What qualifies one to create their own style of martial art?

[GouRonin]

I know this is going to be a tough topic because really there is no one set of reasons but what would your personal criteria be? If you came upon someone teaching a hybrid style what things would you look at that might make this a valid thing in your own opinion?

 

[hand2handCombat]

knowing the art that is going to be incorporated very well!!!

 

[fist of fury]

It's hard to say but i would want to know how much expereince in each of the hybrid arts the instructor has. Also what is he bringing back from those arts is it the most effecient aspect of those arts or just some parlor tricks. How much pratical testing of the instructors system has been done and most importantly is it still evolving. If it's a new hybrid art and instructor isn't attempting to improve and hone his/her art then it isn't for me. Not that the style should change everytime you go to a class but if the instructor found a more effecient way to apply a technique he/she could then breing that too class with an appropriate explanation as to why the technique would work better this way.

 

[sweeper]

well I would look at the reasons why the new art is "better" than the sum of it's parts, what are the reasons for creation, also who does the instructor study under and do his teachers know about/aprove of what he's doing, if they don't I would contact them and ask why.

then of course comes the question of effectivness.. if it is being taught for self deffence, what qualification does the instructor have to teach self deffence. If it isn't being taught as self deffence what is it being taught for? if sport does it win in the ring? if excercises is the instructor qualified to teach excercise.

And of course how much thought went into it.. is it just a series of grafted techniques or did the instructor do some real reasearch and studie into all the aspects of fighting such as physiology, kinesiology, and psychology.

 

[Kenpo Wolf]

,,,is the first thing someone should have before developing their own art or system. After this sold base, they should explore other avenues make his
primary art better. If you can't make your primary art better, whats the point in trying to design your own art?

I hate seeing a person taking a few lessons in one style, a few lessons in another, and a few lessons in yet a third and then trying to put it together as is own style. To me, that shows that a guy does not have the discipline or the patience to stick it out and who would want to learn from a guy like this?

 

[GouRonin]

What do you think of these teachers who are in their 20's, 30's, & 40's even who have high ranking black belts such as 3rd, 4th, and 5th, in several different martial arts?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Age isn't a big deal....except that someoine in their 60's will in theory have more experience than someone in their 20s.

I believe time training and researching are a big part of it...personally, at least 10-20 years of intensive training (not the 30 minute classes).

Its been said that Wing Chun was developed so that they could train a master in 5 years, not 25....note, master, not grandmaster.

Look at the real masters of the arts...Parker, Presas, Lee...look where they came from, and then, look at their best students...and see.

:asian:

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by GouRonin

I know this is going to be a tough topic because really there is no one set of reasons but what would your personal criteria be? If you came upon someone teaching a hybrid style what things would you look at that might make this a valid thing in your own opinion?

The red thread through it all. If there's mismatch, and the teacher dosn't ack. it. I wouldn't practice that art.

/Yari

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by GouRonin

What do you think of these teachers who are in their 20's, 30's, & 40's even who have high ranking black belts such as 3rd, 4th, and 5th, in several different martial arts?

I'm too old to look a belts. I look on how the bow, and teach students. What they teach, and how they grade.

On the other hand a third Dan in two arts shouldn't be that difficult for somebody in the 30's and 40's, if they started early.
But much more than that I find difficult to belive, and want to see them in action before anything else.

/Yari

 

[samuraijack]

this is a very tricky question.on one hand some jerk can read a few issues of "black belt" and try to teach a class and promote himself to "soke". first of all i would ask questons about the instructors training, if he replies that he learned in the shaolin temple in a top secret location, run...run as fast as you can. If the instructor is 20 years old and a 10th degree black belt, a red flag should go up. However, i must say that just because a style is new doesn't mean that it isn't real. look at bruce lee, he developed JKD, was he qualified??? Ed parker totally redone Kenpo Karate when he came to the u.s. to teach it. New styles are what america is all about. Some want to learn an ancient art that is taught the same way it was 1000 years ago, some want new and modern techniques developed for modern times, it is a judgement call. Jhoon Rhee is teaching, "american tae kwon do". the creator should be at least a 3rd dan or higher,have approval from his instructor to borrow from the style, an last but not least the style should be tested for quality.

 

[theneuhauser]

also, i think that it is VERY important that the originator be well travelled. it's important that they have a high level of skill in any one art, because it shows that they are a real deal martial artist. its probably just as important for the person to get around, and learn from every martial art that's out there. not necessarily, to train in it, but at least to spar and dialogue with many different masters, this way he or she can say with firm belief " i have tested this thing out and weighed it against the best and it is good"

 

[fissure]

I think the problem in building your own stlye is in teaching of it. I have trained in several styles, and have mixed and matched for my own benift.However one can't teach this to anyone else, because what is comfotable and effective for me might suck for almost everyone else.
:EG:

 

[Baoquan]

IMHO, the basis for a style, be it new or hybrid, is not a compilation of techniques, but a philosophy; a concrete meme that defines what the collection of techniques is trying to create. A statement of; this is what we are trying to accomplish through this art.

Lee had one, Parker had one....a lot of people don't , then "create" their own "style" give it a cheesy name and flog it in malls.

There has to be a REASON for this style to be compiled, a void that it needs to fill.

my 0.02c.

Cheers

Bao

 

[sweeper]

yeah I think that last statement is realy important, there has to be a reason for the style, not "I want my own style" but there has to be a void that needs filling, the styles that have lasted have lasted because the creators sawa nedd for what they did, if there is no need than the style is pointless.

"if it ain't broke don't fix it"

 

[fissure]

Both of the last post made goods points. I don't think creating a "new art" a good idea, nor was it the point I was trying to make.Most of my training has been in TaeKwon Do and Shotokan. I feel using some of my limited Judo and wrestling techniques to "patch" the holes in these systems only makes sense. But in no way would I consider this a "new Art".I think it is important for every practitioner to activly look for shortcomings in thier chosen art, and find ways to overcome them.
:EG:

 

[sweeper]

yeah that's more like grafting two plants together than "coding" new DNA.

 

[samuraijack]

I agree with the last post to a degree. yes there needs to be a void in order for the style to be fixed but he decides what the void is. many traditonal styles frown on changing anything. the style is taught as is and has been for many many years, to change it would be to disgrace it. My attitude is if it's not changing it dying.

 

[Goldendragon7]

Origin. posted by Kaith Rustaz
Age isn't a big deal....except that someoine in their 60's will in theory have more experience than someone in their 20s.

No, but experience sure is.......
:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Pulling a number outta the air for a moment....
I think '20 years experience' is the same, regardless if the person is 40yrs old, or 65 yrs old.

Someone who is actively training and learning and exploring would be a better candidate, compared to someone who'se sat on their backside for a few decades and gotten little if no mat time.

We all know those guys....out of shape, living on past glories, havent had a promotion in years, or had any real time on the floor, yet still insist on being held up on high. The info may be in there, but the body is no longer on automatic, and the 'rust' shows.

I think its more of a 'time activly in' than an 'age' thing.

:asian:

 

[A.R.K.]

I would propose that a 22 yr old with perhaps a few years of experience is qualified to create their own style or system......