Is it appropriate to create a new martial art?

[Joe Hardwick]

Since this topic has been popping up in some other threads I thought I would start one about this specifically. So here are 3 questions:

1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art? Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why. Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.
2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" (I don't know if this exists or not but is simply an example). Again, please answer with a yes, no or maybe and reasons why.
3-Is it appropriate to start a reality based self-defense system? If you do not believe that they exist and are simply martial arts in another name then please say so, otherwise please answer with yes, no or maybe and of course reasons why.

I would like this to be a thread where you can give your opinion and not a thread where we go after anothers opinion. Obviously, if your opinion disagrees with another it will be known from your answers. Thanks, Joe.

 

[Master of Blades]

If people wish to take up their time creating there own system and give it a name and make a few people 12th Dans so they can teach then thats cool with me. As long as I dont have to learn it :asian:

On another note.....I wonder if this threads gonna be overtaken by arguments lol :shrug:

 

[cali_tkdbruin]

Originally posted by Master of Blades
On another note.....I wonder if this threads gonna be overtaken by arguments :lol

1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art? Yes sir. As long as there are martial arts and martial artists, the Arts will continue to evolve and new styles will be created. Sort of like Darwin's theory of evolution...

2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" (I don't know if this exists or not but is simply an example)? Yes, of course IMO. You can't stop change.

3-Is it appropriate to start a reality based self-defense system? Again, IMHO, yes. Also, unless I am mistaken, and I'm certain someone will correct me if I'm off ,
Krav Maga was created for this purpose.

Just my take, and I agree with The Master, I wonder how many arguments this thread will spawn...

 

[pesilat]

1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art? Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why. Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.

Maybe. Depends on who's starting it and why.

Everyone ends up creating their own style. If they build a curriculum around their style, then they've created their own system.

A new art ... by my definition, that's pretty difficult to do. Really, there's only one art -- martial art. The term art in standard MA vernacular usually refers to a set of martial arts systems from a specific country, culture, or region. Since most of the world is already covered with arts, then whatever system you create will generally be considered as part of:
(a) the art(s) of the region in which you reside or
(b) the art(s) that you used to create it

So, for instance, Eskrido is a system created by GM Cacoy Canete. He was among the top Eskrimadores in Doce Pares, a 3rd Dan in Kodokan Judo, and a 2nd Dan in Aikido (I belive those are the right ranks). He took the locks and throws from Aikido and Judo and blended them into his Eskrima and called it "Eskrido." It is considered a Filipino martial art because he is a Filipino, lived in the Philippines when he created it, and its primary foundation is Eskrima.

Shen Chuan is an American system because it was developed by an American in East Texas, Joe Lansdale. He had studied and had rank in quite a few different martial arts but his primary influences were American Kenpo, Hapkido, and Daito Ryu Aikijujitsu and he'd also been influenced by some Tai Chi, Chin Na, and other Chinese systems. He didn't set out to create a new system. He was teaching a group of guys and just doing it "off the cuff." One day, one of his students, Eugene Frizzell, said, "Man, Joe. This is really good stuff. You need to make a curriculum and start teaching it publicly." So he did. He used the Chinese name to give credit to the influence the Chinese martial arts have had on MA in general and, specifically, on his own development. But it is very much an American martial art.

If, however, someone is intending to create a system and they take some stuff from here and there and throw it into a salad, they don't have a system. They've got a bunch of disconnected elements. This is why so many new systems tend to suck.

When the creator develops a cohesive whole that can be effectively taught, then it's a good system.

2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" (I don't know if this exists or not but is simply an example). Again, please answer with a yes, no or maybe and reasons why.

I think my answer to #1 applies to this one as well. And, FYI, I think "Combat TaeKwonDo" is an existing art. Or, at least, I've heard the term used by some people.

3-Is it appropriate to start a reality based self-defense system? If you do not believe that they exist and are simply martial arts in another name then please say so, otherwise please answer with yes, no or maybe and of course reasons why.

I believe it's all martial arts. I think there is a finite (though large) number of ways that the human body can move, be moved, or be affected. Martial arts limits that number further by restricting it to methods that cause or prevent injury. This creates a pool of concepts and principles that are universal. All systems of martial arts draw from this same pool. The only thing that makes each system unique is its approach to the pool and which area(s) it prefers to drink from.

Different systems are geared toward different environments. But, in my estimation, any system which draws from these universal concepts and principles will be valid and applicable. Whether a specific systems "flavor" appeals to a given individual is an entirely different subject.

The bottom line is that martial arts training just improves our odds. The person who is most capable with his/her tools and can adapt them to the environment/situation will have the upper hand. This is true whether it's in a ring, on the street, or anywhere.

Further (and straying a little from the topic), I'd say that this concept can be extended into any kind of environment from verbal confrontations to office politics.

Learn the tools. Delve into the underlying concepts and principles (it's not enough to have a tool box; you have to understand why the tools work and how best to make them work for you). Then apply that knowledge to the situation and environment at hand.

A lot of people get caught up at the technical level. They put together a tool box (or get a pre-packaged one) and they put it on a shelf and never explore the concepts and principles of what really makes those tools functional. When people like this create a system, they end up with a hodgepodge Frankenstein's Monster that doesn't hold together in the long run.

Personally, I have no problem with people creating their own systems. I mean, think about it, at one point or another every system was a new creation.

Mike

 

[Joe Hardwick]

I hope this does not turn into a argument thread because so far everyone has given their opinions in a mature manner and shown respect to everyone involved. Thanks, Joe.

 

[KatGurl]

Originally posted by Joe Hardwick
Since this topic has been popping up in some other threads I thought I would start one about this specifically. So here are 3 questions:

1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art? Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why. Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.
2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" (I don't know if this exists or not but is simply an example). Again, please answer with a yes, no or maybe and reasons why.
3-Is it appropriate to start a reality based self-defense system? If you do not believe that they exist and are simply martial arts in another name then please say so, otherwise please answer with yes, no or maybe and of course reasons why.

I would like this to be a thread where you can give your opinion and not a thread where we go after anothers opinion. Obviously, if your opinion disagrees with another it will be known from your answers. Thanks, Joe.

1. No because there is so many, one might be perfect for you, and you may be 100 when you finish (or older).
2. No (read my answer for 1.), that name has alot of copied words in it, and the name sounds bad.:shrug:
3. No because MOST arts are ALREADY that exact topic.
4. .... oh.... there's no 4..... darn.... I like answering things :waah:

 

[Zepp]

pesilat,

I agree with your reply to the point that I think I might quote you if I ever have this conversation with someone in person. :asian:

One thing that I think should be said is that everyone should be a bit weary of someone teaching a new system, particularly if they created it. They could be a geniune master, with years and years of experience, who just decided to break the mold and do things their way. But he could also be a pretentious schmuck who was kicked out of his teachers' organization for running a McDojo and decided to change the sign on the building. You should always ask about someone's "lineage" before you pay them.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Do what you like with what you have. THe question is whether your new art can stand up to the test in combat.

 

[chufeng]

Pesilat,

Nice post...well thought out and laid out.
I agree with your assessment.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Zepp
pesilat,

I agree with your reply to the point that I think I might quote you if I ever have this conversation with someone in person. :asian:

LOL. Feel free Aside from martial arts, writing is my primary passtime. Thus far, I've not made much money doing either but if I were interested in money, I'd go back to computer programming

If you're interested, feel free to check out the articles I've got in the "Media/Photos" section of my website at http://www.impactacademy.com

Also, I had a martial arts short story called "One Ting I Know" published in the Martial Fiction section of http://www.cyberkwoon.com

One thing that I think should be said is that everyone should be a bit weary of someone teaching a new system, particularly if they created it. They could be a geniune master, with years and years of experience, who just decided to break the mold and do things their way. But he could also be a pretentious schmuck who was kicked out of his teachers' organization for running a McDojo and decided to change the sign on the building. You should always ask about someone's "lineage" before you pay them.

Absolutely. You should also try to find out if they are still on good terms with their instructors. This isn't always an indicator -- people sometimes have personal differences that have nothing to martial arts -- but if they're not on good terms with their instructors, then it should at least raise a caution flag. And if they have a bunch of instructors that they don't get along with, then some alarm bells should go off. Even if the person is an excellent martial artist, he may be a schmuck as a person.

There will always be people like this out there.

Here's a story I heard. I'll use fictitious names and titles. There's a guy named John Doe that I'd heard a little about. I was visiting a friend of mine, I'll call him Hank, and Hank mentioned John.

Me: "Oh, do you know him?"

Hank: "Yeah. He trained with me fora while."

Me: "Really? I've heard a little about him that makes me suspicious of him. Is he legit?"

Hank: (laughing) "Sure. He's legit ... on paper. He trained with me for a while. He was one of the worst students I've ever had. Then he went off to a seminar for a weekend and came back as a 'Certified Instructor'. Then he started telling me I was doing things wrong. I kicked him out. About a year later, I got a flyer for a seminar he was teaching in my area. He was billed as 'Master John Doe'. I sent him an e-mail saying, 'Wow. A 'Master' in a year. I must have totally missed your talent. I'm really impressed.' Of course, there was no reply."

Now, according to John Doe's website, he's got over 20 years of martial arts behind him, is the founder of his own system, and allegedly has Dan rankings in several other arts.

I don't know when John trained with my friend Hank, but I know it wasn't 20 years ago (Hank's only in his mid-30s). I suppose it's possible that he had training prior to Hank's school ... I don't know. But since I've heard from one good source that John has done this sort of thing, I have little doubt that he's done it more than once. He may, in fact, be perfectly legit on paper. But whether he has any skill or ability, I don't know. But I'd definitely be wary if someone asked me about him.

But this type of thing is, unfortunately, common. And I've heard even worse stories than that. People who weren't even legitimate on paper starting making claims and scamming people.

It sickens me. But as long as there are gullible suckers in the world, there will be people to take advantage of them.

Also, I firmly believe that, in the long run, people end up with the instructor they deserve. There may be some false starts. May even take years to get on track. But I believe that, in the end, everyone ends up where they deserve; even if they claim they want something else.

Mike

 

[Matt Stone]

Combat Taekwondo, as opposed to non-combat Taekwondo?

So what would the difference between those two be? One fights and the other doesn't?

This is offered in jest only... Feel free to substitute TKD for any other art, and it will still sound as silly...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Combat Taekwondo, as opposed to non-combat Taekwondo?

So what would the difference between those two be? One fights and the other doesn't?

This is offered in jest only... Feel free to substitute TKD for any other art, and it will still sound as silly...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Yup. It does. I saw a video once for "Combat JKD" and I had the exact same thought process

Mike

 

[Master of Blades]

I dunno Combat Kali has a certain ring to it......Specially if you spell it with a "K" :asian:

 

[Joe Hardwick]

The reason I included the second type is because it is becoming more and more common. Basically, instead of a new martial art they keep the original name and put a variation on the old art. Examples include: Combat Hapkido, Modern Hapkido and Modern Arnis. I did not feel that it would be fair not to include these types of arts in my question.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Joe Hardwick
The reason I included the second type is because it is becoming more and more common. Basically, instead of a new martial art they keep the original name and put a variation on the old art. Examples include: Combat Hapkido, Modern Hapkido and Modern Arnis. I did not feel that it would be fair not to include these types of arts in my question.

Combat Hapkido chose its name to distinguish it from traditional Hapkido. They are very different in respects to where it counts. They use what is useful and reject what is useless.

Since the topic touched on the use of the word Combat with a martial art name I thought that I would add there are many reasons to change a system or a name of a system. It can imply the original system was lacking although it does not have to mean that at all.
Here is a brief decription of Combat Hapkido from the arts founder.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL HAPKIDO...
... AND COMBAT HAPKIDO

Combat Hapkido is a new, modern style of Hapkido developed by Grandmaster John Pellegrini. Combat Hapkido differs from other Hapkido styles philosophically as well as technically.
Following are a few examples:
· Combat Hapkido is 100% Self Defense. There are no forms (Kata/Hyungs).
· All Combat Hapkido kicks are directed to the lower part of the body.
· Combat Hapkido does not teach "acrobatic" kicks.
· Combat Hapkido employs breakfalls and throws in a very limited manner.
· Combat Hapkido has no hard blocks or stances.
· Combat Hapkido does not teach "Traditional" weapons like joot-do (bamboo sword) or fan. We teach cane, belt and other Self Defense tools.
· Combat Hapkido teaches special firearms disarming techniques.
· Combat Hapkido contains a complete Ground Grappling program.
· Combat Hapkido, because it is flexible, dynamic and eclectic, continues to evolve.
· Combat Hapkido is not a sport and cannot be modified nor regulated to be one. There are no competitions, tournaments or championship.

"COMBAT HAPKIDO" In 1990 Grandmaster Pellegrini officially named his style of Hapkido "Combat Hapkido". The name clearly identifies it and sets it apart from other "traditional" styles of Hapkido. It is also referred to as the "Science of Self Defense". In 1999 the Combat Hapkido System was officially recognized and accredited as a legitimate "Kwan" of HapKiDo by the WKF/KKA (Kido-Hae). The Korean name of Combat Hapkido is "Chon-Tu Kwan HapKiDo"

Combat Hapkido is an extremely realistic and versatile discipline of self protection that includes an extensive variety of strikes, kicks, joint locks, pressure points, grappling and disarming techniques. The result is a practical, comprehensive Self Defense system that is enjoyable to learn and that produces effective results in realistic situations.
Combat Hapkido’s dynamic concepts are based on scientific principles of anatomy and biokinetics as well as psychology and strategy. It is well suited for men and women of all sizes because physical strength and athletic abilities are not essential. The emphasis is on redirecting the assailants’ aggression and power back toward them with little effort and minimum force on your part.
Founding this system did not involve "inventing" the techniques. It was a matter of selecting the most realistic, effective and practical ones, modifying others and then combining and arranging these techniques in a structured system of instruction designed for individuals of all physical abilities living in a modern society.

The essence of Combat Hapkido is pure Self Defense. It is the synthesis of dynamic concepts, scientific principles, realistic applications and plain common sense.

 

[James Kovacich]

I felt this woulf help understand it better from the founders words:

WHAT COMBAT HAPKIDO IS NOT:

A new Martial Art
Traditional Hapkido with a different name
A "Free-Style" type of Martial Art
A Martial Sport
An amateurish mix of random techniques from different Martial Arts
WHAT COMBAT HAPKIDO IS:

A new, modern style of Hapkido
A totally scientific approach to Self Defense
A realistic and effective discipline of personal protection
A dynamic and flexible program of learning and teaching
the science of Self Defense
The result of over 35 years of Martial Arts study, research,
application and synthesis

 

[Zepp]

akja,
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've heard and read pretty much the description you just gave in regards many other "modernized" styles of many different arts.

The only significance of calling his style "Combat" Hapkido is that it signifies that this is GM Pellegrini's own personal spin on Hapkido. The same goes for any other style that has the word 'Combat' added in front of it. In and of themselves, the extra words added to the name don't tell you anything.

Sounds like a cool style though. :asian:

 

[James Kovacich]

What extra words?

My only real point was that he made sinificant changes so he "chose" to keep the original name but added the word combat to it to signify the changes.

 

[MartialArtist]

I have created the most practical style ever. It's where you use your energy and shoot fireballs.

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
I have created the most practical style ever. It's where you use your energy and shoot fireballs.

Hey I invented that one too. But it only works when I'm really hammered for some reason.