# Creating New Martial Arts



## Xinglu (Aug 30, 2009)

This thread really got me thinking a lot about new styles or incarnations of Kenpo or any MA for that matter.  From the responses on there it seems a polarizing issue (and those fascinate me) and I would like to explore it a little more in depth.

So I pose the following question: What makes a person, in your eyes, qualified to create a new style of Kenpo or a new MA?  For example (but not limited too) is it their ability to fight that proves it?  The quality of students they produce?  The depth of knowledge in the arts blended?  A combination? If a combination of things, what are they and why?


----------



## Milt G. (Aug 30, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> This thread really got me thinking a lot about new styles or incarnations of Kenpo or any MA for that matter. From the responses on there it seems a polarizing issue (and those fascinate me) and I would like to explore it a little more in depth.
> 
> So I pose the following question: What makes a person, in your eyes, qualified to create a new style of Kenpo or a new MA? For example (but not limited too) is it their ability to fight that proves it? The quality of students they produce? The depth of knowledge in the arts blended? A combination? If a combination of things, what are they and why?


 
Hello,
Good topic...  I think a large combination of things.  Using Kenpo as an example...  More then I can organize in one response.  Perhaps the reason I have not developed my own Kenpo system? 

Number one, should be to have mastered another "recognized" form of Kenpo.  I know that the term "mastered" means many things, to many people.  What I mean, personally, is to have studied, in depth, at least one system for approx. 30 years.  And hold valid "masters" level ranking.

Number two, should be the ability to recognize strengths and weaknesses in movement and motion and be able to logically "solve" the weaknesses and catagorize the strengths into a cohesive and organized curriculum.  Of course, weaknesses are in the eye of the beholder.  Which leads to problem number one. 

Number three, should be the ability to teach and "pass the system" along in a way beneficial to the students the curriculum and your "theories".  The ability to pass on information to others effectively is probably one of the most important factors to consider.  I know some great martial artists that are lousy teachers, and some not so technically skilled martial artists who can teach well.  This, too, is usually a matter of opinion, as well.  In teaching, you either have the skill, or you do not.  While you can learn methods of teaching, being a teacher is something that gets naturally "hard wired" into you over time.  You have to be able to inspire others effectively.  This is only my opinion, of course.

Number four, is will anyone recognize the art you have created?  There is a much better chance if you do not elevate yourself to 10th Dan on the date of your arts conception...  

How is that for a start?

Thank you,
Milt G.


----------



## Zoran (Aug 30, 2009)

I have no problem with people creating their own system of kenpo. Time will tell if they are successful, as well as the end product _(which are the students of the system)_.

I do expect a certain amount of experience and knowledge before one tries. Something along the lines of a 5th black+ and about 25+ years of experience.


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 31, 2009)

Milt, thank you, but something you said has got me thinking and I have a follow up question.



Milt G. said:


> Number one, should be to have mastered another "recognized" form of Kenpo .  I know that the term "mastered" means many things, to many people.  What I mean, personally, is to have studied, in depth, at least one system for approx. 30 years.  And hold valid "masters" level ranking.



What about Parker who certainly did not have 30 years in one system when he created his new kenpo.

What about Chow?  He did not have 30 years in kenpo-jujitsu before creating his own methodology and teaching it in 1944. Heck, he was only 30 at the time!

Morihei Ueshiba the founder of Akido had split 29 years of training between Tenjin Shin'y&#333;-ry&#363; Jujutsu, Dait&#333;-ry&#363; Aiki-j&#363;jutsu, Got&#333;-ha Yagy&#363; Shingan-ry&#363;, Got&#333;-ha Yagy&#363; Shingan-ry&#363;, Judo, and various other arts.  And it was Aiki-j&#363;jutsu that he used as his base and transformed and he started training that in 1912, that means he only had 15 years in the art before he transformed it into Aikido.

Chan Heung was only 30 when he created Choy Li Fut....


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 31, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> Milt, thank you, but something you said has got me thinking and I have a follow up question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First...  There are, in any endeavor, natural talents who can or will make a leap and do something new and different.  These people are rare... but they do exist.  (And most of them will say that they stand on the shoulders of giants...)

Second...  I'm not certain that anyone you named set out to create their own art -- at least initially.  Instead, they set out to teach what they'd learned as they practiced it, using both what they had been taught and what they had discovered on their own.  (If I recall correctly, from some of Doc's posts, Ed Parker only created a "new" art when he developed a model to commercialize his teaching and practice.)  It was only as their students sought to pass on what they'd learned that it became a "new art."  That it's stood the test of time suggests validity.

If you want to create a new art... or a new version of an old one...  what I'd suggest is to simply concentrate on your own training and then teach what you know.  If it's a valid discovery, it'll be continued.  Otherwise...  it'll take care of itself.


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 31, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> First...  There are, in any endeavor, natural talents who can or will make a leap and do something new and different.  These people are rare... but they do exist.  (And most of them will say that they stand on the shoulders of giants...)



True, but Kenpo in particular seems to change radically with each generation... and with new Kenpo methodologies popping up left and right, I figured it was a fair question.



jks9199 said:


> Second...  I'm not certain that anyone you named set out to create their own art -- at least initially.  Instead, they set out to teach what they'd learned as they practiced it, using both what they had been taught and what they had discovered on their own.  (If I recall correctly, from some of Doc's posts, Ed Parker only created a "new" art when he developed a model to commercialize his teaching and practice.)  It was only as their students sought to pass on what they'd learned that it became a "new art."  That it's stood the test of time suggests validity.


I'd love to hear from Doc on that actually   He was right there as it was happening, so I value any input he has on it.  It is my understanding that Parker started changing things once he moved out to Southern California and was exposed to a lot of other martial arts.  He saw the value in them and began critically looking at them.  Saying he only made changes to commercialize his art, IMHO, seems to sell the whole thing short.  I could be misunderstanding your meaning though.



jks9199 said:


> If you want to create a new art... or a new version of an old one...  what I'd suggest is to simply concentrate on your own training and then teach what you know.  If it's a valid discovery, it'll be continued.  Otherwise...  it'll take care of itself.


I certainly don't, and please, I kindly ask that you don't suppose more than what was asked.  I'm only interested in opinions for the sake of exploring this topic, it was interesting to me and really got me thinking about the formation of Kenpo as we know it and how fast "new styles" of Kenpo popped up and continue to do so.  So let's not make me out to have any hidden agenda.

While _my_ Kenpo is unique to _me_ because of the influences from the neijia arts I train in, I have no interest in become a Sijo of any art.  If I ever find myself in such a position, I shall promptly stop teaching.  I personally don't feel I have much to "tea" to offer the art of Kenpo. Perhaps I'm selling myself short, but in truth - I aspire to be nothing more than a simple Sifu who enjoys training and exploring the arts.  Who knows, maybe if I train hard enough I will become a "master" in the next life  So until then - let me be perfectly clear that I am not asking for any other reason than to hear opinions and explore those opinions further.  Pure academia.


----------



## mwd0818 (Aug 31, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> ....I have no interest in become a Sijo of any art....  I aspire to be nothing more than a simple Sifu who enjoys training and exploring the arts.  Who knows, maybe if I train hard enough I will become a "master" in the next life ....



Interestingly enough, it is usually the people who don't seek the titles that are often most deserving of the recognition.  The real mark is when other's start calling you by terms that you never suggested.  Teach your art, share it, and really - if enough people grasp it and value it, THEN you've created something that is worth naming and separating from the past.


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> This thread really got me thinking a lot about new styles or incarnations of Kenpo or any MA for that matter. From the responses on there it seems a polarizing issue (and those fascinate me) and I would like to explore it a little more in depth.
> 
> So I pose the following question: What makes a person, in your eyes, qualified to create a new style of Kenpo or a new MA? For example (but not limited too) is it their ability to fight that proves it? The quality of students they produce? The depth of knowledge in the arts blended? A combination? If a combination of things, what are they and why?


 
On the surface, I suppose it could be said that we all have our own 'brand' of Kenpo.  I mean, I don't teach the exact same way that my inst. teaches.  Why?  Because we are different in height, weight, what he may like, I may dislike, etc.  We add our own 'flavor' to what we teach, to make the art ours, but digging deeper, we're not creating something new.  We're still teaching Kenpo as taught by the Tracys and Parker.  

I look at it like this....if someone wants to create their own thing, thats fine.  They're the ones that're going to have to answer the questions, not me.  Are they really doing anything new though?  I mean, I could take the arts that I do...Kenpo, Arnis and BJJ, blend them all together, and slap 10 stripes on my belt and claim that I'm doing something new, but I'm really not.  Its nothing new, its no different than what we already see alot of....the same thing, just repackaged, and billed as something new.  

There is so much out there already to learn, me personally, I'd have no desire to attempt to create something 'new'.  Why do people do it?  Because they want attention?  Because they want to feel big and important?  Because they 'think' they are doing something new?  Frankly, I dont know, and don't care either.  I'm happy doing then Kenpo that I do, I have alot more to learn and my goals are to just keep getting better.  I'm interested in learning and bettering myself, not getting a patent on some new flavor of the month.

Mike


----------



## Carol (Aug 31, 2009)

If "Senior A" and "Senior B" haven't been seeing eye-to-eye, I don't think it surprises anyone if they part ways.  Perhaps not everyone will like it, but I think this is more understandable than not.

Or if "Grandmaster X" has fallen critically ill and states his soke-dai will be his 11 year old grandson, I think it seems logical that some students may fall away from the fold.

Where I think folks are more suspicious is if someone says they are going their own way for "creative reasons" - yet the first thing they do is crown themselves a 10th degree grandmaster because they have their own system.

Or, if someone seperates away from a legacy system, but instead of trying to create their own image, they rely heavily on the reputation of the old system...sometimes even using the same name.

Many MAists have pretty good BS detectors.  The less they go off, the less chance of polarization


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 31, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> T
> I'd love to hear from Doc on that actually   He was right there as it was happening, so I value any input he has on it.  It is my understanding that Parker started changing things once he moved out to Southern California and was exposed to a lot of other martial arts.  He saw the value in them and began critically looking at them.  Saying he only made changes to commercialize his art, IMHO, seems to sell the whole thing short.  I could be misunderstanding your meaning though.



Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I didn't mean to say that Ed Parker didn't change anything or alter what he was taught or how he in turn taught -- but that he didn't do so with the intent of creating something new.  He simply taught what he practiced and learned.  According to Doc (as I recall), Parker didn't try to do something "new" deliberately until he developed what Doc calls the Motion Kempo or commercial kempo model.

Nor was I attempting to suggest or imply that you in particular wanted to create a new art.  That was a generic you...


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 31, 2009)

Thank you for clarifying, I am weary of "generalities" laced with the term "you," because all to often I have seen them laced with implications   Like I said I might have been misunderstanding you and I was.  Thank you again for taking the time to clear that up.

As far as Motion Kenpo or Commercial Kenpo (for what ever reason I'm hanging up on the word commercial, it just feels like it implies a watered down version to make money or at the very least packaged to widely appeal to make money.  LOL I think, I understand what is being said here, but I'm getting hung up on words.  Bad me!) it seems clear that he was no longer teaching his interpretation of what Chow taught when Secrets of Chinese Karate came out.  Granted I'm sure that happened before the book released, and this is why I'd love to hear from Doc.  When did Parker actually start creating new material and introducing it as curriculum (because that would be around the time I'd say he had decided to create something new)? Also, when he no longer taught it under the name Chow did, that is a clear break saying what I teach is different.  At least to me it is.


----------



## mwd0818 (Aug 31, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Nor was I attempting to suggest or imply that _*you*_ in particular wanted to create a new art.  That was a generic _*you*_...





Xinglu said:


> Thank _*you*_ for clarifying, I am weary of "generalities" laced with the term "*you*," because all to often I have seen them laced with implications   Like I said I might have been misunderstanding _*you*_ and I was.  Thank _*you*_ again for taking the time to clear that up.



Were those generic _*you*_s or specific _*you*_s?  

I think I'm going to forget Kenpo and create a new language.  One with generic _*I*_s and specific _*you*_s, and completely redesign the structure and syntax of the language with little regard to how it's been done in the past.

Maybe I'll refer to myself in the third person too.  He likes when that is done to I.


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 31, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> If "Senior A" and "Senior B" haven't been seeing eye-to-eye, I don't think it surprises anyone if they part ways.  Perhaps not everyone will like it, but I think this is more understandable than not.



This I get, but they are seniors with over 30 years experience.  I'd say in more cases then not, they don't create something completely new, just interpret the same material differently.  That is not really what I meant by creating something new.  Although there is always the exception to this 



Carol Kaur said:


> Or if "Grandmaster X" has fallen critically ill and states his soke-dai will be his 11 year old grandson, I think it seems logical that some students may fall away from the fold.


 I can see this too, however won't most who fall away teach as they were taught and not make it blended with something else that makes it something completely different?



Carol Kaur said:


> Where I think folks are more suspicious is if someone says they are going their own way for "creative reasons" - yet the first thing they do is crown themselves a 10th degree grandmaster because they have their own system.


 Agreed, this is were I get suspicious too!  PErhaps I have spent to much tim in the CMAs but I have grown to seriously dislike the dan system.  I respect that it is a clear way to distinguish rank, and in large organizations that can be necessary.  But it also implies a topping out point. I've known a few 10th dan holders in my life.  Only one was legit (IMHO). I don't like the "infallibility" tied to such a ranking system.  The one legit 10th I personally know never really saw himself as toped out.  He was always learning and exploring... I appreciate this, and perhaps more legit 10th dan holder will have this perspective, unfortunately my experience is with far more prideful people.



Carol Kaur said:


> Or, if someone seperates away from a legacy system, but instead of trying to create their own image, they rely heavily on the reputation of the old system...sometimes even using the same name.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this - can you give an example or clarify for me?



Carol Kaur said:


> Many MAists have pretty good BS detectors.  The less they go off, the less chance of polarization


 I would say that with all the McDojos around and how much money they are making, that MOST MAists don't have a good BS detector.  I would say that those who have been around for a while have better ones, and those who have had good training have even better ones.   But yeah I get what you are saying and agree.


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 31, 2009)

mwd0818 said:


> Were those generic _*you*_s or specific _*you*_s?
> 
> I think I'm going to forget Kenpo and create a new language.  One with generic _*I*_s and specific _*you*_s, and completely redesign the structure and syntax of the language with little regard to how it's been done in the past.
> 
> Maybe I'll refer to myself in the third person too.  He likes when that is done to I.


:rofl:


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 31, 2009)

MJS said:


> On the surface, I suppose it could be said that we all have our own 'brand' of Kenpo.  I mean, I don't teach the exact same way that my inst. teaches.  Why?  Because we are different in height, weight, what he may like, I may dislike, etc.  We add our own 'flavor' to what we teach, to make the art ours, but digging deeper, we're not creating something new.  We're still teaching Kenpo as taught by the Tracys and Parker.


I agree whole heartedly.



MJS said:


> I look at it like this....if someone wants to create their own thing, thats fine.  They're the ones that're going to have to answer the questions, not me.  Are they really doing anything new though?  I mean, I could take the arts that I do...Kenpo, Arnis and BJJ, blend them all together, and slap 10 stripes on my belt and claim that I'm doing something new, but I'm really not.  Its nothing new, its no different than what we already see alot of....the same thing, just repackaged, and billed as something new.


  Then what qualifies as something truly new to you?  In your opinion was Chow actually doing something new or Parker?  



MJS said:


> There is so much out there already to learn, me personally, I'd have no desire to attempt to create something 'new'.  Why do people do it?  Because they want attention?  Because they want to feel big and important?  Because they 'think' they are doing something new?  Frankly, I dont know, and don't care either.


Why do you think Chow or Parker did it?



MJS said:


> I'm happy doing then Kenpo that I do, I have alot more to learn and my goals are to just keep getting better.  I'm interested in learning and bettering myself, not getting a patent on some new flavor of the month.


Agreed!


----------



## Carol (Aug 31, 2009)

> This I get, but they are seniors with over 30 years experience. I'd say in more cases then not, they don't create something completely new, just interpret the same material differently. That is not really what I meant by creating something new. Although there is always the exception to this


True enough...I think this touches upon a different system vs. a different art.   Both can be fraught with controversy, especially when high rank is involved. :asian:




Xinglu said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this - can you give an example or clarify for me?



Parker Kenpo, for example. ~154 base techniques, typically taught at 16 or 24 techs per belt.

Here's a good example. Messrs. Chuck Sullivan and Vic LeRoux studied under Mr. Parker, but started their own system with the Karate Connection.  They incorporated the principles in to a more compact, 55 technique system with its own name.

Now, a bad (hypothetical) example.  Lets say I'm a Parker Kenpo teacher and I want to do something similar.  So I break away from my instructor and I form a 60 technique system and call it "Carol's Kenpo".  Only, I find no one is really interested in learning "Carol's Kenpo".  They only want Parker Kenpo.  So, I say my 60 technique system is "Parker Kenpo" because it incorporates the principles of SGM Parker.   Is that really fair to a potential student, or to someone that trains in Parker Kenpo?  

Or, another bad (hypothetical) example.  I take my 60 technique system, add a couple of acrobatic moves, and call it "Parkour Kenpo".  That would probably look dishonest, no?  Even if I tried to say that I was adding parkour to the system, it may look like I am being deceitful.



> I would say that with all the McDojos around and how much money they are making, that MOST MAists don't have a good BS detector.  I would say that those who have been around for a while have better ones, and those who have had good training have even better ones.   But yeah I get what you are saying and agree.


Excellent point!  Although with the "McDojos" as well, sometimes the person deciding the school isn't the person training (example: mom signing up a child).   Or its an adult that is not a martial artist yet, but an interested prospective student.  Or, it is a student that may be motivated to earn a black belt for showing up, or likes the idea of a work-out-n'-hang-out kind of school.


----------



## Xinglu (Aug 31, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Here's a good example. Messrs. Chuck Sullivan and Vic LeRoux studied under Mr. Parker, but started their own system with the Karate Connection.  They incorporated the principles in to a more compact, 55 technique system with its own name.


Excellent example.  I completely see what you are saying now.   Thank you!


----------



## thecrow (Aug 31, 2009)

i think it is knowledge and understanding, i think to go forward we most go back, and kenpo needs to get back to it's roots, in the roots is a piece missing, a story that has not been told, a question not been asked by the masses, this is the missing peace, and the source of kenpo,

kenpo every where is known for being brutal, very aggressive, this is the root of kenpo. i personally like the name kenpo and want to keep the name and get back to old school, so to speak, the name kenpo is has become mostlt known as an American art, and it is, at the time of kenpo martial arts where secret, and not openly taught, and even more so for the deadly techniques, kenpo taught them openly, this is also the root of kenpo, and why i love it.
but for me, i see the final step is to be called a martial artist,

this is what i was trained for, not sure everyone will understand so i'll go a step further

a martial artist- what is that?= artist- what does an artist do? he/she creates.

i'll make a thread on a martial artist=see thread


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Aug 31, 2009)

For me, creation was an issue of dialing in my focus. I principally teach and practice the Parker system, with some adjunct skill sets focused on along the way (add to the basics" part of the requirements card sections on judo, jujutsu, arnis, and boxing). I didn't do it to become an instant 10th, and still only wear what rank has been granted me by my betters; I did it to have a skill set to train on that would address my needs, and the needs of the people I was working out with. 

I bounced during college, and during my hiatus' from college; some of the guys I bounced with were from kenpo cousin arts. Some were military, working part time on their evenings off. Some were cops; etc. We had guys who were Danzan-Ryu ranking dans, kaju, elua lima, sundry kenpo splinter groups (Sam Pai, TAI), kickboxers, JKD folk, Tang Soo Do, etc. We wanted to tailor our skill sets to focus on quick blasts, followed by take-downs and ending in controls or chokes. We figgered: Kenpo owns the middle distance, but lacked good feet (which the Korean arts had), locks (jujittie, silat), grappling (judo, BJJ and JJJ), or long-range fencing skills (JKD, Muay Thai, kickboxing, Western boxing). JKD and Muay Thai filled the fencing range gap, and the elbows and knees worked nicely at the inner ranges; followed by Judo to put them down, followed more by judo and DZR to end it by putting the bad guy to sleep, or breaking something. So we did some master-mind workouts, picking each others' brains for "best" solutions to the issues we brought to the table. 

The JKD guys tacked some kenpo combinations on the middle distance & improved their transitions to the ground; the HKD, TKD, HRD and TSD guys picked up jujittie and MT; the kenpo guys nabbed the kickboxing and finishes, etc. Someone said, "We should name this". I was working as a manufacturers rep at a Chinese herbal medicine company, and figgered "I'll get the Chinese name for 'Group of folks getting together to practice martial arts.' I couldn't come close to pronouncing it properly, and kinew the rest of the gang wouldn't either, so we went with the Japanese pronunciation and kanji rendition of the characters. "Kem" from "kempo", referring to the empty handed-fist arts; "budo" -- war arts; "kai" -- group or assn. Some buncha guys affiliated and working on empty hand war arts.

Officially, we called it "Kembudo-Kai Kempo-Jujutsu". But for me, it was always just my kenpo, with adjunct skill sets and modified extensions. Instead of the standard kenpo extensions, where you whap the guy 14 more times before covering out, we worked out the formula: 
Base technique + clinch-fighting combination (elbows, knees, head-butts, biting, control manipulation in clinch range, maneuvers in muat thai used to manhandle and steer the bad guy while you work him) + Throws & Take-downs + finishes (blows to the downed bad guy, or a control hold, or a choke).

The basics lists on the requirements cards would include moves that were thematically inserted into each level: If Level I was to emphasize Osoto thows, seoi nage, kesa-gatame and hadaka-jime across multiple contexts, then every blast or technique would end with one of those throws, transitioning to either the kesa or choke. Inserted back into the kenpo requirements, it meant taking Delayed Sword, and putting an Osoto at the end of it, then stomping the guy. Or prefixing a Jab-Cross-Thai Roundhouse combo to Attacking Mace, then following it up with a Hip- or Shoulder-Throw, transitioning to a pin or choke.  

None of it is new; none of it is mind-blowing. What it did for us was to allow us to span the various skills sets in the major ranges in one workout -- each time we drilled a self-defense technique, we drilled blitzes at all the ranges, with all our natural weapons as tools. Boxing & kicking; knees & elbows; kenpo hands and low-line attacks; judo, jujutsu, silat, etc. In every technique.

I lacked imagination in design, so I stole the cover layout for the training journal from Mr. Parkers Big Red. Changed the Logo to ours, and the name of the style to KKKJ. (pooped bricks when he saw it in my bag and questioned me about it, but that turned out to be pretty cool in the end). I have not yet brought someone all the way up in it from White to Black, because I don't push it. Kenpo people I teach are interested in the Kenpo system, not some mil-spec/bouncer/PD amalgamation version of it; the grapplers I wrassle with wanna wrassle, not work Muay Thai clinch-fighting combinations, and so on. I have taught it to some guys who were already BB's in other systems, and they have done a "pick & choose" of what they wanted to add to their own stuff. Which is fine; it was never meant to be taught in a kids class to hundreds of people across the nation at a chain of schools.

I'm still pretty proud of it. It's a good blend, compiled by a buncha guys who arrived at their conclusions by trying their stuff out in real-time conflict. But I'm not trying to make a living off of it, either; I think once money enters the scene, things change. It was a few years where like-minded people shared a goal and a training spirit, plus friendships forged in sweat and blood. Am I the creator of a system? No. I'm just one of a crew of guys who compared notes, structured our favorite moves using formulation patterns, and trained like madmen to be ready for whatever. 

We had college educated system-minded thinkers, battle-seasoned spec ops vets, street-hardened & seasoned mooks from both sides of the law, executive protection professionals, bouncers, etc. It was a good time, with a good group of people. Maybe someday I'll be able to teach the KKKJ to someone else, front to back; I think they'd be a pretty well-rounded bad-a$%. Until that day, I have my stuff to train when I have a like-minded meat-head, or one of the other black belts I've drilled the format with. And that's the accomplishment: The end result of a meeting of the minds.

Odd thing is: It all starts looking alike after awhile. The "new" amalgamation we "created" looked a lot like some things that have already existed. Obviously, looked a lot like Hawaiian arts. Guess there's nothing really new under the sun.

Back to work -- editing deadline looming.

D.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 31, 2009)

Well, English lacks the "you" plural that exists in many other languages.  (Ustedes in Spanish, for example.)


----------



## MarkBarlow (Aug 31, 2009)

Does the founder of a new system have a truly unique approach or perhaps a new and more practical way of teaching an old style?  If not, I think it's often more about ego than innovation.  Sadly, there are fewer and fewer team players out there.


----------



## mwd0818 (Aug 31, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Well, English lacks the "you" plural that exists in many other languages.  (Ustedes in Spanish, for example.)



I think you would know better than that being in Virginia. . . although maybe it is too far from here and things are different.

Kentucky has "Y'all".

*shaking head* Maybe these rednecks do know a thing or two besides how to catch catfish with their bare hands . . .


----------



## Milt G. (Aug 31, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> Milt, thank you, but something you said has got me thinking and I have a follow up question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hello,

I did not count, or consider, the ground floor "developers" of the systems widely popular today when I answered your post.  Everything is much more sophisticated, and scrutinized these days.  Ed Parker's Kenpo could have had 10 techniques and two kata, total, and would still be accepted as a system, IMO.  That would not happen these days, I think.  Everybody knows more about the arts, in general, these days.   

I think Ed Parker, and many of the other ground floor "founders", had the skill, connections AND the ability to be "at the right place, at the right time".  So much of opportunity is based on that, it seems.  The "earth" was much more "martial art" fertile in the 50's and 60's!  

I was referring to new systems of Kenpo developed after the base systems we have now.  The "revisions", if you were.  There are too many systems and styles these days.  It was much easier to develop and "sell" a system when there is little or no competition.

Along with skill, all those you mentioned had the "right product", at the "right time".  These days it is more practical and easier to pick an exsisting "art" and study it, then it is to develop your own.  There is so much to choose from.  I think there is pretty much something for everybody if you are willing to be somewhat flexable, as related to location, and take the time to look around.

I think credability and practicality should be big concerns when one developes their own Kenpo, or other martial art.  I recommend students find an art rather then to "fabricate" one.  So many with only a few months of "this art, and or, that art" are trying to put together their own systems.  The depth should be the key, not the "variety".  Not to mention all of the new 10th Dans...

I know, bla, bla, bla...  

Thanks,
Milt G.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 31, 2009)

mwd0818 said:


> I think you would know better than that being in Virginia. . . although maybe it is too far from here and things are different.
> 
> Kentucky has "Y'all".
> 
> *shaking head* Maybe these rednecks do know a thing or two besides how to catch catfish with their bare hands . . .


While I'm in NORTHERN Virginia, we're still far enough south to use y'all.  Or I could borrow from my kinfolk in Pennsylvania and go with "you'uns".  But neither is common to written English...

But we are diverting from the thread topic... 

I'll rephrase my original point:  If one desires to create one's own new martial art, I would suggest simply developing one's personal style and trying to teach it -- and leaving the "creation" an organic process that will either be passed on or not.


----------



## Xinglu (Sep 1, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Well, English lacks the "you" plural that exists in many other languages.  (Ustedes in Spanish, for example.)



Sure it does!  Just go to Jersey - "yous" is common place in the language


----------



## Carol (Sep 1, 2009)

I really try to avoid "you" in the 2nd person plural.  Instead I might say "tell me what you folks think" or "If you and your team could do xxxx please" 

Usually if someone has to read something "official" from me it is evening or late at night in a statement that contains a lot of technobabble...and the reader may not speak English as their first language.  It can be a little cumbersome, but sometimes the extra clarity can go a long way.


----------



## tuffy (Mar 20, 2010)

Xinglu said:


> I certainly don't, and please, I kindly ask that you don't suppose more than what was asked. I'm only interested in opinions for the sake of exploring this topic, it was interesting to me and really got me thinking about the formation of Kenpo as we know it and how fast "new styles" of Kenpo popped up and continue to do so. So let's not make me out to have any hidden agenda.
> 
> While _my_ Kenpo is unique to _me_ because of the influences from the neijia arts I train in, I have no interest in become a Sijo of any art. If I ever find myself in such a position, I shall promptly stop teaching. I personally don't feel I have much to "tea" to offer the art of Kenpo. Perhaps I'm selling myself short, but in truth - I aspire to be nothing more than a simple Sifu who enjoys training and exploring the arts. Who knows, maybe if I train hard enough I will become a "master" in the next life  So until then - let me be perfectly clear that I am not asking for any other reason than to hear opinions and explore those opinions further. Pure academia.


 
Didn't you already create your own art and go by the title "Sijo"?


----------



## Xinglu (Mar 21, 2010)

tuffy said:


> Didn't you already create your own art and go by the title "Sijo"?



What strange question, you must have dug a while to find this thread as it is over 6 months old now.  I will answer the question, though I suspect you are here to troll, and I have already been clear on this thread that I have no interest in such a thing.

I have neither created any art or do I go by any such title.  I organize a small training group where ideas are exchanged and I go by my name, otherwise I train with my Shifus.

Perhaps in my next life I will have enough knowledge, skill, time, and physical health to create something unique and call it my own.  As for this life, I am content to learn from established systems and established methods.  If I ever do open a commercial school, I will be teaching in my Shirfu's name, not my own.  But such a thing is unlikely.

Peace be with you.


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 21, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Well, English lacks the "you" plural that exists in many other languages. (Ustedes in Spanish, for example.)


 
They use the plural in New Jersey...


----------



## pmosiun1 (Mar 30, 2010)

Xinglu said:


> This thread really got me thinking a lot about new styles or incarnations of Kenpo or any MA for that matter.  From the responses on there it seems a polarizing issue (and those fascinate me) and I would like to explore it a little more in depth.
> 
> So I pose the following question: What makes a person, in your eyes, qualified to create a new style of Kenpo or a new MA?  For example (but not limited too) is it their ability to fight that proves it?  The quality of students they produce?  The depth of knowledge in the arts blended?  A combination? If a combination of things, what are they and why?



You don't need other people's validation. Believe in yourself.


----------



## Danjo (Mar 30, 2010)

Xinglu said:


> So I pose the following question: What makes a person, in your eyes, qualified to create a new style of Kenpo or a new MA?


 
There's an old saying that goes, "The gift is the call". In other words, those that are gifted enough to form their own martial art and perceive the need to do so, will.

I think that the last century was a very fertile time for martial arts creation. There was a new occidental exposure to asian arts and people were like kids in a candy store. A combination of limited exposure to the arts in both variety and depth lead many that were talented enough to create their own art. This was largely done by either blending exisiting arts together (ala Kajukenbo) or else re-imagining/re-tooling an existing one (ala Gracie Jiujitsu).

The lack of variety due to isolation (especially in the pre-internet days), caused those who had trained in something like Karate to add things like grappling etc or boxing to it to round it out. Thus you would have the eclectic blends that have emerged.

The lack of depth (mostly resulting from GIs coming back with only a few months of training in a foreign country to teach what they had learned in the USA) also lead to the need to innovate in order to cover the preceived gaps in the art (as far as they had learned it). In other words, the art may have been complete, but the GI's training wasn't, so he did his best to add to what he knew.

The question now is do we really need new martial arts? I am hard pressed to find gaps in ranges or need that haven't been pretty thoroughly covered by what exists out there now. Just do a Google search and you'll find something to cover your needs. Most "new" systems these days result from eogmaniacs needing to be the boss of their own system and they want to place themselves on the same pedestal as those from the previous century who really did need to innovate and create.


----------



## Xinglu (Mar 30, 2010)

pmosiun1 said:


> You don't need other people's validation. Believe in yourself.


I think you missed the entire point of this thread.  Thanks anyways.


----------



## Xinglu (Mar 30, 2010)

Danjo said:


> There's an old saying that goes, "The gift is the call". In other words, those that are gifted enough to form their own martial art and perceive the need to do so, will.
> 
> I think that the last century was a very fertile time for martial arts creation. There was a new occidental exposure to asian arts and people were like kids in a candy store. A combination of limited exposure to the arts in both variety and depth lead many that were talented enough to create their own art. This was largely done by either blending exisiting arts together (ala Kajukenbo) or else re-imagining/re-tooling an existing one (ala Gracie Jiujitsu).
> 
> ...




Thanks, great thoughts, and thank you for sharing them!  I feel much the same way, with some much offered in my area, I really can't see the *need* for a new art at this time either.  Then again there is a difference between a new art and a new system all together.  Systems split and split some more.  I mean Kenpo is wrought with such examples, however they all still teach kenpo (and not a new MA altogether) granted that keno has evolved or changed a bit but it is still kenpo.  This can be done for many of the same reasons you've stated for the formation of a new art too.

Every-time I look at something like your art it amazes me to see the genius behind such a formation.  I think your right, a calling is a good way to describe it, as it seems like it only happens like that a couple of times in a century.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 31, 2010)

Danjo said:


> There's an old saying that goes, "The gift is the call". In other words, those that are gifted enough to form their own martial art and perceive the need to do so, will.
> 
> I think that the last century was a very fertile time for martial arts creation. There was a new occidental exposure to asian arts and people were like kids in a candy store. A combination of limited exposure to the arts in both variety and depth lead many that were talented enough to create their own art. This was largely done by either blending exisiting arts together (ala Kajukenbo) or else re-imagining/re-tooling an existing one (ala Gracie Jiujitsu).
> 
> ...


 I agreed with you until you reached your last paragraph. A lot, and I do mean a lot of new systems "just happened" over time. A good example is  my wifes uncle (who I've been training under for awhile now) and his instructor Ray Subega (who was certified by both Sam & Mike) who relunctantly named what they created over the roughly 35 +or- years since they left their instructors Sam Brown-Hawaiian Kenpo and Mike Inay-Inayan Eskrima. What "they now have" is related but neither. There are many others who just trained over the years and now have a lot to offer and are in the category of "eye opening."


----------



## Danjo (Mar 31, 2010)

James Kovacich said:


> I agreed with you until you reached your last paragraph. A lot, and I do mean a lot of new systems "just happened" over time. A good example is my wifes uncle (who I've been training under for awhile now) and his instructor Ray Subega (who was certified by both Sam & Mike) who relunctantly named what they created over the roughly 35 +or- years since they left their instructors Sam Brown-Hawaiian Kenpo and Mike Inay-Inayan Eskrima. What "they now have" is related but neither. There are many others who just trained over the years and now have a lot to offer and are in the category of "eye opening."


 
Well there may be exceptions, but you have to admit that most of what pops up as a "new" system or art is just renamed for the sake of the Soke's ego.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 31, 2010)

No doubt, but the truth always prevails and sooner or later someone will experience the new system and see it for what it is, good or bad. It also could be separated between by the terms  "new system" or "new style." I believe that (generally) those that use the terms "new system" or "their own system" are walking a cleaner path on their journey where one is always the eternal student.


----------



## dianhsuhe (Oct 6, 2010)

Daniel-  Are you going to return the book I loaned you?


----------



## Danjo (Oct 6, 2010)

dianhsuhe said:


> Daniel- Are you going to return the book I loaned you?


 
Which Daniel are you talking to?


----------



## dianhsuhe (Oct 6, 2010)

Sorry Dan...LOL

Dan as in Xing Lu has my copy of "Ki In Daily Life" and no matter what I try he won't get it back to me.

Also, this does fit in this category as Xing Lu did found his own Martial Art awhile back Sho-Kai I believe?  So I wanted to know how THAT is going and also intel about my book.

Thanks!


----------

