Legacies, Successors, and Heads of Systems.

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
In reading the magazine article by Joaquin Torres on Legacies--the distressing aftermaths of the deaths of the founders of Jeet Kune Do, American Kenpo, and Modern Arnis--I started thinking about the issue of successors. For each of those three arts the lack of a clear successor has had negative ramifications--most notably of the political sort, but also in terms of the Legacy that Bruce Lee, Ed Parker, and Remy Presas presumably hoped to leave.

But is the lack of a successor so bad? Many styles of Tai Chi have no clear leader--one gets an instructor's certificate and then can teach. Modern Japanese systems like Kendo are often run by a council, not a single person. No one is the head of (Western) boxing, wrestling, or fencing, but they're still with us and boxing especially is doing well. Balintawtak Eskrima is still well-respected although there was no named successor.

Beyond that, is it clear that leaving an art to one person is necessarily best? I'm a traditionalist and I like it but, for example, Wally Jay had planned on leaving his art to four separate people who each would have a slightly different take on it. (I understand he's since changed his mind.) This happens anyway; it happened in JKD, American Kenpo, and Modern Arnis without successors, but even in arts with clear successors, how many offshoots does one see? Uechi-ryu has split a few times; I have no idea how many styles of Aikido there now are; Isshin-ryu has a couple of organziations that act independently; Wing Chun is a mess (perhaps it belongs in the category of no clear successor--people disagree); and so on. Splits will happen in any event--and that isn't necessarily bad. It's evolution.

Is American Kenpo better off for having many people each take it in their directions rather than having had only one person take it in his direction? Maybe. I think Modern Arnis will be better and richer for having multiple takes on it. There are certainly many ways JKD has been taken. Maybe in each case some of the ways it was taken are not as good as the original was but in most cases I imagine it's better for someone.

Like I said, I still prefer a clear line of control, myself. But apart from the heartache for those involved--and being heavily involved in the Modern Arnis issues I am not being at all flippant when I say 'heartache'--it's not clear to me that this sort of process isn't a good thing, a 'genetic algorithm' that finds, not the best form of an art, but better and better forms of the art for different people. I wonder is it isn't better in the long run to disperse control of an art when the founder dies and let the top students who choose to do so start their own variants. Especially with a new art, doing otherwise may amount to a negative effect on the marketplace of ideas.
 

ace

Master of Arts
Joined
May 26, 2002
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
16
Location
N.Y.
Originally posted by arnisador
In reading the magazine article by Joaquin Torres on Legacies--the distressing aftermaths of the deaths of the founders of Jeet Kune Do, American Kenpo, and Modern Arnis--I started thinking about the issue of successors. For each of those three arts the lack of a clear successor has had negative ramifications--most notably of the political sort, but also in terms of the Legacy that Bruce Lee, Ed Parker, and Remy Presas presumably hoped to leave.

But is the lack of a successor so bad? Many styles of Tai Chi have no clear leader--one gets an instructor's certificate and then can teach. Modern Japanese systems like Kendo are often run by a council, not a single person. No one is the head of (Western) boxing, wrestling, or fencing, but they're still with us and boxing especially is doing well. Balintawtak Eskrima is still well-respected although there was no named successor.

Beyond that, is it clear that leaving an art to one person is necessarily best? I'm a traditionalist and I like it but, for example, Wally Jay had planned on leaving his art to four separate people who each would have a slightly different take on it. (I understand he's since changed his mind.) This happens anyway; it happened in JKD, American Kenpo, and Modern Arnis without successors, but even in arts with clear successors, how many offshoots does one see? Uechi-ryu has split a few times; I have no idea how many styles of Aikido there now are; Isshin-ryu has a couple of organziations that act independently; Wing Chun is a mess (perhaps it belongs in the category of no clear successor--people disagree); and so on. Splits will happen in any event--and that isn't necessarily bad. It's evolution.

Is American Kenpo better off for having many people each take it in their directions rather than having had only one person take it in his direction? Maybe. I think Modern Arnis will be better and richer for having multiple takes on it. There are certainly many ways JKD has been taken. Maybe in each case some of the ways it was taken are not as good as the original was but in most cases I imagine it's better for someone.

Like I said, I still prefer a clear line of control, myself. But apart from the heartache for those involved--and being heavily involved in the Modern Arnis issues I am not being at all flippant when I say 'heartache'--it's not clear to me that this sort of process isn't a good thing, a 'genetic algorithm' that finds, not the best form of an art, but better and better forms of the art for different people. I wonder is it isn't better in the long run to disperse control of an art when the founder dies and let the top students who choose to do so start their own variants. Especially with a new art, doing otherwise may amount to a negative effect on the marketplace of ideas.

Some Realy Great Points. In The 6 Years That i've done The
Modern Arnis I saw some Realy Good Practioners, Some Ok Guy's
Gals & Some That Looked Like They Were never given a Clue.

Some were Extremly High Ranked,Some diserve it & Some Did
Not Apear to diserve it.

In The JKD I've Never Seen What I Thought To Be
Bruce Lee's Version of JKD He was just to Good.

I don't know to much about the Kenpo, But it seems
to me as Long as there is a Spot Light out there.
There Will alway's be someone Who Wants to Be in it.
And Someone Who feels they do not belong there.
 

theletch1

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
8,073
Reaction score
170
Location
79 Wistful Vista
Once a pioneer in a system passes on I am all for a council of higher ranked students of that master continuing what they believe was the vision of that master. I don't believe any one individual can truly stand forth and say with impunity that "this is what the master wanted for the art." A council of his/her closest students would be better able to debate an issue from past experiences with the master and decide on the validity of any or at least most changes. The problem with this scenario though is that it really on works for one or two generations after the passing of the master. At that point the council begins to debate what the last council members would have wanted. I too am something of a traditionalist but am open minded enough to know that change is not always a bad thing.

Just the babbling of a martial arts infant:asian:
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
51
Location
San Jose, Ca.
Originally posted by arnisador
In reading the magazine article by Joaquin Torres on Legacies--the distressing aftermaths of the deaths of the founders of Jeet Kune Do, American Kenpo, and Modern Arnis--I started thinking about the issue of successors. For each of those three arts the lack of a clear successor has had negative ramifications--most notably of the political sort, but also in terms of the Legacy that Bruce Lee, Ed Parker, and Remy Presas presumably hoped to leave.

But is the lack of a successor so bad? Many styles of Tai Chi have no clear leader--one gets an instructor's certificate and then can teach. Modern Japanese systems like Kendo are often run by a council, not a single person. No one is the head of (Western) boxing, wrestling, or fencing, but they're still with us and boxing especially is doing well. Balintawtak Eskrima is still well-respected although there was no named successor.

Beyond that, is it clear that leaving an art to one person is necessarily best? I'm a traditionalist and I like it but, for example, Wally Jay had planned on leaving his art to four separate people who each would have a slightly different take on it. (I understand he's since changed his mind.) This happens anyway; it happened in JKD, American Kenpo, and Modern Arnis without successors, but even in arts with clear successors, how many offshoots does one see? Uechi-ryu has split a few times; I have no idea how many styles of Aikido there now are; Isshin-ryu has a couple of organziations that act independently; Wing Chun is a mess (perhaps it belongs in the category of no clear successor--people disagree); and so on. Splits will happen in any event--and that isn't necessarily bad. It's evolution.

Is American Kenpo better off for having many people each take it in their directions rather than having had only one person take it in his direction? Maybe. I think Modern Arnis will be better and richer for having multiple takes on it. There are certainly many ways JKD has been taken. Maybe in each case some of the ways it was taken are not as good as the original was but in most cases I imagine it's better for someone.

Like I said, I still prefer a clear line of control, myself. But apart from the heartache for those involved--and being heavily involved in the Modern Arnis issues I am not being at all flippant when I say 'heartache'--it's not clear to me that this sort of process isn't a good thing, a 'genetic algorithm' that finds, not the best form of an art, but better and better forms of the art for different people. I wonder is it isn't better in the long run to disperse control of an art when the founder dies and let the top students who choose to do so start their own variants. Especially with a new art, doing otherwise may amount to a negative effect on the marketplace of ideas.

I think that a council of the highest ranks is the best bet but a good number of the high ranks should have some influence as well. Kajukenbo has several grandmasters appointed (most of them I beleive) by Sijo Emperado and I think his sister Dechi may be the highest ranked of them.

I think Sijo kind of insured some sense of "political correctless" after he passes by letting so many have their own branches. A good lesson for other arts.

In theory I'm the head of my system. One instructor allowing me to use his system as my base to expand upon and another instructor co-signing his former students decision to allow me to "do my own thing."

But really thats all it is. Me doing my own thing! All the "political BS" is for those who need the security of beleiving that their way is the right way or the only way.

The death of the "great ones" is going to cause the infighting. Probably always has. Its almost natural. Whats important in my view is what we as martial artist and instructors can pass on to our "little brothers."

And if we are fortunate to grow something like Sijo Emperado has, he has already set us a good example of how things can be done.

:asian:
 
P

Pyros

Guest
I disagree on one issue: JKD. Bruce Lee gave one person in the world the licence to teach complete JKD. Dan Inosanto. Basically, he is the sole successor of Lee and the only person with the whole art of JKD behind him with Lee's blessing.

And another point: Wing Chun is only a mess withing the Yip Man lineage. There are over a dozen different Wing Chun lineages beyond Yip Man's and the fact that Yip Man's branch was fragmented by politics, doesn't mean the whole art of Wing Chun is.

And one final note: as long as people are involved, politics are bound to happen. :soapbox:
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
51
Location
San Jose, Ca.
Originally posted by Pyros
I disagree on one issue: JKD. Bruce Lee gave one person in the world the licence to teach complete JKD. Dan Inosanto. Basically, he is the sole successor of Lee and the only person with the whole art of JKD behind him with Lee's blessing.

And another point: Wing Chun is only a mess withing the Yip Man lineage. There are over a dozen different Wing Chun lineages beyond Yip Man's and the fact that Yip Man's branch was fragmented by politics, doesn't mean the whole art of Wing Chun is.

And one final note: as long as people are involved, politics are bound to happen. :soapbox:

I beleive Dan to be the highest authority for JKD but not the only successor. Nobody was appointed successor.

About the same time Dan became Bruces student, James Lee was already issued his Full Instructorship by Bruce. Click the link:

http://oakland.jkd.com.hk/

Scroll down to the 5th link on the homepage and click the certificate link and you'll see that James was certified by Bruce on 3/4/1964.

Also My Sifus father (my Sigung) was James and Bruces student. He was student and friend with both of them. I would like to see someone tell him that he wouldn't have Bruces blessing!

http://www.geocities.com/Tao_Of_Gung_Fu/The_Nucleus_Of_Gung_Fu.html

Being commercial and in the publics eye has nothing to do with it.
The Maciases have created their own line and with that being said they are worthy of sucessorship.

:asian:
 
OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Whether or not Bruce Lee left a single successor isn't the issue here, though--the issue is, As a general matter of principle, is it preferebale to leave a style to a single person or to leave it to more than one (or in fact to no one)? Might people like Ed Parker and Remy Presas have done this by design rather than neglect?

Any one case is complicated--we still don't have the will for Prof. Presas yet, and perhaps it contains important info. about this matter--but I ask about what would be best in general.
 

OULobo

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
33
Location
Cleveland, OH
I personally think that its is impossible to accomplish and foolish to attempt to keep an MA art ridgidly bound to its original style. Every practitioner changes the art some, even if in an unnoticed or uninentional way. With that in mind I think that leaders should be recognized by their abilities and knowledge not their conformance to a perceived method. I would venture to say that all these well respected men that have passed on were considered great because they were pioneers not conformists. So why is there a need to claim a leadership role in a system that is really forever unique to a dead individual.

Consequently, if we are trying to explain systems that are in political upheaval or without leadership, it may be easier to name the ones that aren't. I can only think of very few inherited systems that have a clear and relatively uncontested leadership. Maybe Doce Pares, Pekiti Tirsia, Illustrisimo Kalis.
 

Latest Discussions

Top