Fair enough.
The problem is the title "Blademaster" just doesn't seem to show up anywhere, historically. It's not "Guru," "Sensei," "Maestro," or "Provost," "Maitre d'Armes," nor even "Professor." People are kinda of like, "what? where'd that come from?" And, like it or not, if there's not some sort of antique lineage associated with it then terms such as "Blademaster" just sound like they've been lifted from D&D, pretentious and "self awarded." Psychologically, most people would prefer something that seems less pretentious while still implying a modern genesis of terms and conveying the desired meaning. Something like, "Modern Knife Skills - Level 3" or the like. Further, "Blademaster" just sounds so inclusive of, well, everything with a blade: Master of All Swords, Master of All Knives, Master of All Sharp-Pointy-Poky Weapons. Add the two effects together and it should be obvious why it puts people off.
I'm fairly certain that Hoch uses the "Level x" paradigm. I.E. PAC Level 1, Stick 1, Knife 1, etc.
To many people, "creating" your own, named, martial art is often a great big Red Flag, with a capital "R." I'm not saying that Mr. Balika isn't genuinely skilled or that making a mish-mash of what you think is important fighting skills and teaching that as a system doesn't make logical sense, however, there's just been so many hucksters who've claimed to have done the same thing that it makes people all kinds of nervous.
I'm genuinely interested in this particular nugget. I'm a Western Martial Artist (among other things) and have a particular interest in western knife systems. It has been my personal experience that most western knife systems in the Americas, including, nay, especially Mexico tend to have little information and less verifiability. I am aware of only Gaucho knife work as having any sort of real documentation or verifiable lineage and a few other odd literary and historical references to other, ill defined, systems here and there. Most seem to be transplants of European systems such as Spanish Navaja and Italian Stiletto. Everything else seems to be mostly along the lines of "my dad showed me some tricks from when he was a kid" or "this is what the old gang members say to do." If you can provide details or more information about Mr. Balika's Mexican Knife Systems, it would be of great interest to me and several others whom I know.
This would be one of those contentious statements. Some Koryu were knife or sword based, some included the knife and/or sword, and others were "segmented" as the unarmed portion of fighting. A lot of it depends on the lineage and the personal "definition" of the person doing the historical research on Koryu.
He may be a very decent guy, feed the poor, house orphans, and adopt puppies. The thing is, in his internet/marketing presence he's used several Red Flags which, through experience, folks have learned to watch for. In his place, I would consider some different naming and rank conventions. Words matter. I sometimes lament that some words or phrases have unintended connotations but that's just the way it is. Pointing this out has earned me some unhappiness before. I recently pointed out that the phrase "Dagger Fencing" used to describe a WMA schools curriculum may have the unintended consequence of putting some people off who would otherwise be interested in learning historic knife systems because the term "Fencing" to most average folks conjures images of "gay white leotards." Now, the folks I was telling this to came from a Classical Fencing background and they were kinda unhappy about the turn of phrase I used, but that's just the fact.
Yeah, you're right some responses do seem a bit peevish. I'll take that in consideration when replying.
Except for when websites die, get hacked, or have a catastrophic failure and can't restore (yes, it happens frighteningly often).
Sure. Historically, in WMA at least, fighters and instructors would frequently take the title of "Master" when they felt like it, though it was more common to have an acrediting body or instructor give it. However, though they could call themselves "Master" their national/political opponents (think French vs. English), business competitors (teaching the rich was a great way to not starve), and personal adversaries and nemisis' would take exception to it, often in writing. This would frequently spark feuds, grudges, Duels, and long standing rivalries. There have been whole treatises in which it was a major theme.
I am not arguing about his title, skills, or choice of Barbers. What I am trying to do is communicate why people have a certain reaction to the title and name.
See, this is where we part philosophies. You can certainly try to use a stick the same way you'd use a knife but it's simply not as effective that way. Sticks are blunt instruments. You do damage by bludgeoning. Swords and knives are edged. A Draw-Cut or Push-Cut can be brutally devastating with a Bowie, Cutlass, or Military Saber (the blade arts which I study) but are utterly worthless with a stick (I actively study two cane systems as well). Similarly, simply clubbing a target with the sword completely neglects edge-alignment and can actually reduce the severity of the cut. On the other hand, a stick has no edge and you don't worry any at all about trying to align the non-existent. An abanico (sometimes "Wrenching" in WMA) or witik (sometimes "Snap-cut" in WMA) work differently and require different subtleties of application when "translated" from blade to a similarly sized stick.
Thanks for the advice.
Sure. And George Silver might have some relevant insights.
You've heard of the Gracie's right?
Yes really. You're right that, historically, people have created their own systems all the time. What you forget is that these "new" systems then had to compete against the existing to prove their worth and, until such time as they did so, they were viewed with skepticism by their competitors. The Gracies, Kano, Gen. Choi, etc. they all had to face this skepticism and "trial" to be taken seriously. Heck there's a persistent rumour that Draeger's death was related to a subtle poisoning at the hands of Javanese Silat Masters. Supposedly they figured if he really was a martial arts "expert" then he should know how to counteract the poison. Now I don't believe this but it is a persistent rumour because it accurately illustrates the skepticism that "the new kid on the block" is met with until proven.
A great many, I'm sure. And there are various (often similar) Red Flags that pop up for them too.
No, I'm trying to explain why there is skepticism and I'm not sure you're grokking it.
No, I'm not. First, I'm not "condemning" anyone. Second, he truth is that I don't really care, on a personal level, if Mr. McCurry if a fraud, an honest-to-goodness-Jedi, or something in-between. I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion with YOU; to explain to you the skepticism that you see. You seem to want to argue that the skeptics aren't being "fair," lumping me in to the argument along the way, while I'm simply trying to explain the reason for the reaction.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really care. Your skill level, or even Mr. McCurry's, is not what is at the central issue here. I have not expressed doubt over Mr. McCurry's skill nor questioned your capacity to report on it. I will assume that you are an honest person until you demonstrate otherwise. Fair enough? Again, what I am attempting is to explain to you what elements of Mr. McCurry's public "story" is causing the skepticism and why.
Yes, we agree about that. However, I'm not referring to any "false history" here. What I'm saying is much closer to "NO HISTORY." Much of this stuff is completely undocumented and frequently far less "systematic" in transfer of skills than many today assume. Family Arts are great and all but they are very frequently not taught in a regimented, systematic way. Often information is "lost" from generation to generation because the previous "teaching" generation didn't transmit it to the next because it wasn't useful to them, was neglected in favor of something else, or simply because the previous generation died (or moved) before it could be transmitted. I've especially seen this latter. The usual story goes that the Grandfather teaches the Grandson because the Father wasn't interested, was on the outs, or any number of reasons. And dear-old Grandad doesn't transmit the whole of it. Further, generational mutation occurs easily because the non-systematic methods and lack of permanent written or or pictorial documentation allows for it (I, personally, argue that this is usually a good thing because it allows new generations to adapt the art to their needs without being bound by the historical "inertia" of the art).
Except when it isn't.
Have him drop by.
Which is fine and all. I just explained to you why they speculated as they did.
Have him drop by and read this thread. It explains it well enough.
Appeal to Authority. Just because, in your estimation, he's a Martial Expert, doesn't mean he's a Marketing Psychology expert.
Have him drop by. I'm not scary at all and am happy to explain to him that people's life experiences affect how they view the world.
Are you SURE you're "just" trying to be "short and concise" here?
Have him drop by and post the Curriculum Vitae.
Um, what? There was ONE post by ONE person who, hasn't posted since 2007, that was solidly negative. The rest of the posts fell more or less into the category of "can't say, not enough info."
I don't care. I'm trying to explain to you why some people do.
