new systems in the martial arts

[Goju_boi]

also,I think that shorinji kempo is like a religion(not sure on that).

[patusai]

Changing a system? What does that mean? If it means changing the techniques used in a few kata or adding a few kata or eliminating some kata in the original system then I would say...well...maybe I should just say nothing...

[ovine king]

In response to the title of the thread.

I firmly believe that the original unchanged systems should be taught side by side with any new versions of those.

As we train and as we expose ourselves to different styles and methods from different countries, something that practioners of the past were usually unable to, we naturally absorb and add/subtract to what it is that we originally learnt.

I'm pretty sure that most of you have experienced this on one level or another. The most basic way you have this is when your teacher teaches you something then also gives you an alternative version which "he finds works better".

Sometimes, this is just the teacher taking the move and making it work for him In other cases, it is their experience with something else that changed his way of making it work. In both cases, it is different to the 'original' and yet it is still the same. New and Original at the same time.

When I was approached to teach someone, I always taught the original version of how things were taught to me. After I was sure that the original concept was absorbed, I made a move to teach how I tend to use that concept based on my own experiences in using that concept and my exposure to other styles, so in the end I was teaching a new version of that system.

There is something that I am not entirely sure I am happy with, which is when people ONLY teach the new/modified version without refence to the original. I always think that you are missing something if you do no have that reference point.

I am not biased against the new/modified versions as in most cases, their main concern is to strip away the not entirely necessary formal traditions/rituals and add newer/quicker training methods to get the practioner to use things earlier on in their training, which can only be a good thing in keeping fighting arts fighting. One thing though, is that you can do this to Original training anyway (i.e modernise traditional training methods)? In this case, is there really a need to make a formal change of what you call your system?

[angus88]

I've never felt the need to create my own style - the one I take is rich enough for me to learn stuff for a very long time and is a very thorough system. That said, if after taking a style through it's completion (in other words, a very long time) I felt like I could create something better than what I took and what's out there - I wouldn't hesitate.

Out of respect for my own system's founder, I would think long and hard about doing that before actually taking the plunge, but I guess it's a matter of personal experience.

But certainly there's nothing wrong with starting your own style - people have been doing it in Asia since martial arts began!

[Goju_boi]

"But certainly there's nothing wrong with starting your own style - people have been doing it in Asia since martial arts began!"

yeah, but nowadays it's mostly wannabes making their own systems.

[Highkckr1]

I have to say that a very good point was made as to who is creating the style and their credentials. Having traveled this road, there are many people who feel that unless it is traditional it's useless, on the other hand, without the past masters creating systems we would not have as many "traditional" systems as we have. It basically comes down to the facts that each of us has a different outlook on techniques and how they can be utilized, this is where a new system is created and if the creater has a strong back gound in martial studies then who is to say that what they envisioned isn't worth while. I don't feel that a person who has limited training is qualified to create but, their take on a principle or technique should still be looked at with an open mind. Just remember that at some point the "traditional" systems were new and were probably criticized and looked down upon until their value was realized.

Humbley,

Shodai Soke Scott Nelson

[shogeri]

I agree much with the above by highkicker.

In regards to mixing two systems, or creating your own.

It's all about basics, and sticking to them.

We are, essentially, teaching much of the same thing.

We just change the wrapper some.

[coralreefer_1]

No offense to the original poster or his teacher, but come on..what does this new style have to offer thats different from anything else? I agree with the poster who said "its one thing to take a bunch of techniques from various arts, put them together, and call it a new style. To make the claim of a "new style" I feel there should be some new concept' like that poster said. It I take wheel kick from capoeira, , a roundhouse from WTF stlye taekwondo, an elbow from Muay Thai, , a cross from boxing, and throw in a few takedowns from Judo, and an armbar..can i really make the claim of "creating a new art" It reminds me of Krav Maga that is mentioned earlier. Is their really anything much different in this style that hasnt been done before? I mean, ok, you use techniques that have already been done in Hapkido, or aikido, or jujitsu, or some other older art, just done by a soldier defending against a gun, just cut and dry ruthless fighting. It seems like plain and simple defense to me, and I really havent seen anything in any of the videos I have seen of it that i haven't seen anyplace else. Just the Isreali government took the most effective tactics from existing arts, and called it Krav Maga.

My point is, the human body is only capable of so much. There are so many ways you can turn your arm, align your body, set your stance, or whatever, to change the nature of any one technique.

I'm sorry if it comes across as disrespectful to you, your master or his new style, it was not my intention. Just I'm baffled as to what this art might have to offer other than new forms or a new "training philosophy" that is of substance. How are the actual techniques going to be different from any that already exist?

[patusai]

Too many styles not enough karate

[shogeri]

People want a system the molds to them. They want something that allows them to move, and respond naturally.

Many Karate instructors and TKD instructors do allow for such, but most do not.

I have done my own system for some time now. I do not use the term 'master', or 'soke', or otherwise. Rank or title, is not 1 percent as important as learning how to fight, and fight well.

What makes mine different? Natural, more relaxed movement, based primarily on the fact that I have bursitis in both shoulders.

I also rely heavily upon principle and not technique. This allows for a more overlay into other systems, if someone I teach desires to go elsewhere.

There is nothing 'new' in what I do, just how it is done, and perhaps why it is done.

I do consider it to be more flowing, aggressive, and combative.

I also combine both internal and external aspects from the many systems that I have researched or learned first hand.

The Martial Arts are not that hard once you get use to the physics of it all.

I have, and others continue to say the same thing over and over:

The concepts of combat, like the techniques, are somewhat universal. I say this for there are just so many ways to throw a kick, punch, knee, or elbow, or grapple on the ground, block, evade, or perform jujutsu, judo, tuite, etc.

Later!