Why?

[blindsage]

MJS,

I don't think there's really any disagreement between you and Marginal and I. I don't think the explosion of new 'systems' in the last 10-20 years is a good thing, and I don't think the majority of them are worth a damn. But the way you worded your OP it's seems like you can't conceive of anyone, now, having the knowledge, experience, and defendable reason for creating a new system. That seems short sighted to me, and is why I asked the questions about Kenpo, and Remy Presas. Yes Ed Parker and Remy Presas were extremely experienced and talented, but why did they need to create new systems? The question would apply to them as well, or to Mas Oyama, or Morihei Ueshiba, or Wally Jay, or Angel Cabales, or Al Dacascos, etc., etc., etc.

Yes there is a proliferation of B.S. 'arts' or 'styles' out there now, but that doesn't necessarily preclude the idea that there may also be legitimate, quality new arts being created as well (although they would obviously, to me, be in the minority).

 

[wushuguy]

MJS,

I don't think there's really any disagreement between you and Marginal and I. I don't think the explosion of new 'systems' in the last 10-20 years is a good thing, and I don't think the majority of them are worth a damn. But the way you worded your OP it's seems like you can't conceive of anyone, now, having the knowledge, experience, and defendable reason for creating a new system. That seems short sighted to me, and is why I asked the questions about Kenpo, and Remy Presas. Yes Ed Parker and Remy Presas were extremely experienced and talented, but why did they need to create new systems? The question would apply to them as well, or to Mas Oyama, or Morihei Ueshiba, or Wally Jay, or Angel Cabales, or Al Dacascos, etc., etc., etc.

Yes there is a proliferation of B.S. 'arts' or 'styles' out there now, but that doesn't necessarily preclude the idea that there may also be legitimate, quality new arts being created as well (although they would obviously, to me, be in the minority).

maybe their way of doing what they learned and expressing it with their own flair was cool or very effective, which was proven by experience and also accepted by other martial artists as something useful... thus a new style was born.
I kinda think the styles based on other styles or within a style come about because there's some very good martial artists that can make contributions to the martial arts world, and each expresses differently (like all the different versions of Wing Chun). some may cross train a few arts and mix it up, kinda like cross breeding dogs, you will get a mutt, if everything is good, that mutt might not look good or might not resemble the originals, but it will be strong with characteristics of the parents.

 

[Marginal]

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.

That's perfectly fine. I'm mainly just pointing out that not everyone who feels compelled to move into their own system ends up like Destroyer.

For the unqualified people that want to create their own systems, I think it comes down to the way innovation is perceived as desirable. The products that follow the first idea may be better and more functional, but only one person gets credit for inventing the light bulb. This is compounded by people who don't understand the futility of reinventing the wheel. In writing classes, in art classes etc, you always hear people talking about how they don't want to follow one rule or another "because it will stifle my creativity" when most of those rules are offered to help steer the novice away from creating cliche ridden bad writing and awful art.

Chalk it up to meaningless bohemian ideals, not enough information, and ego.

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.

I doubt that means you lack the skills to do so however.

 

[MJS]

MJS,

I don't think there's really any disagreement between you and Marginal and I. I don't think the explosion of new 'systems' in the last 10-20 years is a good thing, and I don't think the majority of them are worth a damn. But the way you worded your OP it's seems like you can't conceive of anyone, now, having the knowledge, experience, and defendable reason for creating a new system. That seems short sighted to me, and is why I asked the questions about Kenpo, and Remy Presas. Yes Ed Parker and Remy Presas were extremely experienced and talented, but why did they need to create new systems? The question would apply to them as well, or to Mas Oyama, or Morihei Ueshiba, or Wally Jay, or Angel Cabales, or Al Dacascos, etc., etc., etc.

Yes there is a proliferation of B.S. 'arts' or 'styles' out there now, but that doesn't necessarily preclude the idea that there may also be legitimate, quality new arts being created as well (although they would obviously, to me, be in the minority).

IMO, I dont think I gave that impression in my OP, but if I did, I apologize, as that was not my intent. To answer your question of whether or not its possible for someone to create their own art, I'll say this: I'm not the martial arts police, nor do I care to be. If someone runs out, starts something they claim to be new, they're the ones that'll have to live with the other people laughing their *** off at them. However, and I know I've been clear about this in my posts, those people are not on the same level as the people that have been mentioned, ie: Parker, Emperado, Oyama, etc. then IMHO, they have no business doing it, and should be content with training hard and continuing to better themselves. Is there someone out there today, capable of doing this? Who knows, its very possible. But, if we look at the people that we've seen lately, and yes, if need be, I can point you to some examples, right here on this forum, no, those people I feel, are not capable, as it seems to me, and a few others here, that they've spent little time in the arts, jump from one thing to the next, picking a little from here, a little from there, mixing it all up, tossing it in the oven and bam...something 'new'. I've also said many times, that with all of the arts out there today, what is the need for something new? I've been training for a long time now, and I still do not feel that I've learned it all. There are always ways for me to improve myself. That being said, I personally, would never run out and start my own art. I'm happy training and passing on the knowledge of the arts I do, to others.

You're right...as hard as it may be to see, the 3 of us probably are on the same page. Sorry again for any confusion, but of course, if there is confusion, IMO, its better to ask for clarification, than to assume someone is shortsighted and means something they dont. But no harm, no foul.

 

[MJS]

That's perfectly fine. I'm mainly just pointing out that not everyone who feels compelled to move into their own system ends up like Destroyer.

If that is your opinion, thats fine, I'll respect that. I can however, point to a few examples here on this forum, but please, dont make me drudge up that garbage.

For the unqualified people that want to create their own systems, I think it comes down to the way innovation is perceived as desirable. The products that follow the first idea may be better and more functional, but only one person gets credit for inventing the light bulb. This is compounded by people who don't understand the futility of reinventing the wheel. In writing classes, in art classes etc, you always hear people talking about how they don't want to follow one rule or another "because it will stifle my creativity" when most of those rules are offered to help steer the novice away from creating cliche ridden bad writing and awful art.

I'll use Paul Mills, from Kenpo again. I'll start by saying I have no affiliation to the man or his org. The man is often bashed by other Kenpoists, because of what he's done to the Kenpo that he teaches. However, he still uses the concepts and ideas that Parker taught to him, in his brand of Kenpo. He's still teaching Kenpo, but its his flavor. If he started to deviate from those ideas, it'd no longer be Kenpo. Mills didn't reinvent the wheel, he just supercharged his Kenpo.

So, using your example of writing and artists, you'd think there would be some principles, concepts that all writers use. I'm not a writer or artist, so maybe I'm wrong, and if I am, then so be it, I'll admit it. I would think though that those people are just adding their unique flavor to their work, no?

I doubt that means you lack the skills to do so however.

Well, thank you for the compliment, but while I do consider myself skilled, I am in no way, shape or form, on the same level as the people before me, in the arts that I do. Additionally, that would mean giving myself some founder, GM, Soke, etc. title, and possibly inflating my rank, both of which I will never do.

 

[K831]

Brazilian Arnis Kenpo Jutsu

Ahhh, the Ben & Jerry's of Martial Arts!

Coffee Heath bar Crunch vs Brazilian Arnis Kenpo Jutsu

 

[MJS]

Ahhh, the Ben & Jerry's of Martial Arts!

Coffee Heath bar Crunch vs Brazilian Arnis Kenpo Jutsu

LMAO!!!:lol:

In this corner, we have the reigning heavyweight champ Coffee Heath bar crunch. In the opposite corner, we have a newcomer....he only trained for a whopping total of 1 year, but he has trained in 10 different arts. He carefully hand-picked the best techniques...ladies and gentlemen I give you, Brazilian Arnis Kenpo-Jutsu!!

LOL!

 

[Xue Sheng]

Brazilian Arnis Kenpo Jutsu

Well if you do that I do Shaolin Wuxing Chun Taijijutsu quando

 

[Draven]

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.

Oh, but see this is where I have issues, you have hobbiests and collecters who want to keep something "pure" in its historical context. If you deviate from the origional "pure form" you aren't practicing the true art because "only Soke so & so can change the system." Fact is, I'll look at anything with grain of salt and question of can this work for me? Almost all MA/MMA/RBSD/H2H systems have the same techniques in common with the most seperation on training methods.

When I studied Sport Jujitsu I was told by traditional jujitsuist that it wasn't true jujitsu because it had randori. Ye Old Koryu Jujutsu doesn't spar line and the only real jujutsu is koryu jujutsu lines are common. I find it to be elitist BS. I've even been argued that the "i vs u" them in Jujitsu circles. To me you can call it Jello-Mold Kung-Jitsu Taebo and my only care is if it works...

I think the "New Systems" bring certain advantages compared to "traditional arts" and yes some of these will also apply to BJJ/MMA guys as well in some aspects.

Older Systems:
* A rich history of effectiveness and tradition...
* A tracible line of succession
* Many Champions, Masters & Great People who have use such and such art & followed such & such tradition...
* Strick adherense to history & tradition...

New Systems:
* No history; what you see is what you get...
* Your stuck with "that guy" & what he is teaching you...
* No to rep what you do with it is what YOU do with it. I laugh everytime someone tells a 16th century samurai or a MMA fighter did this, so it effective...
* Can be changed or adapted on a whim to suit present needs, retaining the spirit (philosophy, intention & goals) of the art but not the technical basis if their is a better way...

 

[MJS]

Oh, but see this is where I have issues, you have hobbiests and collecters who want to keep something "pure" in its historical context. If you deviate from the origional "pure form" you aren't practicing the true art because "only Soke so & so can change the system." Fact is, I'll look at anything with grain of salt and question of can this work for me? Almost all MA/MMA/RBSD/H2H systems have the same techniques in common with the most seperation on training methods.

When I studied Sport Jujitsu I was told by traditional jujitsuist that it wasn't true jujitsu because it had randori. Ye Old Koryu Jujutsu doesn't spar line and the only real jujutsu is koryu jujutsu lines are common. I find it to be elitist BS. I've even been argued that the "i vs u" them in Jujitsu circles. To me you can call it Jello-Mold Kung-Jitsu Taebo and my only care is if it works...

IMO, I doubt that there is anything 100% pure out there anymore. Even Ed Parker made some changes to his brand of Kenpo, compared to what he first learned. So many times, a change or personal flavor will be carried onto the next group, and onto the next, etc., etc. This is what I meant, when I said that if you lined up 10 Kenpo guys, and all had them doing the same tech., that odds are great that you'd have 10 different versions of that tech. Yet everyone is still doing Kenpo.

So yes, if I had a dime for every time someone in the Kenpo circles said "You can't do that, cuz you're going against what Parker did." I'd be rich. This is just what people did and still do, to guys like Paul Mills and Jeff Speakman. What those same people who complain, fail to see, is that even though those guys added their flavor to the art, they're still keeping the Kenpo concepts.

I think the "New Systems" bring certain advantages compared to "traditional arts" and yes some of these will also apply to BJJ/MMA guys as well in some aspects.

Older Systems:
* A rich history of effectiveness and tradition...
* A tracible line of succession
* Many Champions, Masters & Great People who have use such and such art & followed such & such tradition...
* Strick adherense to history & tradition...

New Systems:
* No history; what you see is what you get...
* Your stuck with "that guy" & what he is teaching you...
* No to rep what you do with it is what YOU do with it. I laugh everytime someone tells a 16th century samurai or a MMA fighter did this, so it effective...
* Can be changed or adapted on a whim to suit present needs, retaining the spirit (philosophy, intention & goals) of the art but not the technical basis if their is a better way...

I really dont have anything against the RBSD guys. Sure, they've made their own thing, but I don't put them into the same class as the 20yr old, who trains in 10 arts for 2mos each, for the reasons that I've mentioned in other posts. Of course, even those guys, IMO, really havent done anything new, per se, but instead, just revamped the way that same stuff is already done in a TMA.

The RBSD guy is still throwing punches, just like the TMA guy is, but they're making it more alive, for lack of better words, by: pressure testing, adding aliveness, movement, etc.

I've made some adaptations to the way I do certain things, ie: such as some of the knife techs in Kenpo. But again, I'm doing it for me, nobody else. When its time to teach a Kenpo knife tech., I'm teaching it the way its written, not the way I do it. I may show them the same tech with my flavor added to it, but again, its up to each person to figure things out for themselves. What works for me, may not work for the next guy.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I think it's like anything else. Creating a new style isn't the problem. Being unqualified to do so, and doing it anyway, is. We can all cite the names of people who have established their own styles with their own names. And we can all say "person X had the background necessary to do that successfully." But we can't preclude the possibility that people today also have that ability.

If we DO do that, I think we also need to establish the criteria by which things changed. If, for example, it was legitimate for Bruce Lee to create a style, what has changed that someone else with a broad experience of martial arts and a solid work ethic couldn't devise something else worthwhile? Surely people could have said (and did say) "what makes this Lee guy so special, that he devises his own style?"

I don't think we can say "fight experience," because there are plenty of people today who would cite experience fighting in and out of the ring. The Dog Brothers, for instance, have developed an approach to FMA different enough to warrant labeling it something distinct and unique (which they have done). But they had the credentials to do it.

Before I go any further, I want to make something clear: I HAVE read the entire thread. And if I retread ground that has already been covered, there are one of two explanations: 1) I think the point is important enough to warrant further discussion or 2) I just plumb forgot. No maliciousness intended. No argument desired.

Credentials have always been the issue. I wouldn't buy a new sort of rocket engine from someone who had little experience with existing technologies either. In that field, it would be common sense. But in our field, I think we mislabel the problem. The problem isn't, in and of itself, new styles. It's crap content.

All that said, I ABSOLUTELY agree that there are a glut of unqualified people setting out to create their own styles. And I agree that they shouldn't. They have neither the experience nor the insight to do it properly. And it does, generally, come down to wanting to be the founder of something, getting the ego stroke, and so on.

But that's what we should be focusing on. Not the act of founding something new. At ANY point in history, we (or someone before us) could say, "there are already plenty of styles to master; why do we need to found more?" And that argument would be just as valid or invalid as it is today. There's no magic number after which it becomes excessive.

New styles are the product of a process. And if someone has gone through that process, then the product will work. Otherwise, it'll be rubbish. That seems a simple enough principle that we don't need to simplify it further by saying "new style = bad style."

My background is primarily FMA, so I'll use examples from that. Sayoc Kali and Atienza Kali are two relatively recent additions to the lexicon. Certainly, there was no shortage of existing FMA styles prior to that. And I think many people would recognize the similarities that still exist between these new styles and the existing styles that influenced them. So, by this logic, we could say that Sayoc Kali is unwarranted, as it's really just the Sayoc family's "take" on Pekiti Tirsia Kali. But does that really mean we feel them unjustified?

My feeling is that, if something is different enough from its source material, then a new name is sometimes warranted. I think it goes hand in hand with that idea that the "founders" properly credit their influences. I'm certain that GM Presas was perfectly candid about the sources of his material, even as he relabeled it as something uniquely "his." At the same time, if someone's practice begins to differ enough from any one of its sources, then it borders on misrepresentation of a different sort to say "this is Pekiti Tirsia Kali."

I run into that myself. One of my current training partners (from Modern Arnis) watches me do something in class and says "ah, that's Doce Pares then?!" And I'm always quick to point out that I'm a mutt, so that what he's seeing could have any of a number of sources. Not because I'm trying to sell my own style. (I don't have one.) But because it would be misleading of me to say "yep, that's Doce Pares alright."

Now, I haven't relabeled what I do "ap Oweyn Eskrima" or anything. And I feel absolutely no temptation to do so. But that's a personal decision. Instead, I take the more roundabout route of describing my background and explaining that I'm a mutt. I'm more comfortable with that, but I don't think that need necessarily be the case.

Quality in. Quality out. Simple as that really. What we call the final product isn't really the issue.

Just my view, folks. Current market value: Sod all


Stuart B.
"Fundador" of ap Oweyn Eskrima... just kidding

 

[Zynasty G]

I'm not sure if it has already said, but to me the worst part of someone combining multiple arts to create their own is that it is most likely that they are not a master of any of them. They are literately taking the basic, beginners techniques that they don't know very well anyway from a few arts and creating a new art full of bad beginner techniques.

I see the difference between the old masters like Kano or Ushiba, creating their own styles, is that they really were masters of their original styles, and were able to legitimately take the best of the old arts to create their new style.

Whereas, in my opinion the majority of new modern arts, are created by a teacher who is simply not a master at any style. In my style of jujutsu, and in a lot of Japanese arts, getting your black belt is just a 'welcome to the club' - just the beginning of your training. Whereas the general western mentality seems to be that having a black belt means that you're a master. So, it seems after getting a black belt in one or two styles alot of people feel qualified to go and create their own martial art - because they feel they are a master now. Whereas they simply aren't anywhere near that level. I know in my style if you trained for 5 years and got your blackbelt, or even 10 years you'd just have the basics down. All the subtlies of the art start to come after that as you learn and practice, practice, practice, the higher techniques, train students, learn more, practice, practice, practice. Even then it would still take someone exceptionally skilled and talented to add anything worthwhile to their current art.

Zynasty G

 

[Guardian]

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?

Excellent post, my only thought to this is for some it's like why does human kind reach for the stars, it's new, it's adventure and it's wanting to be the first, it's what makes us, us!

 

[Draven]

I'm not sure if it has already said, but to me the worst part of someone combining multiple arts to create their own is that it is most likely that they are not a master of any of them. They are literately taking the basic, beginners techniques that they don't know very well anyway from a few arts and creating a new art full of bad beginner techniques.

Just to play devil advocate for a minute, what does mastering a system have to do with anything?

I don't believe in advanced techniques, I believe in advanced skill in application of techniques. A punch is a punch regardless of the belt on your waist and as Oweyn said "we also need to establish the criteria by which things changed."

So following the criteria that changed is going to need to address social issues; such as the organizing crime & criminals, spread of crime and conditions which make crime possible, availability of information & the wealth of experience.

Organizing Crime & Criminals:
Since the Viet Nam war & the spread of Socialist/Communist Ideologies which lead to the creation of several different groups, ranging from street gangs to criminaly connect politic activist groups. Many of which were radical activist before being drafted and became leaders and trainers for such groups teaching military skills, such as tactics and even skills like hand-to-hand combatives.

Even the least important members of criminal organizations will attempt to acquire better skills through knowledge. Liberary books are free after all & being victimized by a group or being the victimizer in a group gives you many chances to learn from experience in applying that knowledge.

Spread of crime & conditions which make crime possible:
Crime is usually perpetrated by the poor, against the poor in poor communities. Many of these communities are breeding grounds for the above mentioned groups which pervert even noble ideas to push personnal agendas. These conditions allow for many opportunities to apply and practice what a person learns in real life conditions.

Availability of Information:
I've already mentioned liberaries but you also have the net, all of which offers the availablility of information. Also all MA/TMA/MMA/RBSD/whatever is a commercial enterprize & as such we must admit we do so for the income, as well as other reasons. As such many systems have drawn out training to get more money from the students and almost all schools offer "free samples" of training.

The reality is that given the cultural/sub-cultural opportunities to learn & experience. We have also developed a culture which glorfies crime & being tough, all cultures do this but the availablility of information also increases the availbility of "suggestive materials" which are more subjective because its what the subject allows themselves to focus on.

As I've pointed out before, many gangs have whats called Prison Martial Arts systems based off MAs and older Hand-to-Hand Combatives Techniques which is used to train members with a) discpline b) spread unity & c) teach fighting methods. Likewise, allot of these "street fighting systems" are made up of basic concepts of different systems but the individuals teaching them train forst on their own, usually doing by inviting violence with risky behaviors & eventually by teaching others they are affiliated with as well.

Wealth of Experience:
All training is meant to be a substitute for experience, replacing hard earned lessons with academic knowledge & one must then ask where all MAs began. Quite simply someone made them up, and over time they evolved into their present state. When you allow an ocean of "free samples" adding to the availability of information and cultural drive to be aggressive and strong. There are allot of people with allot to prove & experience from trying to prove yourself or just being a bully all goes into how you fight & what you know.

Depending on one's life style one can't claim experience unless one has been involved in or grew up with violence. Even a kid who grows up with siblings often learns to fight based on the sibling interaction. Sometimes that interaction allows for others to apply or try to apply knowledge & sometimes it gets pretty serious.

We have evolved technologically and socially into a society of mostly literate people with a wealth of knowledge. Until the last 300 years warfare and martial arts were largely the subject of the noble caste & eventually the politically stronger merchant class. This is well before the birth of America & in fact had it not been for the tribal warrior cultures of Native Amercian Tribes, the Colonist may never have beaten the Biritsh. Within, a few hundred years between availability of public education, availiability of public sports programs (we can consider sports like boxing and wrestling still taught in high school martial arts as well) & commercial availability of Martial Arts that allow for several chances to learn & practice MAs.

In fact added in the sub-culture views, availability of additional info, any opportunity for experience and our society (any 1st world literate society) has the potental to apply to a wealth of knowledge to any experiences of our individual choosing. This has less to do what a person has achieved in mastery under someone else and more to do with the quality of the knowledge and method of transmission.

On another note;
All that said, I cannot help to look at many MA schools and believe they are against self-education because it cuts into their bottom line as a commercial enterprise. Its quite often like some college inventing a new kind of computer in his garage but being told his invention is crap because he doesn't have a degree from MIT. I'm more interested in quality then anything else and people under above conditions can create something of quality if they work hard at doing so.

 

[Sigung86]

I dunno if my opinion should count or not. I've been at and in the arts for about 46 years. Never cared much for the new systems that have been flairing up since the mid '60s. I looked at the Jeet Kune Do invented by that upstart, the late Mr. Lee, and thought it wouldn't last. :uhyeah:
Kenpo, on the other hand, I saw a use for and so, fell into it. Even though it was a whole bunch different from the original Shotokan Blue Belt and the Tang Soo Do Black I took, literally 40 years ago in 1969.

I have come to the conclusion that all the "systems" out there, regardless of longevity and "legitimacy" are simply conceptualizations of insights and enlightenments brought about by lots of experience, apostasy, ego, or imbibing too many natural herbs.

Some others who replied before me have hit on it. No matter how conservative, and "true to the founder" most systems are, you will find that most systems change over time due to natural evolution. Even Shotokan, that conservative of conservatives, descended from Chinese Kung fu, was an admixture of different Okinawan systems. The original differences in the two major schools was whether or not competiton was a wholesome thing to do, or not. Thus--Two different "styles" or schools that were actuall different associations.

the thing(s) to remember about different schools or associations is that there are often reasons other than those I mentioned above. If, for instance, I take all my years in Kenpo (1971 - present day) and look it over for the Tracy perspective and the American Kenpo perspective, I can come up with numerous techniques that are different from those taught that are just as effective. No one really has the last word... We won't even get into SL4. Could I start a whole new school based on this investigative perspective? Probably... look at Tracy's Karate, Ed Parker's American Kenpo, Kempo, Kajukenpo, Kajukenbo, and Kajukembo. Do I feel the necessity to do so? No.... Not really nor, for the sake of argument, would I.

The bottom here is that, as far as I'm concerned, the "new schools" that pop up, regardless of motivation for the start up will either survive or not. It's a tough world out there in the martial arts world. And just because some person starts a system (like Wing Chun :angel: ), doesn't mean it's going to last even a generation... Not to worry. If they are good enough, your great-great grandchildren will be learning one or more of them... Otherwise, they will close out when the commercial school dies due to lack of paying followers and the "master" takes up giving jazz guitar lessons.