could i get everyones thoughts?

[hapki-bujutsu]

just want to know what people think of this article

CREATING A MARTIAL ART
By Soke Daniel Verkerke

Having been training in martial arts for many years, I have seen and heard of many new styles. There are actually thousands of new martail arts students founding their own styles and opening their own schools yearly.
If you are joining a martial art school for the first time, how can you tell how good your instructor is? Who knows, your instructor may just be making up the lessons as he goes along. Your instructor could be telling you anything and you would not know any better.
On the other hand, the founders of the most popular martial arts of today started out the same way. They had studied various ideas, formulated them together and started teaching to those who wished to learn. One of the mistakes some of the founders student's made was instead of following their instructors insight into learning and creating more, they limited themselves to what they have been taught, and let the idea of expanding themselves die with their teacher.
There are many types of instructors teaching all sorts of philosophy, beliefs and ideals. If I were to describe all of them I would be writing a novel. The main concern of this article are the instructors who claim to teach their own style. I have met many of them, so I know the problems that do arise.
I know anyone can open a martial art school and say they teach their own style. You could have one months training, open your own school and have those young and impressionable believe you are a martial arts superstar, and it does happen. You could come out of jail with no martial arts background and open a martial arts school using your survival in jail as your credentials. Some instructors read a few books, copy the ideas they believe and open a school with little or no physical experience. On the other hand look at the late great Bruce Lee. His formal training was very little. He read alot of books and wrote down many ideas. He studied many western concepts from fencing to boxing, wrestling and various philosophies.
It is possible for an artist to create. There are some painters who were never taught to paint, but can still paint beautiful paintings. Dancers who were never taught to dance, but show the greatest grace and originality. Some have never been taught to sing or play instruments, but send chills down your spine when you hear them. These are natural artists, the same holds true in martial arts. All an artist needs is inspiration and the ability to express themselves through their medium.
Mind you, there are some forgeries out there. Those are the ones who claim to teach their own style, but are only teaching what they have been taught. They learn a style of Kung Fu and Karate then combine them. It does not matter how many styles you combine, they still are not yours. Others use the names of popular styles even when they have not trained in them.
If you trained here and there, and teach whatever you learned here and there, that's what you should claim to teach. There is nothing wrong with telling the truth. In the end you earn respect through interaction, not through lies or bogus certificates.
I was once asked, "what styles did I learn?" I replied, "Judo, Karate, and Tae Kwon Do, among others." I was then asked in a statement, "So if I studied Judo, Karate, and Tae Kwon Do I would know your style?" I replied, "No, I know Judo but I don't teach it. I studied Judo to analyze and find the positive and weaknessess. I used the techniques as an inspiration to see how they can be reversed, or to reverse a reversal. I use my imagination and creativity to find different applications to a simple technique. I enjoy the exploration of a new technique, that is what my art is all about. I don't look at a technique, copy it and say, I know that technique. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that approach.") Each new technique you learn should be an inspiration, an exploration for creativity and imagination. The same goes for any technique from Karate, Tae Kwon Do, or any other form and style. I don't claim to teach other styles even though I studied them. You see the end result in my art is different from what inspired me to create it."
One of the greatest accomplishments a founder of a martial art could attain would be recognition and acceptance by peers and senior Grandmasters. There are various Grandmaster boards which will review your martial arts background and proposed style. You may think, how can anyone judge someone else's style? Well, there are senior masters with over forty years experience who have just about seen everything. Some of these masters who have nothing to gain or loose can make an educated decision. Actually, any master who is not trying to gain control or power, who is not governed by greed and has an open mind will be quite capable of recognizing, accepting and respecting a fellow martial artist who has demonstrated his physical skill, mental and philisophical insights. Your first step should be respecting other masters and their styles, then you may begin to earn their respect and acceptance.
Since anyone can open a martial arts school, I would recommend that if you have created or inherited a style you should have your system reviewed by a Grandmaster board or Sokeship council. This should separate you from all the fakes and forgeries that are instructing with little or no experience. A legitimate Grandmaster board should not charge a membership fee. Your membership should be based on authenticity, skill, and experience. If you manage to pass the requirements of a Sokeship council not only will you gain acceptance from your peers, but also respect and recognition.
To all the Grandmasters who earned their experience through selfsacrifice and dedication, "Os" and for those who have not yet proven themselves, keep training and instructing with true devotion and dedication.

By Soke Daniel Verkerke / Seicho Jutsu

 

[Kempo Guy]

I think that this author instead of re-inventing the wheel should learn the concept of "Shu, Ha, Ri".

Just my $0.02.
KG

 

[fringe_dweller]

Anything specific you want an opinion on or just the article in general?

Respectfully

 

[kenpo12]

If you scratch alot of surfaces than you know a little bit about alot. For example: If I took A Spanish class for 4 years, a French class for 2 years, a Chinese class for 3yrs, and a Russian class for 3 years does that mean I would be fluent 4 other languages? probably not because I would only have scratched the surface. I could probably function in places where those languages are spoken but I wouldn't be able to teach it well or have an in depth conversation in any of those places. If however I took Spanish for 12 I could probably teach it and have converstions on any level in spanish.

 

[Kempo Guy]

Perhaps I was a little short in my previous post.

“Creating a martial art”…. I think many people who have done this have taken the JKD approach of taking a selection of techniques or counters they’ve felt as the most functional/practical for various ranges and use this as a guide to create their new system. I don’t necessarily think an eclectic approach to training is a bad thing and am for cross training in many instances. God knows, I’ve done it myself in the past. And we have all seen the impact cross-training has had in MMA and MA in general. However, there is something to be said about traditional MA and it’s approaches versus going to the extreme of “creating ones own system”.

What I fail to see in these “new” martial arts is the lack of a common operating system. What I’ve often seen in these eclectic systems is a ‘hodge podge’ of various techniques, which rarely share the same principles. Who / what determines effectiveness? How are we based on our limited knowledge/experience to judge what techniques, philosophies and principles are best? As we all know, what works for one person may not work for another etc. This would be especially true if this new art is based on the “founder’s” natural ability (along with some luck). In turn their students may not have the same natural abilities (or luck), and if the art is not based on sound principles and a common operating system yet taught as self-defense, the students may be in for a surprise some day, which may have tragic consequences.

A technique (let’s say from Kempo for arguments sake) is usually most effective within the context of Kempo; it’s principles, philosophy, basic exercises and what not. This particular software (technique) works best within a specific operating system (Kempo). It’s often incompatible or may not work as well with a different operating system.
BTW, if I would say my eclectic system (hypothetically) is the ‘best’ assortment or compilation of techniques from these various styles, wouldn’t you say this would be a pretty arrogant statement?

Most traditional arts were developed out of principles that were tested in “real” combat (created out of necessity in many instances). They were founded upon revelations experienced during combat/battles and distilled down to find the essence of these conflicts. You could say these systems underwent a process of natural selection (“survival of the fittest” if you will), meaning that arts with flawed operating systems ceased to exist (these practitioners got killed over time). The arts that made it went through constant refinement over centuries (in many cases) by succeeding generations. They had to distill the principles and philosophies and create a basic operating system in order to simplify transmission. BTW, this does not mean that these traditional systems aren’t based on sophisticated principles. Again I ask, how can we dismiss these revelations that were taken from real combat experience? Some people may argue that combat (or it’s essence) has changed and that the realities of today are different from the realities faced by our ancestors. But I want get into that here…

I do agree with the author that one should be careful and not waste their time and money when selecting teachers. My opinion is that one should select a teacher who can be authenticated whether by lineage in their respective arts or recognition by other legitimate instructors.
The prospective student should be able to trust the teacher in being able to convey the proper etiquette, training methods and impart the principles of their art and eventually be able to help the students tailor the art to fit them (in some respects) by becoming the art. This is where “Shu, Ha, Ri” comes into play (btw, it means to embrace the form, diverge from the form and finally discarding the form). This is perhaps the fundamental difference between eclectic and traditional martial arts.

In any event, I thought I’d share some thoughts I had on it… Hope it makes some sense.

KG

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

There are lots of great instructors, wannabees and phonies who have taken bits and pieces of multiple styles and created their own curriculum and training methods.

I applaud those who do this with the intention of teaching something unique and effective. I cannot condone those who discard difficult material for the sole purpose of commercializing their system.

It can take many years to refine a curriculum and methodology. I suggest that anyone making such an attempt take their time and refine their curriculm, then find some way to prove that your style works as well or better than established arts: tournaments, MMA, street fights, whatever.

This new curriculum may be worthy of carrying a unique name ONLY AFTER the curriculum is sorted out and proven, and there is a growing following who is expanding the student base and the geographical base.

 

[arnisador]

Since anyone can open a martial arts school, I would recommend that if you have created or inherited a style you should have your system reviewed by a Grandmaster board or Sokeship council. This should separate you from all the fakes and forgeries

"You keep using that word soke. I do not think it means what you think it means."

These "Sokeship councils" are invariably suspect.

 

[Kempo Guy]

This may or may not be of any relevance but I thought I'd post it on this thread as we're talking about masters, grandmasters, soke and what not:

"Everyone is looking for a master or guru in the west, but the word master is so overused today as to be meaningless, much like having a black belt today is meaningless. A genuine master is almost impossible to find because you won't quickly recognize him. He is much more than a teacher. Genuine teachers strive to be masters but only one in a hundred thousand finish the journey. There are only a handful of true masters on the whole planet. Funny how they all end up in the San Francisco yellow pages. (laughing)
I tell people all the time this truth. It is not amendable or conditional. "Anyone who calls himself a master or allows his students to refer to him as 'master' in his presence, isn't a master." Occasionally he may be a well-meaning teacher who misunderstands the definition of the word, but most of the time he is an ego driven narcissist seeking adoration. He will have very little to teach because there is so little room in his heart for his students. Instead of looking for a master, just look for a good teacher with a sense of humor, especially if he's driving a crummy old car. (Laughing, while motioning towards his old Toyota.) My old friend and sensei, Matsuhiro Namishiro used to say "There must be lots of smiles along the way or the journey is not worth it." He was correct you know."
- Takamura Yukiyoshi (1928 - 2000)
(an excerpt from an interview conducted in 1988. You can find the whole interview at Aikidojournal.com as well as Shinyokai.com)

 

[Pacificshore]

Originally posted by arnisador
"You keep using that word soke. I do not think it means what you think it means."

These "Sokeship councils" are invariably suspect.


I believe your quote was from the article posted by the forum member, and not of his own words