should new systems be regulated

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
51
Location
San Jose, Ca.
Martial arts have been in America long enough for the new systems to be sprouting up, as they are.

Should there be a standard, or maybe regulation.?
Explain.
 
Regulation.......Nice idea but I doubt it would work :shrug:

Standard......A little better but whos to say who sets the standard?

Its a nice idea but I doubt it would work...:asian:
 
No, there is no standard for the "old" arts, how can you set up a standard for the new? You have a product that essentially cannot be tested under rigorous conditions (unless it is a sport), so you cannot establish any outside standard of good or bad.

Reinstating challenge matches as the standard of quality would do alot to improve the situation, but that won't fly in good ol' litigious USA.

Let the buyer beware,

Lamont
 
Originally posted by Master of Blades
Regulation.......Nice idea but I doubt it would work :shrug:

Standard......A little better but whos to say who sets the standard?

Its a nice idea but I doubt it would work...:asian:

you stole my answers
 
Originally posted by Blindside
No, there is no standard for the "old" arts, how can you set up a standard for the new?

And there it is in a nutshell.
Who is and who isnt qualified to teach.
This has been and always will be a problem in the arts. I remember reading about this problem in an article that was about sword schools 300 years ago. Seems it was a problem back then as well.

Also, the more arts I am exposed to the more I realize there is no such thing as new arts.
I can usually find any new arts technique in some old art.
 
Thats what I say, we create new training methods at most. New techniques, not likely!
 
Originally posted by akja
Thats what I say, we create new training methods at most. New techniques, not likely!

What training methods do you use presently?
 
The short version.

It boils down to being effiecient in all fighting ranges. Some ranges you will be better than others, thats OK as long as you have at minimum an understanding of all ranges and excel in some. To gain an understanding of all ranges, they must be practicing separately in order to get that deeper understanding while also practiced together to develop the flow from range to range.

I'll give some better examples later tonite.
 
Originally posted by akja
The short version.

It boils down to being effiecient in all fighting ranges. Some ranges you will be better than others, thats OK as long as you have at minimum an understanding of all ranges and excel in some. To gain an understanding of all ranges, they must be practicing separately in order to get that deeper understanding while also practiced together to develop the flow from range to range.

I'll give some better examples later tonite.


That's what we "traditionalists" do know and have done for a long time.
How is yours different?
 
I don't think there's anyway you could regulate a new art. If someone wants to make up something then my hat's off to them for trying. Unfortunately for that individual it would be a long struggle to make it get off of the ground and then keep it alive. Techniques have been thousands of years old, all we do is a variation of each.
 
Originally posted by jfarnsworth
Techniques have been thousands of years old, all we do is a variation of each.

I agree.
If not the exact same technique.
 
Originally posted by RyuShiKan
That's what we "traditionalists" do know and have done for a long time.
How is yours different?

I've seen alot of systems out there but I haven't seen any "traditional" systems cover all ranges effectively, at all.

This is becoming personal. Thats an out right lie to say you've trained that way all along. I've been to your site and that site in Poland. THAT IS NOT ALL RANGES!!

Come on give me some credit. I didn't ever say mine is "better" or "so" differant.

But I do something that I know you guys don't do. This is not new, just smart. If you box, I grapple, you grapple, I box.

Don't be confused, grappling is not always on the ground. But the ground is effective if your out matched in another range. And thats what I'm talking about. You can't match a great fighter at his own game. If he is a great boxer or an aggresive brawler, well maybe you don't have to try and match him in his range, take the fight to another range that you work well in. If your proficient truely in "all ranges" then you have a chance to survive.

I've put a lot of years in "all ranges" learning them in separately in schools that focus on one range (like most schools do)!
All I'm doing is putting it all together. You guys should't dog me like you do!
 
Originally posted by akja
I've seen alot of systems out there but I haven't seen any "traditional" systems cover all ranges effectively, at all.

This is becoming personal. Thats an out right lie to say you've trained that way all along. I've been to your site and that site in Poland. THAT IS NOT ALL RANGES!!

Now I am a liar.
Uh. sorry sporto those few mpegs dont hardly cover all of what we do.
You are proving yourself to be rather uneducated


Originally posted by akja
Come on give me some credit. I didn't ever say mine is "better" or "so" differant.

No you havent which is the only thing that has kept me from really tearing into you.



Originally posted by akja
Don't be confused, grappling is not always on the ground.

Oh really??? And here I thought tuite was only performed from the mount position. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Now I am a liar.



Oh really??? And here I thought tuite was only performed from the mount position. :rolleyes:

Isn't it?


I'm over defending traditional karate. I love it, know what it covers and if people choose not to find out well it's their loss not mine.

Also, if karate groups can't come together to put in an olympic bid where only sporting rules apply I can safely say the chances of them coming together to come up with a standard by which to judge newly formed martial arts is less than zero.

Cheers
Sammy
 
"New arts" generally ARE "regulated". I would say, however, that it's probably more of a problem than anything because the thing is "regulated" by is the national head of sokeship council, or whatever it's called. It only serves to make things worse and less authentic, if you ask me, but it helps more people think they can and should make their own system. Yuck.
 
My primary technique comes fro Jun Fan Gung_fu and BJJ and I'm blending traditional Jujitsu with the BJJ. Thats all. Not worth arguing over.
 
After reading some of the arrogant and self-aggrandizing discourse on this thread, I'm darn glad the arts aren't regulated. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, ya know...and every time this issue comes up, I suspect somebody's looking for power.
 
I feel that it is better in the long run that there is no standard or regulation. Otherwise such fine systems as JKD might never have been birthed. Certain Non-American groups were highly upset that Bruce was teaching 'yanks'. To the point of 'grudge match winner take all' taking place.

There are those that violently resist anything new. Either physically or verbally with antagonism. Fortunately, although there is nothing 'new under the sun', better ways of expressing these ideas occasionally come to the forefront.

As a result we enjoy many such fine systems as Judo, JKD, BJJ, Agni, ToroSomoDo etc etc. It is a long list. And it is important to remember that at some point ALL styles/systems were new.

Take care.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top