A Totally New Martial Art...? [Archive] - MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

MartialIntent

02-09-2006, 08:21 AM

Drac

02-09-2006, 08:43 AM

I'm asking because I've observed the rise and rise of "fighting systems"

Amen..It seems that every month there is a new one..

I'm wondering are these "systems" created merely to satisfy the ego of the instructor

That's what I believe..It will be interesting to read the responses..

terryl965

02-09-2006, 09:46 AM

Well I believe the way you believe, every Tom, Dick and Harry has there own(and I use that term losely)system which is just some offshoot of there primary system.
Terry

Martial Tucker

02-09-2006, 09:49 AM

If I take several of my favorite dishes from a handful of restaurants in my area, change an ingredient or two, and put them all on a menu in my own restaurant, have I really created something new? No......just another "food court".

DeLamar.J

02-09-2006, 09:49 AM

mrhnau

02-09-2006, 09:53 AM

TheBattousai

02-09-2006, 09:56 AM

Kinda of a hard question to ask without asking the head of the school, one guy who is just an instructor within the school, and other guy who wants/thinks he should branch off. Mainly nowadays, yeah starting your art is on the ego side. But there are times where the instructor says "Hey, I think you have a much different philosophy and teaching method than mine, you should start your own art." That is somewhat how alot of older systems got started, the instructor would see a student and see that special something and tell them to go do there own thing. But that didn't always happen and they would just teach slight differences than the instructor and be just the same, with minimal difference in training and philosophy. The problem lately in modern times is mainly ego; "I have been training with this guy for 10+ years, and I think he sucks, and I can do this better than him," which is what seems to be the case for most lately, but maybe one out of.......say, 1000 may be legit. But you can't really say without the background info of the individuals involved (Head of the school, one instructor from the head master, and one guy who split off) just to compare and ask what is the going on. Thats my opinion on the matter.......short explaination version anyway.:)

phlaw

02-09-2006, 10:26 AM

The way I look at it, there are only so many ways you can Kick & Punch.

Jesse

02-09-2006, 10:28 AM

ppko

02-09-2006, 10:30 AM

Ya tell me about it....

I was in a magazine shop the other day looking at some martial arts mags and I came across a style that delt with biting the attacker. haha it was so weird. There was step by step moves of how to turn your head and pull a Mike Tyson on a guy, by biting the ear.

WHAT IS THAT????

I don't know about you but I'm not biting into someone I don't know, well I don't want to bite anyone anyways. Thats just alittle too "He bite me, Mrs.Peterson....." :(I would be willing to bite if it was my only way to survive, the human jaw produces about 600 lb of pressure per square inch, now do I need someone to show me how to bite no, and I sure as hell don't want them using me as a uke

Jesse

02-09-2006, 10:33 AM

Nevermind the fact that there are alot of people out there with some pretty funky dieseases...

Ya no thanks their are other methods of getting the guy off.

ppko

02-09-2006, 10:42 AM

Nevermind the fact that there are alot of people out there with some pretty funky dieseases...

Ya no thanks their are other methods of getting the guy off.I agree with you but my point is if that is my only way of survival I will do it

Jesse

02-09-2006, 11:28 AM

Ya very true, you gotta do what you gotta do. Its either you or him/her

MartialIntent

02-09-2006, 04:49 PM

Thanks guys for the input...:asian:

I guess we're mostly singing from the same hymn-sheet as it were. Personally I feel in many ways it's a dilution of our arts that we hold dear to have them shoved in some half-assed random mix that as Martial Tucker says is more like a food court than a gourmet meal.

But if that's the case, I'm wondering do any possibilities still remain to create a totally new martial art? Or have all avenues already been explored? As a couple of you have alluded to, human physiology seems to be limiting us to the arts that exist already.

How do our arts evolve? Or will they be practised in 20 years exactly how we practise them today [and for the past 20 years]?

Respects!

Andrew Green

02-09-2006, 05:00 PM

TheBattousai

02-09-2006, 05:00 PM

But if that's the case, I'm wondering do any possibilities still remain to create a totally new martial art? Or have all avenues already been explored? As a couple of you have alluded to, human physiology seems to be limiting us to the arts that exist already.

How do our arts evolve? Or will they be practised in 20 years exactly how we practise them today [and for the past 20 years]?

Respects!

No, the arts will change some as people change, its only natural. They won't change too much I think unless there is a change of instructors (or thought process between the former and successer) or people just stop training (I hope not!).

Flying Crane

02-09-2006, 05:37 PM

Here is an interesting thought then... trim away all the "repeat" martial arts. How many would you really have left?

There are only so many ways the body can move, locks can be performed, ways you can punch, ways you can kick and ways you can throw... How many totally unique styles can there really be?

This is an interesting thought. When we look at many of the different Japanese and Okinawan systems, they all practice many of the same Kata. This is the root of their system. So how are these systems different? Same curriculum, but a "different" art?

MJS

02-09-2006, 06:15 PM

There are no "new" martial arts, just different ways of arranging the same stuff, and using different pieces of a larger puzzle.

Amen!! This pretty much sums it up!!

Mike

MartialIntent

02-09-2006, 06:18 PM

This is an interesting thought. When we look at many of the different Japanese and Okinawan systems, they all practice many of the same Kata. This is the root of their system. So how are these systems different? Same curriculum, but a "different" art?
I agree, this is a valid point. So why are these different arts adn why have we accepted them as such? Is it only because the originators [or originating families] hailed from one end of Okinawa or the other? And in which case, how is that different from me adding a few variations to eg. the Goju Ryu portfolio of kicks and claiming it's a totally new system? [devil's advocate]

Flying Crane

02-09-2006, 06:26 PM

I agree, this is a valid point. So why are these different arts adn why have we accepted them as such? Is it only because the originators [or originating families] hailed from one end of Okinawa or the other? And in which case, how is that different from me adding a few variations to eg. the Goju Ryu portfolio of kicks and claiming it's a totally new system? [devil's advocate]

'tis true, and while I cannot cite examples at the moment, I believe many of these founders often studied under the same instuctors to begin with...

FearlessFreep

02-09-2006, 06:36 PM

You should see how I developed my "Lightening Duck Do"

Flying Crane

02-09-2006, 06:38 PM

You should see how I developed my "Lightening Duck Do"

I'm already a convert. With a name like that, I gotta have some!

DeLamar.J

02-09-2006, 11:06 PM

There are no "new" martial arts, just different ways of arranging the same stuff, and using different pieces of a larger puzzle.

Beyond that anyone can call what they do whatever they want.

Think about it in other businesses, not all corner stores are called 7 eleven, yet they all got basically the same stuff. Marketing and branding in martial arts is the same as it is in every other business. Some people like to call their business by a well known name and follow the standards of that name, others prefer to give it their own name and make thier own rules.

"Standard" ones are all basically the same. You know what to expect,.

Non-branded ones are not as predictable. A lot are crap, but a select few are great.Very true! Nicely put. I have my own methods of training, and I could open a school and make up some crazy name for it like DeLamar-quando-fu or some crap like that. But basicly its just a bunch of techniques and drills that I have put together from all of the cross training I have done. Its nothing new, just different combinations of the same stuff from other styles. Basicly what I am doing, along with many other martial artists, is practicing the JKD philosophy by taking what I like and dropping the rest. People do this all the time and then try to say they have created something, when they have just done what Bruce Lee has been telling people to do for years.
The only difference is they push it onto others as gospel truth. What worked so well for them may not work so well for others, and by making there way the only way, they have prevented there students from growing in the way that they did. Maybey thats just as persons way of creating an empire or something, its very selfish in my opinion.

Cujo

02-10-2006, 12:56 AM

MartialIntent

02-10-2006, 04:15 AM

I mostly agree with what has been said. There are alot of people out there "marketing" their "new" martial arts. I think that MMA and JKD do follow a differant philosophy tho, in that they both take what they believe is useful and disregard what they feel is no longer useful. An example I would use is Clo Qu Ba Ha-Jutsu, a style that I practice. Maybe style is not the right word to use. Clo Qu Ba Ha-Jutsu is not a new art, it's basically a MMA with the stipulation that all techniques used must be able to be performed in full police gear, by most officers, and not count on strength so much as technique. Also the techniques taught must follow "use of force" guidelines that apply to LEO's.
Pax
Cujo
That's certainly a specific style to train the practitioners for a specific type of encounter. You're suggesting though that it's more of a style than an art, so can I ask...

Does all this mean we're finished with genuinely NEW martial arts to be added to the long list beside Aikido thru Muay Thai to Wing Chun? Or is there still scope for something new to come along that is genuinely unique and not just an amalgam of what's out there already?

I'd like to believe so - and look forward to eventually seeing it but the new fighting systems I'm observing currently seem to be nothing more than vehicles for instructors' dojo-marketing and egotism [with a few notable exceptions]. Maybe they work and likely the have merit but I'd welcome something more unique rather than mere rehashes...

Respects!

Cujo

02-10-2006, 05:21 AM

I also would like to think that we may one day see a truly "new" martial art. Until then We will have to deal with frauds and variations of "old" systems, (not that there is anything wrong with them). I try not to be to judgemental, I find value in most martial arts, it just depends upon the application of the martial artist.
Pax
Cujo :asian:

Jesse

02-10-2006, 07:43 AM

Sorry I kinda skimmed through this thread quickly this might be already said...

I was talking to my instructor a while ago and asked him what the difference is between a first degree black belt compared to a higher degree like 6 or whatever. By that time you should know almost everything. He said he learns alot by just standing back and watching us newbies on the mat. Since everyone reacts alittle differently in different situations there are always different combonations that can be applied if its not a specifc kata type of MA.

I know that even when I'm with my Euke I sometimes have to improvise depending on how things are going.

So there is always going to be a slight variance in styles and just like evolution over time, these small variations can end up changing the overall picture the other way.
Now that every joe-smo is opening up their own dojo's each one of them have changed their skill alittle so that it differs from the guy down the street.

TheBattousai

02-10-2006, 09:33 AM

I also would like to think that we may one day see a truly "new" martial art.

I think (cujo, MartialIntent, and others), that the closes thing to something new is something that has been lost and then rediscovered by accident. I think as far as most physical techniques go, they've all been preserved and done (although I wish the scalping kick survived...), but all they will most likely do is like what everyone as been saying; rearrange things and somewhat (atleast try) to change how its tought and thats it.

kroh

02-10-2006, 09:35 AM

New styles are rare. They come about only after there has been some form of evolution in fighting. What many of us are calling styles are nothing more than branches of a family tree. The Biggest tree in the US is probably Kempo/Kenpo. I have seen Kenpo schools go by many different names and still be considered as part of the same tree.

A style is something that is defined by a set of characteristics. If you simply add one or two things to the mix you are not creating a new style. You are creating a branch or a new "approach" to the old material. The thing to consider is when the material no longer reflects the main line of transmission. By example, Hironori Ohtsuka had studdied Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu and Karate-do with some of the most prominent exponents of the systems. He then reconciled to create his own system by altering the method by which his Karate-do was used. Instead of going force against force he applied a yoshin ryu mindset and training methods to the techniques. His new style encorporated a new way of doing the old system. It was no longer "standard" Karate-do but it wasn't jujutsu either. By departing along a similar idea but totally changing the training method and manner of application would indicate a new style.

If you were to look at the number of schools that popped up during the late 1800's early nineteen hundreds in Japan...Every one seemed to have their own style of martial arts. There were hundreds of styles that popped up claiming to teach this or that (Hey ...all those laid off samurai had to do something to pass the time). In addition...most of them evaporated because of poor quality and lack of interest. The cream of the crop remain. The same is true about MA's in the Philipines. Hundreds of styles. Many families have their own that they only show to the family.

The best way to think about it is it is nothing more than some one trying to put a name brand on something. You have the major brands of anything (Shotokan Karate-do, Shao-Lin Quan Fa, Sambo, Etc, Etc, )and then you will have the off shoots and whatever. It is nothing more than publicity and branding (advertising).

If we ignore it long enough it will just go away.

Regards,
Walt

The Boar Man

02-10-2006, 11:19 AM

I'd be interested in any opinions

At what point do you see a style as merely an instructors interpretation of his or her art, at what point does it become an offshoot / mutation / separate categorization within the art and at what point does a style become a reinterpretation creating a totally new martial art?

Respects!

MartialIntent
good post and idea for a thread

I think the instructor's intention (or belief system) is what starts the process of whether his or her art is an off shoot, mutation, or a seperate categorization within the art, it starts down a path to becoming a totally new art.

Kroh's example of Hironori Ohtsuka (the founder of Wado ryu) creating a new method of karate by blending the concepts learned in both jujitsu and karate is a different art than Shotokan. Although they have similar roots (Shotokan) they are different.

Funokoshi created Shotokan by blending the teachings and forms from a couple of his instructors. Over time it changed even more by making it more Japanese (so to speak) than the method that he learned it by.

Ushebia (sorry if I spelled his name wrong) sensei founding of Aikido is another example. He studied Aikijujitsu, spear, the sword, and then had a religious awakening on a mountian top and created a system that held to his new found belief system.

Mas Oyama system of Kyokoshinkia is another example. He studied a system of karate, ledgend has it went to a mountian top trained came back and started teaching his method of karate. With the emphasis on condtioning and developing the fighting spirit being paramount.

I look at mutations as being something like Americanized TKD. In that we take some forms (keep the names that we can't pronounce right :idunno: ), try and keep some basics (again names we can't pronounce), some protocol, and try and pass it off like we are studying true TKD. Then we blend in things from other arts for self defense etc. etc.

Offshoots are different in that if the school decides then to change or drop certain katas/forms (make them more pleasing for competion, or take them away entirely), and they are still trying to hold onto the mystique of being say "Americanized TKD". Or they add in say grappling as part of their system or weapons whatever I tend to look at these as off shoots.

Interpertations of a system might be what this instructor thinks the emphasis should be and how than he teaches it but keeping it within a certain structure that is bigger than himself.

I mean no disrespect here towards any art or system, I'm just giving an example of what I believe the question that MartialIntent asked and throwing it out there for part of the discussion.

Mark

kroh

02-10-2006, 01:13 PM

Another point to bring up is whether or not what you are seeing is a new system or not. Some one might decide to leave a certain organization for one reason or another and in order to put space between one branch of the family tree and another, they rename what they are doing. This seems to be prevalent in the Kenpo community here is the States. Some one gets mad at someone, has a flash of insight, or heard God speaking through his cocker-spaniel (no Tengu in the USA) and decides to break from the family and start their own lineage. In this case the art remains pretty much untouched and just becomes "new" in name only.

In Japanese Martial arts, they will sometimes call these "Sign Changes," Branches to reflect that the art is fundimentally the same but the founder of the branch wanted to take his part in the lineage away from the main. One famous example of this is a branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu, called the Takamura Ha (branch) headed by Toby Threadgill. If I remember correctly they still have ties to the main-line in Japan even though they are a seperate entity.

In this day and age there is really no need for a new system of melee combat. There is more than enough instruction and the old methods work just fine. The only thing I would see as needing its own system is if people started fighting in zero gravity ( don't laugh...you know some kook is bound to say he is ahead of his time and trying to develop this...Any one see the Space alien Martial Art yet?).

In the United States the popular trend seems to be a push toward modular martial systems gaining popularity such as JKD, Systema & CQC/RBSD (Hochheim, Wagner). It is a great concept to have a fighting method that can use "plug and play" manuvers and tactics/techniques without haveing to create a whole system. In the Asian arts, systems become fixed and become almost living treasures. To add or subtract something "changes the art." In the American mode of thinking, we tend to quote Mr Lee. Strip what doesn't work and encorporate what does, and be sure to add what is uniquely your own. Look at MMAP. Great program with a lot of potential (Still not sold on the ARMY Program yet...But I am not too convinced I like their approach).

In the next few years here are some systems i bet you will see...

*Japanese/Filipino Hybrids like Vee Arnis Jutsu
*JKD/Filipino Hyrbids
*MMA systems that come back from the sport arena and get more self-defensy
*Military and RBSD systems from a slew of instructors looking to capitalize on the (Big word crossing) geo-political climate.
*Western Martial Systems that try and recover the fighting arts of midievil Europe.

So what happens when a person learns several different martial arts and teaches them under the same roof? Should they be combined into a new whole (if they mesh together) or should they be seperate?

Regards,
Walt

MartialIntent

02-10-2006, 06:35 PM

Interpertations of a system might be what this instructor thinks the emphasis should be and how than he teaches it but keeping it within a certain structure that is bigger than himself.
Mark
Mark - this I have no problem whatsoever with - if an instructor shifts emphasis according to what his students want or to serve the community he or she is a part of, then I'd see that as adaptability - which as martial artists I think is one of our strongest attributes.

I'll give an example to the contrary to illustrate my gripes! Recently I attended a prelim session of an instructor - it being his intention to get something new going and to ascertain interest. This guy had backing, more than enough enthusiasm and belief in what he was embarking upon and a slick presentation - and what was it? Another self-defense program. Again, I have absolutely no problem with that but from hearing him speak and talking to him afterwards, it seems he had some knifework [Sayoc on the FMA side and some Pencak Silat] and bits and pieces of various Okinawan Karate styles - I'm sure he even mentioned western boxing at some stage. Quite a portfolio. All these he was confident he could meld into a coherent, street-clever form.

To me, it just gave the impression of something that was gonna come off half-assed and would further dilute what are the original, well-formed and tightly evolved arts that we love into a mismatched and awkward system that wouldn't be adding anything to the martial knowledge we have already.

Incidentally, I'm not deriding MMA's either since those arts are claiming nothing other than being "mixed" - which is open and honest about where they're coming from and what they're doing - and good luck to them.

Kroh - excellent points too... Not sure about the zero gravity arts [though it's probably only a matter of time!] but i'm wondering about a future incorporating firearms into the arts for example? Just a thought...

Respects!

Flying Crane

02-10-2006, 06:57 PM

bits and pieces of various Okinawan Karate styles - I'm sure he even mentioned western boxing at some stage. Quite a portfolio. All these he was confident he could meld into a coherent, street-clever form.

To me, it just gave the impression of something that was gonna come off half-assed and would further dilute what are the original, well-formed and tightly evolved arts that we love into a mismatched and awkward system that wouldn't be adding anything to the martial knowledge we have already.

I would go further than this and say that if one is careless about what they mix and match, it all becomes worthless.

The reason is this: a martial art usually has a certain approach to how it applies its techniques, and how it generates power. These can be vastly different from one art to another. If the basics of the art are not strong, then the power and application will also be weak. If you have strong background in one art, then mix pieces from a different art that has a different fundamental approach, your new pieces simply won't work because you aren't applying them onto the right kind of base.

Example: Wing Chun and Tibetan White Crane are about as polar opposites as they come. If you are a stong Wing Chun guy, but want to add some of the long-range White Crane stuff, but you try to do it in a Wing Chun way, it will be useless. Crane power is generated in a completely different manner, and the delivery of the techniques is done in a completely different manner. Throwing White Crane punches from a Wing Chun base would be a joke.

Taking this to the extreme, what if NONE of the pieces you decide to mix together are well grounded. You don't have a strong base to work from in any of it, and it will all be screwed up and useless.

I think that sometimes a person thoroughly studies several arts and then combines them into a "new" art. This person may be in fact very very good. But I believe he is good because he studied each art thoroughly before combining them.

When he starts to teach his students his "new" art, often they end up lousy. This is because after the pieces get mixed up and much of the original stuff is thrown away, the new art does not build the foundations of the different components the way studying them individually does. The founder of a new art may be very skilled, but often the next generations in that new art get worse and worse.

kroh

02-10-2006, 08:51 PM

When he starts to teach his students his "new" art, often they end up lousy. This is because after the pieces get mixed up and much of the original stuff is thrown away, the new art does not build the foundations of the different components the way studying them individually does. The founder of a new art may be very skilled, but often the next generations in that new art get worse and worse.

Very well put. And this is often what we see when these things get put together. Just a hodge podge of the most effective techniques with no firm foundation to build upon.

Certain examples of when two seperate forms are put together for a strong whole exist in the SE Asian martial art of Kuntao. Kuntao occours when Chinese settlers bring their martial arts with them to a new place. Once a little time goes by, the art may encorporate some of the fighting aspects of the new region but it still retains its fighting essence. For example, Kuntao that started off with Wing Chun as a base still closely resmbles wing chun. These martial arts occour when some one who knows one of these systems spends significant ammounts of time in their new home. After decades go by, the new enviornment flavors the orginal gradually. Allowing for trial and error defines what works within the original framework and what doesn't . There are Kuntao expressions that contain, Wing Chun, Southern Quan Fa, Choy Li Fut, Ba Gua Zhang and even some Pa Qua. These work well within the indigeonous fighting methods of the Philipines, Malaysia, Indonesia and other SE Asian countries. Kuntao expressions are even forming in the US as some chinese and in some cases Japanese (Vee Kuntao, Vee Arnis Jutsu) arts are blended into the arts of the Philipines. These Blends usually take decades to work out. People run into trouble (ineffective garbage with no real fighting ability) when they just through something into something else before they really have the training to understand it. In one of his articles, Adam Hsu commented on Kung Fu he encountered in South East China and places like Indonesia or Malaysia. Many times they called it Kuntao (southern Chinese for Fist Method {Quan Fa}) but he said it had nothing in common with real Kung Fu. These were the systems probably hacked and cobbled together instead of crafting them.

These cut and paste systems will have their shot. Most likely they will come up wanting. Time will show what new fusion form will stand the test and keep going.

Regards,
Walt

Flying Crane

02-10-2006, 09:37 PM

Very well put. And this is often what we see when these things get put together. Just a hodge podge of the most effective techniques with no firm foundation to build upon.

Certain examples of when two seperate forms are put together for a strong whole exist in the SE Asian martial art of Kuntao. Kuntao occours when Chinese settlers bring their martial arts with them to a new place. Once a little time goes by, the art may encorporate some of the fighting aspects of the new region but it still retains its fighting essence. For example, Kuntao that started off with Wing Chun as a base still closely resmbles wing chun. These martial arts occour when some one who knows one of these systems spends significant ammounts of time in their new home. After decades go by, the new enviornment flavors the orginal gradually. Allowing for trial and error defines what works within the original framework and what doesn't . There are Kuntao expressions that contain, Wing Chun, Southern Quan Fa, Choy Li Fut, Ba Gua Zhang and even some Pa Qua. These work well within the indigeonous fighting methods of the Philipines, Malaysia, Indonesia and other SE Asian countries. Kuntao expressions are even forming in the US as some chinese and in some cases Japanese (Vee Kuntao, Vee Arnis Jutsu) arts are blended into the arts of the Philipines. These Blends usually take decades to work out. People run into trouble (ineffective garbage with no real fighting ability) when they just through something into something else before they really have the training to understand it. In one of his articles, Adam Hsu commented on Kung Fu he encountered in South East China and places like Indonesia or Malaysia. Many times they called it Kuntao (southern Chinese for Fist Method {Quan Fa}) but he said it had nothing in common with real Kung Fu. These were the systems probably hacked and cobbled together instead of crafting them.

These cut and paste systems will have their shot. Most likely they will come up wanting. Time will show what new fusion form will stand the test and keep going.

Regards,
Walt

very interesting. thanks for the info.

MartialIntent

02-11-2006, 05:52 AM

I think that sometimes a person thoroughly studies several arts and then combines them into a "new" art. This person may be in fact very very good. But I believe he is good because he studied each art thoroughly before combining them.

Agree wholeheartedly. So I'm wondering what breadth of martial understanding a practitioner would need to establish something that's really not been seen or done before?? S'pose we'll have to wait and see...

Kroh - agree with Flying Crane - great information for reference!

You guys have got a high level of martial knowledge. Thanks to all for your input!

Respects!

The Boar Man

02-11-2006, 01:03 PM

1) Another point to bring up is whether or not what you are seeing is a new system or not. Some one might decide to leave a certain organization for one reason or another and in order to put space between one branch of the family tree and another, they rename what they are doing. This seems to be prevalent in the Kenpo community here is the States. Some one gets mad at someone, has a flash of insight, or heard God speaking through his cocker-spaniel (no Tengu in the USA) and decides to break from the family and start their own lineage. In this case the art remains pretty much untouched and just becomes "new" in name only.

2) In this day and age there is really no need for a new system of melee combat. There is more than enough instruction and the old methods work just fine. The only thing I would see as needing its own system is if people started fighting in zero gravity ( don't laugh...you know some kook is bound to say he is ahead of his time and trying to develop this...Any one see the Space alien Martial Art yet?).

3) In the United States the popular trend seems to be a push toward modular martial systems gaining popularity such as JKD, Systema & CQC/RBSD (Hochheim, Wagner). It is a great concept to have a fighting method that can use "plug and play" manuvers and tactics/techniques without haveing to create a whole system. In the Asian arts, systems become fixed and become almost living treasures. To add or subtract something "changes the art." In the American mode of thinking, we tend to quote Mr Lee. Strip what doesn't work and encorporate what does, and be sure to add what is uniquely your own. Look at MMAP. Great program with a lot of potential (Still not sold on the ARMY Program yet...But I am not too convinced I like their approach).

4) So what happens when a person learns several different martial arts and teaches them under the same roof? Should they be combined into a new whole (if they mesh together) or should they be seperate?

Regards,
Walt

Walt
1) I agree here often times it's not new just repackaged. Which is diferent from say the examples given about Wado ryu, Shotokan, Aikido where the instructor took different principles and blended them into a structure and created something new that was different from what they had learned in the begining.

2) I tend to disagree here. I think there is a need to learn mass attack (melee) type tatics and some arts are developing to do that. But the market is very small for this type of instruction.

3) I agree with you here. In my previopus post I wrote

"I think the instructor's intention (or belief system) is what starts the process of whether his or her art is an off shoot, mutation, or a seperate categorization within the art, it starts down a path to becoming a totally new art."

because as you wrote in the Japanese systems the art can become a living treasure. If the instructor doesn't see the art bigger than themselves then they will be more apt to change things. Whereas if the art is more important than themselves they will change and adapt to the art. Different mindset.

4) In regards to teaching different arts under one roof, I believe they can be taught seperately if they are in different classes and with different rank requirements etc. etc. Likewsie I believe they could also be combined. Again it depends upon the instructor and his intent and how he sees himself in the martial arts. His beliefs and outlooks.

Mark

The Boar Man

02-11-2006, 01:19 PM

Mark - this I have no problem whatsoever with - if an instructor shifts emphasis according to what his students want or to serve the community he or she is a part of, then I'd see that as adaptability - which as martial artists I think is one of our strongest attributes.

I'll give an example to the contrary to illustrate my gripes! Recently I attended a prelim session of an instructor - it being his intention to get something new going and to ascertain interest. This guy had backing, more than enough enthusiasm and belief in what he was embarking upon and a slick presentation - and what was it? Another self-defense program. Again, I have absolutely no problem with that but from hearing him speak and talking to him afterwards, it seems he had some knifework [Sayoc on the FMA side and some Pencak Silat] and bits and pieces of various Okinawan Karate styles - I'm sure he even mentioned western boxing at some stage. Quite a portfolio. All these he was confident he could meld into a coherent, street-clever form.

To me, it just gave the impression of something that was gonna come off half-assed and would further dilute what are the original, well-formed and tightly evolved arts that we love into a mismatched and awkward system that wouldn't be adding anything to the martial knowledge we have already.

Incidentally, I'm not deriding MMA's either since those arts are claiming nothing other than being "mixed" - which is open and honest about where they're coming from and what they're doing - and good luck to them.

Kroh - excellent points too... Not sure about the zero gravity arts [though it's probably only a matter of time!] but i'm wondering about a future incorporating firearms into the arts for example? Just a thought...

Respects!

MartialIntent

I have no problem with Instructors adapting to the community, emerging markets or even what the public wants. However there are pitfalls. In the Japanese systems where the individual changes to fit the martial system and the training is devloped around that structure and with that goal in mind than we shouldn't adapt to the changing market place. However if we have a different goal in mind such as say teaching self defense etc. etc. than we need to teach with that goal being first and the system second.

Your example of your gripe is one that I share as well. Over the years I have seen several where people blend different arts, even studied some. You need to have a good foundation in a system(s) before you start mixing and matching stuff and you are right it tends to create a awkward system.

About incorperating firearms. Again what is the intent? Is your art for self protection or to pass down a treasure? If it's to pass down a treasure than unless it was included it shouldn't be added. If it's for self protection than include it. Several system out there are now including firearm training. Hock Hochheim I know is one.

Mark

The Boar Man

02-11-2006, 01:35 PM

Agree wholeheartedly. So I'm wondering what breadth of martial understanding a practitioner would need to establish something that's really not been seen or done before?? S'pose we'll have to wait and see...

Respects!

MartialIntent

Everything has been done before it's just we are seeing things done in a different way.

For instance some of the disarms and such in the filipino martial arts (that people swear you can not do) are all so found in 16-18th century sword manuals. Our military studies the stratagies for previous generals over the last 1000 or so years etc. etc. Disarms that can be done with pistols are wrist locks in empty hand, sticks strikes can be translated to bayonet or rifle techniques. Even basic foot movements to get into a forward stance for practicing basics can be translated in takedown and off balancing moves.

So barring us devloping a new system to fight off aliens, or us fighitng in zero gravity I really don't think there will be new under the sun. Just new ways of doing or looking at techniqes that we haven't seen yet.

Mark

Xue Sheng

02-11-2006, 01:45 PM

I think that sometimes a person thoroughly studies several arts and then combines them into a "new" art. This person may be in fact very very good. But I believe he is good because he studied each art thoroughly before combining them.

New Arts that did this.

Sun Style Tai Chi - Sun Lu Tang combined Tai Chi, Bagua and Xingyi

Jeet Kune Do - Bruce Lee combined Wing Chun and several other fighting styles

I agree, one must be leery of a "New Martial Art" but if the founder has legitimately studied the arts he or she is combining and has a good understanding of these styles, you can end up with something very good.

But you still could end up with something very bad as well.

MartialIntent

02-11-2006, 04:19 PM

MartialIntent
Everything has been done before it's just we are seeing things done in a different way.
Mark
I was thinking about that and though odds are that you may be right, I have to say, I'd be somewhat saddened if that were the eventual truth. I agree that there are obvious physical limitations on us which certainly implies that if it hasn't been done already then it never will but I remain optimistic!

I'm all for upholding the values and teachings of our martial heritages under which most of us have been tutored - these are systems that have been hewn out of the hard rock of experience, some over many decades if not centuries, but I'd also hate to think that in fifty years from now if we're spared, we'll have become nothing but a collective group of eccentrics practising arts and following martial traditions that are archaic and obsolete in the face of not only modern weaponry but modern [dangerous] society.

I suppose I'd like to see an evolution in our arts that bring them more into step with what's happening in the wider world. By that however I mean NOT selling out for a fistful of denaro and claiming to be the latest, greatest "fighting system" that's nothing more than a messy stew of martial offcuts, but rather incorporating the knowledge we have [and a look around even this forum gives an indication of how broad and extensive that knowledge really is!] and the values and martial traditions we all uphold and working it around what's really going on outside our dojo doors.

What say ye??

Respects!

kroh

02-11-2006, 08:13 PM

I suppose I'd like to see an evolution in our arts that bring them more into step with what's happening in the wider world. By that however I mean NOT selling out for a fistful of denaro and claiming to be the latest, greatest "fighting system" that's nothing more than a messy stew of martial offcuts, but rather incorporating the knowledge we have [and a look around even this forum gives an indication of how broad and extensive that knowledge really is!] and the values and martial traditions we all uphold and working it around what's really going on outside our dojo doors.

What say ye??

Respects!

There has been a lot going on in certain circles of the martial arts world concerning adapting to modern times. Many things such as adapting to attacks that are not long sword attacks without the sword or going away from stances that come from systems in swampy areas (as many of us now live in cities) are where some of the systems are going. It is good to keep some of the older systems alive as they give us a link to our past. It is also good to forge ahead and evolve what we have so that they keep with our modern times.

A great example of this is Systema. It is a martial art where the majority of the moves are based on old Russian swordsmanship. It is a very dynamic martial system that resembles Aikido in a lot of ways. It does not however neglect the present or the future. It has cirriculum for knife, gun, staff (or mounted bayonet) (http://www.aikidojournal.com/download_media.php?media=video&id=102) (http://www.aikidojournal.com/download_media.php?media=video&id=98). Definately good stuff. T

There are systems out there that are evolving. They are loosing the Japanese undergarments (which is really all that white uniform is) and some of them are getting away from silky shiny shirts (some army units in China are training there troops in Hsing-I Quan and I can say with some certainty that they would not be using those button up shirts or shiny silks to train in). Filipino martial arts have always had an eye in the present as they were used in the last century to fight off the Japanese from their home. Some arts are content to be preservationists and some are not. But even some of the preservationists are getting it. James Williams has a system called the "System of Strategy" which is based of his Nami Ryu aikijustu and Systema. It supposedly is all the good things of those systems and devoid of their doctrines and accoutrements.

It's all good...
Regards,
Walt