[Robert_RedBeard]

Originally Posted by Hengest

No, I pull arguements out of my arse sometimes. Keeps everybody on their toes.

Of course I've read the books.

No, I'm not. Read my post. I have attacked two things and two things only: 1) Hayes' research, and 2) your assertion that he's a reliable source.

I don't hate Hayes and I'm not attacking your earlier post. Why even bring it into the discussion? I say again, I'm attacking the man's research, not him personally.

I don't want it to be off, I want it to be on. That's kind of my point.

I've already raised a specific point of contention, that of Hayes' claim that Oda's military action was fueled by ninja hatred. I also mentioned one of my sources, Tanemura's book. You respond by ignoring my points and accusing me of letting my personal views on Hayes get in the way of discussion. Does anyone else see the irony...?

As for sources, well a good researcher will usually come up with three to support his arguement before he'll put it forward. Hayes' view of Oda's military action (and a lot of his other arguements for that matter) cannot be corroborated in this way. Thus, I question his research. Simple as that.

So, let's try and steer this back on course. Now, here's how a discussion goes: you make a point, I make a counter point, then you counter the counter. You kind of forfeited your go when you got all histrionic because I dared to question Mr. Hayes, but I'm feeling generous, so I'll let you have another go. I'll number the points I raised so you don't get confused this time.

Thanks.

But my main point is what the hell is wrong with the information I posted from Hayes? What does historical background from a couple thousand years ago have to do with the information presented?

You sir, are the one that went straight to assassinating the source and totally by-passed the subject and the information's relevance.

1) Hayes' research, bad! He often makes assertions that cannot be corroborated by other sources.

I don't see how his research is bad. I see that his story surrounding the fact happens to be different than the "established" history. This happens all the time and I am not willing to discount the man just because his story parts course with the party line.

And if you can point to the bad stuff in the books, I would be more than happy to read them over again.

2) Calling yourself a ninja does not allow you to get away with bad research.

I don't really know what to say about this. I agree with the statement but not that it is happening here.

3) What Hatsumi and Hayes practice isn't ninjutsu, therefore they are not ninja.

Correct, it is not 2000 years ago, they are not using their art in a warfare type situation. I believe from what I read from Hayes, that he is promoting the spiritual connection to the Ninja's of legend and that most of the ninja legend was exactly that. Legend.

He pretty much teaches that these were ordinary guys for that culture and time. They didn't really want to deal with establishment pressures, for lack of a better definition. So they went off on their own to be away from it. They got to powerful and a feudal government did what a feudal government does. They oppressed.

People reacted with an underground resistance movement.

Hayes teaches an outlook on life and how it is reflected in martial actions from what I can tell. Nothing more. He doesn't deny the connection to ancient legends. He is very clear that most of it is silly fiction.

He writes that ninja were nothing like most people think they are. Then he writes a little about them to show you how they were and how it effected how they fought and lived.

I don't really think he is trying to be a "Ninja". But he is trying to transmit a little better knowledge of them than popular media. I guess you are the better judge of how well he does that since I don't have enough sources. I'll have to take your word for it.

4) Even if they were ninja, it does not mean they would have to adopt deception as a way of life.

Don't really see what this has to do with it. It swings both ways. Doesn't mean they do, doesn't mean the don't.

5) Genbukan and Jinenkan practice arts based around the same core ryuha as Hayes yet don't market themselves as ninjutsu. Even Bujinkan has moved away from the ninja angle, yet Hayes has not. Why?[/quote]

Ask him that. He certainly isn't trying to pump some stereotype of what a ninja really is. The man seems dedicated to his art. If it's not ninjutsu, then it's not. Sorry to hear it, but I don't think it changes the relevance of what I posted in response to the thread.

I just read the part of Hayes' book talking about the military actions against the Mountain Mystics, as he calls them. And as I understand what he wrote, there were no ninja families at that point in time. That the Ninja families/clans/groups, whatever you wish to call them, formed as a result of those actions. As a form of resistance and counter-influence.

That's what I got out of his text. That seems to fit with what you are saying happened. Or at least the part about it not being about going after ninjas. Obviously not, if there really wasn't anything identifiable as "ninja" at the time as far as I know.

I really am eager to learn anything new. So I am just going to apologize for my rough start and look things over more closely.

I have all 5 books and I started to read them again. So far his story seems to parallel pretty closely.

[Robert_RedBeard]

Originally Posted by Hengest

Depends how they're using the term. Ninjutsu still forms a small part of the syllabus of the x-kans, but it is not ninjutsu they practice every day in the dojo.

Ninpo is a seperate term that shouldn't be confused with ninjutsu. Genbukan refer to their style as ninpo bugei, but the ninpo should be translated as something like "methods of endurance" rather than anything to do with "stealth" or "ninja".

So it would seem at least that some still do market it as ninja arts. I do agree that don't make them ninja. It means they study them.

[Hengest]

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

But my main point is what the hell is wrong with the information I posted from Hayes? What does historical background from a couple thousand years ago have to do with the information presented?

You sir, are the one that went straight to assassinating the source and totally by-passed the subject and the information's relevance.

OK, let's go over this again shall we, cos you seem to have problems grasping it:

1) I was not posting re your initial arguement, but your assertion that Hayes' research was the "most reliable of sources on traditional Ninjutsu and it?s trappings. Far superior to any other I have had experience with."

2) I am not attacking Hayes but his scholarship.

And what does historical background have to do with it? Well when you present yourself as an authority on ninjutsu, I'd say it has a shitload to do with it. But then I'm kind of funny like that; I like my sources to be reliable.

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

I don't see how his research is bad. I see that his story surrounding the fact happens to be different than the "established" history. This happens all the time and I am not willing to discount the man just because his story parts course with the party line.

So do you believe everything in The Da Vinci Code too? It's fine departing from the party line if you can do so with solid research, but Hayes hardly ever mentions his sources and his views often cannot be corroborated by other sources, even Hatsumi's books. That causes me to raise an eyebrow.

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

And if you can point to the bad stuff in the books, I would be more than happy to read them over again.

Well that's a little difficult without the books in my possesion. However, I ordered copies yesterday, so I'll get back to you on that.

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

I don't really know what to say about this. I agree with the statement but not that it is happening here.

My comment stemmed from your statement "They are Ninja after all. I would expect some BS from them out of deception. It's just the way they are."

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

He writes that ninja were nothing like most people think they are. Then he writes a little about them to show you how they were and how it effected how they fought and lived.

Well this is where I disagree. I think he paints the kind of picture of ninja that people want to see, not what they actually were.

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

I guess you are the better judge of how well he does that since I don't have enough sources. I'll have to take your word for it.

No, don't take my word for it! Get out there and research it yourself. It's not difficult. This is exactly my point: don't take Hayes, Hatsumi, even Tanemura at face value. Do your own research and maybe you'll see why I dislike Hayes' writings.

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

Don't really see what this has to do with it. It swings both ways. Doesn't mean they do, doesn't mean the don't.

Again, my comment stemmed from your statement "They are Ninja after all. I would expect some BS from them out of deception. It's just the way they are."

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

I have all 5 books and I started to read them again. So far his story seems to parallel pretty closely.

Parallel closely with what? With the rest of his story? How can you tell if Hayes is correct if you're not cross-checking it against other books on the subject? Like I say, don't just rely on MA books. Read military history books and other related texts. Question everything. The truth is out there.

[Robert_RedBeard]

I meant that the story parallels pretty closely with what you have said.

And please enlighten me as to what the ninja really were.

I could be hunting forever for that answer. Not that it really matters from my point of view. I am in it for the useful things I can pick up. Techniques, tricks, ideas.

And you may want to notice, I said he was the most reliable source I have had experience with.

I haven't really been pointed to anything else. It was all self discovered.

I feel that there is much to offer in what Hayes has written. Even if his scholarship sucks.I personally don't need to know everything about it for it to be useful. Kinda like a light bulb.

[Hengest]

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

And please enlighten me as to what the ninja really were.

Well, this is the thing. We don't really have the evidence to say what they were. However, the little we do know points us in quite a different direction to that generally touted in Black Belt articles and the like. For a start, the few historical ninja we have information on, such as Hattori Hanzo, were samurai. This is important because it means that all this stuff about ninja being "eta", low caste, is rubbish. It also means that there were probably not any ninja clans. At best, they were samurai clans that had some members who were skilled in ninjutsu. And if there were no ninja clans, then ninja didn't have seperate beginnings to the samurai. It's more likely that ninja evolved from neccessity, from changes in warfare, much like the modern concept of Special Forces stemmed from the need for such during WWII.

The idea that ninja formed a distinct part of military society with their own martial culture just doesn't seem to be the case.

Originally Posted by Robert_RedBeard

I feel that there is much to offer in what Hayes has written. Even if his scholarship sucks.I personally don't need to know everything about it for it to be useful. Kinda like a light bulb.

I'd agree to an extent. If you just want to use the light bulb, Hayes is fine. However, if you want to know about the history and development of light bulbs, he's not to be relied on, IMNSHO.

I just want to say though, at no point have I intended to criticise Hayes as a martial artist or Bujinkan as a martial art. I think Hayes is a poor researcher and a shameless self-publicist, but he is worth listening to when it comes to the practical application of taijutsu, etc. Likewise, I have a lot of respect for Bujinkan budo taijutsu as a style. When it's taught properly, it's awesome and difficult to find a system more worthy of study.

[RelentlessFists]

Originally Posted by Tease T Tickle

Zed, one of two things is true. Either you didn't really read my post, or you're a complete moron.

If you train for reasons other than combat, then you're martial arts training is nothing more than a hobby and can be easily replaced with building model trains or collecting antique lamps.

If you are focused on real-life combat, then you must face the logic that the tools you're using (i.e. your body) are obsolete.

To debate either point is useless because both are correct.

Paraphrasing Tease: Unarmed MA skill is not effective against modern weapons on the street.
How astute, Sherlock.

For most people reading this forum, who you care so deeply for, MAs' general purpose is to gain dominance in combat, not murder, no matter how they originated. (The MAs, not forum members. )

[admin]

Martial arts general purpose in to win in a combat situation. But there are very few martial arts schools that actually train that way. Most martial arts schools offer something else to their students. Competition training, fitness, mental health, etc. At the same time giving them the false sense of security that what they are training will be effective in unarmed combat. Or worse, giving the false sense that what they are training will work against an armed opponent.

I do believe that there are good weapons techniques for certain types of weapons and in certain types of situations. But those techniques need to be a large focus of your training, and when training them you need to accept some realities. Example: If you face a knife you will get cut. If someone pulls a gun AND you try to defend, you will most likely be shot at.

99% of the time, there is an "out" that doesn't involve using your martial arts skills to defend yourself against a weapon.

[gaurgeulcerge]

adipex
propecia
meridia
OpenDNS
tramadol