Journey OF a new style...

[skribs]

This thread might meander a bit. I'm stewing through a lot of thoughts and emotions right now.

Thread title is an obvious nod to the other thread that's been alive for several years now, the thread content is heavily based on the news I posted about in the TKD forum. To sum up: I am testing this week for my 4th degree black belt under my old TKD Master, and I just found out yesterday that I will not be getting that recognition by the organization. It will help to have a rubber-stamped 4th degree from someone higher rank in TKD, but I believe this may be the end of my TKD progression. It's definitely the end of my relationship with my former Master, and I'm not optimistic about establishing under another Master or under the organization myself based on the difficulties I have had over the past few years trying to find someone for this role.

I'm honestly at the point that I don't even want to call it Taekwondo anymore, and I feel I may be better served taking the Korean culture out of the designs completely. I'm not Korean, and I have very little connection to Korea or Korean culture. From everything I've seen and heard, Koreans don't have much respect for Americans (because we're lazy and undisciplined), and so I'm not so sure I should be putting them on a pedestal, when they wouldn't do the same for us. My approach is going to be much more American either way, and this would just solidify that.

I'm starting to run through some of the questions now about how I would want to run a new style. For those that don't know me, I have roughly 15 years of TKD training, 8 years of HKD, 3 years of BJJ, and a bit of wrestling, Muay Thai, and MMA. I've been around the block a bit. My initial thoughts are that I would want to take TKD, add the ground-fighting and remove the politics. But I'm starting to look at what else is there. So I'm taking things piece-by-piece. I know at the very least I want to have kicks (and sparring and tricking built around the kicks), and that I want to have ground fighting. But I'm not so sure on other things, such as: strikes (other than kicks), weapons, self-defense. Do I want to have a uniform or not? What do I want to name the art, and what effect would that have on my designs? Do I want to have forms?

Then there's the questions of what I do for my students. Do I have a belt system they can be promoted through or just teach technique? What do I do about tournaments for students who want to compete, when we're not really a part of any established style? Do I try to go more of the "Do" route and overtly teach things like confidence and discipline, or do I go more of the "Jitsu" route and focus on the martial art itself?

Then there's the questions of what I do for myself. I'm currently active in BJJ and I'm teaching cardio kickboxing, but I'm not active in a traditional martial art. What am I going to do to continue to learn and improve at the TKD side of things? If I do have a rank system, what am I going to do for my own personal rank progression, so that my students do not run into a ceiling where they cannot be promoted?

It's a scary proposition. Opening a school in an art that people know is risky enough. Opening a school in an unknown art is a bigger risk. I don't want folks to just bypass me because I look like another Master Ken, the guy who created his own art with "all of the strengths, none of the weaknesses; master of all, worst of none".

I don't know that this is the route I'm going to go down. I remember someone on here (I think it was Buka) suggested it a long time ago. But I am thinking it may be my best option if I want to open my own school.

 

[skribs]

The other thing I'm thinking is abandon the idea of starting my own school, and instead keep working in IT/cybersecurity and train BJJ at night. Just focus on that for my martial arts career. I would like to "retire" from IT in the next few years and focus solely on martial arts. I don't think I can do that with BJJ. But it may be the best option for me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I went though this same debate when I started teaching on my own. While I like the formality and am used to the Japanese terms, my primary art has no direct link to Japan (as far as we know, it hasn't existed there since the 1960's or 70's). I didn't figure a way to make the link recognizable, without including the full name of the art (which is a mouthful, all by itself), and I tried for a while to come up with either a sub-style or an alternate art name. The problem was that, for me, I was still just teaching the same art - just teaching it differently. So I ended up not changing the name (more correctly, dropping the name change), and simply using "Self-Defense Aikido" (a literal translation part of the art's name) instead of the full name on brochures and such (though I always included the full Japanese name in the description).

Mostly, I reached a point where I wished I didn't need a name for it - that there was a category I could use (like schools that just use "Karate" as their big label). I don't much care what it's called, because it's just NGA to me.

Mind you, my primary art is not nearly as recognized as yours. And most of my alternative names were confusing, because of Ueshiba's Aikido (which is what nearly all MAists think of when they hear Aikido). So my considerations are not the same as yours. I just wanted to share in case my journey helps you think through your own.

 

[skribs]

I went though this same debate when I started teaching on my own. While I like the formality and am used to the Japanese terms, my primary art has no direct link to Japan (as far as we know, it hasn't existed there since the 1960's or 70's). I didn't figure a way to make the link recognizable, without including the full name of the art (which is a mouthful, all by itself), and I tried for a while to come up with either a sub-style or an alternate art name. The problem was that, for me, I was still just teaching the same art - just teaching it differently. So I ended up not changing the name (more correctly, dropping the name change), and simply using "Self-Defense Aikido" (a literal translation part of the art's name) instead of the full name on brochures and such (though I always included the full Japanese name in the description).

Mostly, I reached a point where I wished I didn't need a name for it - that there was a category I could use (like schools that just use "Karate" as their big label). I don't much care what it's called, because it's just NGA to me.

Mind you, my primary art is not nearly as recognized as yours. And most of my alternative names were confusing, because of Ueshiba's Aikido (which is what nearly all MAists think of when they hear Aikido). So my considerations are not the same as yours. I just wanted to share in case my journey helps you think through your own.

That helps. I probably will keep it as "Taekwondo". Still a lot of other questions to figure out, and depending on some of those I may change. Specifically, whether I want to go with or without belts and forms.

If I keep it "Taekwondo" I will include the forms and belts, if I decide I don't want to do forms, I probably won't do belts either and will change the name.

I'm leaning towards including all of those, because I like forms and students like belts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That helps. I probably will keep it as "Taekwondo". Still a lot of other questions to figure out, and depending on some of those I may change. Specifically, whether I want to go with or without belts and forms.

If I keep it "Taekwondo" I will include the forms and belts, if I decide I don't want to do forms, I probably won't do belts either and will change the name.

I'm leaning towards including all of those, because I like forms and students like belts.

I like where you're thinking on this. If I had removed the classical forms from NGA, I'd have given it a new name - that's rather core to the common experience of NGA (and a few offshoots that probably shouldn't have bothered using a different name). The same is true for TKD with its forms. My attitude about belts is a bit looser, though only to the point that if keeping the same name, I prefer to not have conflicting belt ranks. I considered eliminating all student ranks, or just eliminating some, so every student rank would encompass two from the NGAA. This would make ranks....closer. I'd have had white belts who should have ben yellow belts (first color rank) in the NGAA, but our newly-promoted blue belts (second color rank) would have ben similar. Neither of those would conflict. If I'd instead used colors they don't use (or in a different order), that would have conflicted with the main body of the art.

 

[skribs]

The same is true for TKD with its forms. My attitude about belts is a bit looser, though only to the point that if keeping the same name, I prefer to not have conflicting belt ranks.

TKD has a lot of different forms. I will use my own forms if I go this route, because I don't want people to think, "We learn the Taegeuks here, so we're going to get Kukkiwon rank". I want people to know that our forms are in-house so nobody gets confused and thinks they're getting qualifications that they aren't.

This was true before (either I go KKW and do KKW forms, or I go unaffiliated and do stuff in-house). It's even more true now with my recent experience of being told I won't be getting the qualifications I thought I was.

 

[skribs]

I'm considering "Tae Kwon Jitsu". Although I'm not the first to come up with that.

 

[kyukpado]

I find incredible solidarity with you in reading both this post and your belt-test thread, since we're in very similar situations. I'm also a 3rd degree testing 4th, yet not in Kukkiwon certification. I've been working on understanding and interpreting the basis of my own art, which as best as I can tell is pre-Kukkiwon Jidokwan. There's quite a lot in my style of TKD that isn't in the curriculum of modern TKD, both from old traditions and from incorporating new techniques. Basically, it's an extremely practical combat-focused TKD. So, my comments are based on this history, and very TKD-biased.

I feel like if you're going to base your new art on TKD, then it shouldn't be an issue calling it that. You'd effectively be starting your own Kwan. Your Kwan wouldn't have to be connected to any of the politics of the Kukkiwon or ITF or any of that, since it wouldn't be part of it in the first place. You'd also be able to incorporate any of the "new" techniques from your other arts you've mastered, and it would be your style's tradition. Although it's mostly eliminated from modern TKD practices, there's definitely precedent for ground moves in traditional TKD, so that shouldn't be an issue at all.

If you're going to teach a new TKD-based style to students, then some kind of understanding of progression will be necessary. Belts are traditional, and would help immensely in tournament competition, but you could use whatever you want. Patches, pins, certificates, nameplates on a wall, whichever you like best.

There's plenty of non-Kukkiwon TKD tournaments out there that run forms competition based on skill, mastery, and function, not how well you match the current Taegeuk patterns. They group form divisions into "traditional" styles (think any of the classic TKD, TSD, or Karate forms) and "non-traditional" (flips and tricks). That should cover whichever direction you decide to take your style and still allow your students to compete effectively.

As for improving yourself, I'm stuck in that boat with you, haha. I'll have an answer someday for sure.

 

[skribs]

If you're going to teach a new TKD-based style to students, then some kind of understanding of progression will be necessary. Belts are traditional, and would help immensely in tournament competition, but you could use whatever you want. Patches, pins, certificates, nameplates on a wall, whichever you like best.

Belts are by far my favorite option of these. I think I will go with belts. The circumstance where I wouldn't is if we do the BJJ+TKD school (that I mentione in the other thread) and TKD is essentially a no-gi kicking class.

 

[kyukpado]

The circumstance where I wouldn't is if we do the BJJ+TKD school

Makes perfect sense there. You could do the nameplates in this scenario if you wanted a more formal feel to it.

TKD is essentially a no-gi kicking class

Anymore, based on what I see that's absolutely the truth. But, since this new style will be your decision, it doesn't have to be! As an example, and at the risk of self-referencing too much, nearly a third of my TKD curriculum is throws and locks. Still makes it no-gi though.

 

[drop bear]

I know a guy who's job is to run BJJ seminars. So he doesn't teach BJJ. he just organises seminars for for top level instructors. And then gets to go to them and be awesome. And he holds them in fun places like Thailand and whatever.

He started on a part time basis. And it is now his full time job.

You might be able to ho that route with TKD.

His company is called BJJ escapes.

https://www.bjjescapes.com.au/

 

[skribs]

I know a guy who's job is to run BJJ seminars. So he doesn't teach BJJ. he just organises seminars for for top level instructors. And then gets to go to them and be awesome. And he holds them in fun places like Thailand and whatever.

He started on a part time basis. And it is now his full time job.

You might be able to ho that route with TKD.

His company is called BJJ escapes.

https://www.bjjescapes.com.au/

I really don't think so. The TKD culture is very, very different than the BJJ culture. In 16 years of training, I've had one seminar.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I may not be the person to answer this, as I moved away from taekwondo decades ago and was never really involved in the "organisation" part of it. Hell, I had to look back at old certificates to ascertain it was ITF Taekwondo (though I don't remember WTF really being a thing back then--though I wouldn't have know if it was). So, of course, I'm going to answer anyway. (Sorry)

I think, as martial arts enthusiasts, we get far deeper into the weeds than most students will. What percentage of students are going to even know what Kukkiwon is? What percentage will care? Membership in an organisation feels, to me, like a thing people care about once they're in. And, then, only if their teachers prioritise it. I've been involved in martial arts since about 1983 and I've never been consciously involved in an organisation around it. I just don't care.

Why don't I care? What I'm interested in teaching is inherently less formalised than taekwondo in my view. It's not that there aren't organisations in FMA. But you're as likely to find someone teaching out of a neighborhood park wearing jeans and sandals as you are in a formal dojo/jang. So the expectations are a little different when I say "FMA" than they would be if I said "taekwondo." So the real question is "how much is it going to weigh on you what other martial artists think?"

I mean that question in a very specific sense. How much do you worry about their thoughts on your AFFILIATION? I think it's perfectly reasonable (desirable) for you to be concerned what other martial artists think of your skill level, training methodology, etc. We should be accountable for those things. But whether you're recognised by a particular organisation doesn't have any literal bearing on how well you throw a side kick. So how comfortable are you with saying things like the following?

- I teach taekwondo but I'm unaffiliated
- My curriculum is informed by taekwondo primarily, but with grappling, muay thai, etc.

Regardless of someone's views of MMA, I think it's done many martial artists in your position a favour in that the emphasis for all of us has shifted somewhat from "what style are you?" to "who have you trained with?" or "what styles are you drawing from?" Prospective students may not ask those questions, but if you can answer them for yourself, I think you'll move forward with some more confidence.

Do you need your own style? I don't think so personally. I don't know if you're best served by coming up with a style name. You're just going to wind up having to explain it each time anyway. Is there a benefit to doing that over just saying "my primary art is taekwondo, but informed by BJJ and muay thai"? That rings truer to me and answers the inevitable questions raised by a name like "tae kwon jutsu" anyway.

If you need the name of a school, there are all sorts of formula for that, right? From the relatively straightforward to the unnecessarily complex. It could be "Martial Arts Institute of [Place Name]." It could be "[Cool Adjective] Fighting Systems." It could be "[Mythological animal] Dojo." It could be anything. Hell, I just drove past a taekwondo school called "Lead By Example." The point is to initiate contact so people are interested in hearing about what you do. And "a blend of taekwondo and muay thai" is a perfectly valid and time-honoured response.

Remember, a certain level of crosstraining is commonplace now. You're certainly not going to send most students running for the hills if your answer isn't as cut and dry as "I teach taekwondo." And, if you think about it, do the purists of any given style have it much easier? "I teach karate" isn't the whole answer either. It's Isshin Ryu or Shotokan or Uechi Ryu or Kyokushin or...

I'd encourage you to bill yourself as a teacher rather than a surrogate for some larger organisation. That's not going to win you every student, but perhaps it'll win you the kind of student who understands and appreciates what you're trying to do.

... Says the guy who, after decades in the martial arts, has precisely one first-degree black belt to show for it and a training background that could best be described with the word "mutt." But I know what I know, which is all I could ever offer regardless of what got students through the door in the first place.

 

[skribs]

One thing I think is funny about the combination of TKD and BJJ, is that both of my arts are foreign derivatives of Japanese martial arts, but I've never actually taken a Japanese martial art. (TKD derived from Karate, BJJ derived from Judo).

 

[isshinryuronin]

"I teach karate" isn't the whole answer either.

It's enough for all those with no experience in MA (90%?). The remaining 10% may ask "what style?" Those that have experience in that style (0.5%) may then ask "what lineage/who's your teacher/what's your affiliation?). A detailed explanation won't be needed for everyone.

Skribs may want to consider (if he hasn't already done so) the source of his students: New to MA, new to TKD, or level of prior experience in TKD. This will have some impact on the best way to describe what he does.

 

[Badhabits]

You shouldn't have a problem teaching both taekwondo and BJJ at your school. There's nothing wrong with it. The style I'm currently in actually incorporated bbj into it to a degree. As in, BJJ is part of the overall organizations curriculum now. It's not a huge part of regular classes but it's there. People who don't want to do BJJ full time still enjoy having it there, and it acts as a doorway for people who want to pursue it further. I feel like you may be agonizing over some things that'll work themselves out.

 

[ap Oweyn]

It's enough for all those with no experience in MA (90%?). The remaining 10% may ask "what style?" Those that have experience in that style (0.5%) may then ask "what lineage/who's your teacher/what's your affiliation?). A detailed explanation won't be needed for everyone.

Skribs may want to consider (if he hasn't already done so) the source of his students: New to MA, new to TKD, or level of prior experience in TKD. This will have some impact on the best way to describe what he does.

That's my point. No matter what, you're going to have a certain percentage of potential students who don't care and a certain percentage to whom you'll have to explain further. And that's true of either path (hybrid art or purist art).

 

[Badhabits]

I won't name the style I'm in...because I'm not a good representative of anything lol. But it is a Korean derivative that has retained the traditional side while also incorporating other things. I think if you're a good teacher and have things to offer things will work out for you one way or another. Assuming you're good at the business side

 

[isshinryuronin]

I'm currently in actually incorporated bbj into it to a degree

Not saying this is your case, but a bit about "hybrid" arts and those who say their art "combines" others. I put those words in quotes because just because you teach other arts in whatever proportion, DOESN'T mean you've invented a new hybrid system. I think to fit that description, some other elements must be present.

First and foremost, the multiple arts must work in conjunction and be intertwined with each other. For example, if I'm teaching X style karate and tell my students if they find themselves on the ground, here's some BJJ moves you can do, I am NOT teaching a hybrid system. I could do those BJJ moves without even knowing karate.

Now, if I teach my karate to set up a takedown, positioning me to apply a rear naked choke or arm bar (for the moment pretending my karate style doesn't already have such a move), I'm getting closer to a hybrid as the two arts are somewhat working together. There is a flow between the two.

A possible point of contention is that if I'm grappling BJJ style on the ground, it is difficult to employ my karate. I can flow A > B as described above, but not B > A. Does this detract from the "hybrid" label?

I like metaphors and food , so I'll use them in this example: I have a cafe that serves burgers and Japanese udon soup. I don't think you can say I serve Japanese American fusion cuisine. There's no fusion. But if I marinate the burger in the soup broth and serve it with shiitake mushrooms and daikon radish in the bun and call it an "udon burger," it's now approaching "fusion." (It may not approach "delicious" but that's beside the point.)

How about if I grill the mushrooms and daikon and throw a beef patty into to soup with a dash of ketchup? Now I've got "hamburger-udon soup." The fusion flows both Japanese > American and also American > Japanese. I'm serving fusion cuisine.

I'm just saying these points and others, IMHO, need to be considered when talking about combined/hybrid/mixed arts, or laying claim to a new "system."

 

[skribs]

A possible point of contention is that if I'm grappling BJJ style on the ground, it is difficult to employ my karate. I can flow A > B as described above, but not B > A. Does this detract from the "hybrid" label?

Incorrect. There is a concept in BJJ called "just stand up", which if you look for it there are plenty of opportunities to stand up and use that to your advantage against an opponent, where you can then apply your Karate.

Similarly, there are plenty of situations in BJJ where you're standing and your opponent is not, such as if you just did a take-down, if you stood up to break or pass your opponent's guard, or if your opponent has just pulled guard. In these situations, you could apply kicks and punches if they were allowed.

BJJ has actually affected my TKD sparring style. I like to get behind people when they throw spinning techniques, which is something that taking the back in BJJ (both in standup for a rear body lock, or on the ground for back control) helped to encourage in me. I've also found that I can be much stickier when fighting now that I'm used to creating the pressure and connections that I have learned in BJJ.

Even then, I don't think that "Here's what to do in situation X" and "Here's what to do in situation Y" are necessarily a bad way to combine two different arts. Most techniques are situational, depending on various factors such as range, size, and where your opponent is applying their strength and leverage.