NOTE: Please note, as I reread the post, some things could be construed as angry responses. They're not. They're just short and concise.
Well, I see this old thread has been resurrected. Nothing wrong with that.
---
The internet is forever. It would not be kind for me to let alot of people who DON'T know John, speculate negatively. Old or not, the search function will still find it.
The problem is the title "Blademaster" just doesn't seem to show up anywhere, historically. It's not "Guru," "Sensei," "Maestro," or "Provost," "Maitre d'Armes," nor even "Professor." People are kinda of like, "what? where'd that come from?" And, like it or not, if there's not some sort of antique lineage associated with it then terms such as "Blademaster" just sound like they've been lifted from D&D, pretentious and "self awarded."
---
I can see your point. But a title has to start sometime. Again, I'm not familiar with the how/why John chose the title. I suspect it had something to do with Hoch's system, but I don't know. However, he chose the title to indicate a "Masters-at-Arms" sort of title, specifically in regards to his knife studies.
Psychologically, most people would prefer something that seems less pretentious while still implying a modern genesis of terms and conveying the desired meaning. Something like, "Modern Knife Skills - Level 3" or the like.
---
You can't please all of the people, all of the time. And given that you've not met John, or seen what his skill levels are, you're arguing about his title. Okay. I'm here to say that I know him, and he has studied martial arts for decades. The guy's in his 60's. Not some 25 year old kid.
Further, "Blademaster" just sounds so inclusive of, well, everything with a blade: Master of All Swords, Master of All Knives, Master of All Sharp-Pointy-Poky Weapons. Add the two effects together and it should be obvious why it puts people off.
---
Kali (of which he's studied many styles) shows that the weapon is more about angles and tactics. A master of a knife and short-sword, could well apply those principles to staff, longsword, or stick. Either you've not studied Southeast Asian bladed arts, or you're trying to be argumentative. That's fine. If you haven't studied bladed arts, then it might be worthwhile to study some to understand the <pun unintended> point of this.
As for it being an "American designation," it doesn't come from the Military and doesn't seem to have a history reaching further back than maybe 20 years or so and then only in fictional literature as far as I've ever been able to track down.
---
I can't address this point, other than my recollection of John talking about it simply to indicate a person who's worked with the blade. Heck, he's teaching his own system. He can call himself whatever he wants. Granted, people may call him to task on the title of his choosing, but do you visit a teacher over his title, or the skills he provides?
So, in the sense that an "American" chose to use it in the (very recent) past, yeah, it's an "American designation." Other than that, not so much. Jim Bowie nor Daniel Boone were neither called "Blademaster."
---
I don't think I ever said it WASN'T American.
I'm fairly certain that Hoch uses the "Level x" paradigm. I.E. PAC Level 1, Stick 1, Knife 1, etc.
---
I am not familiar with Hoch. It could be prior to Hoch's revamp of the his system or not.
To many people, "creating" your own, named, martial art is often a great big
Red Flag, with a capital "R."
---
Not really. There's a ton of them. Some are good, some aren't. If no one created their own system...well, where would we be historically? You're arguing about modern folks creating them. And if we didn't, there wouldn't be MMA.
I'm not saying that Mr. Balika isn't genuinely skilled or that making a mish-mash of what you think is important fighting skills and teaching that as a system doesn't make logical sense, however, there's just been
so many hucksters who've claimed to have done the same thing that it makes people all kinds of nervous.
---
Mr. McCurry. Balika is a combination of terms meaning "to send back" I believe. But I've encountered a number of hucksters in pure systems. You're over-generalizing here. I see your worries. That's fine. But you're condemning someone based on a stereotype, when you don't know them, haven't visited them, haven't studied with them, etc. Its your RIGHT to do so. I'm just saying I know him. He's well studied. I've been in martial arts since '93. Not a SUPER long time...but I'm not someone who's blinded by a flashy title. I'm not even studying the system. I'm just trying to say, after much speculation about him, that I know him, and he's got some legit skills to teach.
I'm genuinely interested in this particular nugget. I'm a Western Martial Artist (among other things) and have a particular interest in western knife systems. It has been my personal experience that most western knife systems in the Americas, including, nay, especially Mexico tend to have little information and less verifiability.
---
Not just Western. Asian systems also have alot of false history.
I am aware of only Gaucho knife work as having any sort of real documentation or verifiable lineage and a few other odd literary and historical references to other, ill defined, systems here and there. Most seem to be transplants of European systems such as Spanish Navaja and Italian Stiletto. Everything else seems to be mostly along the lines of "my dad showed me some tricks from when he was a kid" or "this is what the old gang members say to do." If you can provide details or more information about Mr. Balika's Mexican Knife Systems, it would be of great interest to me and several others whom I know.
---
I am not a student of his system. Please feel free to call him. He can also then explain where his title came from. He's a very nice and friendly guy. Easy to talk to. He's mentioned to me a few times, that most of his bladed arts are NOT of Asian origin, so he may have more Western influences than just the Mexican knife fighting he's told me about.
This would be one of those contentious statements. Some Koryu were knife or sword based, some included the knife and/or sword, and others were "segmented" as the unarmed portion of fighting.
---
Unarmed was a last resort.
A lot of it depends on the lineage and the personal "definition" of the person doing the historical research on Koryu.
---
Ask him.
He may be a very decent guy, feed the poor, house orphans, and adopt puppies. The thing is, in his internet/marketing presence he's used several Red Flags which, through experience, folks have learned to watch for.
---
That's fine. People speculated negatively about a man who wasn't here to defend himself. I just put in a good word for him.
In his place, I would consider some different naming and rank conventions. Words matter.
---
That's fine. Perhaps you can talk to him and explain this to him. He has been doing martial arts longer than I've been alive. Please feel free to address your concerns and issues to him. He's not scary, and one of the nicest folks I know. His skills are legit.
I sometimes lament that some words or phrases have unintended connotations but that's just the way it is.
---
I lament people who will speculate negatively about someone, but not talk to them directly. Give him a call. He's a nice fellow. Ask your questions TO him. He can give more information about his system than I can.
Pointing this out has earned me some unhappiness before. I recently pointed out that the phrase "Dagger Fencing" used to describe a WMA schools curriculum may have the unintended consequence of putting some people off who would otherwise be interested in learning historic knife systems because the term "Fencing" to most average folks conjures images of "gay white leotards." Now, the folks I was telling this to came from a Classical Fencing background and they were kinda unhappy about the turn of phrase I used, but that's just the fact.
---
So you've done this before? I'll let your actions speak for themself.
Anyway, words matter and the title "Blademaster," self-created Ju Jitsu systems, and difficult to verify base sources are all kinda "markers" that say, "be careful."
---
1) Blademaster? Call him. Ask him where it came from.
2) Its a self created system. A system has to be created sometime. His broad experiences have been distilled into something he wants to teach. That's his right. Its your right too, to speculate negatively about someone you haven't really investigated. Its a great country!
3) Difficult to verify because you haven't called to ask his lineage. Call him.
Even if it turns out to be no big deal people still view these with skepticism.
---
Probably. That's why his contact information is on his website. So people can find out more information.
You've stated your piece. I stated mine. There was pure negative speculation concerning him in this thread, by folks who didn't know him. I can't address your worries about terminology, I can't address your concern about someone who decides to form their own system. I've said my piece. John's a nice guy with a good skillset. If you have questions, call him. I probably will not respond further to this particular thread (but sometimes I do get suckered in, I gotta admit), as I've said my piece, and this will just end up being a pointless back and forth with no new information. I wish you the best of luck in whatever art you do.
Rooke
