What qualifies one to create their own style of martial art?

[GouRonin]

I know this is going to be a tough topic because really there is no one set of reasons but what would your personal criteria be? If you came upon someone teaching a hybrid style what things would you look at that might make this a valid thing in your own opinion?

[hand2handCombat]

knowing the art that is going to be incorporated very well!!!

[fist of fury]

It's hard to say but i would want to know how much expereince in each of the hybrid arts the instructor has. Also what is he bringing back from those arts is it the most effecient aspect of those arts or just some parlor tricks. How much pratical testing of the instructors system has been done and most importantly is it still evolving. If it's a new hybrid art and instructor isn't attempting to improve and hone his/her art then it isn't for me. Not that the style should change everytime you go to a class but if the instructor found a more effecient way to apply a technique he/she could then breing that too class with an appropriate explanation as to why the technique would work better this way.

[sweeper]

well I would look at the reasons why the new art is "better" than the sum of it's parts, what are the reasons for creation, also who does the instructor study under and do his teachers know about/aprove of what he's doing, if they don't I would contact them and ask why.

then of course comes the question of effectivness.. if it is being taught for self deffence, what qualification does the instructor have to teach self deffence. If it isn't being taught as self deffence what is it being taught for? if sport does it win in the ring? if excercises is the instructor qualified to teach excercise.

And of course how much thought went into it.. is it just a series of grafted techniques or did the instructor do some real reasearch and studie into all the aspects of fighting such as physiology, kinesiology, and psychology.

[Kenpo Wolf]

,,,is the first thing someone should have before developing their own art or system. After this sold base, they should explore other avenues make his
primary art better. If you can't make your primary art better, whats the point in trying to design your own art?

I hate seeing a person taking a few lessons in one style, a few lessons in another, and a few lessons in yet a third and then trying to put it together as is own style. To me, that shows that a guy does not have the discipline or the patience to stick it out and who would want to learn from a guy like this?

[GouRonin]

What do you think of these teachers who are in their 20's, 30's, & 40's even who have high ranking black belts such as 3rd, 4th, and 5th, in several different martial arts?

[Bob Hubbard]

Age isn't a big deal....except that someoine in their 60's will in theory have more experience than someone in their 20s.

I believe time training and researching are a big part of it...personally, at least 10-20 years of intensive training (not the 30 minute classes).

Its been said that Wing Chun was developed so that they could train a master in 5 years, not 25....note, master, not grandmaster.

Look at the real masters of the arts...Parker, Presas, Lee...look where they came from, and then, look at their best students...and see.

:asian:

[Yari]

Originally posted by GouRonin

I know this is going to be a tough topic because really there is no one set of reasons but what would your personal criteria be? If you came upon someone teaching a hybrid style what things would you look at that might make this a valid thing in your own opinion?

The red thread through it all. If there's mismatch, and the teacher dosn't ack. it. I wouldn't practice that art.

/Yari

[Yari]

Originally posted by GouRonin

What do you think of these teachers who are in their 20's, 30's, & 40's even who have high ranking black belts such as 3rd, 4th, and 5th, in several different martial arts?

I'm too old to look a belts. I look on how the bow, and teach students. What they teach, and how they grade.

On the other hand a third Dan in two arts shouldn't be that difficult for somebody in the 30's and 40's, if they started early.
But much more than that I find difficult to belive, and want to see them in action before anything else.

/Yari

[samuraijack]

this is a very tricky question.on one hand some jerk can read a few issues of "black belt" and try to teach a class and promote himself to "soke". first of all i would ask questons about the instructors training, if he replies that he learned in the shaolin temple in a top secret location, run...run as fast as you can. If the instructor is 20 years old and a 10th degree black belt, a red flag should go up. However, i must say that just because a style is new doesn't mean that it isn't real. look at bruce lee, he developed JKD, was he qualified??? Ed parker totally redone Kenpo Karate when he came to the u.s. to teach it. New styles are what america is all about. Some want to learn an ancient art that is taught the same way it was 1000 years ago, some want new and modern techniques developed for modern times, it is a judgement call. Jhoon Rhee is teaching, "american tae kwon do". the creator should be at least a 3rd dan or higher,have approval from his instructor to borrow from the style, an last but not least the style should be tested for quality.

[theneuhauser]

also, i think that it is VERY important that the originator be well travelled. it's important that they have a high level of skill in any one art, because it shows that they are a real deal martial artist. its probably just as important for the person to get around, and learn from every martial art that's out there. not necessarily, to train in it, but at least to spar and dialogue with many different masters, this way he or she can say with firm belief " i have tested this thing out and weighed it against the best and it is good"

[fissure]

I think the problem in building your own stlye is in teaching of it. I have trained in several styles, and have mixed and matched for my own benift.However one can't teach this to anyone else, because what is comfotable and effective for me might suck for almost everyone else.
:EG:

[Baoquan]

IMHO, the basis for a style, be it new or hybrid, is not a compilation of techniques, but a philosophy; a concrete meme that defines what the collection of techniques is trying to create. A statement of; this is what we are trying to accomplish through this art.

Lee had one, Parker had one....a lot of people don't , then "create" their own "style" give it a cheesy name and flog it in malls.

There has to be a REASON for this style to be compiled, a void that it needs to fill.

my 0.02c.

Cheers

Bao

[sweeper]

yeah I think that last statement is realy important, there has to be a reason for the style, not "I want my own style" but there has to be a void that needs filling, the styles that have lasted have lasted because the creators sawa nedd for what they did, if there is no need than the style is pointless.

"if it ain't broke don't fix it"

[fissure]

Both of the last post made goods points. I don't think creating a "new art" a good idea, nor was it the point I was trying to make.Most of my training has been in TaeKwon Do and Shotokan. I feel using some of my limited Judo and wrestling techniques to "patch" the holes in these systems only makes sense. But in no way would I consider this a "new Art".I think it is important for every practitioner to activly look for shortcomings in thier chosen art, and find ways to overcome them.
:EG:

[sweeper]

yeah that's more like grafting two plants together than "coding" new DNA.

[samuraijack]

I agree with the last post to a degree. yes there needs to be a void in order for the style to be fixed but he decides what the void is. many traditonal styles frown on changing anything. the style is taught as is and has been for many many years, to change it would be to disgrace it. My attitude is if it's not changing it dying.

[Goldendragon7]

Origin. posted by Kaith Rustaz
Age isn't a big deal....except that someoine in their 60's will in theory have more experience than someone in their 20s.


No, but experience sure is.......
:asian:

[Bob Hubbard]

Pulling a number outta the air for a moment....
I think '20 years experience' is the same, regardless if the person is 40yrs old, or 65 yrs old.

Someone who is actively training and learning and exploring would be a better candidate, compared to someone who'se sat on their backside for a few decades and gotten little if no mat time.

We all know those guys....out of shape, living on past glories, havent had a promotion in years, or had any real time on the floor, yet still insist on being held up on high. The info may be in there, but the body is no longer on automatic, and the 'rust' shows.

I think its more of a 'time activly in' than an 'age' thing.

:asian:

[A.R.K.]

I would propose that a 22 yr old with perhaps a few years of experience is qualified to create their own style or system......

[Bob Hubbard]

On what would you base that? What is a 'few'? By definition its around 2 years...not long enough to grasp it under 'modern' definitions, IMHO.

:asian:

[A.R.K.]

Kaith,

That was actually a little hehe:D In reference to Dr. Jigoro Kano who at the age of 22, after I believe 3 yrs or so of Ju Jitsu founded Judo.

Bruce Lee also comes to mind with his contributions at a relatively young age. I would say the qualifications are simply whoever has the insight and boldness to try it and is successfull. There have been some remarkable cases in this area and the MA world is the richer for it :)

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by fissure
I think the problem in building your own stlye is in teaching of it. I have trained in several styles, and have mixed and matched for my own benift.However one can't teach this to anyone else, because what is comfotable and effective for me might suck for almost everyone else.
:EG:

Teaching your own system is a matter of understanding not only what works for you but also what works for others of any body type.

If you can't make it work for anyone else, then you probably did not have much to start with!

[A.R.K.]

The goal of a true teacher is not showing what he is personally capable of but rather what the student is capable of....:asian:

[MartialArtist]

Everyone creates their own style in one way or another, to what suits them best. And no, I'm not talking about something like a wrestler vs. a boxer type style, but the different types. There are outside-speed wrestlers, pressure wrestlers, power wrestlers, etc.

But, somebody creating an art to teach others? There are not clear guidelines, but as long as it fits you... And most frauds that create something just to be "different" are sought out and are taking away hundreds if not thousands of years of refinement. Fighting doesn't change over the years, and if it looks like... I dunno, then...

[James Kovacich]

Evolution and destiny in the martial arts are like the Yin and Yang. We all as matial artist "claim" to evolve our arts. But those of us who have our blinders on are hindering our arts destiny. The Yin can noy exist without the Yang and the same goes for the evolution and destiny of our arts.

Many people all around the world sa this does not work and that art sucks. Why is that?

We do refine our technique. Each of us specialize in differant areas of arts. So we evolve to a certain extent.

But is that really all of our arts desiny?

I heard some one say something about testing the new systems. Thats a good course of action. But in the same breath, why is there a new art? Was it because the original art does not modern day standards?

Was it because we want "ALL" of our arts that "WE REPRESENT" to be tested in a modern fashion? Very few actual arts are actually testing themselves in a modern fashion. "ALL" the rest of the martial arts that are being tested in this fashion are eclectic martial arts!

I have another comment. Someone mentioned that a person should be a certain Dan grade before considering creating a new martial art. My answer to that is. I think a person should be at least a black belt or equivalent to make that statement in the first place.

I DID NOT LOOK IN ANYONES PROFILE. IT IS NOT AN ATTACK.

It only makes sense. The discussion is creating a new martial art and the standard was set to a Dan grade, then anyone with a comment that is not a black belt or equivalent is off base in a sense that they are students and they are telling instructors what they can do and can't do.

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by sweeper
well I would look at the reasons why the new art is "better" than the sum of it's parts, what are the reasons for creation, also who does the instructor study under and do his teachers know about/aprove of what he's doing, if they don't I would contact them and ask why.

then of course comes the question of effectivness.. if it is being taught for self deffence, what qualification does the instructor have to teach self deffence. If it isn't being taught as self deffence what is it being taught for? if sport does it win in the ring? if excercises is the instructor qualified to teach excercise.

And of course how much thought went into it.. is it just a series of grafted techniques or did the instructor do some real reasearch and studie into all the aspects of fighting such as physiology, kinesiology, and psychology.

Most of the arts have some kind of weakness. To fill tyhe void is a natural occurrance. At what point is the new system differant enough to be called something differant?

I don't think any of the "originators" were qualified to teach or studied physiology, kinesiology, and psychology or exercise.

It is the sum of the "whole" which equals the new art. Is it teachable? And is it realistically effective? I think we can ask that last one of many of the arts out there today!

I think that "ALL SYSTEMS" new and old should be judged and tested by the same standards!

[fissure]

Teaching your own system is a matter of understanding not only what works for you but also what works for others of any body type.

If you can't make it work for anyone else, then you probably did not have much to start with!
akja, the later was your response to my first post.


I don't think creating a "new art" a good idea, nor was it the point I was trying to make.Most of my training has been in TaeKwon Do and Shotokan. I feel using some of my limited Judo and wrestling techniques to "patch" the holes in these systems only makes sense. But in no way would I consider this a "new Art".I think it is important for every practitioner to activly look for shortcomings in thier chosen art, and find ways to overcome them.
This was my second. I can only assume that you missed it. It underscores the idea I was trying to convey, and seems to be in the same tone as your last effort.
I happen to be of the oppinion that certain aspects of MA are more comfortable for one body type over another. Or are less effective when major size/strenght differences are apparent.We currently have a large muscular male in class. Some of the smaller guys and all of the women have a hard (read- almost impossible!) time trying to use any kind of joint manipulation on him. If this were a real world situation they would, in my oppinion, be better served to strike at him rather than grapple. I don't beleive that every tech. works for everybody, equally well.

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by fissure
akja, the later was your response to my first post.


This was my second. I can only assume that you missed it. It underscores the idea I was trying to convey, and seems to be in the same tone as your last effort.
I happen to be of the oppinion that certain aspects of MA are more comfortable for one body type over another. Or are less effective when major size/strenght differences are apparent.We currently have a large muscular male in class. Some of the smaller guys and all of the women have a hard (read- almost impossible!) time trying to use any kind of joint manipulation on him. If this were a real world situation they would, in my oppinion, be better served to strike at him rather than grapple. I don't beleive that every tech. works for everybody, equally well.

I'll agree with that but especially with the big guy, it would be wise to learn how to fight on the ground. Also any and all techniques should be modified to fit you.

I'm a better striker but I am wise enough to know that I there are areas that need more attention.

Yes, there are techniques that work better for some than for others, but my instructors always made me learn the others anyway.

[fissure]

If you can't make it work for anyone else, then you probably did not have much to start with!
This was the statement that prompted my response.
I to teach all tech. too all trainees. However, I caution that various situations can render certain of them less practical for a particular individual in one way or another.


Also any and all techniques should be modified to fit you.
This is essentially the point of my second post. I find one of the most difficult situations, is getting the idea across to new BBs that they must now begin this phase of training - thinking for themselves, rather than simply following an instructors directions.

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by fissure
This was the statement that prompted my response.
I to teach all tech. too all trainees. However, I caution that various situations can render certain of them less practical for a particular individual in one way or another.


This is essentially the point of my second post. I find one of the most difficult situations, is getting the idea across to new BBs that they must now begin this phase of training - thinking for themselves, rather than simply following an instructors directions.

Funny how we have trouble understanding other peoples posts sometimes. :cool: