# Martial Frankensteins...why the hate?



## stone_dragone (Jun 23, 2012)

I've had the pleasure of seeing a lot of great input on this forum over the years. A lot of it constructive, some of it complimentary and some just helpful. I've learned a lot about history, philosophy, and technique from a wide range of arts that has often led me to ask better questions of myself, my instructors, and my students. 

One thing that I see occasionally that has distressed me in the past, and has recently reared it's head, is the derogatory attitude demonstrated by some folks towards anything that doesn't fit their mental mold... Just one of those things recently is a new curriculum designed around a particular theme that has elements from several arts being pejoratively called "Frankensteinish".  

This isn't the first event, only a most recent one. There seems to be an overt attitude of implied Superiority over a teacher who teaches a blend, mix, combination, fusion, or damn tossed salad of various techniques by those who stay in their own semi-well defined lane.

I've seen it elsewhere as well, so it's not just here. Discussions on the structure of a stance or validity of a technique sequence should be constantly sought out to make everyone involved better...but to imply that a teachers chosen path is somehow lower than yours because they elected to fuze/toss together pieces that fits their goals, plans, and path is pure ego-driven bs. 

Many of those we as a MA community hold in high esteem did exactly that... Liked something, incorporated it, claimed it. The way that the arts continue to evolve is by doing just that - get exposure to other elements, incorporate and adapt, and promulgate. If the "new" art or package is of value, then it lasts. If not, it goes away with the instructor. 

In our world of instant media, there is honestly a LOT of crap out there. But it has a right to be shared and evaluated on its merits, not its origins. Recycling or repackaging is entirely natural when someone moves on into a new focus, area, philosophy, or all of the above. Some folks, like Ed Parker, repackaged several times in their relatively short careers (I say short because now his students have studied the arts longer than he was alive). 

I guess that I take more interest than some in this because I am a Frankenstein Martial Artist. My original studies were in a mix of Shotokan, Goju Ryu, jujutsu and wrestling all lumped in under a honestly misleading banner of Nahate Goju Ryu Karate Do. Over the years, I've had the opportunities to train with pure Shotokan folks, pure Goju Ryu folks, pure aikido folks, as well as several semi-Frankensteinish folks, and currently I train in what some call a bastardized version of Kenpo. 

Since I've got about 8-10 more years of moving around in the Army, I'm not settling down anytime soon. But when I do, I plan on hanging out my shingle and teaching my own Frankenstein Martial Art. I'm not going to be famous, but I'll be teaching what I know, under a newly packaged name... And I'm sure that it will evolve even then.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 23, 2012)

One must accept that the majority will never attain that highest level of Maslow's heirarchy, self actualization. As such, the ability to think in the abstract is absent and anything that does not fit into a nice, neat, little box makes folks like that a little uncomfortable. The tendency is to react negatively so as to not appear to be inferior due to a lack of understanding. Just accept it. I wouldn't even call it "their loss" because they must first posess the ability to understand in the first place. It would only be a loss if they had the ability and then decided not to use it. Walk your own path, mature and grow along the way. Other's will stop along the path because they can not go any further, don't allow them to become an anchor impeding your growth. That is my advice, for what it's worth.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2012)

I see a couple of problems with the Frankenstein approach, and the degree that these issues exist will vary from sample to sample.  There could be some Frankenstein approaches that yield a good result and a good method, but in my opinion many (most?) do not.

First, there is a difference between cross training, or having trained in several systems, and having a frankenstein approach.  Cross training or training in several systems is fine, it's even fine to practice several systems together simultaneously, and to even blend it in some way.  The problems arise when people try to formalize a blended curriculum into a "new" "system" or method.  Firstly, I believe that most people who try to do this do not have the experience needed to do it well.  They just haven't put in the time and effort to have some really high level skills, and it shows in the results.  The new system is just sort of cobbled together, there is no Systematic method that makes it all cohesive, makes it all work as a SYSTEM.  Rather, it is usually just a collection of techniques thrown together into a curriculum.  A collection of techniques does not make for a good system.  A good system must have a cohesive thread that holds it all together, a fundamental method for how everything is done, and when you pull techniques from different systems, there is often no commonality.  

Different techniques, as done by different systems, are designed to be done off a specific fundamental method, a foundation.  If you try to do those techniques off the wrong foundation, they DO NOT WORK.  So when you frankenstein two systems together that have a different foundation, which foundation do you use, and do you try to do all your techs off that foundation, even tho the foundation is wrong for all the techs that came from other systems?

Here's an example:  the punch.  On the surface it looks all the same.  But lets take the Wing Chun punch and the Tibetan White Crane punch.  They both use the punch, but HOW that punch is developed is very different.  If you try to use the Crane method of punching on top of the Wing Chun foundation, that punch will SUCK, even tho when done properly with the Crane foundation it is frighteningly effective. But if you try to pound a square peg into a round hole it doesn't work.  It doesn't make sense to try to adopt the foundations from BOTH methods to make the techs work properly.  The foundations are different enough that you will end up confusing both of them, then ALL your techs suck.  It really is better to focus on one systematic method so that you don't confuse your body, and you understand how all of your techs work from that foundation and method.  

If you are going to practice more than one system, as I said that is fine.  But to do so you need to learn each system on its own merits, and understand how that system works.  Some people are very capable with practicing more than one system, and doing them well (tho I also believe that most people cannot do it well but they convince themselves that they do).  If that capable person decides to blend his multiple systems into one new system, usually what happens is that the foundations get blended and the students never get the opportunity to learn each system on its own merits, as the instructor did.  That first instructor/founder may be very skilled, but it's because he did the work and learned each system properly.  His students are robbed of that opportunity, they never learn and develop the full systems, they only learn the new blended system that has an abbreviated version of the foundation, and that isn't enough.  The founder may be very skilled, but his students will never match him, and every generation will be worse.

I believe the skepticism that is shown to frankensteinian methods is actually evaluating the method on its merits.  In most cases, the result is not good.  There are some exceptions, but they are not the rule.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 23, 2012)

guess I'm on a role here, got a few more thoughts on this...

too many people are too eager to become a teacher, a master, a founder, an empire builder.  There's a whole lot of people teaching martial arts who simply should not be.  They are poor martial artists and they are poor teachers.  But it seems like everyone has convinced themselves that they are good at it.  Most are not.  They want to be a teacher, they want to open up a school, they want to open up a bunch of schools and be in charge of something big.  Most people should never try to do any of this, it's simply not their calling.

I see this as being part of the same issue.  People dabble in a bit of this, a bit of that, earn a modest rank in something and they think that gives them some authority and legitimacy, and then they want to create something new.  Simply put: they should not.  In most cases they are not creating something worth a pile of beans.  they would be far better off being a student, training to the best of their ability, and leave the teaching to others.

When people come here and post their ideas about this, they are inviting comments and criticism.  The readership owes it to them to be honest.  Nobody needs to be cruel or make personal attacks, but honesty is absolutely appropriate and should be considered demanded.  Giving someone a pat on the back and telling them how great they are, how they have created something wonderful when you know full well it's not true, is a shameful lie.  Be honest, even when the news is bad.  Then it's their decision to take the criticisms to heart, re-examine and re-evaluate what they are doing, and decide to continue on, or change things, or dump it altogether.  But at least we have been honest.  We owe it to each other here to be honest about these things.


----------



## Zoran (Jun 23, 2012)

Some want to be Dr. Frankenstein except when they try to create Frankenstein's Monster, they come up with what looks like a multicolored Play-Doh project done by a 5 year old.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 23, 2012)

Frankenstein Kenpo, has always been a joke I made about the kenpoists that never seem to bend their elbows, and attempt to fight at great distances away from the body at hand. Unless you are trying this, you are not doing Frankenstein Kenpo. 
Sean


----------



## Zoran (Jun 23, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Frankenstein Kenpo, has always been a joke I made about the kenpoists that never seem to bend their elbows, and attempt to fight at great distances away from the body at hand. Unless you are trying this, you are not doing Frankenstein Kenpo.
> Sean



Same here. Especially when doing attacks, like club attack.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 23, 2012)

The issue I have usually is not with cross-trained, MMA, or anything like that.  What I usually take exception to, if I take the time to, is people who say they are doing a thing, when they are not in fact doing that thing.  It is misleading, but usually not purposeful, rather from ignorance.  For instance, if a TKD artist takes what he believes is chain punching from Wing Chun, he is not then teaching a blend of TKD and Wing Chun, niether is he now teaching JKD.  It is still TKD that he knows and not anything else.  I've not seen anyone here claim this, just using it as an example.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 24, 2012)

I think if you can make it work you can make it work.. after all, this is no more than what the Ueshibas and Parkers and Gracies of the world have done already, yes?  

We say their art is a "pure" style, though what is a pure style really cept a "Frankensteinish" one that has gained the acceptance and tempering and proving of time??  I know AC you would have a modesty not to set yourself above Ed Parker or whomever are your influences and I think it is exactly that modicum of openness, self-criticism and reality-checking that is lacking from many that would purvey a "Frankensteinish" art and proclaim it as the Greatest.. or The One and The Only!.. I do not imagine for a second there is a thing wrong with new combinations of styles and influences.. only me I personally object to those (and we have seen them here) who come to preach that they are the new Messiahs of MA.. And anyway I have no issue with a new Messiah of MA so long as they do not expect me to take any of their teachings on faith alone!!

I send you hopes of fortune with your plans AC and with your place right now.. Kind wishes, Jenna


----------



## Gentle Fist (Jun 24, 2012)

Personally I am more afraid of the Martial Wolfmen...


----------



## Never_A_Reflection (Jun 24, 2012)

Everyone is going to have their own personal system for training martial arts, and if it works well for them then they should teach it when they are experienced enough to do so--this is what martial artists have done since the first cavemen hit each other.  The idea that we need to maintain the purity of a style and preserve it because it is a perfect system is an idea that only came about in the 20th century, and I can't think of any of the old masters of karate who advocated such a thing--they wanted their students to seek out other arts and systems that would compliment and enhance their karate, and why would they advocate such a thing if they did not want those additional aspects to be passed on to others?  Did they really expect their students to go out and train in another style of karate, or train in judo or Japanese jujutsu and just forget it all when they are teaching?  Of course not!  Martial arts were always intended to evolve and adapt and you simply cannot do that without either real world fighting experience or training in other systems to incorporate valuable aspects from them into what you do.

If I were to start teaching my personal system (and I'm not saying that I am capable of doing such a thing at this point in time, because I know that I am not) I could not call it Shuri-Ryu, because it would not BE Shuri-Ryu even though it has many aspects of that style.  I also could not call it Shorin-Ryu, because it would not BE Shorin-Ryu even though it has many aspects of that style.  I also could not call it judo, because it simply is not judo despite having aspects of that art.  What should I call it, then? It doesn't really matter that much, but I'm certainly not going to call it Noah-Ryu and appoint myself Soke Judan Grandmaster and brand it as the greatest style ever. I would likely just say that I teach martial arts and make it clear what styles I have trained in and for how long, and what ranks I achieved under which teachers, and explain how all of that influenced what I do.  I think that those who believe such a thing can't be done today do not give modern martial artists enough credit, and I think that is largely because of the people who DO give their personal system a style name and appoint themselves Soke Judan Grandmaster--they give the very idea of developing and teaching a personal system of martial arts a terrible reputation and it makes martial artists who would otherwise do a very good job of it avoid it in order to maintain their reputation.

tl;dr - Blending arts/style/systems is good, naming things is stupid, inflating your rank is bad.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2012)

stone_dragone said:


> I've had the pleasure of seeing a lot of great input on this forum over the years. A lot of it constructive, some of it complimentary and some just helpful. I've learned a lot about history, philosophy, and technique from a wide range of arts that has often led me to ask better questions of myself, my instructors, and my students.
> 
> One thing that I see occasionally that has distressed me in the past, and has recently reared it's head, is the derogatory attitude demonstrated by some folks towards anything that doesn't fit their mental mold... Just one of those things recently is a new curriculum designed around a particular theme that has elements from several arts being pejoratively called "Frankensteinish".
> 
> ...



I cross train.  I enjoy it, I think its very beneficial.  I've taught some Arnis material in a Kenpo class.  Those things, in and of themselves, are perfectly fine to do.   What I don't do:  When I teach something that isn't Kenpo, in a Kenpo class, I make sure that everyone understands that what I'm showing is not Kenpo.  I like to give credit where its due.   Why should I lead someone to believe that the club disarm I did is Kenpo, when its really Arnis?  Thats dishonest.  I also don't mix the arts that I do into 1, come up with some fancy name, slap a 10th degree around my waist, and call myself GM Soke Uber Duber bad ***. LMFAO!!  That, IMO, is also dishonest.  

IMHO, if someone is going to craft their own thing, I suppose the first thing we should ask, is why? When there are numerous arts already out there, why do people find the need to craft their own thing?  Do they feel they're the next Bruce Lee?  Do they wanna impress others with fancy titles and belts?  Personally, I'm not impressed, nor will I ever be.  Those jokers may impress others, others that havent done their homework, others that're easily impressed by the fancy wine dressing, and sadly those people will do nothing more than help line the pockets of those people.  

But, thats just my opinion.   Like I said, I could be considered a Frankenstein, but then again, I've devoted numerous years into the arts that I do, with the exception of the one I started last Aug.   I don't jump from one place to the next, training 3mos here, 2mos there, 1 year here, 2 there, and then feel that I've done enough to call my own and start my own system.  Theres a distinct difference, a right and wrong.  Its the way that these things are presented, IMO, that makes the difference.


----------



## Carol (Jun 24, 2012)

It might be dishonest but GM Soke Über Duber Badass has got to be one of the best names ever 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 24, 2012)

In what little experience I have, it seems to me as though many arts have levels of depth that remain unplumbed by most practitioners.  Certainly that appears to be true of mine.

It also seems to me that it takes a lifetime to unravel, learn, and become truly proficient in one art.

I have also noticed that many practitioners believe themselves to be proficient in their art long before I feel it is possible for most, if not all.   Those same artists then go on to other arts.  Having achieved a somewhat superficial level of proficiency in several arts, they combine those skills and declare themselves teachers of a new art, which they give a name to.

I do not hate such people, nor do I denigrate their abilities or their desires.  I have no doubt that many of their skills are vastly superior to mine; but that's not the point.  I am as entitled to my opinion as they are to theirs, and my opinion is that having trained under people who really have spent a lifetime exploring the depths of one art, I do not believe that anyone with less than that sort of commitment to a single art has that insight, so they cannot therefore teach it.

In other words, the world is full of dojos that teach some form of martial arts, but few of them teach the real deal.  Make-um-up arts are seldom that.  Just my opinion.

Cross-training?  I have no problem with it.  But that's not the same.

I also have no problem with incorporating good techniques from other arts into one's own art.  Why not?  But again, that's not the same thing.


----------



## Carol (Jun 24, 2012)

I think some martial artists are in a spot where they cannot win.

There have been plenty of Kenpoists that have been slammed with the "that's not the way Mr. Parker did it" line, and some have been accused of prostituting Mr. Parker's name in an attempt to market/promote their school.

The ones that don't do this, including the ones take more of the approach of focusing a theme (Family Kenpo) or a more distinct/independent name ("my name is Gupta, so I'll call my school Gupta's Kenpo") get maligned as having some sort of "soke lust" and doing such a thing for rank -- even if the person giving the name never uses such a title, or even increases their rank.

I don't think this means that everyone should automatically like everything that another martial artist does, nor do I think any martial artist is beyond reproach.  But I can't help but wondering if overly broad brushes are being used when they are not warranted.


----------



## K-man (Jun 24, 2012)

Most systems as they have been developed were designed as 'complete' systems.  My primary arts are Goju karate and Aikido so i am here just referring to what i am directly involved with, although I believe it is probably true for most other karate as well. Unfortunately, as these are taught, a huge amount of the original system is missing.  Once a person teaching a system finds there is something missing there are two choices.  You can find the missing bits and replace them or you can create your own Frankenstein.  Fortunately, few of the Frankensteins survive. 

You could argue that Bruce Lee created a Frankenstein and it is extremely successful, mainly because he had the base knowledge to begin and the ability to develop his style from that base.

Along the other path, I believe that if you add material to your training that fits the principles of your style, then you haven't changed the base style. As an example, I started out in Goju Kai. That is an offshoot of Okinawan Goju Ryu with a great deal of focus on tournament type sparring and kata. As it was taught, there is very little grappling and no real 'soft' in a style that is meant to be 'hard' and 'soft'. A better name for what we practised would be Gogo Kai.

In the Goju that I teach I believe I have only added back bits that probably were present before karate went into the schools and universities. Therefore I maintain that my style is 'traditional Goju' even though it is markedly different from the 'traditional Goju' across town. As we had recently discussed in the Iain Abernethy thread, karate kata contain locks, holds takedowns and throws that are often missing from karate schools that claim to teach 'traditional' karate. 

Once a teacher realises that he is missing some of these things he might go off and grab some grappling techniques from BJJ and some throws from judo.  Now because he is teaching three things in one, he is short on time, so he looks to see what he can do without. Most times that is kata.  So now we have a freestyle Frankenstein that has discarded the base of the original style that was the kata.

Do we really 'hate' the new style? Not really, unless it claims to be something it is not.   If I claim to be one of the world's greatest martial artists with the best self defence system the world has ever seen, then I can expect a lot of flack. There are many great systems out there and many accomplished martial artists, but there are also a lot of 'try hards'.   :asian:


----------



## stone_dragone (Jun 24, 2012)

stone_dragone said:


> But when I do, I plan on hanging out my shingle and teaching my own Frankenstein Martial Art. I'm not going to be famous, but I'll be teaching what I know, under a newly packaged name... And I'm sure that it will evolve even then.



I'm glad to have started such an involved discussion!  As a point of note, I can be relatively certain that there is no Soke in my future, and absolutely certain that there will be no claims of assumed rank for teaching and naming whatever previously unnamed art mix I do.


----------



## rickster (Jun 24, 2012)

Martial arts have been a melting pot for centuries.

Could there have always been a Frankenstein approach because there became a variety and all past masters had merged with previous?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 25, 2012)

stone_dragone said:


> ...but to imply that a teachers chosen path is somehow lower than yours because they elected to fuze/toss together pieces that fits their goals, plans, and path is pure ego-driven bs.



To be honest, I was reading and thinking it was going to be a good discussion. Then I read the above. My reaction, was, negative. Anything I have to say has already been thrown to side as an ego-driven bs comment. 

So why comment at all. Why try to have a discussion? I am dealing with a closed mind. This is how I read it. Note: I did not even bother to read the rest. Why? Because this negative comment was confrontational and I could either react confrontationally or just ignore you and the comments. 

Yet, this is an excellant point of why Smerged systems are not always the best thing. Yes there are people who are good and understand and even at a young age. Yet many who are in Martial Arts are in it for thier ego. They want to be part of a following or they want people to follow them. They want people to bow to them. To show them the respect. So thay have the POWER. This is why Most from my experience have created their own system or style. 

Another problem is that having 10 first degree black belts does not make a 10th degree black belt in understanding. Heck it might not even make a 3rd degree in understanding. Of course this goes for those using rank, those that do not it is even harder to describe.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 25, 2012)

I think we can all agree on a few things.

A.  Some people probably shouldn't train in the Martial Sciences (ie. criminals, etc)

B.  Some people should never be a teacher (ie. they just do not have the skill or simply are not a good teacher)

C.  Some people should never be a leader of an organization or develop their own system (they simply are no good or do not know enough)

However, I think we all can also agree that there are some people who:

A.  Should train in the Martial Sciences

B.  Should be a teacher

C.  Should lead organizations and or develop their own system.

Why, because if no one trained, taught or developed you would not be practicing in the system of your choice.  There are simply some very talented people out there who really go the extra distance to be good at training, teaching and developing.  However, not everyone fit's into that mix.  Nor should we expect everyone to fit in that mix.  I have many students and a few are really, really good.  Yet, not everyone is or has the desire to be really, really good!  Some train so that if they are ever attacked they will have a chance to defend themselves or their loved ones.  Others train for fitness, while still other people train for competition or other reasons.  A few train to be teachers and hopefully innovators!

Where we run into the problem is that to many people want to go to the top but do not want to put in the time, training and simply the dues that are required.  Or they just wish to cash in and make some money on a system.  We cannot stop them but..... really in the end they will just go away so I would not worry at all about it!


----------



## stone_dragone (Jun 25, 2012)

Rich Parsons said:


> To be honest, I was reading and thinking it was going to be a good discussion. Then I read the above. My reaction, was, negative. Anything I have to say has already been thrown to side as an ego-driven bs comment.
> 
> So why comment at all. Why try to have a discussion? I am dealing with a closed mind. This is how I read it. Note: I did not even bother to read the rest. Why? Because this negative comment was confrontational and I could either react confrontationally or just ignore you and the comments.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way, Mr. Parsons. I am the first to admit that there are some major limits to the written word and my tone seems to have been interpreted by you as hostile and closed-minded. 

I agree with nearly everything that you said and have had much of the same experiences you have in regards to many modern style-founders. 

I'm confused, however, as to how stopping after a single comment in a rather long post doesn't smack of the same closed mindedness that you accuse me of?

Perhaps I am way off base and for someone to look down on a person who teaches a Frankensystem is actually called for. To be fair, I have run across those mixed-systems that thought that they were the cats pj's and, in my opinion they were more the cat litter. If I only learn what NOT to do from them, then they've been helpful to me.

Perhaps you can convince me how an open minded artist can freely look down on another just because they aren't "pure" stylists?   That is whats at the heart of my statement that apparently turned you off (which I could've said better, it seems).

In any event, despite your reluctance to respond, you still make some excellent and very valid points. Thank you for those!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 25, 2012)

One other quick thing I would point out is that most systems are "*not complete*"!  Not complete in that they do not address all areas of combat or personal protection.  They do not address weapons, kicking techniques, hand striking techniques, trapping and joint manipulation and finally grappling.  They may also have little or no spiritual development or development of the mind.  Most systems instead specialize in one or a couple of aspects.  That is why friends of mine who are high ranking practitioners in one system typically train in another or seek out training in combative firearms, grappling, etc.  They go and find an expert in a certain area that they are interested in to help them be a more complete martial practitioner!  This is actually a good thing.  If you go back in time to some of the founding father's of the martial arts you will find that many of them trained in several different systems and also encouraged their students to do so and also to have more than a few teachers.  Where we see more close mindedness is when people try to keep other people from seeking out instruction to further their education.  People should and can only be responsible for their own training.  So if they stop growing or progressing then maybe they will seek outside instruction from their core system.  This is a good thing!  *Do not let anyone limit you!*


----------



## Buka (Jun 26, 2012)

The other guy is always the infidel. 

Or so seems to be the case when discussing the various arts, the various practitioners, the various training methods. I imagine that when (fill in the blank) style first came into existence, it was met with scorn and finger pointing. Human nature, I guess. I think we're all doing the best we can.


----------



## rickster (Jun 26, 2012)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> One other quick thing I would point out is that most systems are "*not complete*"!  Not complete in that they do not address all areas of combat or personal protection.  They do not address weapons, kicking techniques, hand striking techniques, trapping and joint manipulation and finally grappling.  They may also have little or no spiritual development or development of the mind.  Most systems instead specialize in one or a couple of aspects.  That is why friends of mine who are high ranking practitioners in one system typically train in another or seek out training in combative firearms, grappling, etc.  They go and find an expert in a certain area that they are interested in to help them be a more complete martial practitioner!  This is actually a good thing.  If you go back in time to some of the founding father's of the martial arts you will find that many of them trained in several different systems and also encouraged their students to do so and also to have more than a few teachers.  Where we see more close mindedness is when people try to keep other people from seeking out instruction to further their education.  People should and can only be responsible for their own training.  So if they stop growing or progressing then maybe they will seek outside instruction from their core system.  This is a good thing!  *Do not let anyone limit you!*





Buka said:


> The other guy is always the infidel.
> 
> Or so seems to be the case when discussing the various arts, the various practitioners, the various training methods. I imagine that when (fill in the blank) style first came into existence, it was met with scorn and finger pointing. Human nature, I guess. I think we're all doing the best we can.



Per my post#18;



rickster said:


> Martial arts have been a melting pot for centuries.
> 
> Could there have always been a Frankenstein approach because there became a variety and all past masters had merged with previous?



A.) Futhermore, a martial art will cater to those who practice.

B.) It is a indiviudal choice or opinion, sometimes as biased as politics and religion

C.) A single-style martial art cannot "be the best" as the application of the instruction/learning is upon each practitioner

 The beauty of martial arts is to add the variety that can appeal to anyone upon, per A.), B.), and C.)


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 26, 2012)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> One other quick thing I would point out is that most systems are "*not complete*"! Not complete in that they do not address all areas of combat or personal protection. They do not address weapons, kicking techniques, hand striking techniques, trapping and joint manipulation and finally grappling. They may also have little or no spiritual development or development of the mind. Most systems instead specialize in one or a couple of aspects.



I'd say there are probably different definitions of what "complete" may mean, in the context of a martial art.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 26, 2012)

stone_dragone said:


> I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way, Mr. Parsons. I am the first to admit that there are some major limits to the written word and my tone seems to have been interpreted by you as hostile and closed-minded.
> 
> I agree with nearly everything that you said and have had much of the same experiences you have in regards to many modern style-founders.
> 
> ...



Your question is a fair one.

1) I am human and I am NOT perfect. I can provide referrences if you want. 
2) Discussing or even presenting an arguement as in a debate with someone can be fun. Yet when they are closed off and already name calling in their opening statement it can only go downhill from their. They have already made up their mind and have drawn the line in the sand. I prefer to tilt my lance at windmills I care about and not waste my time with people who do not want to listen. 
3) People who know me, know that I am open minded and that I will listen to people. I will say let us try it and see if it works and or if we can modify and improve it by giving more perspective. 
4) I admit I do not know everything, I may be able to give you an answer that I have to think upon do research upon or ask others about. 
5) I like learning and I like discussing. 
6) Search my name in Great Debate forum and find when I took a single comment made by some people to the point it turned into an awesome discussion that get everyone all upset. I have done it before, and people leave. I have done it before and people get upset, and their minds were not changed. 
7) Pounding my head against a wall is not as pleasurable as it used to be. 
8) ... (* You get my point, I think *)


So, I mentioned how I reacted, to a ME Mentor and long time member to get them to think. To ask me a question, and to see if what they had done was right or wrong. Yes, I baited or some might say acted the troll, or some might say I am trying to provide advice on how not to insult people and get them upset based upon the negative value of words and the name calling. One could have presented the original comments in such a ways as to expres your feelings, and yet not raise the fortifications of those who you are asking for a response from. 


And Yes I do train and teach an Frankenstyle, Modern Arnis. I understand the benefits of such. I also understand that most of those who want to do it have no clue. Yet, if my comments are already considered "pure ego driven bs", then why get involved. I would have except for the reasons I listed above. 

Yes you have a point. Yes, you have a right to make a point ( within the rules of this site ). 

I also have a point. I also have the right to ignore or comment as I see ( within the rules of the site ). 

A debate is not a debate if one or both sides are not willing to consider the opponents viewpoints at all. Otherwise it is a Political Debate where you are only trying to get people to your point point of view, which in my point of view is ego-driven, as most people want to be right. 

Do you see where this is going? Circles. It is ok if we are both discussing and listening, but if one or more are not listening then there is no point for me.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 26, 2012)

stone_dragone said:


> This isn't the first event, only a most recent one. There seems to be an overt attitude of implied Superiority over a teacher who teaches a blend, mix, combination, fusion, or damn tossed salad of various techniques by those who stay in their own semi-well defined lane.



Couple of thoughts; first is the intent of the teacher who forms a 'new' art. Is it ego? Is it to be an instant 9th/10th Dan? Is it to be called a 'grandmaster, great-grandmaster, supreme-great-grandmaster etc? In these cases the intent is wrong and the artist  has little true understanding, patience or desire to help the student. Secondly, if the intent is from a pure desire to expand a base art beyond the limits of that art, for the betterment of the art and with the betterment of the student in mind...and if the artist has the expertise to do so intelligently then he/she is upon the path of many 'masters' before them.

For the 'purist' who looks down upon such things I would simply say, 'there is no pure martial art'. Everything is simply a blend of something(s) that came before it. If ego isn't a factor, then we can boil it down to the fact that there are leaders and there are followers. Leaders lead, followers follow. Nothing wrong with either, but one cannot legitimately look down on the other. The two factions need each other to co-exist.

If there were no leaders, then you would not be training in the art(s) you now train in. I'll cite Bruce Lee, Kano Jigoro Sensei or any branch of karate as prime, modern examples. The ultimate test is the test of time and effectiveness in the real world. 

Many times I've offered the wise words of Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming, "the ultimate compliment a student can offer their instructor is to exceed their skills and abilities and add to the art". That is a paraphrase, but the jist is there.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 26, 2012)

I don't know if it's really an issue of "looking down upon" with arrogance.  Rather, I think there is simply a feeling that the results of such a mixture often are poor at best and for most people, in most cases, it's not a good path for them to be on.


----------



## rickster (Jun 26, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Couple of thoughts; first is the intent of the teacher who forms a 'new' art. Is it ego? Is it to be an instant 9th/10th Dan? Is it to be called a 'grandmaster, great-grandmaster, supreme-great-grandmaster etc? In these cases the intent is wrong and the artist  has little true understanding, patience or desire to help the student. Secondly, if the intent is from a pure desire to expand a base art beyond the limits of that art, for the betterment of the art and with the betterment of the student in mind...and if the artist has the expertise to do so intelligently then he/she is upon the path of many 'masters' before them.
> 
> For the 'purist' who looks down upon such things I would simply say, 'there is no pure martial art'. Everything is simply a blend of something(s) that came before it. If ego isn't a factor, then we can boil it down to the fact that there are leaders and there are followers. Leaders lead, followers follow. Nothing wrong with either, but one cannot legitimately look down on the other. The two factions need each other to co-exist.
> 
> ...



Odd, that many martial art instructors of many decades or a century earlier were concerned with bettering themselves (for whatever reason) then concerned with a rank, hodge podge, etc.

Now, I am not stating they did not have ego, but they backed up their ego


----------



## stone_dragone (Jun 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know if it's really an issue of "looking down upon" with arrogance.  Rather, I think there is simply a feeling that the results of such a mixture often are poor at best and for most people, in most cases, it's not a good path for them to be on.



This is an answer that I can live with. While I have come across the  (lack of better words) a martial snob or two, I can understand this point of view as well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 26, 2012)

stone_dragone said:


> This is an answer that I can live with. While I have come across the (lack of better words) a martial snob or two, I can understand this point of view as well.



I could see where the response might come across as being arrogant or snobbish or something.  Delivery goes a long way, after all.  

I suppose part of the problem in the communication is that people who are embarking on this kind of endeavor are (assumedly) doing so with a lot of belief in what they are doing.  They made this decision, they believe it is a good decision, so there is a lot of time, energy, and emotion invested in the issue.  When someone then tells them, "well this is not a good idea," even if they say so in a respectful way, I can see how that message may not be welcome and could be given a poor reception.

Sometimes people are downright rude in what they say, that is also true and I think is inappropriate.  Like I said earlier: I believe honesty is very important with this kind of thing, but there is no reason to be deliberately cruel or to launch personal attacks.

But when someone posts in a forum like this one and says to the world, "Hey everyone, look what I'm doing, I think this will be great!!" and a bunch of people come back and express their doubts, even if done respectfully, I can see how that could be overwhelming and discourageing, and could be interpreted as a bunch of arrogant pedigreed martial snobs.  

I'd say the way to get around that is for everyone to try and remember their manners, and then engage in further discussion about it, find out why someone thinks it's a good idea, but also that person needs to be willing to honestly consider the criticisms being offered and be brutally honest with the self-assessment that goes along with it.  But this becomes a very sensitive topic very quickly and easily.


----------



## J W (Jun 26, 2012)

When I hear the term "Martial Frankenstein", I think About what Dr. Frankenstein did: he took a bunch of random, incompatible parts and stitched them together to make a lumbering monster. Based on that, I would personally only apply that term to martial arts cobbled together in the same haphazard way.

What makes the systems created by men like Bruce Lee and Ed Parker good "hybrid" arts is that they didn't just grab a bunch of random techniques and ideas from disparate arts and mash them together and call it something new. They took influences from the various arts they had studied and created new systems from the ground up, starting with a well-defined base. Their arts are cohesive systems built on solid foundation.

This isn't to criticize those who cross train in several different arts; that is a perfectly sensible thing to do. However, people who cross train are practicing two or more distinct arts, and will be able to transition between them as needed. At any given moment during a confrontation, they will likely be using only one of those arts. So the various arts they practice remain distinct, rather than being mashed together into something new. 

...I'm also not criticizing martial arts systems or schools that do combine two or more arts. However, I think such a school is usually still teaching two or more distinct arts, rather than one hybrid art. An MMA fighter who trains Muay Thai and BJJ at his gym isn't using BJJ while he is fighting stand up, and isn't using Muay Thai while he is on the ground.

But a Jeet Kune Do practitioner is using Jeet Kune Do whether he is standing up or on the ground. Which I think proves that various arts can be used to create an effective new system; however, whenever a new "art" is simply the result of mashing together incompatible and random techniques and ideas, then it deserves to be criticized as the "Martial Frankenstein" that it is.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2012)

Just a small comment, an MMA fighter will be using BJJ (or Judo) when standing because there are some techniques that _are_ done while upright, BJJ doesn't start on the ground, you have to get there using techniques. If you want to be pendantic you could say you are using MT elbows and knees on the ground!


----------



## K-man (Jun 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> But when someone posts in a forum like this one and says to the world,* "Hey everyone, look what I'm doing, I think this will be great!!"* and a bunch of people come back and express their doubts, even if done respectfully, I can see how that could be overwhelming and discourageing, and could be interpreted as a bunch of arrogant pedigreed martial snobs.
> 
> I'd say the way to get around that is for everyone to try and remember their manners, and then engage in further discussion about it, find out why someone thinks it's a good idea, but also that person needs to be willing to honestly consider the criticisms being offered and be brutally honest with the self-assessment that goes along with it.  But this becomes a very sensitive topic very quickly and easily.


Which is not the same as saying, *"Hey everyone, look what I'm doing, this is the greatest system in the world and if you can't see that then you are just ignorant!!"

*I have total respect for someone who is prepared to put their ideas up to be critiqued as long as they ask as an equal and are prepared to support their ideas with rational discussion. If the poster of a video said, "Hey everyone. I've gone off on a bit of a tangent and come up with what I think is a great idea for a mixed style of MA.  Could you have a look at it for me and I'd really appreciate your thoughts. Please be gentle.  ".  Then I'm sure that the thread would be bursting with positive responses because most of the guys here are reasonable people who are here because of their passion for martial art. 

As a rule, I don't normally comment on something that I haven't got much experience of. For example I would never post in a technical thread for TKD.  That is as far from my style of training as I could be.  In the same way I am appalled to read someone posting "Tai Kwon Joking".  People do Tai Chi, or karate or WC or whatever because it appeals to them or it suits their physical stature. They can take their training to whatever level they like.  I have no right to criticise them or their style.

But back to the OP.  Even KM is really a Frankenstein system, and a very practical one at that.  It contains bits from everywhere to deal with all situations.  The beauty of KM is that you can cross train with it and use a lot of what you learn within your own style, or that's what I have found with Goju.   :asian:


----------



## J W (Jun 26, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Just a small comment, an MMA fighter will be using BJJ (or Judo) when standing because there are some techniques that _are_ done while upright, BJJ doesn't start on the ground, you have to get there using techniques. If you want to be pendantic you could say you are using MT elbows and knees on the ground!



Fair enough. I suppose I am making some assumptions about BJJ and MT there, considering I've never trained in either. But I think my main point still holds- that MMA guy (or gal) is going to shift from one art (MT) to another distinct and separate art (BJJ) when he decides to attempt a takedown (I'm making another assumption here that the main goal of standing BJJ techniques is to bring the fight to the ground).

My main point being that MMA isn't some hodge-podge grab bag of techniques from any and every martial art, but rather the discipline of training in two or more different arts and knowing when to use which.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2012)

J W said:


> Fair enough. I suppose I am making some assumptions about BJJ and MT there, considering I've never trained in either. But I think my main point still holds- that MMA guy (or gal) is going to shift from one art (MT) to another distinct and separate art (BJJ) when he decides to attempt a takedown (I'm making another assumption here that the main goal of standing BJJ techniques is to bring the fight to the ground).
> 
> My main point being that MMA isn't some hodge-podge grab bag of techniques from any and every martial art, but rather the discipline of training in two or more different arts and knowing when to use which.



That's very true and I was being a tad facetious I'm afraid, we do take the best techniques from various styles that work for us. Most of us older ones who started martial arts before MMA have a core style, mine's karate, these days though newcomers are taught MMA as a whole rather than train separate styles. Still watching a fight I think most martial artists can pick out what comes from where.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 27, 2012)

I've been thinking about this thread a bit.  Comments have been offered that many of these 'Frankenstein' systems are haphazardly thrown together.  And perhaps many are...but how would anyone actually know unless they had extensive first-hand observations of these systems?  I dare say that there are some on this (and other boards) that would speak against JKD, Judo, BJJ, MMA etc.  Yet these arts are being used by real people effectively (for there intended purpose), are standing the test of time and have many proponents.  And they didn't even have the benefit of the web when they were created...hmm, maybe that was a good thing???

Martial artist 1:  "That new art sucks!  It is just a bunch of thrown together things"!

Martial artist 2:  "How do you know"?

1:  "Have you seen their website, it sucks".

2:  "How is that an indication of what they teach"?

1:  "Yeah, well I saw their youtube video, it sucks"!

2:  "How long was the video"?

1:  "Um, well a little over a minute".

2:  "And you can judge the entire system from that"?

1:  "Yeah, well the founder is only 25 and he made himself a 10th Dan"!

2:  "Kano Jigoro was only around 20.  Ji was mid-20's as an 8th Dan.  Lee developed his stuff in his 20's.  Lots of the founders were young but already had extensive training since their youth.  And what they've developed is still around.  It is either going to stand the test of time, or it won't.  People will either find it useful, or they won't.  Bashing the guy on a discussion board without really knowing the details is just upping your post count but really isn't productive.  Now if you have extensive first-hand knowledge to share, or you know first-hand of some unethical behavior then state it".

1:  "Yeah, well...umm...whatever".


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2012)

sometimes people post a video, and even tho the video is short, it is absolutely possible to see that there is little skill there.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 27, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> sometimes people post a video, and even tho the video is short, it is absolutely possible to see that there is little skill there.



I agree with what you're saying 100%.  I've seen videos from those that are high Dans that I found laughable.  I'm looking at it from more of a big picture POV to suggest that each art needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.  And even a 'laughable' video needs to be taken in context.  It is too easy for any of us to broad brush stroke something.


----------



## Instructor (Jun 27, 2012)

Somebody probably thought of Hapkido in frankenstein type terms once upon a time, heck some still do.  It's a prime example of an art built from other arts yet it seems to work and stand on its own as a system.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2012)

I think that most arts have a whole lot of depth to them that most people never come close to tapping into.  Unfortunately that gets more and more difficult as time goes on because there are fewer and fewer people who do have that deep understanding, and a whole lot of the "teachers" out there do not.  If the teachers never got to the depth, they can never bring their own students to the depth, and it gets lost forever eventually.  But some still have it, they are just rare and hard to come by.  

For people who do not have access to such a teacher, it's not their fault.  That's just life, and life ain't fair.  So people do the best they have with what they have to work with.  The problem is, in most cases they do not even realize what is missing from their training.  They may have learned all the formalized curriculum of their system, but their depth of understanding is shallow.  So all they understand is: "I've learned the entire system, so I've got it."  They may have learned the entire system, but they still don't get it.

In my opinion, most people are looking at their training on a technique level, and few really get to understand their system on a principle level.  Technique is very important, and one can be quite skilled and successful on that level.  But if you really get to understand the system on a principle level, then you grasp what really makes everything work the best, and you can also understand what might not be compatible to adopt into a system.  If your level of understaning is on the technique level, then I suspect the goal becomes chasing after all the techniques that one might need in their arsenal, in an attempt to fill in any "holes" that their system may have.  But if you really understand the principles, then you understand how to make your method work against anybody, no matter what method your enemy may attempt to employ against you, and you realize that you do not need to collect all the techniques that exist.  A strong grasp of the principles gives you a better and stronger ability to adapt to a situation spontaneously, and create an appropriate technique to fit the situation, rather than plumbing the lists of techniques that have been collected.   The latter can also work, but it's my opinion that the former gives you the tools to make it work better, and with less clutter as an approach to training.

What I see happening in most of the "Frankenstein" cobbled-together martial arts, is someone who is chasing after techniques because he never really grasped the principles.  He sees "holes" in his list of techniques and he is trying to fill those holes.  But if he really understood his system on the principle level, he would realize that those holes don't actually exist, and his system gives him the means to deal with any situation.  He doesn't need to chase after techniques and lengthen his lists.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I agree with what you're saying 100%. I've seen videos from those that are high Dans that I found laughable. I'm looking at it from more of a big picture POV to suggest that each art needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. And even a 'laughable' video needs to be taken in context. It is too easy for any of us to broad brush stroke something.



On a theoretical and hypothetical level I agree with you.  But all too often after just one look at something, the answer is an obvious and glaring "no".  And done.


----------



## Marcy Shoberg (Jun 27, 2012)

I've seen both sides of this issue in myself.  In my personal current opinion, at one point in my life when I tried to mix together a bit of this and a bit of that in my taekwondo classes, I was wrong to do so because no certain goal was being achieved and some things didn't fit well with others. 
But, I now feel totally confident with the way I blend FAST Defense, IMPACT Basics, and Krav Maga in my self defense classes.  I am achieving the goal of leaving my students with fewer situations they may find themselves in for which they have no answer.  And, I am now better able to tell what blends well together and what doesn't.  

So, while I think you are right that we shouldn't hate about this issue because it may sometimes be done well, each individual should decide if they are "ready" to make a "Frankenart" or not ready to do so.


----------



## K-man (Jun 27, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I think that most arts have a whole lot of depth to them that most people never come close to tapping into.  Unfortunately that gets more and more difficult as time goes on because there are fewer and fewer people who do have that deep understanding, and a whole lot of the "teachers" out there do not.  If the teachers never got to the depth, they can never bring their own students to the depth, and it gets lost forever eventually.  But some still have it, they are just rare and hard to come by.
> 
> For people who do not have access to such a teacher, it's not their fault.  That's just life, and life ain't fair.  So people do the best they have with what they have to work with.  The problem is, in most cases they do not even realize what is missing from their training.  They may have learned all the formalized curriculum of their system, but their depth of understanding is shallow.  So all they understand is: "I've learned the entire system, so I've got it."  They may have learned the entire system, but they still don't get it.
> 
> ...


Michael, you should have this post printed, framed and sent to everyone who is interested in the MAs. It is pure gold!    :asian:


----------



## Instructor (Jun 27, 2012)

K-man said:


> Michael, you should have this post printed, framed and sent to everyone who is interested in the MAs. It is pure gold!    :asian:



Agreed.  I've always called it seeking dimension in your training.


----------



## K-man (Jun 27, 2012)

I think most people are saying the same thing.  It is possible to construct a system that will cover most aspects of self defence and contain the principles required to make it effective.  In most cases it will not have the depth of an art that has developed over hundreds of years as for example White Crane, but it is better suited to our current way of thinking and understanding.  

Where it becomes confusing is when someone takes half of one system, without it's core essence, and combines it with bits from other systems. Then they equate their new system to the original and tell people how much better their system is. On the surface, that is the case. It looks better because neither the person who constructed the new system, or the person it is being sold to, totally understood the original system. The person developing the system may even believe that he has taken all of the original system. But he doesn't know what he doesn't know because he was never taught the whole system in the first place.   *FC *said that beautifully in his post above.     :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2012)

K-man said:


> In most cases it will not have the depth of an art that has developed over hundreds of years as for example White Crane, *but it is better suited to our current way of thinking and understanding.*



Sorry, I couldn't resist a comment here about the bolded portion: our current way of thinking and understanding, being primarily Attention Deficit Disorder coupled with the push for High Self Esteem, whether merited or not. Cobbling together a Frankenart is perfect for the modern day and age!


----------



## Instructor (Jun 27, 2012)

Of course many systems wouldn't even exist if somebody hadn't started in one, tried another or a few others and decided to merge it all and call it something new.  My own Hapkido included.  We don't have a verifiable 100 years of history or any of that stuff but the system has dimension just the same, I think because its early people were very excellent martial artists to begin with and they brought depth to the table.

The worst for me is the people who barely exceed green belt or a systems similer rank then they go to another one and don't go far in that one, then they go into another one.  It just seems they don't have a whole lot of anything.  Then if a person like that has the absolute gall to 'create' a new system based on the spattering of training they have it's a mess.

The really great arts are created by people who have invested a significant amount of time (years and years) in something.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2012)

Instructor said:


> Of course many systems wouldn't even exist if somebody hadn't started in one, tried another or a few others and decided to merge it all and call it something new. My own Hapkido included. We don't have a verifiable 100 years of history or any of that stuff but the system has dimension just the same, I think because its early people were very excellent martial artists to begin with and they brought depth to the table.
> 
> *The worst for me is the people who barely exceed green belt or a systems similer rank then they go to another one and don't go far in that one, then they go into another one. It just seems they don't have a whole lot of anything*. Then if a person like that has the absolute gall to 'create' a new system based on the spattering of training they have it's a mess.
> 
> The really great arts are created by people who have invested a significant amount of time (years and years) in something.



I know quite a few people who have trained different styles and haven't graded much in any system, this however isn't their fault but because they are posted out of the place they were in and had to find a different style as they couldn't always find the same in their new posting. I'd find out why they've done different styles first before condemning them. This is why MMA is catching on big style with the military. I don't know anyone however who has created their own system though


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I know quite a few people who have trained different styles and haven't graded much in any system, this however isn't their fault but because they are posted out of the place they were in and had to find a different style as they couldn't always find the same in their new posting. I'd find out why they've done different styles first before condemning them. This is why MMA is catching on big style with the military. I don't know anyone however who has created their own system though



See, I don't think anyone is blaming anyone else for the shortcomings in their training.  Especially in what you describe, where circumstances prevent a deeper study so people get what they can before they are forced to relocate.  That's not their fault, they do the best they can with what is possible and available to them.

But that's a separate issue from cobbling together a Frankenart.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> See, I don't think anyone is blaming anyone else for the shortcomings in their training. Especially in what you describe, where circumstances prevent a deeper study so people get what they can before they are forced to relocate. That's not their fault, they do the best they can with what is possible and available to them.
> 
> But that's a separate issue from cobbling together a Frankenart.




However as soon as you tell people you've done half a dozen different styles you get the very definite feeling you are being judged as being inadequate.


----------



## K-man (Jun 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> However as soon as you tell people you've done half a dozen different styles you get the very definite feeling you are being judged as being inadequate.


I don't have a problem with that at all.  I believe anyone will improve as a martial artist by training in different styles over a period because a lot of underlying principles are the same across the MAs. The only difference is that they probably won't have advanced in rank.  The difference is when someone who has spent a short period of time in numerous styles turns round and claims to be an expert in all those styles they have trained.      :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> However as soon as you tell people you've done half a dozen different styles you get the very definite feeling you are being judged as being inadequate.



I guess I don't see that happening as long as people are up front and don't make outlandish claims.  Studying several systems is kinda important, in my opinion, because it's part of the journey in finding the system and the instructor that is best for you.  You gotta try some different things before you can make an intelligent and informed decision about that.  I don't blink at all when people tell me they've studied several.

But if someone had studied a dozen systems, each to a moderate level of understanding, and then cobbled together a frankenart with what he had, then yes, I'd say he has no business trying to do that.  

that is also a different thing from him simply trying to make use of what he has learned in these various arts.  Of course that is the best he can do with what he has to work with.  I think where the line is crossed is when people try to establish it as a viable "new system," to be taught to students.


----------



## rickster (Jun 27, 2012)

Wasn't Frankenstein's monster super strong?

but then again, mentally challenged.....


----------



## Instructor (Jun 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I know quite a few people who have trained different styles and haven't graded much in any system, this however isn't their fault but because they are posted out of the place they were in and had to find a different style as they couldn't always find the same in their new posting. I'd find out why they've done different styles first before condemning them. This is why MMA is catching on big style with the military. I don't know anyone however who has created their own system though



I know their plight all too well, it's why I made Hapkido Online so my fellow servicemen may continue their training.


----------



## Carol (Jun 27, 2012)

Stone Dragone is also in uniform and faced some serious injuries while serving "over there".  He's fought and rehabbed his way back from a very bad place. Quite a warrior, if I may say so myself.

I think many of us are put on edge by the "Frankenstein" concept because we're fatigued by all the bunk out there.  People whose patchwork of training has been more from drifting and/or lack of discipline (I'm guilty of that myself) rather than circumstances such as activation or frequent relocation.  People that claim to teach the baddest most deadliest thing ever....but never had to put their own physical safety on the line.   People who turn mundane excuses in to rank promotions -- especially the folks that are looking for any justification at all to crown themselves "Grandmaster."  We've seen people like that post right here on MartialTalk.  

I don't see those kind of negative attributes in someone like Stone.  However, between the folks out there producing dreck and the folks out there with dodgy business practices....I can understand why some folks are a little suspicious.


----------



## Jin Gang (Jun 28, 2012)

Rather than looking at it as a "frankenstein monster", I see this process as more like martial arts evolution/mutation.  As others have said, this process has been going on since the beginning of martial arts practice.  There is no such thing as a "pure" art.  Every style we know now developed out of an individual's experiences, and has evolved over time through each generation of students, not in a vaccum but combined with the personal experiences of each practitioner and other methods they had been exposed to.  White Crane, for example, did not spring out of the head of Zeus as a fully grown martial art, nor did any style     At some point, a talented person attracts the attention of others who wish to understand the skill they have witnessed, and a new school is born out of their experiences, which often include training in at least a couple different areas.  Some schools thrive and grow and adapt, and some schools last only a generation or two and die out.  Not every mutation is beneficial, and even those that are useful do not always remain so as changes in environment may make a once useful mutation into a hindrance and then it will die out.  The styles we have today are the few lucky ones which survived, and they continue to adapt and change, and will mate together and produce offspring that none of us can predict .  Learning from a few different teachers for a number of years, and then combining, organizing, and personalizing the teachings into your own style is what martial artists have been doing for a very long time.  Every Chinese, Okinawan and Japanese style I can think of is the product of this type of evolution.  How many years of training under a particular teacher is enough before you can teach yourself?  That question is different for everyone.  And it is not necessarily true that spending 20 years under the same teacher will allow a person to reach a greater level of understanding than spending five years each with four different teachers.  It depends on the learner, and the teacher, and their experiences.  Practicing for a few hours a week for a couple years is not the same as practicing 20 hours a week for a couple years, and the understanding and skill that those two people will have achieved will not be the same, even though on their resumes they will both say "practiced X for 2 years". 
  So I say, if you are confident in your skills and have something valuable to offer, go ahead and blend styles together.  As long as it works (fofr whatever your goal is), and you are honest about who you are and what you learned, then your skill and teaching ability will speak for themselves.  Who knows, 200 years from now one of these blended personal styles might have evolved into a long and deep tradition.


----------



## harlan (Jun 28, 2012)

I think this is very true, and happens in many, many instances.



Tez3 said:


> However as soon as you tell people you've done half a dozen different styles you get the very definite feeling you are being judged as being inadequate.



Howerver, I'd like to put something out there: does anyone think that this attitude is found more within certain circles? For example, if one is studying a more 'historical' art, one that requires people committ to years of training? (Going to leave out the whole territorial/possessiveness thing, and just keep it to training methodology.)


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 28, 2012)

harlan said:


> I think this is very true, and happens in many, many instances.
> 
> 
> 
> Howerver, I'd like to put something out there: does anyone think that this attitude is found more within certain circles? For example, if one is studying a more 'historical' art, one that requires people committ to years of training? (Going to leave out the whole territorial/possessiveness thing, and just keep it to training methodology.)


Id say thatd depend on the System. You can Box for a month and get something out of it, but do Jiujutsu and You probably wont get *as* much. And its subject to the learners ability to learn. Like, really learn.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2012)

harlan said:


> I think this is very true, and happens in many, many instances.
> 
> 
> 
> Howerver, I'd like to put something out there: does anyone think that this attitude is found more within certain circles? For example, if one is studying a more 'historical' art, one that requires people committ to years of training? (Going to leave out the whole territorial/possessiveness thing, and just keep it to training methodology.)



It's not any particular style but a certain mindset that looks down on anyone not studying their style, it tends to be instructors who are rigid in what they teach, the don't ask why, just do types. Egos are often involved as well as grandiose statements about their style, there's never anything they can learn from any other style which is why they don't like anyone who has trained elsewhere in their groups. Parents think they are wonderful with their children, teaching them 'discipline' ie do as I say or else you get press ups and derision. I wouldn't say they were McDojos because it's not about the money it's about the 'preciousness' of their style, it's a closed mindedness that nothing can be as good as what they do, funnily enough often though you find techniques and katas/patterns have been changed by them to put their own stamp on them, (going back perhaps to the Frankenstein thing?) I think too it's snobbishness as much as anything else.


----------



## oaktree (Jun 28, 2012)

rickster said:


> Wasn't Frankenstein's monster super strong?
> 
> but then again, mentally challenged.....



Frankenstein's monster was not mentally challanged. At first he was a simpleton who had difficulty with his senses to learning about fire and gathering of food, to learning language and finally being able to teach himself how to read. When he approaches Dr.Frankenstein in the mountains his manner of speech is articulate and intelligent.


----------



## Instructor (Jun 28, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's not any particular style but a certain mindset that looks down on anyone not studying their style, it tends to be instructors who are rigid in what they teach, the don't ask why, just do types. Egos are often involved as well as grandiose statements about their style, there's never anything they can learn from any other style which is why they don't like anyone who has trained elsewhere in their groups. Parents think they are wonderful with their children, teaching them 'discipline' ie do as I say or else you get press ups and derision. I wouldn't say they were McDojos because it's not about the money it's about the 'preciousness' of their style, it's a closed mindedness that nothing can be as good as what they do, funnily enough often though you find techniques and katas/patterns have been changed by them to put their own stamp on them, (going back perhaps to the Frankenstein thing?) I think too it's snobbishness as much as anything else.



I think the 'them and us' mindset  between teachers and schools isn't as prevelent today as it once was.  Most bigotry is bred from ignorance.  The internet has made knowledge and sharing it easier and I think helps people with familiarity.  For example I do not know BJJ but thanks to the media I have some idea what it is and when I get a student with some BJJ history I kind of understand what he is saying.  20 years ago if someone had said Brazillian Jiu Jutsu I probably would have thought they were talking about the Japanese Jujutsu.

I for one do not think less of a person of many styles, particularly a servicemember that had little choice in the matter.  I admire their spirit to keep learning in spite of everything.

I do have issue with a person who dubs themself the grandmaster of a new style having not attained any measure of that rank in any other system.  That just rubs me the wrong way, it lacks credibility.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2012)

Instructor said:


> I think the 'them and us' mindset between teachers and schools isn't as prevelent today as it once was. Most bigotry is bred from ignorance. The internet has made knowledge and sharing it easier and I think helps people with familiarity. For example I do not know BJJ but thanks to the media I have some idea what it is and when I get a student with some BJJ history I kind of understand what he is saying. 20 years ago if someone had said Brazillian Jiu Jutsu I probably would have thought they were talking about the Japanese Jujutsu.
> 
> I for one do not think less of a person of many styles, particularly a servicemember that had little choice in the matter. I admire their spirit to keep learning in spite of everything.
> 
> I do have issue with a person who dubs themself the grandmaster of a new style having not attained any measure of that rank in any other system. That just rubs me the wrong way, it lacks credibility.




People don't always have to call themselves grandmasters to be little Hitlers which I've seen a few of in martial arts. There are those who assume a faux modesty when describing their made up style.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 28, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I know quite a few people who have trained different styles and haven't graded much in any system, this however isn't their fault but because they are posted out of the place they were in and had to find a different style as they couldn't always find the same in their new posting. I'd find out why they've done different styles first before condemning them. This is why MMA is catching on big style with the military. I don't know anyone however who has created their own system though



I do.  I remember when MMA was first starting to get more mainstream.  I went to a place to train with some guys and a couple of the guys claimed 2nd degree BB's in "submission grappling".  It was their own thing that they did and created ranks for.  Also, in the early days Marco Ruas named his MMA style mixing Muay Thai and BJJ.

Here's the thing about "Frankenstein styles".  Where is it 50 years from now?  Was it able to be passed on through generations of students after the founder has passed on and still teach concepts/techniques to make a student capable of handling themself, and also provides a lifelong study of material to really master it's depth.  

The other issue I see, is that in the 70's and 80's if you hung your banner out there, you would get challenged.  You either answered those challenges and won, or you didn't stay around very long.  Now, due to lawsuits/liability you don't have that going on anymore, and you have people who have never been in real fights but have crosstrained putting ideas together based on theories of combat instead of combat experience.

I, myself, am a student of a "Frankenstein system".  I am very happy with how it is set up etc.  But, I have also trained and looked into many other traditional arts and see how changes were made and why, and have come to the conclusion that it has as much depth as those.  Sometimes, I also think that "Frankenstein systems" suffer from the "you're not asian syndrome".  Meaning, that if the system was presenting by someone with asian decent and is older than 50 years most people would not have a problem with it.


----------



## rickster (Jun 28, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> .
> 
> I, myself, am a student of a "Frankenstein system".  I am very happy with how it is set up etc..



Do you put both arms out strsight and grunt? LOL


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 28, 2012)

Carol said:


> we're fatigued by all the bunk out there.



beautifully phrased.


----------



## rickster (Jul 2, 2012)

Some people create a "frankenstein" out of ego


----------



## TheBigV (Jul 3, 2012)

I certainly do not have the hate which you speak of. But I have seen it all and I mean aaaaaaaaaall over the Internet on different Forums. This seems to be the most flexible MA board yet.Cudos to all of you. Howver, while I do not feel hate at any particular style or teacher I have been with in my 25+ years of training in the past, I do have a lot of rage at how many years I wasted going from school to school, starting at age 25 with Shotokan Karate, to Kenpo, to American Indian Tai Lu Chuan FA, to JKD and Kick Boxing, only to run out of schools in Las Vegas after a few years that werent diploma mills. So the process would begin again, only this time in my 30's I would go for the mystical. I wanted chi power, power built from standing meditation, tai-chi, Qi-Gong, vibrating death palms and lethal energy transference. Then in my 40's I figured the real "Internal Arts" were too obtuse to be taught directly to Westerners from an Asian teacher so I sought out Americans who could claim they developed "special powers" by studying 20+ years with an Asian, figuring they could give it to me in a fraction of the time. Then I decided that what was missing was fun!!!! I was so caught up in "becoming" I lost all the joy of doing" and Martial classes became a prison of horrors in my 40's as my body was slowing, I couldnt be pepped up at class on 2 cups of coffee anymore and everything was starting to look old...."used", even. So I then sought out the combat arts of Krav Maga, Systema and other non traditional fighting arts. "Yawn."...............Are you getting tired yet, I am?  And only recently at the ripe old age of 52 that I have decided my days of spectacular achievements and fame are long behind me, and "allowing" myself to sink right over my head in the mud of life and absorb the joy and camaraderie of any school I feel "will work on the street." Period!

True, it hasnt been all my fault. Martial Arts schools need a governing body or examining process to be able to open their doors. And something has to be done when in 99% of schools, no student gets even close in school to his teacher! But now my journey with the help of Forums like these and listening to others journeys will hopefully help me make some sense out of what to me was for over 20 years a huge waste of time and effort. I would even be happy to quit this elusive search. But every day I do not train or research becomes more and more painful. Like a destiny that awaits me, and I have no clue as to what it could be. Might as well enjoy it! But to put together a packaged art of the pieces and crumbs I have absorbed over the years is beyond my conscience. After all, to rob someone of money is horrible, but to steal their time is the greatest theft of all. And God knows with a totally unregulated Internet how many "Masters" are popping up with Ninja Training courses on DVD for $500 to learn at the convenience of home. I understand the mind-set: "Hey someone did it to me, I gotta do it back. Its just the dues yuh have to pay to learn." Now that is total B.S.!!!


----------



## Zenjael (Jul 16, 2012)

I find this problem to be arising due to progression. I recall a recent school I revisited where it was a stark difference between the modern training they were receiving and the 'traditional' I had, had. I wouldnt say one is better than the other; its just that in todays world martial arts are going to continue, but no longer in the singular vein. Sure, there will always be people who specialize in a specific style, but overtime I sincerely believe they will find themselves in the minority. As people who are purists often are, in changing times.

The fact we're actually able to speak to each other, cross style, online, is ample evidence of this.

I think anyone though who opts to specialize and learn only one style... might risk missing learning the technique from another system, which may actually be the counter to what occurs in the realistic situation.

Its old vs. new. Nothing new in my book.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 17, 2012)

"Jack of all trades, master of none."

I don't have any issue with training having various arts in it.  However, there is a difference between that and throwing a bunch of crap together and thinking it comes anywhere close to being effective.  I train in Wing Chun, though sometimes we will go over Juijitsu and Judo techniques.  My instructor is a black belt in both of those and another one of my training brothers owns his own school teaching Judo and Juijitsu.  So the information is solid AND we still stick to Wing Chun principles.  I would not feel nearly as comfortable adding any training from Judo or Juijistsu if from someone not qualified to teach those systems or if I did not already have a solid enough base to understand what I was seeing...or at least understand when something is explained to me.

Too many people want to mix this and that together, without truly having the knowledge to do so.  Then they want to offer that product to the public as something that can help them defend themselves.  It is nothing short of fraud and gives real martial artist a bad reputation.  That is why you will see and hear negativity when it comes to cobbled together "systems"


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 17, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> I find this problem to be arising due to progression. I recall a recent school I revisited where it was a stark difference between the modern training they were receiving and the 'traditional' I had, had. I wouldnt say one is better than the other; its just that in todays world martial arts are going to continue, but no longer in the singular vein. Sure, there will always be people who specialize in a specific style, but overtime I sincerely believe they will find themselves in the minority. As people who are purists often are, in changing times.
> 
> The fact we're actually able to speak to each other, cross style, online, is ample evidence of this.
> 
> ...



Hmm, I don't think you really get what a "martial arts Frankenstein" is here, Alex. We're not talking about the benefits of cross training. The following post says it quite well, really.



WC_lun said:


> "Jack of all trades, master of none."
> 
> I don't have any issue with training having various arts in it.  However, there is a difference between that and throwing a bunch of crap together and thinking it comes anywhere close to being effective.  I train in Wing Chun, though sometimes we will go over Juijitsu and Judo techniques.  My instructor is a black belt in both of those and another one of my training brothers owns his own school teaching Judo and Juijitsu.  So the information is solid AND we still stick to Wing Chun principles.  I would not feel nearly as comfortable adding any training from Judo or Juijistsu if from someone not qualified to teach those systems or if I did not already have a solid enough base to understand what I was seeing...or at least understand when something is explained to me.
> 
> Too many people want to mix this and that together, without truly having the knowledge to do so.  Then they want to offer that product to the public as something that can help them defend themselves.  It is nothing short of fraud and gives real martial artist a bad reputation.  That is why you will see and hear negativity when it comes to cobbled together "systems"


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 17, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> .
> 
> I think anyone though who opts to specialize and learn only one style... might risk missing learning the technique from another system, which may actually be the counter to what occurs in the realistic situation.



As I keep saying, if you understand your principles, then you don't need to chase after every technique that's ever been created.  there is no magical technique that is THE counter to what you might be attacked with.  You should be able to use a small number of techniques in a variety of ways, getting lots of mileage out of a smaller amount of material, but this is only if you really understand your system on a principle level.

chasing after techniques is largely a waste of time, it's a less fruitful approach to learning.  You don't need every technique out there, in fact trying to know them all just gets in the way, makes you worse.


----------



## MJS (Jul 17, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> I find this problem to be arising due to progression. I recall a recent school I revisited where it was a stark difference between the modern training they were receiving and the 'traditional' I had, had. I wouldnt say one is better than the other; its just that in todays world martial arts are going to continue, but no longer in the singular vein. Sure, there will always be people who specialize in a specific style, but overtime I sincerely believe they will find themselves in the minority. As people who are purists often are, in changing times.
> 
> The fact we're actually able to speak to each other, cross style, online, is ample evidence of this.
> 
> ...




Is that what you think matters most in the arts....collecting thousands of techniques? LMFAO, dude, if thats what you think, then you're certainly on the wrong path to learning.  The idea that one would actually be able to recall a specific tech for a specific attack, when the poop is hitting the fan, is crazy at best.  The techs. simply give an idea, however, the student, as they progress thru their training, should begin to step out of the box, so to speak, and not rely on those techs, but instead, come up with the correct response, according to whats happening at that moment.  

Having thousands upon thousands of techniques doesnt make you a better martial artist, is makes you a technique collector.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 17, 2012)

MJS said:


> Having thousands upon thousands of techniques doesnt make you a better martial artist, is makes you a technique collector.



aye, take it from a couple of people who have walked down that path.


----------



## rickster (Jul 17, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> As I keep saying, if you understand your principles, then you don't need to chase after every technique that's ever been created.  there is no magical technique that is THE counter to what you might be attacked with.  You should be able to use a small number of techniques in a variety of ways, getting lots of mileage out of a smaller amount of material, but this is only if you really understand your system on a principle level.
> 
> chasing after techniques is largely a waste of time, it's a less fruitful approach to learning.  You don't need every technique out there, in fact trying to know them all just gets in the way, makes you worse.



Frankenstein wit the most important parts


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 17, 2012)

rickster said:


> Frankenstein wit the most important parts



I wouldn't call it that.  I'd say it's about understanding what makes it work, and realizing that that understanding can be applied to anything.

In a good system, this should be the real goal of training, but it gets lost underneath the curriculum and the pursuit of techniques.  Really, the techniques that comprise the curriculum should simply be examples of how the principles are put into use.  The techniques really just guide your understanding.  

Sure, the techs can and should be useful right out of the box, if you understand the principles, the engine underneath that makes it all run.  But you shouldn't be limited by those techniques.  Any movement should have the potential to be a devastating technique, if you understand your principles, and if you can apply your principles to that movement, even if that movement does not look like a "proper" technique, a "proper" punch.

In the Chinese arts, we say: learn the technique so that you can forget it.  That doesn't simply mean that you practice it over and over until you have muscle memory and the technique happens automatically.  If you are chasing techniques and have lots and lots of them, it becomes impossible to train them all to automatic muscle memory.  The list is too long, it becomes a burden, it cannot be done.  This is not what is meant by forgetting the technique.  What is really meant is, you understand the principles and can apply them to any movement, whether it's a "proper" technique or not.  Sure, you can use the proper techniques, they are useful, but you don't have to be limited to the proper techniques.  You can do anything with the principles.

This is not cobbling together a frankenstein system.  This is truly learning what the system has to offer, and that is embracing and internalizing the principles, and understanding how it can be applied everywhere.


----------



## rickster (Jul 18, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I wouldn't call it that.  I'd say it's about understanding what makes it work, and realizing that that understanding can be applied to anything.
> 
> In a good system, this should be the real goal of training, but it gets lost underneath the curriculum and the pursuit of techniques.  Really, the techniques that comprise the curriculum should simply be examples of how the principles are put into use.  The techniques really just guide your understanding.
> 
> ...



Therefore, CMA does not have cobbled methods?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 18, 2012)

rickster said:


> Therefore, CMA does not have cobbled methods?



what are you trying to say?


----------



## Instructor (Jul 18, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> what are you trying to say?



My dad is better than your dad?  Naaaa.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 18, 2012)

Flying rne, awsome post.

rickster, sure Chinese martial arts has cobbled together systems, like arts from any other country. They do not have set principles and conepts. The training methodology is lacking also.  They are crap for self defense, like any other cobbled together system without those things.  Country of origin makes no difference, there will always be charlatans out there.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 18, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Flying rne, awsome post.
> 
> rickster, sure Chinese martial arts has cobbled together systems, like arts from any other country. They do not have set principles and conepts. The training methodology is lacking also. They are crap for self defense, like any other cobbled together system without those things. Country of origin makes no difference, there will always be charlatans out there.



yes, agreed, no country of origin holds the monopoly.

The difference between a good system and a cobbled together Frankenstein mess is that a good system has an underlying methodology that ties everything together.  As I keep saying, these are the principles that drive everything, and everything in the system works upon the same principles and the same underlying methodology, while a Frankenstein mess doesn't have an underlying methodology nor principles that tie it all together.

There are Chinese systems that were built upon the blend of other systems, and I am sure some amount of mixing always has and always will happen.  Most of what exists today was based on something else, at some point in time.  Nothing is ever created independently, in a vacuum.  Choy lay Fut, and Fut Gar I believe, are examples.

But when things are blended together, there needs to be care taken to make sure that what is blended is ultimately compatible, that it all can function well on the same foundation, with the same principles, and the same methodology.  If not, then it won't work well together and it too will be a Frankenstein.

Blending and mixing can work, if approached with the proper care and mindset and a clear set of parameters of how things need to function.  But if the mixing is done haphazardly, it won't work.  In my opinion, much of what we see today is mixed haphazardly.


----------



## Zenjael (Jul 24, 2012)

I have found in learning 'so many' techniques as others would say, that a good deal of what I've learned, I've chosen to learn how to apply, where its applicapable, and after that, whether or not it's something I should use. If not, I do not use it.

It's why I have learned the forms of multiple systems, but have chosen to only continue practicing with a small few.

Learning a 1000 techniques isn't learning for the sake of learning; it's finding the one or two out of that many which are perfect for who you are, and how you practice martial arts. It also is helpful when working with people of different styles. Just like learning how to kick 100 times on one leg, with different kicks per kicks, without lowering it may not be so one can be uber awesome at kicking. Maybe it's to develop hip strength, or balance.

I see no reason to constrict myself to one art, when every art is but a different approach to the same problem, and one with an infinite different solutions to. 

I can see the point of it perhaps being a waste of time... but it is my time, and I've found that it works for me.



If you guys would really like to understand my approach, and through that point my err if present, read this next passage. It should explain how I approach this.

I am a technique collector, but I think I'm a different kind. I know I have not been at this as long as others, but I have been at it for long enough to recognize the different types of techniques- and how to recognize those techniques I do not want.

For me I have 3 core fighting styles; a loose, experimentative one where I will employ anything which comes to mind, and usually is against people who are far beneath my ability level. When against someone who is of equal, I revert to a base of chung do kwan/krav maga/boxing. And for survival, I stick to just krav maga. 

But understand I believe heavily in the tenet of staying off the ground from Krav Maga, and to give an example of what kind of collector I am, there is an example which occurred last week where I was introduced to a thai boxing class which utilized a kind of sweep where they catch with the other arm. I'm not interested in goundwork, nor risky techniques, and so while I may have seen it, learned it- I will never, ever use it in all likelihood.

I know who I am as a martial artist, and what needs work, and what is fine as is until something truly better comes along to improve it. Technique collecting makes it sound like I'm just grabbing at random, and trying to learn everything at random.

There isn't, for me, there is a process. 

And to further argue the point, I've trained in hapkido, and jiujitsu, and a limited amount of Aikido. I see the logic of learning their techniques and holds, so I can learn those vulnerabilities. Because to, on the note of groundwork in terms of technique collecting, while every fight MAY end up on the ground, there is no reason for it to stay there, and likewise, the vast, vast majority of things which move the fight to the ground both leave the opponent vulnerable, and frankly opens the vital. I've yet to see a choke hold executed where I couldnt with ease have broken their foot, head, or bitten into their brachial artery in the upper arm, or radial artery, or even cephalic vein.

Because when I see groundwork- I see a system that only works under the parameters of that system. And when it's on the street, it's a closed system against an open-ended one, and against survival, grappling is lethal for whomever devotes time in a fight for it.

That's how I approach technique collecting, and learning new styles; I only keep what works for me, and what will truly add to me as a martial artist. I don't need 720 kicks to do that, and anything which doesn't work.

For example, in my pursuit of learning each style of TKD, I had to learn Oh Do Kwan, a style specifically designed for larger bodied people, of which I am not. While I know the curriculum up to 2nd dan, I almost never use it's techniques, though I can teach them effectively. It is true that small people of course can implement these techniques, but nowhere near as well as the physical body the art was designed for. So while I know how to do this style, teach it, I have opted not to include almost its entire system of techniques in the implement which I have trained to a point beyond muscle memory; where when I react, it takes in mind all the possible counters I know for it, and without jamming me in choice of which to use, I'll automatically use the one most appropriate.

What tends to jam me, is when people start using groundwork, and because the extend of my knowledge is just escapes, I tend to get jammed at NOT biting their jugular, or actually hurting them to get them off.


----------



## rickster (Jul 24, 2012)

Here is a thought.....

What is more marveled/genius, the Frankenstein monster who was assembled, or the Dr who had the knowledge/skill to do this?


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 24, 2012)

If you understand the principles and concepts that provide the base of a system, you do not need to learn thousands of techniques.  Techniques are the manifestation of how a system works.  Substituting more techniques in leu of understanding how a system operates does not increase a person's skill in martial arts.  In fact, I would say it does exactly the opposite.  It retards true understanding and slows real growth as a martial artist.


----------



## Zenjael (Jul 24, 2012)

> If you understand the principles and concepts that provide the base of a  system, you do not need to learn thousands of techniques.



You are right, you absolutely do NOT need to. But... in the original TKD I learned, there was a specific way in which they crossed their arms to block, or move, while Chung Do Kwan there was another. In mixing the two, I have found to have created an even more efficient method to do what both did, which is to generate power. The point isn't to be a walking compendium, the point is to find the more efficient method.



> Substituting more techniques in leu of understanding how a system  operates does not increase a person's skill in martial arts.  In fact, I  would say it does exactly the opposite.  It retards true understanding  and slows real growth as a martial artist.



I agree that it would naturally have to retard the insight... for a time at least. For example. when I switched from Moo Duk Kwan to Chung Do Kwan, despite being a 3rd dan in moo duk kwan, the time when one should be focusing less on growth, and more on refining to perfection, Is topped practicing that art completely until my ability in Chung Do Kwan had matched it. Only then did I see that while my motive to stop practicing had been wrong (Its a bad style! F it. Imma learn this one which is BETTER) the result was right; I had gained comparative insight I had in one style, within another, and stepping back, could see how both could work together. In that I learned how to harmonize a style from WTF, with its opposite, from ITF. 

I wouldn't say learning all the techniques which exist, and their application, makes one a better martial artist. Knowing which of those techniques to pick, in regards to one's own subjective ability, is growth though, when it's actually conducive, rather than detracting, and destructive. It's why I advise cross training, but only when one has a clearly defined base, so they can alter and change where necessary.

It is true also, that such mixing of arts creates... something which is not the original art. I think labeling it 'frankenstein' or anything else negative conveys a lack of ability to value that not only is that how most martial will be in our much more connected, and accessible world.

But I believe at some point, the art instills so much in a person's essence, that the true martial artist eventually internalizes that art. Every movement in life reflects their art, and hopefully their style definitively through that. I constantly circle walk at work (half-circle, pivots) because it makes it much easier to move about in the constrained space. And sooner or later, the art which has become a part of the martial artist, if they grow enough as an artist, will give themself back into the art.

I see it when I look at two extremely skilled students from one group I practice with; while both have only trained in chung do kwan, and it is clear they are both employing chung do kwan, it is also clear that how they move, subjectively, is much different from the other. Around 3rd dan, once the technical aspects have been mastered and spiritual begin to play as much a role, a person begins to do their art, but it is theirs then, no longer chung do kwan. It is their name-style of chung do kwan, or whatever art or person you want to sub.

And sooner or later, when you frankenstein things, and grow, give it direction, have an internal philosophy to guide the template... something emerges which is new. It's why so many can see pieces of this style or that, of their own... but not. 

And if it works, and it is something where you can place it next to where it came from, and say without doubt that it is something different, why should that 'frankenstein' art not be respected as one? We all frankenstein our arts, even if we learn every technique in it; we still only use which is what works for us as martial artists.

I've just chosen not to constrain myself to one system, in that growth. And because of that you'll find I can box using virtually every (within reason- there are always styles, and techniques which I will be unaware of, and unlearned in) move available to the hands. While the Wing chun Boxer may stick to their center line, I'll shift from the horizontal punches of shotokan, to the straight line, vertical of Wing chun, to open-palm of ba-gua, to the brawling of boxing. I can use overhand, and under, because I've had the teachers who taught me all that diversity, and it was up to me to put it together so it works. And it does.

There is a fine line in MA where confidence appears as arrogance. Technique collecting does not make one better- just more knowledge, and it is true, knowledge can clutter and inhibit. But that's why we seperate our mind from our action in martial arts, why we reach for the zen of no thought, so that we may react to any instant, in the appropriate fashion. But I refuse to stop growing as a martial artist- and if anyone thinks I am the same kind of person who reaches for the new, while neglecting to hone what I already have, does not understand who I am as a martial artist.

When people ask me how I do things, it takes me time to stop, rethink what I did. I tend to forget- my body, and my mind react instinctively, and those instincts have been trained to use exactly what is necessary when, from the plethora of what I do KNOW.


It's like... just because I know how to execute a 720, or so and so technique, does not mean I've decided to internalize it so its the natural thing I'll reach for. Chances are, despite knowing it, I'll never even think of possibly thinking about using it in a fight.

I uh, guess the martial artist just needs to train their techniques to the point it's less of a choice response, and more an instinctual response, which has already taken into account all the choices, and chosen it for me. Immediately. And it sounds hard, but I use the fly as an example; they can see at all angles, at all times, and their minds are hardwired to calculate exactly what is approaching it; it's size, momentum, and such, and instantly that simple little mind instinctively chooses out of all the infinite possible paths and choices the one which WILL be the route of escape. 

And humans are one of the few creatures who can just reprogram their mind, even if over time, to become like that. I just think most people don't realize the mind is so power, and that it determines reality to the extend, in martial arts, that our lack of seeing what to do, that jamming on all the choices, is having not learned to master the mind to automatically choose the efficient, and right choice.

Sure, we're human, and err. But that's what our training is for; so we don't, when it matters.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 24, 2012)

More technique does not equate to more knowledge.  They are entirely two different things.

I can have a big tool box with thousands of dollars worth of tools, but if I do not know which tool to use, when to use it, and how to use it, then that tool box is worthless. Too many tools that I don't know how to use to look through, to find one i do know how to use. In a fighting scenario it is more complex because you do not have the luxary of time to pick and choose.  If you do not have the basics down to instant reactions, then you are in trouble.  At that point none of those thousands of technique matter because you cannot instantly apply them.

Cross training is indeed helpful, particularly if your training has an area that is lacking.  However, just picking up techniques from this or that art is not really cross training.  Cross training is learning how and why a different art does things.  It is that understanding that broadens a martial artist's skills.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> I am a technique collector, *but I think I'm a different kind*.



everybody thinks this, but it's not true.

for the record: i've gone thru this stage myself.  When I finally began to get the quality instruction I needed, to really understand one system well, then I realized how wrong I was about collecting.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 24, 2012)

rickster said:


> Here is a thought.....
> 
> What is more marveled/genius, the Frankenstein monster who was assembled, or the Dr who had the knowledge/skill to do this?



He Said "Dr Who"


----------



## frank raud (Jul 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> And to further argue the point, I've trained in hapkido, and jiujitsu, and a limited amount of Aikido. I see the logic of learning their techniques and holds, so I can learn those vulnerabilities. Because to, on the note of groundwork in terms of technique collecting, while every fight MAY end up on the ground, there is no reason for it to stay there, and likewise, the vast, vast majority of things which move the fight to the ground both leave the opponent vulnerable, and frankly opens the vital. I've yet to see a choke hold executed where I couldnt with ease have broken their foot, head, or bitten into their brachial artery in the upper arm, or radial artery, or even cephalic vein.



This is not a brag, I guarantee if I put a choke hold on you, you would not be able to bite my arm or break my foot. Be glad to demonstrate any time. Unfortunately closest I will be to your neck of the woods will be Ohio in August. Of course, if you can do what you say, there will be approx 200 heavily experienced martial artists, shootoers and LEOs who would become your instant students.You are more than welcome to come to Ohio and demonstrate. I will cover the entrance fee for you ($200) and provide you with a place to crash for the weekend.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> . I've yet to see a choke hold executed where I couldnt with ease have broken their foot, head, or bitten into their brachial artery in the upper arm, or radial artery, or even cephalic vein.
> .



Dude, I could put a choke on you standing up, and you'd be dangling a foot off the ground. :lfao:The only thing you'd do "with ease" _is go to sleep_.


----------



## Zenjael (Jul 24, 2012)

That sounds like quite an offer. Will it be open ended so I may take it when my own path allows me to?

Likewise, if you are in D.C., you are always more than welcome to join, and I'll have located a suitable place to stay. I doubt you'd want to crash where the oldest individual in the house is 30.

There is always, always someone better than you, and the exception to whatever the artist pride themself on. You are right of course, but it's never good to pass up a learning opportunity.

To Elder; pissing contests are pissing contests. Would you be willing to risk your arms to do as you say? That is the severity I treat groundwork. In my book, if you're on the ground, the next step is death no matter who you are, your abilities, or your specialty.

The difference though is that you'd be using control, and of course, me using the counters I trust to ACTUALLY get of the holds you and others are proud of are not allowable. So I'll concede, you could easily subdue me if it came to groundwork. But if this were the street... survival were the case, you would be better off walking away.

Like I said, I've trained in Hapkido and jiujitsu- and I've overcome state champions in grecco-romano wrestling. That does not change the fact I abhor groundwork. 

Like I've said elsewhere, there is a difference between arrogance and confidence; I am not challenging anyone here, merely pointing out that a lot of groundwork is not avoidable, it's dangerous to the person attempting to initiate it.


----------



## clfsean (Jul 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> And to further argue the point, I've trained in hapkido, and jiujitsu, and a limited amount of Aikido. I see the logic of learning their techniques and holds, so I can learn those vulnerabilities. Because to, on the note of groundwork in terms of technique collecting, while every fight MAY end up on the ground, there is no reason for it to stay there, and likewise, the vast, vast majority of things which move the fight to the ground both leave the opponent vulnerable, and frankly opens the vital. I've yet to see a choke hold executed where I couldnt with ease have broken their foot, head, or bitten into their brachial artery in the upper arm, or radial artery, or even cephalic vein.



:bs:



Apparently you've never been choked properly.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 24, 2012)

> The difference though is that you'd be using control, and of course, me using the counters I trust to ACTUALLY get of the holds you and others are proud of are not allowable. So I'll concede, you could easily subdue me if it came to groundwork. But if this were the street... survival were the case, you would be better off walking away.


You could be right. However, you have to realize a couple of things here ... one, many of the folks you're arguing with have workout clothing that's older than you. Two, most young people _think_ they know everything, you seem to be no different. Three, You'll never _really_ be able to get to the level of competence that you think you have now if you don't bother to listen to what those with much more experience have to say. You've got a million reasons and excuses why what you say is correct, but you need to hear the words that I used to tell my Scouts ... "If you find yourself making an excuse, you should stop and see what you've screwed up because you never have one without the other." Your posts are chock full of excuses for what you're saying, what you're thinking, and why the same goofball ideas that we've heard a million times are different, because it's you having them.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> To Elder; pissing contests are pissing contests. Would you be willing to risk your arms to do as you say? That is the severity I treat groundwork. In my book, if you're on the ground, the next step is death no matter who you are, your abilities, or your specialty.



Not pissing, and not talking about "the ground." I'll reiterate: I could choke you *standing up*, and your feet would be dangling a foot off the ground. No stomps to the feet possible. No kicks to the knee. Maybe about 20 seconds of-I'm willing to bet-relatively bearable elbows, and maybe attempted headbutts-and 20 seconds might just be 12 too many....


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 24, 2012)

I'm betting you wouldn't have to dangle him off the ground.  Once the choke is applied by someone who knows what they are doing, you are screwed.  Zenj, writing what you did about getting out of a choke shouts at your inexperience with them and just illustrates the point we are trying to make to you.


----------



## oaktree (Jul 24, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *Zenjael*
> 
> 
> And to further argue the point, I've trained in hapkido, and jiujitsu, and a limited amount of Aikido. I see the logic of learning their techniques and holds, so I can learn those vulnerabilities. Because to, on the note of groundwork in terms of technique collecting, while every fight MAY end up on the ground, there is no reason for it to stay there, and likewise, the vast, vast majority of things which move the fight to the ground both leave the opponent vulnerable, and frankly opens the vital. I've yet to see a choke hold executed where I couldnt with ease have broken their foot, head, or bitten into their brachial artery in the upper arm, or radial artery, or even cephalic vein.



If a choke is properly executed then you will go to sleep before you can break the foot or head. Maybe if you able to position the body and get some leverage from the throat and arm choking you might buy you some time to get free but why go for something with such a low percentage as breaking a foot or head, better to get the pressure off your throat first and then work on something with a higher percent of success you can find a couple of decent ones.




Something similar to what I was taught with rear chokes, also most on youtube show similar things none I have seen shows foot breaking.
I doubt you could reach the artery with your mouth with the bicep or radial bone under your throat if anything you might break the skin before you are choked out.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 24, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I'm betting you wouldn't have to dangle him off the ground. Once the choke is applied by someone who knows what they are doing, you are screwed.



No doubt, really. I was just pointing out the sheer _anatomical_ absurdity of what he said. 

The last time I had occasion to choke a fella in "the str33tz," he was about Alex's size, and that's just what I did: dangle him off the ground...:lfao:

Of course, that was 18 years ago, when Alex was 4....:lol:


----------



## MJS (Jul 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> I have found in learning 'so many' techniques as others would say, that a good deal of what I've learned, I've chosen to learn how to apply, where its applicapable, and after that, whether or not it's something I should use. If not, I do not use it.
> 
> It's why I have learned the forms of multiple systems, but have chosen to only continue practicing with a small few.
> 
> ...



Somehow though, you still think that this is the solution for being prepared for anything.  Under stress, there's no way in hell, anyone is going to have the time to recall the exact tech to do for the situation.  There're numerous Kenpo techs in the systems that I've done, yet they're simply to give an idea of a possible solution.  The goal is not to have to be bound by a preset technique, but instead, to simply react.  All of the times when I've done spontaneous reaction drills, where I have no idea what the attack is thats coming, its rare that I've done a full tech.  Part of?  Maybe, but a full textbook tech?  Nope.

As its been said, its not the techs, but the basics, principles, concepts and ideas.


----------



## MJS (Jul 24, 2012)

clfsean said:


> :bs:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you've never been choked properly.



LMFAO!!! Yes, I was thinking the exact same thing!!!


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 24, 2012)

Is it not also possible to put Your legs around someones torso - Standing up- As You choke Them?


----------



## MJS (Jul 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> That sounds like quite an offer. Will it be open ended so I may take it when my own path allows me to?
> 
> Likewise, if you are in D.C., you are always more than welcome to join, and I'll have located a suitable place to stay. I doubt you'd want to crash where the oldest individual in the house is 30.
> 
> ...



What is your grappling background again?  Reason I ask, is because I find what you're saying, to be a bit far fetched.  So, one minute you're talking about supposedly biting and all this 'deadly' stuff, so I'm assuming that when you beat the supposed state champs, you didn't do any of this.  So, I'm also assuming that you're grappling is at or above a champion level?


----------



## oaktree (Jul 24, 2012)

If the opponent puts his leg over your leg, his position
will be off balance because his body has to tilt around your waist.



If you turn in the direction of his leg over your leg
The momentum will carry him over easier. 

I guess the opponent could grapevine your leg but still his
balance won't be to good and maybe best thing to do is a sacrifice throw like in kawazu gake or some
other henka variation.


----------



## frank raud (Jul 24, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Is it not also possible to put Your legs around someones torso - Standing up- As You choke Them?



Yes, it is possible. But hardly the only way to avoid having your feet stamped on during the 3-6 seconds it usually takes to choke someone out.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 24, 2012)

clfsean said:


> :bs:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you've never been choked properly.



Actually, maybe he has. An anoxic brain injury would explain a lot...


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 24, 2012)

I prefer to slap the choke on , and drag them backwards.
Pretty hard for them to try and stamp on your feet when their taken off balance.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 24, 2012)

I'd like to remind everyone about physical challenges here:



> *1.8 Threats, Racism, Sexism, and Challenges:
> 
> *
> Messages that are openly hostile,  defamatory, sexual, vulgar, or harassing, will not be tolerated, and may  be in violation of the law.  Threads or replies promoting or expressing  intolerant views towards any group (race, religion, sexual preference,  interracial couples, etc.) will not be tolerated.
> ...


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 24, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> That sounds like quite an offer. Will it be open ended so I may take it when my own path allows me to?
> 
> Likewise, if you are in D.C., you are always more than welcome to join, and I'll have located a suitable place to stay. I doubt you'd want to crash where the oldest individual in the house is 30.
> 
> ...



If you think that anyone here would use control in a real fight - against you or anyone else - you're delusional.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 24, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> I'd like to remind everyone about physical challenges here:



Excellent point.  A word to the wise...  So far, all I see are offers to get together and train -- but the toes are right up at the line.  Challenges are banning offenses; don't cross that line.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 24, 2012)

frank raud said:


> Yes, it is possible. But hardly the only way to avoid having your feet stamped on during the 3-6 seconds it usually takes to choke someone out.


Of course - I was just verifying that I wasnt imagining things


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 24, 2012)

Alex, you're making yourself look like an idiot. Again. Remember... we've seen your videos. We know what your level of skill isn't.

The last time I found it necessary to put someone out with a choke hold, it took 5, maybe 6 seconds. And no, he could not have broken my foot, or any of the other silly things you suggest. Why? Because I actually know how to use the technique.

BTW, you never did get back to me in another thread, when you spoke of fighting with a "shattered" chest, about how you managed to avoid the respiratory collapse that is pretty much inevitable from a flail chest. Nor about why your father, a supposed MD, would "set" your ribs (which is not done, except in very rare cases - and then it's a surgical procedure). 

You spend more time under the BS flag than any poster I can think of.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 24, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> I'd like to remind everyone about physical challenges here:



Like stating the facts about the mechanics of  swatting a fly is a "physical challenge." :lfao:


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 25, 2012)

Alex, rather than going through the abysmal examples you've yet again shown, I'm going to be rather blunt and direct here.

Everything you have posted has shown that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about martial arts, training, different approaches, congruence, power, ranges, effectiveness, or anything at all. Your claims of having trained in Hapkido, Jiujitsu, and some Aikido don't seem to be supported by anything other than a passing familiarity in spelling the words. Your comments about your frankly laughable defences against a choke... well, let me put it this way. I put a choke on a student last night. It took less than a second for them to be spluttering and unable to do anything you mentioned. You really wouldn't have a chance, kid.

Oh, and learn to write. Even after having it pointed out to you (over, and over, and over, and over again... and again... and again), you continue to misuse a range of words, and come up with highly convoluted sentences that are completely robbed of all meaning or structure. Try to find the simplest way to say something, then strip it back. From there we'll deal with your completely off-base ideas when it comes to martial arts.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 25, 2012)

Something just occured to Me - Say You do break someones foot somehow. How is that meant to render Their choking arm/s weak and useless within mere seconds? Its Their foot. If anything, Youll both fall over and Youll have even less options than before.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Something just occured to Me - Say You do break someones foot somehow. How is that meant to render Their choking arm/s weak and useless within mere seconds? Its Their foot. If anything, Youll both fall over and Youll have even less options than before.




:lfao:

Even I've choked guys out bigger than me. I'm not good at describing techniques but our instructor showed us how to move our hands and shoulder to put the choke (guillotine) on quicker and stop any escape, sort of one hand on top of the other and twist. If anyone knows this and can explain better I'd be grateful, I can demo it perfectly just not describe properly.


----------



## frank raud (Jul 25, 2012)

As Alex has decined my offer of demonstrating his skills to a large audience in Ohio, I withdraw the offer.


----------



## MJS (Jul 25, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> The last time I found it necessary to put someone out with a choke hold, it took 5, maybe 6 seconds. And no, he could not have broken my foot, or any of the other silly things you suggest. Why? Because I actually know how to use the technique.



LOL, funny you should say that.  A good friend of mine is a Black Belt in BJJ under Roy Harris.  At last years Arnis camp that we held, he did a small teaching segment, on BJJ.  One of the things that he covered was the RNC.  Needless to say that when he did this on me, I was tapping before he had it fully applied.  His inital method he used to apply the RNC, was so tight, had he actually slapped it on fully, you are 100% correct...5, maybe 6 secs and it'd have been nighty-night land for me.  

No, sorry, the fantasy land BS that was being talked about earlier, ie: stomping a foot, breaking this, biting that...LOL...nope, not gonna happen.  And even if it did, it'd be moot anyways, because once that choke is locked on, I'm sure taking a few weak shots would be nothing, given the fact that in a few secs, those shots won't be coming anymore...LOL!


----------



## K-man (Jul 25, 2012)

Alex, I'm sorry but I have to agree with all the others.  Your knowledge of chokes is so far out of wack that I would venture to say you have never had a proper choke applied to you or by you.  I was recently demonstrating a bunkai technique on a colleague when he unexpectedly slumped to the floor. I reckon the choke was applied for less than 5 seconds. In a real situation he would of had no time to break my foot and with my arm UNDER his chin he couldn't open his mouth, let alone practice his vampire skills on my arm.  In this instance it was a rear choke and the angle I used meant he couldn't even lift a foot, much less stomp on my foot.  

I think your understanding of technique suggests you should take Ueshiba Sensei as an example.  From the literally hundreds of techniques in Daito Ryu, he selected about 30 or so of the most effective and produced his own "Frankenstein". Aikido is a very simple Martial Art that becomes more complex as your understanding increases.  That is also the case with Goju Ryu karate and probably many other systems as well.  The fact that you state that for self defence you would resort to Krav Maga, when you claim to be expert in so many other MA styles, demonstrates to me that you have little understanding of any of them.

It brings to mind the old saying ... Jack of all trades and Master of none!     :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2012)

Perhaps if you had a full set of dentures you could slip them out and clamp them on your opponents arm? :ultracool

cue fantastical escapes from chokes.........


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps if you had a full set of dentures you could slip them out and clamp them on your opponents arm? :ultracool
> 
> cue fantastical escapes from chokes.........


Ill bite.
Getting out of an RNC is easy - Front Flip, and Theyll land on Their Back. Then, You do a back Headbutt, breaking Their Skull and jamming the Skull through the Brain. Deadly stuff.


----------



## K-man (Jul 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps if you had a full set of dentures you could slip them out and clamp them on your opponents arm? :ultracool
> 
> cue fantastical escapes from chokes.........


Come on *Tez*! Get real.  Alex is only 23. He probably still has his milk teeth and with his mouth clamped shut he can hardly be expected to get them out and into your arm in 5 seconds. You'll need a better theory than that to convince me.


----------



## K-man (Jul 25, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Ill bite.
> Getting out of an RNC is easy - Front Flip, and Theyll land on Their Back. Then, You do a back Headbutt, breaking Their Skull and jamming the Skull through the Brain. Deadly stuff.


Mmm! Just could work.       :hmm:


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 25, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Ill bite.
> Getting out of an RNC is easy - Front Flip, and Theyll land on Their Back. Then, You do a back Headbutt, breaking Their Skull and jamming the Skull through the Brain. Deadly stuff.



I know you're joking, but I wouldn't be suprised to see this posted in the future somewhere as a technique offered to get out of a rnc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 25, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I know you're joking, but I wouldn't be suprised to see this posted in the future somewhere as a technique offered to get out of a rnc.




I was thinking that! And I can guess who will be thnking that's a good idea.........am just waiting for the post "That's what I did when I took on a gang in the street..."

I like "and in one bound he was free"


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 25, 2012)

K-man said:


> Mmm! Just could work.       :hmm:


If you think you can, you can. If you think you can't, you're right.
I think I can. So that means I can, right? :ultracool




WC_lun said:


> I know you're joking, but I wouldn't be suprised to see this posted in the future somewhere as a technique offered to get out of a rnc.


The horrible thing is that the dynamics of it make sense. It just isnt possible - And backward Headbutts arent that great 



Tez3 said:


> I was thinking that! And I can guess who will be thnking that's a good idea.........am just waiting for the post "That's what I did when I took on a gang in the street..."
> 
> I like "and in one bound he was free"



Thats what I did when I took out a Gang in the Street. One grabbed Me from behind in a Rear Naked Choke whilst the 6 others attacked Me with Knives. I did the Front Flip, and crashed the guys Back and Head right into the concrete (KO!), then I did the backwards Headbutt. The 6 others were so stunned by My Taekwondoness, that in one bound, I was free to use My highly trained economically efficient walking method down the street.
See? It really works.


Tez, You have officially made This Thread awesome :bangahead:
More ideas people!


----------



## Steve (Jul 25, 2012)

Getting out of an RNC is easy.  All you have to do is spend a lot of time being put IN an RNC by people who are better at it than you.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 25, 2012)

Steve said:


> Getting out of an RNC is easy.  All you have to do is spend a lot of time being put IN an RNC by people who are better at it than you.



And no bites, or foot stomps involved.


----------



## Instructor (Jul 25, 2012)

I've had to tap out of the RNC myself.  The guy yanked my head back and slid his arm under my chin so fast I had no choice.  It was getting dark, very dark.  If I can tuck my chin and keep the air and blood flowing long enough I try to get a hold of a finger and start prying them loose with their own fingers.

But yeah....seconds if that.

Had one big guy apply the RNC and was able to pick me up off my feet with my head....I don't remember much after that.


----------



## Never_A_Reflection (Jul 25, 2012)

I've never taken a BJJ class in my life, but the rear naked choke exists in judo (_hadaka-jime_) which is where I learned it, and since then I have applied it many times and had it applied to me many times.  There are obviously people on this board who have applied it and had it applied to them thousands of times more than I, but even with my limited experience I'm confident I could put someone to sleep with it, stomping and biting allowed.  I've never let myself pass out from a choke, but I've gotten pretty darn close and it does not take very long when the choke is properly applied--things start to go dark pretty quick.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 25, 2012)

Then you wake up thinking, "That was a wierd dream.."


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 26, 2012)

K-man said:


> Alex, I'm sorry but I have to agree with all the others. Your knowledge of chokes is so far out of wack that I would venture to say you have never had a proper choke applied to you or by you. I was recently demonstrating a bunkai technique on a colleague when he unexpectedly slumped to the floor. I reckon the choke was applied for less than 5 seconds. In a real situation he would of had no time to break my foot and with my arm UNDER his chin he couldn't open his mouth, let alone practice his vampire skills on my arm. In this instance it was a rear choke and the angle I used meant he couldn't even lift a foot, much less stomp on my foot.
> 
> It brings to mind the old saying ... Jack of all trades and Master of none! :asian:



I find little Alex's claim that he's going to bite into your artery amusing. It's proof positive of a total and complete lack of understanding of human anatomy.
And of course, you can't bite the arm in a properly applied RNC anyway.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 26, 2012)

...not to mention opening your mouth actually makes the rnc easier to sink in further if you in the proper position.  If not, that open mouth can have some very powerful and painful leverage applied to it, even if he is trying to bite you.  For those in Wing chun, think about what would happen if you brought your arms lap sau position then reinforcing it by grasping your elbows.  Bad angles and leverage points for the victim.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 26, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Then you wake up thinking, "That was a wierd dream.."



We had a lad on his first fight caught in a RNC, he'd trained for that but as people have said when it's on it's on. He said he woke up in the ring wondering why all these people were in his bedroom.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 26, 2012)

First time I got choked out, I woke up with that naked-in-school-dream feeling.  Everyone was staring at me and I didn't know why


----------



## rickster (Jul 26, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> First time I got choked out, I woke up with that naked-in-school-dream feeling.  Everyone was staring at me and I didn't know why



Same here, but I thought I had a body accidental discharge


----------



## Steve (Jul 26, 2012)

I have been put to sleep twice.  Both times, the choke was so tight I was out within at most 2 seconds.  The first was a baseball bat choke applied by a 280 lbs commercial welder.  The second was a bow and arrow choke that I thought I was defending well until I woke up.


----------



## J W (Jul 26, 2012)

To maybe get this thread back on track a little, I'd like to point out something from page 6:



Zenjael said:


> I've just chosen not to constrain myself to one system, in that growth. And because of that you'll find I can box using virtually every (within reason- there are always styles, and techniques which I will be unaware of, and unlearned in) move available to the hands. While the Wing chun Boxer may stick to their center line, I'll shift from the horizontal punches of shotokan, to the straight line, vertical of Wing chun, to open-palm of ba-gua, to the brawling of boxing. I can use overhand, and under, because I've had the teachers who taught me all that diversity, and it was up to me to put it together so it works. And it does.



I think this quote demonstrates a misunderstanding that often makes "Frankensteining" together different arts a bad idea.

 The Wing Chun vertical-fist, centerline punch is built from the ground up. It relies on the correct stance, the correct body mechanics, then correct method of power generation, and an understanding of Wing Chun in order to make it work. Without all of this, it is pretty useless as a "technique". The same is true for a boxer's punch- and the stance, body mechanics, power generation etc are all quite different from Wing Chun. I'm not familiar with Shotokan, but I'll just make an assumption here that what he is referring to is similar to the reverse punch found in many styles, like Tae Kwon Do. This also relies on a different structure than either the Wing Chun or the boxer's punch. (I'll leave the Bagua one alone, I know nothing of that).

Given all this, in order to effectively "shift from the horizontal punches of shotokan, to the straight line, vertical of Wing chun, to open-palm of ba-gua, to the brawling of boxing", one would also have to switch stances, switch to different body mechanics and methods of power generation, and quite often (and quite quickly) have to switch gears (mentally and physically) entirely. 

This would require a pretty deep understanding of all these different systems to make it work. Otherwise, you would end up using the "techniques" of the various punches devoid of the system that gives them their effectiveness.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 26, 2012)

J W said:


> To maybe get this thread back on track a little, I'd like to point out something from page 6:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ayup, that's a point I've been trying to make over and over.  This is what makes something a cobbled-together mess.

If you want to have a punch in your arsenal, then you need to have one way of generating the power for that punch.  Not ten, one each for the ten different systems, each with it's own foundation, that you've dabbled in - er - "studied"

and that one way of generating power should be used in all of your techniques, not just that punch.  That's what it means to have a method that ties it all together, vs. just having a collection of "techniques"


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 26, 2012)

believe it or not, depending on what you are doing and how you are doing it, there are techniques that you are better off NOT having in your arsenal, because how they are done properly conflicts with how you do everything else.


----------



## J W (Jul 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> ayup, that's a point I've been trying to make over and over.  This is what makes something a cobbled-together mess.



Part of why I didn't want to let that quote slip by. Sometimes you gotta say the same thing a dozen different ways to get your point across.



Flying Crane said:


> believe it or not, depending on what you are doing and how you are doing it, there are techniques that you are better off NOT having in your arsenal, because how they are done properly conflicts with how you do everything else.



True. More is not always better.


----------



## SunWuKong (Aug 10, 2012)

The arts are ever evolving. However, as with any evolving entity, it's foundation must be strong; hence, it is not naturally selected against. The problem with a lot of "Frankenstein" martial artists (as you have dubbed it) is that they don't have that foundation. I'm not making accusations or speaking for anyone else but myself, but, if I'm not mistaken, the goal should be in pursuit of mastery (which is never successful) in one's art. This art fits their abilities and is appropriate for them in terms of their nature. The artist should be trying to excell in their own natural capacities. The adoption of other means is therefore an adaptation. This adaptation does not supercede the art of which one is naturally inclined; rather, it compliments it. 

If one has not aligned himself to his art, he is not aligned to his nature. 

This being said, the "Frankenstein" artist strikes me as the potential student trying to elect the art that he will pursue; ultimately never finding it. 

Again, this doesn't speak for everyone. Many fighters have made great careers out of "hodge-podge" fighting principles. I think this style of learning lacks a certain discipline and studiousness that turns the potential P.H.D. pupil into the college drop-out. 

Matt SWK


----------



## WingChunIan (Aug 12, 2012)

J W said:


> My main point being that MMA isn't some hodge-podge grab bag of techniques from any and every martial art, but rather the discipline of training in two or more different arts and knowing when to use which.


But MMA isn't a style and anyone who claims to train MMA is fooling themselves. What they train is a bit of MT and a bit of boxing and a bit of BJJ and a bit of wrestling etc etc dependent upon the background of the coaches in the club. Training for the sport of MMA is good old fashioned cross training and the best exponents train with dedicated expert coaches in each field not some self proclaimed GM of the style of MMA. Even when top fighters retire and open schools they invariably bring in style experts to assist. Obviously there are exceptions and some have released DVD's etc of their fighting system but most people who know their stuff can see through the marketing blurb. The choice of whether to cross train or not has been discussed many times before and the argument boils down to personal choice (jack of all trades or master of one) but creating a system is something different altogether. Most created systems are borne from bits of this and bits of that, and the important point is bits not total systems. People often cite JKD as a great example of a created system but actually JKD was borne from a principle that BL took on board from his wing chun seniors. As a principle JKD is great but everyone seems to forget that BL never learnt the whole WC system, who's to say that the bits he couldn't or chose not too incorporate wouldn't have been hugely beneficial to some of his students. I'm not knocking JKD just using it as an example because it is one of the better put together eclectic systems.


----------



## J W (Aug 12, 2012)

We agree there, Ian, that's the point I trying to make. MMA fighters are training multiple distinct arts and using the one they need when they need it, instead of training in a single hybrid style. 

There is no style called "MMA", but sometimes you'd never know it the way some schools advertise these days.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 12, 2012)

J W said:


> We agree there, Ian, that's the point I trying to make. MMA fighters are training multiple distinct arts and using the one they need when they need it, instead of training in a single hybrid style.
> 
> There is no style called "MMA", but sometimes you'd never know it the way some schools advertise these days.


Thats because calling it MMA encapsulates it. It tells You Youll learn Striking, Grappling, Defense, Offense, Strength, Speed, so on and so forth, and may have opportunities for Competition.
Its like a blanket term.


----------



## rickster (Aug 13, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Thats because calling it MMA encapsulates it. It tells You Youll learn Striking, Grappling, Defense, Offense, Strength, Speed, so on and so forth, and may have opportunities for Competition.
> Its like a blanket term.



And if you have the right training, it is a warm blanket


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 13, 2012)

rickster said:


> And if you have the right training, it is a warm blanket


Yep.


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 14, 2012)

> And if you have the right training, it is a warm blanket


  But if you've got the wrong training, it can be a wet blanket!


----------



## Drag'n (Aug 14, 2012)

WingChunIan said:


> But MMA isn't a style and anyone who claims to train MMA is fooling themselves. What they train is a bit of MT and a bit of boxing and a bit of BJJ and a bit of wrestling etc etc dependent upon the background of the coaches in the club. Training for the sport of MMA is good old fashioned cross training and the best exponents train with dedicated expert coaches in each field not some self proclaimed GM of the style of MMA.



What you say does apply to some mma practitioners, but not all.

I train in KUDO. A hybrid style which started in 1981 as a blend of Kyokushin and judo with face punches allowed.
It expanded from there incorporating the most effective techniques and principles from a variety of styles such as BJJ, Muay Thai, sambo, wrestling etc, becoming a form of mma.

The rules vary a bit from typical mma. We wear a gi and head gear but no gloves. No G&P to the head. Ground fighting limited to 30 secs.

Wearing a gi makes the use of judo throws very practical. We use Judo principles and some throws. However, much of judo is designed to work in the absence of strikes. When you throw knees elbows punches kicks and headbutts into the mix, many judo applications are just dangerous to try and very difficult to pull off. Its a whole different animal!

So while the techs may come from judo, the way we blend and apply them to work in cohesion with strikes and other grappling methods leads to the development of something new. An art which seams different ranges and principles together into one comprehensive style, original and different, yet not necessarily containing much that is new. 

This same philosophy is applied to all the arts contained in the system.

While we do indeed sometimes practice certain styles separately,( some times this is necessary to truly understand and improve in certain techniques particular to that style) the focus is always on bringing it all together as one art rather than separate arts.

I think this also applies to mma grappling. When you add strikes to BJJ or wrestling, there is a lot which  becomes impractical. 

MMA striking is also different to pure Muay Thai or boxing. The danger of take downs forces you to use very different strategies foot work distance etc.

MMA is still very young. In the future you probably will see more teachers of MMA grappling/striking as opposed to separate  coaches for each discipline.

Many arts were developed within limited frameworks as to what they focused on. Mainly striking /mainly grappling etc. Sometimes due to competition rules.Sometimes just due to the preferences or limited exposure on the part of the founders/followers. Becoming a "master" of one style can just mean you are very good within the boundaries of your limited framework but find yourself in big trouble when taken out of your comfort zone.


----------



## WingChunIan (Aug 14, 2012)

Drag'n said:


> What you say does apply to some mma practitioners, but not all.
> 
> I train in KUDO. A hybrid style which started in 1981 as a blend of Kyokushin and judo with face punches allowed.
> It expanded from there incorporating the most effective techniques and principles from a variety of styles such as BJJ, Muay Thai, sambo, wrestling etc, becoming a form of mma.


The most effective techniques according to who? based upon what criteria? Was it influenced by the original thinker's build, their experience, their attempts to use certain techniques in certain circumstances, their own deficiencies?
For example when I'm training Wing Chun with someone of a different build if certain techniques work for me but not them and others for them but not me are they all deficient techniques or is it that there is a difference in our individual ability and the specific environment? If during a fight / pressure testing I attempt to respond in a certain way and it goes horribly wrong does that mean that the response is flawed or that I chose the wrong response, or even chose the right response but hadn't trained hard enough or been taught well enough to make it work.
In my experience (and it is only a personal view and not meant to insult anyone) development of many eclectic systems stems from lack of ability of the practitioner to put their art into practise under the circumstances presented. The practitioner then assigns fault to the system and seeks to fill a percieved gap by incorporating something else. Of course there is also trend following, when pressure point fighting was fashionable it suddenly appeared on an awful lot of syllabuses (should that be syllabi?), likewise escrima, and BJJ and so will the next fashion.


----------



## rickster (Aug 14, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> But if you've got the wrong training, it can be a wet blanket!



How cn MMA be a wet blanket?

If you have the wrong training, then you do not have enough blanket


----------



## Drag'n (Aug 15, 2012)

WingChunIan said:


> > The most effective techniques according to who? based upon what criteria? Was it influenced by the original thinker's build, their experience, their attempts to use certain techniques in certain circumstances, their own deficiencies?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just see it as a natural process of evolution which has always been happening in the arts and will continue in the future.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 16, 2012)

As I read this thread I kind of got lost on what a martial art Frankenstien is and what would be considered a natural progression or evolution of a martial art system.

If combining any art(s) together creating something new or different constitute a "Frankenstien" than from my experience it isn't bad all of the time, in fact some of our TMA would be called a Frankenstien using that criteria and I believe that does a disservice to the art.  Take Wa Do where it is a combination of Shotokan Karate and Jujitsu, is this bad?  Or Hapkido which is a blending of TKD with aikido/jujitsu (or whatever grappling art it was), Shotokan is a combination of different methods of Okinawan karate (taken from different instructors and different regions).  TKD is a combination of Shotokan influenced karate and the kicking techniques of a Korean folk game.

GM Remy Presas brought together different methods of the FMA and blended them together to become Modern Arnis, Gruo Inosanto blended several styles of FMA into his method of Kali, Doce Pares was a system created by I believe 12 masters who blended together what FMAs they knew between them and created their own system.  Cacoy Canete created Eskrido by combining Doce Pares escrima with Aikido, Judo, and Jujitsu along with influences of other Japanese martial arts.

Kajukenpo was developed by three masters of three different systems who fused them together.  Krav Maga would be considered a Frankenstien as would any of the combative programs used by the military.

If these are Frankenstiens then I don't understand the hate and discontent.


----------



## dancingalone (Aug 16, 2012)

The Boar Man said:


> Or Hapkido which is a blending of TKD with aikido/jujitsu (or whatever grappling art it was),



I know this wasn't the main idea of your post, but I wanted to point out that many hapkido practitioners would dispute this.  It's said that GM Ji developed many of the kicks found in hapkido himself, possibly sourcing some of them from older Korean sources.

That said, there's no doubt there are many martial artists that study both TKD and hapkido and inevitably some degree of blending occurs that way.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 16, 2012)

Thanks for the correction, I meant no disrespect to any hapkido practitioners out there.


----------



## J W (Aug 16, 2012)

The Boar Man said:


> As I read this thread I kind of got lost on what a martial art Frankenstien is and what would be considered a natural progression or evolution of a martial art system.
> 
> If combining any art(s) together creating something new or different constitute a "Frankenstien" than from my experience it isn't bad all of the time, in fact some of our TMA would be called a Frankenstien using that criteria and I believe that does a disservice to the art.  Take Wa Do where it is a combination of Shotokan Karate and Jujitsu, is this bad?  Or Hapkido which is a blending of TKD with aikido/jujitsu (or whatever grappling art it was), Shotokan is a combination of different methods of Okinawan karate (taken from different instructors and different regions).  TKD is a combination of Shotokan influenced karate and the kicking techniques of a Korean folk game.
> 
> ...



There was a distinction made by several folks in this thread between hybrid arts that are well thought out and well put together (like pretty much all the ones that you mentioned), and "Frankensteins" which are made up of random and often incompatible techniques. I don't think anyone here has any animosity toward cohesively constructed systems; it's the grab-bag mash-ups that earn our ire.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 16, 2012)

J W said:


> There was a distinction made by several folks in this thread between hybrid arts that are well thought out and well put together (like pretty much all the ones that you mentioned), and "Frankensteins" which are made up of random and often incompatible techniques. I don't think anyone here has any animosity toward cohesively constructed systems; it's the grab-bag mash-ups that earn our ire.



JW

I understand your point and yet I disagree with you.  What we think are "well thought out and well put together" are viewed several years or generations after they were created.  What we see now maybe is not exactly what was created back then, we see what is closer to the finished product, not the trail and error in the creation of the system.  Take Bruce Lee's system, it went through several changes as it was being created, you have the Seattle JKD, the China Town JKD, the LA JKD (I speaking to the general areas he was teaching over several years as his system was created).

If we saw an art in it's creation as a blending of two systems it could (probably would) be viewed as a "grab-bag mash-ups".  Take Judo I'm sure the Jujitsu masters of the day viewed it as something that earned their ire, or Shotokan masters/practitioners and the attitudes towards the Wa Do stylists when it was created.  Just because we don't like it or understand it doesn't mean it doesn't have value.  Because we might not understand it now doesn't mean in the future it won't be worked out.

Why should we get upset over anything.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 16, 2012)

MJS said:


> I cross train.  I enjoy it, I think its very beneficial.  I've taught some Arnis material in a Kenpo class.  Those things, in and of themselves, are perfectly fine to do.   What I don't do:  When I teach something that isn't Kenpo, in a Kenpo class, I make sure that everyone understands that what I'm showing is not Kenpo.  I like to give credit where its due.  *Why should I lead someone to believe that the club disarm I did is Kenpo, when its really Arnis?  *



MJS

If I remember right you have studied or do study Modern Arnis.  Remy's phrase "The art within your art" I believe speaks to the statement I bolded here.

Are you saying that the club disarm you showed (just using your example) is only found in MA and not in Kenpo?  For instance my understanding of a principle or a technique might have come from MA but that doesn't mean the same motion, principle, concept couldn't be found in my TKD basics as well.  For instance a scoop block (inside towards the outside block) for a TKD basic block I teach the lead hand coming underneath across the belly while the returning hand chambers on top.  (Think  about a sparing stance with the rear hand up to guard the head and the front hand guarding the front side and lower body.)  Ok so the upper hand grabs the stick hand when it is inverted while the bottom hand pushes against the stick towards the side as the top hand pulls across your body.  You have a back hand disarm.  Now TKD doesn't teach that as a disarm (that I have ever seen) however the movements and the path the arms travel are the same (very close).  Who is to say it's not TKD?

Now don't get me wrong I would not lead everyone to believe that TKD is the end all art, the greatest thing since sliced bread, and Gen Choi even thought so deep as to have this disarm and they have hidden it in their forms for all of these years because it was to dangerous to show people.  However I would tell them that the value of cross training is that it helps unlock your mind to see things differently, and there is a universality of movements so a movement we call a block could be a disarm, an attack etc. etc. and this came to me through my study of Modern Arnis and it can be of value in my TKD training as well.

I use to do the same thing, worry about giving credit where credit is do, this is this art, this is that art.  I got that really from Guro Inosanto (and I mean no disrespect here).  Now when working with my students on weapons defense in my TKD class it is block like this, hit them, hit them again, knee them, take them down, stomp on them, and run awaaaaay.  I don't care what art they do.  Just do it.


----------



## J W (Aug 17, 2012)

The Boar Man said:


> JW
> 
> I understand your point and yet I disagree with you.  What we think are "well thought out and well put together" are viewed several years or generations after they were created.  What we see now maybe is not exactly what was created back then, we see what is closer to the finished product, not the trail and error in the creation of the system.  Take Bruce Lee's system, it went through several changes as it was being created, you have the Seattle JKD, the China Town JKD, the LA JKD (I speaking to the general areas he was teaching over several years as his system was created).
> 
> ...



I agree that new martial arts don't just spring forth fully developed. They must go through periods of development where several changes are made. 

However, I think there is a distinction between what works and what doesn't. Something like JKD started with core concepts, and everything was built on top of it. What worked with those concepts was kept and refined; what didn't was discarded. Ultimately, a viable system was formed.

When I say "grab-bag mash-up", I'm speaking of those collections of bits and pieces that don't really fit well together, yet are compiled into a new "art" anyway. A style that doesn't have a solid base. Without a solid base, everything resting on top will be unstable. So I don't think the arts that you cited could ever have fit that definition, even in their infancy. Sure, there were most likely those who didn't like Judo or whatever when it first developed, but there are still people who don't like Judo even though it is now a fully established martial art. Every art has its critics, now matter how young or old. 

A martial art that consists of influences from several older martial arts is fine, I have no problem with that. But it's a different story when someone studies a little of this, a little of that, some of this for good measure, never really understanding any of it and then decides hey, I'm going to create my own martial art! I'll just stir all the bits I know together and viola!


----------



## pgsmith (Aug 17, 2012)

> A martial art that consists of influences from several older martial arts is fine, I have no problem with that. But it's a different story when someone studies a little of this, a little of that, some of this for good measure, never really understanding any of it and then decides hey, I'm going to create my own martial art! I'll just stir all the bits I know together and viola!


  While I happen to agree with you completely on this, I'll recount what an old Japanese instructor told me years ago when I asked what he thought about all of the self-proclaimed "masters" and "grandmasters" and "sokes" that were around today. He said he just ignored them because they were not his problem, they were his great-grandchildren's problem. If any of these schools were still around when his great-grandchildren were ready to start serious martial arts training, then it would be up to them to decide if they are worth training in or not.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 17, 2012)

J W said:


> I agree that new martial arts don't just spring forth fully developed. They must go through periods of development where several changes are made.
> 
> However, I think there is a distinction between what works and what doesn't. Something like JKD started with core concepts, and everything was built on top of it. What worked with those concepts was kept and refined; what didn't was discarded. Ultimately, a viable system was formed.
> 
> ...



JW

I understand what you are saying here and I agree with you, I too don't like the systems that are put together by someone who studies a little bit of this and a little bit of that.  I even at one time studied under an instructor who did exactly that, he combined jujitsu, with Goju and Balintawak (maybe Wing Chun).  Once I realized that he didn't have it all worked out I quit.  For years it left a bad taste in my mouth etc. etc.  I had planned on making that experience my contribution to the thread so to speak.  However as I read this thread along with the martial arts evolution/revolution thread I had to take a step back and reexamine things.

It appeared, although some made distinctions like you said, that some posters were really touting the TMAs and sometimes trashing the newer arts where people have brought together elements of different martial arts and formed a system.  When in reality people combining systems and teachings is exactly how the TMAs were created and how other MAs are created today.  It's just that we see the end product (or mature product) of the TMAs, and the new creations in their development stage today.   We tend to think that the masters of old were much better martial artists, much better teachers, etc. etc. when really they were ordinary people like all of us here on MT.  I believe that they most likely practiced much more than us, they probably studied their art deeper however I believe that we as martial artists today are better educated, have more access to martial knowledge, we know more about the body, nutrition etc. etc. The people today whom we see practicing the martial arts steadily for 40-50 years probably are better martial artisits than their instructors.  We just see their art and their instructors through watching them, never questioning is this exactly how they were taught or have they too modified something.

Someone today who creates a self defense art probably doesn't care about all of the intricacies of how the Wing Chun Chain punch works, he might just like the straight blast right up the middle so he uses it.  Likewise he might not care if this is a judo throw or a jujitsu throw or an arm break, does it work.  Who cares if this foot trap comes from this art or that just do it.   Over time as the art gells into a system you might care how this works or that what is the most effective way to do this, but at the beginning of the formulation of it.  I doubt it.  I don't believe the masters of old who created their systems really cared either.


----------

