don't move the same as a Kukishin Ryu practitioner with the same weapons. This is why the Bujinkan teaches Budo Taijutsu... it's not any of the ryu-ha, it's a single, relatively consistent approach, even if that consistency is somewhat inconsistent (being based in the creativity of the practitioners, you're going to get that)... but all techniques, regardless of the ryu they are supposed to be from, will have the practitioner moving the same, with the same basic postural ideas, the same attacking methods, the same blocking and footwork patterns, the same locks and throws, and so on.

So if it did exist, it would be done like that is what i was trying to explain, or in a similiar vein to that as thats how it was done (as far as i know) in japan. God that was really hard to explain without falling into the pitfall of accidnetally saying "i think they exist" or implying that, and undoing my actual view. The fact its japanese as well didnt help matters. Try saying its a school within a school.

Which is, in the main, wrong. So you know, and hopefully, so you don't repeat this misunderstanding again in the future.

Question about Japanese Shihan

That's what you get for basing assumptions on video ;)..same point can be applied to yhe Ed Lomax thread ;) Do you know me? Oh, sorry! Just because i said Ed Lomax hasn´t the best Taijutsu that i´ve ever seen, you assumed that i only know him from videos. Well, sorry, but you´re wrong. And...

www.martialtalk.com

I am an instructor under Sensei Wayne Roy, having joined his organsation in 1993, when we were still part of the Bujinkan (hence my ability to answer your history question... and yes, Stephen, it was Nagato. When Nagato accompanied Hatsumi Sensei out here for the first Australian Tai Kai, he used Sensei Roy as uke for the most part, the first thing Nagato Sensei said to Mr Roy was "Well Roy-san, it's been a long time... now, punch!"). I earned my Shodan while still in the Bujinkan, my later grade after we split. To give an idea, though, as I said in the other thread, Sensei Roy stopped at Rokudan, so Godan is as high as we go under him. I am currently a Sandan.

For more details, see the website in my signature.

Ooh, you found a post from 11 years ago.. and, what do you know, consistency in what I say... what, really, is your point?

Ok, did a search on Wayne L Roy and found this. So Chris Parker joined Wayne L Roy (in his own words) in 1993. Apparently when Wayne L Roy was still part of the Bujinkan…I seem to recall (and I can find it if you like) that Chris Parker said he gained his Shodan from the Bujinkan…..

He was a part, as were all his students, including myself. And, yes, when I was awarded Shodan, we were with the Bujinkan, so my Shodan certificate is from Hatsumi, not Mr Roy. And you hardly need "find it", as, for one thing, it's in the quote you provided directly above, but, more importantly, it in no way contradicts anything I've said. Again, your point is?

So for Chris Parker to have earned his Shodan in the Bujinkan, it would have been sometime in 1996/1997.

1998. March 14th, if you must know. My sister got married exactly one year later to the day, so I joke that she stole my anniversary...

Shortly after that, Wayne L Roy was booted out of the Bujinkan so Chris Parker has not been a member of the Bujinkan for at least 20 years yet having gained Shodan rank, he still purports to be an expert on it.

Oh, kid... no, Wayne Roy was not "booted out of the Bujinkan". We left. And I was not a member of the Bujinkan for approximately 16 years (2001 to 2017), but, as stated, kept in touch and contact with the various goings on... I mean... it's not like you guys are quiet... kinda ironic for a "ninja" organisation...

Tony Dismukes you say And here we come to the problem I referred to above. How exactly is RogueShooter06 supposed to “do his own research?” He can find the info you listed above on Wikipedia. As far as establishing the historical bona fides of the individual lineages, that’s going to be a bit of a challenge. I’m still reading Askew’s book, but he states early on that none of the history of Togakure Ryu was ever written down before Takamatsu - that it was strictly a secret oral tradition before that. (I haven’t gotten to any mentions of the other 5 associated lineages, but I suspect the same will turn out be true of them as well.) How exactly is a non-Japanese, non-historian supposed to “do his own research” to determine the accuracy of this claimed secret oral tradition? This is why I stated in my original post that we will probably never know the full truth regarding the origins of those 6 of the arts contained within the Bujinkan.

so how can Chris Parker be any more enlightened than the rest of us?

Because he knows the topic. And, more importantly, he knows the context.

Some history to the readers on Wayne L Roys colourful background in Australia

This is funny... I was actually reading it today...

Wayne Roy??

TENCHI
unread,

Jun 13, 1999, 5:00:00 PM

to

Why do they want Wayne Roy out of the Bujinkan???
All I could find about him was at the link below???
http://www.tesoma.com/
--
E
unread,

Jun 14, 1999, 5:00:00 PM


to

On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:41:31 -0500, TENCHI <[email protected]>
wrote:

​

gees a reply to that could be a books worth I'll give you some
major points, though it is still long.

Obviously I wasn't part of this short conversation 22 years ago, but just for fun, let's correct the comments made here, shall we?

- runs his school very much like a cult. in the eraly days some of his
senior students used to call it the 4th Reich, those of us outside the
school have obviously called it worse.

You know, I've only heard people say that ex-students make this claim... I've never actually heard it from any actual ex-students... nor does the description match anything close to what I experienced in 24 years in the school. Honestly, I have no idea what they're referring to... especially considering where the comments are coming from...

- he then started kicking out his dan ranks for "insubordination" and
training in other styles - no big deal his dojo right, but he told
them that they were also kicked out of the Bujinkan. His cult methods
ensured that most of these people believed him and some even spent
year in therapy.

Again, something I've never seen substantiated. In fact, one of the requirements we had for people aiming for black belt was to train in another system for at least 6 months... I did a year of BJJ, and six months of boxing ("it'll be good for you... they'll hunt your head" was the advice I was given), and we've never kicked anyone out for training in multiple arts. "Insubordination" is a vague accusation, but if valid, is more than enough reason to kick someone out, frankly... I've heard of people being kicked out of classical schools for far less... and seriously? People needed therapy if they thought they were out of the Bujinkan? But we're the cult?

- told people that without a personal letter from him you could not
train in Japan - same as Hayes here.

Again, never seen. In fact, we were encouraged to visit and train if we were going to Japan for any reason... you saw the brown belt story above? We weren't even members of the Bujinkan then, but the student was still told that there was no problem from our end with him training there. I tell my guys the same thing. I was, in fact, told that I needed to go to Japan... so... nope.

- forced his seniors to sign franchise agreements stating that if they
ever left the school that they would never teach martial arts again.
kicked out anybody who did not sign

We have never had a franchise structure or agreement at all. We have had autonomy in all our dealings in our own schools, other than the fact that there was a fee/dues to be paid to Brisbane per student. That was independent of what the instructor chose to charge for the classes, for the record... depending on the rent at the location, and other factors, classes could vary, but the dues didn't. So... nope. That ain't us.

- ran media campaigns against other Bujinkan instructors - including
paid for adverts in martial arts magazines stating that other specific
instructors were not qualified or recognised by the Bujinkan. one
particular instructor tried to encourage people to go to Japan for
training and offered to help them do so in a martial arts magazine and
was subjected to copious amounts of hate mail and also public attack
in the same magazine. Roy then started attacking the Bujinkan in
general when complaining about some twin 19 yearolds in England that
had passed their godan tests - regardless of the fact that they had
trained for over 10 years with Peter King - I have met one of these
boys and his skill is well above the average godan as is normal for
anybody out of Peter's dojo.

Please. I never once saw anything of Wayne Roy running "media campaigns" against other Bujinkan instructors... on the other hand, people like Ed Lomax, Mike Tattoli, and others in Australia certainly did engage in such behaviour. Ed, for example, would make any question in an interview in a publication like Blitz (Australian martial arts magazine) into an attack on Mr Roy... in fact, it was the consistency of these attacks that lead Mr Roy to petition Japan for support... the other instructors had continually made quick trips to Japan to inflate their rank above his, then used that as justification for their attacks... many of whom were originally from our schools, it must be stated.

With the article about the "twin 19 year olds", well, let's be clear... it was one 18 year old kid, so the facts don't seem to be on the side of this "E" (who is likely Ed Lomax, bluntly), but let's continue. The article was entitled "What Has Happened To Ninjutsu?" and was really an open letter to members of the community to be aware of the complete lack of standards, and ludicrous gradings that were going on, warning that the entire ninjutsu community would be a laughing stock soon enough. A shame that people still complain about that article, even though it was quite prophetic... just look at this thread as an example... but I digress. The 18 year old was defended as "a great guy, and he's been training... not teaching, training... with Peter King for a decade!" Except at the time, most 5th Dan in any martial art had been training for at least 25-30 years... so, no matter how much he'd been training with Peter, an 18 year old 5th Dan was just another reason to laugh off the Bujinkan. But, sure, the problem is the person indicating the problem, not the actual issue itself...

- tried to stop the Adelaide Taikai from happening in 1992 (1st Aussie
Taikai)

HA! Nope. In fact, we made up approximately 60% of the attendees.

- ordered 63 dan ranks before this taikai many being sequences for the
same people - Hatsumi told me that it was obvious therefore that he
had no intention of getting legitimate ranks until he heard of the
Taikai. later Roy's rank fees were told to Hatsumi and myself by some
of his ex-students and you can imagine Hatsumi's reaction to finding
out that 3rd dans were $1000

The prices for Dan grades are set by Japan. From memory, a Sandan was around $300. Not sure where the $1000 comes from... but, for the record, while the Japan fee is consistent, the individual teachers are able to charge whatever they want... many do "pad" the fees. I don't remember that ever happening with us.

- snubbed Hatsumi's Shidoshi-kai meeting at said taikai - was seen
entering a restaurant nearby with some friends instead.

Considering how badly organised the Tai Kai was, yeah. He didn't go to that.

- accused me of buying my rank at the time by running the taikai and
then mailed Hatsumi with a request for a higher rank for himself

Yep, this is Ed Lomax. Figured.

Another part of the article mentioned above was the fact that, in organising a Tai Kai, a student could expect a one or two dan grade bump in rank... Ed went from 7th to 8th, off the top of my head... he took that as a personal insult, even though Mr Roy was citing examples from around the world... one practitioner in the US went up 2 Dan grades... someone in Europe went up a dan grade because he sent an instructional video to one of the Japanese seniors...

- upon inviting Charles Daniels and Ed Martin to Australia in early
1993 he told his students to go to that rather than the planned Taikai
in the same year (the last taikai here) - Both Charles and Ed were
unable to convince Roy's students otherwise and if you want more
details on this contact Ed.

The first TaiKai was atrociously organised, so students were invited to attend if they wanted, but were not overly encouraged to (for the first one, it was basically mandatory). Charles Daniel's seminars, on the other hand, as he was brought out specifically by Mr Roy, well, yeah, that was something we wanted our students to get the most out of. Ed, I don't remember coming out for us, although I do remember him coming out then, and again a few years later... but he didn't travel much, and Australia is a big place... but he was mainly doing seminars for (I think) Mike Hammond at the time, and I don't remember being invited....

- boycotted the 1993 Taikai and threatened his students that if they
went he would remove them from his dojo, they were so cult programmed
that even though he has several dojo's in Sydney only two students of
his turned up and they tried to pass themselves off as kung-fu
students.

No, we didn't boycott it, we just figured that, considering how badly the first one was done, it wasn't going to be worth the effort. Having seen the footage from it (and the first one), yeah, I agree. No one was banned from going, it was simply left up to the students... I'm sorry if Ed is upset that we didn't want to go through that again...

- tried to sue me for libel when I made it known before the taikai
that I knew what his intentions were and in the process nearly had his
lawyer dismissed from practice and the case was used as lecture
material by one Australian university for some time.

Not familiar with this at all... suing Ed for libel, well, yeah, I can see that. That said, Mr Roy isn't overly litigious (although he's certainly had reason to be), so I am again going to doubt this. As for it being used for lectures? Yeah... sounds like Ed's penchant for hyperbole and creating his own "facts"...

- has consistently insulted Hatsumi and the Japanese Shihan

Actually, never once did I hear nor see Mr Roy insult them. In fact, you can see him still towing the company line in public until after 2000... not that he didn't have reason... Hatsumi was reportedly calling Wayne "a cancer for ninjutsu" behind his back... something he also did with Hayes... and any number of other supposedly close senior students... he badmouthed Tanemura (his own cousin) when he left... digitally removed Manaka from the old Quest videos when they were re-released on DVD... it's just a part of his "divide and conquer" approach.

- has modified (simplified and mutilated) the Bujinkan arts to the
point where they are only barely recogniseable - Hatsumi is refusing
to recognise the ranks he gives

Hmm... my rank was recognised... my movement was complimented by students and teachers in Japan... the focus on the actual techniques was more accurate than most Bujinkan schools, bluntly, through Mr Roy's research into the scrolls (with help from Charles Daniel, who was considered the foremost Western expert, having "obtained" the densho a few years earlier...). And, back then, we were still part of the Bujinkan... the ranks were Bujinkan ones, so is Ed saying that Hatsumi refused to honour his own ranks? Even considering the lack of quality of his own students?

- has not trained in Japan since 1990 when he turned up for 2 classes
and then took his students on a temple tour of Kyoto etc. heard this
before too eh.

So... the trip where he was awarded Rokudan? That trip was "only two classes"? Is this an indictment of the Bujinkan's ranking system, or perhaps not as accurate as Ed would imply?

- along with many other Australians that had not paid for their ranks
after 4 years or more he was demoted down to his last paid for rank.

What? I have no idea what Ed's going on about here.... I've never heard of the Bujinkan demoting anyone... Mr Roy was never demoted, nor were any of his students... in fact, a number were promoted at the Tai Kai, including the first Melbourne instructor to Godan (who, incidentally, was the only person at the Tai Kai to be able to do a particular throw Hatsumi was showing, as he was the only one who slowed down to actually figure it out), amongst others.

- accused me again of buying ranks by running taikai's here. in fact I
tried to refuse my 8th at the Sydney Taikai but Hatsumi wouldn't allow
me too - anybody that knows me also knows that I was not subtle when
trying to refuse it either.

Didn't he already air this complaint? And, again, the article wasn't about Ed, no matter how much he wanted it to be...

- since the late eighties Hatsumi has had on student after another of
Roys turning up to Japan - most have had to leave his dojo to do so
and have similar stories to tell. Hatsumi has also been unimpressed by
what these people thought was Bujinkan technique and asked Andrw Young
and Mark O'Brien to tour Australia in 1992 to help fix the standard
here.

To be blunt, Hatsumi was saying the same thing about standards from the first Tai Kai onwards... in fact, it was our students who were seen as being much cleaner and having better form than the rest... hence the requests to Mark and Andrew. And the fact that they didn't come to us.

But what has been most noticeable is the culture of distrust and
aggression towards each other here by Roy people to no-Roy people and
ex-Roy people to everybody and it is quite obviously a product of his
cult teachings and methods.

So, Ed's consistent attacks on Mr Roy, his organisation and students, is an "air of distrust and aggression" from Mr Roy's students, and therefore is a product of Mr Roy's teachings? "Those darn hornets, they're so aggressive! All I do is throw rocks at their nest all day, and they try to sting me! They must be exterminated, as they're too naturally aggressive!" Right.

Sure it happens all over the world to an
extent and again I will say that if you want an outsiders view of how
bad it was here ask Ed Martin or Charles Daniels what they gleaned
about it in their 3 weeks here as guests of Roy. Needless to say that
Ed has joined me in voting for Roy's expulsion

Did he now? As mentioned, I don't remember Ed Martin being brought out by us... Charles, yes... and he and Mr Roy remain fast friends to today... remarkable how the person we actually brought out wasn't joining in such an endeavour...

so I guess people can come to their own conclusions on Chris Parkers credentials in the Bujinkan. Shodan is hardly an expert, In the Bujinkan, Shodan is just the beginning

Dude, most 15th Dans are basically beginners in many respects... and, again, for the record, Shodan was earned 23 years ago... but sure, as we left after I got Shodan, and continued my ranking in Mr Roy's school (since also being awarded Yondan in the Bujinkan, for the record), I'm not sure what relevance my grade a quarter century ago has...

Would you care to try again? Or are we done now?

 

[dunc]

The other 2 “somewhat educated” posters, one is not a member of the Bujinkan and like never has been and the others credentials is dubious considering he apparently is a member but doesn’t seem to like it much.

Hi @Elninjo

I hope I don’t come across as someone who doesn’t like the Bujinkan much….
I’ve devoted over 30 years of my life to learning from Soke and the Japanese Shihan, visited Japan over 35 times for training, and continue to strive to better myself both as a martial artist and as a representative of of the Bujinkan

I have a certain perspective on how one should train in order to embody the lessons/traditions which is based on my direct experience and interactions with the Japanese shihan. I do feel that there are too many overly exposed folk in the Buj who don’t get it &/or won‘t put in the effort to achieve this. I am embarrassed by them and wish that all of us in the Bujinkan held ourselves to a higher standard. Sometimes vocalise my frustrations, but this is because of my love for the art

I find myself often in agreement with @Tony Dismukes on technical matters and feel he has a balanced and thoughtful perspective to add to discussions

I find @Chris Parker to be knowledgeable about historical matters, but I’m no expert as I only have a passing interest in these things. I disagree with many of his criticisms about the Bujinkan, for example I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience
He’s made some claims in this thread about his ability to perform the forms from the ryuha better than anyone in the Bujinkan. I haven‘t seen his movement so can‘t really comment on that

 

[jks9199]

Folks,
A thread like this has a great potentional to become a train wreck, and we really appreciate that you haven't gone that way. Remember, we don't like to bash any arts here at MartialTalk, nor practicioners. Keep the focus on the factual authenticity of the various ninja arts, and away from any individuals.

And don't take this as aimed at any particular post or poster, especially based on location in the thread. It takes us a while, sometimes, to get these gentle reminders out, because we'd rather herd the cats gently...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience

As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?

I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan.

 

[BrendanF]

- tried to sue me for libel when I made it known before the taikai
that I knew what his intentions were and in the process nearly had his
lawyer dismissed from practice and the case was used as lecture
material by one Australian university for some time.

I was somewhat curious, and have searched case law databases looking for this; I can't find any cases involving Mr Roy or Mr Lomax. If anyone can provide a citation I'd be keen to see it.

 

[Nigel]

Dunc said - I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience


I am not sure what you mean by this, not taught by Soke? The last time I was in Japan (2019), Soke was very active in training.


Tony Dismukes said - As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?

I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan.


This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.

The body dynamics and training/tactical methods within the different ryuha are very different.

It is also important to recognize that the philosophy relationship can vary widely from school to school and instructor to instructor due to personal expression of the individual ryuha and the individual instructors teaching manner..... Some instructors are specifically classical, some are specifically practical and others are both. Its up to the individual to find what fits for them. Lets not forget that Hatsumi has given his Shihan the flexibility in this area.

Brendan F said - OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.

 

[BrendanF]

This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.

I thought it was because the Bujinkan teaches Budo Taijutsu, and not 9 different arts?

Brendan F said - OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.

I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:

Yep, this is Ed Lomax.

That's what piqued my curiosity; I'd have thought a 'case that was used as lecture material for one Australian university for some time' would be a matter of record, and I was curious to read it.

 

[dunc]

Dunc said - I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience


I am not sure what you mean by this, not taught by Soke? The last time I was in Japan (2019), Soke was very active in training.

I was disagreeing with Chris who said that the Ryuha were not taught in the Buj
Soke is an inspiration!!
Hope that makes sense

 

[dunc]

As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?

I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan.

There are (were) teachers who have (had) traditional licences in certain ryu
There are teachers who will (would) teach the the ryuha in their own right
They will explain how the movements and tactics are unique to that specific ryuha. Simple things like the basic way to punch and block differ quite a bit from one school to another for example
And so on

So if you were interested in going down that rabbit hole then you could. It wasn’t easy because it’s not the mainstream, but it was there if you made the effort (not many did)

The more mainstream approach is to form one’s own way of moving from the content made available by soke. So none of Soke’s students move exactly like him or the same as each other. They are clearly his students, but they built their taijutsu to optimise on their own characteristics. This is very similar in principle to systems like BJJ and is probably no different to how previous generations did things (which would explain how the various ryu developed their characteristics)

I believe this is a the only way to develop world class martial artists, but not a great way to teach the masses particularly when there’s no clear feedback loop. Lesser martial artists generally prefer the simplicity of a black and white methodology and will say things like “This is the correct way, everyone else is wrong”. However, in reality there are many correct ways to perform a technique and things change according to the circumstances (big person vs small etc). So this form of black and white thinking doesn’t get you very far

Worth noting that there whilst there are many correct ways to do a technique there are many, many more incorrect ways….

 

[Nigel]

Elninjo said:

This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.


Brendan F said: - I thought it was because the Bujinkan teaches Budo Taijutsu, and not 9 different arts?


WTF Brendan F? How many times does it take before it finally sinks in to you? The Bujinkan teach 9 ryu

Once more for the dummies

• Takagi Yoshin Ryu
• Kukishinden Ryu
• Gyokko Ryu
• Koto Ryu
• Togakure Ryu
• Shinden Fudo Ryu
• Gikan Ryu
• Gyokushin Gyu
• Kumogakure Ryu

These are the 9 Ryu of the Bujinkan. To add to my previous post

It is also important to recognize that the philosophy relationship can vary widely from school to school and instructor to instructor due to personal expression of the individual ryuha and the individual instructors teaching manner..... Some instructors are specifically classical, some are specifically practical and others are both. Its up to the individual to find what fits for them. Lets not forget that Hatsumi has given his Shihan the flexibility in this area.

It is also a case that some schools will focus on the Gyokko Ryu others will focus on Koto Ryu but you also find that some focus on several. I personally went from dojo to dojo until I found what was right for me. The focus on 2 or 3 particular ryuha that suited me.

Elninjo said:

OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.


Brendan f Said: - I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:

yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?


Chris Parker said:

Yep, this is Ed Lomax.


That's what piqued my curiosity; I'd have thought a 'case that was used as lecture material for one Australian university for some time' would be a matter of record, and I was curious to read it.

Well not sure about this aspect of it but I would assume that if the lawyer had a complaint made against him and the case didn’t succeed,…..and the lawyer was found to have breached the code then it may well have been used as lecture material but that doesn’t mean it would be found under any case law…..just my view of it……I have no idea what went down there but I do know that Roy was expelled from the Bujinkan and as such his rank (5th dan) was not recognized by the grandmaster of the Bujinkan.

 

[Cynik75]

Past days ninjas would fight with poisoned knives in dark alleys, todays ninjas fight in Internet...

 

[Chris Parker]

One more time, then?

Hi @Elninjo

I hope I don’t come across as someone who doesn’t like the Bujinkan much….
I’ve devoted over 30 years of my life to learning from Soke and the Japanese Shihan, visited Japan over 35 times for training, and continue to strive to better myself both as a martial artist and as a representative of of the Bujinkan

Yeah... I don't know where he got that bizarre idea from... or a bunch of his even more odd ideas...

I have a certain perspective on how one should train in order to embody the lessons/traditions which is based on my direct experience and interactions with the Japanese shihan. I do feel that there are too many overly exposed folk in the Buj who don’t get it &/or won‘t put in the effort to achieve this. I am embarrassed by them and wish that all of us in the Bujinkan held ourselves to a higher standard. Sometimes vocalise my frustrations, but this is because of my love for the art

I find myself often in agreement with @Tony Dismukes on technical matters and feel he has a balanced and thoughtful perspective to add to discussions

I find @Chris Parker to be knowledgeable about historical matters, but I’m no expert as I only have a passing interest in these things. I disagree with many of his criticisms about the Bujinkan, for example I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience
He’s made some claims in this thread about his ability to perform the forms from the ryuha better than anyone in the Bujinkan. I haven‘t seen his movement so can‘t really comment on that

Thanks, @dunc . For the record, I find you to be one of the most conscientious and earnest practitioner I've had the pleasure of engaging. That said, a few things to clear up here. Firstly, the observation that the Bujinkan, specifically Hatsumi himself, does not teach the ryu-ha is not a criticism... it's an observation. Hatsumi has stated on multiple occasions his view of koryu, which is not really positive... he views them as unmoving, museum pieces of little value to modern martial artists... he refused to give evidence of his ryu-ha, and opted not to become a member of a koryu preservation society, with this as a reason. He has eschewed pretty much everything that would be considered proper (and necessary) for ryu-ha transmission in his teaching methods, as he has no appreciation for them (again, this is a value statement from him, not a judgement from me... I have no appreciation of different forms of epilators, for example, it doesn't mean they're bad, just that I don't have any use for them). Why members of the Bujinkan seem to ignore his actual beliefs when ti comes to classical art transmission, but think they're actually receiving it from someone who actively avoids such concepts, I find bizarre.

Next, the idea of not teaching/transmitting the individual ryu-ha allows Hatsumi (and the Bujinkan) the freedom to express their art in many ways that simply wouldn't be appropriate if they were actually doing the ryu-ha themselves. It also enables the school to have a single, consistent approach to movement, technical approaches, and so on... not really possible if the individual schools are done properly, there's just too much conflict there. If you want to study the individual arts, then you're not studying Budo Taijutsu... if you're doing Budo Taijutsu, then you're not studying the ryu... it's quite binary. Can there be some cross-over? Sure. Same as when you're practicing guitar, you're working on the same scales that you use for piano... but you're not also practicing piano at the same time. Or, more realistically, when you're learning to play blues guitar, you're not also learning 18th Century shakuhachi songs....

I've gone through this for years, and asked for any examples of actual ryu-ha transmission and teachings in the Bujinkan... I haven't seen it in any way at any time... including in Japan. Teaching from the ryu-ha? Yes. Teaching the ryu-ha themselves? Not at all. And, again, it's mainly because Hatsumi simply isn't interested in doing so... that's his call, it's his school, and it's up to him what he teaches and how... he's opted to focus on Budo Taijutsu, which is his creation based on multiple sources... and, really, all cool. But mistaking going through the kata sequences for actually getting into the ryu, or getting detailed correction on a particular kata (the way it's being done at that point) isn't really anything indicating actual ryu-ha study.

Lastly, I've made no claims at all, here, or elsewhere, about "perform(ing) the forms from the ryu-ha better than anyone in the Bujinkan". Thats a major misreading of my comments, my intention, and what ryu-ha study is in the first place. I have said that I believe the way the kata are done in the Bujinkan are "wrong" in relation to the way the ryu themselves moves and would express the kata... I wouldn't say either is "better", as that's a value judgement... and, really, if you like the way the Bujinkan uses the various kata sequences from the various densho, expressing them through Budo Taijutsu, then fantastic. The only problem, as I've said, is if you think that's actually learning or studying the ryu... it's not.

Here's the thing, though... it's precisely due to the historical matters, as well as my koryu training that leads me to this conclusion... so, if that's respected, then that's the source... along with a lot of comparison between various lines of the different ryu-ha to confirm my thoughts.

As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?

I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan.

This is pretty much it, yep. There's more to back it up, of course, but this is a good overview.

Dunc said - I don‘t agree with his assertion in this thread that the ryuha have not been taught by Soke and you can’t learn them in the Bujinkan. Again this is from my direct personal experience


I am not sure what you mean by this, not taught by Soke? The last time I was in Japan (2019), Soke was very active in training.

I'm curious, is English your first language? That's not meant as an insult, I haven't checked your location in your profile (if it's there), but your user name has a "Spanish" tinge, and Dunc said absolutely nothing about Hatsumi not teaching... he's saying that he disagrees with my statement that Hatsumi is not (and has never, or almost never) taught the individual ryu-ha... my money is on "never", as, frankly, I don't think he actually learnt them that way in the first place... more as a range of different sequences written in various densho... which is a far cry from learning a ryu-ha.

Tony Dismukes said - As I noted earlier in the thread, I suspect Chris’s claim regarding the individual ryuha is that they aren’t taught as separate arts with distinct body dynamics and tactical doctrines and training methodologies, but rather the kata and techniques from the different ryu are taught based on essentially the same principles - those of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu. How does that compare to your experience? Putting aside the different techniques and kata, how great was the distinction made between the underlying concepts of the individual arts when you learned them?

I’m curious because my training was in the early days of the Bujinkan in the U.S. and at that time we really weren’t learning the individual ryuha at all. I figure that you would have a lot more insight into how they are taught in Japan.


This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.

Well, that's patently, and completely incorrect. We have footage from the 70's of Hatsumi teaching, and the classes comprising of a variety of methods from the different scrolls... Kukishin weapons, Shinden Fudo, Gyokko Ryu (Sanshin, Kihon Happo to name two prominent aspects), Koto... we have footage from the 60's of him training with Takamatsu, which is covering some Takagi and Kukishin methods... the early books from Hayes from the late 70's and early 80's all detail a variety of methods that have no place in the Togakure Ryu densho material... really, all accounts of the time show some Togakure, but a lot of other things as well. While the amount of Togakure Ryu at the time was probably higher than later, it in no way made up the entirety of the teachings... probably about 10-15%, really.

How much do you know of Togakure Ryu's syllabus? I've already explained that the name was used as a "banner", and was not an indication of the totality of the teachings, so I'm unsure why you still think this. We could also look to the late 80's when Manaka was touring the US, teaching seminars in specific ryu-ha material (seminars on Gyokko Ryu, or Koto Ryu etc)... they'd always been there, just not identified, and hardly separated or structurally taught. The only thing that's true is that, once the "yearly themes" began in the early 90's, individual schools became the yearly focus, starting with Kukishin in 1998, then Shinden Fudo in 99, Gyokko in 2000... but it didn't mean that was the first time the kata were taught...

In other words, this is completely wrong.

The body dynamics and training/tactical methods within the different ryuha are very different.

Can you demonstrate that, or show examples?

It is also important to recognize that the philosophy relationship can vary widely from school to school and instructor to instructor due to personal expression of the individual ryuha and the individual instructors teaching manner..... Some instructors are specifically classical, some are specifically practical and others are both. Its up to the individual to find what fits for them. Lets not forget that Hatsumi has given his Shihan the flexibility in this area.

Yes, he has. Which is not really the way it works in the transmission of classical arts... in fact, they're set up to safeguard against that in many ways. So, while it's true that senior members of a ryu (classical) can gain authority to alter the methods somewhat, that's something that occurs much, much later in the study... first, you need to learn the school correctly, and follow the way the school works. This ensures consistency and correct transmission of the information and school. Leaving it up to everyone to do what they want is really proof-positive that it's not based in transmission of a ryu-ha.

Brendan F said - OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.

I know exactly who it was. Ed Lomax was the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990, and there are a number of statements made in that rant about the author being the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990. The poster only gave the initial "E" that he posted under, but, really, you need anything else to back this up?

And, again, Ed has done whatever he could to discredit and attack Wayne Roy in the media (martial arts magazines, forums, message boards etc), with many rather baseless claims such as the ones he made there (again, some 22 years ago... the relevance between it and my comments here are not exactly clear, other than you trying the same smear tact...), with multiple easily refuted claims, and no actual supporting evidence from Ed's side. For full disclosure, Ed Lomax was one of the first students in Australia of Wayne Roy, moving from Adelaide to Brisbane in the first year that Mr Roy was teaching here. Ed had studied a relatively modern sword drawing art (Hokushin Shinoh Ryu Iaido), who have a headquarters in Adelaide, which he shared with Mr Roy. As there had been little study of sword in Japan while Mr Roy was there initially, he worked with the techniques Ed shared to create an early sword syllabus for our schools (that only lasted a couple of years). Ed eventually went to Japan himself (around 82 or 83 from memory), got graded up, and sent back to start his own school... from there, he began his attacks on Mr Roy, including constantly belittling Mr Roy for using his (Ed's) sword art... somehow blaming Mr Roy for the teachers in Japan not teaching sword much while he was there (?). Realistically, Ed was upset that he was not the first Australian, and wasn't "the guy"... in fact, by the end of the 80's, he was going around declaring that he was "appointed" the Australian head of the Bujinkan by Hatsumi... despite the fact that Hatsumi never had any structure of anyone being the head of any region, country, or anything else... bluntly, Ed is ego and anger... and I have not seen much credible from his statements over the past 25 years.

There are (were) teachers who have (had) traditional licences in certain ryu

See, even that needs a major asterix... yes, some of the senior members have traditional licences, however the manner in which they were awarded is somewhat murky. As mentioned, the first ranks that Hatsumi gave were to his oldest student, a young man who was a junior judo champion locally, and became a student of Hatsumi at the age of 14 (prior to his study with Takamatsu, I believe, but not much). That young man was Manaka Fumio, and, when Hatsumi was given licensure himself (Togakure Ryu soke, then Menkyo Kaiden in Gyokko Ryu, both within 2-3 years of studying with Takamatsu), he awarded rank in the same arts, regardless of what had actually been taught or trained. Later, he would start to adopt the dan/kyu ranking system, and stopped giving rank in the form of licences. The next round of "licences" happened in the early 80's, when Hatsumi famously felt he was going to die, as he'd been ill for a long time... he gave out various licences, and had the senior students copy his scrolls in order to safeguard them, but it wasn't indication that they were trained specifically in the ryu themselves... just that the times called for such measures. What's perhaps most telling is that, due to a number of factors, one of which was supposedly Hatsumi's refusal to appoint Tanemura as the next head of the Bujinkan, Tanemura left. At the time, he was 8th Dan, and the Vice President of the Bujinkan, with complete access to the densho related to the schools taught. He left in 84, and began seeking out other related teachers in the systems (students of Ueno Takashi and Takamatsu) that were still around, in order to learn and gain licence in the schools themselves... in fact, the only ryu that relies on anything from Hatsumi in the Genbukan is Gyokko Ryu... the first school (along with Togakure Ryu) that Hatsumi was giving rank in... before he was giving out dan grades.

There are teachers who will (would) teach the the ryuha in their own right

I've heard this claim, but have not been able to find any actual basis for it, other than people's claims (and, I would suggest, misunderstandings as to what that would entail). I have seen nothing of any teacher in the Bujinkan that even indicates anything beyond Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu movement (again, not a criticism, but an observation). Going through some classes with Noguchi-s, he would teach from a particular school... we covered Takagi Yoshin, Koto, and the Ten Chi Jin while I was there... but there was no difference between any of them. In fact, I wouldn't have even said we did any of the ryu at all... to use the Koto Ryu study we did, there was a basic idea that Noguchi wanted to explore, which was a form of unbalancing by pressuring the inside or outside of the knee... something that doesn't exist in Koto Ryu... and all the kata were changed and adapted to accomodate this concept. Same with the Takagi class, and so on. Again, the ryu are not taught... they are taught from... meaning that the kata sequences are used to explore the principles and concepts of Budo Taijutsu... because that's what's actually studied.

We could also look to when the individual schools were the focus of the yearly theme... the basic kata were used as a base framework, by employing a sequence... but, after that, there would be almost a free-for-all in terms of how you wanted to take it... parts of other schools, or aspects that came from no defined ryu-ha at all, would be just as likely to be explored in a class. There's a clip somewhere of a Daikomyosai in 98 covering Kukishin Ryu, where the first kata (Seion) ends up being a session on kicking.. then sword drawing... then use of pistol... then groups... none of which are even close to what the kata is about, nor even related to what is in the school itself, but is all fair game for Budo Taijutsu, so is perfectly valid in that context.

This, of course, makes it quite odd that Hatsumi has decided to split up the soke titles for the various ryu now... as, all evidence is that none of these people have learnt them as anything other than a range of sequences of actions, without anything that would qualify as ryu-ha training and transmission... nor are any of them actually teaching the ryu they've been entrusted with, instead just continuing to teach the same Budo Taijutsu, making their soke titles little more than resume padding with nothing behind it... paper titles, really... pointless.

They will explain how the movements and tactics are unique to that specific ryuha. Simple things like the basic way to punch and block differ quite a bit from one school to another for example

Ooh, glad you brought that up... let's look at blocks...

What school(s) use an uke nagashi (back-fist style knuckle block)? What's the difference between the punching attack of, let's say, Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu? How about Kukishin Ryu?

That should get us started.

And so on

So if you were interested in going down that rabbit hole then you could. It wasn’t easy because it’s not the mainstream, but it was there if you made the effort (not many did)

Honestly, it's not there. As far as the "rabbit hole", yeah, I did go down it (obviously)... and you can certainly make distinctions between them just by going through the densho as the kata are expressed in the Bujinkan... but, as I said, I'm increasingly of the opinion that, bluntly, they're wrong (with respect to the ryu-ha). In far more ways than you're probably thinking.

The more mainstream approach is to form one’s own way of moving from the content made available by soke. So none of Soke’s students move exactly like him or the same as each other. They are clearly his students, but they built their taijutsu to optimise on their own characteristics.

(Just going to split this up a bit...). Yep! You've just described a method of training that matches Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, and does not match the idea of ryu-ha training. And, at the end of the day, no matter how the particular practitioner expresses their taijutsu, it'll be recognisable as Bujinkan (as opposed to Jinenkan, or Genbukan, highly related systems with their own way of moving), and so on.

This is very similar in principle to systems like BJJ

Sure... the difference being that BJJ is dominantly a sporting approach, so individual adaptation and performance is to be expected... but, by the same token, even in sparring, you can tell the difference between a BJJ exponent and a karate-ka, yeah? The BJJ guy will still move like a BJJ guy... not like a sumotori, or a Mongolian wrestler, or a WWE guy, or even a Sambo guy... agreed? You also won't get one BJJ guy who uses majorly different postures/positions, or different chokes, or weapons, or similar because they studied a different form of BJJ...

and is probably no different to how previous generations did things (which would explain how the various ryu developed their characteristics)

Hmm... no, that's not really that accurate. If you got to a high enough level, or had a particular skill, and started doing things differently in any real way, it would result most commonly in a new school, not just a bunch of differently skilled people in the one school. Of course, you do have things like individual teachers personal preferences that can come into it (one generation teacher might not like the jujutsu much in their sogo bujutsu system, so it gets a bit neglected... but, importantly, it doesn't mean the rest start making up their own jujutsu to make up the gaps...).

I believe this is a the only way to develop world class martial artists, but not a great way to teach the masses particularly when there’s no clear feedback loop. Lesser martial artists generally prefer the simplicity of a black and white methodology and will say things like “This is the correct way, everyone else is wrong”. However, in reality there are many correct ways to perform a technique and things change according to the circumstances (big person vs small etc). So this form of black and white thinking doesn’t get you very far

It's a matter of development (of the practitioner/student)... if you just start with free-expression, then there's no basis... you need to start a lot more definitive, whether it's a large group or more intimate. Of course, classically, teaching large groups wasn't a hugely common thing... it happened, mostly in the Edo period, but was still unusually to the point where it would be commented on... that said, yes, there are often multiple ways of performing most techniques... but it's more a matter of there not being one definitive "right" way, but plenty of "wrong" ones... that's an important distinction to make here.

Worth noting that there whilst there are many correct ways to do a technique there are many, many more incorrect ways….

Yep. And, to take that to this context, there are "wrong" ways (according to the study of the ryu) that are also "right" (according to the study of Budo Taijutsu), and vice versa... my main point is that, if you're looking at the study as one of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, then it needs to be "right" in that context... I'm looking at them as study of the ryu... which is where the Budo Taijutsu approach is "wrong"... but it's all a matter of perspective.

Elninjo said:

This is because in the early days (1980;s to early 1990’s) the teachings were specifically Togakure Ryu. People think when “ninjutsu” first came to the west that it was “bujinkan” as it is today, it was not. The only ryuha Hatsumi wished to teach the west (for whatever reasons) was Togakure Ryu. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that the 9 ryuha started to seep in.


Brendan F said: - I thought it was because the Bujinkan teaches Budo Taijutsu, and not 9 different arts?


WTF Brendan F? How many times does it take before it finally sinks in to you? The Bujinkan teach 9 ryu

No, they don't. Hatsumi claims headmastership of 9 ryu... but that's a different thing entirely.

Once more for the dummies

Do be careful there... considering your misreading of so many aspects, you're not in much of a position to cast aspersions...

• Takagi Yoshin Ryu
• Kukishinden Ryu
• Gyokko Ryu
• Koto Ryu
• Togakure Ryu
• Shinden Fudo Ryu
• Gikan Ryu
• Gyokushin Gyu
• Kumogakure Ryu

These are the 9 Ryu of the Bujinkan. To add to my previous post

Gikan, Gyokushin, and Kumogakure really have never even been in the Budo Taijutsu make up, let alone taught as schools. Gikan is believed to have no patterns (in the Bujinkan), Kumogakure is a set of principles (no martial teachings), and Gyokushin miraculously appeared a couple of years after Takamatsu passed, with no indication of what's involved (other than some mention of "rope throwing" and one or two other things... which isn't really something that matches much of any other known authentic Japanese martial systems, it must be said....).

Again, just because Hatsumi claims the sokeship of each of these schools doesn't mean they're taught.

It is also important to recognize that the philosophy relationship can vary widely from school to school and instructor to instructor due to personal expression of the individual ryuha and the individual instructors teaching manner..... Some instructors are specifically classical, some are specifically practical and others are both. Its up to the individual to find what fits for them. Lets not forget that Hatsumi has given his Shihan the flexibility in this area.

It is also a case that some schools will focus on the Gyokko Ryu others will focus on Koto Ryu but you also find that some focus on several. I personally went from dojo to dojo until I found what was right for me. The focus on 2 or 3 particular ryuha that suited me.

A dojo might decide to focus on a handful of the densho, but that's still not the same thing as studying the ryu, I have to say (again, full disclosure, this is precisely how we did things since the early 90's as well... with our schools focusing on Togakure, Gyokko, Koto, and Kukishin... it was my personal research and working with my teachers that gave me Shinden Fudo and Takagi... but, especially looking back, although I wouldn't have recognised it at the time, that did not constitute ryu-ha study... it was more just looking at the kata sequences with slightly adapted/adjusted mechanics, variations of kamae, but sharing the same structure and technical points).

Elninjo said:

OK the operative word here being “tried”. Case law databases in Australia will not show anything that the court did not rule on……..I am not Ed Lomax if that’s what your are inferring. Just someone who is aware of this history is all. Anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan is aware of it and since an Administrator has warned of individual scrutiny, I will leave it at that despite the ability to refute responses but what is curious is that you search the case law databases looking for cases Involving Roy and Lomax…….From what I posted (an old post on the issue) there were no names mentioned and yet you seem to know who apparently was being sued. I personally don’t know who the poster was but there are lots of these around.

And, out of interest, where are you from?

Brendan f Said: - I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:

yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?

No, you're clinging to easily disprovable nonsense... without any recognition of the reality of the situation.

Chris Parker said:

Yep, this is Ed Lomax.


That's what piqued my curiosity; I'd have thought a 'case that was used as lecture material for one Australian university for some time' would be a matter of record, and I was curious to read it.

Well not sure about this aspect of it but I would assume that if the lawyer had a complaint made against him and the case didn’t succeed,…..and the lawyer was found to have breached the code then it may well have been used as lecture material but that doesn’t mean it would be found under any case law…..just my view of it……I have no idea what went down there but I do know that Roy was expelled from the Bujinkan and as such his rank (5th dan) was not recognized by the grandmaster of the Bujinkan.

That would make it absolutely findable as part of case law databases... how do you think it could be used in lectures regarding legal instruction without it being something easily findable and reference-able?

And, one more time for the slow of reading, no, Mr Roy was NOT expelled from the Bujinkan... we left. In 2001. Ed tried to get Hatsumi to remove him, but that never happened (same with Hayes, and Brian McCarthy, and Richard Van Donk, and many others...)... he also was never demoted, no rank was "not recognised" (it was 6th Dan, for the record, not 5th), or anything else. These claims would need to have some evidence to support them, but that was never Ed's way of doing things... nor, it seems, is it yours.

 

[BrendanF]

WTF Brendan F? How many times does it take before it finally sinks in to you? The Bujinkan teach 9 ryu

Once more for the dummies

• Takagi Yoshin Ryu
• Kukishinden Ryu
• Gyokko Ryu
• Koto Ryu
• Togakure Ryu
• Shinden Fudo Ryu
• Gikan Ryu
• Gyokushin Gyu
• Kumogakure Ryu

These are the 9 Ryu of the Bujinkan.

They may be. But according to Mr Hatsumi, the Bujinkan does not teach them. It teaches Budo Taijutsu. Are you saying he's wrong?

yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?

Not at all. You were curious that I 'seem to know who apparently was being sued.' My point was that I have noticed these things over the years. And Chris stated it explicitly. I didn't comment on anything being anything 'back then'. I'm not an X-kan student. I had a passing curiosity when I was younger, and keep up on martial arts happenings in general in Australia, where I can.

Well not sure about this aspect of it but I would assume that if the lawyer had a complaint made against him and the case didn’t succeed,…..and the lawyer was found to have breached the code then it may well have been used as lecture material but that doesn’t mean it would be found under any case law…..just my view of it

Absolutely not. As I said that is what caught my interest. Having studied law I thought it would be interesting to see either a novel libel case and/or a complaint against a practitioner involving somewhat well known names. Content used in teaching is typically authoritative, and easily cited. As I said I'm not a Bujinkan student, I don't know or really care about Mr Roy leaving - it seems like Chris told the story pretty clearly in his posts.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Past days ninjas would fight with poisoned knives in dark alleys, todays ninjas fight in Internet...

Not wrong, information age. A lot of time and money is spent on cyber infrastructure, and also protecting and damaging it.

You can do a lot of damage from a computer if you know what you are doing. The funny thing is, some peoples cyber secuirty is super, yet they have terrible physical security of servers etc, and the reverse can be true as well.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

As promised, here is my quick review of Sean Askew's book Hidden Lineage: The Ninja of the Toda Clan.

A quick overview to start. The book is entirely concerned with Askew's attempts to trace the history of Togakure Ryu. No real mention is made of the other Takamatsuden arts.

It starts with a quick introduction to the general history of ninjutsu, moving on to Takamatsu, explaining that he learned Togakure Ryu and inherited the status of being the 33rd grandmaster (soke) of that art from his grandfather Toda Shinruken Masamitsu, who was the 32nd grandmaster. It establishes immediately that what Toda Shinruken passed on was entirely an oral tradition. Per Askew, Takamatsu was the first person to write down the scrolls for what had previously been an oral family tradition. This, supposedly, was because in previous years being a ninja was highly illegal and any individuals discovered to be ninja would be horrifically tortured before being executed.

After that, Askew moves on to a somewhat meandering tour through around 700 years of Japanese history focusing on groups and individuals known or suspected to have been ninja or employed ninja or been associated with ninjutsu in some way, shape, or form. I will state up front that I am completely unqualified to judge the quality of his historical sources or how accurately he is interpreting them. I am not a student of Japanese history and I can't read Japanese, so I can't even read the book titles he lists as sources in his footnotes. I will note that he almost never gives direct quotes from his sources, relying instead on summaries and paraphrases. He also seems to include a lot of statements like "it is rumored that ...", "Allegedly ...", "it is thought that ...", "I personally believe that ...", and so on. This does not help to give confidence in understanding which of the events described are well-documented historical events and which are folklore.

Finally, Askew returns to Takamatsu's alleged instructor in Togakure Ryu, Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu. His concern as a student of Togakure Ryu seeking validation of his lineage, is that there is no documentation to indicate that an individual with that name actually lived in that time and place. Askew solved this puzzle to his own satisfaction by tracking down records of one Toda Hisajiro. According to Takamatsu, his grandfather taught kenjutsu at the Kobusho military academy. The Kobusho records don't list Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu, but they do list Toda Hisajiro. Askew puts together a few clues which lead him to believe that Toda Hisajiro may have been involved in ninjutsu. For example, Toda Hisajiro was also a falconer, and falconry was supposedly associated with certain ninja groups. Askew puts the clues together and concludes that Toda Hisajiro changed his name (various speculative reasons are given) to Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu before becoming grandfather and instructor to Takamatsu. Once again, I totally lack the background to estimate how plausible this possibility might be. I will say that even if it is plausible, Askew has totally failed to prove it. He seems to be operating on faith that Takamatsu was completely honest and accurate and that Takamatsu's teacher was completely honest and accurate. He found a record of someone who might have had a ninjutsu background and might have been Takamatsu's grandfather under a different name? Case closed!

I will add my personal impression that even if Askew is correct about Toda Hisajiro being the same person as Toda Shinruken Masamitsu and Takamatsu's instructor, that does very little to back up the claimed history of Togakure Ryu. Askew does briefly acknowledge that oral traditions are not necessarily completely accurate, but then continues to refer to Takamatsu as the 33rd grandmaster of Togakure Ryu. I'm pretty certain that no competent historian anywhere would trust an oral family tradition supposedly tracing back 33 generations as an accurate description of events centuries earlier. (Not to mention that the "ryu" system of categorizing and passing on specific martial arts doesn't actually go back that far in Japan.) In his chapters on the history of ninja through the centuries, Askew never once lists any mention of the name Togakure Ryu, although he does list several other ninjutsu lineages. In fact, at one point he tells the story of a particular family who made it publicly known that they employed ninja and the name of that ninjutsu ryu. Askew speculates that this was a form of misdirection, with the one ninja group being public so as to disguise the fact that the Togakure Ryu clan was working secretly for the same family. He offers no evidence to support that. He mentions the Bansenshukai, a compendium of ninjutsu knowledge written in 1676, and asserts without evidence that much of this information must have come from Togakure Ryu. (Also, it seem strange that the Togakure Ryu would keep no written records for hundreds of years, but would allow an outsider to write down much of their knowledge as long as they weren't credited as the source.) Finally I will comment that the history Askew presents shows that the Toda lineage of Togakure Ryu ended up as servants of the Tokagawa Shogunate in a variety of roles - combat troops, government spies, castle guards, sharpshooters, reconnaissance scouts, secret police, or swordsmanship instructors. It's hard to reconcile these official duties for the ruling government with the idea that the lineage and teachings of the ryu had to be kept strictly to a secret oral tradition and never written down.

I hope this helps. I encourage anyone with a greater knowledge of Japanese history to read the book and draw their own conclusions. If you have a Kindle Unlimited membership then you can download and read the book for free.

 

[Nigel]

Chris Parker said -
I've gone through this for years, and asked for any examples of actual ryu-ha transmission and teachings in the Bujinkan... I haven't seen it in any way at any time... including in Japan. Teaching from the ryu-ha? Yes. Teaching the ryu-ha themselves? Not at all. And, again, it's mainly because Hatsumi simply isn't interested in doing so... that's his call, it's his school, and it's up to him what he teaches and how... he's opted to focus on Budo Taijutsu, which is his creation based on multiple sources... and, really, all cool. But mistaking going through the kata sequences for actually getting into the ryu, or getting detailed correction on a particular kata (the way it's being done at that point) isn't really anything indicating actual ryu-ha study.


Yeah well I guess I would like a specific example. Pick one.


Chris Parker said - Lastly, I've made no claims at all, here, or elsewhere, about "perform(ing) the forms from the ryu-ha better than anyone in the Bujinkan". Thats a major misreading of my comments, my intention, and what ryu-ha study is in the first place. I have said that I believe the way the kata are done in the Bujinkan are "wrong" in relation to the way the ryu themselves moves and would express the kata... I wouldn't say either is "better", as that's a value judgement... and, really, if you like the way the Bujinkan uses the various kata sequences from the various densho, expressing them through Budo Taijutsu, then fantastic. The only problem, as I've said, is if you think that's actually learning or studying the ryu... it's not.

Here's the thing, though... it's precisely due to the historical matters, as well as my koryu training that leads me to this conclusion... so, if that's respected, then that's the source... along with a lot of comparison between various lines of the different ryu-ha to confirm my thoughts.

Heres the thing though, It takes a lifetime to study and learn all 9 ryuha thoroughly. Hell man, it takes at least 3 years (took me 3/2) just to learn the basics of general combat movement, distancing and positioning. At that point its still not effect in a real right. It takes a hell of a lot longer than that before the individual learns to defend themselves effectively.

Lets face it though, it really is up to the individual as to what, if any study of the ryuha they want to pursue in a more thorough way. That does not make the Bujinkan wrong in its teachings. Like I said, these days there is a dramatic difference in the teachings from school to school.



Chris Parker said - I'm curious, is English your first language? That's not meant as an insult, I haven't checked your location in your profile (if it's there), but your user name has a "Spanish" tinge, and Dunc said absolutely nothing about Hatsumi not teaching... he's saying that he disagrees with my statement that Hatsumi is not (and has never, or almost never) taught the individual ryu-ha... my money is on "never", as, frankly, I don't think he actually learnt them that way in the first place... more as a range of different sequences written in various densho... which is a far cry from learning a ryu-ha.


putting your passive aggressiveness aside, your money is on never? You haven’t seen it yet you seem to be an expert of it.



Chris Parker said - Well, that's patently, and completely incorrect. We have footage from the 70's of Hatsumi teaching, and the classes comprising of a variety of methods from the different scrolls... Kukishin weapons, Shinden Fudo, Gyokko Ryu (Sanshin, Kihon Happo to name two prominent aspects), Koto... we have footage from the 60's of him training with Takamatsu, which is covering some Takagi and Kukishin methods... the early books from Hayes from the late 70's and early 80's all detail a variety of methods that have no place in the Togakure Ryu densho material... really, all accounts of the time show some Togakure, but a lot of other things as well. While the amount of Togakure Ryu at the time was probably higher than later, it in no way made up the entirety of the teachings... probably about 10-15%, really.

How much do you know of Togakure Ryu's syllabus? I've already explained that the name was used as a "banner", and was not an indication of the totality of the teachings, so I'm unsure why you still think this. We could also look to the late 80's when Manaka was touring the US, teaching seminars in specific ryu-ha material (seminars on Gyokko Ryu, or Koto Ryu etc)... they'd always been there, just not identified, and hardly separated or structurally taught. The only thing that's true is that, once the "yearly themes" began in the early 90's, individual schools became the yearly focus, starting with Kukishin in 1998, then Shinden Fudo in 99, Gyokko in 2000... but it didn't mean that was the first time the kata were taught...

In other words, this is completely wrong.



In other words its not wrong. I have already stated that it was in the late 80’s that the other ryuha started to seep through but it was Togakure ryu specifically until then. You are talking about late 80’s and after so you point is really moot.

I have Stephen Hayes book Ninja combat methods too Published in 1975.

And the intro says: Today, the Togakure Ryu is the last historical system of nunjutsu publicly recognized as still being in existence. The Togakure system was founded by Daisuke Togakure, who studied with the warrior monk Kain Doshi in the mountain wilderness of the Iga over eight centuries ago. Now in its thirty-fourth generation, the Togakure Ryu is unde the direction of Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, an osteopathic practitioner living in Noda City, Japna, Dr Hatsumi inherited the Togakure training system form his teacher, Toshitsugu Takaatsu, the thirety-third supreme master of the Togakure ryu.

Though the history and tradition of Togakure ninja is obviously very old, the techniques and methods practiced today are quite contemporary, as it is the responsibility of each generation’s supreme master to keep the teachings up to date and fitting with the times. This way, the Togakure ryu ninja’s art of winning will never bcome antiquated, even in generations to come. It goes on some more but you get it right?

I have also stated previously that the Bujinkan curriculum is base on those 9 ryuha in varying degrees. In the 1990’s Hatsumi put out a book called Bujinkna Dojo Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi’s School for Bujinkan Ninpo Tiajutsu Easter Culture for Body and Mind.(which I have) where he takes a selection from the 9 rhyha to form what we know today as the Ten Chi Jin Raku No Maki. At the back of this book Hatsumi has a suggested grading syllabus broken up into the 3 sections. Later he removed the grading requirements and left it up to the Shihan how they wanted to grade their students.


Elninjo said:

The body dynamics and training/tactical methods within the different ryuha are very different.


Chris Parker said - Can you demonstrate that, or show examples?

Well geez Chris its fairly simple stuff. For instance, Koto Ryu uses Juji Aruki and Gyokko Ryu uses Yoko Aruki. Koto Ryu distance the movements are more aligned thank in Gyokko Ryu the short distance where you twist the body up and down.


Chris Parker said - I know exactly who it was. Ed Lomax was the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990, and there are a number of statements made in that rant about the author being the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990. The poster only gave the initial "E" that he posted under, but, really, you need anything else to back this up?


No really, it was just something I found that was historical.


Chris Parker said And, again, Ed has done whatever he could to discredit and attack Wayne Roy in the media (martial arts magazines, forums, message boards etc), with many rather baseless claims such as the ones he made there (again, some 22 years ago... the relevance between it and my comments here are not exactly clear, other than you trying the same smear tact...), with multiple easily refuted claims, and no actual supporting evidence from Ed's side. For full disclosure, Ed Lomax was one of the first students in Australia of Wayne Roy, moving from Adelaide to Brisbane in the first year that Mr Roy was teaching here. Ed had studied a relatively modern sword drawing art (Hokushin Shinoh Ryu Iaido), who have a headquarters in Adelaide, which he shared with Mr Roy. As there had been little study of sword in Japan while Mr Roy was there initially, he worked with the techniques Ed shared to create an early sword syllabus for our schools (that only lasted a couple of years). Ed eventually went to Japan himself (around 82 or 83 from memory), got graded up, and sent back to start his own school... from there, he began his attacks on Mr Roy, including constantly belittling Mr Roy for using his (Ed's) sword art... somehow blaming Mr Roy for the teachers in Japan not teaching sword much while he was there (?). Realistically, Ed was upset that he was not the first Australian, and wasn't "the guy"... in fact, by the end of the 80's, he was going around declaring that he was "appointed" the Australian head of the Bujinkan by Hatsumi... despite the fact that Hatsumi never had any structure of anyone being the head of any region, country, or anything else... bluntly, Ed is ego and anger... and I have not seen much credible from his statements over the past 25 years.

My point of posting it was to show that your sensei Wayne L Roy was expelled from the Bujinkan – which he was. Talk to anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan and mention Way L Roy’s name and they will bring their both index fingers up in a cross. He was removed. He was stripped of rank (by being removed) and is now running his own security business. From what I am reading about “your” school, its conception came from the fact that you decided to be loyal to a disgraced member of the Bujinkan. You now teach 6 of the 9 schools of the Bujinkan and are, largely self taught from the time Roy was booted out. The only place your rank is recognized is within “your” school. You haven’t even reached the level (5th Dan) to be considered licensed to teach these ryuha.
Other than that I really dont care who or what Wayne L Roy is or has done.




Chris Parker said - A dojo might decide to focus on a handful of the densho, but that's still not the same thing as studying the ryu, I have to say (again, full disclosure, this is precisely how we did things since the early 90's as well... with our schools focusing on Togakure, Gyokko, Koto, and Kukishin... it was my personal research and working with my teachers that gave me Shinden Fudo and Takagi... but, especially looking back, although I wouldn't have recognised it at the time, that did not constitute ryu-ha study... it was more just looking at the kata sequences with slightly adapted/adjusted mechanics, variations of kamae, but sharing the same structure and technical points).

Back then mate it was pretty darn basic stuff. You have not been involved in the Bujinkan in at least 20 years and only reaching Shodan, doesn’t say much for your experience with it. I have those same view about how much it has changed over the years.


Elninjo said:

Brendan f Said: - I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:

yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?


Chris Parker said - No, you're clinging to easily disprovable nonsense... without any recognition of the reality of the situation.

I have just posted some of the proof…..have lots and lots more if you like mate?



Chris Parker said - That would make it absolutely findable as part of case law databases... how do you think it could be used in lectures regarding legal instruction without it being something easily findable and reference-able?


You have no idea what you’re ranting about. First a complaint about a solicitor for breach of the codes is a separate issue from a court case. The do not run on the same field. Not that I really care about this stuff but you obviously have your panties in a bunch about it so ill elaborate how exactly a complain against a solicitor is made and concluded

Someone dealing with a solicitor believes the said solicitor has breach the conduct rules. They make a formal complaint (separately from any court case happening and not linked to it) to the relevant governing body outlining the reasons they believe they have breached the code. The complaint is investigated and a determination made.



So heres where it gets interesting. If the complaint is found to be unheld – and BrendanF having studied law would be able to confirm this, the solicitor can face penalties.

Depending on what the breach was and I would think it would have had to have been fairly significant for it to be used in a university lecture. Where would you find this information? The OLSC – Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. Try there or you may wish to contact them in that regards……20 years have passed lol so you may not find a thing.



A court case that has been ruled on (someone suing you) you will find here

AustLII - Help: Case Law Help

If the case did not proceed to trial – meaning a court did not hear the case and did not rule on it then it wont show anywhere. Ie if the parties decided to settle the matter out of court or the instigating party withdrew…..

Chris Parker said -Second
And, one more time for the slow of reading, no, Mr Roy was NOT expelled from the Bujinkan... we left. In 2001. Ed tried to get Hatsumi to remove him, but that never happened (same with Hayes, and Brian McCarthy, and Richard Van Donk, and many others...)... he also was never demoted, no rank was "not recognised" (it was 6th Dan, for the record, not 5th), or anything else. These claims would need to have some evidence to support them, but that was never Ed's way of doing things... nor, it seems, is it yours.



Wayne L Roy did get booted out and it was 5th Dan, there are apparently letters around from Roy to Hatsumi demanding he be given 10th dan rank. Bitching about others that have been training for less and getting 10th dan.

 

[Chris Parker]

@Tony Dismukes , thanks for the review... it matches my thoughts as well.

One of my favourite shows of all time is The West Wing... in the penultimate season, the show covered the primary season, with various people vying for nomination of their party for President. One of the main contenders, and presumptive nominee, is the then-Vice President, Bob Russell. He had a favourite way of starting his speeches, with a joke about the Vice Presidential Seal, saying that his favourite thing about the VP Seal was that "if you turn your head... and squint just so... and look really carefully... it almost looks like... President of the United States..." (cheap applause and polite laughter). In an aside, his campaign manager, Will Bailey, is discussing with a senior aide, Donnatella Moss. She asks him if he's ever "squinted, looked from the side..", and he responds that "I'm ashamed to admit it, but, yes." "And, does it?" she asked... "No."

Sean, Kacem, and others, are squinting and looking from the side, hoping to see what they want, rather than opening their eyes and looking directly as what it is... speaking of...

Chris Parker said -
I've gone through this for years, and asked for any examples of actual ryu-ha transmission and teachings in the Bujinkan... I haven't seen it in any way at any time... including in Japan. Teaching from the ryu-ha? Yes. Teaching the ryu-ha themselves? Not at all. And, again, it's mainly because Hatsumi simply isn't interested in doing so... that's his call, it's his school, and it's up to him what he teaches and how... he's opted to focus on Budo Taijutsu, which is his creation based on multiple sources... and, really, all cool. But mistaking going through the kata sequences for actually getting into the ryu, or getting detailed correction on a particular kata (the way it's being done at that point) isn't really anything indicating actual ryu-ha study.


Yeah well I guess I would like a specific example. Pick one.

For one thing, we should teach you how to quote... click on the "add quote" button... makes it much easier to do this.

Right, let's get to it. I've asked for numerous examples... you want just one? Okay... how would you define the body structural difference between, let's say, Koto Ryu and Kukishinden Ryu? We'll keep it simple... describe the difference between their two Seigan no Kamae... how it's adopted, how the body is structured (hip orientation, weight distribution)... but, more importantly, what does that imply for the school?

This is leaving off concepts such as the reiho, ri-ai, mindset, and so on that would really identify ryu-ha transmission... if we're lucky, we'll get there... or, really, we'll get to conversing about it, as they don't really feature beyond some minor (largely superficial, really... we'll get to that) physical variations from one "ryu" to the next.

Chris Parker said - Lastly, I've made no claims at all, here, or elsewhere, about "perform(ing) the forms from the ryu-ha better than anyone in the Bujinkan". Thats a major misreading of my comments, my intention, and what ryu-ha study is in the first place. I have said that I believe the way the kata are done in the Bujinkan are "wrong" in relation to the way the ryu themselves moves and would express the kata... I wouldn't say either is "better", as that's a value judgement... and, really, if you like the way the Bujinkan uses the various kata sequences from the various densho, expressing them through Budo Taijutsu, then fantastic. The only problem, as I've said, is if you think that's actually learning or studying the ryu... it's not.

Here's the thing, though... it's precisely due to the historical matters, as well as my koryu training that leads me to this conclusion... so, if that's respected, then that's the source... along with a lot of comparison between various lines of the different ryu-ha to confirm my thoughts.

Heres the thing though, It takes a lifetime to study and learn all 9 ryuha thoroughly. Hell man, it takes at least 3 years (took me 3/2) just to learn the basics of general combat movement, distancing and positioning. At that point its still not effect in a real right. It takes a hell of a lot longer than that before the individual learns to defend themselves effectively.

Please. If it takes a lifetime to study and learn them, how did Hatsumi do it in less than 15 years of (at times) intermittent weekends? Unless you're agreeing that that would be impossible, so he didn't actually do anything of the kind? Realistically, though, for most koryu, anywhere from 10-20 years would be what I would consider "standard" for achieving Menkyo Kaiden (or it's equivalent). Today, that often gets stretched out to perhaps 25-30 years, but I'd also attribute that to the modern training approaches compared to back in the day (even back in the 70's and 80's, really)... but it's not historically accurate to say anything like that.

Now, I'm not saying that these arts aren't lifetime studies... they certainly can be, and are for many people. But that's not the same as how long it takes to learn them in the first place. As for your timeline, frankly, the terms you're describing are quite vague and meaningless here... your idea of "learning distancing" might be very different to mine... after all, learning it can be done quickly... developing a sense and understanding is another matter entirely... of course, it's also a bit telling that you focus on these as "the basics of general combat movement", as that's exactly what the Bujinkan is, and exactly why it's not a study of the ryu-ha... which is, again, not a criticism, it's a description of it's design... which is exactly the way Hatsumi wants it, and is the best approach for the skills he wants to impart.

Lets face it though, it really is up to the individual as to what, if any study of the ryuha they want to pursue in a more thorough way. That does not make the Bujinkan wrong in its teachings. Like I said, these days there is a dramatic difference in the teachings from school to school.

Well, not really, if it's not taught (and therefore not an option) for them in the first place... and, again, I'm only saying the Bujinkan's approach to the material is "wrong" from the perspective of the ryu... it's perfectly correct when looked at with the ideal of using the material to explore Budo Taijutsu... which is the reality. Look, you can get as deep as you want into the kata the way the Bujinkan do them, but the homogenisation to a Budo Taijutsu approach (body structure, attacking methods, incredibly similar kamae, blocking and receiving methods, methods of applying locks and throws, and so on) will remove them from the context of the ryu itself. Believe me, I've done that for two and a half decades (although, to be frank, I've understood that there was this major separation between the Bujinkan's approach and the actual ryu-ha for the last 15 years at least... I'm just now really in a position to start putting together what I feel is a more accurate representation... not saying it's "right", as I think the possibility of saying that is well past, just that it's something I feel is closer). One more thing... this isn't restricted to the Bujinkan either... the Jinenkan does the same thing, as does the Genbukan... there is a basic, underlying approach each group uses, and that is how they filter and express the waza of the various schools... at the end, I'll show a bit of what I'm talking about.

Chris Parker said - I'm curious, is English your first language? That's not meant as an insult, I haven't checked your location in your profile (if it's there), but your user name has a "Spanish" tinge, and Dunc said absolutely nothing about Hatsumi not teaching... he's saying that he disagrees with my statement that Hatsumi is not (and has never, or almost never) taught the individual ryu-ha... my money is on "never", as, frankly, I don't think he actually learnt them that way in the first place... more as a range of different sequences written in various densho... which is a far cry from learning a ryu-ha.


putting your passive aggressiveness aside, your money is on never? You haven’t seen it yet you seem to be an expert of it.

Not passive-aggressive, genuinely asking. Your English is good, but you seem to not follow what is being said a number of times... misrepresenting Dunc's statements and intent, missing Tony's background, stating you "can look for" something regarding myself, despite it being literally two sentences prior in your own post... so I was curious, as that might have explained it. If not... then maybe read a bit closer?

And, yes, my money is on "never". To begin with, you have the three "hidden" schools, one which was not given in any way other than on paper (with no techniques), one being a set of principles, and one mysteriously appearing a couple of years after Takamatsu's death... then you have the time-frame, and the size of some of these schools... then you have the lack of any indication of ryu-ha methodologies, the disdain shown towards the traits and common practices of koryu, as well as Hatsumi's own lack of interest in such things.. I mean... it'd be incredible if, after all that, against his own values, interests, desires, intents, and preferences, he was actually teaching and transmitting the ryu themselves... it just doesn't make sense, and the idea that the ryu are studied as the ryu themselves, separate and distinct from Budo Taijutsu methodologies, simply has no evidence or support. And that's okay... because that's how the Bujinkan is meant to be.

By the way, I wouldn't class myself as an "expert", but the expertise you're looking for is someone being an expert in koryu and ryu-ha transmission... and those who are such all agree with my take on it (Meik Skoss, Wayne Muromoto, Steve Delaney...). This is why I said my take is more from my study of koryu than from my study with Wayne Roy, both in and out of the Bujinkan.

Chris Parker said - Well, that's patently, and completely incorrect. We have footage from the 70's of Hatsumi teaching, and the classes comprising of a variety of methods from the different scrolls... Kukishin weapons, Shinden Fudo, Gyokko Ryu (Sanshin, Kihon Happo to name two prominent aspects), Koto... we have footage from the 60's of him training with Takamatsu, which is covering some Takagi and Kukishin methods... the early books from Hayes from the late 70's and early 80's all detail a variety of methods that have no place in the Togakure Ryu densho material... really, all accounts of the time show some Togakure, but a lot of other things as well. While the amount of Togakure Ryu at the time was probably higher than later, it in no way made up the entirety of the teachings... probably about 10-15%, really.

How much do you know of Togakure Ryu's syllabus? I've already explained that the name was used as a "banner", and was not an indication of the totality of the teachings, so I'm unsure why you still think this. We could also look to the late 80's when Manaka was touring the US, teaching seminars in specific ryu-ha material (seminars on Gyokko Ryu, or Koto Ryu etc)... they'd always been there, just not identified, and hardly separated or structurally taught. The only thing that's true is that, once the "yearly themes" began in the early 90's, individual schools became the yearly focus, starting with Kukishin in 1998, then Shinden Fudo in 99, Gyokko in 2000... but it didn't mean that was the first time the kata were taught...

In other words, this is completely wrong.



In other words its not wrong. I have already stated that it was in the late 80’s that the other ryuha started to seep through but it was Togakure ryu specifically until then. You are talking about late 80’s and after so you point is really moot.

70's, dude. Again, read a bit closer.

Still, you want definitive? Okay.

Oh, look, Hatsumi in the 70's... and no Togakure Ryu techniques or methods at all (some Kukishin based staff work, the rest is more a set of concepts, with some escape methods from Shinden Fudo Ryu.. but no Togakure Ryu).

More? Okay, have you read Andrew Adams' "Ninja: The Invisible Assassins"? Written in the late 60's, with some quite interesting research covering Hatsumi, Nawa Yumio (last head of Masaki Ryu Kusarijutsu... Hatsumi studied with him for a while), Okuse Heishichiro, former Mayor of Iga-Ueno and "ninja historian", some focus on Fujita Seiko, and even a third, unnamed "secret" ninja who claimed to still be operating... when dealing with Hatsumi (still known as Yoshiaki, if you want to date this), said this (page 166, if you want to check):

"Yoshiaki Hatsumi estimates that it takes least 10 years, the length of time he studied under Takamatsu, to master all the different weapons and techniques. Fudo-ryu includes jujitsu (sic) and iainuki, or fast sword-drawing techniques. Takagi Yoshin-ryu takes in jutaijutsu. The third class, or school of techniques, Gyokko-ryu, includes yubi methods (use of the thumb and fingers) and Togakure-ryu, a 700-year-old school emphasising original ninja techniques.Koto-ryu is centred around a technique called koppo, or bone breaking. The final school, Kuki Shin-ryu, is based on bisento, a type of fighting using a wide-bladed spear with a blade similar to that of a scimitar."

This book was first published (in English, to the West) in 1970, and features Hatsumi and some students (a younger Ishizuka among them) demonstrating techniques... and, what would you know, there's little Togakure Ryu kata there. You can easily recognise a bunch from Koto Ryu (Hissaku, Ransetsu, and others), and Gyokko Ryu (Koku, Ketsu Myaku, and others)... so... er... oh, and you'll notice that there is no mention of Gyokushin, Gikan, or Kumogakure... funny, that...

I have Stephen Hayes book Ninja combat methods too Published in 1975.

View attachment 27174

Hmm... Hayes' first book was "The Ninja And Their Secret Fighting Art", first published in 1981, detailing the lessons he received in Japan... starting when he first arrived there... in 1975... are you sure you're right there? For the record, the 1967 art they're talking about is his karate training, not Bujinkan... he started his first karate dojo in 73, and left it to go to Japan two years later... oh, and Doron Navon had been there for a few years, and got Shidoshi status before Hayes did... as I said, consummate marketer... of course, none of that states that Togakure Ryu was the only thing they did, just that it was the main title used to spread the art... you know, as I've been saying... as well as giving the reasons for it... I mean... in the book, he even does a similar description of the various schools to the one in Adams' book, albeit with some different descriptions (stating that Fudo Ryu specialises in shuriken, for example)...

EDIT: Okay, found the one you're talking about... it's basically a short manual that got published when Hayes had just started training in Japan... and the point is?

And the intro says: Today, the Togakure Ryu is the last historical system of nunjutsu publicly recognized as still being in existence. The Togakure system was founded by Daisuke Togakure, who studied with the warrior monk Kain Doshi in the mountain wilderness of the Iga over eight centuries ago. Now in its thirty-fourth generation, the Togakure Ryu is unde the direction of Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, an osteopathic practitioner living in Noda City, Japna, Dr Hatsumi inherited the Togakure training system form his teacher, Toshitsugu Takaatsu, the thirety-third supreme master of the Togakure ryu.


Though the history and tradition of Togakure ninja is obviously very old, the techniques and methods practiced today are quite contemporary, as it is the responsibility of each generation’s supreme master to keep the teachings up to date and fitting with the times. This way, the Togakure ryu ninja’s art of winning will never bcome antiquated, even in generations to come. It goes on some more but you get it right?

Dude... they were using the name as a single title to describe everything taught... it does not, and you really need to get this, it does NOT mean that everything they did was only Togakure Ryu. I could go on, but... you get it, right?

I have also stated previously that the Bujinkan curriculum is base on those 9 ryuha in varying degrees. In the 1990’s Hatsumi put out a book called Bujinkna Dojo Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi’s School for Bujinkan Ninpo Tiajutsu Easter Culture for Body and Mind.(which I have) where he takes a selection from the 9 rhyha to form what we know today as the Ten Chi Jin Raku No Maki.

The Ten Chi Jin dates from at least a decade at least before that, gotta tell you... Hatsumi gave Hayes a copy in 82 in the first big seminar tour of the US... Charles Daniel was training from it in 84, and starting to spread it around in 85... Wayne Roy, for the record, received a copy from Nagato just before he left Japan at the end of 1980, so, yeah, kinda familiar with the contents... and, let's be clear again, there are kata drawn from Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu (not the Jutaijutsu), Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu, and Togakure Ryu, as well as a number that were created specifically for the book, and did not come from any school... no Gikan, Gyokushin, or Kumogakure... funny, that...

At the back of this book Hatsumi has a suggested grading syllabus broken up into the 3 sections. Later he removed the grading requirements and left it up to the Shihan how they wanted to grade their students.

There were a number of structured syllabus' back in the day... there was one that had kyoketsu shoge as a kyu-grade weapon, for example...

Elninjo said:

The body dynamics and training/tactical methods within the different ryuha are very different.


Chris Parker said - Can you demonstrate that, or show examples?

Well geez Chris its fairly simple stuff. For instance, Koto Ryu uses Juji Aruki and Gyokko Ryu uses Yoko Aruki. Koto Ryu distance the movements are more aligned thank in Gyokko Ryu the short distance where you twist the body up and down.

That's a couple of superficial aspects... give me the ri-ai behind them, and tell me about how the body structure, power generation, and so forth differ... after all, two different names for cross-stepping isn't going to cut it much...

Chris Parker said - I know exactly who it was. Ed Lomax was the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990, and there are a number of statements made in that rant about the author being the person who organised the first Tai Kai in Sydney in 1990. The poster only gave the initial "E" that he posted under, but, really, you need anything else to back this up?


No really, it was just something I found that was historical.

No, it was a (semi) anonymous character assassination from a disgruntled, angry man with no evidence, support, or backup... and, one might add, pretty much entirely incorrect, as has been demonstrated.

Chris Parker said And, again, Ed has done whatever he could to discredit and attack Wayne Roy in the media (martial arts magazines, forums, message boards etc), with many rather baseless claims such as the ones he made there (again, some 22 years ago... the relevance between it and my comments here are not exactly clear, other than you trying the same smear tact...), with multiple easily refuted claims, and no actual supporting evidence from Ed's side. For full disclosure, Ed Lomax was one of the first students in Australia of Wayne Roy, moving from Adelaide to Brisbane in the first year that Mr Roy was teaching here. Ed had studied a relatively modern sword drawing art (Hokushin Shinoh Ryu Iaido), who have a headquarters in Adelaide, which he shared with Mr Roy. As there had been little study of sword in Japan while Mr Roy was there initially, he worked with the techniques Ed shared to create an early sword syllabus for our schools (that only lasted a couple of years). Ed eventually went to Japan himself (around 82 or 83 from memory), got graded up, and sent back to start his own school... from there, he began his attacks on Mr Roy, including constantly belittling Mr Roy for using his (Ed's) sword art... somehow blaming Mr Roy for the teachers in Japan not teaching sword much while he was there (?). Realistically, Ed was upset that he was not the first Australian, and wasn't "the guy"... in fact, by the end of the 80's, he was going around declaring that he was "appointed" the Australian head of the Bujinkan by Hatsumi... despite the fact that Hatsumi never had any structure of anyone being the head of any region, country, or anything else... bluntly, Ed is ego and anger... and I have not seen much credible from his statements over the past 25 years.

My point of posting it was to show that your sensei Wayne L Roy was expelled from the Bujinkan – which he was.

Kid, I've known the man for close to 30 years, have been a student of his through the whole "leaving the Bujinkan" thing, and I'm telling you, despite the wishes and intent of some, Wayne Roy was never kicked out of the Bujinkan. You're wrong, and, frankly, have nothing to support this statement.

Talk to anyone in Australia in the Bujinkan and mention Way L Roy’s name and they will bring their both index fingers up in a cross.

Some will... all? Nope. Gillian Booth and I had some good chats about the "good old days" when she was with our schools (she was one of the first female black belts in Australia under us, as well as being a champion judoka in her own right)... nor will Craig Guest... haven't heard anything negative from Duncan Stewart either... some vocal people online, yep. But everyone? Nope. You know how I know? Cause I'm in Australia, and I talk to a number of these people.

He was removed.

No, he wasn't.

He was stripped of rank (by being removed)

No, he wasn't.

and is now running his own security business.

No, he doesn't. Really, do you have the first clue what you're talking about, or who you're talking to?

From what I am reading about “your” school, its conception came from the fact that you decided to be loyal to a disgraced member of the Bujinkan.

I remained with my teacher, yep. "Disgraced"? Hardly. Universally loved, not at all. But here's a secret for you... even Nagato was happy to talk about Wayne Roy in a respectful manner...

You now teach 6 of the 9 schools of the Bujinkan

As does every Bujinkan school, mate.

and are, largely self taught from the time Roy was booted out.

Wow, you just won't let things go, will you? And what makes you think I was "largely self taught"?!? I still had a teacher... you pointed that out yourself above... do you even know how to follow your own argument?

The only place your rank is recognized is within “your” school.

Same with any school, kid. Try giving your Bujinkan rank at a BJJ gym, see if they'll accept it... hell, go to the Genbukan, and you'll start at 9th kyu...

You haven’t even reached the level (5th Dan) to be considered licensed to teach these ryuha.

I don't think you get how licences work, really... do you think a Godan in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is a licence to teach Gyokko Ryu? Oh, and for the record, the title is Shidoshi-ho, which means I'm authorised to teach (and rank) up to a point, should I decide to go full-Bujinkan...

Other than that I really dont care who or what Wayne L Roy is or has done.

You really hide it well... considering he has only a passing relevance to this conversation (honestly, pretty much no relevance, but hey, you seem a bit obsessed...)

Chris Parker said - A dojo might decide to focus on a handful of the densho, but that's still not the same thing as studying the ryu, I have to say (again, full disclosure, this is precisely how we did things since the early 90's as well... with our schools focusing on Togakure, Gyokko, Koto, and Kukishin... it was my personal research and working with my teachers that gave me Shinden Fudo and Takagi... but, especially looking back, although I wouldn't have recognised it at the time, that did not constitute ryu-ha study... it was more just looking at the kata sequences with slightly adapted/adjusted mechanics, variations of kamae, but sharing the same structure and technical points).

Back then mate it was pretty darn basic stuff. You have not been involved in the Bujinkan in at least 20 years and only reaching Shodan, doesn’t say much for your experience with it. I have those same view about how much it has changed over the years.

Please, try to read what's being said.

Elninjo said:

Brendan f Said: - I was not inferring anything. I am Australian, and familiar with the names involved. In fact I used to have an old Blitz with an interview with Mr Lomax in it around somewhere. If you're curious.. it was spelled out in Chris' post:

yeah yeah , I have them all too mate, and those (if you want to press) will show that it was Togakure Ryu back then and not the 9 Ryuha. Are we getting into a pissing context now?


Chris Parker said - No, you're clinging to easily disprovable nonsense... without any recognition of the reality of the situation.

I have just posted some of the proof…..have lots and lots more if you like mate?

Ha!!! And, pray tell, what "proof" have you offered? That the primary name the early Bujinkan went under was Togakure Ryu? Yeah... that's not really something that was debated.. you seem to think that means that only Togakure Ryu itself was taught... that's... just wrong. As I've demonstrated. Again, and again, and again...

Chris Parker said - That would make it absolutely findable as part of case law databases... how do you think it could be used in lectures regarding legal instruction without it being something easily findable and reference-able?


You have no idea what you’re ranting about. First a complaint about a solicitor for breach of the codes is a separate issue from a court case. The do not run on the same field. Not that I really care about this stuff but you obviously have your panties in a bunch about it so ill elaborate how exactly a complain against a solicitor is made and concluded

Someone dealing with a solicitor believes the said solicitor has breach the conduct rules. They make a formal complaint (separately from any court case happening and not linked to it) to the relevant governing body outlining the reasons they believe they have breached the code. The complaint is investigated and a determination made.



So heres where it gets interesting. If the complaint is found to be unheld – and BrendanF having studied law would be able to confirm this, the solicitor can face penalties.

Depending on what the breach was and I would think it would have had to have been fairly significant for it to be used in a university lecture. Where would you find this information? The OLSC – Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. Try there or you may wish to contact them in that regards……20 years have passed lol so you may not find a thing.

Or, and bear with me here... it never happened, and was just another case of Ed slurring Wayne's name. Again. By lying. As he did multiple times in the same rant.

Oh, and for this to have gotten to this stage, there would need to have been something lodged by the solicitor in the first place, so.... no. Additionally, this isn't what Ed described... he described a civil case (suing for libel), so there'd be records. Really, try using some logic here, you're missing a lot of the details...

A court case that has been ruled on (someone suing you) you will find here

AustLII - Help: Case Law Help

If the case did not proceed to trial – meaning a court did not hear the case and did not rule on it then it wont show anywhere. Ie if the parties decided to settle the matter out of court or the instigating party withdrew…..

And, so you're suggesting that a non-court case is used as an example in universities regarding case law....?

Chris Parker said -Second
And, one more time for the slow of reading, no, Mr Roy was NOT expelled from the Bujinkan... we left. In 2001. Ed tried to get Hatsumi to remove him, but that never happened (same with Hayes, and Brian McCarthy, and Richard Van Donk, and many others...)... he also was never demoted, no rank was "not recognised" (it was 6th Dan, for the record, not 5th), or anything else. These claims would need to have some evidence to support them, but that was never Ed's way of doing things... nor, it seems, is it yours.



Wayne L Roy did get booted out

No. For the last time, he was not. People may have wanted to, but that's immaterial to your claim. Even Ed hasn't stated he was "booted", and no-one else has suggested it. Stop.

and it was 5th Dan,

Are you kidding? I think I know the rank of my own teacher well enough. He was awarded Rokudan in 1990, and was not promoted afterwards... but by the same token, there was never a demotion either (in fact, I can't think of any case where that has happened in the Bujinkan at all...)

there are apparently letters around from Roy to Hatsumi demanding he be given 10th dan rank. Bitching about others that have been training for less and getting 10th dan.

And using said rank to run him down publicly. You know, the thing I said happened. Oh, and it's one letter, basically requesting a show of support from Japan, which included a request to be promoted to Judan (not for the rank, mainly to shut up the others). The request was ignored, so we left. Simple. By the way, the letter itself was considered a private correspondence between Wayne and Hatsumi, who then gave it out to a number of Wayne's detractors in Japan to spread it around... something that we were rather unimpressed with, to say the least, but, again, this is 20 years ago, so it's not something I am interested in dredging up.

Can you actually get back to the topic, or do you have nothing to offer in that regard? You claim that the Bujinkan teaches 9 ryu... back that up. You claim there is ryu-ha study (genuine, koryu-style). Back that up. Attempting to attack myself by attacking my former teacher just shows you have no real argument at all. Ball's in your court, kid.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, I said I'd show some of what I'm talking about, so let's look at some examples.

Bujinkan Koto Ryu

Bujinkan Gyokko Ryu

Bujinkan Takagi Yoshin Ryu

Bujinkan Kukishin Ryu

Bujinkan Kukishin Bojutsu

As you can see, the basic postural ideas, hand strikes, blocking methods, and so on are all essentially the same... just with slight variations. Then, the different sequences are gone through, but that's about it. (I think I can only do 5 videos per post, so this will be continued in a bit..)