How Pure Are The Arts?

[MJS]

Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section. He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief? EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?

While that thread was, at least IMO, geared mostly towards the art of TKD, it got me thinking....how many arts out there today, can we honestly say are pure or original? Think about it...we can see a front kick in numerous arts, the difference probably only being method of execution and name. BJJ is another example.

So, how pure are the arts? For the record, I'm not saying he was right/wrong with his post. I was simply reading thru it and it sparked this thread.

 

[Flying Crane]

Hi Mike,

as far as technique goes, on a simplistic level, probably very little is unique to one system or another. Some techniques may be found in fewer systems than others, but probably not absolutely unique.

I think the issue of what makes something THIS style vs. THAT style is not so much in the technique itself, but rather in the methodology that goes into how the technique is developed. Even there you will probably find a lot of overlap, but in some cases some systems can have some approaches that are not quite matched in any others. I'm not talking about application drills or combos. I'm talking about the fundamental concepts of how one develops the basic techniques, like a punch.

I say this with my own system as an example. We use rooting and waist turning as our primary source of power in our techniques. That concept is something that I am sure is NOT unique to Tibetan White Crane. However, the specifics of HOW we train to develop this power probably is. We use what would be seen as exaggerated movements that are designed to connect the body and develop the ability to use this rooting and rotation. People who do not understand the system see this and assume that THAT is how we would punch in a fight, and they find it odd. But that is NOT how we would actually punch in a real fight. That exaggerated movement is just a way to develop the power, and in a real fight our punch would probably look much like any other, but we are able to engage the full body with that rotation and rooting because the training method taught us how to do it.

Again, I don't claim the rooting and rotation are unique to our system. Only that specifically how we train to develop it, is. I've never seen anyone else do something quite like how we do.

So it isn't the punch or the kick or the application of a movement that identifies our system. It is 1) where the power comes from, combined with 2) the methodology in how the power was trained and developed.

at least for starters, anyway.

 

[shihansmurf]

I seem to recall a quote from Ed Parker about pure knuckles meeting pure flesh being pure karate.

I don't think that there is any "pure" systems out there. Punches are punches, kicks are kicks. I view the various systems as nothing more than teaching models to impart certain skills into the martial artist. Nothing more.

More to the point, as we develop, we get exposed to other methods of training and the way other people perfom various kicks, strikes, blocks, combos, etc and we absorb a bit from here and there. Well, if we can look past our egos enough to recognize when someone has a more efficient way to perform a given movement, and we adopt it. Or we don't as the case may be. I think that this is a natural progression as we train. Eventually we stray a bit from our initial art's method and any illusion of purity is lost.

In any event, if you are a thief so is everyone of the folks who put together the various systems. Ya know, guys like Parker, Emperado, Choi, Lee, and so on. Pretty good company to be in.

Just my view,
Mark

 

[Big Don]

Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section. He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief? EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?

You're not a thief, you're a researcher:

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research.

Wilson Mizner

How pure are the arts? As pure as mud.
​

 

[MJS]

Thats pretty much what I was thinking. There are things that will be unique, such as FC said, using his art as an example. But just like shihansmurf said, its unlikely there are any 'pure' arts out there, and Kajukenbo is a perfect example of that. 5 founders, 5 different arts, training together, taking the best of each, and blending them into 1 new art.

 

[Twin Fist]

its theft when you dont credit the source.

Kajukenbo for example, the name itself credits the source arts

 

[MJS]

its theft when you dont credit the source.

Kajukenbo for example, the name itself credits the source arts

Exactly! There were times when I'd teach a Kenpo club or knife technique. Sometimes, I'd show something from Arnis, so the students could see differences and similarities. However, I'd always make it known that what I was teaching was Arnis, not Kenpo.

Give credit, where credit is due.

 

[Flying Crane]

Thats pretty much what I was thinking. There are things that will be unique, such as FC said, using his art as an example. But just like shihansmurf said, its unlikely there are any 'pure' arts out there, and Kajukenbo is a perfect example of that. 5 founders, 5 different arts, training together, taking the best of each, and blending them into 1 new art.

There is some material in our system that was adopted from elsewhere by prior generations, some of it is stuff my sifu brought in from his early studies, as his first sifu was accomplished in another system and my sifu learned some of that from him. Sifu acknowledges where it came from, and certain things were adjusted to make it fit appropriately within how things are done in my system.

There are some things that didn't really get entirely adjusted properly to follow our sysetematic methods. This is material that my sifu has stated he doesn't really like very well. He does't like it because it doesn't fit the way our system as a whole functions. The material has other benefits and that's why it is kept, but it's just not a favorite because it sort of goes against the grain.

Things do get adopted, traded, shared, etc. from one system to another. This happens, always has and always will. Sometimes this leads to the splintering and development of a "new" system or lineage or spin-off, and sometimes it's just new material that gets absorbed. I think it is very important to ask, "does this material fit within how our system works?". If the answer is "no" then you are actually better off without it. That is a question that I believe often does not get asked. Instead, people see something that someone else is doing, and it's different and interesting, and they decide, "I need to have that, because I don't have it and it MUST be important!" But they lack the context to make it valuable and it becomes a pointless add-on that gives little or no benefit to their training. Sometimes you are actually better off WITHOUT something.

at any rate, sure it's pretty difficult to say that anything is actually pure, because nothing springs forth fully formed from a vacuum.

 

[seasoned]

Hi Mike,

as far as technique goes, on a simplistic level, probably very little is unique to one system or another. Some techniques may be found in fewer systems than others, but probably not absolutely unique.

I think the issue of what makes something THIS style vs. THAT style is not so much in the technique itself, but rather in the methodology that goes into how the technique is developed. Even there you will probably find a lot of overlap, but in some cases some systems can have some approaches that are not quite matched in any others. I'm not talking about application drills or combos. I'm talking about the fundamental concepts of how one develops the basic techniques, like a punch.

I say this with my own system as an example. We use rooting and waist turning as our primary source of power in our techniques. That concept is something that I am sure is NOT unique to Tibetan White Crane. However, the specifics of HOW we train to develop this power probably is. We use what would be seen as exaggerated movements that are designed to connect the body and develop the ability to use this rooting and rotation. People who do not understand the system see this and assume that THAT is how we would punch in a fight, and they find it odd. But that is NOT how we would actually punch in a real fight. That exaggerated movement is just a way to develop the power, and in a real fight our punch would probably look much like any other, but we are able to engage the full body with that rotation and rooting because the training method taught us how to do it.

Again, I don't claim the rooting and rotation are unique to our system. Only that specifically how we train to develop it, is. I've never seen anyone else do something quite like how we do.

So it isn't the punch or the kick or the application of a movement that identifies our system. It is 1) where the power comes from, combined with 2) the methodology in how the power was trained and developed.

at least for starters, anyway.

Very well put........

In Okinawan GoJu, big becomes small, hard becomes soft, and the principles of the essence of this art are within Sanchin. Knowing Sanchin does not give you this essence, and repetition alone will not produce it. Without the guidance needed, all you will have is one more kata to work on.............

 

[Flying Crane]

Very well put........

In Okinawan GoJu, big becomes small, hard becomes soft, and the principles of the essence of this art are within Sanchin. Knowing Sanchin does not give you this essence, and repetition alone will not produce it. Without the guidance needed, all you will have is one more kata to work on.............

another important concept in our system as well. Exaggerated movement is big, but application is small. Exaggerated movement teaches you how to do it properly. Once you can do that, application can be done with small movement. But you need the lessons that the exaggerated movement give you first.

 

[seasoned]

another important concept in our system as well. Exaggerated movement is big, but application is small. Exaggerated movement teaches you how to do it properly. Once you can do that, application can be done with small movement. But you need the lessons that the exaggerated movement give you first.

Not trying to steal this thread MJS but there are some points being made here that I feel have a common tread within the martial arts, known or not known.


In your above statement I assume you mean full body movement, incorporating the root and body mechanics into each movement when exaggerated, then as the movements are done smaller there is more of an internal feeling. Is this your thought process?

 

[Flying Crane]

Not trying to steal this thread MJS but there are some points being made here that I feel have a common tread within the martial arts, known or not known.


In your above statement I assume you mean full body movement, incorporating the root and body mechanics into each movement when exaggerated, then as the movements are done smaller there is more of an internal feeling. Is this your thought process?

yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The exaggerated movements help us learn how to engage the full body from the ground up, to drive the technique with a fully integrated and focused effort. The entire body is working together, to get full body power. Once that is understood and the skill to do it is there, then in application the same effect can be obtained with smaller movement. You train with the big movement to reinforce the skill, but you apply on a bad guy with the small movement, because that is all that is necessary. But even with the smaller movement, you can get that full body engagement.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

Jeet Kune Do (the principal) is one of the few ways to unmuddy the waters. Your front kick is your front kick whether you learned it in karate, pancration or ballet. Hope you learned it the way it works best for you.

If you take karate make it your karate. When you throw a punch it's your punch, not "karate's punch".

Don't limit yourself to being a proponent of the art rather than deriving a part of your arsenal from it.

I think the arts being muddy is generally a good thing and I certainly think the arts are generally muddy.

 

[seasoned]

yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The exaggerated movements help us learn how to engage the full body from the ground up, to drive the technique with a fully integrated and focused effort. The entire body is working together, to get full body power. Once that is understood and the skill to do it is there, then in application the same effect can be obtained with smaller movement. You train with the big movement to reinforce the skill, but you apply on a bad guy with the small movement, because that is all that is necessary. But even with the smaller movement, you can get that full body engagement.

Full agreement.

 

[Chris Parker]

Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section. He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief? EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?

While that thread was, at least IMO, geared mostly towards the art of TKD, it got me thinking....how many arts out there today, can we honestly say are pure or original? Think about it...we can see a front kick in numerous arts, the difference probably only being method of execution and name. BJJ is another example.

So, how pure are the arts? For the record, I'm not saying he was right/wrong with his post. I was simply reading thru it and it sparked this thread.

Right. To clear up a few things, the first thing that needs to be said is that everyone's wrong. There, I think that settles things a bit!

Okay, I'll clarify a bit.

Everyone who has said that there are no "pure" martial arts, that every art borrows from other arts, that every martial artist looks to other systems to augment, add, or influence and in other ways alter what they do, is wrong. Completely.

That, of course though, is not an absolute either. There are certainly martial arts (and, more realistically, martial artists) that don't follow such "purity" in their training, due to their personal preference and values. Neither is better than the other, just different approaches. But let's take it back to the beginning, because I think there's a misunderstanding of what the question is actually asking in the first place... namely, I don't think the idea of what a "pure" system is, in terms of martial arts, in the first place.

The focus of the OP from MJS is centered on technical aspects, and gives the hypothetical example of someone taking disparate techniques or technical aspects of a range of different systems, and combining them. That's really not anything to do with what makes it a pure martial art or not, or even an actual one.

Now, I've said this a number of times before, but a martial art isn't it's techniques. They are simply the physical expression of what the martial art actually is. What a martial art actually is is a philosophy, a set of beliefs and values, that are then expressed in a physical way, with the physical expression having a combative element or theme. What that means, of course, is that provided the base philosophy is adhered to, the art remains "pure". It's really these differences in philosophies that separates out different arts from each other, not their techniques (that does get a little more confused in older systems... but we'll get to that). This philosophy can range wildly, with no particular approach being "normal". It might be competitive, survival, personal development, religious, political, or anything else. It may have elements of adaptation and adoption of other approaches as part of that philosophy, in which case, taking from other arts can still be "pure", for that art. The catch is, whatever the art's philosophy is, it needs to be congruent, and it needs to be adhered to. Simply using kicks from TKD, joint locks from Aikido, throws from Judo, weapon defence from Arnis, strikes from Wing Chun etc, without adaptation (in other words, transplanting them straight from the source system to the "new" one) is a deeply flawed approach, and not something I'd consider a martial art in the first place. It's just a collection of fighting techniques with no understanding.

So, in regards to the original thread (I read through that thing... the amount of incorrect understanding was rather amazing to me!), one of the big concepts was the development of a martial art. Where does something become a distinct martial system, rather than just a copy/case of "stealing" an art? Well, when there is a clear philosophical distinction between the source system and the new one. Supporters of TKD not being "stolen" cited Judo and Aikido, saying that they were the same thing as TKD's origin being from Shotokan. At this point in time, with the development of TKD itself, there's some support for that contention, however there is a huge lack of understanding as to what the development of Judo and Aikido actually was, as that was vastly different to TKD's origins and development. Namely that both Aikido and Judo were specifically developed as new arts based in a new philosophy, different and distinct from the source arts they came from. TKD, on the other hand, was an almost purely transplanted version of Shotokan (originally), with only a small amount of re-arrangement and addition of kicking methods. It was only as it developed later that it began to have it's own distinct philosophy, which was influenced greatly by the Korean government and their hand in the alterations and shaping of the art.

To go back to the OP, and take it in turn, Mike starts by asking:

Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section. He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief? EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?

That depends on your claim. If you take the individual aspects and put them together to create a new system, with a new name, that's not necessarily stealing. Especially if you state where it all came from. An argument could be made that if you claim to have invented it all yourself, that could be stealing, but honestly, if it's just physical techniques (such as individual kicks, strikes, joint locks etc), then no. You may well be less-than-honest, or lying, about your history, and where you took the techniques from, but that's not quite the same as stealing. It's not a simple distinction, really, but it's there.

The reason it's not stealing is that you're not actually taking something unique, or particular to the source school, generally speaking. I can name dozens of schools that have the same joint locks, albeit done slightly differently, or with a slight change in emphasis, or a different name, as Aikido has. What makes it Aikido isn't the joint lock, it's the overall approach, the training methodology, which are all guided by the base philosophy of Aikido. Without that crucial base philosophy, what is taken isn't Aikido, it's just techniques. If the entire training methodology is taken, the things that are uniquely Aikido, then that is where we get into "theft".

Where this is most prevalent is in Koryu. Not in actual Koryu, mind you, but in modern systems that want to be Koryu, or at least, their take on what it is. There we get groups like the "Ogawa Ryu", a modern Brazilian system who claim to be Koryu, whereas what they actually do is copy the kata of actual Koryu. Kata are far more than techniques, they are the strategies of the Ryu, a complete embodiment of the philosophy that that art has. They are "owned" by the Ryu itself, realistically, they are copyrighted actions. An individual punch, or throw might not be, but the kata, the complete strategy that uses the punch, or throw, is.

Some examples of kata theft (an unpardonable sin in the Koryu world, by the way)...

A Bujinkan split-off stealing Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu kata.

The same group stealing Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu kata. Really, they're not doing well, are they?

A Russian group known for copying Koryu kata have a go at stealing more Katori Shinto Ryu.

And another theft of Katori Shinto Ryu kata. These ones admitted to me that they basically just copied the video of Otake Sensei, and felt that made them legitimate in their practice of Katori Shinto Ryu... regardless of the fact that it shows no understanding, there are aspects missing, the kuzushi (application) is completely missing, and it's terrible. I advised them to stop claiming to teach/show/offer Katori Shinto Ryu if they really did respect it as they said, and they banned me from commenting on their you-tube page.... hmm.

The above examples are all theft, plain and simple. They are theft the same way that copying, or covering someone's song, and not paying royalties is theft. The notes aren't what you steal, it's the way they're put together.

While that thread was, at least IMO, geared mostly towards the art of TKD, it got me thinking....how many arts out there today, can we honestly say are pure or original? Think about it...we can see a front kick in numerous arts, the difference probably only being method of execution and name. BJJ is another example.

Well, that's the thing, Mike, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing. "Pure" would be "true to it's own philosophy and approach to combative problems", whereas "original" would be, in context here, uniquely developed devoid of outside influence. The argument could be made that all martial arts are "pure", and none of them are "original" in that sense.

In regards to the front kick example, there being a front kick present is really neither here nor there. The execution (and the name), though, are a reflection of the philosophy. To use a TKD front kick in, say, Wing Chun, doesn't work, as the philosophies are too different when it comes to postural concepts, power generation, angling, distancing, and so on.

So, how pure are the arts? For the record, I'm not saying he was right/wrong with his post. I was simply reading thru it and it sparked this thread.

The closer they stay to their philosophies, the more "pure" they are... and that philosophy can be one of adaptation, incorporation of new ideas, exploration, and so on (such as JKD, MMA, BJJ etc), which doesn't make them any less "pure" as a martial art. It's really only those devoid of such a philosophy that aren't "pure" (mind you, as I said, they're also not martial arts to my mind either...), or instructors/practitioners who don't understand their art and it's philosophy enough, so they bring in incongruent elements, which leads those schools to teach/practice an "impure" version of their art. Not to pick on the Akban guys again, but that's what I'm against in my comments in the "Sparring" thread (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?21401-sparring/page12).

Now, a few things.

Mark (Shihansmurf) said:

I seem to recall a quote from Ed Parker about pure knuckles meeting pure flesh being pure karate.

I don't think that there is any "pure" systems out there. Punches are punches, kicks are kicks. I view the various systems as nothing more than teaching models to impart certain skills into the martial artist. Nothing more.

More to the point, as we develop, we get exposed to other methods of training and the way other people perfom various kicks, strikes, blocks, combos, etc and we absorb a bit from here and there. Well, if we can look past our egos enough to recognize when someone has a more efficient way to perform a given movement, and we adopt it. Or we don't as the case may be. I think that this is a natural progression as we train. Eventually we stray a bit from our initial art's method and any illusion of purity is lost.

In any event, if you are a thief so is everyone of the folks who put together the various systems. Ya know, guys like Parker, Emperado, Choi, Lee, and so on. Pretty good company to be in.

Just my view,
Mark

There's a couple of things here that I'd take some issue with... firstly the comment "if we can look past our egos enough". I gotta ask, Mark, what makes it an ego thing that way? And how is it not a much bigger ego which has someone thinking they know better than an art which has existed longer than they have in most cases? That, to me, is a much more severe case of "ego" coming into play here.

Next, I feel that Ed Parker was looking for a soundbite, something that simplified things in an easily digestible mouthful. Cause, you see, he's wrong. Pure knuckles meeting pure flesh is nothing to do with Karate, pure or otherwise. It's just knuckles meeting flesh. Don't get me wrong, I get where he was going with it, the idea that the concrete reality of physical experience is required for your study of Karate to be considered "real" in any way, but the infinite number of ways knuckles can meet flesh which has nothing to do with Karate negates his statement to begin with, and the idea that that is the extent of what Karate is teaching in dealing with conflict/violence is to completely understate what Karate offers and is to the point of negating what Karate is at all.

Finally, the company of Parker, Emperado, Choi, and Lee? No, not really that impressive, honestly. Most simply repackaged things, rather than coming up with something truly new (including Bruce, by the way). There are much better cases of founders to look to for something far more impressive, but you'd need to go back a fair amount further than the last 50 years...

 

[Kong Soo Do]

its theft when you dont credit the source.

Kajukenbo for example, the name itself credits the source arts

I think this is the crux of the issue, particularly in the TKD section. Some, not all Korean GM's want to portray (or have portrayed) TKD as a 2000 year old indigenous Korean martial art. Which of course, it is not. It is Karate with renamed or recreated forms and extra kicks. Nothing wrong with that. And nothing wrong with crediting the source(s). By the way, it isn't limited to TKD, there use to be a TSD school not far from my house with a Korean GM that had the same thing on his flyer. Again, this is some, not all. And to be fair, there are some, not all, westerners (we call them 'Asiophiles') that do the same thing i.e. say it is something it isn't.

As noted above, there are no pure arts. A modern art came from something before it, which in turn came from something before it. TKD came from Karate which came from Shuri Te which came from White Craine Gong Fu (this is a greatly simplified example). MSK Kong Soo Do came from elements of TKD, HKD, Aikijujutsu, Chin Na, SPEAR, PCR, Boatman systems, Krav Maga, Shuri Te etc which came from Kong Soo Do & Kwan Bup which came from Shotokan, Shudokan and Shito Ryu which came from Shuri Te which came from Te which came from White Crane Gong Fu which came from something in the Middle East.

We list it, as best as we've been able to research it, on our website because we're proud to show the lineage.

That's just the way we roll

 

[punisher73]

In regards to Chris Parker's statements, I find it very interesting. The examples mostly given are from Japanese Koryu arts when it comes to "pure" etc. I would agree with that, they did a very good job of not changing anything and passing on a historic system as it was originally practiced. Now, let's apply that to the empty hand arts which is what the OP started with.

Almost every empty handed art I can think of, had it's founder cross training with other instructors or systems. Even many of the chinese systems either took parts of a parent system and then refined it down for use (Wing Chun) or combined aspects of differing arts to form the current style (Several Preying Mantis styles). Even the history of karate is mixed with the Okinawans taking their indiginous stuff (Te) and combining it with Chinese martial arts to form kara-te. I don't think that the spiritual philosophy is at the core of all arts either, this was mainly added after in most except for a twisted version in Japan to get ultimate obedience from it's soliders/warriors.

In your example, Ueshiba studied spear and swords arts along with Sumo and Daito-Ryu. He combined these techniques to form his own martial art, it wasn't until later that he added in alot of the religious aspects from his own religious conversion. So you have again, one person's personal journey and then looking at the final product and saying that it's the philosophy that sets it apart when it was seperate before that occured. Same thing with Judo, that wasn't the full intention when Kano set out to create it. Kano Jujitsu was seperate before he added in alot of the moral stuff and then renamed his own style Judo.

 

[Twin Fist]

Finally, the company of Parker, Emperado, Choi, and Lee? No, not really that impressive, honestly. Most simply repackaged things, rather than coming up with something truly new (including Bruce, by the way). There are much better cases of founders to look to for something far more impressive, but you'd need to go back a fair amount further than the last 50 years...

I will disagree with you regarding two people

Parker took the kenpo he learned, analyzed it, stripped away what he didnt feel worked, and using a scientific method, developed a whole new art, and all new kata.

Same with Emperado and Kajukenbo. The act of taking five arts, using kenpo for the base, and taking the "puzzle pieces" if you will and creating a new whole was monumental at the time.

Choi? i agree, re-packaged

lee? did what emperado did 20 years earlier, but left his potential sources of techniques wide open.

in fact, i would say that lee only did a half *** job compared to emperado, since lee never created a style, he copied an idea and called it good. he either didnt realize or didnt comprehend that what worked for him wouldnt work for anyone else. Thats why kajukenbo has flourished and JKD has not.

 

[Wo Fat]

Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section. He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief? EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?

While that thread was, at least IMO, geared mostly towards the art of TKD, it got me thinking....how many arts out there today, can we honestly say are pure or original? Think about it...we can see a front kick in numerous arts, the difference probably only being method of execution and name. BJJ is another example.

So, how pure are the arts? For the record, I'm not saying he was right/wrong with his post. I was simply reading thru it and it sparked this thread.

Interesting topic. I'd tend to agree with the underlying premise that there is little or no "purity" in that arts practiced today -- or the ones that we've learned in the last 60 to 80 years for that matter. And that lack of purity is NOT a bad or negative thing; in fact, it's proving to be a pretty good thing in some respects. I'm of the mind that there is no "pure" TKD or Goju or Kajukenbo or Hung Ga. And in that respect, believe that it's fair to question the attempts to refer to one's self, one's lineage, or one's art as "pure". I was once one of those people who professed to practice and teach an "authentic" way of my art. But after looking into the origins, techniques and people within it, I realized that what I thought was pure and authentic was really an art that belonged to no particular person. But that it was what it was and is what it is. Had nothing to do with me.

There's a fresh freedom that goes with knowing that few if any arts or lineages are "pure".

 

[Black Belt Jedi]

I can't say how pure any Martial Art system can be. I wasn't there when such a style was created in it's pure form. I can't tell what is the real Sanseru or the real and original Kushanku kata. Karate like any other Martial Art kept on developing and evolving throughout the centuries.

IMO, taking different techniques from various disciplines and creating you own system is not stealing. I don't consider E.W. Barton Wright to be a thief, neither is Bruce Lee a thief. They are just taking what works for them in order to develop something new. That is IMHO, a tradtional way in Martial Arts, to further upgade the training structure.