I've had the pleasure of seeing a lot of great input on this forum over the years. A lot of it constructive, some of it complimentary and some just helpful. I've learned a lot about history, philosophy, and technique from a wide range of arts that has often led me to ask better questions of myself, my instructors, and my students.
One thing that I see occasionally that has distressed me in the past, and has recently reared it's head, is the derogatory attitude demonstrated by some folks towards anything that doesn't fit their mental mold... Just one of those things recently is a new curriculum designed around a particular theme that has elements from several arts being pejoratively called "Frankensteinish".
This isn't the first event, only a most recent one. There seems to be an overt attitude of implied Superiority over a teacher who teaches a blend, mix, combination, fusion, or damn tossed salad of various techniques by those who stay in their own semi-well defined lane.
I've seen it elsewhere as well, so it's not just here. Discussions on the structure of a stance or validity of a technique sequence should be constantly sought out to make everyone involved better...but to imply that a teachers chosen path is somehow lower than yours because they elected to fuze/toss together pieces that fits their goals, plans, and path is pure ego-driven bs.
Many of those we as a MA community hold in high esteem did exactly that... Liked something, incorporated it, claimed it. The way that the arts continue to evolve is by doing just that - get exposure to other elements, incorporate and adapt, and promulgate. If the "new" art or package is of value, then it lasts. If not, it goes away with the instructor.
In our world of instant media, there is honestly a LOT of crap out there. But it has a right to be shared and evaluated on its merits, not its origins. Recycling or repackaging is entirely natural when someone moves on into a new focus, area, philosophy, or all of the above. Some folks, like Ed Parker, repackaged several times in their relatively short careers (I say short because now his students have studied the arts longer than he was alive).
I guess that I take more interest than some in this because I am a Frankenstein Martial Artist. My original studies were in a mix of Shotokan, Goju Ryu, jujutsu and wrestling all lumped in under a honestly misleading banner of Nahate Goju Ryu Karate Do. Over the years, I've had the opportunities to train with pure Shotokan folks, pure Goju Ryu folks, pure aikido folks, as well as several semi-Frankensteinish folks, and currently I train in what some call a bastardized version of Kenpo.
Since I've got about 8-10 more years of moving around in the Army, I'm not settling down anytime soon. But when I do, I plan on hanging out my shingle and teaching my own Frankenstein Martial Art. I'm not going to be famous, but I'll be teaching what I know, under a newly packaged name... And I'm sure that it will evolve even then.
One thing that I see occasionally that has distressed me in the past, and has recently reared it's head, is the derogatory attitude demonstrated by some folks towards anything that doesn't fit their mental mold... Just one of those things recently is a new curriculum designed around a particular theme that has elements from several arts being pejoratively called "Frankensteinish".
This isn't the first event, only a most recent one. There seems to be an overt attitude of implied Superiority over a teacher who teaches a blend, mix, combination, fusion, or damn tossed salad of various techniques by those who stay in their own semi-well defined lane.
I've seen it elsewhere as well, so it's not just here. Discussions on the structure of a stance or validity of a technique sequence should be constantly sought out to make everyone involved better...but to imply that a teachers chosen path is somehow lower than yours because they elected to fuze/toss together pieces that fits their goals, plans, and path is pure ego-driven bs.
Many of those we as a MA community hold in high esteem did exactly that... Liked something, incorporated it, claimed it. The way that the arts continue to evolve is by doing just that - get exposure to other elements, incorporate and adapt, and promulgate. If the "new" art or package is of value, then it lasts. If not, it goes away with the instructor.
In our world of instant media, there is honestly a LOT of crap out there. But it has a right to be shared and evaluated on its merits, not its origins. Recycling or repackaging is entirely natural when someone moves on into a new focus, area, philosophy, or all of the above. Some folks, like Ed Parker, repackaged several times in their relatively short careers (I say short because now his students have studied the arts longer than he was alive).
I guess that I take more interest than some in this because I am a Frankenstein Martial Artist. My original studies were in a mix of Shotokan, Goju Ryu, jujutsu and wrestling all lumped in under a honestly misleading banner of Nahate Goju Ryu Karate Do. Over the years, I've had the opportunities to train with pure Shotokan folks, pure Goju Ryu folks, pure aikido folks, as well as several semi-Frankensteinish folks, and currently I train in what some call a bastardized version of Kenpo.
Since I've got about 8-10 more years of moving around in the Army, I'm not settling down anytime soon. But when I do, I plan on hanging out my shingle and teaching my own Frankenstein Martial Art. I'm not going to be famous, but I'll be teaching what I know, under a newly packaged name... And I'm sure that it will evolve even then.