Bujinkan & Toshindo Clip critique (Split from Video thread)

Rank has nothing to do with whether you are going to survive a physical conflict. I don't care if that rank is in BJJ or BJK or TKD.

If you are aware of any teachers who actually tell their students that a given rank is going to protect them in a real fight, please provide me with their names. I'll do what I can to help them realize the err of their ways.

Seeing how I personally am not aware of *ANY* teacher who equates rank with one's ability to survive a confrontation, I don't understand your concern.

-ben

 

Rank will not help you survive a physical conflict. Knowing what you are, and are not capable of may. In BJJ for example, a performance based art, there is a clear understanding of the difference between what a blue belt is capable of generally, and what a black belt is capable of.

You really cannot wap your mind around the idea that a mis-perception of skill based on subjective standards can potentially get someone hurt ? Ok.

 

That may be true for your system but not for bjj. Rank in bjj is not just based upon technical knowledge but also your skill in applying it. As such as your rank increases so does your skill. This is generally true for any fighting system whether it be bjj, judo, kyokoshin, boxing, freestyle and greco roman wrestling etc etc. Does this mean it will guarantee a win in all situations. Well the answer is no but it certainly does increase your chances. Just like carrying handgun wont protect you against a rifleman at 100+ yards it doesnt mean it doesnt have value. Since most fights are in essence one man vs one man good fighting skills and experience will help carry the day.

The most important thing you gain from systems such as above is actually getting experience in fighting. I have been in enough competitive fights and enough streets fights to be able to say there is enough similarity btw them that makes full contact fighting systems very usefull for the street. Its best to have experiences of both full power striking and grappling systems, but if not then at least have one system under your belt.

Those bjk systems that are sparring are acquiring those experiences and as such IMO are much more combat ready. I dont know in these schools however if their actual sparring or grappling skills are connected to their rank.

 

until one starts losing then its rarely fair, where are you getting your sources for this assumption?

 

Within a ring, a predetermined set of rules....

 

In essence H2h is man vs man. The main difference in muliples is the strategy used to keep it that way for brief moments in time. So as a basic you have to have good one on one skills and then modify them for multiples. My assumptions come from the street in including against multiples and one attempted mugging. The keys are the KISS principle and aggressivness once the fight starts.

 

We are talking rank as an indicator of objective performance vs rank as an indicator of random subjective attributes.

Is BJJ the ultimate combat art, on its own. No. But thats not the argument

 

Sometimes you are so busy tying into another delicious watermelon that you forget you need other food groups.

 

lol, indeed.

I am sure you don't! (shake head)

Actually on the face of it, there is nothing wrong with this description. Indeed, it is stating the obvious as an increase in rank should coincide with an increase in some attribute identified by the teacher. However, it strikes me as a hypothesis created in order to justify a meaningless and counterproductive grading system. I would argue: for the system to hold value to the group rather than just the individual, it should be loosely based around some sort of standardised criteria. At the moment I do not see how the grading structure holds any value to the group as a whole?

So, the purpose of the grading system within the Bujinkan is to reward self development based on a non-coherent grading metric decided by the teacher of each dojo.

It stands to reason that a person's grade will have no value to another member in terms of an identifier of skill level. It also cannot (or possibly should not) be used as a comparison for personal development between members as the requirement for grading must changes from person to person and from teacher to teacher.

However, I suppose my next question would be: why do members advertise their rank on their websites, in their sigs and for their seminars? What are they actually saying about themselves? Put another way, what are the teachers saying about them? How do I know if Mr X has any value as a teacher if his grade says nothing about his skill or abilty?

After all, the grade is not a metric for skill or ability but a description of a completely subjective quantity based on a teacher's eye for a development 'step' – the size and frequency of each step also being completely subjective.

As for the cost of each grade; I am against any payment being made for a grade or grading. It turns members of the Art into a source of money. Frankly (and I will repeat myself), this seems exploitive given that what is created [having coupled payment for grading with a non-uniform, subjective grading system] is "a solid pyramid selling strategy in the fact that the member base is very easily opened up to the more expensive 'grades' by ensuring there is no identifiable [common] requirement to gain access" or at the very least, a system that has the potential to be abused.

If people are happy are with this type of structure then fair enough, be happy in the training! It is not something I would subscribe too though.

 

but if you don't train you don't need to subscribe anyhow.....

amazing how many people are bothered with other's backyards..lol

 

The words "kettle", "pot" and "black" string to mind!

Seriously though, this is a forum to offer opinions; this is what I have done. You can agree or you can disagree but using an "it's my ball and your not playing approach" as a counter argument doesn't really offer much, does it?

As it happens your statement is inaccurate to the following:

Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone. (Can't find a festive smilie!!)

 

Merry Christmas to you also Bongo and a smile is good enough

 

"May" is the key word here. In fact, I would argue that someone who "knows" that he is "better" than someone else *MAY* get him killed, as he becomes overconfident and complacent. If his rank proves to him that he is better than those without that rank, then he *MAY* not take the simpleton, non-martial artist who could not possibly be a black belt seriously.

Donn Draeger, one of the most famous and widely trained martial artists in the world, died as a result of his belief in his stamina and hardiness. Knowledge of one's skills *MAY* lead to less than optimal results.

This is why I requested the names of any instructor of any art who believes that rank equates with being able to actually survive a real-life encounter, and tells recipients of their ranks this nonsense.

My point is that who says that a ranking system needs to provide value for the group? That's where you are getting caught up, imo....

Yup. And it works very well, at that. Each instructor is free to rank based upon whatever he deems sufficient. If an instructor desires to give a shodan for students who are able to wrest away a fake knife from the "attacker", then the instructor has that perogative. If another instructor desires to give shodan for students who have memorized all the techniques in the TCJRNM, then the instructor may do so. If another instructor desires to give a shodan to a student who "paints the house, up down, up down", then that instructor may do so. And so on.

Martial arts have *ALWAYS* been taught this way before the 1900s.... I think a lot of people are confused by the modern "education based" ranking systems developed for primary school education in Japan--judo, aikido, karate, and so on. These systems are relatively "new" in the history of martial arts, and I think that they have severe limitations. I'm convinced that Hatsumi-sensei himself is cognizant of those limitations in his choice as to the ranking processes in the Bujinkan.

Maybe they are proud of the fact that they're teacher thought "that highly" of them and their growth. My first instructor, Nakadai-sensei, was extremely proud the day that Soke himself gave me rank. It confirmed to Nakadai-sensei that he was training his students in ways that his own teacher valued in some form. I myself was proud that I had brought grace upon my teacher for that ranking. That's just one example, based upon my own life.

Use your eyes, or those of others you know have the eyes and whose opinions you trust. In the end, that's all ya got.

Each to his own. Others believe that if you do not pay for something, you will not value it. There are a few thousand economics papers that confirm this logic as well. Anyhow....

Gotta get cooking.

Merry Xmas!

-ben

 

I have a couple of "practicality" question along these lines (hope nobody minds me joining in)...

1. If the ranks really don't mean much (like in the example above where a 8th kyu is more skilled than a 7th dan ), how do you know as a student which instructors to go to to train with in case you move around a bit? Are instructors' abilities or basic teaching skills linked at all to rank? How do you determine that?

2. On the floor, who is in charge of class, the "highest ranked" or the most "able"? Does this ever cause issues of "heirarchy arguments"?

3. Do you se people in your organization seeking out the better teachers regardless of rank? For example, are there 10th dans who seek out and become students of 5th dans to learn more? Or does the student-teacher relationship only go in the lower rank-higher rank pattern?

Thanks!

 

Interesting. What do you base this statement on?

Indeed.

Merry Xmas, Quanza, Festivus, Saturnalia, etc. to all!

 

Interesting question. I would argue that most people believe that they are ranked based on physical performance, and its always someone else who is ranked based on heart, or being a productive member of society, or whatever.

And although rank is not a measure of performance, I dont think you see many 10th dans seeking out 5th dans as instructors.

 

Ok, fair enough. I believe the modern army combatives have a handle on that angle though. I believe it is summed up well here:

Merry X-mas.

 

1: I can tell in 5 seconds whether I think someone is worth training with. Sometimes people have high rank, sometimes not. The important point is learning to have the 'eyes'. Any idiot can say, "oh 8 > 7, so I'll train with the 8th dan." I think it a better lesson that sometimes people with "bigger" titles don't always know best and that it is better to make your own decisions.

2. The teacher is in charge. He, after all, who hires the hall or pays the rent. If someone has a problem with how I run my class or how I teach they are free to not attend. As I have not attended classes that I don't agree with. Simple really....

3. As an example, I know that our very own Norman Smithers is often seen at seminars learning from people who are lower ranked than he (as he is a 15th dan - that's pretty much everyone). He was recently at a seminar by Doug Wilson, I believe...

 

In my case when i moved I travelled and trained in a variety of Dojos and settled into the Dojo that i like best...and no it was not the highest ranked one.


In terms of who 'leads' the lesson thats simple its the Instructor regardless of a visiting student being graded higher. I train with Greg in Walsall, uk and its his lesson so i train as he sees fit.

Obviously there is a sliding scale of skills vs grade to a degree. The point being that each Instructor will grade according to their set of standards, some higher than others.

As per Ben's post, some Instructors might based their gradings on Technical knowledge, some on how well a person performs from a general Taijutsu point of view, some might use a lesson based attendence before being able to attempt grading. At the end of the day its the Instructors's call and responsibilty.

 

Selling watermelons doesn't mean you are eating watermelons.