Throughout the ages, new arts have emerged from prior arts. The reasons are of course many and varied. In some cases, an instructor may have learned information outside of the traditional system and wished to incorporate the information into a new art. Perhaps he was encouraged by those senior to him. Perhaps there was 'political' strife which lead to a split. Perhaps a war or natural disaster separated the instructor from his country/school and he began a new art in a different local based upon prior knowledge and a desire to make the art his own. Perhaps the art was taken from one country to another and simply given a new name. Perhaps it was dissatisfaction with certain arts and/or certain traditions and a fresh start was desired. Perhaps he wanted to fuse two or more arts together. Perhaps the instructor just wanted to skip all the fuss and print up his own 10th Dan on the inkjet and proclaim himself founder. Looking at martial history we can see many 'legitimate' creations and of course, some not so 'legitimate'. Since new arts have been and will continue to be 'created' or 'developed' for a variety of reasons...can a consensus be arrived at by the masses as to what would constitute legitimacy? Would the instructor need a certain amount of experience? A certain time in the arts? Would he/she have needed to achieve a certain rank in a traditional art? Should/could/would peer review lend towards legitimacy? What would make you look and go, "Yes...he/she is well qualified to form a new art". What would make you shake your head and roll your eyes? Thoughts?