The age old debate. Old style, new style, my style, your style. The fact is substance far outweighs style. I hold belt ranks in different systems, but I never get hung up on which style is better. I prefer to focus on what techniques work, and which training methods work. The rest is just traditionalists passion, or personal ego. I teach here in my home town, and based on the various systems I've trained in, I have a preference to how I teach, and what I teach. Most of the techniques can be found, in several styles. When it comes to kicks, punches, ect., there isnt that much new under the sun. However, depending on your goal in training varying methods can and do produce different results. I teach reality based combatives, with no desire for sport application, purely defense and survive. I believe that saveral mainstream traditional classes don't equip students to face the harsh realism of violent attack. So I teach what works for me based on my knowledge. Heres the difference though, I dont claim to have a "new" style, and I dont claim to be the best style, in fact I dont wish to be compared to anyone or any style. I do what I feel is best for me, and I share it with those who want to learn from my perspective, its not about whose better or worse, or if I created a new thing , or modified an old one. I try to keep it about goals. My schools goal is survival and reality scenario fighting. It is never about being better or superior to anyone else, or belittling a traditional system, we just do what works for us. Anything else is just ego.