Legitimacy of a new style of karate...

[Himokiri Karate]

In my town, a placed I used to train Kyokushin at has changed their name to something else. Same practice but just different name. Aside from that, Kyokushin has several offshoots such as Ashihara and Enshin Karate.

Now anyone can technically come up with their own style but I also understand that the person doing so must be a combination of a charismatic and powerful Karateka in order to bring their own brand to life.

In your opinion, what is the most dignified ways of coming up with a new style without disrespecting a current lineage?

Also this is slightly about Himokiri Karate but in all seriousness. My style has changed over the years. After years of boxing,karate,kung fu as well as judo/sambo and other MMA based martial arts. I have decided to focus on this type of modality:

1. First, make my boxing and karate ( with throws) my main focus

2. Second, focusing with a private grappling trainers sub defense

3. Have Kung Fu as a form of exercise and to cultivate strong foundation

Now my question for you guys is, should I give free lessons to have people try my style to see if there is value in learning it? Should I focus on fighting in MMA/combat karate?

My problem with fighting in combat sports is that if I win, it might just mean I am a competent fighter with conditioning. Doesn't make my teaching good per say. I also run hills and have a love/hate with cardio. But this is not something I can teach.

[Wado Heretic]

If you can afford free lessons for the sake of promotional work, yes. First two lessons free has been a pretty effective marketing strategy for me.

If I have learnt anything of recent in running my own club: you get the students you get. That does a lot to dictate what is viable as a training model, and methodology. The only way I have found to teach karate as I want to teach it, while retaining students is to run two systems pretty much.

First system: Kihon Waza against the air, bag work as cardio work, basic body weight strength training, Kata, Rolling Bunkai/Kiso Kumite as set out in the syllabus, controlled Jiyu Kumite, Tai chi like soft pushing hands, basic self defence against various holds, and Grappling/ground-work parsed down to the essentials.

I find this is pretty much what people expect when they think of karate - it is also the lowest stress level I can personally stomach without feeling I am letting the idea of self-defence float off into the ether. This is what I teach as the first session I give during the evening, or did before circumstances changed.

Second System: Hojo Undo with various weights and body-to-body drills, Bag work is drill based and focused on fighting skills, Kata based partner work including flow drills and semi-free sparring, Jiyu Kumite is done in Bogu with both controlled and hard contact, a variety of Kakei Kumite exercises and wrestling practice, a thorough grappling regime grounded in Gracie Combatives and Judo Goshin Jutsu.

This is the sort of regime I think is needed to practice karate as an actual model of self-defence, or as a foundation for combat sport participation.

What I used to do was the following -

Session 1 - System One going through the three K according to the syllabus.

Session 2 - System Two focused on one skill set for that evening.

What I found was most people would come to session 1, a lot would drop out before session 2, and a few would only come to session 2.

Point being, you get the students you get. You are going to find what you can teach effectively, in many ways, once you start teaching. I tried teaching system 2 from day one to everyone, and it just put a lot off with the intensity. When I went back to basics, and the kind of gentle karate I did as a child (with a few things added in), I had much better retention.

I had a run as a kick-boxer where I went 11-0-2, and had three professional fights I won. I also competed in shoot-fighting and went 3-0, and have done an MMA exhibition bout I won on the cards. None of it helped promote my karate aside from being able to take the fighting experience and using it to frame my teachings.

Trying to promote yourself through fighting can be a double-edged sword. If it goes well, it could help grease the wheels among those who see such experience as essential in a teacher. If it goes poorly: you've just set yourself up for a fall. There are plenty of snake-oil merchants who have got by without any hint of legitimacy. Go out there and teach something good is my advice.

[sensei8]

Himokiri Karate wrote:

In your opinion, what is the most dignified ways of coming up with a new style without disrespecting a current lineage?

Maintaining integrity across the board at all times. Without established integrity there's no style, no CI, no effectiveness, no nothing. With established integrity, then there's no disrespecting a current lineage, if not disrespecting a current lineage is important. In short, lineage doesn't administrate in any shape, way, and/or form, and having said that, TEACH, that's the main focus of any CI. Everything else can sit on the back burner until that, whatever that might be, needs to be addressed. Integrity first rule...teaching second rule...remembering rule #1.

Himokiri Karate wrote:

should I give free lessons to have people try my style to see if there is value in learning it?

A Free Trail lesson, but not free lessons beyond that. You've an overhead, no matter how insignificant that overhead is. The most Free Trail Lessons that I'd ever give would be 3. After that, pay to learn. If you treat you and your dojo and your style as a cheap free ride, what will students and prospective students have an impression of the package?! Again, integrity. Pay to play!!

Himokiri Karate wrote:

Should I focus on fighting in MMA/combat karate?

That's your soul decision to make. EFFECTIVENESS is what should be taught by the CI and what should be learned by the Student Body.

Imho.

[wildbourgman]

Sure you can come up with your own style you just need to be up front about that with your customers and yourself. What I have a serious problem with is people that are not truthful about their style and claim lineage that's not real.

If you don't know the meaning already, look into Shu Ha Ri. If you are getting to the Ri stage of this progression you should think about taking the journey on whatever path you want. In saying that you don't really have to ever turn your back on the Shu and Ha stages either.

[Himokiri Karate]

If you can afford free lessons for the sake of promotional work, yes. First two lessons free has been a pretty effective marketing strategy for me.

If I have learnt anything of recent in running my own club: you get the students you get. That does a lot to dictate what is viable as a training model, and methodology. The only way I have found to teach karate as I want to teach it, while retaining students is to run two systems pretty much.

First system: Kihon Waza against the air, bag work as cardio work, basic body weight strength training, Kata, Rolling Bunkai/Kiso Kumite as set out in the syllabus, controlled Jiyu Kumite, Tai chi like soft pushing hands, basic self defence against various holds, and Grappling/ground-work parsed down to the essentials.

I find this is pretty much what people expect when they think of karate - it is also the lowest stress level I can personally stomach without feeling I am letting the idea of self-defence float off into the ether. This is what I teach as the first session I give during the evening, or did before circumstances changed.

Second System: Hojo Undo with various weights and body-to-body drills, Bag work is drill based and focused on fighting skills, Kata based partner work including flow drills and semi-free sparring, Jiyu Kumite is done in Bogu with both controlled and hard contact, a variety of Kakei Kumite exercises and wrestling practice, a thorough grappling regime grounded in Gracie Combatives and Judo Goshin Jutsu.

This is the sort of regime I think is needed to practice karate as an actual model of self-defence, or as a foundation for combat sport participation.

What I used to do was the following -

Session 1 - System One going through the three K according to the syllabus.

Session 2 - System Two focused on one skill set for that evening.

What I found was most people would come to session 1, a lot would drop out before session 2, and a few would only come to session 2.

Point being, you get the students you get. You are going to find what you can teach effectively, in many ways, once you start teaching. I tried teaching system 2 from day one to everyone, and it just put a lot off with the intensity. When I went back to basics, and the kind of gentle karate I did as a child (with a few things added in), I had much better retention.

I had a run as a kick-boxer where I went 11-0-2, and had three professional fights I won. I also competed in shoot-fighting and went 3-0, and have done an MMA exhibition bout I won on the cards. None of it helped promote my karate aside from being able to take the fighting experience and using it to frame my teachings.

Trying to promote yourself through fighting can be a double-edged sword. If it goes well, it could help grease the wheels among those who see such experience as essential in a teacher. If it goes poorly: you've just set yourself up for a fall. There are plenty of snake-oil merchants who have got by without any hint of legitimacy. Go out there and teach something good is my advice.

So true!

I noticed that oddly enough, no one really cares about the fighting aspect. Almost decade ago, I would dabble in boxing exhibitions and seen many guys fight. Believe it or not, most folks don't really have interest in watching local fights.

In these local events or "smokers" as they call it, you had an audience but people were distracted and it wasn't like some big event like the UFC.

Of course its different if the levels are higher or if there is a rival school with a storyline going at each other.

Thanks for encouragement, my biggest fear is failing my student as a teacher. I have to make sure they get their stance and footwork down. This is very important and non-negotiable for me. At the same time, I have to make sure they are burning calories and having fun.

I agree with Hojo undo, they need to have body toughening exercises as well to give them not just a sportive taste of karate/boxing but to give them a classical conditioning that is somewhat becoming obscure.

Himokiri Karate wrote:

In your opinion, what is the most dignified ways of coming up with a new style without disrespecting a current lineage?

Maintaining integrity across the board at all times. Without established integrity there's no style, no CI, no effectiveness, no nothing. With established integrity, then there's no disrespecting a current lineage, if not disrespecting a current lineage is important. In short, lineage doesn't administrate in any shape, way, and/or form, and having said that, TEACH, that's the main focus of any CI. Everything else can sit on the back burner until that, whatever that might be, needs to be addressed. Integrity first rule...teaching second rule...remembering rule #1.

Himokiri Karate wrote:

should I give free lessons to have people try my style to see if there is value in learning it?

A Free Trail lesson, but not free lessons beyond that. You've an overhead, no matter how insignificant that overhead is. The most Free Trail Lessons that I'd ever give would be 3. After that, pay to learn. If you treat you and your dojo and your style as a cheap free ride, what will students and prospective students have an impression of the package?! Again, integrity. Pay to play!!

Himokiri Karate wrote:

Should I focus on fighting in MMA/combat karate?

That's your soul decision to make. EFFECTIVENESS is what should be taught by the CI and what should be learned by the Student Body.

Imho.

Regarding free lessons, my biggest worry is, in the beginning, I am not going to be a good teacher. In spirit of being new on the job, I thought perhaps I should give away free lessons to see if what I have to teach is worth paying for.

Although, my current boxing trainer had this amazing idea, first lesson was 20 dollars for half an hour. After that, it was 120 dollars an hour. But the first lesson was there to get you to the door and it worked on me.

Perhaps first lesson can be 25 dollars or something really low just so I don't get taken advantage of but also the student doesn't feel like they are not getting ripped off.

Is CI stand for certified instructor?

Sorry if it sounds silly, I got corporate identity for googling it.

I also agree with you on integrity. In the past, I had a horrible boxing trainer and he was horrible because of his attitude. His technique was alright but was a very bad person. Immoral, verbally abusive and had a tendency to blow up in public and say the nastiest thing and bring up personal stuff over small disagreement. I don't think anyone wants to have this type of character in their lives. I like to think that in the opposite way, if a trainer/teacher doesn't have the accolades but shows amazing techniques and is a great human being who looks out for their students well being and the student gets tons of value from their teaching, then that teacher should be as qualified or more qualified than a former fighter.

But regarding what I like to teach, in Himokiri karate, the emphasis is on smaller targets for precision as well as being well conditioned. Of course my root will always be Kyokushin and Boxing forever.

[sensei8]

CI is the Chief Instructor...the top dog of the dojo.

If you can't teach beginners, then teaching intermediate and advanced levels will be a near impossibility. Like I say all of the time...Not all black belts can teach. That's why most instructors learn the ins and outs of teaching from ones own CI before they try to teach anyone anything.

For the most part, Sandan (3rd degree black belt) level is the unwritten rule of the thumb for any CI opening their own dojo. That Sandan/CI has been under the watchful eye of their very own CI so that they can learn how to teach. It's during that period, that the prospective future CI learns the ropes about teaching and they also find out if they can teach or not.

Having said that, anyone can open a dojo and teach, even a very new style; nothing or no one can stop them. Students aren't blind to the capabilities of their CI pretty darn quick.

[bushido_man96]

In your opinion, what is the most dignified ways of coming up with a new style without disrespecting a current lineage?

My question would be, did you really come up with a new style, or are you presenting the style(s) you've learned in your way? I think this is a big difference, and I think this tends to be the natural order of things when it comes to MA training, especially done over the course of many years.

We learn our base first. We all have a start somewhere. How long, how rich, and how deep those beginnings are end up being different for everyone. But by and large, I feel that many practitioners that think of themselves as "starting a new style" are really just presenting their version of how they've come to understand the style they've learned. I think this is a kind of natural order of things, as we all learn and do things differently, and different approaches work better for some than others. As we teach our students, we'll see these kinds of changes take place in them, too.

As was mentioned by other posters, a trial lesson or two are a good idea, but not too many more than that. Wado Heretic also made a good point about the kinds of students you are going to get. This will be strongly based off your teaching style, methods, syllabus, and the demographics available to you. Older practitioners have different focuses than younger ones. But that doesn't mean that as you go along you can't find the adjustments to make to be flexible to both.

As for the fighting aspect. If that is something you want to do, and have the time to pursue, for your own personal enjoyment, then do it. But I would not do it for the sake of your school. Do it for your own sake.

Great post. I hope I haven't misinterpreted anything within it in my responses.

[Himokiri Karate]

In your opinion, what is the most dignified ways of coming up with a new style without disrespecting a current lineage?

My question would be, did you really come up with a new style, or are you presenting the style(s) you've learned in your way? I think this is a big difference, and I think this tends to be the natural order of things when it comes to MA training, especially done over the course of many years.

We learn our base first. We all have a start somewhere. How long, how rich, and how deep those beginnings are end up being different for everyone. But by and large, I feel that many practitioners that think of themselves as "starting a new style" are really just presenting their version of how they've come to understand the style they've learned. I think this is a kind of natural order of things, as we all learn and do things differently, and different approaches work better for some than others. As we teach our students, we'll see these kinds of changes take place in them, too.

As was mentioned by other posters, a trial lesson or two are a good idea, but not too many more than that. Wado Heretic also made a good point about the kinds of students you are going to get. This will be strongly based off your teaching style, methods, syllabus, and the demographics available to you. Older practitioners have different focuses than younger ones. But that doesn't mean that as you go along you can't find the adjustments to make to be flexible to both.

As for the fighting aspect. If that is something you want to do, and have the time to pursue, for your own personal enjoyment, then do it. But I would not do it for the sake of your school. Do it for your own sake.

Great post. I hope I haven't misinterpreted anything within it in my responses.

My post starts below: (not sure what happened)

Truth is, I can never come up with a new style per say, it is just fun playful names. Ultimately speaking, my style is based on Kyokushin Karate and Boxing in respect to delivery system. But I am an extreme believe of Kung Fu forms and static training. Holding positions and learning to breath is an important foundation.

I am selling boxing and karate +judo/sambo takedowns/throws ( the ones that I am good at) that I learned from my mentor. I have zero interest in the ground game and would like to focus on standing techniques and getting back to the feet. Tons of my training will be focused on footwork.

Also worth mentioning is, my boxing and karate are somewhat separate and yet together. Its very important to teach my students barehanded strikes like Hiraken, Nukite, Ipponken and Seiken. But I also want them to have proper boxing foundation. Another thing is, I want to avoid kickboxing, if my students wear boxing gloves, they are boxing, if smaller gloves, they are doing karate. I dont want this to turn in to PKA kickboxing due to the importance of training with barehands.

[sensei8]

So, if it's not a new style, could it be a new methodology and ideology, instead?? That could be less difficult than trying to legitimize a new style. Change is inevitable in discovering new training ideas; the rage of the training page landscape is never static as new training methods and ideas are birthed quite often.

With anything, whatever 'it' is, it must be proved under some microscope somewhere and somehow.

[Himokiri Karate]

So, if it's not a new style, could it be a new methodology and ideology, instead?? That could be less difficult than trying to legitimize a new style. Change is inevitable in discovering new training ideas; the rage of the training page landscape is never static as new training methods and ideas are birthed quite often.

With anything, whatever 'it' is, it must be proved under some microscope somewhere and somehow.

Yes sir!

That's it! This is the best option, to me its karate technique meets boxing with power and precision intact.

My idea is in my signature which is the creed of Himokiri karate. Of course, to me with passing of time, a technique is a technique, a style is a toolbox that offers various tools. For me the idea of and tenet is most important, for all I care it could be Himokiri Kung Fu or Himokiri Hikuta.

For me, the only thing that is really extremely important is footwork and a strong guard for face protection. My students can throw kicks in variety of ways, they can lift the knee and extend or just throw it like a leg raise. The most important thing is, their chin/spine is being protected by a solid guard and their footwork is solid and stable so in the worse case scenario they wont get rocked too badly if they miss and get hit with a counter.

My goal is to teach my style based on the Legendary undefeated amateur and professional boxing champ Ricardo Lopez

This man has such a solid foundation, his stance in his base form is not square or side ways but 45 degrees and can square up for offense or sideway for defense. This man works magic and the moment I started emulating and studying his technique, I felt the improvement. As far as myself goes, I do not have any special martial arts mind or a street fighting genius who can adapt with some insanely talented reflexes. I am just a man who is taking other successful models and is trying to replicate it for myself and my students.

I look forward to posting videos, is there a way to post videos in this forum? I want to be more active and really learn to articulate my teachings which is good for me as well because it allows me to really think about the things I am trying to teach and preach.