Is it appropriate to create a new martial art?

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
Everyone seems to agree that martial arts started in either the middle or far east.
I feel that over the years the M.A.'s have evolved just like everything else in this world and i also feel that like the automobile there should be different makes and models, and maybe even new styles but how different or new are they really, doesnt everything stem from the original.

Whether or not it is accepted by the majority, there will always be new flavors introduced. All through martial history arts have been changed and so have the names.

Can anyone actually claim to practice or teach an art that is original in form and name? NO!

Even the arts today that have the names that you see in here, Okinawa Te and Shuri Te. They may be traditional but how can they be in original form? We know those arts names were changed and techniques were modified and somebody down the line changed the name back to the original name.

Whether or not they can argue about the name and who did or didn't change the name. The fact remains that as the arts were passed down they were changed and the "majority" knows this as well as they know the names were changed also.

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
Everyone seems to agree that martial arts started in either the middle or far east.
I feel that over the years the M.A.'s have evolved just like everything else in this world and i also feel that like the automobile there should be different makes and models, and maybe even new styles but how different or new are they really, doesnt everything stem from the original.

Depends on what you mean by "started."

If you mean that it "started" there and then was picked up in other places from there, then I disagree.

If you mean it "started" there as in it's the "oldest recorded" then I'd agree because, last I heard, the oldest recorded system of martial arts was with the Minoans on Crete.

But I don't personally believe in a "sun source" of martial arts (except when I'm reading The Destroyer and then, of course, it's Sinanju). I think fighting is part of human nature and anywhere there was a group of people gathered, they would have developed a method of defending themselves from each other, from other tribes, and from animals. And the survivors would, logically, have taught others in their tribe what they had learned. And that was the seed of "martial arts" in that civilization.

The various martial arts from a given region will, of course, have influenced each other through fighting with each other, or alliances with each other.

As technology improved and people were able to travel further abroad, there was more influence in both directions (they were influence by the arts they saw when traveling and they influenced other arts while traveling).

But I don't think there's a single source for the evolution. I think there were many sources of independent evolution of MA all around the globe. Over time, these have influenced each other.

Of course, I wasn't there so I could be totally wrong. But it makes a certain amount of logical sense to me.

In the same way that houses all have the same basic structure, but were developed independently by each civilization as the need for shelter from the environment arose.

Mike

 

[DAC..florida]

I did mean the oldest record........
I also meant that all things change with time and the M.A. was also due to change we no longer do battle as samurai's or with swords for that matter. So why not have some changes or maybe new styles to stay with the changing world.

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
I did mean the oldest record........
I also meant that all things change with time and the M.A. was also due to change we no longer do battle as samurai's or with swords for that matter. So why not have some changes or maybe new styles to stay with the changing world.

OK. I'm on the same page now

Mike

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Martial art stated when the first stoneage Neantherdal tried to steal his friend's food.

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Martial art stated when the first stoneage Neantherdal tried to steal his friend's food.

<g> Yup.

Or, if you take a Biblical perspective, then it'd be when Cain killed Abel.

Mike

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
I did mean the oldest record........
I also meant that all things change with time and the M.A. was also due to change we no longer do battle as samurai's or with swords for that matter. So why not have some changes or maybe new styles to stay with the changing world.

Wasn't the oldest recorded record in Africa?

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by akja
Wasn't the oldest recorded record in Africa?

Not according to what I found the last time I looked. I believe, last time I looked it up, that the oldest record of martial arts was from circa 12,000 BCE with the Minoans on Crete.

http://martialartinstitute.com/social_sciences_of_combat_2_ancient_combat.htm

Mike

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by pesilat
Not according to what I found the last time I looked. I believe, last time I looked it up, that the oldest record of martial arts was from circa 12,000 BCE with the Minoans on Crete.

http://martialartinstitute.com/social_sciences_of_combat_2_ancient_combat.htm

Mike

I've never heard of BCE. What does it stand for?

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by akja
I've never heard of BCE. What does it stand for?

Same as "B.C." ... means "Before Christian Era"

Mike

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by pesilat
Same as "B.C." ... means "Before Christian Era"

Mike

I thought it might of had something to do with evolution. Thanx.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

I would have to agree with one Karate expert's view that an art is not considered established, until it has at least 2 generations of Blackbelts. That is, after the first generation black belts have left the founder and gone on to recruit, train and graduate their first generation of black belt. Only then, you can state that the art has established its niche.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
I would have to agree with one Karate expert's view that an art is not considered established, until it has at least 2 generations of Blackbelts. That is, after the first generation black belts have left the founder and gone on to recruit, train and graduate their first generation of black belt. Only then, you can state that the art has established its niche.

That sounds reasonable and makes a bit of sense.

 

[Matt Stone]

A.D. = anno domini, a reference to the reign of Mother Church and the influence of Christianity on the world.

B.C. = Before Christ, an old fashioned method by which dates prior to 1 A.D. were referenced.

B.C.E. = Before Common Era, the current academic, non-religious way in which dates are referenced.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
A.D. = anno domini, a reference to the reign of Mother Church and the influence of Christianity on the world.

B.C. = Before Christ, an old fashioned method by which dates prior to 1 A.D. were referenced.

B.C.E. = Before Common Era, the current academic, non-religious way in which dates are referenced.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Yup. Though my dictionary actually says both for B.C.E. - "before (the) Christian (or Common) Era"

Mike

 

[Nightingale]

In academics, we are instructed to use CE for "common era" and BCE for "before common era" AD and BC really aren't used anymore, at least in academic, textbook, research, or journal style writing.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Seems like just Political Correctness trying to whitewash reality. What marks the begining of this newly coined term "COMMON ERA"? Hmmmm..... I'll be damn! Its the birth of CHrist! Duh! But it must offend a lot of people if you dare to point that out!

Having said that, I can understand how non Christians feel. I know I would be pissed if my carlender was based on the Islamic carlender. Yet, using Common Era is simply camouflaging the reality. The chronological order is still based on the birth of Christ. This new term is simply a "feel good" kind of exercise. Nothing changes. Just the feeling of some people.

BTW, who the hell concent to this change of terminology? Was there a vote? Did I miss an election?

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
Seems like just Political Correctness trying to whitewash reality. What marks the begining of this newly coined term "COMMON ERA"? Hmmmm..... I'll be damn! Its the birth of CHrist! Duh! But it must offend a lot of people if you dare to point that out!

Having said that, I can understand how non Christians feel. I know I would be pissed if my carlender was based on the Islamic carlender. Yet, using Common Era is simply camouflaging the reality. The chronological order is still based on the birth of Christ. This new term is simply a "feel good" kind of exercise. Nothing changes. Just the feeling of some people.

BTW, who the hell concent to this change of terminology? Was there a vote? Did I miss an election?

The main problem I see with the entire "Birth of Christ" thing is that I am not aware that anyone has been able to factually pin down when He was born... Academia is supposed to be objective, and given the lack of objective historical data on Christ, basing scientific and historical facts on very fluid and interpretive stories provides a very weak foundation...

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

The question is not whether that was the exact year of His birth. It is just that, the year was picked BECAUSE it was associated with HIS birth. The Common Era gig is just an attempt to erase that assoication that has been in place for the last 2003 years.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
The main problem I see with the entire "Birth of Christ" thing is that I am not aware that anyone has been able to factually pin down when He was born... Academia is supposed to be objective, and given the lack of objective historical data on Christ, basing scientific and historical facts on very fluid and interpretive stories provides a very weak foundation...

I have some religious views that would be considered "freaky" by
a lot of people, and I don't want to sound to preachy, but to
reply to your message ....

The weak foundations you speak of supposedly part of God's
plan. At first, his presence was well known, and the "rules" to
get into heaven weren't the same as they are now. How hard
is it to NOT believe in Christ if you're watching him turn water
into wine, or feed thousands out of a small number of loaves of
bread and fish. Nowadays, we're supposed to get into heaven
through faith alone. Faith that Jesus did come, perform said
miracles, and died on the cross as a new way to enter into the
kingdom of heaven. With pure scientific evidence, it wouldn't be
faith that gets ya there. For me, the question is .. WHY must it
be faith?