Starting a new style.

[Bulltahr]

I see that over the years people leave established styles of MA and start their own "style".

A 3rd or 4th Dan starts their own style, wondering what is the motivation as surely there is still more to learn from their original style.

And the students of that dojo, wondering what happens, do they stick to their style and find another dojo or go with the CI (Stay in the current dojo).

Just curious.

Does it dilute or does it improve over "old" systems and techniques?

Trying to understand the motivation behind such a drastic step.

[Judodad_karateson]

Starting your own style if a red flag for McDojo. Mixing multiple MAs into your own personal fighting style is one thing, but building your own system is a pretty questionable practice. The main question you need to ask yourself is "What does this "new" art bring to the table isn't already there?"

[Bulltahr]

Yeap, we are on the same page no argument there. Just wondering what the motivation is and how it must affect existing students etc.

[bushido_man96]

I really think that by the time a practitioner reaches the 4th or 5th dan levels, they probably already have their own "style," or flair or approach to their Martial Art. This is only a natural occurrence, I think. And when they decide to strike out on their own, they like to give it a name and call it their "style."

Now, I don't personally think that everyone that comes up with something original in their approach to teaching should necessarily rename what they do and call it a new style. Personally, I think it would be more beneficial for these folks to try to remain under the umbrella of their original style, and just teach their classes by incorporating their new ideas. I think that would be the better process.

[Judodad_karateson]

Yeap, we are on the same page no argument there. Just wondering what the motivation is and how it must affect existing students etc.

Some of them are good natured, I think. They learned a few arts, they mixed up what, in their opinion, are the best techniques, and want the share their knowledge.

For others, the motivation is just marketing. They want to seperate their Dojo from the droves of TKD schools, so they took a BBJ seminar, watch a video, and start teaching arm bars and crap just so they say they can.

Still others just want to con the uneducated public with their new (read: rebranded), "Too dangerous for the Cage" style.

[ninjanurse]

I really think that by the time a practitioner reaches the 4th or 5th dan levels, they probably already have their own "style," or flair or approach to their Martial Art. This is only a natural occurrence, I think. And when they decide to strike out on their own, they like to give it a name and call it their "style."

Now, I don't personally think that everyone that comes up with something original in their approach to teaching should necessarily rename what they do and call it a new style. Personally, I think it would be more beneficial for these folks to try to remain under the umbrella of their original style, and just teach their classes by incorporating their new ideas. I think that would be the better process.

Solid. The pricinples of Shu-ha-ri make it an inevitablility. Those who take a seminar and add stuff to make themselves more marketable are in it for the money. Those who take what they have practiced for years and organize it into a different sequence/order/system are not reinventing the wheel...it is what it is regardless.

[IcemanSK]

Yeap, we are on the same page no argument there. Just wondering what the motivation is and how it must affect existing students etc.

To ask what the motivations of folks who start their own style to a group of folks who haven't done so will only get you guesses. Just like when on a tv news show they ask a panel of "experts" (who don't know the guy) why he shot up the gas station.

Unless there is someone here who has done it, we really can't add informed knowledge for your question.

[JR 137]

I think it's similar to when a teacher leaves one style for another. A lot of people left kyokushin and either founded their own or joined another organization. When Sosai Mas Oyama passed away, he didn't publicly name a successor. Several claimed to be his chosen successor, but there was never a publicly made statement. There were a ton of politics. Hence why there's IKO 1, 2, 3, etc., IKU, and on and on.

There were other issues too. Some thought it was too competition based. Others thought it became too hard core kumite based. Others wanted to see head gear worn and hand/arm strikes to the head allowed. Others wanted throws/sweeps allowed in competition.

There were a ton of styles that came from kyokushin, large and small. Seido Juku, Seidokaikan, Enshin, Ashihara, Oyama Karate (not family related to Mas Oyama) are the large/well known organizations. There were a ton of local ones too that aren't known outside of a particular area. My area has several independent dojos that started out as kyokushin, their teacher left and started their own, then some of their students later left and started their own. Many of those students dabbled a bit in other arts and incorporated principals in what they teach. They used the original syllabus as a base, and added, deleted, and moved around material because they found/thought it was better for their students' learning.

It's not always a McDojo thing. After owning and running their own dojo and teaching someone else's art for decades and being denied the right to teach what they truly believe is essential or watching changes being made that they don't agree with, they get tired of it and branch off on their own.

As long as the motives are pure and the material is sound, there's nothing wrong with it. When it's motivated solely by not wanting to pay a reasonable royalty to the organization, there's a problem. When it's to cash in on the latest and greatest fad in MA, there a problem.

Keep in mind, every old-school traditional system was started by someone who went out on their own. The Okinawan arts came from Chinese arts. The Okinawans that went to China weren't taught something the Chinese students weren't. They took what they learned and made it work for them. Nothing new about that.

I don't have my own system nor do I teach MA. Just stating what I've seen many times. Kyokushin was huge in my area a long time ago (before I was born). When Nakamura left and formed Seido, most dojos followed him. Two prominent teachers in my area left Seido and started their own. Many left theirs over the years and started their own. All had different reasons. Agreeable or disagreeable depends ultimately if you're their student or not, I guess.

[Wado Heretic]

I have generally encountered three reasons for individuals starting their own styles;

1. Politics; they have created their own style to remove themselves from the politics of their parent system. Often, the syllabus is the same as the parent system initially, but may over time progress or regress; as in they will either retain objects the parent style deletes over time, or they shall add their own objects over time as they continue on as separate entities.

The two common scenarios are either a lower Dan grade with a school, who does not agree with the direction of his/her organisation, but because of their place in the hierarchy cannot access or influence the direction that is being taken. Thus, from frustration, they leave so that they can do as they believe they should. There are a variety of reasons; sometimes the decisions of the higher ups are having a negative business on this particular person’s local success, despite the changes having a more global benefit. Often a change in style name can be legally motivated in such circumstances, depending on the business model of the organisation. The other scenario is a member of the leadership who is frustrated with the politics, and moves onto a new name and new organisation to divorce them selves from the politics of their former organisation.

2. Technical direction; the individual starting the new style believes what they are teaching has become divisible from the art they have been claiming to formally teach. Sometimes this is as clumsy an endeavour as someone who has cross trained and has decided to mesh together elements from multiple systems into a new, distinct curriculum, but without a logic or reasoning which binds the parts together. Other times, it is an authentic example of Shu-ha-ri; where new ideas and principles are taking the place of core principles of the parent system, where performance and presentation are superficially similar but the content is distinct.

One can argue that the first case is an example of McDojo; where this is poor practice. The second case is closer to just being sincere and authentic with what one is doing; simply adding, or taking away to a curriculum does not change the system you are teaching or practicing. However, if one has changed the underlying nature, the lens through which the content of the curriculum is interpreted, and practiced, then you are beginning to perform something distinct. An example of this would be Shotokai, and Shotokan, where both have similar content on paper, but how the content is practiced is completely different.

3. Hybrid culture; basically the new style is in itself is coming from a new style. It has evolved from a hybrid martial culture, where the idea of adding and taking away, pursuing the best tools and eliminating what is considered redundant. Sadly, when this is not balanced by being involved with a competitive combat sport element, but instead modelled after traditional martial arts; you end up with style after style. A student will disagree with what is being removed and will retain and depart from the parent style, while others will take away and add to such an extent that their curriculum shares only a fraction with the parent styles; and thus it is believed there is a new “style”.

[sensei8]

Many great posts already on this topic. Hopefully, I can add something of value to the discussion.

Imho,

How many different ways can one punch, kick, strike, and so on and so forth? I've no idea! One might imagine that there's a limit to everything. It's not how many methodologies, but how many ideologies can birth something effective.

I suppose that anyone can create there own MA style. That's the easy part! It's making it acceptable to the MA masses; that's the true trick. Get enough to support it, then, there's a chance that the snowball effect will take place sooner or later.

We're free to create; nothing can take that away. There'll be a consensus that a certain rank is required, but in creating a new MA style, that argument about required rank will never be settled. Loop holes will protect the effective as well as the ineffective, therefore, any rank can create a MA style, which usually births a new governing body. It appears Senior Ranks aren't satisfied with what their core styles founder awarded them, so, now they create a new MA style so that the new governing body they've also created can award themselves with a shiny new Judan.

I've no inclination to ever start my own style; I've not the necessary tools, nor do I want to acquire it. I believe that I've the knowledge and experience to start my own MA style, but, I'll save that opportunity for those who desire to do so than me.

I've cross-trained with a wide plethora of MA styles, but not for profit, and not for fame, or any other ill begotten scheme. But to become more effective across the board and on the floor; wherever that floor might be. Shindokan Saitou-ryu is effective, but it's not the end all of all things in anything; nor is any other style that's ever been made in the past, present, or future.

The wheel has already been created, and it's been improved over the years, and it might still be changed in the future. But, as the cheese is moved, is the creators of the wheel past, present, or future, truly improving the technology or the creator?!?

To create or not to create a new MA style; is that the question? That's an individual choice, and it's can be a bold quest to endeavor. Create not the new MA, I say, but create that which is effective in and for you.

More often than not, are we creating a new MA style, or are we creating a new governing body?? As already mentioned, many style's of MA have seen the creator pass away, and behold, a new "style" is birthed, but what I notice is that it's the same cheese, but it's been relabeled under the guise of a new found governing body. And if said new style is offering something new, it's quite limited, and not that note worthy after all.

Oh well, what's one to do? When a new style is created, I say..."Cool!", and I leave it at that. Whatever the motivating factors are involved, I pray that it benefits its student body, and then its creator; in that order.

Again, IMHO!!