No.
First off, the evidence is right here, and right on the Internet--how many, "new arts," are there? How many, "inspired masters?" And how many of these are any good? Or let me guess--how many of them take a striking art and "combine," it with some form of wrestling and maybe a weapons art? Gosh, how new. How innovative. How unique.
Second off, there are very very few martial artists who are dumb enough to get into a cage with Godzilla. With their restricted room, limited rules, etc., of course a very good, very big, very aggressive fighter is probably going to win. Unless of course we're talking about, say a Gracie--and hey, guess what? The Gracies didn't invent their own art. They went back to the roots of judo, and trained the living hell out of it.
Third: Bruce Lee did not invent a martial arts system, unless you want to call the system of no system a system. And if you'll actually look at history, ALL the martial arts systems either, a) come from an extraordiary confluence of a remarkable invidual with a unique set of circumstances, or b) don't even HAVE a real, "author." It is a fantasy to believe that somebody is going to go out and just think this stuff up on their own.
What individuals do when they cross-train is very different from actually inventing any new art. At best they are re-inventing themselves, which is great and the damn point anyway--but sometimes, they confuse this with inventing a brand new art. Very, very few of these people--Morehei Ueshiba was one--are right.
Mostly, what's going on has nothing to new with a new art--or for that matter, a legitimate one. It usually has to do with marketing; it usually has to do with ego.
Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the level of narcissism and arrogance involved in nearly all--not all, but damn nearly all--of these, "arts," is staggering. It is exactly like walking into, say, Stephen Hawking's office and announcing that after five or ten years of intensive study, you've developed the TOE---my training? no, didn't do that. Maths? no, skipped that--I found it got in the way of creativity....oh physics? well, that stuff's all backwards anyway...not let me show you the Perpetual Motion machine I built using my perfected understanding...
Get on the websites and look. Thirty-year old masters; tubby senseis and sokes; genuises of 14 different arts....oh look. They've combined striking and grappling arts and rediscovered aiki-jutsu. Wow, see there? He mixed kenpo and FMAs and discovered the weapon attacks, sets, techniques and forms that were in kenpo by 1977. Gee whiz--he's put TKD, midget wrestling, and guns together and found taekkyon and target shooting. Of course none of these guys know jack about teaching, but oh boy, did they ever teach the Navy SEALS secret combat techniques.
Meanwhile, the guys who are the real deal--the Donn Draegers, the Herman Kauzes, the Tom Muzilas, the B.J. Frantzises, the Gene LeBells--why, poor them, they just spend their lives studying and teaching and writing, without all the, "I HAVE THE POWER!!!" nonsense.
Now I feel sure that this comment will draw:
1. You're just a traditionalist!
2. Didn't your own Ed Parker tell us to evolve?
3. Bruce Lee taught JKD to everyone!!
4. Oh yeah? YOU try the UFC, then!!!
5. Kenpo doesn't have knives, sticks, weapons or grappling.
6. Waddya YOU know, anyway?
What I know is that nearly all of these masters and their shiny new arts are phonies. What I know is that they're confusing their own development with everybody's. What I know is that we live in a world of commodification, where everything is turned into a sellable object. What I know is that a little humility in the face of martial arts wouldn't hurt us none at all.
Oh, incidentally, kenpo is a formal martial arts system in a way that arts such as TKD are not. By this, I mean that there is a well-described curriculum, an organized set of theories supporting that curriculum, and a fairly-orderly road map laid out for learning that system. In this regard, it woud be comparable to the sword arts taught by, say, Gerard Thibault, or the traditional internal arts such as Yang style t'ai chi.
Exactly as described, one learns the system, then develops one's own style--well, people DO; I just fall down a lot. In some cases, serious people have either chosen to focus on and develop within an "earlier," stage in kenpo's development (Steve Hearring or James Ibrao come to mind), or to focus on a particular aspect of the system as a whole (for instance, Mr. Chap'el): this is still a matter of system, however.
Style is what one does with the system to individualize, or, "tailor," it. But good martial artists don't get their developed style (which is exactrly what they should be doing) confused with fundamental changes in the system. if you do that, you cheat your students out of the chance to develop as you did.
So to summarize--what's the big rush to be a master or soke or whatever Orientalist name they've dreamed up lately?
