Evolve OR Dissolve OR Stagnant!!

[sensei8]

Evolving:

"To undergo gradual change; develop"

Dissolving:

"To lose clarity or definition; fade away"

Stagnant:

"Not moving or flowing; motionless"

For the sake of this topic/thread through discussion, I want you to honestly answer this question about YOUR style...

Comparing to the founder of your style, is that style evolving or dissolving or stagnant?

Between those three listed; either "it/one" is or "it/one" isn't; there's no middle ground and/or no political correct answer, imho.

The founder of your style, before he/she passed away, names his/her successor...Just how solid is he/she across the board? I mean, just how good/great/amazing are/is, for example, Helio Grace named Rorion Gracie as his successor; he's a 9th Dan in BJJ. However, can Rorion effectively continue the visions of their brand of BJJ so that BJJ can evolve in the future??

Whomever* was the first successor of Shotokan under its founder; Gichin Funakoshi, was this karateka effective in continuing the visions of the brand of Shotokan so that Shotokan can evolve in the future? This applies to any founder and style you'd like to pick, still, the question above still stands.

Mediocrity runs the gambit all around the world and the MA isn't immune from it no matter the genre, and in that, mediocre MA styles turn out mediocre instructors who turn out mediocre students.

Does the ultimate responsibility lie in the sole lap of the chosen successor? Yes!! In that, I believe that the accountability should be shared with everyone within that said style of the MA. For example...

Leadership: Those entrusted to carry on the legacy as well as the integrity of said style of the MA are in a higher rung in the "Ladder of Accountability", aka, the Chain of Command. The higher the rung, the more demanded of them, than those in the lower rungs.

Can/is the leadership of your style effective in the leadership for the betterment of your style??

Higher Ranks: Senior ranks, 6th Dan to 8th Dan, are accountable of the student body learning the curriculum to the letter from black belts, 1st Dan to 5th Dan. 7th Dan and 8th Dan are accountable of ensuring that the black belts from 1st Dan to 6th Dan are teaching the curriculum to the exact letter of every student Kyu and Dan below 7th Dan. 9th Dan and 10th Dan are ultimately accountable for the entire student body, no matter the ranking level. No higher rank is excused and/or above the law of accountability concerning the curriculum and the like. Even more so, the successor must ensure that their brand EVOLVES throughout time.

Black Belts: Those who have the honor bestowed upon them of a Yudansha (black belt) are accountable of the Kyu ranks from day one. Deviating from the vision, technically speaking, should be and must be encouraged as proper research is proven to be accurate and effective. Otherwise, the style starts to dissolve and/or stagnant in a downward spiral to it's own demise. However, the vision, growth speaking, aka the mission statement, should remain in tact of the founder of said style.

Core of the student body: I'm not asking that the student core follow those entrusted in every aspect of ensuring the said style remains effectiveness throughout its existence, and this is to include but not limited to the curriculum and the like. Those over the Kyu ranks must teach in the line of the founder because it's been proven to be effective across the board.

Act like a MAist and not like a dancer, impressing for the sake of the show. When others see you performing your style of the MA, you're representing that style of the MA. Everyone has one chance to make a positive impression on whomever is watching. Either they like what they see or they don't. If they do, then as a member of the student body, you've done your job admirably across the board. But if you don't, then as a member of the student body, you've not done your job. Which part of the student body do you want to be; solid or a joke?

Eventually the best of the best and the cream of the crop will be gone. So what can you do? Make sure that you and your students are the best of best and the cream of the crop! Don't fail!!

*Either the first successor of Shotokan was Gigo Funakoshi, Shigeru Egami, Isao Obata, or Masatoshi Nakayama, nothing, imho, specifically points to the exact first successor of Shotokan...so, pick one.

[bushido_man96]

We haven't changed much, that I can see. Our current GM is still around, as founder of the style. As to who will succeed, we shall see.

[sensei8]

Brian,

Outside of your TKD circle, what have you noticed/observed/etc pertaining to other MA styles?

[bushido_man96]

Well, that I can't say much on. The Aikido club I practiced in, and still keep in touch with, pretty much stays with a traditional Aikido approach, but where they have evolved has been more in their spiritual approaches. They still retain the Aikido philosophies, which is what I still have trouble with in the style, but the club head is also a religious guy, who is active with missionary things, and communicates a lot with many of the churches in the community. He has dedicated mediation times, where they meditate spiritually on a more christian level. He also has a "Godly Warriors" class, in which they discuss the matter of the Martial Arts and their role in their christian spirituality. I've been wanting to check these classes out myself, but haven't had the time to do so yet.

As for our TKD school (stepping back into my circle ), we did add Combat Hapkido to our offerings, but it wasn't a requirement; just extra if we wanted to give it a try, and our head instructor wouldn't allow students to do it until they reached green belt. I understand why he did this, but I don't see it as necessary, and if I had my way, I'd get my 1st dan in CH and add it to the overall curriculum, so that when a student tests for 1st dan, they would earn a 1st dan in both TKD and CHD.

I hope that kind of answers your question. If not, I'll answer some more!

[tallgeese]

That's a great topic, sensei8. And Brian has some interesting notes to it. The specific internal side of your Aikido club evolution is pretty neat and probably fairly unique.

I've taken individual evolution as pretty much the norm since my core art so heavily touts building the individual fighter to their strengths. It's very uncommon to see Dan level Bujin guys work the same. Even now, when I'm doing almost all BJJ, when I do Bujin it's so heavily influenced by MMA, BJJ and my work that it's completely different than when some of my close friends do it.

That's driven the art to evolve in all sorts of direction. MP does lots of JKD and escrima type work. His looks different. The down side is, while we all think these are great, we don't really have a codified set of knowledge that everyone is responsible for. I'm okay with that, but some might have issue.

Either way, the next generations look different than we did at their rank. the fact that one wouldn't evolve past what was taught before is so foreign to me that it's hard for me to wrap my head around systems that don't change training practices and tactics from time to time. It's also led me to instructors in other arts who are always pushing their games forward rather than stagnating.

[bushido_man96]

That was one thing that was nice about the ATA. Yeah, they had closed tournament circuits, and what many assume as a McDojo mentality. But, they are always tinkering with things. When I was there, the Pro-Tech systems had several different paths you could follow, ranging from weapons to BJJ and the PPCT options. Now, they have weapons requirements built into their black belt requirements, offer XMA style tournament divisions for those younger and athletic types, and they continue to grow and try new things. I think they are tinkering with an MMA styled tournament division now, too.

You can say what you want about the ATA, but they don't stagnate, that's for sure.

[Harkon72]

Being a young style, Shukokai is still evolving from Shito Ryu and other influences such as sport karate and modern sports science. What I love is the root tradition, but I feel that our attitude to that is moving forward too.

[yamesu]

I think that depending on where you go, you can see all three in Kyokushin.

I have seen sections that refused to go with chnage and have unortunately dissolved.

In the same (reluctance?) to change, I know there are quite a few sections who dont want to shift and try to keep to Oyama Sosai's original teachings - as they believe they were taught.

Conversely, I currently train with an evolving sections of Kyokushin, which has implemented seperate classes for Kobudo (Goju derived) and general fitness (boot camps). This has both its ups and downs - for example, I was talking to one of the higher kyu grades not long ago and I remarked that Kyokushin only ever had one Bo Staff kata, to which he replied, no it doesn't, it has lots (I think that he are under the impression that the Kobudo is all Kyokushin based. However, I find myself learning more and more techniques that are easily adaptable to my everyday situations through this eveolution.

Is it still Kyokushin as Oyama taught it?... Yes.

Are there other elements being taught?... Yes.

Does this make it a bad thing?... No, not IMO.

One thing I will note though, is that I think a lot of people tend to think of Kyokushin as being based totally in tournament knock-down fighting, which is simply not the case. I have been taught all the bunkai for all of the kata we learn, and we do rigorous self defense sessions on top of full-contact training.

I alsop think that (and some Kyokushin practitions will disagree with me) Oyama had intended for Kyokushin to be an evolving style. Thats how he came up with it afterall - by taking what he thought were the more important bits fro the styles he had previously trained in and putting them into a single "style"...

[DWx]

Interesting topic sensei8.

I'd say in my style it's a bit of everything. Although perhaps instead of saying "evolving" it is more "refinement" instead. Stripping away the unnecessary movements and working towards more efficiency. A lot of the changes we implement in my school are when my instructor or one of the higher grades attends a seminar run by one of the 8th or 9th dans and they come back with their teachings as each one has their own slightly different way of doing things or their own preference. If we get conflicting opinions my instructor then advises us on which he thinks is right but ultimately we can choose how we're going to do something. Even through my short training time I've been told to change things one way and then to another way etc. Nowadays though it seems we're getting told to go back to doing things by the book (quite literally in this case: Taekwon-Do by Gen. Choi) so by your descriptions maybe this is being stagnant.

One thing I've always found interesting though, is how the style evolves depending on which country you're in/which master you have. Because I tend to go to a lot of overseas events and competitions it is always interesting for me to sit back and watch and compare how each country looks subtly different due to their lead master's own preferences and style. Although it's all the same style and the differences are very subtle, you can usually pick out which country someone is from based on how they move and what their strengths are. For example, Russian TKDers look different from Czech, and different again from Korean.

[vantheman]

It is pretty hard to tell with my style. Chinese Kempo Karate is still pretty young and not very widespread itself (at least not to the degree of SKK). Since there have only been a few instructors, the system has only evolved so much. However, if you compare it to Shaolin Kempo Karate CKK's "parent" there are some significant changes in the ways the techniques of both are executed, but the system still shares resemblance. Aside from that, my instructor throws in a some from other arts, such as TKD, Boxing and BJJ, to mix things up every once in while, and those elements have started to integrate a bit. Altogether I would say CKK is evolving.