Strating your own System, That is the Question???????

[47MartialMan]

I like the way Matt Stone had stated:
There are many, many martial arts instructors, and only a very small handful have any insight worth speaking of. Of that small group, only an even smaller number have the ability, much less the experience or training, to come up with something genuinely new and unique. Of that small number, how many will attempt to develop something new as opposed to remaining within their main art to better that art instead?
And thus is a grand pont.....

 

[James Kovacich]

Hi Folks
I started another thread asking about being a Soke or Not and I recieved quite a few posts and a number of private E mails form ppl who frankly didnt like my posts and disagreed with some of the posts which other participants left.
Now Im not in this for a popularity contest, but one of the things that came out of the posts and E mails brought up a what I thought would be a good topic.

Lets say for sake of argument you agree with ppl starting their own systems. I have 4 questions.

1) What is the mininum rank a person should hold before starting their own system??

2) How long should a person have studied and or had time in grade?

3) What other requirements should a person have?

4) Should there be some type of exam board or accrediation board for testing to ensure high standards?

I look forward to your posts, all opinions and views are welcome.

Thanks

San

Time in grade be reflected in ones abilities. They should have reason for "change" and hopefully some advice and guidance from "seniors" in the martial community.

(I just described myself) :uhyeah:

 

[rmcrobertson]

I've never understood why in the world this should be an issue for anyone, especially not a relative novice who should have far more serious things to worry about.

Moreover, anybody who isn't just doing it for the money or for their own ego hasn't set out to become a master, or anything other than a good student, a good fighter, a good teacher.

They just got up one day, in a peculiar set of personal and historical circumstances, and whoops...

 

[47MartialMan]

I've never understood why in the world this should be an issue for anyone, especially not a relative novice who should have far more serious things to worry about.

Moreover, anybody who isn't just doing it for the money or for their own ego hasn't set out to become a master, or anything other than a good student, a good fighter, a good teacher.

They just got up one day, in a peculiar set of personal and historical circumstances, and whoops...

It is about ego and not knowledge that one creates a system in a short amount of time...

 

[terryl965]

1) What is the mininum rank a person should hold before starting their own system??

2) How long should a person have studied and or had time in grade?

3) What other requirements should a person have?

4) Should there be some type of exam board or accrediation board for testing to ensure high standards?

I look forward to your posts, all opinions and views are welcome
Answer
1)I do not believe rank is an issue, if you are high enough in your system why start a new one, the sole reason is ego and the in-ability to evolve your system.
2)Time is a venue that knowledge cannot exsist without, so to answer your question knowledge not time
3) Requirement for what to make up the old statement I've taken whay is good from other arts to develope mine, who needs requirements for this.
4)how can you test someone on there style read my earlier post about couch potatoes how can you judge that.
In the end the one's that I have seen developed there own style was fakers and those that can't cut the real world of MA. Just my humble opion

 

[Shaolinwind]

Hi Folks
I started another thread asking about being a Soke or Not and I recieved quite a few posts and a number of private E mails form ppl who frankly didnt like my posts and disagreed with some of the posts which other participants left.
Now Im not in this for a popularity contest, but one of the things that came out of the posts and E mails brought up a what I thought would be a good topic.

Lets say for sake of argument you agree with ppl starting their own systems. I have 4 questions.

1) What is the mininum rank a person should hold before starting their own system??

2) How long should a person have studied and or had time in grade?

3) What other requirements should a person have?

4) Should there be some type of exam board or accrediation board for testing to ensure high standards?

I look forward to your posts, all opinions and views are welcome.

Thanks

San

I remember my instructor saying that anything in a system was at one time proven in mortal combat, a fight in which death is on the line. The Russian special forces' system is a blend of several arts, but different enough to be recognised as its own creature. Though brand new in relation to ancient arts, its use by the Russian military's elite soldiers makes it safe to say it is proven functional in mortal combat. How will you prove yours if you design one?

 

[RRouuselot]

1)I remember my instructor saying that anything in a system was at one time proven in mortal combat, a fight in which death is on the line.

The Russian special forces' system is a blend of several arts, but different enough to be recognised as its own creature.

2) Though brand new in relation to ancient arts, its use by the Russian military's elite soldiers makes it safe to say it is proven functional in mortal combat. How will you prove yours if you design one?

1)[font=&quot] [/font]I think the word “mortal” might be exaggerated a bit. Maybe in realistic situations might be a better scenario.

2)[font=&quot] [/font]I am wondering when the last time the RSF were actually deployed in a combat zone AND actually used that art in hand to hand……..most armies these days use long range weapons….guns, bombs, etc.

 

[Shaolinwind]

1)I think the word “mortal” might be exaggerated a bit. Maybe in realistic situations might be a better scenario.

2)I am wondering when the last time the RSF were actually deployed in a combat zone AND actually used that art in hand to hand……..most armies these days use long range weapons….guns, bombs, etc.

1) Mortal is by no means exaggerated. Just pick up any history book.

2) You're suggesting that all modern day military actions and combat is on the open battlefield.

Anyhow that's not the point. I am saying if something hasn't been proven then it's just theory. Are you going to trust a theory to save your life?

 

[47MartialMan]

Anyhow that's not the point. I am saying if something hasn't been proven then it's just theory. Are you going to trust a theory to save your life?

Hmmmn, so the methods I have seen and used in actual combat/fights taught to me by a founder whom founded a system in 1975. Based off Chinese-70%, Japanese/Okinawan-10%, and Korean 20%...That this founder studied 25 years prior. That this founder has a "knack for applying tactical methods". Could this be considered as a "true creation"?

 

[Cruentus]

I haven't read all the replies to this thread yet, but I feel I should respond because of what I do; and what I do could be contrived to be it's own "system."

First of all, it is worth saying that there is no standardization in the martial arts. Different styles have their own ways of standardizing what they do with belt systems, etc. But, none of this transfers over from system to system.

The bottom line is #1. that the person who represents a "system" is honest and ethical. No fabrication of credentials. #2. The system is effective, and can be proven as such through realistic testing, or from combat experience.

The rest, as credentials are concerned, is just gravy.

Now, the other aspect is, what do we mean by "system"?

I have broken this up into a few parts:

1. Traditional Art: A traditional art attempts to be contained within itself, as one of its goals is to maintain tradition, as well as combat effectiveness. Example: Karate could be considered a traditional art. What defines it's completeness is not that Karate covers every aspect of combat (firearms, modern weapon work, etc.), but its that within the tradition its meaning to preserve, it addresses combat as it applies to that tradition. Another example would be Balintawak eskrima. Balintawak is a stick deuling system, period. It preserves a Filipino tradition of stick dueling during the late 1800's to early/mid 1900's. It is a complete system in that it addresses every aspect of the 'eskrima stick' duel, but obviously it does not cover every single aspect of combat. That said, traditional arts are great for the developement of oneself both holistically and combatively; and what is learned through traditional arts is great for developing a combatant as a whole.

It would be very difficult to "make up" your own traditional art. By definition, you would have to inherit the cultural aspects of your tradition as well as the martial aspects. You would have to be very well versed in a particular fighting culture; and have set up a structure to preserve that culture. I would imagine that this would take decades of work for it to be legit, and even then this is questionable if one does not inherit the cultural aspects as well.

#2. Progressive Art: A progressive martial art is very much like a traditional system; the difference is within it's own structure, it is meant to evolve over time. Modern Arnis or JKD is a progressive system. In a progressive system the core concepts and premises and traditions of the art remain the same. But, progressive arts do not try to exist in a vacuum. These arts are designed to recognize the fact that different problems will require different solutions; so these arts try to stay "modern" in terms of these solutions. So the techniques, drills, and elements of a progressive art will change over time, but the core concepts are meant to remain the same.

A progressive art is much more user friendly to develop then a traditional art because of the fact that your not trying to contain a fighting culture within a vacuum. However, it is not an easy task in itself to develop a progressive art. One has to be highly developed as a martial artist in terms of skill AND curriculum developement and teaching ability., otherwise the main concepts of the art will not withstand over time.

#3. Personal fighting art: This is your own personal fighting system. THis is essentially "how you fight." This changes over time, as you develop skill.

Everyone who is a martial artist or combatant essentially is developing their own personal fighting art or system. Note that this system may or may not fit within the constrains of the broader system studied.

#4. Tactical System: A tactical system is much like a progressive art. The difference is it takes out the elements of "cultural tradition preservation" and "core concept preservation." This system is interested only in what is effective today. A tactical system evolves and changes over time, and as more effecient methods are developed. There is a core structure, and core concepts. But these are not necessarily designed to remain the same over time (even thought they often do). ANYTHING in a tactical system is subject to change as new things are learned, and as personal preferences enter the fray.

A tactical system is the easiest to start, but it is just as difficult to bring to a higher level of effectiveness as any of the other systems.

Something to keep in mind is that the stricter the "preservation" standards of the system, the more likely the art will be preserved over time, as common sense would have it. This is why Kung-Fu styles that are very strict traditional arts can remain relatively the same, or at least somewhat preserved, over many generations. Where as tactical systems, like Native American warrior arts, or European battlefield arts, or american gun fighting and street fighting systems, are often lost when its usefulness is not longer needed (or needed less), or changes so much from generation to generation that they "die" with each generation.

Bottom line: Whatever style or "system" that is made up, it must withstand the test under realistic testing situations; therefore, whoever makes it up pretty much had better know what the hell they are doing.

Paul

 

[RRouuselot]

1) Mortal is by no means exaggerated. Just pick up any history book.
2) You're suggesting that all modern day military actions and combat is on the open battlefield.
3) Anyhow that's not the point.
4) I am saying if something hasn't been proven then it's just theory.
5) Are you going to trust a theory to save your life?

1) I have literally 100’s of martial history books in English , Japanese as well as Chinese….and yes to say that each movement was tested and proven in “mortal combat” is a gross exaggeration of how many techniques were formulated. If you would care to give specific examples with dates and names of unarmed encounters that ended in death that can corroborate your claim I would love to see them. Please also give names of each technique and who they actually killed. If you can’t then you are just repeating hearsay and not fact. I don’t mean to knit-pick but I do get tired of reading these myths that are perpetuated from one generation to another.

2) I am saying actual hand to hand combat (empty hand) in war is extremely rare.
3) Actually no that is precisely the point. You have claimed that your teacher’s comment “anything in a system was at one time proven in mortal combat” is true. So I am asking you for information on the people that were killed in these fights to the death to support your comment. I am also asking for specific information on hand to hand combat in which the Russian Special Forces used their “art” in a war to actually kill someone.
4) Which is exactly why I am asking you to produce evidence to support the claims you have made about RSF and “mortal” combat.
5) No, but it would seem you are based on your willingness to swallow some of the theories you have espoused here.

 

[VSanhodo]

Time in grade be reflected in ones abilities. They should have reason for "change" and hopefully some advice and guidance from "seniors" in the martial community.

(I just described myself) :uhyeah:

I see time in grade partly as ability but also as knowledge and the ability to convey or educate. I know a lot of ppl who are full of technique and thye have lots of flash. Some would call that ability, while others would call it BS. Me personally I prefer some abillity and lots of knowledge. One of my former instructors ( Shizyura Tanaka Sensei) god rest his soul, had at one point in his life awesome abilities. I always had and have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for him, his ability, skill and knowledge. As he got older his ability to do was clearly not what it once was. On the other hand I never once thought for a moment I could or ever would be able to compare to him. But what was by far more impressive to me, was his ability to educate students and show and teach them how their bodies and minds could make certain techniques work for them.
In todays society of overnight wonders and Wannabessss.
Where attaining Black Belt is merely attending class twice a week and pay your dues for 18 months and pooof you are an instant success. All to often students are told, Oooooo that technique would never work or their is no value in kata and where the vast majority of todays practitioners truly believe that being able to point spar and win trouphies is all that karate is all about.
The value of being in a system and learning it as an art form is all but dead. I use to tell this story and I think it is fair to say Mr Tanaka would agree with the point.
If you are able to take 10 ppl and give each of them a sniper rifle and for sake of argument everything about the weapon, the rounds and distances are equal. You set up targets at 250 yds, 500 yds, 750 yds, 1000 yds and finally 1500 yds. Some ppl may be able to hit the closer distance targets but if you have one person who is able to score 100 out of 100 at 1000 or 1500 yds and the other 9 cant even hit the target, IT ISNT THE WEAPON ITS THE PERSON. Point being teach the art and teach the underlying principles. Their is nothing wrong with the technique its probably the instructor who does not understand how to perform it well themselves and therefor cannot teach it to his / her students and as an excuse simply says it does not work or has not use or value. The techniques of old work fine, its not the techniques fault the person cant do them. Thats like saying its the rifles fault that the shootist couldnt hit the broad side of a barn.
Abilty vs knowldege, A never ending debate. Me personally I prefer knowledge, with knowledge a persons abilities can be taught and honed.
Thanks again for everyones post and please keep them coming.

San

 

[rmcrobertson]

While I know there will be exceptions to this, here's a basic rule: any time you run into a "master," or a dojo that claims, "We taught the Navy SEALS!" or, "Combat secrets tested on the battlefield!" you should immediately walk away. Or run, if necessary.

Martial arts teach skills and disciplines that, of course, are useful in war. No question about that. But these hand-to-hand combat fantasies--since 18th-century Japan, modern armies have more and more taught that if you have to fight hand-to-hand, somebody screwed up. Badly. And for that matter, even the Japanese arts always taught that you were nuts to step onto a battlefield without a weapon.

Nor do modern special forces types, "fight," hand-to-hand, except in an emergency. What they train to do is to sneak up in the dark and stick a knife in your neck when absolutely necessary, or even better to get in real close and shoot the crap out of you and your friends before you can react, or even better to snipe you from as far away as possible, or best of all to put a laser designator on your house and have you blown up by something dropped from an airplane.

It's the same stuff these guys have been working on since at least Fairbairn. "Fighting," isn't even the right word--you need something like, "erasing," or, "killing."

In civilian martial arts--and they are all civilian martial arts, no matter what anybody tells you--there is a similar distinction between "fighting," in the sport arts, and, "self-defense," martial arts study.

 

[47MartialMan]

I have literally 100’s of martial history books in English , Japanese as well as Chinese….

Wow-I thought I had a "mini-library" going...

Name some book titles.

 

[RRouuselot]

I have literally 100’s of martial history books in English , Japanese as well as Chinese….

Wow-I thought I had a "mini-library" going...

Name some book titles.

Wow, with such a polite request like that how can I refuse...

 

[RRouuselot]

1)While I know there will be exceptions to this, here's a basic rule: any time you run into a "master," or a dojo that claims, "We taught the Navy SEALS!" or, "Combat secrets tested on the battlefield!" you should immediately walk away. Or run, if necessary.




2)Martial arts teach skills and disciplines that, of course, are useful in war. No question about that. But these hand-to-hand combat fantasies--since 18th-century Japan, modern armies have more and more taught that if you have to fight hand-to-hand, somebody screwed up. Badly. And for that matter, even the Japanese arts always taught that you were nuts to step onto a battlefield without a weapon.




3)Nor do modern special forces types, "fight," hand-to-hand, except in an emergency. What they train to do is to sneak up in the dark and stick a knife in your neck when absolutely necessary, or even better to get in real close and shoot the crap out of you and your friends before you can react, or even better to snipe you from as far away as possible, or best of all to put a laser designator on your house and have you blown up by something dropped from an airplane.

It's the same stuff these guys have been working on since at least Fairbairn. "Fighting," isn't even the right word--you need something like, "erasing," or, "killing."




4)In civilian martial arts--and they are all civilian martial arts, no matter what anybody tells you--there is a similar distinction between "fighting," in the sport arts, and, "self-defense," martial arts study.

1)True, true, true. If I really felt like stretching the truth to fit some agenda I could say “I have taught US Army Rangers and Special Forces”…….it wouldn’t be a lie since I have taught a few “individuals” that just happen to be in those groups but it would be miss leading and make it sound like I taught their units as part of an organized plan put out by the Army…..which just aint so….

2) Couldn’t agree more. Any soldier or marine that loses their weapon should go join the French Military. In fact marines can be Court Marshaled for losing their weapon.

3)I got to see a demonstration of a “chain gun” mounted on an airplane with laser guided tracking. According to the demo those guns can hit a target the size of your hand from about 5,000 feet up……at night. Here is a nice video clip of one in action mounted on the side of a Helicopter. http://www.wimp.com/chaingun/



4)True.

 

[Makalakumu]

3)I got to see a demonstration of a “chain gun” mounted on an airplane with laser guided tracking. According to the demo those guns can hit a target the size of your hand from about 5,000 feet up……at night. Here is a nice video clip of one in action mounted on the side of a Helicopter. http://www.wimp.com/chaingun/

Fight Fire With Fire by Metallica was about as perfect of background music as you could get...

 

[47MartialMan]

Fight Fire With Fire by Metallica was about as perfect of background music as you could get...

Hmmn, what has this do to with starting a system????

 

[Makalakumu]

Hmmn, what has this do to with starting a system????

You have to click and watch the link that Robert provided. The chain gun is an amazing peice of technology and the music pretty much sums up the action.

As far as starting your own system goes, I think the link pretty much shows that people who promote themselves by saying that they teach the military how to fight hand to hand are most likely frauds. Modern warfare is way beyond hand to hand.

 

[RRouuselot]

You have to click and watch the link that Robert provided. The chain gun is an amazing peice of technology and the music pretty much sums up the action.

1) As far as starting your own system goes, I think the link pretty much shows that people who promote themselves by saying that they teach the military how to fight hand to hand are most likely frauds. Modern warfare is way beyond hand to hand.

1) It’s kind of ironic though that there is a big push in the Army and Marines to learn H 2 H combat. The Marines have developed a system (which is quite practical BTW) and the Army has started requiring all or most of it’s units to practice H 2 H as part of their PT once a week. I know this because I was teaching several units. Having said that, most of the programs taught are emphasize more “Police like” techniques rather than “mortal combat” stuff. I am guess this is due to the fact they may be called to Iraq and have to use technique to detain people.