You aren't really teaching something-ryu.

[Wado Heretic]

I recently had someone, a fellow blackbelt in Shorin-Ryu, tell me I was not really teaching Shorin-Ryu. I will admit; I have brought forward some elements of my Wado-Ryu training, and incorporated a grappling aspect into my own grading syllabus. However, in my mind; I teach and work from the Kata as I was taught them, and over 50% of my teaching is kata-based. However; apparently, my incorporation of elements from outside the syllabus disqualifies what I do as Shorin-Ryu.

I am just curious; at what point of divergence from the syllabus, has one stopped teaching something and moved into new "style" territory?

[Harkon72]

Now, this is a good question. Where do you draw the line. Some say that a martial art without the three K's is not karate. Others that the various styles are defined by traits of practice and traditional norms and form that belong to said styles. It is the eternal debate of authenticity that haunts the modern martial art world. Do we need to move with the times? Or is tradition something that we should cling onto? My most recent style of Karate was Shukokai, it was derived from Shito Ryu back in the 1960's. And if you watch different clubs teach it, you can see striking differences in the way it is taught. The Kimura school of shukokai karateka's form looks nothing like those of the Hayashi branch of the style. But they still call it Shukokai. I know that a style name is more than a label, but if your karate is effective, the name of the style is as good as any other.

[sensei8]

I learnt the ryu, and now, I still teach the ryu, even though, nowadays, I've amended it by what ever else that I've learnt over the many years. Even though that is true, so is the ryu that I learnt, and that I still teach. Change is inevitable and that will never cease, therefore, as change requires it to be so, then, the ryu's core is still unchanged; it's I who have changed.

[Lupin1]

You have to remember that the "ryu" systems (along with Shotokan and codified Aikido, Judo, etc) only started to come into being in the early to mid 1900s. Before that every individual instructor simply taught his own blend of Naha-te, Shuri-te and Tomari-te mixed with some Chinese Boxing, Kobudo and anything else they may have picked up. It was expected and accepted for serious karateka to study with multiple instructors and blend together what they consider most effective into their own personal style.

The general public seems to have this notion that the "traditional" martial arts have been exactly the same for hundreds to thousands of years and we're just know changing them in modern times. The truth is the vast majority of styles as we know them today are less than a century old and have never stopped changing. Changing your karate and making it your own IS traditional. People just don't like the idea of change.

[Wastelander]

Oh, man--we must not do Shorin-Ryu, either, then! All the instructors at the dojo have brought their own past training and experiences with them, and it's become a very blended system. The core is Shorin-Ryu and, while many things have come from other arts, it all connects back to Shorin-Ryu.

I'm not fond of the creation of styles and sub-styles. Often, this is completely redundant and done primarily for political reasons. There are thousands of styles and sub-styles out there, right now, and a lot of them teach almost the same material as the other sub-styles in their branch of martial arts. To me, a new style would have to be fairly significantly different from not only the core art of the creator, but significantly different from similar existing styles. That's a pretty tough bar to reach.

[Wado Heretic]

I shall admit I was offended by the remark at first; as in my mind, what I am doing is relatively faithful to what I have been taught.

In my opinion; my teacher cannot teach me in full what he knows, nor will I fully absorb what he knows. I will encounter questions I never asked my teacher, and thus will have to realise, or invent, an answer. I will also encounter adversities my teacher never did, and adapt what I do in the face of them.

It just struck me as odd; that a divergence from a syllabus came across as doing something different. Maybe that is the person saying it being small minded, or perhaps I have created more changes than I realised.

I suppose; if natural divergence, and evolution is not enough, the next question would be whether hybridisation valid enough to "create" a style?

Personally; I do not believe one can merely take kata from several sources, or techniques from a melting pot, and put them together. That to me is merely bastardisation. A style must have a comprehensive fighting philosophy, and embody success in the innate strategies of said philosophy. Unless it move away and develops a novel and distinct philosophy, with a technical approach mirroring said philosophy; it cannot be a distinct paradigm or "style".

[Harkon72]

That's exactly right. Just look at our style of Aikido, it's very paradoxical, there are no techniques, no stances, no forms or kata. Then how does it work? Where is the style? Short answer - it has none. It is a collection of principals. The way these principals are taught, their context and the way the experience of them is sought gives you the tradition. So, in a way it is not a style of practice at all, it is different with each opponent, just apply the simple principal you have been taught and you will overcome. We call it Aikido, but it has no form or tradition of style, it is free for your expression of art, and it happens to be martial.

[sensei8]

Sounds to me like its akin to someone telling you that the Ford Mustang you're sitting in is actually a Chevy Corvette, and no matter what you say, they won't believe that your Ford Mustang is a Ford Mustang.

[Wado Heretic]

That is a pretty good analogy; he was unswayed by my appeal to history, and showing the line from Chibana to myself. Just surprised me; made me wonder whether I had diverged far more than I had thought. Whether I was being insincere without realising.

I suppose that is the danger we all face as we move in the circle of teaching, and even though we may keep training with the same teacher (As I have and do), just because our own goals differ from our teachers; we may diverge from what we are taught in dramatic ways right under our noses.

[Kusotare]

To my way of thinking, the DNA of a ryu-ha is more to do with its core principles and stratagems than a list of techniques (and where they came from).

Even within koryu, there are often many "branches" within traditions that have different exercises and methods etc, but most importantly the underlying principles transmitted through the process kata (both solo and formal partner work)remain intact.

That said, whilst I'm no expert in Shorin-ryu, I have a few years under my obi when it comes to Wado and I would be interested to see how you "augment" your Shorin-ryu with your Wado experience.

The Okinawan karate being but a “pinch of salt to Wado” quote coming to mind.

K