Defining the My Art...

[Dark]

Ok here comes to $1,000 question, I've been looking heavily into getting back to old school, combat focused, martial arts. What I have found that works best for me is a blending of karate tactic and jujitsu training, plus my scientific based training concepts. Technique wise it resembles old school karate but training wise something more Jujitsu based.

How do I define it, is it karate or jujitsu or something new?

 

[Robert Lee]

Well Karate jujitsu you can call it that. Or just do not name it Or self defence concepts is a name you can use. MMA means its mixed. What aspects of Karate do you use. How long did you study your arts you use. Im not prying but did you make a blackbelt level and upper blackbelt in those arts. Just a statement that is a question. Sorry went back to your profile Says you are godan In ninjutsu Are you with Hatsumis tiajutsu Reason I ask I know a local person here that is under hatsumi He was a godan last I talked with him But had been asked to go test for rokudan He teachs a small exclusisive class That is low keyed about training

 

[Dark]

No one of those other ninjutsu styles, I spent 4 years in Shotokan, another 6 in goju and 4 in jujitsu. I also spent another 6 in ninjitsu; which as I said in another thread was basically jujitsu, stealth and weapons. Not sure about the lineage don't ask and don't care.

I actually went with Karate techniques and several tactics of employing those techniques from which means the old school grappling, traps and locks we don't see in karate any more. I went with the jujitsu 2 man non-resisting kata and the older training methods of conditioning from karate. I also incorperated the BJJ concepts of Army hand-to-hand, and basic street fighting.

 

[pstarr]

Many of the original karate systems incorporated a good many grappling techniques.

In the system of kung-fu that I teach, we have 36 throws and 18 joint techniques-

 

[Dark]

Many of the original karate systems incorporated a good many grappling techniques.

In the system of kung-fu that I teach, we have 36 throws and 18 joint techniques-

exactly the there are a great many grappling techniques that are no longer used, today as far as karate goes. The only thing is when asked what i was practicing today with a friend I couldn't give a solid answer except "My style..."

What I'm trying to discribe is how my training has bended to one art form? I could call it ninjitsu/ninjutsu but why bother, I don't live in a sewer and wasn't taught by a rat lol...

 

[pstarr]

Actually, if you go to the traditional karate teachers of the "old" styles, most of them still teach the original material...

 

[MJS]

Ok here comes to $1,000 question, I've been looking heavily into getting back to old school, combat focused, martial arts. What I have found that works best for me is a blending of karate tactic and jujitsu training, plus my scientific based training concepts. Technique wise it resembles old school karate but training wise something more Jujitsu based.

How do I define it, is it karate or jujitsu or something new?

If you're asking if you should create a new style, system, etc. then I'd have to say that would probably not be the best route to take and the reasons should be obvious.

If you're asking if you should or can blend things from the styles you've studied, then I'd see nothing wrong with that per se, but I'd still give credit where credit is due. I've added in a joint lock from Arnis to a Kenpo technique, but if I was teaching something like that, I'd make it clear that *A* is the Kenpo part and *B* is the Arnis part. I don't run around and say I've created something new.

 

[Dark]

If you're asking if you should create a new style, system, etc. then I'd have to say that would probably not be the best route to take and the reasons should be obvious.

If you're asking if you should or can blend things from the styles you've studied, then I'd see nothing wrong with that per se, but I'd still give credit where credit is due. I've added in a joint lock from Arnis to a Kenpo technique, but if I was teaching something like that, I'd make it clear that *A* is the Kenpo part and *B* is the Arnis part. I don't run around and say I've created something new.

New style...? Maybe... If you are attached to the preverbial "style boxes" then yes it is a new style. If you go by the principles, then no since I've used different methods for applying the same principles. Then it's just a "transended style", being that it started out as "A" added elements of "B" and "C" and came up with "D". I by no means plan to run around calling myself Soke, Judan or claim to have invented the ultimate martial art.

 

[Phadrus00]

Dark,

It's an interesting question. Can I ask you, do you intend to continue to train in the arts that you have drawn from (i.e continue to study the art and gain further ranking)? Just one or all of them? Would you say that one art tends to represent more of the foundations/techniques than the other?

I ask as it would seem to me that you likely have one "core" or "foundation" art and the others you draw from to enhance that art. If that is indeed the case then really your Art is that Foundation Art and your inclusions from other sources are enhancements to it. If on the other hand you really have deconstructed each of the arts and reconstituted a completely different systems with new forms, training techniques and principles then you really have invented a "new system".

Regards,

Rob

 

[monkey]

Dark beleave it or not I have the answer you may be fishing for.
The old ways are great & should not ever be forgotten.
Let me play on 2 notetaions here & maybe youll see
What I have in mind & you can run with it.Or adapt it to your ways & meaning.
Correct me if I am wrong but the old days of knights were during
the "DARK" ages. can you see it. Its kind of "DARK" it may be old but, it is in fact" DARK WAYS"
Just a though for the tought you granted on the jkd for me.

Dojosai:

 

[Dark]

Dark,

It's an interesting question. Can I ask you, do you intend to continue to train in the arts that you have drawn from (i.e continue to study the art and gain further ranking)? Just one or all of them? Would you say that one art tends to represent more of the foundations/techniques than the other?

My training methods are definately different, I feel more comfortable striking then grappling, but I know how to grapple just fine. So there is a heavy leaning towards karate.

I quite shotokan and goju and jujitsu because the dojo I was in had no real training past shodan, I was maintaining not learning anything more and I could do that on my own, which is when I started to notice the "secrets of kata." Then I started researching other arts and found different ways to address the same principles. I try to opproach martials with an objective mindset, so fixed styles is something I avoid.

Interesting thought monkey...

 

[Flying Crane]

Why not just call it "Martial Arts" and acknowledge the different arts in which you have trained, and which influence what you do now? Does there really need to be a new name for it?

 

[Dark]

I just want an easy answer for it, without going into a spill over 4 different things...

 

[Flying Crane]

I just want an easy answer for it, without going into a spill over 4 different things...

Then I would just say "martial arts", and if anyone asks further, they get the long story. Even if you give it a new name, you'll have to go thru that anyway when people say "i've never heard of that. what is it?".

In fact, you might get a better reception that way. I think there is a tendency for people to view with tremendous skepticism anyone who "creates" a new style, with a new name, new grandmaster, etc. At least this way you would avoid all that uncomfortable scrutiny It just comes across as more honest and less "fly-by-night".

 

[Dark]

Then I would just say "martial arts", and if anyone asks further, they get the long story. Even if you give it a new name, you'll have to go thru that anyway when people say "i've never heard of that. what is it?".

In fact, you might get a better reception that way. I think there is a tendency for people to view with tremendous skepticism anyone who "creates" a new style, with a new name, new grandmaster, etc. At least this way you would avoid all that uncomfortable scrutiny It just comes across as more honest and less "fly-by-night".

There is a scary thought me as a grand master lol, I need the raiden hat and the fu-manchu lol... The problem is without trying I codified it into something new, it evolved naturaly without me trying to evolve it, I'd like to give it a name for when I pass it on to my children or start teaching some friends. I'm just not sure how to difine something that evolved without invention...

 

[Flying Crane]

There is a scary thought me as a grand master lol, I need the raiden hat and the fu-manchu lol...

I know, I don't advocate it.

I think one problem is that whenever one develops their own way of doing things, either they automatically assume it is a new style and they have to give it a new name, and assume the role of grandmaster, or else everyone else assumes they do. This is what brings down the unwanted and unnecessary scrutiny and even hostility from the martial community who assumes you are placing yourself on a pedestal, even if that is not your intention.

I still say just keep it simple: "Martial Arts, my way". It's not new, it's just how you do things, based on your experience and training in various systems, with your own insights. Everyone should really do this anyway. Ultimately, no matter what arts you have trained in, you should develop your own way of doing it. And yes, this should come naturally, not as a deliberate act of creating and founding a new system. It doesn't really need a new name, in my opinion.

 

[Dark]

The thing is I'm not sure if I should call it karate or jujitsu, since it draws heavily from both.

 

[pstarr]

Do you practice kata?

 

[Dark]

Do you practice kata?

In the jujitsu since yes in the karate sense yes as well...