Starting my own style/system

[sensei8]

To add onto this topic, and my last statement really... I really find myself interested in style at times. In what ibteaxh, I blend known styles and teach what I know as wealth to studenrs. What style is it really, I think it's the styles they are and the name I choose is really the name of the program I teach. Nothing in what I teach did I make up, we'll there's actually one thing I do that I was never taught and I call it freestyle blocking, but all else is a specific martial arr.

I find it interesting when people take martial arts and blend them and give it a new name. I'm OK with it, but I think it's really the original martial arts blended aren't they? I they give it a name so students can achieve rank in it, can identify it, and take pride in it. If there was no rank, would one still feel the need to name their "art"?

I don't mind what people do and that's the beautiful part of it all, but IMHO I just think that names should be used on an original or unique style and not a blend of already named styles. Like I added integrated in front of tang soo do, I easy could name it "luther kwon do" and it's still the same material so it's not that important I suppose, I just think it's more true to what I am teaching to specify it's a blend. Arts like kajukembo are really the same thing, and again I think unless there's something new, it's a blend of already named styles and not a unique art itself, just a mixture.

I mean no disrespect to any bodies system they practice. My opinion is just an opinion and if your happy I'm happy, just a preference thing, what you teach is the same whatever you choose to call it to identify it.

At the end of the day, is it even possible to create an entirely new style? Somebody somewhere has already done practically everything, and everything's just a new spin on what's been done before. Unless someone figures out how to hover/levitate unassisted while shooting laser beams out of their eyes, then it's all been done before.

Wait, isn't there a character in the Tekken series games who does this?

To the bold type above...

"I do not teach, you know, Karate, because I do not believe in styles anymore. I mean, I do not believe that there is such a thing as, like, a Chinese way of fighting or a Japanese way of fighting...or whatever way of fighting, because unless a human has three arms and four legs, there can be no different forms of fighting. But, basically, we only have two hands and two feet. So styles tend to, not only separate man because they have their own doctrines and the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change! But if you do not have styles, if you just say, "Here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely?"...now that way, you won't create a style because style is a crystallization. That way is a process of continuing growth." ~Bruce Lee

Just thought that I'd throw this out for all to chew on.

[JR 137]

To add onto this topic, and my last statement really... I really find myself interested in style at times. In what ibteaxh, I blend known styles and teach what I know as wealth to studenrs. What style is it really, I think it's the styles they are and the name I choose is really the name of the program I teach. Nothing in what I teach did I make up, we'll there's actually one thing I do that I was never taught and I call it freestyle blocking, but all else is a specific martial arr.

I find it interesting when people take martial arts and blend them and give it a new name. I'm OK with it, but I think it's really the original martial arts blended aren't they? I they give it a name so students can achieve rank in it, can identify it, and take pride in it. If there was no rank, would one still feel the need to name their "art"?

I don't mind what people do and that's the beautiful part of it all, but IMHO I just think that names should be used on an original or unique style and not a blend of already named styles. Like I added integrated in front of tang soo do, I easy could name it "luther kwon do" and it's still the same material so it's not that important I suppose, I just think it's more true to what I am teaching to specify it's a blend. Arts like kajukembo are really the same thing, and again I think unless there's something new, it's a blend of already named styles and not a unique art itself, just a mixture.

I mean no disrespect to any bodies system they practice. My opinion is just an opinion and if your happy I'm happy, just a preference thing, what you teach is the same whatever you choose to call it to identify it.

At the end of the day, is it even possible to create an entirely new style? Somebody somewhere has already done practically everything, and everything's just a new spin on what's been done before. Unless someone figures out how to hover/levitate unassisted while shooting laser beams out of their eyes, then it's all been done before.

Wait, isn't there a character in the Tekken series games who does this?

To the bold type above...

"I do not teach, you know, Karate, because I do not believe in styles anymore. I mean, I do not believe that there is such a thing as, like, a Chinese way of fighting or a Japanese way of fighting...or whatever way of fighting, because unless a human has three arms and four legs, there can be no different forms of fighting. But, basically, we only have two hands and two feet. So styles tend to, not only separate man because they have their own doctrines and the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change! But if you do not have styles, if you just say, "Here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely?"...now that way, you won't create a style because style is a crystallization. That way is a process of continuing growth." ~Bruce Lee

Just thought that I'd throw this out for all to chew on.

That's what I was talking about, yet Bruce Lee said it far better. Every "new style" is really just a spinoff of a previous one. Why does Brazilian jujitsu look and "act"so much different than karate? Same reason why eagles look and act so much different than humans - evolution and adaptation.

Realistically speaking, there are no new techniques out there being developed; there are may be new methods of delivering them - application, curriculum, theories behind them, names, etc., but there are truly no completely new techniques out there.

If I were to start my own system by incorporating boxing punches, karate open hand strikes, judo throws, wrestling takedowns, BJJ ground techniques, and the Muay Thai clinch (including MT strikes during the clinch), would it truly be anything new? The only new stuff would be the curriculum and order I taught, and the name of the "style."

Maybe I'm way off base here. A kick is just a kick, a punch is just a punch, etc.

[sensei8]

To add onto this topic, and my last statement really... I really find myself interested in style at times. In what ibteaxh, I blend known styles and teach what I know as wealth to studenrs. What style is it really, I think it's the styles they are and the name I choose is really the name of the program I teach. Nothing in what I teach did I make up, we'll there's actually one thing I do that I was never taught and I call it freestyle blocking, but all else is a specific martial arr.

I find it interesting when people take martial arts and blend them and give it a new name. I'm OK with it, but I think it's really the original martial arts blended aren't they? I they give it a name so students can achieve rank in it, can identify it, and take pride in it. If there was no rank, would one still feel the need to name their "art"?

I don't mind what people do and that's the beautiful part of it all, but IMHO I just think that names should be used on an original or unique style and not a blend of already named styles. Like I added integrated in front of tang soo do, I easy could name it "luther kwon do" and it's still the same material so it's not that important I suppose, I just think it's more true to what I am teaching to specify it's a blend. Arts like kajukembo are really the same thing, and again I think unless there's something new, it's a blend of already named styles and not a unique art itself, just a mixture.

I mean no disrespect to any bodies system they practice. My opinion is just an opinion and if your happy I'm happy, just a preference thing, what you teach is the same whatever you choose to call it to identify it.

At the end of the day, is it even possible to create an entirely new style? Somebody somewhere has already done practically everything, and everything's just a new spin on what's been done before. Unless someone figures out how to hover/levitate unassisted while shooting laser beams out of their eyes, then it's all been done before.

Wait, isn't there a character in the Tekken series games who does this?

To the bold type above...

"I do not teach, you know, Karate, because I do not believe in styles anymore. I mean, I do not believe that there is such a thing as, like, a Chinese way of fighting or a Japanese way of fighting...or whatever way of fighting, because unless a human has three arms and four legs, there can be no different forms of fighting. But, basically, we only have two hands and two feet. So styles tend to, not only separate man because they have their own doctrines and the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change! But if you do not have styles, if you just say, "Here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely?"...now that way, you won't create a style because style is a crystallization. That way is a process of continuing growth." ~Bruce Lee

Just thought that I'd throw this out for all to chew on.

That's what I was talking about, yet Bruce Lee said it far better. Every "new style" is really just a spinoff of a previous one. Why does Brazilian jujitsu look and "act"so much different than karate? Same reason why eagles look and act so much different than humans - evolution and adaptation.

Realistically speaking, there are no new techniques out there being developed; there are may be new methods of delivering them - application, curriculum, theories behind them, names, etc., but there are truly no completely new techniques out there.

If I were to start my own system by incorporating boxing punches, karate open hand strikes, judo throws, wrestling takedowns, BJJ ground techniques, and the Muay Thai clinch (including MT strikes during the clinch), would it truly be anything new? The only new stuff would be the curriculum and order I taught, and the name of the "style."

Maybe I'm way off base here. A kick is just a kick, a punch is just a punch, etc.

Solid post!!

To the bold type above...

Another Bruce Lee gem...

"Before I learned martial arts, a punch was just a punch and a kick was just a kick. When I studied martial arts, a punch was no longer just a punch and a kick was no longer just a kick. Now I understand martial arts, and a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick." ~ Bruce Lee

[JR 137]

Who is this Bruce Lee you speak of? I can't find any information on him anywhere. I'll be right back... Gotta get some water...

[Luther unleashed]

To add onto this topic, and my last statement really... I really find myself interested in style at times. In what ibteaxh, I blend known styles and teach what I know as wealth to studenrs. What style is it really, I think it's the styles they are and the name I choose is really the name of the program I teach. Nothing in what I teach did I make up, we'll there's actually one thing I do that I was never taught and I call it freestyle blocking, but all else is a specific martial arr.

I find it interesting when people take martial arts and blend them and give it a new name. I'm OK with it, but I think it's really the original martial arts blended aren't they? I they give it a name so students can achieve rank in it, can identify it, and take pride in it. If there was no rank, would one still feel the need to name their "art"?

I don't mind what people do and that's the beautiful part of it all, but IMHO I just think that names should be used on an original or unique style and not a blend of already named styles. Like I added integrated in front of tang soo do, I easy could name it "luther kwon do" and it's still the same material so it's not that important I suppose, I just think it's more true to what I am teaching to specify it's a blend. Arts like kajukembo are really the same thing, and again I think unless there's something new, it's a blend of already named styles and not a unique art itself, just a mixture.

I mean no disrespect to any bodies system they practice. My opinion is just an opinion and if your happy I'm happy, just a preference thing, what you teach is the same whatever you choose to call it to identify it.

At the end of the day, is it even possible to create an entirely new style? Somebody somewhere has already done practically everything, and everything's just a new spin on what's been done before. Unless someone figures out how to hover/levitate unassisted while shooting laser beams out of their eyes, then it's all been done before.

Wait, isn't there a character in the Tekken series games who does this?

I believe you can create a new style. I happen to think that you can create something new because the new material could be a sequence of moves in relation to one another and it could be created by you, thus it's new. A punch and a kick are hard to keep building on but more In-depth movements I think one can build on. If I may rant about this a little...

Over the years there are a great deal of "watered down" martial arts schools. What I mean by this is that they are not traditional, they are more open minded and many blend styles as I do. I prefer to maintain a strong connection to karate because I personally feel My students get a stronger foundation but that's just my personal preference and feelings. Many schools blend more, and some are even blending in stages. There's a king fu school near me that teaches hung gar in 1st degree black belt. They teach tai chi in second and every level/degree the martial art changes. I trained in a school like this as well.

We have gone away from being heavily bound by styles much. Ore then 15 years ago or so. Some feel this is messy and lacks connection to traditional martial arts. My personal opinion is this... If I know 6 martial arts, why would I o my teach one? Or, do I open 6 schools/programs to teach them all and make sure I keep them pure? Some would see it this way, we are loyalists by. Studs I feel, and we like to wear certain brands and hang on to certa. Sports teams, and specific martial arts for that matter. I feel the student benefits more from the well Ron des blended experience. What do you rank them in then? Now we're getting complicated and an identity must be put in place.

The end result is that we are becoming more open minded as people in our martial arts experiences. This is what Great martial artists have always done. Bruce, chuck Norris (chun kuk do) with a base of tang Soo do while incorporating a few other martial arts. If the martial arts taught, weather 10% or 20 are being taught correctly, why does it matter? To the very core of the last few posts I ask, does it really matter what we choose to call it. If something is believed to be completely "new" I am ok with it, because while we dissect the moves specifically we should remember that the core of most martial arts are really the concept, there may be only a certain amount of moves to do, but our ability to create mental angles and ideas is never limited. Take Tang Soo Do, clearly it is a facet and rebirth of shotokan with a different base of ideas and concepts and mental approaches, but it's the same in many ways.

Sorry I know I got all deep and ranty!

[sensei8]

Who is this Bruce Lee you speak of? I can't find any information on him anywhere. I'll be right back... Gotta get some water...

ROFLMBO...

Now...that's funny; you're killing me...Who is this Bruce Lee?? Just got to love it, and I do!!

[JR 137]

Who is this Bruce Lee you speak of? I can't find any information on him anywhere. I'll be right back... Gotta get some water...

ROFLMBO...

Now...that's funny; you're killing me...Who is this Bruce Lee?? Just got to love it, and I do!!

I thought you were going to laugh more about my stupid water reference.

[sensei8]

Who is this Bruce Lee you speak of? I can't find any information on him anywhere. I'll be right back... Gotta get some water...

ROFLMBO...

Now...that's funny; you're killing me...Who is this Bruce Lee?? Just got to love it, and I do!!

I thought you were going to laugh more about my stupid water reference.

I understood the water reference, and it was funny, but the Bruce Lee comment trumped the water reference with me; I really wasn't expecting that.