# John "Blademaster" McCurry



## subgrappler (Jul 8, 2007)

Hello,

Does anyone have information on this background and style.  I believe his art is called Balika Jujitsu or something like that.  Thanks in advance.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 10, 2007)

I don't know of it! Where does he teach?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 11, 2007)

I have heard the name but I am not familiar with what he does.


----------



## subgrappler (Jul 13, 2007)

He's out of Southern California (Long Beach, I think).  All I know is his background is mostly Silat and Hock's CQC stuff.  I do not know anything about his art except its knife based like Sayoc.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 8, 2007)

Well, based on the fact that he seems to have gave himself the title of "blademaster" (is that like the keymaster from Ghost Busters II?) and can be found at this gathering of Sokes I would avoid him like a tax collector. I found his site and from just looking at the pictures of him doing techniques I would not say that he shows a lot of knowledge and skill.


----------



## SKB (Aug 8, 2007)

I found this site;

http://blademasteronline.com/


----------



## Carol (Aug 8, 2007)

Don't know enough about him to say what kind of instructor he is.  While he doesn't mention his lineage, his claims to have trained in some solid knife-fighting arts.

Personally I wouldn't rule him out as an instructor, if that is what you're interested in.  Might be worth paying him a visit to see for yourself.  Pay attention to what your gut tells you, not all weapons instructors are worth training under.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Aug 9, 2007)

I skimmed a book from John McCurry awhile back at Borders and I seem to remember that it was better than average. I certainly wasn't going to pack up the family and move down to Bellflower to train with him, but it wasn't bad at all. 
Here's a blurb from their website



> Balika Jujitsu Phase 1-A & 1-B The Beginning
> Is the Complete Entry Level Introduction to the World of  Advanced Knife Fighting
> 
> Balika Jujitsu was created in 1977 by BladeMaster John McCurry who holds advanced black belt rankings and instructor certifications in various styles of Karate, Gong Fu, Taekwando, Filipino Martial Arts, Indonesian Pentjak Silat, Indian and Pakistani Cobra and Python Silat, As well as having studied a number of little known family based knife fighting systems from around the world. Balika Jujitsu is a modern art of self defense based on the blade integrating techniques from 30 different knife fighting systems from around the world with joint locking, grappling and striking techniques from various styles of Asian Martial Arts.
> ...



I don't know for sure, but I don't get what the "ancient roots of classical jujitsu" have anything to do with FMAs. 
& what the hell are "Indian and Pakistani Cobra and Python Silat"? Does anyone know anything about those styles?


----------



## Carol (Aug 9, 2007)

"Python" Silat is Sumatran.  A lot of the Indonesian styles of Silat are modeled after how certain animals fight, such as Harimau (Tiger).


----------



## Doc_Jude (Aug 9, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> "Python" Silat is Sumatran.  A lot of the Indonesian styles of Silat are modeled after how certain animals fight, such as Harimau (Tiger).



I'm aware of those systems, but by my understanding, some rather dubious Burmese Silat is the furthest West I've ever heard of Silat being, outside of actual transplantation that is, such as Dutch-Indos moving to Europe or the U.S. and the like.

That just sounds sketchy to me.


----------



## rooke (Aug 25, 2009)

I know John.  My answers are my own, and I don't presume to speak for him. I could be wrong. But this is what I think based on my associations with him.

Blademaster is a title like Guro or Guru. Not a superhero name. Its meant to be no more grandiose than sensei...except as an American designation for someone who studied knives. I believe that it may be derived from Hoch's system, and he earned that title there. Not sure about that.

John's Balika Jujitsu and MCBS are his distillations of the many arts he practiced over his many years. Wing Chun, Serak, other silats, multiple Kali's, Kenpo, and a host of other styles including Mexican blade fighting systems, and many others.

He's a good man. He teaches clearly. He has a lot of material.

The FMA/Jujitsu link is simply to designate this:
His assertion (I believe) was that the original jujitsu of Japan and was blade based. Although influenced by the FMA, his jujitsu is also blade based. By jujitsu I mean the normal strikings, takedowns, and locks that he's learned.

I just wanted to clear the air here. He's a good guy who has decades of experience.

Rooke


----------



## lklawson (Aug 26, 2009)

Well, I see this old thread has been resurrected.  Nothing wrong with that.



rooke said:


> I know John.  My answers are my own, and I don't presume to speak for him. I could be wrong. But this is what I think based on my associations with him.


Fair enough.



> Blademaster is a title like Guro or Guru. Not a superhero name. Its meant to be no more grandiose than sensei...except as an American designation for someone who studied knives.


The problem is the title "Blademaster" just doesn't seem to show up anywhere, historically.  It's not "Guru," "Sensei," "Maestro," or "Provost," "Maitre d'Armes," nor even "Professor."  People are kinda of like, "what?  where'd that come from?"  And, like it or not, if there's not some sort of antique lineage associated with it then terms such as "Blademaster" just sound like they've been lifted from D&D, pretentious and "self awarded." Psychologically, most people would prefer something that seems less pretentious while still implying a modern genesis of terms and conveying the desired meaning.  Something like, "Modern Knife Skills - Level 3" or the like.  Further, "Blademaster" just sounds so inclusive of, well, everything with a blade: Master of All Swords, Master of All Knives, Master of All Sharp-Pointy-Poky Weapons.  Add the two effects together and it should be obvious why it puts people off.

As for it being an "American designation," it doesn't come from the Military and doesn't seem to have a history reaching further back than maybe 20 years or so and then only in fictional literature as far as I've ever been able to track down.  So, in the sense that an "American" chose to use it in the (very recent) past, yeah, it's an "American designation."  Other than that, not so much.  Jim Bowie nor Daniel Boone were neither called "Blademaster." 



> I believe that it may be derived from Hoch's system, and he earned that title there. Not sure about that.


I'm fairly certain that Hoch uses the "Level x" paradigm.  I.E. PAC Level 1, Stick 1, Knife 1, etc. 



> John's Balika Jujitsu and MCBS are his distillations of the many arts he practiced over his many years. Wing Chun, Serak, other silats, multiple Kali's, Kenpo, and a host of other styles


To many people, "creating" your own, named, martial art is often a great big *Red Flag*, with a capital "R."  I'm not saying that Mr. Balika isn't genuinely skilled or that making a mish-mash of what you think is important fighting skills and teaching that as a system doesn't make logical sense, however, there's just been *so many* hucksters who've claimed to have done the same thing that it makes people all kinds of nervous.



> including Mexican blade fighting systems, and many others.


I'm genuinely interested in this particular nugget.  I'm a Western Martial Artist (among other things) and have a particular interest in western knife systems.  It has been my personal experience that most western knife systems in the Americas, including, nay, especially Mexico tend to have little information and less verifiability. I am aware of only Gaucho knife work as having any sort of real documentation or verifiable lineage and a few other odd literary and historical references to other, ill defined, systems here and there.  Most seem to be transplants of European systems such as Spanish Navaja and Italian Stiletto.  Everything else seems to be mostly along the lines of "my dad showed me some tricks from when he was a kid" or "this is what the old gang members say to do." If you can provide details or more information about Mr. Balika's Mexican Knife Systems, it would be of great interest to me and several others whom I know.



> The FMA/Jujitsu link is simply to designate this:
> His assertion (I believe) was that the original jujitsu of Japan and was blade based.


This would be one of those contentious statements.  Some Koryu were knife or sword based, some included the knife and/or sword, and others were "segmented" as the unarmed portion of fighting.  A lot of it depends on the lineage and the personal "definition" of the person doing the historical research on Koryu.



> Although influenced by the FMA, his jujitsu is also blade based. By jujitsu I mean the normal strikings, takedowns, and locks that he's learned.
> 
> I just wanted to clear the air here. He's a good guy who has decades of experience.


He may be a very decent guy, feed the poor, house orphans, and adopt puppies.  The thing is, in his internet/marketing presence he's used several Red Flags which, through experience, folks have learned to watch for.  In his place, I would consider some different naming and rank conventions.  Words matter.  I sometimes lament that some words or phrases have unintended connotations but that's just the way it is.  Pointing this out has earned me some unhappiness before.  I recently pointed out that the phrase "Dagger Fencing" used to describe a WMA schools curriculum may have the unintended consequence of putting some people off who would otherwise be interested in learning historic knife systems because the term "Fencing" to most average folks conjures images of "gay white leotards."  Now, the folks I was telling this to came from a Classical Fencing background and they were kinda unhappy about the turn of phrase I used, but that's just the fact.

Anyway, words matter and the title "Blademaster," self-created Ju Jitsu systems, and difficult to verify base sources are all kinda "markers" that say, "be careful." Even if it turns out to be no big deal people still view these with skepticism.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## rooke (Aug 26, 2009)

NOTE: Please note, as I reread the post, some things could be construed as angry responses. They're not. They're just short and concise.

Well, I see this old thread has been resurrected.  Nothing wrong with that.
---
The internet is forever. It would not be kind for me to let alot of people who DON'T know John, speculate negatively. Old or not, the search function will still find it.

The problem is the title "Blademaster" just doesn't seem to show up anywhere, historically. It's not "Guru," "Sensei," "Maestro," or "Provost," "Maitre d'Armes," nor even "Professor." People are kinda of like, "what? where'd that come from?" And, like it or not, if there's not some sort of antique lineage associated with it then terms such as "Blademaster" just sound like they've been lifted from D&D, pretentious and "self awarded."
---
I can see your point. But a title has to start sometime. Again, I'm not familiar with the how/why John chose the title. I suspect it had something to do with Hoch's system, but I don't know. However, he chose the title to indicate a "Masters-at-Arms" sort of title, specifically in regards to his knife studies.

 Psychologically, most people would prefer something that seems less pretentious while still implying a modern genesis of terms and conveying the desired meaning. Something like, "Modern Knife Skills - Level 3" or the like.
---
You can't please all of the people, all of the time. And given that you've not met John, or seen what his skill levels are, you're arguing about his title. Okay. I'm here to say that I know him, and he has studied martial arts for decades. The guy's in his 60's. Not some 25 year old kid. 

 Further, "Blademaster" just sounds so inclusive of, well, everything with a blade: Master of All Swords, Master of All Knives, Master of All Sharp-Pointy-Poky Weapons. Add the two effects together and it should be obvious why it puts people off.
---
Kali (of which he's studied many styles) shows that the weapon is more about angles and tactics. A master of a knife and short-sword, could well apply those principles to staff, longsword, or stick. Either you've not studied Southeast Asian bladed arts, or you're trying to be argumentative. That's fine. If you haven't studied bladed arts, then it might be worthwhile to study some to understand the <pun unintended> point of this.

As for it being an "American designation," it doesn't come from the Military and doesn't seem to have a history reaching further back than maybe 20 years or so and then only in fictional literature as far as I've ever been able to track down.
---
I can't address this point, other than my recollection of John talking about it simply to indicate a person who's worked with the blade. Heck, he's teaching his own system. He can call himself whatever he wants. Granted, people may call him to task on the title of his choosing, but do you visit a teacher over his title, or the skills he provides? 

 So, in the sense that an "American" chose to use it in the (very recent) past, yeah, it's an "American designation." Other than that, not so much. Jim Bowie nor Daniel Boone were neither called "Blademaster." 
---
I don't think I ever said it WASN'T American. 

I'm fairly certain that Hoch uses the "Level x" paradigm.  I.E. PAC Level 1, Stick 1, Knife 1, etc. 
---
I am not familiar with Hoch. It could be prior to Hoch's revamp of the his system or not. 

To many people, "creating" your own, named, martial art is often a great big *Red Flag*, with a capital "R."
---
Not really. There's a ton of them. Some are good, some aren't. If no one created their own system...well, where would we be historically? You're arguing about modern folks creating them. And if we didn't, there wouldn't be MMA.

 I'm not saying that Mr. Balika isn't genuinely skilled or that making a mish-mash of what you think is important fighting skills and teaching that as a system doesn't make logical sense, however, there's just been *so many* hucksters who've claimed to have done the same thing that it makes people all kinds of nervous.
---
Mr. McCurry. Balika is a combination of terms meaning "to send back" I believe. But I've encountered a number of hucksters in pure systems. You're over-generalizing here. I see your worries. That's fine. But you're condemning someone based on a stereotype, when you don't know them, haven't visited them, haven't studied with them, etc. Its your RIGHT to do so. I'm just saying I know him. He's well studied. I've been in martial arts since '93. Not a SUPER long time...but I'm not someone who's blinded by a flashy title. I'm not even studying the system. I'm just trying to say, after much speculation about him, that I know him, and he's got some legit skills to teach.

I'm genuinely interested in this particular nugget. I'm a Western Martial Artist (among other things) and have a particular interest in western knife systems. It has been my personal experience that most western knife systems in the Americas, including, nay, especially Mexico tend to have little information and less verifiability.
---
Not just Western. Asian systems also have alot of false history. 

 I am aware of only Gaucho knife work as having any sort of real documentation or verifiable lineage and a few other odd literary and historical references to other, ill defined, systems here and there. Most seem to be transplants of European systems such as Spanish Navaja and Italian Stiletto. Everything else seems to be mostly along the lines of "my dad showed me some tricks from when he was a kid" or "this is what the old gang members say to do." If you can provide details or more information about Mr. Balika's Mexican Knife Systems, it would be of great interest to me and several others whom I know.
---
I am not a student of his system. Please feel free to call him. He can also then explain where his title came from. He's a very nice and friendly guy. Easy to talk to. He's mentioned to me a few times, that most of his bladed arts are NOT of Asian origin, so he may have more Western influences than just the Mexican knife fighting he's told me about.

This would be one of those contentious statements. Some Koryu were knife or sword based, some included the knife and/or sword, and others were "segmented" as the unarmed portion of fighting.
---
Unarmed was a last resort.

 A lot of it depends on the lineage and the personal "definition" of the person doing the historical research on Koryu.
---
Ask him.

He may be a very decent guy, feed the poor, house orphans, and adopt puppies. The thing is, in his internet/marketing presence he's used several Red Flags which, through experience, folks have learned to watch for.
---
That's fine. People speculated negatively about a man who wasn't here to defend himself. I just put in a good word for him. 

 In his place, I would consider some different naming and rank conventions. Words matter.
---
That's fine. Perhaps you can talk to him and explain this to him. He has been doing martial arts longer than I've been alive.  Please feel free to address your concerns and issues to him. He's not scary, and one of the nicest folks I know. His skills are legit.

 I sometimes lament that some words or phrases have unintended connotations but that's just the way it is.
---
I lament people who will speculate negatively about someone, but not talk to them directly. Give him a call. He's a nice fellow. Ask your questions TO him. He can give more information about his system than I can. 

 Pointing this out has earned me some unhappiness before. I recently pointed out that the phrase "Dagger Fencing" used to describe a WMA schools curriculum may have the unintended consequence of putting some people off who would otherwise be interested in learning historic knife systems because the term "Fencing" to most average folks conjures images of "gay white leotards." Now, the folks I was telling this to came from a Classical Fencing background and they were kinda unhappy about the turn of phrase I used, but that's just the fact.
---
So you've done this before? I'll let your actions speak for themself.

Anyway, words matter and the title "Blademaster," self-created Ju Jitsu systems, and difficult to verify base sources are all kinda "markers" that say, "be careful."
---
1) Blademaster? Call him. Ask him where it came from.
2) Its a self created system. A system has to be created sometime. His broad experiences have been distilled into something he wants to teach. That's his right. Its your right too, to speculate negatively about someone you haven't really investigated. Its a great country!
3) Difficult to verify because you haven't called to ask his lineage. Call him.

 Even if it turns out to be no big deal people still view these with skepticism.
---
Probably. That's why his contact information is on his website. So people can find out more information.

You've stated your piece. I stated mine. There was pure negative speculation concerning him in this thread, by folks who didn't know him. I can't address your worries about terminology, I can't address your concern about someone who decides to form their own system. I've said my piece. John's a nice guy with a good skillset. If you have questions, call him. I probably will not respond further to this particular thread (but sometimes I do get suckered in, I gotta admit), as I've said my piece, and this will just end up being a pointless back and forth with no new information. I wish you the best of luck in whatever art you do.

Rooke


----------



## lklawson (Aug 26, 2009)

rooke said:


> NOTE: Please note, as I reread the post, some things could be construed as angry responses. They're not. They're just short and concise.


Yeah, you're right some responses do seem a bit peevish.  I'll take that in consideration when replying.



> The internet is forever.


Except for when websites die, get hacked, or have a catastrophic failure and can't restore (yes, it happens frighteningly often).



> I can see your point. But a title has to start sometime.


Sure.  Historically, in WMA at least, fighters and instructors would frequently take the title of "Master" when they felt like it, though it was more common to have an acrediting body or instructor give it.  However, though they could call themselves "Master" their national/political opponents (think French vs. English), business competitors (teaching the rich was a great way to not starve), and personal adversaries and nemisis' would take exception to it, often in writing.  This would frequently spark feuds, grudges, Duels, and long standing rivalries.  There have been whole treatises in which it was a major theme.



> You can't please all of the people, all of the time. And given that you've not met John, or seen what his skill levels are, you're arguing about his title.


*I* am not arguing about his title, skills, or choice of Barbers.  What I am trying to do is communicate why people have a certain reaction to the title and name.

Fact is, I don't care much about titles and ranks.  I, personally, eschew ranks for the most part and only claim rank which has been given to me by others, and pretty much only when pressed even then.  I've seen too many people with "less rank" exceeding the skill of people with "greater rank" or more impressive titles.  Skill and reputation is far more important to me.



> Kali (of which he's studied many styles) shows that the weapon is more about angles and tactics. A master of a knife and short-sword, could well apply those principles to staff, longsword, or stick. Either you've not studied Southeast Asian bladed arts, or you're trying to be argumentative. That's fine.


See, this is where we part philosophies.  You can certainly try to use a stick the same way you'd use a knife but it's simply not as effective that way.  Sticks are blunt instruments.  You do damage by bludgeoning.  Swords and knives are edged.  A Draw-Cut or Push-Cut can be brutally devastating with a Bowie, Cutlass, or Military Saber (the blade arts which I study) but are utterly worthless with a stick (I actively study two cane systems as well).  Similarly, simply clubbing a target with the sword completely neglects edge-alignment and can actually *reduce *the severity of the cut.  On the other hand, a stick has no edge and you don't worry any at all about trying to align the non-existent.  An abanico (sometimes "Wrenching" in WMA) or witik (sometimes "Snap-cut" in WMA) work differently and require different subtleties of application when "translated" from blade to a similarly sized stick.

And when we start talking about attempting to apply the Strategies and Techiques of a one handed short knife to a big ole two handed staff, well, we part even further.  Some very *general *principles will apply but it's simply innacurate to think that skill in a short blade is going to translate 1-to-1 to skill in a long blade or stick.



> If you haven't studied bladed arts, then it might be worthwhile to study some to understand the <pun unintended> point of this.


Thanks for the advice.



> As for it being an "American designation," it doesn't come from the Military and doesn't seem to have a history reaching further back than maybe 20 years or so and then only in fictional literature as far as I've ever been able to track down.
> ---
> I can't address this point, other than my recollection of John talking about it simply to indicate a person who's worked with the blade. Heck, he's teaching his own system. He can call himself whatever he wants.


Sure.  And George Silver might have some relevant insights.



> Granted, people may call him to task on the title of his choosing, but do you visit a teacher over his title, or the skills he provides?


You've heard of the Gracie's right?



> To many people, "creating" your own, named, martial art is often a great big *Red Flag*, with a capital "R."
> ---
> Not really. There's a ton of them. Some are good, some aren't. If no one created their own system...well, where would we be historically? You're arguing about modern folks creating them. And if we didn't, there wouldn't be MMA.


Yes really.  You're right that, historically, people have created their own systems all the time.  What you forget is that these "new" systems then had to compete against the existing to prove their worth and, until such time as they did so, they were viewed with skepticism by their competitors. The Gracies, Kano, Gen. Choi, etc. they all had to face this skepticism and "trial" to be taken seriously.  Heck there's a persistent rumour that Draeger's death was related to a subtle poisoning at the hands of Javanese Silat Masters. Supposedly they figured if he really was a martial arts "expert" then he should know how to counteract the poison.  Now I don't believe this but it is a persistent rumour because it accurately illustrates the skepticism that "the new kid on the block" is met with until proven.

You mention MMA.  I clearly remember the MMA vs. TMA flame wars which went on for probably a decade while MMA was proving itself to ever more entrenched skeptics.



> But I've encountered a number of hucksters in pure systems.


A great many, I'm sure.  And there are various (often similar) Red Flags that pop up for them too.



> You're over-generalizing here.


No, I'm trying to explain why there is skepticism and I'm not sure you're grokking it.



> But you're condemning someone based on a stereotype, when you don't know them, haven't visited them, haven't studied with them, etc.


No, I'm not.  First, I'm not "condemning" anyone.  Second, he truth is that I don't really care, on a personal level, if Mr. McCurry if a fraud, an honest-to-goodness-Jedi, or something in-between.  I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion with *YOU*; to explain to you the skepticism that you see.  You seem to want to argue that the skeptics aren't being "fair," lumping me in to the argument along the way, while I'm simply trying to explain the reason for the reaction.



> Its your RIGHT to do so. I'm just saying I know him. He's well studied. I've been in martial arts since '93. Not a SUPER long time...but I'm not someone who's blinded by a flashy title. I'm not even studying the system. I'm just trying to say, after much speculation about him, that I know him, and he's got some legit skills to teach.


Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really care.  Your skill level, or even Mr. McCurry's, is not what is at the central issue here.  I have not expressed doubt over Mr. McCurry's skill nor questioned your capacity to report on it.  I will assume that you are an honest person until you demonstrate otherwise.  Fair enough?  Again, what I am attempting is to explain to you what elements of Mr. McCurry's public "story" is causing the skepticism and *why*.



> I'm genuinely interested in this particular nugget. I'm a Western Martial Artist (among other things) and have a particular interest in western knife systems. It has been my personal experience that most western knife systems in the Americas, including, nay, especially Mexico tend to have little information and less verifiability.
> ---
> Not just Western. Asian systems also have alot of false history.


Yes, we agree about that.  However, I'm not referring to any "false history" here.  What I'm saying is much closer to "NO HISTORY."  Much of this stuff is completely undocumented and frequently far less "systematic" in transfer of skills than many today assume.  Family Arts are great and all but they are very frequently not taught in a regimented, systematic way.  Often information is "lost" from generation to generation because the previous "teaching" generation didn't transmit it to the next because it wasn't useful to *them*, was neglected in favor of something else, or simply because the previous generation died (or moved) before it could be transmitted.  I've especially seen this latter.  The usual story goes that the Grandfather teaches the Grandson because the Father wasn't interested, was on the outs, or any number of reasons.  And dear-old Grandad doesn't transmit the whole of it.  Further, generational mutation occurs easily because the non-systematic methods and lack of permanent written or or pictorial documentation allows for it (I, personally, argue that this is usually a good thing because it allows new generations to adapt the art to their needs without being bound by the historical "inertia" of the art).



> This would be one of those contentious statements. Some Koryu were knife or sword based, some included the knife and/or sword, and others were "segmented" as the unarmed portion of fighting.
> ---
> Unarmed was a last resort.


Except when it isn't.



> Ask him.


Have him drop by.



> That's fine. People speculated negatively about a man who wasn't here to defend himself. I just put in a good word for him.


Which is fine and all.  I just explained to you why they speculated as they did.



> In his place, I would consider some different naming and rank conventions. Words matter.
> ---
> That's fine. Perhaps you can talk to him and explain this to him.


Have him drop by and read this thread.  It explains it well enough.



> He has been doing martial arts longer than I've been alive.


Appeal to Authority.  Just because, in your estimation, he's a Martial Expert, doesn't mean he's a Marketing Psychology expert.



> I sometimes lament that some words or phrases have unintended connotations but that's just the way it is.
> ---
> I lament people who will speculate negatively about someone, but not talk to them directly. Give him a call. He's a nice fellow. Ask your questions TO him. He can give more information about his system than I can.


Have him drop by.  I'm not scary at all and am happy to explain to him that people's life experiences affect how they view the world.



> Pointing this out has earned me some unhappiness before. I recently pointed out that the phrase "Dagger Fencing" used to describe a WMA schools curriculum may have the unintended consequence of putting some people off who would otherwise be interested in learning historic knife systems because the term "Fencing" to most average folks conjures images of "gay white leotards." Now, the folks I was telling this to came from a Classical Fencing background and they were kinda unhappy about the turn of phrase I used, but that's just the fact.
> ---
> So you've done this before? I'll let your actions speak for themself.


Are you *SURE *you're "just" trying to be "short and concise" here?



> Anyway, words matter and the title "Blademaster," self-created Ju Jitsu systems, and difficult to verify base sources are all kinda "markers" that say, "be careful."
> ---
> 1) Blademaster? Call him. Ask him where it came from.
> 2) Its a self created system. A system has to be created sometime. His broad experiences have been distilled into something he wants to teach. That's his right. Its your right too, to speculate negatively about someone you haven't really investigated. Its a great country!
> 3) Difficult to verify because you haven't called to ask his lineage. Call him.


Have him drop by and post the Curriculum Vitae.



> You've stated your piece. I stated mine. There was pure negative speculation concerning him in this thread, by folks who didn't know him.


Um, what?  There was *ONE *post by *ONE *person who, hasn't posted since 2007, that was solidly negative.  The rest of the posts fell more or less into the category of "can't say, not enough info."



> I can't address your worries about terminology, I can't address your concern about someone who decides to form their own system.


*I* don't care.  I'm trying to explain to you why some people *do*.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

