cali_tkdbruin
Master of Arts
I hear what you're saying... :drink2tha
I hear what you're saying... :drink2tha
OP
RyuShiKan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #22
First off whenever I see someone claiming to have made a new martial art I always ask myself Why?
I mean really .with all the good arts around why make up another art? It take s a pretty big ego and a lot of ignorance to think they are going to make something better than what has been developed and refined over several hundred years.
The second thing I ask myself is . is it any different than what is already out there?
99.99% of the New arts I see are just poor imitations of previous arts ..emphasis on poor imitations.
The third thing I ask myself is Who? is making up this New art and what is their background and foundation for doing so?
Again, 99.99% of the people making up some new art dont have much of a background (i.e. basic skills in one art) in training in a single to understand it, and they most often claim to have trained in multiple arts, and also claim to be street wise when it comes to fighting.
Anybody that calls their art Combat XXXXX is kidding not only themselves but their students.
My idea of combat is having and M-16, a Desert Eagle, and a MK19 mounted on a HUMV going into Combat.
People can and most often do make their own variations of an art by accident.
My technique is not the same as my teachers .it cant be. I do try and understand his techniques and make them my own.
All REAL martial arts are reality based self-defense systems. If they arent they are just Martial Sport and nothing more.
OP
RyuShiKan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #23
A totally scientific approach to Self Defense?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
How is it scientific? Do two little lab rats duke it out or something?
People like Choki Motobu used to go and test their techniques in real street fights to see if they worked ..
A dynamic and flexible program of learning and teaching?
To me that sounds like he will jump through hoops to keep students.
Maybe I am still in the old school of thinking but to me when a student comes into the dojo to request instruction he should empty his cup and try to learn was is being offered.
The result of over 35 years of Martial Arts study, research,
application and synthesis
35 years is about as long as a popcorn fart in terms of martial history.
OP
Master of Blades
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #24
Unfortuantly it only works when I'm playing DBZ: Budokai and have a Ps2 in my hand. Hey, I'm still working on it :shrug:
Truth be told, back in the '70s Hapkido was my second art and school to train in so when I saw what Pellegrini was doing a while back I've been a curious onlooker. The things he's done to me are a positive direction for Hapkido in these times where there is little respect for many arts.
It appears to me he did make chnages based on Jeet Kune Do concepts but was able to preserve the art enough to stay associated and somewhat true to his art.
I know there is at least one guy on this forum who is a student of this art. It would be interesting on what the actual differances are. I'm very sure that his art is effective but anything can be said and sound good but being functional and hereing from someone whos seen it and practiced it would tell the story a little better.
if you're going to create a system, you'd better do what SGM Parker did:
(in no particular order)
1. learn from some of the best to begin with.
2. get a bunch of people together who are also good martial artists
3. have very detailed sessions analysing what works and what doesn't and why.
4. test it.
5. develop a reliable way for those after you to teach it (written curriculum)
6. make sure your system is filling a niche that isn't already filled by another martial art, and that you're not just creating a system because you want to be a 10th.
(in no particular order)
1. learn from some of the best to begin with.
2. get a bunch of people together who are also good martial artists
3. have very detailed sessions analysing what works and what doesn't and why.
4. test it.
5. develop a reliable way for those after you to teach it (written curriculum)
6. make sure your system is filling a niche that isn't already filled by another martial art, and that you're not just creating a system because you want to be a 10th.
OP
Disco
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #27
In my humble opinion, almost all of the "New" styles / systems being generated are nothing more than a way to make money or bolster somebodies ego. The operative word there was "almost".
I realize, that there may be a need for a specific type of training, that would not include all the curriculum in most styles taught, ie Corrections / Law Enforcement and the like.
In all honesty, after looking through several MA magazines, my outlook on the general overall status of the MA's is that it's all "FOR SALE". I've never seen so much,......... I can't think of a word to describe it. Everybody, and I mean everybody is selling. Buy the tapes, buy the books, study at home, study in the car. Learn from the best!!!!? I can't believe all the years I've wasted training with real instructors and training partners (Sarcasm). If you should be so fortunate as to be studying with good people and a good instructor, consider yourself lucky and take advantage of all you can learn.
I realize, that there may be a need for a specific type of training, that would not include all the curriculum in most styles taught, ie Corrections / Law Enforcement and the like.
In all honesty, after looking through several MA magazines, my outlook on the general overall status of the MA's is that it's all "FOR SALE". I've never seen so much,......... I can't think of a word to describe it. Everybody, and I mean everybody is selling. Buy the tapes, buy the books, study at home, study in the car. Learn from the best!!!!? I can't believe all the years I've wasted training with real instructors and training partners (Sarcasm). If you should be so fortunate as to be studying with good people and a good instructor, consider yourself lucky and take advantage of all you can learn.
Thats a good point of view. Training with my Sifu does cover 1-3 on a daily basis. Thats what their art is all about. Some people think they do this also but from what I've seen, that is seriously open to interpetation.
4 is something that needs to be done on continual and progressive basis.
5 is also something that should always evolve and not be set in stone. Otherwise you would be committing your system to at sometime becoming stagnant.
6 is there a niche for any new system? That is arguable. A system is a reflection of ones practice and a 10th Dan shouldn't a reason for it either. Even the most of the traditional systems from way back were not different enough to to fit that description, they represented the new influences of their founders and they have served a purpose and survived for centuries, but even though they've survived, they have evolved and that I think is important and that we continue to evolve and be open minded. We don't have to or should accept anything that is not proven but just be open minded.
The operative word is "everybody" is doing it. The big names sre behind it big. Not so much offering fake arts, but maybe false hopes and false encouragement.
The aftermath is everybody under the sun is going to step in to be competitive and get their piece of the pie.
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #30
Personally, I think that the two most overused words in martial arts today are, "combat," and, "warrior." The first translates out roughly--I agree with a couple of the posters--as, "buy this." As for the second--sheesh. I certainly ain't a warrior in the sense that seems to be meant on this string, and I don't want to be. And, most likely, folks who throw the term around ain't warriors either. Navy SEALS, Recon Marines--the real ones, not the folks in the magazines--they're warriors. Especially the ones who've, "seen the elephant," as they used to say back in the Civil War. Me? Not in that sense, absolutely not.
As for making up your own system, well, I don't agree there either. Among other minor things, it isn't enough to be a great martial artist. You have to be in the right place at the right time. Mr. Funakoshi was. Mr. Ueshiba was. Mr. Parker was. We ain't.
Then there's the argument about what kenpo really is, which is not just another system. But I'll probably get trashed for this post, so the heck with it.
Oh...anybody out there willing to be specific aabout exactly what they do in their new system? Not generalities and platitudes...describe a technique, say?
Thanks for the discussion.
As for making up your own system, well, I don't agree there either. Among other minor things, it isn't enough to be a great martial artist. You have to be in the right place at the right time. Mr. Funakoshi was. Mr. Ueshiba was. Mr. Parker was. We ain't.
Then there's the argument about what kenpo really is, which is not just another system. But I'll probably get trashed for this post, so the heck with it.
Oh...anybody out there willing to be specific aabout exactly what they do in their new system? Not generalities and platitudes...describe a technique, say?
Thanks for the discussion.
I'm curious why Mr. Parker was in the right place at the right time and why we are not?
So in your opinion what is Kenpo?
Even the some of the traditional arts use the term Bujutsu whisch translated means military arts. Since when are they military arts?
Do they continue to teach these military tactics?
With that way of thinking, we could throw out many old and new systems based on their names.
Trying to decribe a technique or uploading a picture will only display a one dimensional view, then it will ripped to shreds by our MT peers..
But in what I do, I teach and practice roughly about 65% standup and 35% ground grappling. I say ground grappling because some consider all grappling to be the same. I'd like to know if there are any other systems with a mix like that out there? My heart is in standup but I recognize the need to be efficient in other and all ranges.
Also I would like to know what everybody else is doing and in what arts? And how they stay within the boundries of their original systems?
Do they continue to evolve? If so, how? If not, why?
Is it proper to add new techniques or training methods to a system and call it the same name, even if your instructor does not teach it that way?
Is it still the same system? Is it still the same system if you've added "all" of the ground grappling elements and enhanced the standup as well?
OP
RyuShiKan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #35
mpegs reveal quite a bit
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #36
I'm sorry, but these responses are mostly so generalized that I don't feel responding to them would be useful. But I'll try this:
a) Draeger offers a useful distinction between "bujutsu," and "budo."
b) Mr. Parker grew up in a pretty cross-cultural kind of place, at a time when martial arts were just starting to become visible in the US. It's like Shakespeare growing up in 16th-century England.
c) I don't know what "65% stand-up," and "35% ground," means.
d) My major point was this: martial arts studios do not, and indeed cannot, teach us to become masters of "combat," and "warriors," in the sense that seems to be indicated by these threads.
I'm now going to bow out, since I was probably stupid to write anything here in the first place.
a) Draeger offers a useful distinction between "bujutsu," and "budo."
b) Mr. Parker grew up in a pretty cross-cultural kind of place, at a time when martial arts were just starting to become visible in the US. It's like Shakespeare growing up in 16th-century England.
c) I don't know what "65% stand-up," and "35% ground," means.
d) My major point was this: martial arts studios do not, and indeed cannot, teach us to become masters of "combat," and "warriors," in the sense that seems to be indicated by these threads.
I'm now going to bow out, since I was probably stupid to write anything here in the first place.
They sure do!! You have any??
I was quoting you, but I was speaking to anyone who was willing to answer.
I understood "D" but the controversy is English terms of warrior and combat but not the Japanese counterpart. I don't know what Draeger is but Bujutsu translates to military arts.
65% standup fighting and 35% grappling on the ground. I was asking if anybody else is practicing the way I do in that respect. Everybody says that their art covers all ranges and there is no need for new systems. But yet "most" systems techniques are readily available through several mediums and it has been shown that they do not cover all ranges suffiently.
The balance of 65% and 35% is just my way that I try to round out my training and teaching. Others will say they do this too. If you do the math. I hour of class leaves approximately 20 minutes of ground grappling. Thats all my point was there.
Also I use the word Bujutsu quite a bit. For a long time I called my art Bujutsu and I told my Sifu this too. It was my interpetation of martial art but it no longer resembled any one one of my instructors teaching.
OP
RyuShiKan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #39
Yes, and I gave you the URL for them on another thread over a week ago.
I am surprised you haven't looked at them yet.
For those who think that new systems have no place in the martial art world. I would like some one to answer logically the questions that I have presented here!
What I teach and practice is 65% standup and 35% ground grappling. I'd like to know if there are any other systems with a mix like that out there? My heart is in standup but I recognize the need to be efficient in other and all ranges.
Also I would like to know what everybody else is doing and in what arts? And how they stay within the boundries of their original systems?
Do they continue to evolve? If so, how? If not, why?
Is it proper to add new techniques or training methods to a system and call it the same name, even if your instructor does not teach it that way?
Is it still the same system? Is it still the same system if you've added "all" of the ground grappling elements and enhanced the standup as well?
What I teach and practice is 65% standup and 35% ground grappling. I'd like to know if there are any other systems with a mix like that out there? My heart is in standup but I recognize the need to be efficient in other and all ranges.
Also I would like to know what everybody else is doing and in what arts? And how they stay within the boundries of their original systems?
Do they continue to evolve? If so, how? If not, why?
Is it proper to add new techniques or training methods to a system and call it the same name, even if your instructor does not teach it that way?
Is it still the same system? Is it still the same system if you've added "all" of the ground grappling elements and enhanced the standup as well?
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?- Latest: Kung Fu Wang
-
-
