Starting a new style.

[Bulltahr]

Thanks for all the well thought out posts.

I was thinking that likely frustration or politics and or ego were likely the primary motivators.....

And of course $$$$$$............

Again, thanks for the replies.

[lowereastside]

" 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. "

Could not have said it better myself. Many of the styles we have today in karate - Kung Fu were created within the the last 150 years give and take. I'm not against someone creating their own style - but one must or should have a total understanding of their existing style. But then again everyone that creates their own style thinks that they do. Just my 3 cents.

[hammer]

One issue that I see is when someone branches off and creates their own way of doing things but doesn't change the name, or even worse, claims that their way is the "correct" way of the style.

I have seen that twice in my MA experience...once from the head master of the school I went to for many years (claimed his way of doing TKD was the "correct" way even though it was different from any established organizations) and again from a student who learned under someone in what they thought/claimed was style A (kyokushin) but was really closer to style B (shotokan).

The bottom line is that if one can teach effective MA than it doesn't matter if it fits into a particular style. Even in established/traditional styles I think there is some flexibility and discretion for students to focus on what works for them. Just don't go to students and claim that your way is the "correct" way or the "true" way...

[Luther unleashed]

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!!

There are a few really nicely written posts, this is one of them and I wanted to point that out. It takes on the angle of creating a style as in something new, not a blend of traditional styles that is like a style in itself though. I wish to address the blended topic and hopefully it's best served in this thread.

So I hold various degrees in various martial arts. I moved around a lot, I have trained in schools that blend and schools that were pure with a style. I have studied many different martial arts. I was pondering a few days ago about a martial artist who teaches one style but knows many.

I saw a website for a school where the owner/instructor had a 4th degree Tang Soo Do, 1st degree jui-jujitsu, 1st degree hopkido, and a few others. I understand teaching one style, but I ask the question... Why not share the other martial arts in a program? Would it not make the program more rich with content, more interesting and fresh? Is there no effective techniques in hopkido that could compliment Tang Soo do?

I wonder how much if what we learn we learn for rank/certification purposes rather then for quality technique? I mean I can't imagine a fundamentally sound reason to teach only one way of doing things if you know many! I understand the desire in a sense I suppose because I was faced with this decision to identify my program with a single style or be more free to teach what was useful, useful for self defense, useful for health, useful for focus or many other reasons. I chose to leave one art as a foundation and blend useful pieces of my total knowledge into the program. Does it make it less pure? Yes! But it also makes it more well rounded in my opinion. My website starts out with "we want to share our passion for martial arts with as many people as possible"! This is my goal. If I teach my karate student a king fu form, is it not enlightening or eye opening to the student? Maybe the student decides he/she likes this better and makes the change, is this not the core of a true martial artist that remains open minded? If rank does not exist do we not try to learn everything we can and forget the less useful stuff? Is rank in a style really what keeps us there?

Is it a style to teach a mixture of already known styles, if so does it stand to be true even if you keep a base martial arts? If so what percentage makes it too different to identify with the base martial art? I mean, most places mix something, like basic boxing techniques and what not. I don't intend all of these to be answered questions of course, they are more to make a point and trigger a thought process about this topic. Thanks guys.

[bushido_man96]

So I hold various degrees in various martial arts. I moved around a lot, I have trained in schools that blend and schools that were pure with a style. I have studied many different martial arts. I was pondering a few days ago about a martial artist who teaches one style but knows many.

I saw a website for a school where the owner/instructor had a 4th degree Tang Soo Do, 1st degree jui-jujitsu, 1st degree hopkido, and a few others. I understand teaching one style, but I ask the question... Why not share the other martial arts in a program? Would it not make the program more rich with content, more interesting and fresh? Is there no effective techniques in hopkido that could compliment Tang Soo do?

To the bold above, I absolutely agree with that point. But here again, I ask the question, if you choose to teach some concepts and technical aspects you've learned in other styles, does it really mean you need to "establish your own style," so to speak? I don't think so. If you teach Tang Soo Do with some Hapkido blended in for self-defense, then great. But just say you teach Tang Soo Do with a Hapkido supplement, or heck, say you teach both curriculums if that's what you do. But there is no reason to come up with a new name to call it a new style. At least, that's my opinion.

[Luther unleashed]

So I hold various degrees in various martial arts. I moved around a lot, I have trained in schools that blend and schools that were pure with a style. I have studied many different martial arts. I was pondering a few days ago about a martial artist who teaches one style but knows many.

I saw a website for a school where the owner/instructor had a 4th degree Tang Soo Do, 1st degree jui-jujitsu, 1st degree hopkido, and a few others. I understand teaching one style, but I ask the question... Why not share the other martial arts in a program? Would it not make the program more rich with content, more interesting and fresh? Is there no effective techniques in hopkido that could compliment Tang Soo do?

To the bold above, I absolutely agree with that point. But here again, I ask the question, if you choose to teach some concepts and technical aspects you've learned in other styles, does it really mean you need to "establish your own style," so to speak? I don't think so. If you teach Tang Soo Do with some Hapkido blended in for self-defense, then great. But just say you teach Tang Soo Do with a Hapkido supplement, or heck, say you teach both curriculums if that's what you do. But there is no reason to come up with a new name to call it a new style. At least, that's my opinion.

I do t disagree. But there are schools that come up with names to their style based on these concepts. Forgive me for the misspelling of hapkido (hopkido) by the way, one of the coolest looking martial arts, I know a few techniques that were supplemented into my curriculum but only a small amount. I always wanted to learn it but never could find a good place to do so.

I was taught a wide range of technique blended in to tang Soo do. It's still 75 percent tang Soo do but when I opened up I felt it was not totally true to what I teach to call it tang Soo do. So instead of call it "tangtaehungkibo" representing some of the martial arts in it lol, I simply call it "integrated tang Soo do". This way nobody is mislead when they are learning kickboxing techniques and thinking it's tang Soo do. I just want people to understand what they are learning. Integrated Tang Soo Do is the truest identifying description of what I teach, if you will. I don't really have a view on what one should do if they do t have a strong base within a mixture because I wouldn't do that personally. In the end I just want to be true to what I teach, and to each their own. Basically I agree with what you are saying exactly the way I read it. At the same time it doesn't. Other me if somebody does make a name and call their mix a style, just isn't the truest way to represent the program IMHO.

[Luther unleashed]

Oh, and one more thing to add about why I personally choose to identify my style with the integration, yes with so many stylists out there and people into a particular style, The style of tang Soo do I do, because there are many variations of his art, are integrated as well. I moved around a lot growing up and as much as I would like to have just gone through my martial arts life with one style or more complete styles I just cannot say that. As a person who has a passion for martial arts, and passion for teaching, it has been my dream to teach since I was 17 and 21 years later I finally started doing it six months ago, if I want to be able to teach I have to teach my experience which is a mixture whether I like it or not is a blend.

I guess my point here would be we all have a choice what we want to teach, but we are also bound by our martial arts experiences. And this may be some of the reason people search for a true identity within their style or styles and what they teach. Sorry, I'm aware that I can sometimes ramble when I find these topics very interesting. Thanks!

[bushido_man96]

I see what you are saying, and I like your explanation. I don't have any issues with the use of the term "integrated" to describe how your style is different. If I ever get to teach TKD on my own within the organization that I am in now, I will more than likely introduce some of the concepts and things I've learned in other styles into my classes. But, I will also keep the curriculum required by the headquarters school for testing and grading. I guess what I'm getting at is that I wouldn't have a problem with describing what I do as "integrated" TKD, but I wouldn't put that on the sign outside. That would likely just say Taekwondo on it. Unless I get the opportunity to bring back the Combat Hapkido curriculum. If I did that, I'd put "Taekwondo and Combat Hapkido" on the sign.

I also wanted to let you know I wasn't digging to you on the spelling of Hapkido. Its all good. It happens.

[Luther unleashed]

I like your idea of calling it taekwondo or combat hapkido taekwondo to identify it. For me it wouldn't be as simple to identity the other martial arts because there's about six that I mildly incorporate into the program. 70% or so is Tang Soo Do curriculum so it would make sense to kelp that name alone.

Can I ask what style Tae Kwon Do you practice? I incorporate WTF style taekwondo into my program but only a few one-steps because I like that they are kicking oriented whereas my my Tang Soo Do one-steps are more hand strikes as breaks, at certain levels anyway. The first school I ever went to however was and I TF school. So, just curious what you do man. I would have trained in Tae Kwon do solely but over the years of moving around It just did not work that way. I often went with the school that had the best energy and best instruction, which I believe left me with less peer of a style but more growth as a martial arts instructor because the emphasis of quality I was looking for was placed on that not the style.

thanks for taking the time to read my long posts.

It's a habit to ramble haha.

[pers]

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!!

I agree with this totally . over the years we were introducd with new ideas and concepts from other arts but we were still doing shotokan .

which brings me to this story , many years ago when I was a low kyu grade we had this purple belt guy who was kind of a bit please with himself , cheeky and arrogant .

one day apparently he bullied another lower grade and he got kicked out for good and we never saw him again .

Until we heard that a year later he had opened a club in a near by town and teaching karate as a second dan !