Journey OF a new style...

[isshinryuronin]

I don't see what the difference is between these two groups of folks.

Both groups contained experts in their art, their art was effective, and they influenced modern MA. That was my criteria. They had a lot of similarities. The main difference was that in modern times, profitability necessarily plays a part. I also made a point of bringing up that the purposes of MA have evolved over time and the environment between the two groups was different.

I debated whether to include Chuck Norris into the mix but his new style I perceived as being sport based and not too much different from other sport fighters. The sport aspect also kept me from including Jigoro Kano, but I have no objection to including him as his style was significantly unique, more so than Norris' and had a lasting and reaching impact (one of the OP's quote's points) whereas I don't see that from Norris.

I don't expect to be a household name. But if I can make a positive impact in the lives of a few hundred kids, and make a living doing something I enjoy, I will consider that a success. Anything else is a bonus.

 

[ap Oweyn]

It seems to me that anyone with training in two things who draws on technique from both within a given exchange is going to naturally "file off" the transitions between the two over time and repetition. Metaphors aside, at what point would you deem that "hybridisation"? When the practitioner is comfortable transitioning between the two? When others recognise the seamlessness of those transitions? When someone seeks to convey what they're doing to someone else (i.e., teach or train someone else)?

 

[Yokozuna514]

To "find their audience" infers one was looking. To what end? Profit, ego, to spread knowledge of a "better" way? If it's profit, the product must necessarily be fun, interesting, and other things designed to attract and retain students - elements that have little to do with quality. Assuming the most altruistic motives, why would anyone choose to follow this new way? New MA students don't know one way from another (unless great marketing can convince them of the new style's greatness). Experienced ones will look at two things: The reputation of the creator and then the effectiveness of the new style compared to existing ones.

In modern times, these people are few. Those that I know of are Ed Parker, the Gracies and marginally, Bruce Lee. It's hard to deny that publicity had a big part to play, but the fact remains they introduced concepts that affected MA. There seem to be many more whose names live on and whose art was perpetuated who lived a century or two ago.

Matsumura, Kyan, Itosu, Funakoshi, Miyagi, Arigake, Higashionna, etc. They had several things in common:
They were masters acknowledged by their peers and their art was effective. These men or their students created most of today's known karate styles. They did not look for an "audience or following" (they did not seek students - students sought them!) nor did they create their art thinking about ego, profit or its popularity. Yet, their legacies live on today. "Why?" is something to consider.

To be fair, today is not the past. I used the word "effective" but that is dependent on purpose, and purpose can change over time. New purposes have evolved such as sport, self-development and a different self-defense environment to deal with. I have no particular point to make in this post. It's just a commentary on the quotes, taking a broad view on some of the issues raised.

“Finding an audience” may infer that one was looking or it may also not. An audience refers to simply a group of people willing to listen and follow. I would allow this definition to include those willing to pay and train long and short term with those that are simply interested in the fashion of the art (just interested enough to try something new).

Whether the art speaks with any gravitas determines whether it will survive throughout the generations. It could very well be just meant for the time it was introduced like shoulder pads and big hair in the 80’s or disco in the 70’s. All these things found an audience but are no longer in fashion today. Martial arts can also be a fashion of a time but, as you said, the merits or concepts of the art may be so different they can be considered timeless or something that can evolve with the times.

In all cases, effectiveness of the art may be a determining factor but it could also be contacts or money or simply the right people interested enough to continue to evolve the work so that it can continue to survive the times.

Evolve can also be expressed in many ways and does not mean that the entire art must change with the times. It simply means it must continue to grow with its audience and their fickle views.