New, Improved, Never Before Seen...Why People Create Their "Own" Art?

[MJS]

After reading a few nightmare threads on this forum, specifically here and here, I'm often left shaking my head, wondering why...why do people feel that its necessary to create their own art? I mean, are they really showing us anything new? Have these people gained some insight into an art, that most likely they have only studied from a book or dvd? I mean, we have, for example, 3 X-Kan arts, the Bujinkan, Genbukan, and Jinenkan, all of which are run by gentlemen whos experience most likely is greater than the average Joe, yet the average Joe decides that they know enough about Ninjutsu, to go out and form something 'new.'

Sure, now if we study TKD, Kenpo or BJJ, we may, when teaching, interpret something different than the next instructor, but for someone to run out and create their own, 'new' version of TKD or Kenpo???? I would highly doubt that anything would be new. IMO, most of the 'new' stuff that we see, is really old stuff, just repackaged with a fancy new name to it.

So, with all of the systems out there, put together by some amazing men, why do people find it necessary to create something and call it new, when there are more legit arts out there and so much material to learn? I've been doing Kenpo for a little over 20yrs now, and I'm still discovering things. I wouldn't dream of slapping on 7 more stripes onto my belt, and starting some new and improved version of Kenpo. Sorry, the version that I'm doing suits me just fine.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My favorites are the guys who claim high ranks in arts no one can find reference to (except maybe in an obscure tv show), and use that as the basis for their own "art".

 

[Steve]

why do people feel that its necessary to create their own art?

Because they don't want to crosstrain?

 

[Cryozombie]

Ego Gratification. Pure and simple.

 

[shesulsa]

I seriously think some people come to a point where they feel the coach or teacher they have can't teach them anything more or anything else. They either move on or become stagnant.

People also tire of lengthy analysis, segmentation, all the tiny aspects of executing moves well and feel justified in "simplifying" things - or feel their way of compartmentalizing arts and organizing their training would work better for everyone.

Some folks don't like to believe that there is value in some "traditional" training - that of humility, respect, heirarchy, manners, protocol, basic drills, technique dissection, repetition, beginning training with compliant partners and graduating up to resistant partners, etcetera.

Immediate gratification has replaced ethic and investment and everyone wants a piece of the action.

Pay attention, MTers ... we are the way of the past ... unless you do something about it.

 

[Monadnock]

This happens on many levels, some more obscure than others.

Case 1
In the case where Mr. Kung Fu decides that without any previous training, he want to be a ninja, well, we all know where that leads.

Case 2
So-and-so has studied 5 different arts, 4 years a piece, and decides to meld them into his own thing. OK...but buyer beware.

Case 3
Mr. Menkyo has paper in an established system and decides to teach things differently than his teacher. He keeps the same system name, but yet the appearance of that system is changes as compared to its predecessors. On paper, it is still the same art, but to the practitioners of other branches, it is Mr. Menkyo's style.

The claim that it's "never before seen" is a stretch of course, but everyone's got a right to do what works for them. Could all 3 be considered a result of ego, yes, and still some are still accepted over others.

 

[MJS]

Because they don't want to crosstrain?

Exactly! Or they've reached a point in their training when they feel they've learned enough, so they run out, thinking that they know it all, and start something new. Oh well.

 

[MJS]

Ego Gratification. Pure and simple.

Good points. Of course I have to wonder how it effects their ego, when they tell everyone about their new improved art, and everyone gives a reply totally opposite of what they expected.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Sometimes I think about creating my own art and making lots of money. But I don't want to rob people and destroy peoples belief and confidence in me.

I spoke in another thread about creating a Bagua circle walking aerobics.


This is a complete fabrication to show how people create styles

Tomoharu Kaneko who was the 6th soke of Togakure ryu ninjutsu passed his teachings not only to Ryuho Tokagure but also to his son and thru the generations it came into the hands of Mrs. Kaneko of Saitama,Japan. Mrs. Kaneko recieved oral transmission(kuden) from her father and carries the Kaneko family crest (kamon) showing proof of her family ties to Tomoharu. With her husband they created Kaneko ryu. Kaneko ryu which stems from Togakure ryu Ninpo also adds elements of the ancient art Hakkesho(Baguazhang) and the family art of Kaneko style Ikebana,Shodo and Taiso Okonomiyaki.

-Fabrication created by me to show the point of how people make up history.

To the average person they would fall for my made up style and if I played around a bit making it sound a little bit better. Thats one way to make up a style. The other is the egocentric idea that you are some how this genius who some how is better than the rest of proven history combat and create your own style. Then its not good enough to just create it but to market it and tell everyone else about it. A person with this much ego could not possibly have spent enough time learning the basics of any combat art.

 

[morph4me]

Some people don't have the discipline or patience to stick with a style long enough to get a full understanding, they go from style to style, spend a year or two, or even get a black belt, and then move on to the next one. Sooner or later they run out of styles to try, and they have "experience" in so many that they just start their own.

 

[arnisador]

there are people who have created new arts for good reasons--Jigaro Kano comes to mind--but in many cases I think it's mostly ego. Your personal emphasis within your style may not need its own name.

 

[Flying Crane]

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?

Everything that we do today was "created" or otherwise established by someone, once upon a time. Some of those people took a lot of flak for it, but persevered and now their system is accepted and respected. Others, not so much.

So everyone here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that nobody is "qualified" (I'm not sure exactly how to even determine that) to create a new or re-packaged or personalized version of an art. But it has certainly been done.

So, who gets to do it, and why?

 

[Cryozombie]

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?

Everything that we do today was "created" or otherwise established by someone, once upon a time. Some of those people took a lot of flak for it, but persevered and now their system is accepted and respected. Others, not so much.

So everyone here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that nobody is "qualified" (I'm not sure exactly how to even determine that) to create a new or re-packaged or personalized version of an art. But it has certainly been done.

So, who gets to do it, and why?

IMO I think there are merits to "doing your own thing" on occasion, and I think there are times when it shouldnt be done.

a 4th-5th degree blackbelt in a style, who, over the course of his training realizes the way things are being taught are not working. He can see HOW they would work, because he has the mat time and experience. He goes to his teacher. His teacher says "Absoluley not, do it my way". Its not a bad art, but for whatever His way may have been modified to molycoddle, perhaps for children, or to prevent litigation, or to bring in more cashflow, but the combative element is "dumbed down". Our afformentioned Blackbelt says "Sorry, I cannot teach for you anymore" and opens his own school, with a generic name. "Karate" "Martial Arts" "Fighting Concepts" whatever... I think this is an acceptable circumstance. You have an experienced practitioner, who disagrees with the way things are run where he is, he takes his experience someplace else, and does what he does.

If he decided to call it "Myname Ryu NinjItsu" or "Such and Such Temple Kung Fu Monkey Style" I think there might be a problem.

Now, on the flipside. You get a guy who does a year of BJJ. A few months of boxing. Maybe a class here and there in some basic TMAs. Wraps it all up, calls it "Combaitve Shaolin Kung Fu" and claims he learned it from a renegade monk who fled his temple. Uh huh.

The first guy gets to do it. He has legitimate training, a legitimate reason for doing what he does, and no Illigitimate background.

Guy two does not, because he lacks experience, knowledge, and he made up a fraudulent name and background. MAYBE he could get away with doing it and calling it MMA, but I also wonder how serious he would be taken in MMA circles with that limited amount of training, unless he could win some serious fights.

 

[Grenadier]

There are right ways and wrong ways.

A right way? Just as a specific example, someone with a good amount of experience decides to modify that which he has already learned, and starts a new organization. Or, the same guy might infuse elements of other martial arts into it. This all assumes, though, that this guy is highly experienced, and can back up what he says.

The founder of the system in which I currently train, was a practitioner of Wado Ryu, under Ohtsuka Hironori. He decided to infuse (or more precisely, back-infuse) a large amount of the teachings from Shotokan Karate. He does not call his system Wado Ryu, since it's not what Ohtsuka Shihan had taught to him originally.

Instead, his system is named after him, and thriving quite nicely, with many excellent practitioners in the system. It's a solid system, having combined two excellent Karate systems into one, being able to reap benefits from both.

Is it superior to Shotokan or Wado Ryu? I can't, and won't answer that, since it's really more of a matter of the individual as well as the teacher. I can, however, say that students who train hard in our system, can do just as well as the students who train hard in Shotokan or Wado Ryu (or Goju Ryu, Shito Ryu, etc).

Robert Trias also did this with several systems in which he had trained, forming his own art. Given that the Shuri Ryu system is thriving quite nicely, with many excellent practitioners, I'd have to say that he did things right. If you look at the chief instructors of the style that he appointed (Trias-Kelley, Pachivas, Bowles, Abele, Awad, Benson, Rabino), and what they've all accomplished, then it's pretty hard to disagree with the solidity of the system.



As for doing things the wrong way? I don't have all year to list the ways, but one sure way to perk up the ears of the naysayers, is to claim that your system is a particular type of martial art, yet you have no real, live training, experience whatsoever in it.

For example, all of my empty hand training has been in either Karate or Tae Kwon Do, with just a really small dabbling of Ju Jutsu in it. If I were to make my own system, and call it "Mxyzptlk Joo Jietsoo," I'd be opening up a large can of poisonous worms, since I have nothing more than a beginner's experience in Ju Jutsu. Or, if I were to call it "Mxyzptlk Kug Fooo," it would be even more silly, since I have no formal training in Gung Fu.

If, on the other hand, I tried to start my own system of Mxyzptlk Karate, and infuse a good bit of Tae Kwon Do into the Karate teachings, it would still be rather questionable, since my highest ranking is 3rd dan, but at least I'd have a much more sure footing on which to stand, than the previous two examples.

Just don't say "Mxyzptlk" backwards...

 

[Flying Crane]

Thanks for the thoughts, Cryo, I find a lot to agree with there.

What seems clear to me about this whole thing is that the lines are actually very blurred and it's tough to say with any real finality where the qualifications lie or not. I think there are a lot of different gradations of "making your own new style" and they are not all the same.

For example: say someone has a lot of experience with an art like kenpo. I'll sort of ignore the issue of rank because that's often another whole can of worms. But let's say he has 15 or 20 or 25 years in the art and is reasonably accomplished. Along with this, he's got 10 years in some kung fu system, and 8 years in judo. Maybe kenpo remains his "primary" art, but his training in kung fu and judo was also very serious, he wasn't just a dabbler. Now he sort of brings elements of his kung fu and judo into his kenpo. Doesn't really repackage it, but practices/teaches some of the kung fu forms because he likes what it adds to his kenpo curriculum, and maybe experiments with throws and takedowns and pins from judo, worked off of kenpo self defense techniques. His practice, and how he teaches (IF he teaches) is simply the result of his training in different arts.

Maybe he gives his art a new name, something mystical sounding with "kenpo" on the end. Or maybe it's "Henry's kenpo method". Or maybe he just calls it "kenpo", but it's HIS way of doing kenpo, while acknowledging the influence of kung fu and judo. Or maybe he likes to practice in tabi shoes and gets crazy and calls it "Shaolin Kenpo Kodokan Ninja Methods".

This guy could be really really good, and his methods a very functional and complete synthesis that makes a lot of sense. Does it merit a new name, with him as Grandmaster? Should it just remain a conglomeration of the various arts he studied, without a new name and new legacy? At what point does it merit a new legacy?

I think there's a difference between someone of little experience pretending to be a grandmaster, and someone of tremendous experience branching off into his own direction.

I think there's also a difference between just adding your own spin to what you practice, making it your own personal "flavor" if you will, versus pretending that it's an entirely new system. I think everyone ultimately adds their own flavor to their art, and this is influenced by any other arts that they have trained in. Everything you learn will influence everything you learn.

And I think theres a lot of room in between in the continuum of these extremes.

Anyway, just kind of thinking out loud here...

 

[arnisador]

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?

Good points, and I don't know the answer. Time sorts these things out for us, for the most part.

I've heard it said that Shimabuku Tatsuo requested permission from other Okinawan masters to form his own system (Isshin-ryu). In some systems the head will eventually tell senior students it's time for them to go off on their own; Remy Presas did this to some extent with the Datus of Modern Arnis. In some of the FMAs it's almost expected that senior instructors will develop their own (sub)system.

No one can stop a person from starting their own style. It's only respectful to give it a truly different name unless one has permission to do otherwise.

 

[Flying Crane]

Good points, and I don't know the answer. Time sorts these things out for us, for the most part.

aye, that's really my whole point too.

In some systems the head will eventually tell senior students it's time for them to go off on their own.

Yes, my sifu had a similar experience. He was a student of Wong Jack Man in San Francisco, for 10 years or so. He learned a lot from Sifu Wong, including Shaolin, some Mantis, Lohan, lots of different Chinese arts. Eventually, Sifu Wong just told him, "you are done here, I'm not going to teach you any more, you've got enough. Go teach your own students now" and that was it.

So my sifu did just that. But he never gave any of it a new name. He's just teaching what he learned from sifu Wong, and calling it what it was: Shaolin material, Mantis material, Lohan material, etc. There was no need, probably never even considered the idea, of making up a new name for it all, or pretending that he now has his own system.

I see a lot of sense in this. Most things, even when mixed with other things, can keep their own name. None of it needs to be renamed, nor does there need to be a "new" system established. "I'm just teaching what my sifu taught me, to the best of my ability, and a few other things get into the mix as well" is kind of what it is. I think we have an overdeveloped need to compartmentalize things.

 

[searcher]

I've heard it said that Shimabuku Tatsuo requested permission from other Okinawan masters to form his own system (Isshin-ryu).

Great point. Master Shimabuku did catch some heat when he decided to do this, but the "elders" respected him for asking and for his skill. In the end it all worked out for him.

In some systems the head will eventually tell senior students it's time for them to go off on their own;

This is how the Yoshukai Karate style came about. O-sensei Chitose instructed one of his top students at the time, Mamoru Yamamoto, to go and start his own style.

 

[geezer]

I think there's also a difference between just adding your own spin to what you practice, making it your own personal "flavor" if you will, versus pretending that it's an entirely new system. I think everyone ultimately adds their own flavor to their art, and this is influenced by any other arts that they have trained in. Everything you learn will influence everything you learn.

And I think theres a lot of room in between in the continuum of these extremes...

I agree completely, and I don't think going out on your own is always a bad thing. If I can share a few examples from my own experience...

All of my main instructors went off on their own at some point, each for different reasons. The first, a CMA practitioner, claimed to be the youngest and last personal student of the Late Grandmaster Yip Man. He created his own separate branch of Yip Man's art and declared himself Grandmaster. Last I heard, he was up to Great Grandmaster. He has done well promoting his system and has made a good living. His technique is very good and he has produced exceptional students. But most of all, he will be remembered for his world class ego.

The second instructor, an FMA practitioner, was one of the first students of the late Grandmaster Angel Cabales, and also Grandmasters Maximo Sarmiento, Leo Giron, Dentoy Revillar, and others. He went out on his own, started his own very effective system, but some felt that he also implied that everyone else's art, well, er... sucked. He's a nice man, and very skilled... but he has no shortage of , er... confidence.

The two people I train under now also went out on their own, for different reasons. They were each once fellow students (along with me) under the previously listed Grandmasters, respectively.

The first was forced out of the Kung-fu Grandmaster's Association, basically for being ethical. So he started his own Association (but not a new system).

The other individual found that he was being held back by the conceptual narrowness of the FMA Grandmaster's "everyone else sucks" perspective. So he now does his own thing, and very well too. But he's humble about it and credits his previous instructors for what they taught him.

And then there are all too many of those, like our buff, tire-tossing friend who are "legends in their own mind". I have no comment there. I will say that periodically, I sort of make up my own hypothetical "system" for training and teaching. I have found it to be a useful exercise in wrapping my mind around what I've learned over the years. More to the point, I've never been foolish enough to let these notes out of my computer files. They usually end up being deleted pretty quickly! But not before I've worked through some "problems". I guess in our imaginations, we are all wannabe "masters".

 

[Xue Sheng]

My favorites are the guys who claim high ranks in arts no one can find reference to (except maybe in an obscure tv show), and use that as the basis for their own "art".

Well speaking as the grand high omnipotent ruler, imperial poobah, grandmaster, evil wizard and founder of Xuefu I can only say unless you are not of an equivalent level of GRANDMASTERY (to be determined by me) you are simply not worthy to look upon the proof of certification of my greatness because you would likely burst into flames simply by being in the same room with it. now don't make me shout nee...er...aaa I mean Kamehameha because you simply could not handle my immense powers of Qi

But if you like I could demonstrate my powers on one of my students who I spent years training how to fall down and look really cool doing it

Case 1

In the case where Mr. Kung Fu decides that without any previous training, he want to be a ninja, well, we all know where that leads.

I would be more incline to say Mr Ninja wants to be a Kung Fu master… but… ok…. I will let that one go

Just to play the devil's advocate, who gets to create a new style, and who doesn't?



Everything that we do today was "created" or otherwise established by someone, once upon a time. Some of those people took a lot of flak for it, but persevered and now their system is accepted and respected. Others, not so much.



So everyone here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that nobody is "qualified" (I'm not sure exactly how to even determine that) to create a new or re-packaged or personalized version of an art. But it has certainly been done.



So, who gets to do it, and why?

I really do not have much of a serious nature to add but I do agree with what you are saying. There are legitimate qualified people out there with what they feel is a good idea that is enough of a departure from what they were trained to call it something different. JKD (Bruce Jun Fan Lee [1940-1973]) is not that old after all and neither is Yiquan (Wang Xiangzhai [1885-1963]).

But then there are people like my first sifu that have a rather impressive resume but they are only developing new styles for cash and nothing else. They really do not have the skill to back it up but they sure look mighty impressive.