Just my opinion

[ehls65]

I have actually been around for about a year now so I have been reading the post for about a year now. And when I was writing the post I was in a sense commenting on not only this post but others as well. My intent was not to offend anyone it was just to show that although we can trace the arts of the Bujinkan and other kans to Japan does that make it any better. Because if I am not mistaken our art was not written down until Takamatsu, I could be wrong. I know that the main issue is the word ninja but it is just a word and no matter what is said or done it will still be used by someone that knows nothing about ninja's or ninjutsu. Which brings me to my point we do not know if what we are doing is really ninjutsu or just someones jujutsu style with a new name. I have read in some places that even Toda sensei never told anyone that he was a ninja. So we don't know and I believe that it is impossible to find out who is telling the truth and who is not. That is why I believe that if it works train if not move on. Let me close with a question to all "Is what we learn in the Bujinkan Ninjutsu or Budo Taijutsu?"
Which from my understanding is Soke Hatsumi's interpretation of all the arts that he has learned not just the one's from Takamatsu.
Hey I could be wrong but is this not what this board is for to state opinions and recieve other opinions?

Two more cents from my pocket

Cedric Watts

[JamesGarcia]

The one truth as I see it is that what Hatsumi Sensei presented as Ninjutsu in the 60's is what he is still teaching today.

Myself having been around during the Ninja boom of the 70's-90's, you would watch each month for the next article as that was all we had back then. The one consistent thing from every other so called Ninja master was that they would change with each article, so obvious that they would soon follow an article about elements with their own VERSION of the elements when they had never mentioned it before. Their unarmed styles were obviously not Japanese but over time would take on elements from anything. The sad fact is that many if not all of these Ninja masters also left with the next fad when the Ninja Boom died down.

Hatsumi So'ke is still teaching the same art.

[Kamiyama]

I would have to agree totally.
Hatsumi sensei has not really changed his teaching from what I have experienced from him... personally.... and from what I have seen on video tapes.

kamiyama, ralph severe

[Steve McGovern]

Their unarmed styles were obviously not Japanese but over time would take on elements from anything.

As to Jame's comment above, I've seen and heard this statement a lot over the past 25+ years in practicing MAs and my question has been this: So what exactly is the "Japanese Style"? Is it stiff, rigid and imovable as expressed in some Karate styles? Is it linear or circular? Is it hard or soft? When I studied Shotokan it (as far as my teachers presentation) was pretty linear and stiff until one added western bobbing and weaving to it.

I understand that each culture will add its own neuances to fit their concept of what a warrior or fighting system should look like regardless of where that art originated. If this were not the case then we would all be studying the same art without any kind of evolution. So to say that something is not "obviously Japanese" in its appearance covers a somewhat broad spectrum in my opinion.

[JamesGarcia]

Obviously Japanese meaning they were doing either Chinese Kung Fu Forms which are quite obvious to the naked eye, or Korean kicking styles. Both of these have very different strategies and techniques.

But again, my point is that as more articles came out, these same Chinese and Korean stylists would soon be using Japanese movements and even Japanese postures when only one article before they were using a Chinese animal style. Even more blatent was the use of Japanese terms immediately after an article the month before.

Let me remind you the word Ninja and Ninjutsu are Japanese and this is what we are talking about.

[Steve McGovern]

Noted. Those are the words that are being discussed and are totally Japanese in origin however, other cultures developed words to identify or express such concepts or persons with certin skills. Assassin, Spy, Scout and Ranger are some examples.

Again my question was "What is Japanese Style?" especially when one can see differences between the many different Japanese Karate arts, including Aikido, Judo, Jiu Jutsu. They look different even have Chinese root elements embedded in them.

When I had the opportunity to visit with Dan Weideman here in San Diego I "saw" some things that resembled what I'm sure many traditional Chinese MA's would call Chinese Elements. For example the footwork on one of the exercises he was teaching. To me it resembled the same "style" of walking done in the beginning elements of Tai Chi Chuan including the translation of body weight. This however does not make it Tai Chi. But it was interesting and was my interpretation of what I "saw" in his styling.

So to thwart any flaming I am not saying that his Ninjutsu is Chinese, just that the term "Japanese style" is somewhat broad and open to interpretation. Now to me Kenjutsu and many other Koryu Budo arts are distinctive and IMHO constitute "Japanese Styling".

This is only what I have observed and only my opinion.

[Snowtiger]

Originally posted by Steve McGovern
So what exactly is the "Japanese Style"? Is it stiff, rigid and imovable as expressed in some Karate styles?

Umm... karate is not from mainland Japan. Most arts developed on the battlefields of Japan have certain distinct characteristics, for example the armour and weaponry used dictated what kinds of techniques were usable and which were not. Also, most of the unarmed methods have their roots in defending against these weapons, or defending against someone trying to prevent you from using your weapons (like the common wrist grab defences, which are common in Japanese arts because the opponent was trying to stop you from drawing your sword). Unbalancing and throwing were common because the enemy would often wear armour, and only certain points for atemi were accessible. When you see enough of these characteristics in different styles, and after you understand the "why and where" of them, you'll quickly start to see when "sumthing's not right" in a claimed method from the same battlefields. When a person is obviously doing "Japanized" (post-WW2) karate and claims that he is showing you medieval ninjutsu, it won't take that long to figure out if he is being truthful or not.

Some excellent points:
http://www.koryu.com/library/fabian1.html

[Steve McGovern]

Hey, that's a lot better in claifiying a particlual point of "Japanese Style" but I'm sure there would be argument from some as to Karate (Empty Hand) as not being Japanese.

Now if the Japanese were the only culture to wear armor I would totally agree with you. The Chinese and Koreans did so likewise and have techniques to deal with it as well. Though there are slight and subtle differences, parallels in development did and do exhist as far as the "battlefield" was concerned. IMHO Aikijutsu and Chin Na are good examples of this. Also if you were on the battlefield in the heat of things and were just now drawing your sword I'd say you were slightly behind the power curve a wee bit.

As a note. It was pointed out to me on another thread by a local (e-budo) authority that "Ninja" rarely took part in such battlefield activities. I still believe this to be incorrect. Additionally I think that the period in which warfare took place would have effected the evolution of the technique. I.e. When the straight, double edged "Chinese" swords were used as compaired to the development of the curved, single edged swords. Not to mention Horsemanship, etc.

[Snowtiger]

Originally posted by Steve McGovern
Hey, that's a lot better in claifiying a particlual point of "Japanese Style" but I'm sure there would be argument from some as to Karate (Empty Hand) as not being Japanese.

Karate is Japanese when you consider Okinawa part of Japan, but it is not from mainland where bujutsu was developed. Now if you are teaching what is obviously a post-WW karate technique, perhaps holding a katana (usually with a wierd grip) and say to me that you are doing a five centuries old ninjutsu kata you only make me laugh even I know very little of Japanese bujutsu overall.

Now if the Japanese were the only culture to wear armor I would totally agree with you. The Chinese and Koreans did so likewise and have techniques to deal with it as well.

The armour was often different, due to differences in weaponry, tactics and environment. The main weapon of samurai, the sword, is way different than say, a chinese sword, not to mention that in China the sword wasn't as much prioritized as in Japan. So they used different kinds of armoury because of that. And so on.

[Steve McGovern]

I agree with you.

Good article. I saved it.

One thing I notice through my contact with BJK members in these forums is this. Hatsumi did away with katas and forms other than taijutsu. I believe one e-budo BJK member has the quote by Hatsumi in his signature tag line to this effect. If so (thought it doesn't change Hatsumi's personal art) how does that effect those now learning the art? It kind of like the Bruce Lee thing. He had to learn and knew all the forms but thought them useless so didn't teach them only after he "mastered" his own art. Personally I don't believe it changes the effectiveness of what they are learning but it sort of goes against the criteria in the article.

[Snowtiger]

Are you sure about that? At least Manaka of Jinenkan teaches the old kata (see http://www.jinenkan.com/Rankreq.htm for his rank syllabus up till fourth dan).

[Steve McGovern]

That's what I'm told and that's how the quote reads.

I think its wonderful that Manaka is teaching the forms. I believe that the forms really teach the art.

Cheers

[studious_ninja]

Perhaps you misunderstood the 'tagline'...? The kata and forms are taijutsu.

Syd Sked

[JamesGarcia]

Hatsumi So'ke did away with forms? This is incorrect. I believe the quote infers after learning the forms, do away with them so as not to be trapped by the forms.

Every class with Hatsumi Sensei involves first reviewing a specific basic Kata, then doing variations. This is how it has always been done including the way Takamatsu So'ke is shown teaching to Hatsumi Sensei in the new Quest DVD.

[Hayseed]

This is how it has always been done including the way Takamatsu So'ke is shown teaching to Hatsumi Sensei in the new Quest DVD.

SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT!!! SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT!!!