Starting your own System, That is the Question?

[VSanhodo]

Hi Folks
My questions is simple
I know there are enough overnight wonders out there already who have started his / her own systems. But here goes anyway.

What in your opinion should be the qualifications for a person to begin his / her own system.

And for sake of argument lets say you were to start your own system, what would you call it? and why?

Remember I dont have to agree withy uo for your posts to be welcome. I welcome any and all views and am open to discussion.

Thanks

San

[lonekimono10]

Hi Folks
My questions is simple
I know there are enough overnight wonders out there already who have started his / her own systems. But here goes anyway.

What in your opinion should be the qualifications for a person to begin his / her own system.

And for sake of argument lets say you were to start your own system, what would you call it? and why?

Remember I dont have to agree withy uo for your posts to be welcome. I welcome any and all views and am open to discussion.

Thanks

San



I don't know how to take your question, i have my own system and i'm not someone who did it overnight, anyway just to let you know this is one question that has a loooong answer,but let me ask you one how long have you been in the arts??

[Don Roley]

What in your opinion should be the qualifications for a person to begin his / her own system.

A perceived need for something to be done in a new way.

[Spook]

I don't think you need to be "qualified" to start your own MA style but rather a new aproach that works better than others out there. To actually be a "new" style i would say that it can't just be a rip off of various styles compiled into one. It needs to be completely new.

My question is why? Why do you want to create a new style when there are so many current styles that you may not have experienced.

[searcher]

My question is why? Why do you want to create a new style when there are so many current styles that you may not have experienced.
I know what you are saying. I have been training in my primary style for several years and have trained in various other styles. Just in my training in the Okinawan styles, I have "taken" things from other styles and incorperated them into what I teach. Now even as what I teach looks less and less like Chito-ryu I still can't just stop and start calling it something else. I asked this question some time back on another forum and maybe on this one, When does a style stop being that style and become something else? I have been pondering this for quite a while and still don't have the answer I am looking for. So I go on learning, modifying, and adapting my teachings and some day it may become a "new" style. But until then I will just keep on going.

As for what I would call it, I have no idea or why.

[Andrew Green]

Well generally when people ask this they refer to a traditional type style... so my question is why do we need more of the same?

Teach what you teach, don't worry about creating a name, belt system, association and all the other nonsense. If you are doing this because you've trained around and it is just what you do teach it as that, let your students do the same.

The last thing we need is more high rank, more "styles" and more associations. Ignore that and do what you do.

[terryl965]

None what is wrong with the Old why fixed what is not broke tradition is the key to understanding the Art of choice. Technique will vary from time to time but the tradition of one Art will bring enlightment to one's understanding.

Terry Lee Stoker

:asian:

[evenflow1121]

Anyone can start one I guess, I mean seriously is the streetfighter who's been in a number of brawls his whole life and understands what works and what doesnt less qualified, then a traditional bb with some ranks?

Although I consider myself a nobody in the martial arts and am just someone who wants to continue growing and learning through them, for me to actually take classes from someone who created their own system would take a lot of scrutiny. I mean, these days, for me that would be a last alternative, only if there was nothing else and all there was, was this and video training. I know you can say well Ed Parker created his own system, and so did the guys some hundreds of years ago that we consider traditional systems today, but they work, for the most part those systems work when their techniques are applied.
In today's world you have too many people with a lot less years in the martial arts than myself (and I have 20+ which is nothing in reality)putting on high graded belts and making up their own system, any jackass can tie a belt on and become the founder of something and charge you to learn. Just teach what you know, you dont have to be called grandmaster to teach people, and just because you teach a derivative of a technique does not automatically make the instructor a founder of anything. People are too concerned with rank these days, its all about the system, not the rank, if the individual learned anything through his or her training in the martial arts, is that the most important thing is that the particular system survives the next generation, and if that means adjusting or altering certain areas fine, that does not necessarily mean that said individual has created a new system.

[VSanhodo]

[QUOTE=lonekimono10but let me ask you one how long have you been in the arts??[/QUOTE]
Ive been a student for 36 years. I currently hold a 7th dan I n Classical JuJitsu and am the senior student of the Late Shizyura Tanaka Sensei.

I agree with the statment why do we need more. Ive been a classical Martial science student all of my life. I dont care personally if ppl start their own systems. I am curious as to what a persons qualifications are or would be to fele he or she is capable of starting their own system. And why the need to fel to start the system. This is not meant as a challenge towards anyone, I truly would like to know ppl's feeling on this.

Thanks
San

[Andrew Green]

I think setting out with the intent to create a new system is a mistake. If it is meant to happen, it will happen.

But I do think that a new system needs to have something very important, and that is it needs to be forged through testing and evolution. Not just matching bits and pieces that seem neat.

But if a person studies a bunch of different ideas, spars lots, and spars hard they will develop into there own style. Which I think should be the goal of every practitioner. And the goal of every instructor to help there students to that point.

However this is very different from a traditional system, in which I think that the systems should be preserved, in tact, as best as possible. History is important, and it is a big part of those systems.

You can't just take a little Aristotle, a little Plato, a little Ptolmeny, mix them together and have something new. There is no point. Classical studies should be maintained, not mixed into something that has no history, no tradition, and no testing behind it.

[Don Roley]

Let me play Devil's advocate a little here.

I know a married couple that do martial arts. I will be seeing them in a few weeks for a BBQ.

She was an instructor for a martial arts style. He was a reformed thug with a smattering of martial arts training and a good dollup of real life experience finding out what did and did not work on the street.

So, when they were a couple she had him teach her class some of the stuff that seemed to be left out of her style's curriculum.

Fast forward a few years and they are in the process of going back towards the origin of the style. The style she knew really came from another and it seems a lot of the stuff that made the stuff effective may have been left out during time and transition.

So, what do they call the new stuff? It ain't the style she was taught, it ain't the original style and it is not all the stuff that was picked up by the husband.

Well, they asked me to come up with a name for them and I helped them slap on the name Dango Jiru - Japanese for leftover stew. They both have a weird sense of humor and enjoy giving people the exotic name and then revealing that it represents the taking of a whole bunch of stuff and hoping that the final result is eadible.

Oh, they still meet with teachers they respect every chance they get. Their search for knowledge is not finished by a long shot. They just don't know what to tell people what the stuff they teach is called. Hence the name Dango Jiru.

[Matt Stone]

I think there is a difference between a person practicing the sum total of everything they've learned over several decades, and taking everything they've learned and attempting to package it into something marketable...

If someone just wants to refer to what they do by a shorthand name, I absolutely love the "dango jiru" approach. I suspect that at some time in my life, I and my children may refer to our "family art" as just that. However, if I'm teaching X, then I call it X. If I'm teaching Y, I teach Y. Even though I've trained in several arts, I don't teach them within the context of the class of another art. If a student is ready to learn something from "outside," then they can go learn themselves... That's what I did, that's what my teacher did, so it is something of a tradition in our school (for that matter, it used to be a requirement!).

I suspect the "creating a new system" actually means "creating a new cash cow" so that a person can cash in on the money to be milked from the ignorant. Most folks I know who practice different arts are content to stick with "martial arts" as a reply to those who ask what they practice...

Just a thought.

[silatman]

Maybe I can give you another perspective on this. Im currently studying a system called Kosong Tangan. This was developed by my instructor, a man named Peter Baker. He wasn't happy with a particular brand of silat called Panca Bela, well thats not really correct, he wasn't happy with how that particular systm was being taught so decided to bring in other aspects and styles that he had studied and so Kosong Tangan was born. Panca Bela was an art that he found to have devestating techniques( self-defence not sport) but thought that the soft, dancey part of the art was empasized too much to the detriment of the original concept. There is a quote in Penjak Silat that says that you cant have the Silat without the Pentjak and vice versa. Silat being the fight and Pentjak being the dance. If you see a good practicioner move through the forms it looks very dancey, this being the soft movements of the style, put an enemy infront of him and you will see the devestation begin. Panca Bela in his opinion was too concerned with teaching the Pentjak and was beginning to lose the reallity of the Silat. I might add at this point that this post is my opinion of what has been told to me as a student of Peters and I may not fully understand his reasonings behind the change of styles. He decided that he wanted to teach a street applicable art that is not stuck in the "old ways" and a style that can be changed and added to depending upon what you may be confronted with on the street at any given time. His background can be found in an earlier post by me on the meet and greet forum. Basically what I'm getting at is he thought that there was a need and thought that he might have something that somebody else might want and he went for it. He hasn't made a fortune and still works nine to five in another line of work but now that we are progressing thought the system he now looks forward to each session and I believe is proud of what we are doing as his baby is slowly but surely maturing into what I hope was his original intention. I can tell you from my own point of view that I have trained in a few other arts and that I would be devestated if he was for one reason or another to stop teaching Kosong Tangan as it is easily the best thing that I have come across in a long time. I cant find anything that is as effective anywhere close to where I live and there is quite alot on offer. Partly I think it is his training method but a majority is the content. Even if he was a complete tool I would gladly suffer through it to stay. So if you think you have something worth teaching forget the knockers of this world, get out there and teach it, some student may one day be etternally grateful you did.

I know I am to Peter.

[Kiai Carita]

Hello all, I am a newbie in this forum, and I practise silat (22 years) but I must admit that I am of a very low level. Now I am a forty year old Indonesian living in London. Please allow me to join in the discussion on creating new systems. I think the question who is qualified to create a new system is a misleading question for anyone is qualified to create his/her own system if there is the neccesity.

Life always develops and nowadays the threat to human body are no longer man-eatting tigers in the jungle or sea-faring pirates from afar. Some might argue that the biggest threat to the human body these days is the modern lifestyle. The modern lifestyle tends to not excercise the body's natural moving systems. Further more, there are segments of modern life where people want certain muscles to develope so thay they might wear these muscles as fashion ascecories. People eat too much and move to little in a very simplified form of movement that does not go anywhere near exploring the body as a whole. I do believe that the late Suhu Subur Rahardja and the present Suhu Gunawan Rahardja of PGB Bangau Putih in Bogor, Java, have actually created many movements in response to the murderous modern lifestyle's threat towards the human body.

An other illustration of neccesity being the mother of invention can be seen in the recent mushrooming of 'tenaga dalam' 'inner power' silat schools in Indonesia. With little police and high unemployment petty crime is a constant problem in many Indonesian cities. In response to this threat there have been several 'silat kontak' schools in Indonesia that have emerged in the recent 30 years or so, like Satria Nusantara, Sinar Putih and other silat 'tenaga dalam' schools, that throw emotionally involved attackers without even touching.

So, in my opinion if you have a reason to develop a new system then do it. If it is good it will only make the MA world wealthier, if it doesn't it is your time, not mine.

Salam silat.

[jkdhit]

i have a friend whos been telling me for a while that she has a friend who had started his own system and he had to get some sort of approval. ill ask her to get me some more info and ill let u know

[evenflow1121]

I think setting out with the intent to create a new system is a mistake. If it is meant to happen, it will happen.

But I do think that a new system needs to have something very important, and that is it needs to be forged through testing and evolution. Not just matching bits and pieces that seem neat.

But if a person studies a bunch of different ideas, spars lots, and spars hard they will develop into there own style. Which I think should be the goal of every practitioner. And the goal of every instructor to help there students to that point.

However this is very different from a traditional system, in which I think that the systems should be preserved, in tact, as best as possible. History is important, and it is a big part of those systems.

You can't just take a little Aristotle, a little Plato, a little Ptolmeny, mix them together and have something new. There is no point. Classical studies should be maintained, not mixed into something that has no history, no tradition, and no testing behind it.
I agree, excellent post btw.

[stone_dragone]

I think there is a difference between a person practicing the sum total of everything they've learned over several decades, and taking everything they've learned and attempting to package it into something marketable...

If someone just wants to refer to what they do by a shorthand name, I absolutely love the "dango jiru" approach. I suspect that at some time in my life, I and my children may refer to our "family art" as just that. However, if I'm teaching X, then I call it X. If I'm teaching Y, I teach Y. Even though I've trained in several arts, I don't teach them within the context of the class of another art. If a student is ready to learn something from "outside," then they can go learn themselves... That's what I did, that's what my teacher did, so it is something of a tradition in our school (for that matter, it used to be a requirement!).

I suspect the "creating a new system" actually means "creating a new cash cow" so that a person can cash in on the money to be milked from the ignorant. Most folks I know who practice different arts are content to stick with "martial arts" as a reply to those who ask what they practice...

Just a thought.

I have been struggling recently with how to deal with the "new system" situation. I teach a combination of Goju Ryu and Shotokan, as do many others in America. The official name of what I teach right now is Nahate Goju Ryu, but since most of the kata come from shotokan, I no longer feel comfortable calling it Goju Ryu...it isn't.

Using the idea mentioned above, "using a shorthand name," I can avoid teaching a "new system" since it isn't new and still maintain a little better accuracy. No need for a founder title, no need for elevated rank, nothing outlandish like that...

Been a headache lately...

[Flying Crane]

To a certain degree, everyone will do their stuff different anyway, because as people, we are all different. While this may not be a new system, it is individuality within what you do.

Given this, I wonder why does someone need to create a new system, with a new name, and yourself as a grandmaster (ok, there is the ego trip thing, but that aside)

Why not just keep doing what you do to the best of your ability, bring in other influences that you have been exposed to, make the changes you feel are appropriate, but just call it the same that you always did? If you have some strong influences from other arts then acknowledge that, but it does not mean you have created a new system. For example, just admit that you train primarily X system, but you have influences from Y and Z systems in what you do and how you do it. To me, that makes much more sense than calling it John Smith Ryu, or something.

[Dark]

I disagree with this in a moderate extent, the origional Okinawan arts were largely based on individuals and their were allot of private "family styles" of Kara-te for example. In Japan allot of ronin and conscripted peasants would develop styles of fighting as a "family art" and which each new head of the family there was a "new style." This is the same reason China has 2,000+ MAs to the country.

I studied shotokan karate, I don't practice the same training methods my instructors, I've added more focus on fighting and less on kata. What do you call what I practice?

By the origional Okinawan standards I no longer practice shotokan. Does this make me a 13th dan guru in Draven-Ryu Karate-Do? Only if I'm some title happy idiot who can't see skill isn't regestered by belts but knowledge and ability. I see nothing wrong with renaming the system, if you break away from it to walk your own path. In fact in Okinawa that was the sign of "adulthood" in your ability to stand on your own feet and "leave home to make your own way in the world."

Just please do not become caught up in titles, belts or other mass marketing down falls...

[Henderson]

The last thing we need is more high rank, more "styles" and more associations. Ignore that and do what you do.

I love this statement. I find the creators of new systems, for the most part, to be laughable. They are not creating new techniques that haven't been performed countless thousands of times already. The human body can only move a certain number of ways. Re-hashing what their teacher taught, making up a few kata and adding what they believe to be new techniques, is not a new system.

I think many of these "founders" are simply people who after many years of training finally came to a realization about what they've been studying, and thus gained some very important insight. They erroneously took that insight to be new information instead of seeing it as part of what they've been training. This insight should have been the stepping stone to another level in their previous training, but ego stepped in and viola! we have abc-ryu-do.

Just my inexperienced $.02,

-Frank

[Xue Sheng]

This is a very interesting topic.

I tend to agree with Andrew Green, but let me add another perspective from my style Yang Style Tai Chi

Yang Chienhou and his brother Yang Panhou learned Tai Chi from their father Yang Luchan.

Yang Luchan learned Chen style Tai Chi from the Chen family and changed it to Yang style.

Yang Chienhou oldest son Yang Shaohao learned Tai Chi mainly from his uncle Yang Yang Panhou and taught the family style intact. Yang Chienhou youngest son Yang Changfu learned Tai Chi from his father Yang Cheinhou. However Yang Changfu changed the family style to basically what we call traditional Yang style today. If you want to see the pre-Yang Changfu style that was practiced by Yang Panhao, first it is rare, but this is the style that Yang Jwing Ming does at YMAA.

Yang Chengfu had a student Tung Ying Chieh who for his entire life taught Yang style Tai Chi. It was not until his son or possibly grandson that Tung style was talked about. And many of Sifu Tung’s students still say they teach Yang style. Also there is Cheng Manching who changed Yang style and as far as I know it was referred to as Yang style or Cheng Manching Yang style.

It was not until Yang Chengfu’s youngest son Yang Zhenduo that the Yang family itself drew a line between Tung, Cheng Manching and the Yang family. It is also possible at that time that the Yang family may have drawn a line between the Yang style of Yang Chengfu and his uncle Yang Panhou.

In the case of the Yang family, new styles of tai chi were made by decree of the Yang family itself.

[Kreth]

The problem with a lot of these new systems is that they're created by someone with only a few years of experience. This is especially prevalent in ninjutsu, where you see a plethora of individuals with a couple of years in the Bujinkan, Genbukan, or Jinenkan who then move on to invent their own style. Even worse, are those who make up a lineage in Koga-ryu Ninjitsu [sic], and usually throw in some falsified military history in an attempt to add legitimacy to their background (Marine Recon and Army Rangers seem to be the two current faves). :rolleyes:

[Grenadier]

It all depends on what the applications will be.

If someone wants to open up a school that trains people to thrive in a mixed martial arts competition setting, then being a dilettant in multiple styles could certainly make one qualified enough to teach, in terms of technical knowledge. If someone had, say, a 2nd degree black belt in one of the various styles of Karate, as well as a black belt in Jiu-Jitsu, and some wrestling experience, is able to combine all three aspects into a well-rounded system, and can effectively teach others how to do it, then I would certainly consider this a valid new system for its own purposes. Given how most MMA'ers these days, do not specialize in one particular art, but instead, train in all aspects, this does seem to work.

Of course, this assumes that the above individual (or his students) has demonstrated at least a modicum of success in the arena. They do what they say they are going to do, and that's that.


In terms of creating a new traditional system, that's a good bit more complex. One would have to be well-established in a particular style, to gain some credibility in the first place. This is pretty much a requirement, especially since there were a good number of folks who suddenly became Soke's in their own rights (hence some clever wag coining the term of 'Sokemon'), but lacked credentials. This sudden abundance of Soke's popping up out of nowhere is what has bred a good bit of suspicion in the traditional martial arts community.

Can it still be done? Of course. If, say, one of the senior students of a particular martial arts system has significant experience in one or more other styles, and incorporates different aspects into his teaching and training in a conservative manner, then there's a good chance that he could lay claim to having started a new system. Some of Hiranori Ohtsuka's senior students did that (with his blessing, too), and at least two of them have systems that are thriving quite well to this date. The key thing here, though, is that each of them were already very well-advanced in the Wado system, and had significant experience in other styles as well.

One question that many would ask, is "where do you draw the line? After incorporating so many aspects of other systems, when is the original style no longer the original style?"

I can't really answer that. Some styles are ecclectic, and do change with the times, as they see fit. If they think that using another system's methods can improve their own system, then they'll incorporate it and make it their own as well, and NOT change the name.

Others are rooted, and making any kind of changes is like trying to twist the arm of a big palooka.

All in all, someone who is, say, a 2nd dan in one style, and perhaps a 1st dan in another style, who creates his own "traditional" system, would probably not be looked upon with respect. He would probably need a decent lineage, and one that can be relatively easily traced. Sorry, but the certificates coming from our favorite neo-ninja, Radford D., don't count!

[Xue Sheng]

The problem with a lot of these new systems is that they're created by someone with only a few years of experience. This is especially prevalent in ninjutsu, where you see a plethora of individuals with a couple of years in the Bujinkan, Genbukan, or Jinenkan who then move on to invent their own style. Even worse, are those who make up a lineage in Koga-ryu Ninjitsu [sic], and usually throw in some falsified military history in an attempt to add legitimacy to their background (Marine Recon and Army Rangers seem to be the two current faves). :rolleyes:

Well I have a few years of Jujitsu, a few years of TDK, a few years of Shaolin, Xingyi and Bagua. Some training in Chen style and Wu, a whole lot of training in Yang style with a dash of Sanda

Thus Xuefu was born:rolleyes:

I agree, there are those with little experience in a given art or arts that try and combine them into a new art possibly for, as previously mentioned, ego reason and great desire to be called Grand master.

I however prefer evil overlord of Xuefu myself:)

[tradrockrat]

I'd like to throw a (not so) hypothetical out there -

Say you have trained in several styles, but have only "mastered" one. That is, you've only achieved high rank - say at least 3rd degree, dan, whatever. And say that this particular style is under significant scuitiny right now due to people/ leaders in it. As a teacher of the style, would creating a "new" style using this style as a base and incorporating techniques and skill sets from other arts you've studied be a bad thing? Especially if you are doing this to AVOID politics rather than play king? and considering this what you teach already?

I think this has most of the answer:


Teach what you teach, don't worry about creating a name, belt system, association and all the other nonsense. If you are doing this because you've trained around and it is just what you do teach it as that, let your students do the same.

The last thing we need is more high rank, more "styles" and more associations. Ignore that and do what you do.

But is it wrong to create a fresh start?


This debate is very timely for me as I'm planning on bucking some serious displeasure and tradition by starting my own school. I don't pretend to be "the man" and do not claim to be a "master" at some new style, but I'm good at what I do and I don't have any desire to play by the old rules of my organization - at all.

does this mean in fact that I am creating my own style?


any comments are appreciated - sorry if this seems like a thread hijack - I don't mean it to be.

EDIT: The issue that concerns me is promotion of belts within the school. Who says that I have the right to promote belts if I am outcast from my organization? The answer is "Me". So am I some grand poo-bah? 10 years from now when i need to start thinking about those two or three 2nd level blackbelts and thier future - what is this 4th level (me) going to be able to do?

[still learning]

Hello, Remember there are no rules here for starting your own school/system.

Like any Restauant/Hamburger joint...anyone can open one and call it anything they want too.

Many martial artist today train in a variety of arts/styles and combine them for there own purpose.

In reality there is nothing new about martial arts....people may make it look/feel different. But it is all about fighting with two hands,arms and two legs....one brain.

Even Bruce Lee...people think his was a new style/system...many others had combine many arts together...before he was born....but he got lot of credits........Do your research.

Our Kempo is always changing,some instructors' left and started there own systems, new names added too.

It is all about MONEY/ and new schools/systems...are NEW BUSINESS...

Anyone can start one..............Aloha

PS: New Aloha Style....give the LEI first......than?

[pstarr]

Before attempting to create a new system, an individual needs to be thoroughly skilled in the system which he/she currently trains. That doesn't mean spending just 10 or 20 years in it, either-

And he/she needs to know WHY a "new" system is being created; what does it offer that's different and of equal or greater value to its students?

Or, like Matt Stone pointed out, is it just a new way of helping people empty their wallets?

[Jimi]

Hey Tradrockrat, I know what you are capable of teaching, and I think others who may make a stink over you teaching just shows their own insecurity. With your knowledge you should easily find another association willing to stand with you. I have certification signed by 3 instructors, all with 5th Degree BBs or higher, I can teach. You know I am not some money grubbing wanna be grand poo ba, I enjoy teaching when I can, luckily I no longer rely on MA instruction for my sole livelyhood, so I teach and train when I want and have time. You would have more people standing with you than you realize, myself included. When some one wants the walking stick among other things, they will look to you, when our instructor wants to show an old friend hooked cane or short stick tech's he yells JAMES! and I come running. We have both helped people who out rank us because of what we can share, not what we hold exclusive from everyone else. Keep your chin up, or is it chin down, eyes & hands up etc... PEACE