starting new arts. for what?

[soccer50]

i read 2-3 threads on creating new arts. what for though? there are great ones out already. People create arts based on experience and for a reason. Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively. sword arts were made because swords were the primary weapon back then. The thais made muay thai for military purposes.

all these arts were needed and tested. therefore they worked. but to create your own art in this day and age is useless. theres no need for it and its all based on theory or its taken from a perfectly good system. like an earlier thread, if-then techniques are highly impractical. the only "practical techniuqes" are raw striking and grappling. brazilian jui jitsu contains the most comprehensive ground fighting techniques. jui jitsu/judo has the most comprehensive throwing and grappling techniques. boxing is the most superior punching style. muay thai utilizes knees and elbows. and theres tons of arts to choose when it comes to kicking.

so why is it that you will waste your time creating whats been created? save your energy

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by soccer50
i read 2-3 threads on creating new arts. what for though? there are great ones out already. People create arts based on experience and for a reason. Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively. sword arts were made because swords were the primary weapon back then. The thais made muay thai for military purposes.

all these arts were needed and tested. therefore they worked. but to create your own art in this day and age is useless. theres no need for it and its all based on theory or its taken from a perfectly good system. like an earlier thread, if-then techniques are highly impractical. the only "practical techniuqes" are raw striking and grappling. brazilian jui jitsu contains the most comprehensive ground fighting techniques. jui jitsu/judo has the most comprehensive throwing and grappling techniques. boxing is the most superior punching style. muay thai utilizes knees and elbows. and theres tons of arts to choose when it comes to kicking.

so why is it that you will waste your time creating whats been created? save your energy

still at it that the Japanese were "small" people. It was true in relative terms more so in the 1940s, a lot of it due to nutrition. Jujitsu wasn't for fighting giant foreigners but big people in general, including the Japanese.

Most "new" martial arts aren't new, just an off-shoot of something with minor changes. BJJ comes from judo which comes from JJ while each has differences on emphasis.

Anyway, the reasons for "new" martial arts...

So they can automatically have a high rank
Feel that there needs to be a change
Feel that a combination of something works for them
Needs to place emphasis on something else
Simplicity or complexity


What creating "new" arts really means cutting and pasting some things together that a lot of the times, don't really work together, stamp on a fancy new name, advertise it, and make money or gain fame.

 

[Don Roley]

I think you forgot one big reason people start new arts. By doing so, they no longer have to accept that there is anyone more skilled than them in the old art. If I start "Wotsamatta- ryu" then no one else in that art is better at it than I.

Seriously though, I do know of some people who have taken arts and changed their emphisis. In the case I am thinking of, taking a sword art meant to kill other people (kind of a non- nescesary skill nowdays) and turning it into an art meant for sport and physical development. I was actually thinking of taking one of their seminars on the staff just to see what they were like. I have my own philisophical reason to look askance at people training with weapons for anything other than the purpose they were made for (i.e. kill people), but have to admit that there sword and the staff are a bit anachronistic in this age and more people have a need to get healthy and feel better about themsleves than learn to kill.

But in most cases I am familiar with, despite the reasons people may give, the majority of people who start their own art do so for reasons of ego. That is just my experience with them. I am sure they would aurgue 'till the cows come home that they have a valid, non- ego driven reason. Perhaps they even believe it themselves.

 

[Aegis]

Originally posted by soccer50
... Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively....

From what I gathered, jujutsu was created to get rid of armed opponents if the samurai ever lost a sword, rather than being something just creted to deal with larger opponents.

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Don Roley
I think you forgot one big reason people start new arts. By doing so, they no longer have to accept that there is anyone more skilled than them in the old art. If I start "Wotsamatta- ryu" then no one else in that art is better at it than I.

I forgot about that one

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by soccer50
i read 2-3 threads on creating new arts. what for though? there are great ones out already. People create arts based on experience and for a reason. Jiu jitsu was created to take on a bigger opponent. it was needed since japanese were small people, respectively. sword arts were made because swords were the primary weapon back then. The thais made muay thai for military purposes.

all these arts were needed and tested. therefore they worked. but to create your own art in this day and age is useless. theres no need for it and its all based on theory or its taken from a perfectly good system. like an earlier thread, if-then techniques are highly impractical. the only "practical techniuqes" are raw striking and grappling. brazilian jui jitsu contains the most comprehensive ground fighting techniques. jui jitsu/judo has the most comprehensive throwing and grappling techniques. boxing is the most superior punching style. muay thai utilizes knees and elbows. and theres tons of arts to choose when it comes to kicking.

so why is it that you will waste your time creating whats been created? save your energy

Where have you been the last 10 years?

The Gracies exposed many weaknesses in many arts and opened up many eyes eyes. If YOU THINK your art is perfect as it is, then keep your blinders on. No one art is "perfect" and your own "analysys" backs that up.

Each art you named as an example has areas of specialty but none is complete as a "total fighting system."

BJJ is weak on their feet. Muay Thai can't fight on the ground.

"True" trad, Jujutsu would be the only one close to being totally complete BUT in todays age it too is not complete.

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by akja
Where have you been the last 10 years?

Watching the dearth of hokey home-made "uber styles" being created by Gracie wannabes who think they know everything from watching a few videos, reading Bruce Lee books, and quoting JKD people all the time... Oh, and watching those same "arts" die a slow agonizing death since they lack experience, perspective and the test of time...

The Gracies exposed many weaknesses in many arts and opened up many eyes eyes. If YOU THINK your art is perfect as it is, then keep your blinders on. No one art is "perfect" and your own "analysys" backs that up.

Not at all... The Gracies showed what happens when someone spends a lifetime training and specializing in an area of fighting. They showed that, when you spend every waking hour training your technique, developing your physique, and making use of your training in rules-light competitions, you can become quite an impressive fighter. We have yet to see an example of GJJ/BJJ in use against multiple opponents, or against someone who really knows how to hit. I would love to see a Gracie or GJJ/BJJ practitioner go up against someone from a few styles renowned for their striking ability, ability that has been proven again and again...

And just a note - from a certain perspective, no art is "perfect," especially the home made ones that attempt to "blend," "incorporate," or otherwise mix several arts into one brand spanking new one.

Each art you named as an example has areas of specialty but none is complete as a "total fighting system."

There is really nothing that is a "total fighting system." To create one would require experience that simply has not existed in the past 100 years, and to learn one would require a time investment that 99% of the population could never afford.

BJJ is weak on their feet. Muay Thai can't fight on the ground.

Every art has its shortcomings. The real test of an art is in how they handle their shortcomings rather than how they capitalize on their strengths. Let's pit a GJJ/BJJ fighter against a Muay Thai fighter and see what happens!

"True" trad, Jujutsu would be the only one close to being totally complete BUT in todays age it too is not complete.

Traditional Jujutsu would not be close to being totally "complete." Does it teach empty hand striking and kicking, weapons defense, weapons use (ancient and modern), guerilla warfare, etc.? For something to be "complete" and to address the totality of combative experience, it better deal with very literally "everything." If it doesn't, like so many of the self-proclaimed "total combat systems" being sold out there, then it is just as flawed and incomplete as the rest...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
still at it that the Japanese were "small" people. It was true in relative terms more so in the 1940s, a lot of it due to nutrition. Jujitsu wasn't for fighting giant foreigners but big people in general, including the Japanese.

Who, in the feudal period during which jujutsu was created, did the Japanese fight that were so much larger than themselves? The occasional large Korean or Chinese? During the period that jujutsu flourished, the only folks it was being used against were other Japanese (someone correct my historical understanding if I am in error)!

To have an art whose sole reason for existing is to fight "big" people seems pointless, especially when said art was used as a supplementary study to bolster the selection of armed arts in use by the individual studying jujtusu in the first place.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[soccer50]

well ofcourse there is no complete art. thats the reason for cross training.

but i think "don roley" has made a good point. turning a fighting art into a sport. that i can understand. but still thats not making an art

take jkd. bruce lee combined the best of the best. but if a jkd practionioner would go grappling only with a graplling master, he would loose. if he would go striking only against a striking master, he would loose. bruce lee just got peices of various arts and made a new one. but it can compare to a fighter who mastered a specific art. and theres no orientation, when you learn graplling, u learn to view situations frokm a grapllers perspective. whe u learn striking, u learn to veiw situaitions from a strikers perspective. then u can choose which is the best technique to apply when a situation comes up

 

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by soccer50
..... bruce lee just got peices of various arts and made a new one. ....

No. He neither "got peices of various arts" nor "made a new one". That was what people presumed as what he did.

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by soccer50
well ofcourse there is no complete art. thats the reason for cross training.

I agree with that statement.

take jkd.

I'd rather not.

bruce lee combined the best of the best.

No, he didn't. He studied Wing Chun, Taijiquan (from his father), some Boxing, some Savate, and later some FMA. None of these are necessarily "the best" arts in their categories, nor did he study any one of these arts long enough to know what "the best" parts of them were!

I know I'll get attacked by Bruce fans everywhere, but he really wasn't all that he is often interpreted to be! He was certainly very physicall talented. He had a certain amount of insight, but in reading some of what he wrote, you really have to wonder if he was as insightful as it sounds, or if his Philosophy degree was just helping his comments sound more insightful than they really were. Ultimately, JKD was meant to be a theory by which to approach a person's own individual training, but it has become just as much a "style" or "system" as the things Brucie allegedly railed against.

To say any person has taken "the best" from "the best" is to imply that there is a "best" way to do something. From that, to imply there is a "best" way to do something negates the claims of many arts to be "the best" at what they do. There can, logically, only be one "best" way, otherwise it is not "the best." There can't be two "number ones."

Find one undefeated art, and you may be able to claim, for a brief period, that it is "the best." But first you have to find an art that has never been defeated... And good luck with that.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Watching the dearth of hokey home-made "uber styles" being created by Gracie wannabes who think they know everything from watching a few videos, reading Bruce Lee books, and quoting JKD people all the time... Oh, and watching those same "arts" die a slow agonizing death since they lack experience, perspective and the test of time...



Not at all... The Gracies showed what happens when someone spends a lifetime training and specializing in an area of fighting. They showed that, when you spend every waking hour training your technique, developing your physique, and making use of your training in rules-light competitions, you can become quite an impressive fighter. We have yet to see an example of GJJ/BJJ in use against multiple opponents, or against someone who really knows how to hit. I would love to see a Gracie or GJJ/BJJ practitioner go up against someone from a few styles renowned for their striking ability, ability that has been proven again and again...

And just a note - from a certain perspective, no art is "perfect," especially the home made ones that attempt to "blend," "incorporate," or otherwise mix several arts into one brand spanking new one.



There is really nothing that is a "total fighting system." To create one would require experience that simply has not existed in the past 100 years, and to learn one would require a time investment that 99% of the population could never afford.



Every art has its shortcomings. The real test of an art is in how they handle their shortcomings rather than how they capitalize on their strengths. Let's pit a GJJ/BJJ fighter against a Muay Thai fighter and see what happens!



Traditional Jujutsu would not be close to being totally "complete." Does it teach empty hand striking and kicking, weapons defense, weapons use (ancient and modern), guerilla warfare, etc.? For something to be "complete" and to address the totality of combative experience, it better deal with very literally "everything." If it doesn't, like so many of the self-proclaimed "total combat systems" being sold out there, then it is just as flawed and incomplete as the rest...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

I still beleive that Trad, Jujustu is the closest to being complete cpmpared to all the trad, arts I've seen. Thats a bit more clear and acurate.

For the record "pure" BJJ has defeated "Pure" Muay Thai many times.

Just how many of the original styles have died that same slow agonizing death?

The Gracies did expose the weakness of not cross training which before that was not as commonplace as it is today, no doubt about that.

About the light competitions bit. I really hate to say it but thats an "American thing". we created the rules for Safety. You do remember the first 2 UFC's.

Also, many people don't understand it because they don't see it first hand. I have some tapes from Brazil that were recorded in the early '90's. Its coverage from 4 tournaments in the back country with no rules. Its raw and I've never seen that type of cpmpetition in the USA! It was dominated by martial artist who know how to fight in any situation, not just on the ground or just on their feet

And do you deny that the arts have evolved faster in the last 10 years than they did in the past?

Traditional Jujutsu did originally have strikes and kicks but you probably won't see that today, I thought that was clear.

Also, the last 10 years has evolved MORE REALISTIC MARTIAL SPORT than than what we, ourselves developed over time. That is undeniable!:asian:

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by soccer50
well ofcourse there is no complete art. thats the reason for cross training.

but i think "don roley" has made a good point. turning a fighting art into a sport. that i can understand. but still thats not making an art

take jkd. bruce lee combined the best of the best. but if a jkd practionioner would go grappling only with a graplling master, he would loose. if he would go striking only against a striking master, he would loose. bruce lee just got peices of various arts and made a new one. but it can compare to a fighter who mastered a specific art. and theres no orientation, when you learn graplling, u learn to view situations frokm a grapllers perspective. whe u learn striking, u learn to veiw situaitions from a strikers perspective. then u can choose which is the best technique to apply when a situation comes up

I wonder if you even have a clue

Sorry buddy, your examples suck

 

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by akja
....For the record "pure" BJJ has defeated "Pure" Muay Thai many times.

What record would that be? What is your definition for "pure"in this case? Were those competitions fought under BJJ rules or MT rules, or no rules at all?

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Who, in the feudal period during which jujutsu was created, did the Japanese fight that were so much larger than themselves? The occasional large Korean or Chinese? During the period that jujutsu flourished, the only folks it was being used against were other Japanese (someone correct my historical understanding if I am in error)!

To have an art whose sole reason for existing is to fight "big" people seems pointless, especially when said art was used as a supplementary study to bolster the selection of armed arts in use by the individual studying jujtusu in the first place.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Exactly my point. Well actually, my point was that it wasn't against the "huge foreigners" against the "small Japanese". Asians were pretty much relatively shorter than other people in the early and mid 1900s, but today, it's not uncommon to see fairly large Asian person. Sticking to those types of stereotypes won't do anyone any good. You can give me average heights and weights and all that, it really doesn't do much IMO.

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by soccer50
well ofcourse there is no complete art. thats the reason for cross training.

but i think "don roley" has made a good point. turning a fighting art into a sport. that i can understand. but still thats not making an art

take jkd. bruce lee combined the best of the best. but if a jkd practionioner would go grappling only with a graplling master, he would loose. if he would go striking only against a striking master, he would loose. bruce lee just got peices of various arts and made a new one. but it can compare to a fighter who mastered a specific art. and theres no orientation, when you learn graplling, u learn to view situations frokm a grapllers perspective. whe u learn striking, u learn to veiw situaitions from a strikers perspective. then u can choose which is the best technique to apply when a situation comes up

Misconception.

There are no "complete" arts? What does complete mean? Does complete mean that you spend an equal amount of time on every possible subject/scenario possible? That won't work, you need to have emphasis on one thing or another depending on you. Cross-training is without a doubt useful for most people as most systems today won't give you the freedom of looking at things from a different point of view from that of the instructor's. It helps one be more adept and helps people in general. There are many naturally gifted people who can go up against people of all types (all types of strikers, grapplers, etc.) without a problem, and can stick to what they do no matter what the opponent does, even if it's unexpected. Unfortunately, most people are not like that, that's why cross-training is useful.

And Bruce Lee never created a style. JKD was never meant for it to be a style, he never wished he had a name for it but a name was needed to get his philosophies across better. Bruce Lee was more of a revolutionary on TRAINING, not on creating new arts. And the flaw with the argument is that not only do you have to look at striking at a striker's point of view, but you have to look at striking at an outside striker's point of view, an inside striker's point of view, a puncher, a kicker, a pressure grappler, a power grappler, an outside grappler, a setup/tie grappler, a person who likes to throw or choke or lock, etc. in order to form "new counters" to every possible situation and then trying what you like best. There's simply not enough time to learn what you must and practice enough to be proficient in every possible counter to every possible attack.

Bruce Lee never combined the best of the best, you're mistaking that with "keep what is good, throw what is useless" quote. And realize, that his quote is RELATIVE, it is not a standard. Something that is useful to me may not be useless to you.

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by KennethKu
What record would that be? What is your definition for "pure"in this case? Were those competitions fought under BJJ rules or MT rules, or no rules at all?

You realize that Royce Gracie only fights under his own rules?

I never knew arts could fight each other too.

Akja, you are trying to argue an uphill climb. I can say that judo can defeat BJJ because a practitioner of judo managed to beat Helio, but that won't work.

What exactly is a "pure" art? My TKD is different from karatekid's TKD, my wrestling is different from everyone else's. I box differently, I do everything different, and yet, what's pure? I'm one of the only people who wrestle like I do. I have a Russian stance most of the time and sometimes switch to a Korean or a Mongolian stance. My setups are different, I like to juke, I like to tap and play with people's heads. There are people who use similiar strategies, but only I wrestle like I do. Yet, it's pure wrestling. If a wrestler watched me wrestle, he would say I trained in wrestling. It's just that tactically, technically, and physically, I wrestle differently from everyone else.

Not only are there too many variables, it is impossible to pit people against each other like that.

Here's a good read for you: http://martialarts.about.com/library/weekly/aa041903a.htm

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by KennethKu
What record would that be? What is your definition for "pure"in this case? Were those competitions fought under BJJ rules or MT rules, or no rules at all?

"Minimal rules" is the best we will ever get here. It would of been more clear if I would of stated a pure BJJ fighter and a pure Thai fighter.

I wasn't stating that Thai fighters don't beat BJJ fighters. It was a response to what would happen if a Thai fighter fought a BJJ fighter.

Also I have a student who is a decent Thai fighter and has a lot of potential but I'm miles ahead of him just because thats all he knows (except what I'm teaching him), he needs to be more well rounded. Its to easy for me to take him where I want to be rather than where he would prefer to be.:asian:

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
Misconception.

There are no "complete" arts? What does complete mean? Does complete mean that you spend an equal amount of time on every possible subject/scenario possible? That won't work, you need to have emphasis on one thing or another depending on you. Cross-training is without a doubt useful for most people as most systems today won't give you the freedom of looking at things from a different point of view from that of the instructor's. It helps one be more adept and helps people in general. There are many naturally gifted people who can go up against people of all types (all types of strikers, grapplers, etc.) without a problem, and can stick to what they do no matter what the opponent does, even if it's unexpected. Unfortunately, most people are not like that, that's why cross-training is useful.

And Bruce Lee never created a style. JKD was never meant for it to be a style, he never wished he had a name for it but a name was needed to get his philosophies across better. Bruce Lee was more of a revolutionary on TRAINING, not on creating new arts. And the flaw with the argument is that not only do you have to look at striking at a striker's point of view, but you have to look at striking at an outside striker's point of view, an inside striker's point of view, a puncher, a kicker, a pressure grappler, a power grappler, an outside grappler, a setup/tie grappler, a person who likes to throw or choke or lock, etc. in order to form "new counters" to every possible situation and then trying what you like best. There's simply not enough time to learn what you must and practice enough to be proficient in every possible counter to every possible attack.

Bruce Lee never combined the best of the best, you're mistaking that with "keep what is good, throw what is useless" quote. And realize, that his quote is RELATIVE, it is not a standard. Something that is useful to me may not be useless to you.

Yes I think that our primary arts are the ones that we spend the most time with early on. Not the sytle the method such as stand up vs. ground. I will always be a better stand up fighter and the ground grappling is an enhancement but at the same time I recognize how important ground grappling is. You can't expect to get out of a life or death situation in areas that you only spend minimal time in.

Early on Bruce did in fact create a martial art (Jun Fan Gung-Fu) as he had intended. But as he "evolved" he changed his mind about his art, his teaching methods and ultimately what he was teaching.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
You realize that Royce Gracie only fights under his own rules?

I never knew arts could fight each other too.

Akja, you are trying to argue an uphill climb. I can say that judo can defeat BJJ because a practitioner of judo managed to beat Helio, but that won't work.

What exactly is a "pure" art? My TKD is different from karatekid's TKD, my wrestling is different from everyone else's. I box differently, I do everything different, and yet, what's pure? I'm one of the only people who wrestle like I do. I have a Russian stance most of the time and sometimes switch to a Korean or a Mongolian stance. My setups are different, I like to juke, I like to tap and play with people's heads. There are people who use similiar strategies, but only I wrestle like I do. Yet, it's pure wrestling. If a wrestler watched me wrestle, he would say I trained in wrestling. It's just that tactically, technically, and physically, I wrestle differently from everyone else.

Not only are there too many variables, it is impossible to pit people against each other like that.

Here's a good read for you: http://martialarts.about.com/library/weekly/aa041903a.htm

I wasn't stating that BJJ rules and beats Thai. I was answering to a what if a BJJ fighter fought a Thai fighter.

No art is the best all we have is what is best for us as individual martial artists.:asian: