Wado Heretic

Is Bujikan a relatively obscure school of karate, or is it an unintended misspelling of Bujinkan? One I cannot help you with, while the other I can perhaps offer a little advice.

If it is an obscure form of karate; if it is full-contact, or shuri/tomari te based, then you might find it an effective addition to your Goju-Ryu training. Again; as other have said, you should consider your time, and whether it is more effective to divide your time, or focus purely on Goju-Ryu. Perhaps go to a lesson or two, and see if it does anything different; if not, it is perhaps not worth it.

If it is Bujinkan then I would say this; you will probably not learn anything barring some grappling techniques and some specific weapons, in Bujinkan that you would not find in Goju-Ryu. Goju-ryu also tends to have more realistic sparring, and self-defence, as well in my experience with it's practitioners.

The issue with the Takamatsu Den (The Nine Schools of the Bujinkan) is that of determining their authenticity. The schools of Kukishinden-Ryu, and Takagi Yoshin-Ryu, are likely authentic as there is significant evidence of Takamatsu being involved, and instructing, in these arts. Similarly; there is evidence of the main-lines acknowledging Takamatsu as a representative instructor of Kukishinden-Ryu and Takagi Yoshin-Ryu. It should also be remembered that for several generations the schools of Kukishinden-Ryu and Takagi Yoshin-Ryu were deeply intertwined even before Takamatsu and the later Bujinkan. Takamatsu was also recognised as an expert in Bojutsu and Jujutsu, the key disciplines of Kukishinden-Ryu and Takagi Yoshin-Ryu respectively, when he became a member of the Minoku Seinen Botoku-kai (Modern Budokan). As such; I believe there is little doubt that these two schools are authentic, and remain so even as part of the Bujinkan.

However; there is much ambiguity regarding the other claimed schools. Takamatsu likely did have training in Shinden Fudo-Ryu; it was readily available in his day and age, and was even practised in Britain at the turn of the century thanks to the efforts of one Barton Wright. Yet; there is little evidence to support Takamatsu being an actual expert in the discipline. Furthermore, there is little evidence of historical schools identifying themselves as Koto-Ryu, Gyokko-Ryu, or Gikan-Ryu thus bringing into doubt these schools of Koppo and Kosshi jutsu. Indeed, they are largely claimed to be source arts for Togakure-ryu, the core ninpo school of the Bujinkan; a system largely considered fraudulent with regards to claims about it's heritage, further bringing in to doubt any discipline associated with it. Also; the other Ninpo disciplines are similarly judged to be fraudulent with regards to their lineage claims.

All this said; it should be about whether a martial art is effective, and can add to your training. There is a letter from Takamatsu to the head of the Kukishinden-Ryu, requesting permission to add karate like elements to the jujutsu of Kukishinden-ryu and Takagi Yoshin-Ryu, based on his experiences in China. Similarly; Takamatsu was an open critic of Judo technique, and as such I believe he modified his jujutsu to answer the emerging martial paradigm as set by Karate, Judo, Kenpo, and Gendai Budo in general.

To summarise what I have said; there are only two authentic schools in the Bujinkan, and they have probably been modified significantly in response to Karate and Judo. As such, you are unlikely to find any thing in the Bujinkan that you will not find in Goju-Ryu, and with far less propaganda.

There is evidence that Funakoshi Gichin did instruct in Kobujutsu, and what he did teach can be found, in part, in Shotokai. For example; I know the Shotokai of Harada incorporates some kobujutsu instruction.

Oddly; this seems a rarity for modern shotokan, though I suspect this is due to the marketing efforts of the JKA in the post-war years. Like Kendo, and other martial disciplines based on weapons, for several years any form of kobujutsu was illegal in Japan. It is easier to practice unarmed combat behind closed doors, than it is weapons; which require weapons and thus evidence of not following the law to be part of your practice. Also, competition, and the globalisation of karate became the main focus of the JKA approach; and I doubt kobujutsu fit the image.

Even today; kobujutsu seems to struggle in comparison to karate. My weapon classes are always significantly smaller than my karate classes. I suspect people do not enjoy, or do not see as much utility, in studying weapons. Plus, there are few good competition formats for combative kobujutsu that it is a very isolated practice.

Keep what is useful and relevant; the intellectual hurdles to justify becoming involved in the preservation of kobujutsu knowledge are harder to come by then those of karate. You can compete in karate, and so long as you are at a pretty good school; you will learn something about self-defence, and get in shape.

In their competition formats both neglect strikes to the head, and body-to-body combat, which are very real dangers in self-defence. Usually; Kyokushin is the better choice for self-defence due to the full-contact tradition, and the intensity of training because of it. However, with more dojo moving towards kata application, and incorporating methods from kick-boxing and free-fighting; this is not the determining edge it once was.

If the Shotokan dojo provides sufficient conditioning, and application (bunkai training) then it can be effective self-defence. So check both dojo, and go with the one which has the better approach to self-defence. Drills which are for self-defence (not just traditional kumite), and kata application, as well as suitable conditioning methods for self-defence are what you should look for.

No one has to earn the white belt with me; they often come free with keikogi after all. However, I do have a similar concept in that the yellow belt is merely an inaugural belt to let me know someone does not need carrying through the class; I can give a direction and they should know what I mean. It is not given through a formal grading, rather I hand it out when someone is accepted as a student of the club, and are no longer being evaluated for suitability.

Most people I give it to after 3-4 months. Most tend to do the first formal grading in 8-9 months after starting. I do favour people showing that commitment before I start handing out belts, so even though I do not make people earn white belt, as it is impractical considering so many keikogi makes come with one by default, I do understand and consider the principle worthwhile.

Was not intended so much as a critique of Kyokushin, as much as a demonstration of how speed can be a deciding factor; also how the "pulsing" which is popular in point kumite can assist with kick-shock to generate speed and power.

That particular fighter made many blunders leading to his one kick loss:

1. Did not threaten his opponent at all with his hands.

2. Tried to slowly close the distance, and did not control it at all with any offence.

3. Did not have the chin tucked in.

However; his opponent made similar mistakes. The Shotokan exponent also demonstrated no range control, and had a posture poor for taking a real blow. The kick was brilliantly timed, but saved him from his own inadequacies.

Hopefully this better explains the point of the video; to demonstrate how pulsing can be effective as a tool in full contact. It was not so much about the styles, as to illustrate the major difference in fighting posture between point and knockdown kumite.

The above is a pretty relevant example of the pulsing of sports karate versus the more set approach of Knockdown karate. The speed was the deciding factor, for which pulsing can help, and the kyokushin fighter did not expect the kick at all. He did not have his chin tucked in, nor did he bring his hands up in any sort of defence; he failed to react at all, and the kick might as well have been a sucker-punch.

As can be seen in Muay Thai stances, and from Knockdown fighters who practice the classic "stand and bang" approach the legs are kept set to deal with low kicks. Even in Savate, where head hunting is a popular tactic due to the points system, pulsing is very subdued in comparison to pure point fighting. Pulsing can also be seen in modern knock-down:

Mike Ninomiya uses some excellent intermittent "pulsing" to set up some of his offensive combinations, and to stay evasive, but is otherwise flat footed like most classic full-contact fighters.

In a fight between two practitioners where one is a point, and the other knockdown, kumite fighter; it would come down to the balance of fleetness of foot, but also the ability to absorb distance controlling techniques such as low kicks. Using "pulsing" I suspect a Shotokan fighter could control the distance, and use powerful and fast percussive blows at a distance, however, if the kyokushin fighter was wily he could very quickly eliminate that advantage in mobility as per Hajime Kazumi; whom favoured punching and low kicks over the dynamic kicks of his contemporaries.

If it devolved into "stand and bang" then I would have to give it to the Kyokushin fighter, unless we are talking a particular Shotokan practitioner of excellent conditioning.

I have not in the context of karate. I think in particular this instructor was being a little black and white, but I understand the basic logic; fitness for role.

The belts are a qualification, and as an educational tool have to reflect the knowledge of the wearer to be of use to the instructor. If a student, during a grading, failed to meet the standards of the belt they already held, having failed the present grading, I might consider demotion a fair possibility. Simply because they would be shown as being "unfit for role"; their skills do not match the belt they had.

I do not think a grading situation is the right situation for it though; maybe if they stopped training for a while, then came back, and were obviously not up to standard a demotion would be necessary, and fair. One bag grading though I always think as being more a case of not ready for the grading.

Yes; the kata are the primary source for self-defence practice, and I place emphasis on people learning the process of Bunkai, as well as teaching "applications". My approach is for applications to be mechanisms of learning flexible principles, and ideas. I tend to see what I teach in addition as an "alphabet" of sorts; a way of understanding the language of kata.

Edit: I would add that what I have taken from Wado-Ryu and elsewhere, I do adapt and experiment with to make fit the "Shorin-Ryu" paradigm. I do not just lift what I like and throw it into a syllabus; it has to pass pressure testing, and fit the big picture, before I consider it something to be taught.

Thank you for the words of encouragement. I would state that I do not take their criticism seriously; I just offered it as an example where people have called my karate "fake" and the fact you cannot let it get to you. These days I just say I do Karate, but use the kata of Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu, because it eliminates expectations.

I would estimate my karate to be around 60% Shorin-Ryu based on the fact I use the kata and the kihon-waza. Then 10-15% Wado-Ryu due to kihon-waza I use and my use of Gyakunage Kata, Tantodori no Kata, and Idori no Kata. I incorporate most of the Judo Katamewaza, barring those that rely on the jacket or I consider too "loose" for use outside Judo, and Kōdōkan Goshin Jutsu Kata. The remainder is made up of what I consider kick-boxing essentials, and some drills of my own invention based on my kick-boxing experience. Aside from that there is some self-taught leg wrestling, and some neck-cranks, that I have road tested through competition and sparring, and grappling fundamentals such as sprawling and the technical stand up.

So their argument does have the merit in that I use a lot of material from outside conventional Shorin-Ryu, that you definitely will not see in dojo in Okinawa. With that said; 50% of my practice, and what I teach is kata based, and thus the majority of what we do is derived from the tradition of Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu. That being my counter to their argument.

Karate only becomes fake when those practising it lack sincerity; when they make a claim about what they practice which is not grounded in reality.

If you claim to teach karate as self-defence, and then neglect practical self-defence considerations then that is "fake" Karate. If you claim to teach karate as a sport, but ignore sport science, fitness, and competition practice then that is "Fake" karate. If you call your karate traditional but do not practice Hojo Undo, and the other marks of historical practice then that is "Fake" karate.

So long as what your claims about your karate, and what you actually do, are one in the same; it is real. I am a hard teacher; full-contact is an aspect of what I teach, as is Hojo-Undo. However, I do not consider my karate any more real than the local clubs which cater to children and competition fighting. I suspect my students would win if it came down to a street fight or a full contact competition, but that does not make our karate any more "real"; it just means we have practised for that scenario. In the same sense I do not think my students would necessarily do all that well against the local MMA Gym fighters in a cage match; because we do not train for cage matches. You fight how you train, and you train for what you expect to face.

I have been told my Shorin-Ryu is not "real" because I incorporate grappling into my kihon-waza, and our line practice is usually 80% with a partner, and 20% against the air or with hand weights. Our basics consist of around a half traditional percussive and receiving techniques, and a third body-to-body techniques, and the remainder Ne Waza. Because this does not match expectations of tradional Okinawan Karate; it has not been called "authentic". It is one of those things that is in the eye of the beholder. I evolve my karate as I learn more, and my students grow.

Below are my picks, and arguments for, If discussing the 20th century alone. I have tried to stick to people who made their mark in traditional kumite, when considering those who have gone onto free-fighting or kick-boxing, and have divided my picks down into where I feel they most made their mark:

Knock-down: Kenji Midori and Ryu Narushima; The lightest winner of the World Championships, and the lightest fighter to make it into the top eight respectively. Both in a time where said championships were open weight, in a kumite form where weight is often the deciding factor. The fact they made it so far on technique alone is why I consider them my top picks for knockdown kumite fighters.

Kick-Boxing: Terutomo Yamazaki for his pioneering work in the sport; plus, his 8-2 kickboxing career, his victories over Muay Thai fighters during Muay Thai’s most dominant era, and his Karate tournament successes all speak for themselves. Andy Hug for similar reasons; he was a great knockdown competitor placing and winning Kyokushinkaikan and Seidokaikan world tournaments. One can also argue that Hug was an MMA pioneer due to his K-1 career where he fought and defeated competitors of many different stripes, and often at a weight and reach disadvantage as he was on the light side for a heavyweight.

Bill Wallace and Joe Lewis also deserve a mention here; for their dominant point fighting careers, but also pioneering work in the sport of kickboxing. Bill Wallace went 23-0, and Joe Lewis 16-4 with 10 by knockout in kick-boxing, and the argument can be made that without their contributions there would have been no such thing as American Kick-boxing.

Edit: Forgot to also mention Benny Urquidez. One of the first truly international fighters, who did a lot to increase the sports presence, and was also a great fighter by any measure.

WKF/Point-Kumite: Junior Lefevre primarily for being an elite competitor in kumite and kata during an era when most were one or the other. Wayne Otto as well, if we are simply talking about the ability to win tournaments. I must give honorary mentions to the likes of Steve Cattle, Terry O'Neill, and Frank Brennan all for being pioneers, and breaking the Japanese stranglehold on karate championships. Plus; Steve Cattle had quite the impact on people I have trained with and under, and I have heard some great stories about him.

Free-Fighting: Semmy Schilt is probably the only competitor from the 20th century I would consider a great kumite competitor, but whom also became a preeminent free-fighter. A Daido-Juko and an IBK Knockdown champion, as well as a dominant kick-boxer in K-1, Schilt also became a King of Pancrase. He also had a relatively successful run in Pride with the losses he did suffer coming from dominant fighters of the era. His size has played a large part in his success, but without authentic skills he could not have put said size to use to achieve what he has.

I would be tempted to add Chuck Liddell as his background is in karate, and his kick-boxing career was largely in American Kick-boxing; which takes it’s cue from full-contact karate. Plus, he did get his start in 1998, however, the prime of his career was in the 21st century, and I would say his lack of traditional kumite participation somewhat disqualifies him from “Great Kumite Fighters”, despite his being a great fighter.

Some honourary mentions from the 21st century:

Lyoto Machida: He won the 2001 Pan American Karate tournament and other amateur tournaments. He also had remarkable career in the UFC with a championship to his name, a joint tenth in consecutive victories in the UFC with 8 (16 over-all), and he has been one of the most accurate and evasive fighters of all time.

Georges St-Pierre: A junior Kyokushinkaikan champion, and arguably the greatest UFC Welterweight champion the sport of MMA has seen. He holds third place for most consecutive victories in the UFC, which also gives him the second place in amount of successful title defences at 12. This is as much down to his excellent wrestling game, as it is down to his back-ground in karate, but it was karate through which he discovered his talent for martial arts competition.

Rafael Aghayev: Arguably the most dominant Kumite Player of the 21st century; who has been placing in and winning international, and world, tournaments since 2004, and continues to do so over a decade later. This is down to his distinct style which relies on an approach to Tsuki-Waza which takes as much from boxing as it does karate, and the use of clinching and head movement to frustrate his opponents attempts at “Head-Hunting”; the scoring of significant points with high kicks to the head.

I start them off with contact drills; getting used to getting hit, and hitting a person. Just basic conditioning you find in most Karate schools which practice hojo undo.

I then usually work them up to contact sparring through different models of kumite; sticking hands like drills, belt wrestling, and so on and so forth.

Then scenario training; sparring which starts with your back to the wall, against multiple opponents, where the attacker initiates the sparring without any verbal cue from anyone else.

It can build people up to getting that "fighting" instinct; to be used to the adrenaline kick, and being under stress, and how to deal with pain. The issue is; it is still artificial. End of the day; a person will not be able to become a fighter, until they fight, and learn from that first experience.

Some people are; the majority not, which is why it is the people who are programmed for it who unfortunately prosper during times of great civil unrest. Some people are conditioned to it, usually through a violent childhood.

Most people find it an over whelming experience; think back to the first time you sparred. Most experience jitters, and tunnel vision, and other problems from Adrenalin drops. In an actual violent confrontation; it is a far worse reaction.

My approach is very reductionist; but can be useful when watching students to figure out how to teach them.

As I have said to people I have taught; I can teach you the techniques, I can teach you the applications of said techniques, and I can coach you on how to make them effective. However, I cannot tell you whether you will psychologically be able to deal with extreme violence when you meet it.

I have only met five people, I have taught, whom I would consider natural fighters; that is, from the moment they came on the dojo floor I was pretty much convinced they would have no trouble applying what I was showing them. Three of said five have since used what I taught them very effectively in a self-defence situation.

The majority of people are not programmed for extreme violence, and never will be; most will thankfully never find out whether they have what is needed to survive a situation of extreme violence. Even soldiers, who are psychologically put through extreme stress during training, might not necessarily actually perform as trained in their first combat situation.

I tend, and it is an act of generalisation, of summing up people in the dojo by three categories;

Bullies, Natural fighters, and Veterans.

Bullies are fine with fighting, when it is against someone who is not good enough to fight back properly. These ones you have to watch out for during sparring, and I usually spar the people I know who have this tendency. Now, they can be perfectly lovely people off the sparring floor; they are just wrapped up in a power fantasy.

Natural Fighters; these are the people who see red, and they can fight. Some think there is a warrior gene, which makes people more prone to anger and violence, but the research is very limited so far. They can be hard to spot, unless they have big give away signs. An intense personality can be a sign.

Veterans; these are the people who have been there and seen it. They can deal with violence, because they have experienced it, and have internal strategies to deal with it. Usually security workers and police officers will be the ones most readily able to deal with violence in self-defence; if it is street violence, or personal combat.

I see it a bit like the Bob Sapp versus Mike Tyson; Bob Sapp wanted K-1 Rules, and Mike Tyson wanted boxing. In boxing, Tyson would have taken the unpolished Sapp apart with his speed, and power. In K-1, where Sapp could clinch fight to save himself from Tyson's superior hands, Sapp's power could have won him the day as it had done against some great kick-boxers at that point. Both men knew giving away their favoured rule set would mean losing.

I would argue a similar situation exists for Mayweather and McGregor. Under Unified Rules; I must give the fight to McGregor. He is a great striker by MMA standards, and is canny enough in boxing (He was an Irish youth champion) that I believe he would be able to work around even Mayweather's phenomenal boxing, to force the clinch and take the fight to where boxing is one's last concern. In boxing; a good pro will always beat a great amateur. At the boxing level; McGregor might be a great amateur, but Mayweather is one of the all time great professionals. So the same situation exists; either of them gives away the rule set, they become the loser.

Even with an 10-12 week training camp, Mayweather could never pick up enough wrestling, submission, and striking skills to be at McGregor's level in the cage. As history has taught us; boxing is not enough in free-fighting. He is also too old now to put aside the 2-4 years needed to realistically become adept at free-fighting, even with his natural athleticism, and so this fight will never take part in the cage.

In contrast, McGregor does have a boxing background, and is a much younger man. With a 10-12 week training camp, he might be able to reach a level that would surprise us all, if he were to step into the squared circle. However; that again would probably not be enough for him to catch up with Mayweather, and to make it a dangerous set up for Mayweather.

I think it is being entertained because of that; Mayweather might be tempted to try and make his record 50-0, and McGregor is a big name with an excellent fight record. McGregor will come across as dangerous to the average punter because of his MMA background; however, any fight aficionado will know that the sports of boxing and MMA are different enough, that the level of skill transfer is very limited. Both want the fight because they are both big names, and a victory could increase the stock of both. Mayweather will come across as still being dangerous if he wins, and for McGregor a victory will force people to take his boxing ambitions seriously.

Mayweather will never accept a Unified Rules fight, but I suspect McGregor could be goaded into a boxing match. It is happening largely on Mayweather's terms. I do not think McGregor can, on paper, beat Mayweather in a boxing match, and thus I doubt the UFC will allow it to happen while McGregor remains under contract.

I think a shoot-boxing, or Mauy Thai, rules fight between the two could be interesting. It would keep Mayweather's boxing dangerous, but would allow enough flexibility that McGregor could use some of his well honed MMA skills. However, I doubt there is any money in the two fighting a kick-boxing match.

Thank you for sharing; it is an interesting take, and will definitely experiment with it.

As far as I know most Ninjutsu, or Ninpo, in South Africa is affiliated with the Black Dragon Fighting Society (BDFS), and by extension Frank Dux and Ashida Kim. Dux has in the past appropriated “Koga-Ryu” as a term to refer to his own methods. His approach is also very eclectic, a symptom of being a self-made invention, and has included weapons one would not find in authentic Japanese Koryu. I would not be surprised if the group were affiliates at one point with the BDFS, or that the founders of the group in question received training originating with the BDFS.

I have stated elsewhere that I do not think that Dux's ideas are entirely bad; his FASST concepts are not entirely misguided. However, from what I have seen of his skills; I would say his claimed exploits are impossible, and mere fact checking also disproves their possibility. Dux also does not teach a system at all grounded in Ninpo, but rather a blend of the martial arts prominent in San Fernando at the time he was growing up. I would call Dux a cardboard tiger, rather than a paper tiger, but the difference is not that great. In contrast, Ashida Kim is a complete fraud.

With regards to authentic Ninpo; I am the persuasion it is functionally dead. Modern systems are at best recreations based on authentic historical sources, and at worst inventions based on people’s expectations of Ninja.

Saying that; I doubt Fujita Seiko would have gone through his martial arts career without his knowledge of Koga-Ryu Wada Ha influencing his approach to, and studies, of the other disciplines he practiced and taught. I imagine it very much determined why he decided to study several of the disciplines he partook in. Fujita was also an instructor of Strategy, and Hand-to-Hand combat, at Rikugun Nakano Gakkō, and I suspect much of the expertise he demonstrated to gain this role was derived from Ninpo. Furthermore; Fujita also wrote extensively on the martial arts, and that included texts on Ninjutsu. So an argument can be made that Fujita’s Ninpo knowledge has been distilled and passed down in one form or another; primarily through the schools of martial arts he passed down to Iwata Manzo, his primary heir, and Inoue Motokatsu to whom Fujita served as a lifelong mentor. So although the formal and living tradition of Koga-Ryu is dead and broken, in an abstract sense a modicum of its teachings survive in an almost indiscernible manner. Indeed, one can argue Yuishinkai Karate would not exist if not thanks to the advice, and insights, of Fujita.

With regards to Togakure-Ryu; although I agree with most scholars that the genealogy is essentially fraudulent, I do wonder whether it’s technical contents are equally fraudulent. A degree of it is consistent with historical sources considered legitimate works. Even if Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu embellished upon sources to create the Togakure-Ryu, I do suspect he did place within it a degree of authentic, surviving Ninpo which he himself had studied and researched. I suspect the embellishments were made to create a consistent narrative, which connected the otherwise disparate technical contents Toda was recording therein. Saying that, this is merely my hypothesis, and should be taken with a significant pinch of salt.

There is also Kawakami Jinichi, whom claims to be the last inheritor of the Koga Ban Ninpo tradition; specifically, it’s 21st head. I am unconvinced by his claim due to the mystery around his teacher; however, Mei University has taken his claim seriously, and he is honorary head of the Iga-ryu Ninja Museum. He has taught Koga Ban Ninpo, but will not be appointing a successor to be the next head. The Japanese branch of the Koga Ban is no longer accepting new students, but I believe there is a Spanish Dojo that is actively teaching.

Besides the groups that claim explicit Ninpo heritage you do have the more ambiguous connections. For example, Taisha-Ryu, which is considered a Koryu school of Kenjutsu, was deeply tied to espionage, better read as Ninja, activities in the 17th century. Even today it does preserve teachings, techniques, and skills deeply entwined in this history which are unrelated to the primary discipline of Kenjutsu.

I would say that this Ninjitsu-ryu group does indeed appear fraudulent, in that they seem unlikely to have any ties to an actual ninpo tradition.

No problem; looking at the information presented I suspect the methods are unrelated to Kōga-ryū. To be fair, they seem to instruct in a number of weapons native to Okinawa, and the Philippines, but not to mainland Japan. My guess is that they are an eclectic group, instructing in a hybrid approach, that was at one time grounded in a modern school of Ninjutsu. I doubt they faced a suit, but I suspect someone may have challenged their use of the name Kōga-ryū.

Fujita Seiko is widely recognised as the last individual to probably have been an authentic inheritor of a Ninpo tradition; most specifically he claimed to be the 14th inheritor of the Kōga-ryū Wada Ha school. However, Fujita never left an heir of his own, and indeed stated in his own biography that he had not taught, at the the time he wrote his biography, and would not teach anyone Ninjutsu and that he would not pass on the school.

Some people do make peculiar claims to inheriting a Koga tradition based on a historical connection to Fujita in their martial arts heritage. Now Fujita did award licences in Kenpo, Jojutsu, and Shurikenjutsu in his life, but never in Ninpo. These absurd claims to a ninjutsu inheritance are often based on those licences Fujita issued in the aforementioned arts, while failing to acknowledge said licences were in distinct martial arts disciplines Fujita had learnt independently of his Ninpo instruction.

So in short; the last man largely accepted as the last Koga-Ryu practitioner, though a claim that is still disputed and not wholly accepted, died without passing on the Koga-Ryu Wada Ha. So Koga-Ryu is dead, barring revivalist work based on surviving manuals.

With regards to most modern schools; they are derived from the Takamatsu Ha, so called because they were the schools headed and propagated by one Takamatsu Toshitsugu. He was the primary teacher of Hatsumi, and it was Takamatsu's students and successors that Tanemura sought out when he left Hatsumi's tutelage and formed Genbuken. Most modern schools, as a result of being begun by students of Hatsumi, or Tanemura, can thus be tied back to Takamatsu in some way.

Many of Takematsu's students were accomplished martial artists before beginning their studies with him, and though videos of him in later life do not paint the picture of an impeccable warrior, he at least appears competent for his age. Furthermore, a couple of the mainline branches of Koryu ryuha that Takamatsu claimed to teach have acknowledged a connection, or have at least not refuted the claims of Takamatsu and his inheritors. So, taking that into account, one can infer at least a technical competency and a practicability to Takamatsu's teachings.

The main issue does come with the claims of Ninpo teachings made by Takamatsu through Togakure-ryū. It is largely accepted that the genealogy of Togakure-ryū is a relatively modern creation, which was made by using sources on Ninpo that emerged in turn of the century of Japan. Now; an argument can be made that Takamatsu was ignorant of what we now know to be a deception as a result of modern scholarship. It has been argued that it was in fact his primary teacher, Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu, that developed the Togakure-ryūgeneology and that Takamatsu propagated it in ignorant bliss. Either way, Togakure-ryū is not a Koryu discipline, regardless of the skills of those who practice it.

In terms of effectiveness; I think many of the tales about the Bujinkan and modern Ninpo speak for themselves. There is a training culture that is maladapted to producing an effective martial discipline. Not saying the techniques are "bad" or technically incorrect; many of the techniques they do can in fact be effective, and are found in Judo, Kenpo, or Jujutsu. However, I would argue many are not practiced in a way to render them authentically effective. Saying that, we must also keep in mind that modern Ninpo is not unlike modern Historical European martial arts (HEMA), in that much of it is a revival and reconstruction based on historical sources and not the remnants of a living unbroken tradition. However, they do not have the experimental model that most HEMA organisations do, in that they do not pressure test what they research with practical tests. Also, Ninpo studies include interests in knowledge bases that have little to do with hand to hand combat, and some that are completely idiosyncratic in a contemporary world.

With all that said; there is the AKBAN organisation, which although grounded in Bujinkan Ryuha, has expanded to include experimental methods from HEMA, sophisticated grappling from Brazilian Jujutsu, and fighting theory from Mixed Martial Arts. Thus, AKBAN is a useful source for effective combat techniques. Sadly, however, it would be near impossible to find an AKBAN school outside of Isreal. There is also To-Shin Do, which is again grounded in the Bujinkan arts, but the emphasis of said organisation is in keeping their methods relevant to the concerns, and needs, of its practitioners in the modern world. How well they manage that is where the matter becomes debateable, but at least To-Shin Do is far more accessible.

So, in summary;

1. Koga-Ryu is dead.

2. You might be able to find a Ninpo school that teaches effective hand to hand, but it would be an exception.

It is a little like asking whether Roman-Greco or Freestyle wrestling is tougher; getting thrown or lifted and slammed hurts, but the art of pinning is very physically demanding.

From a technical point of view; I would argue Judo, in that there are many restrictions placed on how you throw, and what constitutes a successful throw. So the level of throwing, I would argue, is superior but also harder to learn to do well.

However, on the ground I must argue Jujutsu because of the greater variety of techniques allowed, but also the lack of restriction on how long the fight can last on the ground.

I would say that Judo has perhaps more explosive intensity, but that Jujutsu is more trying the longer the bout lasts. However, I have only ever competed at white belt level in both a couple of times, so I cannot say much more.

Now Vale Tudo compared to Judo is far more intense; which I what I suspect you may actually be getting at.

The major problem in street or spontaneous violence is the collapse of distance between the aggressor and the victim. Punching in karate, as much as it's blocking techniques, evolved to deal with this collapse in distance. Hence the focus on penetrative power, and originating, during practice, from a place that does not make much sense from a competitive perspective, the hips or the chest, but which is a place the hand will naturally travel through if raising the hands to defend the self.

One must also consider the implications of hikite, or returning the hand with force; it makes little sense if one is keeping the hands up to defend the self. Rather, it is about controlling an attacker already within the mid-range, or the collapsed distance.

Also, the punching is largely to the body, or even when to the head comes up and into rather than straight to like a conventional boxing punch. This is because the body is a much larger target, and in the event of spontaneous violence is easier to hit than the smaller target of the head. Also though, if one does strike the head but forces it up, this can be used to effect a persons balance, and again better controls distance. This effects can be seen in the thrusting techniques of sumo for example; where the point of the striking is to control distance, and effect balance.

Depends on you, the gym you go to, and the gyms in your area. The people in your area might be very competitive, and so the average level of "good" boxers might be very high. Other places, the good boxers are definitely big fish in small ponds.

Generally speaking; 6-8 weeks, if we are being optimistic, is a pretty rough average for most people to get to grips and be able to step up and spar for a couple of rounds. That is for people who start out with a relatively good level of fitness.

In terms of getting "it"; finding one's style, and becoming competent at, and competitive with, said style. I have seen people hit their stride in as little as 3-6 months, or take as long as two years, and then of-course there are the people who never find "it".

I would add the caveat that I am not a boxer; I am a karateka first who did kick-boxing. I did take up boxing for a while when I first decided to transition from continuous no/light-contact, and Bogu, competition to full-contact; specifically American Kick-Boxing. I did about eight weeks of boxing training, twice a week, up to my first kick-boxing bout because I realised I really knew nothing about using my hands effectively in boxing gloves. It was not until after a month of training that I found I was boxing effectively, and the tips I provided are the ones I took advantage of to help with the process.

I have trained 2 years 2-3 times a week American Kickboxing type style. Meaning I have drilled boxing punches but never been taught any foot and head movement, or boxing combinations. TKD Kickboxing more specifically.

I have mostly learned by doing in sparring and it has been semi contact, above the waist kickboxing.

Do you guys think I will get blown away in Boxing and really suck as a beginner or is 2 years in TKD kickboxing somewhat of a head start

Any tips in advance? Thanks.

Well; I can only offer a few tips:

1. Keep jabbing; offence will be your best defence as you have not learnt how to bob and weave.

2. In boxing it is always feet first, followed by the hands. Beware leading yourself with your hands.

3. Start with a tight guard; the Peek-a-Boo style. It might feel unnatural coming from a kick-boxing background, but you will need a strong guard without the evasion skills.

4. Keep your elbows in; in kick-boxing or free-fighting you want a looser and more relaxed guard to absorb kicks, or work the clinch range. In boxing you want the elbows in to guard against body blows.

Saying all that, however, I do not think you will be thrown into sparring so soon as to need any of that advice. I would hope they would give you at least a few weeks to learn the ropes before setting you up against someone.

Your experience should at least make you familiar with the issues of adrenaline, and also given you hand speed and power. So you will easily be in advance of an absolute beginner; my only concern is that you have no head movement knowledge beside what you have learnt through sparring. Otherwise, good luck, and hope you enjoy it.

You can generally break down martial arts as a term to four sub-segments:

Combat Sports: The emphasis is successful participation in a sport based on that particular style of combat, for example boxing or wrestling.

Combatives: Military programs designed to be used on the battlefield, where the technical repertoire is built around efficacy in killing and self-preservation. Marine Combatives, Lerdrit, and Krav Maga would all be examples of this.

Self-Defence Systems: Systems designed specifically for civilian self-defence, or combat within the civilian realm. An example would be the SPEAR system, or any number of reality-based systems.

Cultural artefacts: These are those disciplines which have their origins in the significant past, and are as much a cultural tradition as a method of combat, and often include ways of using now out-dated and obsolete weapons. Examples would be Karate, Quan Fa, Pencak Silat, or Koryu Bujutsu Schools.

All the above, however, are some form of martial art; they ground themselves in combat theory, but refine it into a means of study and discipline. Some edge closer to the martial such as combatives and Self-defence systems as lives depend on them, with others closer to the art side such as combat sports where it is done for the love of competition.

With that said; there are only so many ways to move the human body, and there is a lot of cross-overs between all of the above. For example; there are karateka whom take their skills into the world of sport, where as there are others who focus on kata application, and even more who just like to dig deep into the historical practices.

I would say Systema started as a combatives system, but has evolved into more of a cultural artefact or a self-defence system. It has now fallen out of the world of military use, if they ever used it, and is now more favoured by police and security officers, and hobbyists. I question its claims about its military history due to the existence of Combat SOMBO or Commando SOMBO, which is well documented as the martial art of choice of Russian forces, where as Systema has little documented evidence.

All I could suggest, as also mentioned by JR 137, is if you can just go along and watch or try it.

I would say that if an instructor is vague with regards to questions that should not have a difficult answer; for example the origin of their system (if it is not Koryu) then that is a warning sign.

I would be hesitant to call Japanese Karate "watered down", rather I would say it is different. For example, many of the Japanese schools have a shared heritage of Karate and Jujutsu; Wado-ryu and Shindō jinen-ryū just to mention two. As a result their methods of training have more in common with koryu bujutsu, than say the more Chinese influenced methods of Okinawan karate.

As a result, this does mean that Hojo Undo and Bunkai were neglected for a time in Japanese karate. However, with the popularity of Kyokushin Hojo Undo did return to the fore, and the increasing knowledge of Bunkai as a process has impacted Japanese Karate as much as it has Western Karate.

Now, Funakoshi did attempt to make his art more palatable to the Japanese people and authorities; and what they wanted was essentially a Japanese boxing discipline in contrast to that of Western Pugilism and Chinese Kempo. He also adopted methods from Koryu Jujutsu, as influenced by his assistants Ohtsuka and Konishi who for example were the initial innovators of Yakasoku kumite; which they did as they felt Karate lacked the attack and defence dynamic of bujutsu. A pinch of salt must also be taken when regarding Funakoshi as the reason he became the most successful karateka in Japan was because he was the best salesman; he largely gave the public what they wanted. He did attempt to rectify, and do what might be called damage control through remarking on what the karate he taught was, and what it included, thus a lot of confusion when people read his words and then look at the karate that is taught in his name.