When does a style.....

[searcher]

With so many threads and the discussion of starting new styles going on I have been trying to figure something out. When does a style stop being a style and become a new style. This may sound a little off the wall, but I feel it is a valid qhestion. Let me explain. Lets say for the sake of arguement that person A has trained for several years in one style and has reached a reasonable rank in that style. Person A then decides to start studying other styles and begins incorperating the "new" material into their primary style. Over the course of time they put in a large ammount of new info, to the point that their primary style no longer looks like what they are teaching. By putting in new ideas, forms, self-defense techniques, etc. they have added what they felt their primary art was lacking.

Now to the question. At what point does what they are teaching stop being their primary style and become something different, basically a whole new style? Or does it remain their primary with modifications?

I thought I would raise this question and see where it leads. With so many Black belts going off to form their own style and many more adding to their primary style to increase its diversity I thought it would get the juices flowing to put this out there.

Thank you ahead of time for everyones replies.

 

[47MartialMan]

This has been going on for every martial art developed. One of the differences is that there were no black belters doing this back then. Just people looking to learn as much as they could to fit their personal need for defense. And, one will never "completely stop having somewhat onformation still being their promary. It is hard to "un-learn" something that has taken years to accomplish. (Damn dysgraphia, I have to go back and re-type/re-write many times. Is there a "spell-checker" around here.)

 

[Andrew Green]

For all practical purposes - when it gets a new name.

There was this Greek hero, named Thesis. He slew the minotaur, in order to get there he needed a ship. This ship was preserved, but like all things made of wood it slowely decayed. As pieces rotted away they where replaced, over time the whole ship was replaced and there was no pieces of the original left, is it still Thesis ship? If not when did it stop being Thesis' ship?

If so, suppose someone where to save all the old rotting pieces and then assemble them, now there are two ships, which one is Thesis ship?

These games can be lots of fun, and make peoples heads hurt

 

[47MartialMan]

For all practical purposes - when it gets a new name.

There was this Greek hero, named Thesis. He slew the minotaur, in order to get there he needed a ship. This ship was preserved, but like all things made of wood it slowely decayed. As pieces rotted away they where replaced, over time the whole ship was replaced and there was no pieces of the original left, is it still Thesis ship? If not when did it stop being Thesis' ship?

If so, suppose someone where to save all the old rotting pieces and then assemble them, now there are two ships, which one is Thesis ship?

These games can be lots of fun, and make peoples heads hurt

I guess would one use the wording; authentic or original ship. Or wording such as "the old/former ship". Or some classifciation to distinguish between the two. Although they are both Thesis' ships.

 

[Andrew Green]

I guess would one use the wording; authentic or original ship. Or wording such as "the old/former ship". Or some classifciation to distinguish between the two. Although they are both Thesis' ships.

It's about continuity, not wording.

You, 47MartialMan, have none of the cells left in your body that you where born with. So, are you the same person? Is it the same ship? Is it the same style?

 

[dubljay]

I don't quite understand the facination with "new styles". Perhaps some one could explain it to me.

Simply give credit where its due. If you got the idea from another person/style then it "belongs" to them.... if its your own idea then claim it as so.

 

[Andrew Green]

Simply give credit where its due. If you got the idea from another person/style then it "belongs" to them.... if its your own idea then claim it as so.

And who did they get it from?

No one owns techniques, there is nothing that is really new. Unless some patents on techniques and tactics have been getting passed down for 1000's of years that I don't know about...

If you can make it work, it belongs to you.

 

[47MartialMan]

It's about continuity, not wording.

You, 47MartialMan, have none of the cells left in your body that you where born with. So, are you the same person? Is it the same ship? Is it the same style?

But because I no longer have the same cells, I am no longer myself or the same person?

But a ship is still a thing and it could be worded as the "old ship" or the "new ship" or the "first ship" or the "second ship"?

 

[47MartialMan]

And who did they get it from?

No one owns techniques, there is nothing that is really new. Unless some patents on techniques and tactics have been getting passed down for 1000's of years that I don't know about...

If you can make it work, it belongs to you.

Hmmn I have seen a serious of techniques and training methods in one system that I have not seen in another

 

[dubljay]

And who did they get it from?

No one owns techniques, there is nothing that is really new. Unless some patents on techniques and tactics have been getting passed down for 1000's of years that I don't know about...

If you can make it work, it belongs to you.

Agreed, however in Parker Style Kenpo tailoring techniques to your own personal nuances is at the heart of the system. So if I change say 5 Swords slightly to fit my body mechanics, but retain the same principles as the original does it cease to be Parker Kenpo?

I understand the fact there are a set number of ways that the human body can move and each person really does their own "version" of the art that they practice but does it make it their own art?

It is the principles and philosophy that separate arts (IMO)

So if you combine bits and pieces of philosophies and principles, and mold them around your own body is that a new art?


I guess I fail to see the distinction between a "new art" and MMA

(EDIT: my posts always seem to me as a personal attack when I read them, that is not my intent)

 

[Andrew Green]

But because I no longer have the same cells, I am no longer myself or the same person?

well, suppose aliens with much more advanced technology could reassemble all your old cells, who would be you?

And it is not as simple as new ship / old ship. Because, at what point does the name shift occur?

Suppose we replace a sail, same ship?

Now a door, still the same ship?

When is it a different ship?

 

[47MartialMan]

well, suppose aliens with much more advanced technology could reassemble all your old cells, who would be you?

Is this the same as cloning

And it is not as simple as new ship / old ship. Because, at what point does the name shift occur?

Suppose we replace a sail, same ship?

Is the same sail modeled after a original?

Now a door, still the same ship?

Adding or subtracting one via remodeling?

When is it a different ship?

The very structure of the ship, hence the word ship, itself, states what it is. And when one applies their name to it, is it their ship? Or the one whom had designed it? If I own a 1970 Dodge Charger...is it a Dodge Charger or my Dodge Charger. does ownership unclude the originator/builder? Or are we speaking in terms of posession verses creation?

 

[Andrew Green]

Is this the same as cloning

Nope

Is the same sail modeled after a original?

A replica, the ship is being preserved.

Adding or subtracting one via remodeling?

Replacing with a replica

The very structure of the ship, hence the word ship, itself, states what it is. And when one applies their name to it, is it their ship? Or the one whom had designed it? If I own a 1970 Dodge Charger...is it a Dodge Charger or my Dodge Charger. does ownership unclude the originator/builder? Or are we speaking in terms of posession verses creation?

I think your missing the point of the puzzle a little...

Neither posession nor ownership, but continuity.

 

[arnisador]

I had this same concersation at lunch today, but about species!

I agree with the comments about continuity and would say it's continually changing (let's go further back to Heraclitus: You can't step into the same river twice.) but also with this: "For all practical purposes - when it gets a new name."

 

[47MartialMan]

I think your missing the point of the puzzle a little...

Neither posession nor ownership, but continuity.

Please enlighten me a little more in example of the originator of this thread.

 

[searcher]

I see all of your points, but at what point do you say this is something totally different from what it was. I have been thinking this over more as the debate on forming new styles heats up more and more. I have trained in and will continue to train in several different styles. I will also continue passing on everything I have learned to my students, no matter what the style. But at what point do I have to say that what I am teaching ha become something "new" or different? Just a simple question.

 

[James Kovacich]

With so many threads and the discussion of starting new styles going on I have been trying to figure something out. When does a style stop being a style and become a new style. This may sound a little off the wall, but I feel it is a valid qhestion. Let me explain. Lets say for the sake of arguement that person A has trained for several years in one style and has reached a reasonable rank in that style. Person A then decides to start studying other styles and begins incorperating the "new" material into their primary style. Over the course of time they put in a large ammount of new info, to the point that their primary style no longer looks like what they are teaching. By putting in new ideas, forms, self-defense techniques, etc. they have added what they felt their primary art was lacking.

Now to the question. At what point does what they are teaching stop being their primary style and become something different, basically a whole new style? Or does it remain their primary with modifications?

I thought I would raise this question and see where it leads. With so many Black belts going off to form their own style and many more adding to their primary style to increase its diversity I thought it would get the juices flowing to put this out there.

Thank you ahead of time for everyones replies.

New styles more often than not are a sub-system of a primary system. A good question is are the new styles sub-systems and if not why?

 

[James Kovacich]

Simply give credit where its due. If you got the idea from another person/style then it "belongs" to them.... if its your own idea then claim it as so.

It can be about not giving credit but more often than not some form of credit "must" be given in order "for it to be." A system has to come from somewhere.

 

[James Kovacich]

Agreed, however in Parker Style Kenpo tailoring techniques to your own personal nuances is at the heart of the system. So if I change say 5 Swords slightly to fit my body mechanics, but retain the same principles as the original does it cease to be Parker Kenpo?

I understand the fact there are a set number of ways that the human body can move and each person really does their own "version" of the art that they practice but does it make it their own art?

That would still be the same technique with your own interpetation. It's differant when one completely changes a technique such as a chambered punch from the hip and versus a boxer style jab and cross.

There is a world of differance in the training methodology and presentation. Yet there are those (not saying you, just those who I know will say they are still the same) who say that there is no differance.

Another example is my wifes Uncle who eaned his Black in Kenpo in '70 or '71 and he and his instructor were original students of Mike Inay after Mike created Inayan Eskrima.

My wifes Uncle and his Instructor have spent the last 30 years perfecting their technique together. Modifying and shortening up everything to fit them as an individuals.

They still call their art Kenpo and Eskrima but the question is. Would the Kenpo community still call it Kenpo? I know the Eskrima is still Eskrima but is it still "Inayan Eskrima?"

I am a student of Inayan Eskrima so I know first hand the answer but I want to see in "black and white" what the martial art community would classify these 2 modfied martial art systems as. Original systems or new systems?

 

[searcher]

What I am referring to is the formation of a new system. If you really want to get down to all styles are "sub-systems" of another style. For example, Shito-ryu as created by Kenwa Mabuni could be listed as a sub-style of Shorei-ryu and/or Shorin-ryu. General Choi's TKD could be classified a a sub-style of Shotokan, just the same as Wado-ryu and many other styles. My current style could be called both Shorei-ryu and Shorin-ryu just like Shito-ryu, but they are different. I hope this gives you an idea of what I am talking about. Where does the diferentiation occur. When does it stop being one and change into another.

Thanks to everyone for letting me pick your brains apart. I love these touchy subjects.