"Creating" your "own" art?

[rmcrobertson]

It's a bit--evasive, let's say--to claim that, "if you want to see the system, go train there with gear on." Just for openers, the system I'm talking about wouldn't be visible in a couple of lessons and a couple of techniques and a bit o'sparring. And I have no desire to learn tae kwon do.

I can explain enough about the basic system of kenpo, right here, right now, that people who didn't know anything about kenpo would understand--whether or not they thought that kenpo was worth a damn. You, too, should be able to explain; if you can't, something is off.

 

[Bammx2]

A.) Yes, a rose by any other name is still a rose.
B.) Meaning tha you can't please people with direct lineages-or-people with direct lineages dont please others without?

I had enjoyed your post entirely. And I didn't have to know your background.

My answer to B:
What I was saying there is, there are lots of people out there who refuse to train under a style unless the lineage of the style can be recited right down to the creator and his brother.
Now,if you're into the history of you chosen style or styles...cool.
There is nothing wrong with that and I totally respect it.
So far,my favorite kali instructor was a guy named jose' connor.
I have no idea at all who he trained under and don't care.
I was beyond pleased at what I got from him.
Some people are interested in the "here and now".Not a history lesson.
Some people want the history for justification of what they do.
Heck...some people ONLY want the history and not practice the art itself!
My point with my uncle was that he taught me things about hand to hand that I teach today and he learned his "art" in the tobacco fields of NC.
Wht gets to me is people who say "if you can't trace the lineage,you have no art"! and on the flip side,people who think "lineage followers are sissy's" annoy me too.

When all is said and done.....
be it an "old" art or "new"...who cares?
As long as you get what you want out of it and ar happy with it,thats all thats important.

If I have offended anybody,I do apologise.
If I have babbled needlesly...sorry bout that too

 

[Makalakumu]

It's a bit--evasive, let's say--to claim that, "if you want to see the system, go train there with gear on." Just for openers, the system I'm talking about wouldn't be visible in a couple of lessons and a couple of techniques and a bit o'sparring. And I have no desire to learn tae kwon do.

I can explain enough about the basic system of kenpo, right here, right now, that people who didn't know anything about kenpo would understand--whether or not they thought that kenpo was worth a damn. You, too, should be able to explain; if you can't, something is off.

I don't think you could explain enough about the system of kenpo that I would understand very much. Not over the internet. Perhaps in person. Perhaps, in a short amount of time, you could portray kenpo and I could see this or that about this system. And there is NO WAY I could judge whether it was "worth a damn" from that short meeting...much less a post or two.

I'm not a TKD practicioner, but I have a few good friends who practice and it is just like anything else...even kenpo. The teacher matters. The teacher can take a "well thought out system" and make it garbage. I don't know what you have seen of TKD, but I know "the goods" exist just as assuredly you must know that "it" exists in kenpo.

KMA is very relevant to this thread btw. Korea's culture was messed with and in many ways destroyed by the various occupants over the years. There really isn't a "pure" Korean culture or martial art. (oh I am going to get flamed for this :uhohh: ) Thus, all Korean arts trace lineage party from Korea itself, but mostly from outside influences...china, japan, okinawa, etc. In a very real sense, KMA systems were "created" just like systems like EPAK.

Am I upset with the founder of Tang Soo Do, Hwang Kee, for "creating" the system? No, I honor him. This system is a great system, but it didn't exist before WWII.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Rich Parsons]

It's a bit--evasive, let's say--to claim that, "if you want to see the system, go train there with gear on." Just for openers, the system I'm talking about wouldn't be visible in a couple of lessons and a couple of techniques and a bit o'sparring. And I have no desire to learn tae kwon do.

I can explain enough about the basic system of kenpo, right here, right now, that people who didn't know anything about kenpo would understand--whether or not they thought that kenpo was worth a damn. You, too, should be able to explain; if you can't, something is off.

Mr. Robertson,

I do not do nor practice TKD. I do not like it for myself, but I know people who do train in it.

I have seen the manuals, and the demonstrations in pictures and in words. Kenpo is not the only art to have done this.

Now if a student or someone is lacking in the words to express this, this does not mean the art is non existent, just because your are verbose and can put a thougt to words, does not mean others can as well. There is also the issue of the numberous manuals and techniques, of where does one begin, it might seem over whelming to someone.

You would not like it some said similar things about Kenpo. When you were called out, you are now asking for proof, yet you will not take anyone's word for it. So, I can use this arguement in the future with you are anyone in Kenpo, that if they do not take the time to explain to me right now, then they are fake and or . . .

Personally, I do not think of that as friendly discussion on martial arts, nor productive to the learning process.

My Thoughts

 

[MJS]

It's a bit--evasive, let's say--to claim that, "if you want to see the system, go train there with gear on." Just for openers, the system I'm talking about wouldn't be visible in a couple of lessons and a couple of techniques and a bit o'sparring. And I have no desire to learn tae kwon do.

I can explain enough about the basic system of kenpo, right here, right now, that people who didn't know anything about kenpo would understand--whether or not they thought that kenpo was worth a damn. You, too, should be able to explain; if you can't, something is off.

People have different ways of learning. Some learn easier by doing, some by listening, some by watching. However, if the subject is completely foreign to someone, a visual aid is most likely going to be much easier. Therefore, for a new student interested in the arts, actually watching a class is going to be better than hearing about it.

I'm sure that someone who wanted to learn or know more about Kenpo would get much more out of some actual viewing rather than a speech.



Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, the guy to whom I was responding is more than capable of explaining his points articulately.

Second off, this is an Internet forum, not a training hall. It consists of words, not physical demonstrations or exercise.

Third off, of course an art like tae kwon do has manuals. That's not even remotely my point; I said that it didn't have an articulated system in the way kenpo does, and I said that if I were wrong, please simply explain what that system basically was. I'll add something here: or, simply direct me to some text that lays out the basic principles and concepts of tae kwon do, and describes the organization of its teaching/fighting system.

Fourth off, it has been my observation that many of the classic Asian arts are not organized in terms of theory, teaching and practice to anything like the extent that Parker's kenpo is organized. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that at all; for example, there are arts (the Japanese sword arts come to mind) that have manuals and organized exercises, but which reserve, "the system," for direct transmission by an instructor or for the student's own discovery. Or, they may be organized "outside," the training hall, by the culture they inhabit. There's nothing inherently superior about Parker's deliberate organization and layout of kenpo--but it is a different way of doing things, with its advantages, which is what I said.

And fifth. You know what? I simply don't have the motives that a couple of you think. Those are your fantasies, not mine.

I couldn't care less what other people write about American kenpo in the abstract. It only bothers me at all when folks make statements they cannot support, and then evade or turn personal.

All I'm really interested in is a bit of conversation, a bit of holding forth, a bit of learning. If I'm wrong, OK fine, I don't care. Just explain. Just provide some evidence.

 

[47MartialMan]

My rant isn't about cross training, which I think is valuable.

It's aimed at the fools who dabble here and there, and make their own art up, buy some credibility and start milking the public. The green-belt part timers that open schools, jump to 3rd dan or higher. The "Sokes" and "Great GrandMasters". The jokes that write a few books and suddenly think they are qualified to do spinoffs of established arts.

I have to agree.

However, I wouldnt want "text book" or "video professors" teaching or laying claims. Nor someone with less than, say, for example-a decade. To claim a high rank, title, or create a "new system", IMHO, one better have decades of experience. (This is not of fighting ability-I know a couple of brawlers and bouncers who are not martial artists and fight well. However, I can say that they are martial artists by their own creation. So, therefore, I cannot see this having a bearing on creating a new system)

 

[MJS]

First off, the guy to whom I was responding is more than capable of explaining his points articulately.

Second off, this is an Internet forum, not a training hall. It consists of words, not physical demonstrations or exercise.

1- And as it was said, not everyone out there is able to put thoughts to words in a clear, understandable fashion.

2- True, but see #1. There have been many misunderstandings on this forum due to the fact that its often hard to post what one is thinking, and at the same time, make sure the person reading it, understands the point that is trying to be made!

Mike

 

[47MartialMan]

Then I guess I don't study Ninjutsu then.

Yeah, but Frank Dux is famous (or infamous-reminds me of "The 3 Amigos" definition). He has much controversy surrounding him.

Yup, thats true. However, my BJJ inst. trains under Roy Harris. He travels to Ca. to see him. Again, it all depends on the person. Some would do it, some would not!

Some cannot do it because of lifestyle, time, or finances.

Please re-read my past posts. I stated that if someone came for a Kenpo class, that is what they'd get..Kenpo. Would I show bits like my old inst. used to do? Sure. Would I start blending everything..Kenpo, Arnis, and BJJ? No, because that is not what they came for.

Yes, I understood that. I was just posting to clarify.

Will everyone with that are and different org except each as qualified? Can you say this again so I can understand it?

What? Sorry. I see why you can't understand it. I meant to state that will everyone within the same system/style in different orgs, accept others (of the same system/style) as being qualified.

Before anyone invests a large amount of money, doing some homework is important IMO. Would you buy a house without looking at it or having it inspected? What about a car? Would you test drive it before buying? The list can go on and on. If someone chooses not to research something, then that old saying "Let the buyer beware" comes to mind.

How true. Sad, most newcomers in martial arts do not to this. I know a local (well I am no longer residing near there) guy teaching martial arts and he had it in his ads (also tellow pages) that he teaches "Jeet Kune Do-Bruce Lee Style". Curious, I went to meet him. I found out that he was not certified or studied with any genuine-long-term JKD instructors. Instead, he attended a few seminars. I had contacted the JKD Nulceus, which was formed at the time and gave info about this guy. Eventally, they must have contacted him because his new ads omit this. However, I sent a "spy" there and he still claims that he teaches "Jeet Kune Do Concepts". This is the same as anyone claiming to teach Karate/Chuan Fa/Ju jitsu/,,,etc...."concepts". I guess anyone can teach a "concept". Sadly, his students beleive he is qualified. I, however, do not.

 

[47MartialMan]

1- And as it was said, not everyone out there is able to put thoughts to words in a clear, understandable fashion.

2- True, but see #1. There have been many misunderstandings on this forum due to the fact that its often hard to post what one is thinking, and at the same time, make sure the person reading it, understands the point that is trying to be made!

Mike

I have to agree.
I am a prime example. It is hard for me to convey and interpret. The latter goes to readers of my posts.

 

[MJS]

Yeah, but Frank Dux is famous (or infamous-reminds me of "The 3 Amigos" definition). He has much controversy surrounding him.

Yeah, ok. As I said, if I wanted to study Ninjutsu, there are many others I'd choose to study under. There is actually an instructor about a 1/2 hr. from where I live.

Some cannot do it because of lifestyle, time, or finances.

Very true.

Yes, I understood that. I was just posting to clarify.

Ok.

What? Sorry. I see why you can't understand it. I meant to state that will everyone within the same system/style in different orgs, accept others (of the same system/style) as being qualified.

I can't speak for the other orgs. I'm happy with the Arnis org. that I'm a part of and have no intentions of leaving anytime soon.

How true. Sad, most newcomers in martial arts do not to this. I know a local (well I am no longer residing near there) guy teaching martial arts and he had it in his ads (also tellow pages) that he teaches "Jeet Kune Do-Bruce Lee Style". Curious, I went to meet him. I found out that he was not certified or studied with any genuine-long-term JKD instructors. Instead, he attended a few seminars. I had contacted the JKD Nulceus, which was formed at the time and gave info about this guy. Eventally, they must have contacted him because his new ads omit this. However, I sent a "spy" there and he still claims that he teaches "Jeet Kune Do Concepts". This is the same as anyone claiming to teach Karate/Chuan Fa/Ju jitsu/,,,etc...."concepts". I guess anyone can teach a "concept". Sadly, his students beleive he is qualified. I, however, do not.

Yup, its amazing what some people will do for that dollar.


Mike

 

[Makalakumu]

First off, the guy to whom I was responding is more than capable of explaining his points articulately.

Second off, this is an Internet forum, not a training hall. It consists of words, not physical demonstrations or exercise.

Third off, of course an art like tae kwon do has manuals. That's not even remotely my point; I said that it didn't have an articulated system in the way kenpo does, and I said that if I were wrong, please simply explain what that system basically was. I'll add something here: or, simply direct me to some text that lays out the basic principles and concepts of tae kwon do, and describes the organization of its teaching/fighting system.

Fourth off, it has been my observation that many of the classic Asian arts are not organized in terms of theory, teaching and practice to anything like the extent that Parker's kenpo is organized. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that at all; for example, there are arts (the Japanese sword arts come to mind) that have manuals and organized exercises, but which reserve, "the system," for direct transmission by an instructor or for the student's own discovery. Or, they may be organized "outside," the training hall, by the culture they inhabit. There's nothing inherently superior about Parker's deliberate organization and layout of kenpo--but it is a different way of doing things, with its advantages, which is what I said.

And fifth. You know what? I simply don't have the motives that a couple of you think. Those are your fantasies, not mine.

I couldn't care less what other people write about American kenpo in the abstract. It only bothers me at all when folks make statements they cannot support, and then evade or turn personal.

All I'm really interested in is a bit of conversation, a bit of holding forth, a bit of learning. If I'm wrong, OK fine, I don't care. Just explain. Just provide some evidence.

Robert

I started a thread about this very subject in the KMA General forum. There, you will find TKD practioners who are much more knowledgeable about TKD then I am. However, on that thread, I will lay out a pretty good explanation of Tang Soo Do and we'll see how it compares to Kenpo.

Again, check this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23993

I don't think it is right to gank this thread for this conversation...however interesting it may be.

upnorthkyosa

 

[rmcrobertson]

Maybe martial artists should learn how to be articulate on the Internet, taking as their model the idea that calligraphy and the study of the sword are intricately linked.

 

[Jerry]

So; has anyone decided how the "bad martial artists inventing personal arts poorly make poor martial arts" tautology interacts with a more general "people shouldn't make new arts / reinvent the wheel / practice MMA"?

There are many who have voiced the opinion "well, yes, some people can make new martial arts... like Kano, and Lee, and Parker, and Ushibia, and Gracie" and a score of others in the past 200 years who have done just that, creating what we now see as established arts... disproving teh abstract premise "people who make their own arts make poor arts".

*Some* people who found a new art have a poor system. I'm sure it's "many"... just as many people who teach established systems do so poorly. So what? The "many people who establish new systems lack the skills to do so" is more of a rant than a question: we all know that... just as many people who teach existing systems lack the skills to do so.

 

[Makalakumu]

Maybe martial artists should learn how to be articulate on the Internet, taking as their model the idea that calligraphy and the study of the sword are intricately linked.

I have no problem with articulation, as you have already pointed out. However, I do not want to hijack this thread about starting your own system to talk about the similarities of TKD and Kenpo.

Pen and Sword in Accord.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Gemini]

I have no problem with articulation, as you have already pointed out. However, I do not want to hijack this thread about starting your own system to talk about the similarities of TKD and Kenpo.

Pen and Sword in Accord.

upnorthkyosa

I agree. It's a topic in it's own right, just as "Quality of instructors of existing arts" is. just not here.

 

[TimoS]

There are many who have voiced the opinion "well, yes, some people can make new martial arts... like Kano, and Lee, and Parker, and Ushibia, and Gracie" and a score of others in the past 200 years who have done just that, creating what we now see as established arts... disproving teh abstract premise "people who make their own arts make poor arts".

But all (well, maybe not Bruce Lee, apparently) had already studied years in some already established art which wasn't created after a few lessons here and couple of there. I don't know much about Parker, but Kano and Ueshiba were already quite proficient in various jujutsu styles, before they modified their teachings to create their own arts

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. If everybody starting their, "own," art were Ueshiba, or Parker, the argument would be fine. They aren't.

2. If everybody starting their own art were doing so in something like the peculiar cultural and historical circumstances that Ueshiba or Parker enjoyed, the argument would be fine. They don't.

3. Adding grappling to a striking art, or studying a mixed martial art of some kind, is not even remotely the same thing as devising a new art.

4. All these "new," arts--and there sure are a LOT of 'em, aren't there?--are really just reflections of what somebody's found out about their own training. Or they are marketing strategies.

5. Funnily enough, none of the advanced! new! innovative! concepts and principles of these, "creations," ever seem to amount to anything advanced, new, or creative. They're always the same old same old.

6. Nobody's arguing for comparing kenpo and tae kwon do. They're pointing out that a characteristic of kenpo--its organized and written-down system--doesn't seem to be there in very many other arts.

7. Nobody's arguing that people shouldn't invent new arts or practice a mixed martial art. But reinventing the wheel does seem silly.

8. So OK, fine. So somebody give an example of a brand new art "created," within the last twenty years. Be explicit about who created it, and what it is. Describe what makes it new, and completely different from previous arts. Explain its fundamental concepts and principles; give a few examples of their applications in specific techniques, moves, etc. Be detailed.

Well?

 

[Jerry]

7. Nobody's arguing that people shouldn't invent new arts or practice a mixed martial art. But reinventing the wheel does seem silly.

From Post 1:

Why do people feel the need to "create" their own art?

[...]
Personally, I have no respect for these clowns.
Fat, arrogant and in too many cases, plain stupid people who can't hack it in a real school, who want to compensate for their own shortcomings by a fancy title, lots of wall candy, and parlor tricks by which they dupe the unsuspecting into thinking they are some kind of "Master" while they toss around foriegn words they don't know the real meaning of.
When they are in fact little more than "wanna-bes."

Shame on them. Shame on them all.

​

It seems that someone is indeed arguing that no one should create new arts. The alternative (some people who make new arts should not) is a non-issue that no one is disputing.

8. So OK, fine. So somebody give an example of a brand new art "created," within the last twenty years. Be explicit about who created it, and what it is. Describe what makes it new, and completely different from previous arts. Explain its fundamental concepts and principles; give a few examples of their applications in specific techniques, moves, etc. Be detailed.

I offer you the same challenge with any art ever made anywhere by anyone (Insane person coming up with completely non-functional art not-withstanding).

Find me one art completely different from previous arts.

 

[TimoS]

It seems that someone is indeed arguing that no one should create new arts.

Based on context I would say that the original argument is not that new arts shouldn't be created at all, rather that if they are created, they are created by people with decades of experience from real arts (and that doesn't mean e.g. 10 1. dan's)

Find me one art completely different from previous arts.

That might be a bit hard