Philosophy of new martial art v. old school?

[Hudson69]

Hola all,
When someone studies the martial arts as with anything else people learn things differently and understanding is very different as well; what might be easy or hard to one will not be the same for all. Personal preferences, likes/dislikes are factors in learning or teaching the martial arts but physical build, ability and fitness also play a part.

When someone reaches a level of being able to instruct even when they have a formal or informal checklist of techniques are they really teaching the original art/system or are they teaching what they have learned, how they learned, based off of their own abilities, education, background, preferences and so on and so on?

Is this an evolution/change or is it simply SOP with a wider set of operating perameters?

I know the Kenpo I studied had 10 yellow techniques and every belt up to black had 24 and different levels had different forms/kata and weapons to be learned. They are the same techniques Ed Parker put together but if I were to advance to a level where I could teach and I saw possibly wasn't paying attention with the "Five Swords" technique and generated a variation of it and maybe a dozen others that had the look of the original but had definite changes because that is what works for me or is how I learned it; is it EPAK or Hud's Karate?. What if I got rid of the forward bow for the JKD Bai Jong stance, they are similar and basically do the same thing but they are not the same?

When I studied Ninjutsu before the name change there was a list of skills & techniques for every kyu. After going back there seemed to be just an informal index of skills (RVD has skills & techniques by kyu level in his manual) and it is only the taijutsu and ningu(?) that I have seen. Are they the same or are they different? If they are different then is BBT a really new art, newer than other variations like To Shin Do (just a comparison). If I were to advance to a level where I would feel like teaching and said Hicho is too old and out of date, the cat stance is more practical and allows for faster movement and gives a better base; is it BBT or is it Hud's Taijutsu based off of BBT?

How much change is allowed before it is "new?"

It is late and I am probably rambling but thought on this issue would be appreciated.

 

[xfighter88]

Interesting post. From my point of view there are a few differences between the old and new. First the "old" arts tend to be fairly 1 demential. They are all or most ground, or all or most stand up skills. There are exceptions to this however, Hapkido and Japanese Jiu-Jitsu have a pretty good amount of both. Also the more traditional arts tend to focus on the history and philosophy aspects of Martial Arts. The newer systems focus on the "fight" and physical side of Martial Arts. Nest, depending on which art you are referring to, the older arts can be a bit mystic. (ie. Hwa Rand Do, Chinese arts rocking out some acupuncture) Not that they don't have some valid points, but they tend to use much older psuedo science. The newer systems focus on hard data and statistics. Sometimes they come to the same conclusion of the older arts, sometimes not. Finaly as time progresses so do the martial arts. We don't really have to know how to defend agianst spears here in the USA, but knowing how to defend against and use knives and guns can be very handy.

They both have merits and I wish that the newer arts retained some of the older arts "spirit". On the other hand I wish that some of the older arts would update techniques to make sense given how self defense needs have changed.

Just my 2 cents feel free to flame the heck out of me if you want to.

 

[Chris Parker]

Have you been "flamed" recently, xfighter88? Hope not.

I would disagree with you a bit there (not flaming though!). Mono-dimentionality exists just as much in modern systems, with BJJ focussing pretty much entirely on the ground, whereas Kodokan Judo (the art it came from) had ground and stand-up grappling. So it was a case there of over-specialisation playing a big part in the development of this new style. Add to that the fact that a number of older systems are far broader in their scope than modern arts (Yagyu Shingan Ryu teaches four separate syllabus' for the unarmed and lightly armed methods, as well as a huge range of weaponry, tactical approaches, ground fighting, and more, can't think of many modern systems that do that!), and we have things going both ways...

So to look at what changes one art into a new one, well that can get a little complicated. A major reason is that the basic concepts change (as in the change from Judo to BJJ), which is a result of a new environment demanding the change (this change in environment can be political, chronological, or geographical, as well as simply a change in the human element, where certain attacks lose favour, and others become promminent. Believe it or not, Western Hands [boxing] is a relatively recent phenomenon, with older cultures having very different attacks they needed to handle), a split between a teacher and a senior student, someone getting a new experience or understanding, or just someone coming up with a new idea.

As to Hudson's original post, well it will become a new art when you feel it has sufficiently altered from the original. Of course, it could just be a new branch of an established art, rather than a new art (Tanemura-ha, Larry Tatum Kenpo etc), so the distinction will be up to you to determine.

 

[Brian King]

Interesting thread
My opinion for what it is worth.

When instructors teach (especially to beginning students) what they have discovered, the variations off of the basics rather than the basics, they end up creating new styles. I do not think this is always beneficial. There is a danger I think and the instructors in my opinion need to beware the spoiling of the students, robbing them of the chance to learn for themselves from the basics. It is a temptation to ‘feed the ego’ by showing some of the variations discovered, to get to the ‘deeper’ stuff and rush by or ignore the lessons that the basics taught that eventually led to the insights and variations. I am not saying that these insights or variations should never be taught or shown, but I do think that they should often be kept until the individual student makes at least the first few initial steps of exploration and discovery on their own.

Regards
Brian King

 

[Chris Parker]

Within traditional Japanese systems there is an attempt to avoid such ego-based results, and keep some continuity to the entire system. In essence, as you go through the ranks, you are given various licences, starting with Kirigami (entry into the school), moving through Shoden (initial level), Chuden (middle level), Okuden (secret level), Menkyo Kaiden (complete licence of transmission). At each level you are permitted to teach up to the level below (in most cases, some koryu systems are more strict about who can teach what). But you cannot alter anything at all. If the system teaches that a fist is made one way and one way only, then that is all you can do. It is only when you reach Menkyo Kaiden that you are allowed to alter things. But to alter them, you need to leave and establish your own system (which is the way it always used to happen). If you stay, you are expected to listen to the current head of the school.