After reading a few nightmare threads on this forum, specifically here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71727) and here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66159), I'm often left shaking my head, wondering why...why do people feel that its necessary to create their own art? I mean, are they really showing us anything new? Have these people gained some insight into an art, that most likely they have only studied from a book or dvd? I mean, we have, for example, 3 X-Kan arts, the Bujinkan, Genbukan, and Jinenkan, all of which are run by gentlemen whos experience most likely is greater than the average Joe, yet the average Joe decides that they know enough about Ninjutsu, to go out and form something 'new.'

Sure, now if we study TKD, Kenpo or BJJ, we may, when teaching, interpret something different than the next instructor, but for someone to run out and create their own, 'new' version of TKD or Kenpo???? I would highly doubt that anything would be new. IMO, most of the 'new' stuff that we see, is really old stuff, just repackaged with a fancy new name to it.

So, with all of the systems out there, put together by some amazing men, why do people find it necessary to create something and call it new, when there are more legit arts out there and so much material to learn? I've been doing Kenpo for a little over 20yrs now, and I'm still discovering things. I wouldn't dream of slapping on 7 more stripes onto my belt, and starting some new and improved version of Kenpo. Sorry, the version that I'm doing suits me just fine. :)

My favorites are the guys who claim high ranks in arts no one can find reference to (except maybe in an obscure tv show), and use that as the basis for their own "art".

why do people feel that its necessary to create their own art?

Because they don't want to crosstrain? ;)

Ego Gratification. Pure and simple.

I seriously think some people come to a point where they feel the coach or teacher they have can't teach them anything more or anything else. They either move on or become stagnant.

People also tire of lengthy analysis, segmentation, all the tiny aspects of executing moves well and feel justified in "simplifying" things - or feel their way of compartmentalizing arts and organizing their training would work better for everyone.

Some folks don't like to believe that there is value in some "traditional" training - that of humility, respect, heirarchy, manners, protocol, basic drills, technique dissection, repetition, beginning training with compliant partners and graduating up to resistant partners, etcetera.

Immediate gratification has replaced ethic and investment and everyone wants a piece of the action.

Pay attention, MTers ... we are the way of the past ... unless you do something about it.

This happens on many levels, some more obscure than others.

Case 1
In the case where Mr. Kung Fu decides that without any previous training, he want to be a ninja, well, we all know where that leads.

Case 2
So-and-so has studied 5 different arts, 4 years a piece, and decides to meld them into his own thing. OK...but buyer beware.

Case 3
Mr. Menkyo has paper in an established system and decides to teach things differently than his teacher. He keeps the same system name, but yet the appearance of that system is changes as compared to its predecessors. On paper, it is still the same art, but to the practitioners of other branches, it is Mr. Menkyo's style.

The claim that it's "never before seen" is a stretch of course, but everyone's got a right to do what works for them. Could all 3 be considered a result of ego, yes, and still some are still accepted over others.

Because they don't want to crosstrain? ;)

Exactly! :) Or they've reached a point in their training when they feel they've learned enough, so they run out, thinking that they know it all, and start something new. Oh well.

Ego Gratification. Pure and simple.

Good points. Of course I have to wonder how it effects their ego, when they tell everyone about their new improved art, and everyone gives a reply totally opposite of what they expected.

Sometimes I think about creating my own art and making lots of money. But I don't want to rob people and destroy peoples belief and confidence in me.

I spoke in another thread about creating a Bagua circle walking aerobics.


This is a complete fabrication to show how people create styles


Tomoharu Kaneko who was the 6th soke of Togakure ryu ninjutsu passed his teachings not only to Ryuho Tokagure but also to his son and thru the generations it came into the hands of Mrs. Kaneko of Saitama,Japan. Mrs. Kaneko recieved oral transmission(kuden) from her father and carries the Kaneko family crest (kamon) showing proof of her family ties to Tomoharu. With her husband they created Kaneko ryu. Kaneko ryu which stems from Togakure ryu Ninpo also adds elements of the ancient art Hakkesho(Baguazhang) and the family art of Kaneko style Ikebana,Shodo and Taiso Okonomiyaki. -Fabrication created by me to show the point of how people make up history.

To the average person they would fall for my made up style and if I played around a bit making it sound a little bit better. Thats one way to make up a style. The other is the egocentric idea that you are some how this genius who some how is better than the rest of proven history combat and create your own style. Then its not good enough to just create it but to market it and tell everyone else about it. A person with this much ego could not possibly have spent enough time learning the basics of any combat art.

Some people don't have the discipline or patience to stick with a style long enough to get a full understanding, they go from style to style, spend a year or two, or even get a black belt, and then move on to the next one. Sooner or later they run out of styles to try, and they have "experience" in so many that they just start their own.

there are people who have created new arts for good reasons--Jigaro Kano comes to mind--but in many cases I think it's mostly ego. Your personal emphasis within your style may not need its own name.

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?

Everything that we do today was "created" or otherwise established by someone, once upon a time. Some of those people took a lot of flak for it, but persevered and now their system is accepted and respected. Others, not so much.

So everyone here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that nobody is "qualified" (I'm not sure exactly how to even determine that) to create a new or re-packaged or personalized version of an art. But it has certainly been done.

So, who gets to do it, and why?

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?

Everything that we do today was "created" or otherwise established by someone, once upon a time. Some of those people took a lot of flak for it, but persevered and now their system is accepted and respected. Others, not so much.

So everyone here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that nobody is "qualified" (I'm not sure exactly how to even determine that) to create a new or re-packaged or personalized version of an art. But it has certainly been done.

So, who gets to do it, and why?

IMO I think there are merits to "doing your own thing" on occasion, and I think there are times when it shouldnt be done.

a 4th-5th degree blackbelt in a style, who, over the course of his training realizes the way things are being taught are not working. He can see HOW they would work, because he has the mat time and experience. He goes to his teacher. His teacher says "Absoluley not, do it my way". Its not a bad art, but for whatever His way may have been modified to molycoddle, perhaps for children, or to prevent litigation, or to bring in more cashflow, but the combative element is "dumbed down". Our afformentioned Blackbelt says "Sorry, I cannot teach for you anymore" and opens his own school, with a generic name. "Karate" "Martial Arts" "Fighting Concepts" whatever... I think this is an acceptable circumstance. You have an experienced practitioner, who disagrees with the way things are run where he is, he takes his experience someplace else, and does what he does.

If he decided to call it "Myname Ryu NinjItsu" or "Such and Such Temple Kung Fu Monkey Style" I think there might be a problem.

Now, on the flipside. You get a guy who does a year of BJJ. A few months of boxing. Maybe a class here and there in some basic TMAs. Wraps it all up, calls it "Combaitve Shaolin Kung Fu" and claims he learned it from a renegade monk who fled his temple. Uh huh.

The first guy gets to do it. He has legitimate training, a legitimate reason for doing what he does, and no Illigitimate background.

Guy two does not, because he lacks experience, knowledge, and he made up a fraudulent name and background. MAYBE he could get away with doing it and calling it MMA, but I also wonder how serious he would be taken in MMA circles with that limited amount of training, unless he could win some serious fights.

There are right ways and wrong ways.

A right way? Just as a specific example, someone with a good amount of experience decides to modify that which he has already learned, and starts a new organization. Or, the same guy might infuse elements of other martial arts into it. This all assumes, though, that this guy is highly experienced, and can back up what he says.

The founder of the system in which I currently train, was a practitioner of Wado Ryu, under Ohtsuka Hironori. He decided to infuse (or more precisely, back-infuse) a large amount of the teachings from Shotokan Karate. He does not call his system Wado Ryu, since it's not what Ohtsuka Shihan had taught to him originally.

Instead, his system is named after him, and thriving quite nicely, with many excellent practitioners in the system. It's a solid system, having combined two excellent Karate systems into one, being able to reap benefits from both.

Is it superior to Shotokan or Wado Ryu? I can't, and won't answer that, since it's really more of a matter of the individual as well as the teacher. I can, however, say that students who train hard in our system, can do just as well as the students who train hard in Shotokan or Wado Ryu (or Goju Ryu, Shito Ryu, etc).

Robert Trias also did this with several systems in which he had trained, forming his own art. Given that the Shuri Ryu system is thriving quite nicely, with many excellent practitioners, I'd have to say that he did things right. If you look at the chief instructors of the style that he appointed (Trias-Kelley, Pachivas, Bowles, Abele, Awad, Benson, Rabino), and what they've all accomplished, then it's pretty hard to disagree with the solidity of the system.



As for doing things the wrong way? I don't have all year to list the ways, but one sure way to perk up the ears of the naysayers, is to claim that your system is a particular type of martial art, yet you have no real, live training, experience whatsoever in it.

For example, all of my empty hand training has been in either Karate or Tae Kwon Do, with just a really small dabbling of Ju Jutsu in it. If I were to make my own system, and call it "Mxyzptlk Joo Jietsoo," I'd be opening up a large can of poisonous worms, since I have nothing more than a beginner's experience in Ju Jutsu. Or, if I were to call it "Mxyzptlk Kug Fooo," it would be even more silly, since I have no formal training in Gung Fu.

If, on the other hand, I tried to start my own system of Mxyzptlk Karate, and infuse a good bit of Tae Kwon Do into the Karate teachings, it would still be rather questionable, since my highest ranking is 3rd dan, but at least I'd have a much more sure footing on which to stand, than the previous two examples.

Just don't say "Mxyzptlk" backwards...

Thanks for the thoughts, Cryo, I find a lot to agree with there.

What seems clear to me about this whole thing is that the lines are actually very blurred and it's tough to say with any real finality where the qualifications lie or not. I think there are a lot of different gradations of "making your own new style" and they are not all the same.

For example: say someone has a lot of experience with an art like kenpo. I'll sort of ignore the issue of rank because that's often another whole can of worms. But let's say he has 15 or 20 or 25 years in the art and is reasonably accomplished. Along with this, he's got 10 years in some kung fu system, and 8 years in judo. Maybe kenpo remains his "primary" art, but his training in kung fu and judo was also very serious, he wasn't just a dabbler. Now he sort of brings elements of his kung fu and judo into his kenpo. Doesn't really repackage it, but practices/teaches some of the kung fu forms because he likes what it adds to his kenpo curriculum, and maybe experiments with throws and takedowns and pins from judo, worked off of kenpo self defense techniques. His practice, and how he teaches (IF he teaches) is simply the result of his training in different arts.

Maybe he gives his art a new name, something mystical sounding with "kenpo" on the end. Or maybe it's "Henry's kenpo method". Or maybe he just calls it "kenpo", but it's HIS way of doing kenpo, while acknowledging the influence of kung fu and judo. Or maybe he likes to practice in tabi shoes and gets crazy and calls it "Shaolin Kenpo Kodokan Ninja Methods".

This guy could be really really good, and his methods a very functional and complete synthesis that makes a lot of sense. Does it merit a new name, with him as Grandmaster? Should it just remain a conglomeration of the various arts he studied, without a new name and new legacy? At what point does it merit a new legacy?

I think there's a difference between someone of little experience pretending to be a grandmaster, and someone of tremendous experience branching off into his own direction.

I think there's also a difference between just adding your own spin to what you practice, making it your own personal "flavor" if you will, versus pretending that it's an entirely new system. I think everyone ultimately adds their own flavor to their art, and this is influenced by any other arts that they have trained in. Everything you learn will influence everything you learn.

And I think theres a lot of room in between in the continuum of these extremes.

Anyway, just kind of thinking out loud here...

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?

Good points, and I don't know the answer. Time sorts these things out for us, for the most part.

I've heard it said that Shimabuku Tatsuo requested permission from other Okinawan masters to form his own system (Isshin-ryu). In some systems the head will eventually tell senior students it's time for them to go off on their own; Remy Presas did this to some extent with the Datus of Modern Arnis. In some of the FMAs it's almost expected that senior instructors will develop their own (sub)system.

No one can stop a person from starting their own style. It's only respectful to give it a truly different name unless one has permission to do otherwise.

Good points, and I don't know the answer. Time sorts these things out for us, for the most part.


aye, that's really my whole point too.


In some systems the head will eventually tell senior students it's time for them to go off on their own.


Yes, my sifu had a similar experience. He was a student of Wong Jack Man in San Francisco, for 10 years or so. He learned a lot from Sifu Wong, including Shaolin, some Mantis, Lohan, lots of different Chinese arts. Eventually, Sifu Wong just told him, "you are done here, I'm not going to teach you any more, you've got enough. Go teach your own students now" and that was it.

So my sifu did just that. But he never gave any of it a new name. He's just teaching what he learned from sifu Wong, and calling it what it was: Shaolin material, Mantis material, Lohan material, etc. There was no need, probably never even considered the idea, of making up a new name for it all, or pretending that he now has his own system.

I see a lot of sense in this. Most things, even when mixed with other things, can keep their own name. None of it needs to be renamed, nor does there need to be a "new" system established. "I'm just teaching what my sifu taught me, to the best of my ability, and a few other things get into the mix as well" is kind of what it is. I think we have an overdeveloped need to compartmentalize things.

I've heard it said that Shimabuku Tatsuo requested permission from other Okinawan masters to form his own system (Isshin-ryu).

Great point. Master Shimabuku did catch some heat when he decided to do this, but the "elders" respected him for asking and for his skill. In the end it all worked out for him.


In some systems the head will eventually tell senior students it's time for them to go off on their own;



This is how the Yoshukai Karate style came about. O-sensei Chitose instructed one of his top students at the time, Mamoru Yamamoto, to go and start his own style.

I think there's also a difference between just adding your own spin to what you practice, making it your own personal "flavor" if you will, versus pretending that it's an entirely new system. I think everyone ultimately adds their own flavor to their art, and this is influenced by any other arts that they have trained in. Everything you learn will influence everything you learn.

And I think theres a lot of room in between in the continuum of these extremes...

I agree completely, and I don't think going out on your own is always a bad thing. If I can share a few examples from my own experience...

All of my main instructors went off on their own at some point, each for different reasons. The first, a CMA practitioner, claimed to be the youngest and last personal student of the Late Grandmaster Yip Man. He created his own separate branch of Yip Man's art and declared himself Grandmaster. Last I heard, he was up to Great Grandmaster. He has done well promoting his system and has made a good living. His technique is very good and he has produced exceptional students. But most of all, he will be remembered for his world class ego.

The second instructor, an FMA practitioner, was one of the first students of the late Grandmaster Angel Cabales, and also Grandmasters Maximo Sarmiento, Leo Giron, Dentoy Revillar, and others. He went out on his own, started his own very effective system, but some felt that he also implied that everyone else's art, well, er... sucked. He's a nice man, and very skilled... but he has no shortage of , er... confidence.

The two people I train under now also went out on their own, for different reasons. They were each once fellow students (along with me) under the previously listed Grandmasters, respectively.

The first was forced out of the Kung-fu Grandmaster's Association, basically for being ethical. So he started his own Association (but not a new system).

The other individual found that he was being held back by the conceptual narrowness of the FMA Grandmaster's "everyone else sucks" perspective. So he now does his own thing, and very well too. But he's humble about it and credits his previous instructors for what they taught him.

And then there are all too many of those, like our buff, tire-tossing friend who are "legends in their own mind". I have no comment there. I will say that periodically, I sort of make up my own hypothetical "system" for training and teaching. I have found it to be a useful exercise in wrapping my mind around what I've learned over the years. More to the point, I've never been foolish enough to let these notes out of my computer files. They usually end up being deleted pretty quickly! But not before I've worked through some "problems". I guess in our imaginations, we are all wannabe "masters".

My favorites are the guys who claim high ranks in arts no one can find reference to (except maybe in an obscure tv show), and use that as the basis for their own "art".

Well speaking as the grand high omnipotent ruler, imperial poobah, grandmaster, evil wizard and founder of Xuefu I can only say unless you are not of an equivalent level of GRANDMASTERY (to be determined by me) you are simply not worthy to look upon the proof of certification of my greatness because you would likely burst into flames simply by being in the same room with it. now don't make me shout nee...er...aaa I mean Kamehameha because you simply could not handle my immense powers of Qi :D

But if you like I could demonstrate my powers on one of my students who I spent years training how to fall down and look really cool doing it :D

Case 1

In the case where Mr. Kung Fu decides that without any previous training, he want to be a ninja, well, we all know where that leads.

I would be more incline to say Mr Ninja wants to be a Kung Fu master… but… ok…. I will let that one go :D

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?



Everything that we do today was "created" or otherwise established by someone, once upon a time. Some of those people took a lot of flak for it, but persevered and now their system is accepted and respected. Others, not so much.



So everyone here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that nobody is "qualified" (I'm not sure exactly how to even determine that) to create a new or re-packaged or personalized version of an art. But it has certainly been done.



So, who gets to do it, and why?

I really do not have much of a serious nature to add but I do agree with what you are saying. There are legitimate qualified people out there with what they feel is a good idea that is enough of a departure from what they were trained to call it something different. JKD (Bruce Jun Fan Lee [1940-1973]) is not that old after all and neither is Yiquan (Wang Xiangzhai [1885-1963]).

But then there are people like my first sifu that have a rather impressive resume but they are only developing new styles for cash and nothing else. They really do not have the skill to back it up but they sure look mighty impressive.

well speaking as the grand high omnipotent ruler, imperial poobah, grandmaster, evil wizard and founder of xuefu i can only say unless you are not of an equivalent level of grandmastery (to be determined by me) you are simply not worthy to look upon the proof of certification of my greatness because you would likely burst into flames simply by being in the same room with it. Now don't make me shout nee...er...aaa i mean kamehameha because you simply could not handle my immense powers of qi :d

but if you like i could demonstrate my powers on one of my students who i spent years training how to fall down and look really cool doing it :d


i am number two! I am number two! I am number two!

This happens on many levels, some more obscure than others.

Case 1
In the case where Mr. Kung Fu decides that without any previous training, he want to be a ninja, well, we all know where that leads.

Case 2
So-and-so has studied 5 different arts, 4 years a piece, and decides to meld them into his own thing. OK...but buyer beware.

Case 3
Mr. Menkyo has paper in an established system and decides to teach things differently than his teacher. He keeps the same system name, but yet the appearance of that system is changes as compared to its predecessors. On paper, it is still the same art, but to the practitioners of other branches, it is Mr. Menkyo's style.

The claim that it's "never before seen" is a stretch of course, but everyone's got a right to do what works for them. Could all 3 be considered a result of ego, yes, and still some are still accepted over others.
Case 3 is what I consider legitimate development -- even if I don't agree with the person or practice. Staying with Ninjutsu, the Jeninkan and Genbukan are legitimate "descendants" from Takamatsu's teachings. They've gone their own way from Hatsumi, so in that particular sense the validity of the separation is OK. (Maybe more like someone who moves out prior to obtaining a divorce... ;)) Same thing applies to lots of the various karate systems. Or kenpo.

These are the cases where someone is doing their own thing; it may or may not live beyond them. There just ain't gonna be no Ashida Kim, gen II. He's got nothing that'll stand the test of time.

...But then there are people like my first sifu that have a rather impressive resume but they are only developing new styles for cash and nothing else. They really do not have the skill to back it up but they sure look mighty impressive.

Hey, I know one of those. Richard Ryan. He was the brown-sash, senior student at the Wing Chun school I went to in '79. After our instructor closed the school, I heard that this guy went off to California to be the next Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris. I lost track of him for all these years. Then a month or two back he pops up on the cover of Black Belt promoting his "Dynamic Combat Method". The pictures looked impressive and he's got a cool website. He's gotta be making some cash with all that publicity. And you guys wonder why people start their own styles? If sex, money and fame motivate people, looks like he's got at least two out of three hammered down.

...Oh, then there's my old Sihing, Emin. He's got his own "Wing Tzun" thing going on. And I hear he has all three benefits listed above. But, whatever you think of him, he ain't no phony!



BTW if either of these guys reads these comments, I hope they've got a sense of humor or I'm gonna get thrashed like one of ninja-boy's training tires...

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?

Everything that we do today was "created" or otherwise established by someone, once upon a time. Some of those people took a lot of flak for it, but persevered and now their system is accepted and respected. Others, not so much.

So everyone here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that nobody is "qualified" (I'm not sure exactly how to even determine that) to create a new or re-packaged or personalized version of an art. But it has certainly been done.

So, who gets to do it, and why?
Here's my view.

We all create our own styles. We take what works for us within our system, and we use it. We emphasis different areas in our training. I don't move just like me teacher (though there is an essence or character that IS very identifiable), and my teacher isn't a carbon copy of his teacher, either.

Whether that style merits a name or distinction other than "my flavor" of "you-name-it-do" is a question for time and students. If enough students, over enough time, feel that what you've got merits passing on and is distinguished enough -- then it'll happen. If not -- it won't, no matter how many names you give it.

I'm on the fence about the need to make new styles out of old.

But I DO think denying where you come from sucks.

This will never be settled, for one person's innovator is another person's heretic.

I always have a near expulsion experience here when monstrosities like Tai Chih Chih or the Taoist Tai Chi Society are mentioned..... yet I have very much enjoyed working with a fusion art (Water Dragon) created by an Indiana teacher named Ron Weatherford for a couple of years now. Even had him as a house guest here, and hope to again.

There will always be a subjective component for most of us on this issue.

This will never be settled, for one person's innovator is another person's heretic.
There will always be a subjective component for most of us on this issue.

In all honesty, these are likely the truest words that will ever be written on this subject.

As long as someone thinks that they have come up with a new way to punch another guy's lights out, and are able to convince people to pay them to give lessons in that way, we'll continue to have new styles of martial arts.

In other news... water is still wet, the sun is still gonna come up in the morning, and smurfs are still cool.

Mark

P.S. We seriously need a smurf smiley.

I think people make their own art for many different reasons.

Some see just techniques that fit them and their strategy and feel it's totaly effective for everyone. But they have mearly discovered what works for them.

Others, explore, research, and combine elements and, rarely, do come up with something new. This is especialy true with modern science and the study of the human physiological and psychological makeup. Things do progress.

And still others are just full of themselves (and that's the majority of them.)

Deaf

Until we start having death matches again, the whole style thing will continue to spiral out of control. With the use of the death match you will only need to tell the other guy where you train and not what style you train in.



So are we good with having death matches?

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?

Everything that we do today was "created" or otherwise established by someone, once upon a time. Some of those people took a lot of flak for it, but persevered and now their system is accepted and respected. Others, not so much.

So everyone here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that nobody is "qualified" (I'm not sure exactly how to even determine that) to create a new or re-packaged or personalized version of an art. But it has certainly been done.

So, who gets to do it, and why?

Thanks for the thoughts, Cryo, I find a lot to agree with there.

What seems clear to me about this whole thing is that the lines are actually very blurred and it's tough to say with any real finality where the qualifications lie or not. I think there are a lot of different gradations of "making your own new style" and they are not all the same.

For example: say someone has a lot of experience with an art like kenpo. I'll sort of ignore the issue of rank because that's often another whole can of worms. But let's say he has 15 or 20 or 25 years in the art and is reasonably accomplished. Along with this, he's got 10 years in some kung fu system, and 8 years in judo. Maybe kenpo remains his "primary" art, but his training in kung fu and judo was also very serious, he wasn't just a dabbler. Now he sort of brings elements of his kung fu and judo into his kenpo. Doesn't really repackage it, but practices/teaches some of the kung fu forms because he likes what it adds to his kenpo curriculum, and maybe experiments with throws and takedowns and pins from judo, worked off of kenpo self defense techniques. His practice, and how he teaches (IF he teaches) is simply the result of his training in different arts.

Maybe he gives his art a new name, something mystical sounding with "kenpo" on the end. Or maybe it's "Henry's kenpo method". Or maybe he just calls it "kenpo", but it's HIS way of doing kenpo, while acknowledging the influence of kung fu and judo. Or maybe he likes to practice in tabi shoes and gets crazy and calls it "Shaolin Kenpo Kodokan Ninja Methods".

This guy could be really really good, and his methods a very functional and complete synthesis that makes a lot of sense. Does it merit a new name, with him as Grandmaster? Should it just remain a conglomeration of the various arts he studied, without a new name and new legacy? At what point does it merit a new legacy?

I think there's a difference between someone of little experience pretending to be a grandmaster, and someone of tremendous experience branching off into his own direction.

I think there's also a difference between just adding your own spin to what you practice, making it your own personal "flavor" if you will, versus pretending that it's an entirely new system. I think everyone ultimately adds their own flavor to their art, and this is influenced by any other arts that they have trained in. Everything you learn will influence everything you learn.

And I think theres a lot of room in between in the continuum of these extremes.

Anyway, just kind of thinking out loud here...

Seeing that we both do Kenpo, I'll use that as an example. I'm sure when Ed Parker learned Kenpo, he made changes. I'm sure when he taught Kenpo to Larry Tatum, Mike Pick, Joe Palanzo and Doc Chapel, they made their own changes. But did any of them run off, create a new name or have little experience? IMO, no. They're all teaching Parker Kenpo, although I'd be willing to bet if you saw each man do a technique, you'd see differences.

IMHO, it seems to me that the majority of people who create something new, are doing so with a short amount of time in. Its rare that these people are willing to talk about past training, rank or time in. Why? Because if they devulged that info. they'd get laughed at even faster than they do when they create their new art.

If someone, such as whom you describe above, wanted to go his own way, I don't see anything wrong with that. As I said, if we look at the guys I mentioned, I think its safe to say they went their own way, as they're probably all teaching differently. But they still call it Kenpo. Its still EPAK.

Last July, I attended a 3 day Arnis Camp. People from all over came. Everyone had their own way of doing things, their own flavor, but in the end, we were all doing Arnis as taught by the late Remy Presas.

Hey, I know one of those. Richard Ryan. He was the brown-sash, senior student at the Wing Chun school I went to in '79. After our instructor closed the school, I heard that this guy went off to California to be the next Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris. I lost track of him for all these years. Then a month or two back he pops up on the cover of Black Belt promoting his "Dynamic Combat Method". The pictures looked impressive and he's got a cool website. He's gotta be making some cash with all that publicity. And you guys wonder why people start their own styles? If sex, money and fame motivate people, looks like he's got at least two out of three hammered down.

...Oh, then there's my old Sihing, Emin. He's got his own "Wing Tzun" thing going on. And I hear he has all three benefits listed above. But, whatever you think of him, he ain't no phony!



BTW if either of these guys reads these comments, I hope they've got a sense of humor or I'm gonna get thrashed like one of ninja-boy's training tires...

You obviously know these guys better than I, but I'll offer my opinion only. Feel free to correct as needed. :)

RBSD: There're many great ideas from guys like Richard Ryan, Sammy Franco, Geoff Thompson, etc. Are they teaching anything new per se, or is the material a more bare bones, effective method of application? Instead of wasting time doing kata and trying to find the hidden techniques, they're working alive drills. Instead of doing a tech. that is stiff, rigid and has 10 moves to it, they're fluid and use the KISS principle.

WC: Is Emin teaching things that are not found in any other WC style, or did he just add his own flavor to it, and call it EBMAS?

Again, I have no issues with either of the men in question. Now, if we go the route that they did create their own style, what seperates them from the other group of people that want to do their own thing? Have these guys proven that what they are doing is the real deal, so we accept that as a legit method? So, anyone that creates their own style, should be accepted, as long as they can prove themselves? So if Ashida Kim offers a put up or shut up challenge and kicks the rear of everyone that says he's a joke, we should accept his method of NinjItsu as the real deal?

Just throwing some questions out for the sake of discussion. Gotta play devils advocate. :) Don't take anything I said as me trying to be an ass. Like I said, I'm just tossing things out for discussion. :)

i think that one of the reasons new styles pop up, aside from those already given, is the suppression of personal creativity that exists in many martial arts. it kind of leads to this idea that if you alter one or two things from how your instructor taught you, it warrants creating a new style.

i think this also might be an extension of the emphasis on lineage many eastern martial arts, where the style was primarily taught within the family or household. this is a major contrast to western arts like boxing in wrestling. in boxing you might be a boxer, slugger, boxer-puncher, runner, or counter fighter. you might use a classic guard, the philly crab, the cross arm, or the peekaboo. but you're still boxing. nobody talks about d'amato-san boxing, or freddy roach fist boxing.

just some thoughts.

jf

After reading a few nightmare threads on this forum, specifically here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71727) and here (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66159), I'm often left shaking my head, wondering why...why do people feel that its necessary to create their own art? I mean, are they really showing us anything new? Have these people gained some insight into an art, that most likely they have only studied from a book or dvd? I mean, we have, for example, 3 X-Kan arts, the Bujinkan, Genbukan, and Jinenkan, all of which are run by gentlemen whos experience most likely is greater than the average Joe, yet the average Joe decides that they know enough about Ninjutsu, to go out and form something 'new.'

Sure, now if we study TKD, Kenpo or BJJ, we may, when teaching, interpret something different than the next instructor, but for someone to run out and create their own, 'new' version of TKD or Kenpo???? I would highly doubt that anything would be new. IMO, most of the 'new' stuff that we see, is really old stuff, just repackaged with a fancy new name to it.

So, with all of the systems out there, put together by some amazing men, why do people find it necessary to create something and call it new, when there are more legit arts out there and so much material to learn? I've been doing Kenpo for a little over 20yrs now, and I'm still discovering things. I wouldn't dream of slapping on 7 more stripes onto my belt, and starting some new and improved version of Kenpo. Sorry, the version that I'm doing suits me just fine. :)


Im creating my own thing. However I don't presume to teach anyone about what im doing. This material is mine, 'all mine' and none of you can have it!

After thinking about it more I think that at the bare bones of 'why' I do my own thing and perhaps why others might (idk), is the fact that 'faith' is good. You have to have faith in what you do for it to work. I dont feel as if I would like to burden my martial content with techniques that i dont have faith in or ones that wont or dont work for me. There is no mysticism involved. Its just what works best for me and what interests me the most.

Here's my view.

We all create our own styles. We take what works for us within our system, and we use it. We emphasis different areas in our training. I don't move just like me teacher (though there is an essence or character that IS very identifiable), and my teacher isn't a carbon copy of his teacher, either.

Whether that style merits a name or distinction other than "my flavor" of "you-name-it-do" is a question for time and students. If enough students, over enough time, feel that what you've got merits passing on and is distinguished enough -- then it'll happen. If not -- it won't, no matter how many names you give it.

I don't think this is creating our own style, it's taking the style we study and making it our own. I teach differently than my instructor, and my peers. We each concentrate on different things, drill different skills, have different stregnths, weaknesses, experiences, and backgrounds, and some of us have added to the curriculum, based on crosstraining in other styles, but we haven't created our own styles. What we have done is put part of ourselves into what we teach, and keep what we do interesting and fun. I think that if you go to different dojo's that teach the same style, you'll see some differences, same art, same style, different instructors. It becomes a different style when someone says, "I can't learn anything more from this style, I think I need to make a change, so I'm going to take what I know, from all the styles I've studied, put it together a little differently, and call it something different."

Case 2
So-and-so has studied 5 different arts, 4 years a piece, and decides to meld them into his own thing. OK...but buyer beware.
Isn't this essentially what Bruce Lee did? And did he even get to five arts before developing Jeed Kune Do?

And yet, nobody considers Lee to have been unworthy of doing this (including myself).

Now, fake lineages I have a serious problem with, but then how can I throw stones; I'm a KKW yudanja and just look at the history that they came up with!

I think that coming up with one's own ryu, kwan, style, or whatever was probably just as common in the days of old as it is now. The only difference was that each new style was simply a local school established by someone who struck out on their own and didn't have internet or magazine circulation to let everyone outside of their local area know about it. The ones that were decent probably did okay and faded into obscurity. The ones that were exceptional in some way went on to become the TMA that we now discuss here on MT.

In my opinion, fake lineages not withstanding, it is probably more honest to call what you're doing by a new name if it differs in any substantive way from the style you were taught. Then people know that they're getting something that is indeed not traditional fill-in-the-blank ryu/kwan/style/whatever. They know that if you learned from Makiwari Sensei that you are not passing on his teachings with carved in stone tablets but have indeed altered his system based upon your own experience and philosophy, perhaps even based upon a significant difference in physical build which rendered some of the techniques impractical for you.

Daniel

Isn't this essentially what Bruce Lee did? And did he even get to five arts before developing Jeed Kune Do?

And yet, nobody considers Lee to have been unworthy of doing this (including myself).


But did Bruce Lee really create anything? He developed something, definitely. He pulled a lot of things together, and may have been the first to openly recognize that there's more than simply repeating movements ad infinitum to martial arts training. And he definitely had fantastic charisma and presence.

But nobody seems to agree on what he taught. All of his original students are great martial artists, who have bridged lots of gaps across styles, but the best you can say about finding common threads is that they have a shared training approach. They all look different, and there's not a particular character of moving that you can point to and say "That's how Jeet Kun Do moves." (I might be wrong... and of course there are those who would say that Jeet Kun Do isn't supposed to have one look...)

There's a strong argument that the training approach Lee championed so well was present all along -- but kept behind closed doors, instead of being openly championed.

But I said earlier that the question is whether a new style stands the test of time -- and I don't know that JKD will, perhaps because it was so strongly what worked for Bruce Lee.

Does anyone really create anything new? Regardless of what they're calling it, be it Jeet Kune Do or Jake's Ninjacobrakai or even Jedi, unless someone produces a light sabre, it's still just previously codified material repackaged under a new name.

Daniel

Does anyone really create anything new? Regardless of what they're calling it, be it Jeet Kune Do or Jake's Ninjacobrakai or even Jedi, unless someone produces a light sabre, it's still just previously codified material repackaged under a new name.

Daniel

True.

True.


Very true.

I agree. Case 2 can have positives and negatives.

Isn't this essentially what Bruce Lee did? And did he even get to five arts before developing Jeed Kune Do?

And yet, nobody considers Lee to have been unworthy of doing this (including myself).

Now, fake lineages I have a serious problem with, but then how can I throw stones; I'm a KKW yudanja and just look at the history that they came up with!

I think that coming up with one's own ryu, kwan, style, or whatever was probably just as common in the days of old as it is now. The only difference was that each new style was simply a local school established by someone who struck out on their own and didn't have internet or magazine circulation to let everyone outside of their local area know about it. The ones that were decent probably did okay and faded into obscurity. The ones that were exceptional in some way went on to become the TMA that we now discuss here on MT.

In my opinion, fake lineages not withstanding, it is probably more honest to call what you're doing by a new name if it differs in any substantive way from the style you were taught. Then people know that they're getting something that is indeed not traditional fill-in-the-blank ryu/kwan/style/whatever. They know that if you learned from Makiwari Sensei that you are not passing on his teachings with carved in stone tablets but have indeed altered his system based upon your own experience and philosophy, perhaps even based upon a significant difference in physical build which rendered some of the techniques impractical for you.

Daniel

Why argue about it now, you are in essence arguing the creation of ALL martial arts styles. There are only 88 keys on a piano, but I would strongly suggest that there are MANY more songs to write using them.

All a style is, in reality a set of strategies, tactics and technqiues that all combine to support the overall approach to combat. Since EVERYONE on this planet has a slightly different psychological make up and physical make up you are going to have many different approaches to combat.

The only true test for a style is, how long it has been passed down. Someone mentioned Isshin-Ryu and Tatsuo, even today on Okinawa it is considered a substyle of Shorin-Ryu. What about TKD? It's history is from japanese karate (shotokan). Also, many older okinawan katas are found to be older forms already found on okinawa and not something brought back from China as the founder claimed.

So again, you have SOMEONE creating SOMETHING that is their own unique approach and putting a name to it. It has always been done this way and it will continue to happen this way.

New, Improved, Never Before Seen...
Yeah, I've seen things packaged, promoted and sold in this Rah Rah format. The product is usually accompanied by bells, whistles and flashing lights, intended to distract the focus from the unvarnished reality.

But I've also seen the truth in this view: ...it is probably more honest to call what you're doing by a new name if it differs in any substantive way from the style you were taught.

The first perhaps connotes walking on ones teachers in order to get ahead, the second standing on their shoulders. Lumping them together because the nominal result of both is a 'new art' or a new name, seems to me superficial.

Lumping them together because the nominal result of both is a 'new art' or a new name, seems to me superficial.
I agree. Most places that lump it together and call it a new art generally have multiple curriculum sets: the base art + the this + the that, all of which are taught separately, either in different parts of the same class or introduced as a reward for having hit a certain belt level. Rarely is a combination of multiple arts well integrated into a synergistic whole.

Daniel

I've been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life--and they still dig holes with shovels.

I've been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life--and they still dig holes with shovels.

Digging holes with shovels is hard work.

Always better to use a new and improved, high speed, labor saving device to get the job done in a faster and "better" way.

For example, in the Army, we now do a lot of paper work and such in a digital format. We can, thanks to smartcard technology, even "sign" our names to forms. Now to submit a DA 31, request for leave, a process that took only about three pages and about three signatures, now thanks to the ease of the process has added an stunning number of steps. Since everything is online, now there are Army-wide risk assessments to be filled out, most duty stations have some sort of leave and risk assessment packet that is local to the command as well, vehicle inspection sheets, and Mapquest directions, and a copy of your leave and earning statement. While I am of the growing opinion that all of this is an active plot to discourage us from taking leave, and I am too stubborn to be defeated in this nefarious ploy, life was much simpler when going on leave consisted of just filling out a DA-31 and showing an LES. Sometimes there is quite a bit to be said for an obsolete idea.

The martial arts are much the same. I have yet to be shown a movement that is more effective and reliable in a fight than a jab/cross combo. Now I'll be the first to admit that there are folks around that have been doing this a lot longer than me, but 25 years is a fair bit of experience, so when I say that I find it unlikely that I will ever be shown a more usefull movement I'm pretty confident in the truth of that statement. I'm sure that other people have moves that they have internalized to the same degree from their arts, and can make that same statement about. I don't think I would be too impressed with the notion that a jab/cross hab become "obsolete". It does take a lot of work to get good at using it, though and maybe that is the problem with a lot of these new "Masters".

Really, though, I for one am not that bother by it. Aside from my students, or any place that I would work out, I am not concerned with what other perple tie around their waist, or call their style of martial arts. Given that I view a martial art style as nothing more than a teaching model to impart a skillset. I could care less if Billy Joe Jim Bob, the Exalted Super Guru of Chop Saki Do proclaims himself to be a 26th degree mauve belt, and teaches his hand picked students the progressive and modern art of Tire Iron Deuling in the Bed of Monster Trucks as long as he and his students are happy with their arrangement and they keep themselves away from me. What others do in their schools is of no concern to me. No skin off my back.

In any event, we all are involved in the creation of our own martial art as other have pointed out in the thread. Assumng that you pass on your "lessons learned" to your students in the form of altering your system, at what point are you no longer teaching the base art? I teach shotokan. I throwing more than a bit of kenpo. My students learn as much about boxing as I can possibly impart to them. They also get a lot of JKD concepts. Now their front stance isn't performed as deep as in most JKA schools. We do Kata but focus on bunkai over the aesthetics. I don't care if its really pretty, I care if they can use the applications. We don't do gohan kumite or sambon kumite. We jump right in at one step and even that ends in the yellow belt levels in favor of free sparring of increasing contact. I also teach some kata outside the standard shotokan syllabus. My students learn a lot of throwing and locking material that I was taught when I traded lessons from a Danzen Ryu buddy. It seemed to be a good fit and was usefull so I teach it.

Now the question.

Am I still teaching shotokan?

I think so. I think that the guys who don't branch out are sort of missing the point. I don't get how you could only do the same kata and foundational exercises for a few decades and not wan't to develop past that stage, but I'll digress. The way I see it is that the point of a martial art is to give the student a base of skills to work with, just like any other sport. Once that base is in place, the individual is free to grow and develop in accordance with their natural inclinations and their experiences. For some reason, in the Martial Arts world this just isn't enough. We need structure. We need codification and other martial artists to certify that we have improved, however incrementaly, so we get these governing bodies and soke boards, and Grand Master Associations, and "Look'it I got yet another red stripe on my black belt, so that must mean I'm better than the next guy and/or the dead GrandMaster liked me more/I'm the rightfull heir" goobers out there.After all, God forbid that we actually prove that we are better by getting on a mat, or in a ring for that matter. As I approach another of these damn gradings that I despise, I've never been able to wrap my head around the fact that I find the idea of degrees of black belt to be nothing more than self-agrandizing B.S., thought up to sooth the egos of people that had trained good athletes couldn't stand the idea of those athletes being their peers. Were it not for the fact that the idea of my grading to godan being very important to my teacher before his passing, I wouldn't test. I intend it to be my last one.

I am rambling, ranting, and disjointed, sorry.

Point is, and the above rant is why I try to keep myself to myself, what other martial artist do has no bearing on me or how I train. I have had to learn to stop getting riled up about all the random things like this that anger me in the martial art world. These new martial art styles will continue to be created. Some will flourish. Most won't. I'll continue to putter along, and pass what I know to my students. I don't feel the need to change the name. Others may. Should one of my black belts stake out and call what I've taught him, Brick Upside the Head Fu, I'll smile and wish him well.

We make too much of a thing that doesn't impact us. Let the foolish follow the fools. Train the students that come to you and make as much of a good impact on them as you can while you have them. The rests is just dogs chasing rain.

Mark

Digging holes with shovels is hard work.

Always better to use a new and improved, high speed, labor saving device to get the job done in a faster and "better" way.

That would be a backhoe.:whip1:



Really, though, I for one am not that bother by it. Aside from my students, or any place that I would work out, I am not concerned with what other perple tie around their waist, or call their style of martial arts. Given that I view a martial art style as nothing more than a teaching model to impart a skillset. I could care less if Billy Joe Jim Bob, the Exalted Super Guru of Chop Saki Do proclaims himself to be a 26th degree mauve belt, and teaches his hand picked students the progressive and modern art of Tire Iron Deuling in the Bed of Monster Trucks as long as he and his students are happy with their arrangement and they keep themselves away from me. What others do in their schools is of no concern to me. No skin off my back.

I am rambling, ranting, and disjointed, sorry.

Oh I don't think so, I think you you made your point very eloquently. Well done. :D

Should one of my black belts stake out and call what I've taught him, Brick Upside the Head Fu, I'll smile and wish him well.

Best name EVER for Super Secret Ninja fighting method:lfao::roflmao:

We make too much of a thing that doesn't impact us. Let the foolish follow the fools. Train the students that come to you and make as much of a good impact on them as you can while you have them. The rests is just dogs chasing rain.

Mark

Agreed
lori

To each their own. I do not support the movement from so many whack "masters" of late who form and name a system of their own for money or for ego, which in the end is really just a weak mix of other styles.

However, remember a lot of our martial arts come to us because at some point along the line someone had to collect what they knew, choose what was best, and make their own system of study out of it. Indeed, before traditionalism and the idea of "systems" and "styles" were around, many families had their own martial art that they shared and passed down from father to son. Sometimes families would merge, bringing new ideas and techniques. Sometimes families would split, shifting techniques and ideas around. And yet at other times memebers of the faimly were forced to use their fighting skill in combat, and the skills that worked were passed along.

If someone wants to have their own style, whatever. That's not going to effect me and the way I train.

Why argue about it now, you are in essence arguing the creation of ALL martial arts styles. There are only 88 keys on a piano, but I would strongly suggest that there are MANY more songs to write using them.

All a style is, in reality a set of strategies, tactics and technqiues that all combine to support the overall approach to combat. Since EVERYONE on this planet has a slightly different psychological make up and physical make up you are going to have many different approaches to combat.

The only true test for a style is, how long it has been passed down. Someone mentioned Isshin-Ryu and Tatsuo, even today on Okinawa it is considered a substyle of Shorin-Ryu. What about TKD? It's history is from japanese karate (shotokan). Also, many older okinawan katas are found to be older forms already found on okinawa and not something brought back from China as the founder claimed.

So again, you have SOMEONE creating SOMETHING that is their own unique approach and putting a name to it. It has always been done this way and it will continue to happen this way.

See my reply here.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1114029&postcount=31

See my reply here.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1114029&postcount=31
Not to nitpick, but since Thompson has been cited wrongly twice now, want to set this part straight. Here's what we know of Geoff Thompson's view of kata, courtesy of exile on MT (who merely quotes from GT's own books): ...Geoff (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1110707&highlight=Geoff+Thompson+kata#post1110707) Thompson says (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1110707&highlight=Geoff+Thompson+kata#post1110707), there's a huge amount of combat-worthy information encoded in the kata... and ...the following (is a) tip from a gentleman named Geoff Thompson (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1002236&highlight=Geoff+Thompson+kata#post1002236) , in his book The Pavement Arena:

For the karateka wishing to pursue knowledge of self defense, kata are a treasure trove of hidden techniques that can be adapted directly to a street situation... All of the skills developed by kata are necessary when street defense is called for... if you want to see them as unrealistic and impractical you will. If however you are perceptive enough to see, you will find that they offer tremendous benefits to the street-oriented.

I do agree, tho, that being 'perceptive enough to see' the kata's street applications probably requires that we simplify the applications we've been using/perhaps been taught. I think GT would agree with this, if his 3second fight is any indication.

Going off on your own and creating something a little new is not always done for glory and fame. It may in some circumstances happen because of deep political differences inside the system or because of deeply personal reasons that have developed between the “new founder” and his old instructors.
Going off on ones own is risky in the fact that you alienate many with in your old organization and the members of that organization are no longer allowed to associate with you. You sometimes lose the respect that others have of you because of things that may be said behind your back (true or not true).
Starting a new organization and yet trying to keep many if not most of what you taught before while adding techniques, forms, and a new curriculum is not as easy as many think. To develop something that holds the value of time honored tradition while imparting new ideas takes a time and dedication to the students welfare and development.
One must be sure that they teach not just fluff and fancy looking techniques but techniques that will help the student survive in the environment they live in or may live in.
Those that start a “new system “ from books and videos cheat their students. Those that have studied only a month here and a month their and feel they know more than their instructor not only fool themselves but put their students in harms way.

Not to nitpick, but since Thompson has been cited wrongly twice now, want to set this part straight. Here's what we know of Geoff Thompson's view of kata, courtesy of exile on MT (who merely quotes from GT's own books): and

I do agree, tho, that being 'perceptive enough to see' the kata's street applications probably requires that we simplify the applications we've been using/perhaps been taught. I think GT would agree with this, if his 3second fight is any indication.

I'm not against kata. I do them in Kenpo and Arnis. :) As for the RBSD folks...well, here are Sammy Francos (http://www.sammyfranco.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=defined)thoughts. While Geoff Thompson (http://www.geoffthompson.com/default.asp)may find value in kata, I would think that he bases his teachings on other things as well as kata. Take wiki for what its worth, but I also saw this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Thompson).

I really don't want to turn this into another pro vs con of kata debate. That simply was used as an example. :)