Why?

[Draven]

Here is my thoughts as someone who has "created" their owned system. One of the martial arts I practice, I was told that the Tradition lies in the spirit, or philosophy, of the art. So it is my responsibility to change, improve, adapt & perfect my own art. That my Path is personal and I have to make my art my own.

Think of this as the Karate Kid scene were Mr. Myogi tells Daniel "You learn my art but you will teach your own." What I teach has been drawn from several different systems, it has splatterings of psychology, sociology, criminology & traditional Philosophy. It is not a collection of styles or a combination of methods, its my Path. My way of doing things and my students all know that I belive "Its not what you know but how you apply it..."

 

[blindsage]

I agree with everyone on the individuals who really have relatively little training or mid-level students creating their own style, or with someone just modifying a slight way and calling it something new.

On the other hand many of us train in styles generated/created/branched off within the last 50-100 years. Kenpo? Kyokushin/Seido? Aikido? Judo? BJJ? JKD? Some 'styles' of Arnis/Escrima/Kali, etc, etc, etc. Let's be honest here, many of the styles we study are not particularly old systems, we have documentation and direct evidence of when they were created, and often people still living who were there. Even when we don't, a lot of older style's were 'new' inventions, or branches off old systems at one time: Yang Taijiquan, Wing Chun, Goju Ryu, TKD, Muay Thai, western Boxing, etc, etc, etc. There's nothing in and of itself wrong with creating a new system, it's how it's done, by whom and for what purpose.

 

[dbell]

Lately, while surfing this forum, as well as others, I find myself asking why....why do people find it necessary to run out and create their own martial art? Is it some childhood fantasy that they want to live out, by training in a bunch of arts, toss some mumbo-jumbo together and feel they're the next Bruce Lee? Do they want some sort of status, or feeling?

I have to wonder....how much training do these people actually do? Do they train 5 arts for 3 mos. each, run out, toss stuff from each art together and call it something? Do they feel they're offering people something that they're not getting elsewhere?

I've been training for over 20yrs. Kenpo is my base art. I also actively train in Arnis. I enjoy BJJ, although its been a while since I've been on the mat. I do teach from time to time, and yes, there are times when, during a Kenpo class, I'll toss in some Arnis, just to a) give people a taste of something else, and b) because at the school where I train, some of the Arnis basics are required at the upper levels. I make it clear what I'm teaching, so as to not misrepresent, and have people think that this stick drill is Kenpo, when it isn't.

Many times, while doing techniques, in a spontaneous reaction drill setting, I'll find myself doing some Arnis mixed with the Kenpo. I may start off with a Kenpo tech., but end with an Arnis lock. Nothing wrong with that. I say that, because I've devoted many years to Arnis as well.

What I do not do though, is take my years of training, mix a little of that, a pinch of this, an ounce of that, blend it all together, pop it in the over for an hour, and WA-LA...a 'new' art. Personally, I have zero desire to be some made up GM, Soke or any other title. I have no desire to make people go "ohhh and ahh" at my 'new' creation. Every class that I go to, regardless of what art it is, I find myself learning something new. I do not claim to know it all.

If we think about it, there are so many arts out there. Many branches of the FMAs, various Kung Fu branches, Kenpo, Kempo, Kaju, TaiChi, grappling.....the list goes on and on and on. So if we see all of this, it raises the question....why...why is it necessary for someone to run out and try to craft something when there're countless, already proven systems out there?

Some will say, "Well, if these people created their own thing, why can't I?" IMO, the answer, or at least one answer is...because these people have tested their art over time, and have proven it. I highly doubt that the people running around today, the shake 'n bake, pop in the oven, new founding father of X art, has done any of that.

So...enough rambling from me. What are your thoughts?

I can tell you why I started creating a new art 12 years or so ago and brought it to "fruition" last year....

I started studying Judo the day after I turned 8, and have actively been studying and practicing it since. When I was 10, my Sensei started me in Aikido and Kendo, both of which I have been studying and practicing for 38 years now. Over the past 40 years, I have set in, and continue to sit in on classes from various styles, and have been belted to 3rd Dan in Hapkido and Tang Soo Do as well (through study and training, not just given to me!). (Studying both since 1984.)

Over this time, I took what I learned, and continue to learn in the classes I take, and teach, and merged them "back" into one art with some changes as I felt were appropriate based on my studies, my medical background (Physician's Assistant and Paramedic, as well as Shiatsu Tech), and my watching people fight in RL or on "stage" (competition). I couldn't call this "new" art Judo, Aikido, Hapkido, TSD, etc, so I named it The Art of the Circular Wind. I worked, with my Sensei's approval (before he died) on this art, presented it to a panel of GM's from various styles from Japan last year, and it was accepted as a valid art.

So, that is why I did it...

 

[Omar B]

I agree with everyone on the individuals who really have relatively little training or mid-level students creating their own style, or with someone just modifying a slight way and calling it something new.

On the other hand many of us train in styles generated/created/branched off within the last 50-100 years. Kenpo? Kyokushin/Seido? Aikido? Judo? BJJ? JKD? Some 'styles' of Arnis/Escrima/Kali, etc, etc, etc. Let's be honest here, many of the styles we study are not particularly old systems, we have documentation and direct evidence of when they were created, and often people still living who were there. Even when we don't, a lot of older style's were 'new' inventions, or branches off old systems at one time: Yang Taijiquan, Wing Chun, Goju Ryu, TKD, Muay Thai, western Boxing, etc, etc, etc. There's nothing in and of itself wrong with creating a new system, it's how it's done, by whom and for what purpose.

I totally agree with you in that many of the styles we are studying are not as ancient as we would like to believe. But similar to dBell's previous post, what he's doing is a natural evolution of what he has been doing for years.

In the case of Kyokushin, it evolved out of Mas Oyama's studies in Goju and a couple other styles as well as his own aggressive personality. If you take Kyokushin and put it next to other traditional styles they overlap almost totally except for slight tweaks and of course the more aggressive philosophy. Just like Seido is a natural evolution of Kyokushin just reflecting Nakamura's Zen Buddhist belief system, some of the aggression is gone but lined up against Kyokushin and other styles it's pretty much the same. In that sense, I don't think of myself as doing anything new, the name may be relatively new, but it's the same karate just filtered through out grand master's value judgments.

 

[Sukerkin]

I study a koryu art, so I think you can imagine without much difficulty what my views on this topic are.

 

[jks9199]

Sometimes it comes down to rudimentary other beliefs. A conviction that a system needs to be taught in a other way. This is what I could grasp from the Genbukan/Jinenkan split off from Bujinkan. I could be wrong though.

Or some people see the shortcomings of one art and decide to search for something to complement/add and progress with it. If they are genuine with it, it could be a solid system. But problems will arise when you keep it under an existing name. Because for most styles the name covers the load, all the techniques are known and have been categorised. So a sudden new technique could give problems. Other clubs don't know it, the GM doesn't know about it and so on. Problems!

Apart from that, there are probably alot of phonies too, getting their ego's petted.

Two different situations here. One is presenting an art in a different way; we all do that to some extent when we teach, no matter how hard we try to be faithful to what we were taught. The other is a legitimate quest for knowledge, and takes time if done right. I've said before; legitimate natural development of a style occurs as someone seeks to answer their own questions and others find those same answers are useful to them.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

To bring a little historical perspective into this (from a Japanese art point of view), creating new systems was relatively common (sorry, Sukerin!). Essentially, an art would be taught to a number of people, and one of them would possibly inherit the system (interestingly, Musashi Miyamoto's hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu was not supposed to be continued, he left instructions for the records and techniques to be destroyed, but was disobeyed), and the remaining Menkyo Kaiden holders (holders of licences of full mastership) would be expected to establish their own schools based on what they were taught. It is only later that they would stay with the new head teacher.

But the thing to realise here is that the "new" arts would be founded by people who had established training in other arts. If you tried to establish a new system without holding a Menkyo Kaiden at the least, then you had better be able to back it up! Fortunately, there were plenty of opportunities to try to avoid dying (and thereby establish credibility) in duels and on the battlefield... Maybe we should re-instigate such a thing...

Of course, many of these arts only lasted a single generation, as they were based not on technical skills being passed along, but on the natural ability of the founder themselves. As this was not repeatable, the art died. The same will probably (hopefully) happen here.

But that was historically, if we look to modern arts, then there are really only a few ways to have a new art be created. One is as was stated (bluekey88?), and it is a natural evolution of changing circumstances and environments, such as BJJ from Judo, Judo from Kito Ryu and Tenshin Shinyo Ryu, Takagi Ryu from Kenko Ito Ryu Sojutsu after it came into contact with Takenouchi Ryu, Togakure Ryu after Daisuke Nishina met Kain Doshi, and many many more.

The other is simply an ego boost. I don't feel that it is often the case in political differences, as that is rarely a new art, just a new organisation teaching the same art. A new art implies "I know better than you do", and that is often just ego these days. Mind you, it often was back then too...

 

[Bruno@MT]

Of course, if we look at the founders of those systems, ie: Jinenkan and Genbukan, I'd say they're in a class by themselves. In other words, both men are more than accomplished and IMO would not be considered average Joes.

Indeed. And another distinction is that these men did not set out to create their own art, or came to that decision lightly. Instead, they stayed with their sensei for a long time, split for whatever reason, and founded a new organization to teach the same systems, for which they were fully licensed and recognized as master.

 

[Sukerkin]

Nothing to apologise for, Chris.

It is unboubtedly the case that there used to be a huge number of sword arts in centuries past (some estimates are as high as 2000) as each region had it's 'own' schools and there were subdivisions of subdivisions with each region also.

Why Koryu became important is the ceasation of the process of cyclical escalation and contraction in the number of styles through the only kind of testing that counts.

If the next big "I am" stops getting killed because he was all mouth and no trousers then keeping alive the traditions and, as far as is practical, preventing false elaborations, is very much to be desired.

So, I refer readers back to my earlier post .

 

[MBuzzy]

Nothing to apologise for, Chris.

It is unboubtedly the case that there used to be a huge number of sword arts in centuries past (some estimates are as high as 2000) as each region had it's 'own' schools and there were subdivisions of subdivisions with each region also.

Why Koryu became important is the ceasation of the process of cyclical escalation and contraction in the number of styles through the only kind of testing that counts.

If the next big "I am" stops getting killed because he was all mouth and no trousers then keeping alive the traditions and, as far as is practical, preventing false elaborations, is very much to be desired.

So, I refer readers back to my earlier post .

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, Sukerkin....but something I picked up here is a good point. There was a time in history when new styles kind of weeded themselves out. If a certain family's style or a martial artist or a school master was not good enough, there was a chance that he would be killed, lose face in a fight/duel, or in some other way be forced out of his new style. Now, there is no natural mechanism for eliminating upstarts that don't have the backing or knowledge to do what they proclaim. Their only weed out is how good their salesmanship is and whether they can get students.

 

[Chris Parker]

Absolutely agreed, Sukerin! Still, it would be nice to take a few out and allow them to decide if they really want to "test" their system the way it used to be done...

However, in the interest of fair representation, it must be stated that many highly effective and practical arts actually died out because this very kind of testing stopped. Without the need for the art in actual combat, it was lost, as new generations simply didn't need to study it, and didn't. As well as that, there are quite a number of older systems which have become so formalised that they have lost almost every aspect of combat effectiveness that they once had. A good example of this is the Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu, seen here:

The Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu was once one of the most popular (and feared!) sword arts in Japan, but no longer has such a fearsome reputation...

Within KSJ Ryu the first set of kata are known as "Hojo", and are made up of these four kata for each of the four seasons (Spring, Summer, Autumn/Fall, and Winter). In the early 20th Century, the 15th Head of the art added the Hojo kata to his students Kendo practice to help keep it alive, starting "Hojo clubs". One of his students was a Zen Master, who used these patterns to teach his concepts of Zen. Most people who practice the art these days do not go beyond the Hojo Kata.

But with all that said, I also refer people back to your previous post... anyone who claims they have come up with a new koryu art is to be treated with a bit of suspicion!

 

[MJS]

Here is my thoughts as someone who has "created" their owned system. One of the martial arts I practice, I was told that the Tradition lies in the spirit, or philosophy, of the art. So it is my responsibility to change, improve, adapt & perfect my own art. That my Path is personal and I have to make my art my own.

Think of this as the Karate Kid scene were Mr. Myogi tells Daniel "You learn my art but you will teach your own." What I teach has been drawn from several different systems, it has splatterings of psychology, sociology, criminology & traditional Philosophy. It is not a collection of styles or a combination of methods, its my Path. My way of doing things and my students all know that I belive "Its not what you know but how you apply it..."

Yes, I touched on this in an earlier post. I make my Kenpo my own, so does my inst. as well as the other black belts at the school. We all teach and do things with our own 'flavor' so to speak, but we're all still teaching the same Kenpo.

This is one of the reasons why I enjoy the yearly Arnis camps my Arnis group holds. We're all training in and learning the Remy Presas style of Arnis, but so many times, while working with someone, I see another way of doing something.

IMO, I feel that this is the way the arts should be. I dont think people need to run out and start some supposed new system, but instead, look at the various versions that exist right in that one system.

 

[K831]

I haven’t read the entire thread, so likely these have been covered, but I’ll list my experience anyways;

1.)Ego/Need to self promote/ Marketing – Ok so that is actually 3, but the most common in my experience. Either they have a big ego and think they know it all and will prove it with their own system, or they didn’t earn a rank suitably high enough in an established system to teach, so self promotion through their own art was needed, or they are in a town where they want to differentiate themselves from the 10 other Kenpo/TKD/Kung Fu etc schools, so they just rename what they are doing to “brand their product” i.e “street kung-fu” or “Mr. X’s reality combat Tae Kwon Do”.

2.)They have a base art, but have studied other systems as well. In doing so, they have found some aspects that can be added beneficially to their base art. Once they opened their own school, they started teaching their base art, with the addition of some useful skills and techniques from other arts. They didn’t feel right calling it “X” because it wasn’t pure anymore, so they changed the name, or maybe they say “we teach Chinese Kempo, with some Muay Thai kicks and a Wrestling curriculum, because the instructor wrestled in high school….” I don’t consider this a “new art” and many instructors teaching this way don’t either, just an eclectic approach. But sometimes their website or school pamphlets etc read a little like it’s a new art.

3.)They are truly innovative, progressive martial arts geniuses. Good for them, I hope to attend a seminar and learn. (Note, I think some of the people teaching an eclectic mix without deeming it a new art, are innovative and progressive as well.)

 

[Marginal]

If we think about it, there are so many arts out there. Many branches of the FMAs, various Kung Fu branches, Kenpo, Kempo, Kaju, TaiChi, grappling.....the list goes on and on and on. So if we see all of this, it raises the question....why...why is it necessary for someone to run out and try to craft something when there're countless, already proven systems out there?

It's an interesting issue. Many of these tried and true, must be set in stone arts like Judo arose from one guy studying several styles etc. Why is the process that lead to these 'tried and true' styles now forbidden to anyone that comes afterwards?

There are only so many ways to move. Only so many ways one can react etc. Is an art automatically inferior if it's new?

 

[blindsage]

Yes, I touched on this in an earlier post. I make my Kenpo my own, so does my inst. as well as the other black belts at the school. We all teach and do things with our own 'flavor' so to speak, but we're all still teaching the same Kenpo.

This is one of the reasons why I enjoy the yearly Arnis camps my Arnis group holds. We're all training in and learning the Remy Presas style of Arnis, but so many times, while working with someone, I see another way of doing something.

IMO, I feel that this is the way the arts should be. I dont think people need to run out and start some supposed new system, but instead, look at the various versions that exist right in that one system.

I don't think people need to 'run out and start some new system' either, but what is Kenpo to begin with? And have you ever asked Remy Presas why he needs to have his own 'style' of Arnis?

 

[MJS]

It's an interesting issue. Many of these tried and true, must be set in stone arts like Judo arose from one guy studying several styles etc. Why is the process that lead to these 'tried and true' styles now forbidden to anyone that comes afterwards?

There are only so many ways to move. Only so many ways one can react etc. Is an art automatically inferior if it's new?

So basically what you're saying is, is the guys who we see today, running around starting something 'new' are on the same level as guys like Ed Parker, Sijo Emperado, Bruce Lee, etc.? Are the guys we see today, creating these 'new' arts, actually going thru the same pains as the guys in the past did? Are the guys we see today, creating these 'new' arts, dabbling in a few things here and there, kinda like going from job to job to job, actually showing any serious skill?

 

[MJS]

I don't think people need to 'run out and start some new system' either, but what is Kenpo to begin with?

But again, as I've already said, are these people who're running around creating 'new' things today, really on the same level as guys from the past?

And have you ever asked Remy Presas why he needs to have his own 'style' of Arnis?

Kinda hard to do that now, seeing that he's no longer with us. But seriously...if we look at guys like Remy, Parker, Leo Gaje, we see some serious skill. In your opinion, do you think that the guys we seeing running around creating today, on that same level? And what is the fixation with starting something new? Seriously...have you read that Destroyer thread lately? Guys heart is in the right place, I give him that, but....well, go read that thread. My point should be pretty clear afterwards.

 

[Marginal]

So basically what you're saying is, is the guys who we see today, running around starting something 'new' are on the same level as guys like Ed Parker, Sijo Emperado, Bruce Lee, etc.?

Not all of them will be legit certainly. (Heck, I'm sure some would argue about Parker, Lee etc to this day.) I don't see the point of calling everyone who follows this path a huckster however. You're going to end up with more than a few Parkers, Lees etc every generation. Not everyone's incompetent. For example, is Pat Miletich a hack?

I just find the resistance to this odd given that most system founders went through the very same process. Even if you don't go out and start your own system, wouldn't studying more than one art imply that you don't trust either art on their own? Then going and combining techniques from one art with the other, how is that time tested? You're the one doing that. The only time put into testing such fusions is yours.

There's nothing wrong with combining arts etc, but I don't see how someone doing so can turn around and say that they only study 'time tested' systems which they've already found to be insufficient and have to actively go and bring in yet more 'time tested' arts.

Are the guys we see today, creating these 'new' arts, actually going thru the same pains as the guys in the past did?

You'd have to go though on a case by case basis.

Are the guys we see today, creating these 'new' arts, dabbling in a few things here and there, kinda like going from job to job to job, actually showing any serious skill?

Creating a "new" art could be something as basic as altering an older art's strategic focus. Many of the folks are aimless drifters. Not all of them are however.

 

[MJS]

Not all of them will be legit certainly. (Heck, I'm sure some would argue about Parker, Lee etc to this day.) I don't see the point of calling everyone who follows this path a huckster however. You're going to end up with more than a few Parkers, Lees etc every generation. Not everyone's incompetent. For example, is Pat Miletich a hack?

I just find the resistance to this odd given that most system founders went through the very same process. Even if you don't go out and start your own system, wouldn't studying more than one art imply that you don't trust either art on their own? Then going and combining techniques from one art with the other, how is that time tested? You're the one doing that. The only time put into testing such fusions is yours.

There's nothing wrong with combining arts etc, but I don't see how someone doing so can turn around and say that they only study 'time tested' systems which they've already found to be insufficient and have to actively go and bring in yet more 'time tested' arts.

Kinda pressed for time, so I'll try to be quick. I do train 3 arts. I have blended techs. together. Differences are as follows: A) I'm not trying to create my own art. B) I don't blend 2 arts together and try to pass it off as some new creation. C) When I do teach a Kenpo class, sure there are times when I toss in some Arnis. Of course, Arnis is part of the Kenpo curriculum as well, in the upper ranks, so I do make a point of saying, "Ok, here is an Arnis tech." So the students know its Arnis, and not Kenpo. D) The arts I train in are already proven...I dont need to go out and reinvent the wheel. I cross train, because a) I like it and B) 99% of my workout partners all do it, so I've been exposed to it for a very long time. Again, it has nothing to do with mixing things. Dont mistake what I do for what these other people are doing. Again, Im NOT creating a new system.

When I do a spontaneous reaction drill, I'm not thinking, "Ok, I'm going to do this and then that." No, I just relax and go with the flow. Whatever comes out comes out, and that is the goal of training..to be able to just react, and not think. So, it may be Kenpo one time, it may be BJJ the next, and Arnis after that, or parts of one mixed with another.

I think I've been clear as to what I'm doing, which is very different from what some of these other guys, ie: Destroyer Style is doing. If you can't see the difference, I dont know what to tell ya.

You'd have to go though on a case by case basis.

Creating a "new" art could be something as basic as altering an older art's strategic focus. Many of the folks are aimless drifters. Not all of them are however.

You mention Pat. As I've said, which you may or may not have seen, depending on whether or not you read the entire thread, or jumped in, picked one of my posts, and tried to figure out what was going on, but....I've said that the majority of people you see creating today, are ones who have no rank, have spent very little time in an art before jumping from one to the next. That is a huge difference. If you cant see it, again, dont know what to tell ya. A 21yo guy, who hops from art to art to art to art, spending 2mos here, a yr there, etc. isn't going to be anywhere near the level of a Pat Militich.

Let me ask you this....with all of the systems out there today, why would anyone feel the need to create something and try to pass it off as something new?

 

[MJS]

Creating a "new" art could be something as basic as altering an older art's strategic focus. Many of the folks are aimless drifters. Not all of them are however.

Just wanted to hit this in more detail. As I've said in other posts...I make MY Kenpo, MY Arnis, unique to myself. You can have 10 teachers, all do the same tech and I'd bet anything, you'd see 10 versions. Slight differences...of course, its that persons unique way of doing the tech. BUT, all 10 are still doing Kenpo. I don't move like my teacher, as our body styles are different, so he may add his own flavor to something, but again, its still Kenpo. He's not running out and calling it something else. We're still doing Kenpo from the Parker and Tracy system.

Do things get changed over time? Sure, but its still Kenpo. Paul Mills is bashed for changes he's made to HIS version of Kenpo, but he is still teaching Ed Parkers Kenpo, with his flavor. The concepts and principles are still there.

Again, this is a HUGE difference between doing that, and me mixing my arts all together, calling it, Brazilian Arnis Kenpo Jutsu as taught by Mike Slosek. LOL! I have no desire to try to pass myself off as a GM, Soke, Founder or any of that other stuff.