What qualifies one to create their own style of martial art?

[Bob Hubbard]

On what would you base that? What is a 'few'? By definition its around 2 years...not long enough to grasp it under 'modern' definitions, IMHO.

:asian:

 

[A.R.K.]

Kaith,

That was actually a little hehe In reference to Dr. Jigoro Kano who at the age of 22, after I believe 3 yrs or so of Ju Jitsu founded Judo.

Bruce Lee also comes to mind with his contributions at a relatively young age. I would say the qualifications are simply whoever has the insight and boldness to try it and is successfull. There have been some remarkable cases in this area and the MA world is the richer for it

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by fissure
I think the problem in building your own stlye is in teaching of it. I have trained in several styles, and have mixed and matched for my own benift.However one can't teach this to anyone else, because what is comfotable and effective for me might suck for almost everyone else.
:EG:

Teaching your own system is a matter of understanding not only what works for you but also what works for others of any body type.

If you can't make it work for anyone else, then you probably did not have much to start with!

 

[A.R.K.]

The goal of a true teacher is not showing what he is personally capable of but rather what the student is capable of....:asian:

 

[MartialArtist]

Everyone creates their own style in one way or another, to what suits them best. And no, I'm not talking about something like a wrestler vs. a boxer type style, but the different types. There are outside-speed wrestlers, pressure wrestlers, power wrestlers, etc.

But, somebody creating an art to teach others? There are not clear guidelines, but as long as it fits you... And most frauds that create something just to be "different" are sought out and are taking away hundreds if not thousands of years of refinement. Fighting doesn't change over the years, and if it looks like... I dunno, then...

 

[James Kovacich]

Evolution and destiny in the martial arts are like the Yin and Yang. We all as matial artist "claim" to evolve our arts. But those of us who have our blinders on are hindering our arts destiny. The Yin can noy exist without the Yang and the same goes for the evolution and destiny of our arts.

Many people all around the world sa this does not work and that art sucks. Why is that?

We do refine our technique. Each of us specialize in differant areas of arts. So we evolve to a certain extent.

But is that really all of our arts desiny?

I heard some one say something about testing the new systems. Thats a good course of action. But in the same breath, why is there a new art? Was it because the original art does not modern day standards?

Was it because we want "ALL" of our arts that "WE REPRESENT" to be tested in a modern fashion? Very few actual arts are actually testing themselves in a modern fashion. "ALL" the rest of the martial arts that are being tested in this fashion are eclectic martial arts!

I have another comment. Someone mentioned that a person should be a certain Dan grade before considering creating a new martial art. My answer to that is. I think a person should be at least a black belt or equivalent to make that statement in the first place.

I DID NOT LOOK IN ANYONES PROFILE. IT IS NOT AN ATTACK.

It only makes sense. The discussion is creating a new martial art and the standard was set to a Dan grade, then anyone with a comment that is not a black belt or equivalent is off base in a sense that they are students and they are telling instructors what they can do and can't do.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by sweeper
well I would look at the reasons why the new art is "better" than the sum of it's parts, what are the reasons for creation, also who does the instructor study under and do his teachers know about/aprove of what he's doing, if they don't I would contact them and ask why.

then of course comes the question of effectivness.. if it is being taught for self deffence, what qualification does the instructor have to teach self deffence. If it isn't being taught as self deffence what is it being taught for? if sport does it win in the ring? if excercises is the instructor qualified to teach excercise.

And of course how much thought went into it.. is it just a series of grafted techniques or did the instructor do some real reasearch and studie into all the aspects of fighting such as physiology, kinesiology, and psychology.

Most of the arts have some kind of weakness. To fill tyhe void is a natural occurrance. At what point is the new system differant enough to be called something differant?

I don't think any of the "originators" were qualified to teach or studied physiology, kinesiology, and psychology or exercise.

It is the sum of the "whole" which equals the new art. Is it teachable? And is it realistically effective? I think we can ask that last one of many of the arts out there today!

I think that "ALL SYSTEMS" new and old should be judged and tested by the same standards!

 

[fissure]

Teaching your own system is a matter of understanding not only what works for you but also what works for others of any body type.

If you can't make it work for anyone else, then you probably did not have much to start with!

akja, the later was your response to my first post.

I don't think creating a "new art" a good idea, nor was it the point I was trying to make.Most of my training has been in TaeKwon Do and Shotokan. I feel using some of my limited Judo and wrestling techniques to "patch" the holes in these systems only makes sense. But in no way would I consider this a "new Art".I think it is important for every practitioner to activly look for shortcomings in thier chosen art, and find ways to overcome them.

This was my second. I can only assume that you missed it. It underscores the idea I was trying to convey, and seems to be in the same tone as your last effort.
I happen to be of the oppinion that certain aspects of MA are more comfortable for one body type over another. Or are less effective when major size/strenght differences are apparent.We currently have a large muscular male in class. Some of the smaller guys and all of the women have a hard (read- almost impossible!) time trying to use any kind of joint manipulation on him. If this were a real world situation they would, in my oppinion, be better served to strike at him rather than grapple. I don't beleive that every tech. works for everybody, equally well.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by fissure
akja, the later was your response to my first post.


This was my second. I can only assume that you missed it. It underscores the idea I was trying to convey, and seems to be in the same tone as your last effort.
I happen to be of the oppinion that certain aspects of MA are more comfortable for one body type over another. Or are less effective when major size/strenght differences are apparent.We currently have a large muscular male in class. Some of the smaller guys and all of the women have a hard (read- almost impossible!) time trying to use any kind of joint manipulation on him. If this were a real world situation they would, in my oppinion, be better served to strike at him rather than grapple. I don't beleive that every tech. works for everybody, equally well.

I'll agree with that but especially with the big guy, it would be wise to learn how to fight on the ground. Also any and all techniques should be modified to fit you.

I'm a better striker but I am wise enough to know that I there are areas that need more attention.

Yes, there are techniques that work better for some than for others, but my instructors always made me learn the others anyway.

 

[fissure]

If you can't make it work for anyone else, then you probably did not have much to start with!

This was the statement that prompted my response.
I to teach all tech. too all trainees. However, I caution that various situations can render certain of them less practical for a particular individual in one way or another.

Also any and all techniques should be modified to fit you.

This is essentially the point of my second post. I find one of the most difficult situations, is getting the idea across to new BBs that they must now begin this phase of training - thinking for themselves, rather than simply following an instructors directions.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by fissure
This was the statement that prompted my response.
I to teach all tech. too all trainees. However, I caution that various situations can render certain of them less practical for a particular individual in one way or another.


This is essentially the point of my second post. I find one of the most difficult situations, is getting the idea across to new BBs that they must now begin this phase of training - thinking for themselves, rather than simply following an instructors directions.

Funny how we have trouble understanding other peoples posts sometimes.