New, Improved, Never Before Seen...Why People Create Their "Own" Art?
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
Case 3 is what I consider legitimate development -- even if I don't agree with the person or practice. Staying with Ninjutsu, the Jeninkan and Genbukan are legitimate "descendants" from Takamatsu's teachings. They've gone their own way from Hatsumi, so in that particular sense the validity of the separation is OK. (Maybe more like someone who moves out prior to obtaining a divorce...
) Same thing applies to lots of the various karate systems. Or kenpo.These are the cases where someone is doing their own thing; it may or may not live beyond them. There just ain't gonna be no Ashida Kim, gen II. He's got nothing that'll stand the test of time.
Hey, I know one of those. Richard Ryan. He was the brown-sash, senior student at the Wing Chun school I went to in '79. After our instructor closed the school, I heard that this guy went off to California to be the next Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris. I lost track of him for all these years. Then a month or two back he pops up on the cover of Black Belt promoting his "Dynamic Combat Method". The pictures looked impressive and he's got a cool website. He's gotta be making some cash with all that publicity. And you guys wonder why people start their own styles? If sex, money and fame motivate people, looks like he's got at least two out of three hammered down.
...Oh, then there's my old Sihing, Emin. He's got his own "Wing Tzun" thing going on. And I hear he has all three benefits listed above. But, whatever you think of him, he ain't no phony!
BTW if either of these guys reads these comments, I hope they've got a sense of humor or I'm gonna get thrashed like one of ninja-boy's training tires...
Last edited:
Here's my view.
We all create our own styles. We take what works for us within our system, and we use it. We emphasis different areas in our training. I don't move just like me teacher (though there is an essence or character that IS very identifiable), and my teacher isn't a carbon copy of his teacher, either.
Whether that style merits a name or distinction other than "my flavor" of "you-name-it-do" is a question for time and students. If enough students, over enough time, feel that what you've got merits passing on and is distinguished enough -- then it'll happen. If not -- it won't, no matter how many names you give it.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
I'm on the fence about the need to make new styles out of old.
But I DO think denying where you come from sucks.
But I DO think denying where you come from sucks.
grydth
Senior Master
This will never be settled, for one person's innovator is another person's heretic.
I always have a near expulsion experience here when monstrosities like Tai Chih Chih or the Taoist Tai Chi Society are mentioned..... yet I have very much enjoyed working with a fusion art (Water Dragon) created by an Indiana teacher named Ron Weatherford for a couple of years now. Even had him as a house guest here, and hope to again.
There will always be a subjective component for most of us on this issue.
I always have a near expulsion experience here when monstrosities like Tai Chih Chih or the Taoist Tai Chi Society are mentioned..... yet I have very much enjoyed working with a fusion art (Water Dragon) created by an Indiana teacher named Ron Weatherford for a couple of years now. Even had him as a house guest here, and hope to again.
There will always be a subjective component for most of us on this issue.
shihansmurf
Black Belt
In all honesty, these are likely the truest words that will ever be written on this subject.
As long as someone thinks that they have come up with a new way to punch another guy's lights out, and are able to convince people to pay them to give lessons in that way, we'll continue to have new styles of martial arts.
In other news... water is still wet, the sun is still gonna come up in the morning, and smurfs are still cool.
Mark
P.S. We seriously need a smurf smiley.
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 85
I think people make their own art for many different reasons.
Some see just techniques that fit them and their strategy and feel it's totaly effective for everyone. But they have mearly discovered what works for them.
Others, explore, research, and combine elements and, rarely, do come up with something new. This is especialy true with modern science and the study of the human physiological and psychological makeup. Things do progress.
And still others are just full of themselves (and that's the majority of them.)
Deaf
Some see just techniques that fit them and their strategy and feel it's totaly effective for everyone. But they have mearly discovered what works for them.
Others, explore, research, and combine elements and, rarely, do come up with something new. This is especialy true with modern science and the study of the human physiological and psychological makeup. Things do progress.
And still others are just full of themselves (and that's the majority of them.)
Deaf
Until we start having death matches again, the whole style thing will continue to spiral out of control. With the use of the death match you will only need to tell the other guy where you train and not what style you train in.
So are we good with having death matches?
So are we good with having death matches?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #30
Seeing that we both do Kenpo, I'll use that as an example. I'm sure when Ed Parker learned Kenpo, he made changes. I'm sure when he taught Kenpo to Larry Tatum, Mike Pick, Joe Palanzo and Doc Chapel, they made their own changes. But did any of them run off, create a new name or have little experience? IMO, no. They're all teaching Parker Kenpo, although I'd be willing to bet if you saw each man do a technique, you'd see differences.
IMHO, it seems to me that the majority of people who create something new, are doing so with a short amount of time in. Its rare that these people are willing to talk about past training, rank or time in. Why? Because if they devulged that info. they'd get laughed at even faster than they do when they create their new art.
If someone, such as whom you describe above, wanted to go his own way, I don't see anything wrong with that. As I said, if we look at the guys I mentioned, I think its safe to say they went their own way, as they're probably all teaching differently. But they still call it Kenpo. Its still EPAK.
Last July, I attended a 3 day Arnis Camp. People from all over came. Everyone had their own way of doing things, their own flavor, but in the end, we were all doing Arnis as taught by the late Remy Presas.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #31
You obviously know these guys better than I, but I'll offer my opinion only. Feel free to correct as needed.
RBSD: There're many great ideas from guys like Richard Ryan, Sammy Franco, Geoff Thompson, etc. Are they teaching anything new per se, or is the material a more bare bones, effective method of application? Instead of wasting time doing kata and trying to find the hidden techniques, they're working alive drills. Instead of doing a tech. that is stiff, rigid and has 10 moves to it, they're fluid and use the KISS principle.
WC: Is Emin teaching things that are not found in any other WC style, or did he just add his own flavor to it, and call it EBMAS?
Again, I have no issues with either of the men in question. Now, if we go the route that they did create their own style, what seperates them from the other group of people that want to do their own thing? Have these guys proven that what they are doing is the real deal, so we accept that as a legit method? So, anyone that creates their own style, should be accepted, as long as they can prove themselves? So if Ashida Kim offers a put up or shut up challenge and kicks the rear of everyone that says he's a joke, we should accept his method of NinjItsu as the real deal?
Just throwing some questions out for the sake of discussion. Gotta play devils advocate.
Don't take anything I said as me trying to be an ***. Like I said, I'm just tossing things out for discussion. 
i think that one of the reasons new styles pop up, aside from those already given, is the suppression of personal creativity that exists in many martial arts. it kind of leads to this idea that if you alter one or two things from how your instructor taught you, it warrants creating a new style.
i think this also might be an extension of the emphasis on lineage many eastern martial arts, where the style was primarily taught within the family or household. this is a major contrast to western arts like boxing in wrestling. in boxing you might be a boxer, slugger, boxer-puncher, runner, or counter fighter. you might use a classic guard, the philly crab, the cross arm, or the peekaboo. but you're still boxing. nobody talks about d'amato-san boxing, or freddy roach fist boxing.
just some thoughts.
jf
i think this also might be an extension of the emphasis on lineage many eastern martial arts, where the style was primarily taught within the family or household. this is a major contrast to western arts like boxing in wrestling. in boxing you might be a boxer, slugger, boxer-puncher, runner, or counter fighter. you might use a classic guard, the philly crab, the cross arm, or the peekaboo. but you're still boxing. nobody talks about d'amato-san boxing, or freddy roach fist boxing.
just some thoughts.
jf
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.
Im creating my own thing. However I don't presume to teach anyone about what im doing. This material is mine, 'all mine' and none of you can have it!
After thinking about it more I think that at the bare bones of 'why' I do my own thing and perhaps why others might (idk), is the fact that 'faith' is good. You have to have faith in what you do for it to work. I dont feel as if I would like to burden my martial content with techniques that i dont have faith in or ones that wont or dont work for me. There is no mysticism involved. Its just what works best for me and what interests me the most.
Last edited:
I don't think this is creating our own style, it's taking the style we study and making it our own. I teach differently than my instructor, and my peers. We each concentrate on different things, drill different skills, have different stregnths, weaknesses, experiences, and backgrounds, and some of us have added to the curriculum, based on crosstraining in other styles, but we haven't created our own styles. What we have done is put part of ourselves into what we teach, and keep what we do interesting and fun. I think that if you go to different dojo's that teach the same style, you'll see some differences, same art, same style, different instructors. It becomes a different style when someone says, "I can't learn anything more from this style, I think I need to make a change, so I'm going to take what I know, from all the styles I've studied, put it together a little differently, and call it something different."
Isn't this essentially what Bruce Lee did? And did he even get to five arts before developing Jeed Kune Do?
And yet, nobody considers Lee to have been unworthy of doing this (including myself).
Now, fake lineages I have a serious problem with, but then how can I throw stones; I'm a KKW yudanja and just look at the history that they came up with!
I think that coming up with one's own ryu, kwan, style, or whatever was probably just as common in the days of old as it is now. The only difference was that each new style was simply a local school established by someone who struck out on their own and didn't have internet or magazine circulation to let everyone outside of their local area know about it. The ones that were decent probably did okay and faded into obscurity. The ones that were exceptional in some way went on to become the TMA that we now discuss here on MT.
In my opinion, fake lineages not withstanding, it is probably more honest to call what you're doing by a new name if it differs in any substantive way from the style you were taught. Then people know that they're getting something that is indeed not traditional fill-in-the-blank ryu/kwan/style/whatever. They know that if you learned from Makiwari Sensei that you are not passing on his teachings with carved in stone tablets but have indeed altered his system based upon your own experience and philosophy, perhaps even based upon a significant difference in physical build which rendered some of the techniques impractical for you.
Daniel
But did Bruce Lee really create anything? He developed something, definitely. He pulled a lot of things together, and may have been the first to openly recognize that there's more than simply repeating movements ad infinitum to martial arts training. And he definitely had fantastic charisma and presence.
But nobody seems to agree on what he taught. All of his original students are great martial artists, who have bridged lots of gaps across styles, but the best you can say about finding common threads is that they have a shared training approach. They all look different, and there's not a particular character of moving that you can point to and say "That's how Jeet Kun Do moves." (I might be wrong... and of course there are those who would say that Jeet Kun Do isn't supposed to have one look...)
There's a strong argument that the training approach Lee championed so well was present all along -- but kept behind closed doors, instead of being openly championed.
But I said earlier that the question is whether a new style stands the test of time -- and I don't know that JKD will, perhaps because it was so strongly what worked for Bruce Lee.
Does anyone really create anything new? Regardless of what they're calling it, be it Jeet Kune Do or Jake's Ninjacobrakai or even Jedi, unless someone produces a light sabre, it's still just previously codified material repackaged under a new name.
Daniel
Daniel
