Is it ok to create your own style??

Discussion in 'Ninjutsu' started by Kobudo, May 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    And one way to avoid that is to grow a thicker skin
     
  2. CrowZer0

    CrowZer0 Assume formlessness.

    Yes.

    A video game with a million different interpretations and possibilities, mechanical skill, and intricate knowledge needed.

    They don't play the International tournament with a $20 million prize fund for no reason. :)

    It's like having an issue with online chess or poker, both are games, but the skill and knowledge is real.
     
  3. CrowZer0

    CrowZer0 Assume formlessness.

    Again, I didn't argue this. I agreed with you in an above post.

    My point was just because you or someone else has "experience" in an art or system, doesn't somehow make you an authority to tell others whether they're good enough to create their own style. My point was also that even if you are the "best" or "most experienced" out there. That still doesn't make you an authority to judge what others can or can't do.

    Also a general point that JUST because someone has "experience" in something doesn't somehow make them an automatic authority or more knowledgable than say someone with less experience. Say someone with 10 years experience has better understanding, knowledge and application of what you have done for 25 years, would that make you better?

    It just sounds the same as seniority principle to me "trust me I'm older than you". It's just general nonsense.

    I'll just add a general analagy for more understanding, something with a finite roof of skill. Driving, you may have been a driving instructor for 30 years.

    Does that make you an authority in driving, or teaching driving? If someone with a year or two drives and understands how to teach it better than you?

    With your mentality, someone with 30 years of driving, would be what a better driver/racer than someone and MOST people with 1-5 years? No.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  4. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    But the skills we're talking about don't just involve the kind of intelligence used for games which really have no real world repercussions to them. You sit down and play. There's no risk of injury, penalty (bodily harm) for a false belief in thinking you can do something you can't, etc.. It's not really comparable in the severity of the topic. It's not even comparable to something like running or lifting weights.
     
  5. RoninX

    RoninX Valued Member

    He did create a new style. He might not have invented all the techniques, but he created a style with a very specific philosophy and methodology. Could you at that point walk into any dojo in the world and train the exact thing that Hélio was teaching at that point? If you couldn't, it's new.
     
  6. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter


    If somebody has experience (as Hannibal put it, the "right" experience) then they will show a proficiency in their knowledge and ability to show that experience. Proficiency certainly should be what you act on whether you're trying to find somebody to learn from or if you're looking to teach something. Usually when somebody is pulling the "trust me I'm older than you" or "I've been around this longer" it doesn't reflect the "right experience" they've had. The correlation with experience and proficiency is so close to look at it otherwise is nearly useless.
     
  7. CrowZer0

    CrowZer0 Assume formlessness.

    I think you need to look into E-Sports a little more, plenty of injuries, pressure, mental issues involved, addiction, insomnia. http://evilgeniuses.gg/read/344,clinton-fear-loomis-sidelined-by-injury/

    Ypu practice an exort Invoker for 4 hours a day for a week and don't ice your fingers. :p Or wrist even. https://motherboard.vice.com/read/achilles-wrists-meet-the-doctor-who-is-saving-esports-careers
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Yes you could

    There is myth perpetuated by the GJJ marketing machine that Helio invented BJJ - he didn't

    He was a good stylist, but lets not get caught up in revisionism here - he taught leverage in the system that was somehow a 'wow!!! we NEVER thought of that before"....despite the fact it is found in EVERY grappling art globally
     
  9. RoninX

    RoninX Valued Member

    Where? Where could you train it?
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Japan, China, down the road in Brazil with Fadda.....hell the Snake Pit was active at that time in Wigan
     
  11. JibranK

    JibranK Valued Member

    Sure, Mas Oyama, Bruce Lee etc were young when they started their styles. So was Kano for that matter. (Though Kano was a menkyo kaiden holder in koryu.)

    But the thing is, if they were like the fly-by-nights who post here about how they have teh reelz, their arts would have never caught on and been taken seriously. The staying power is one of the signs that they had something genuine.
     
  12. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    I understand that you're trying to say that a no-name person can invent a new martial art style, but (a) this example doesn't sound right, and (b) shouldn't demonstration of skill be an important factor?

    For Helio, the history as I understand it as that he was a much better teacher than his brothers. He was actually able to teach other people to do what he was doing. And -- very importantly -- he fought strangers and won, repeatedly, for years on end. Over and over and over again he stepped onto the mat or into the ring and he won.

    Demonstrated skill + ability to teach others to do it = legitimacy.
    No?
     
  13. RoninX

    RoninX Valued Member

    Well, Hélio did prove he was a competent fighter. I just question if another competent fighter came into this forum to tell he was going to create a style, just because he beat a few people up, people would take him seriously. He was mostly using techniques that already existed. He was using Judo.

    So, what are the requirements for someone to be able to create his own style without being seen as a joke? To beat people up? To be cool and philosophical and do a few cool tricks? By my calculations, nowadays you would need to be a very effective fighter using totally new techniques, with an amazing track record. People are much more critical and demanding. If you were born 100 years ago things would be different, because the fact is that people that existed a long time ago are much less questioned and much more respected and tolerated by the current society.

    I'm not a fan of double standards. It's ok for you to have an opinion on who should and who shouldn't create a style. I just find it strange that some people are so demanding but then totally accept the word of people like Bruce Lee, who create a new style in his 20's and based much of his knowledge in books. He loved boxing, and talked about boxing. But who exactly trained him? And for how long was he trained? And who did he fight to test his skills? So many questions. What did he train exactly and for how long did he train it? Ok, he trained Kung Fu when he was young, than moved to America and kept training himself. He was kind of a fight nerd. I know a lot of people like that. They're very fit, they're smart, they have cool moves, they read a lot about different styles. Maybe they should create a new style. Or maybe they shouldn't, because they're not movie stars and nobody would care about them.

    Now, what makes a style worth creating?There isn't a definitive answer for that. But we live in an era where we idolize what's old and asian and simply love to ridicule anyone that's part of our time and tres to do the same that people like Bruce Lee did.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  14. JibranK

    JibranK Valued Member

    Hélio wasn't Asian...
     
  15. RoninX

    RoninX Valued Member

    Didn't say it was. But whole thing happened many decades ago. Like i said, if it happened many years ago, it isn't see with the same eyes as if it happened today.
     
  16. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    You keep making a big deal about BL only being in his 20s, but I don't hear you addressing the element of demonstrated skill or the element of ability to teach others to do it. Heck, Mozart composed cool stuff when he was five -- demonstrated skill.

    Bruce Lee convinced, by demonstration, everyone around him that he was exceptionally good, and those people convinced, by demonstration, other people that both they and Bruce were exceptionally good.

    "Demonstrated skill" + "ability to teach others to do what you're doing" = legitimate new martial art style

    Likewise for Helio Gracie and a whole lot of other masters.
     
  17. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    Skill, longevity, experience, understanding, teaching ability.

    These are all separate things. They can co-exist like a venn diagram. Longevity does not necessarily mean increased skill or understanding, or experience or even teaching ability. There are very large numbers of martial artists who, due to the way they have been taught, or the way they train, may have decades of longevity but very little real experience or skill because their time has been spent repeating the same year of training rather than building on it.

    Much is often made of the youth of the founders of some styles. Their lack of longevity does not bother me. They may still have the skill, understanding, experience and teaching ability to share what they know. It's a new style if they choose to call it so. Style labelling is more about group distinction and (in modern times) product identification than seismic differences.

    My opinion of Bruce Lee is that he did not create a 'new style' in an old fashioned sense, even though he did create (for him) what most people strive for - a personal harmony and integration of knowledge. What he did do was create (through his teaching ability) an excellent training methodology blueprint that enabled his students to do the same. Jeet Kune Do is that blueprint. While practitioners (as in every other art the world over) may argue about the necessity of being part of a particular lineage, or whether they should stick only to what they think Bruce did, or whether one branch has veered off in too much of one direction, or even whether you need a particular style base/lineage from Bruce at all... the 'church' he created his broad enough to house them all.

    Hannibal says he cannot conceive of creating his own style. He's good enough to do so, but he doesn't need to, because the JKD approach has enabled him to do so without realising it. He doesn't need to rebrand it (even though it can differ in many ways from other people's JKD) because it sits clearly through lineage and approach under the umbrella of that system.

    The biggest issue I have here is the word 'create'. I think it is poorly chosen. People who truly do their own thing don't really create it. They evolve into it, they settle in to it, they explore it and they train or study their way into it.
     
  18. garth

    garth Valued Member

    Ronin X Posted

    I thought the whole point of JKD was that it was not a style

    "To Understand Jeet Kune Do, one ought to throw away all ideals, patterns, styles; in fact, he should throw away even the concept of what is or isn't ideal in Jeet Kune Do".

    Also

    "Jeet Kune Do favours formlessness so that it can assume all forms and since Jeet Kune Do has no style, it can fit in with all styles. As a result Jeet Kune Do utilizes all ways and is bound by none and, likewise, uses any techniques or means to serve its end".

    Tao of Jeet Kune Do by Bruce Lee pages 11 and 12.

    But then do we not all develop our own style. I try to move like my teacher, but I am not my teacher and therefore the way I move is different, many try to move like Hatsumi Sensei, but they are not Hatsumi. Therefore we all create our own style internalising the lessons and making what we have learnt ours. This is possibly why its called martial art.
     
  19. Dunc

    Dunc Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    I don’t think these things are black and white

    Most accomplished martial artists reach a point when they centre their approach around their strengths / natural characteristics and focus their time on methods that fit their particular situation and objectives. So their movement & strategies become personalised and different from their teacher's
    If you look at Soke & the Japanese shihan then you can see them doing this, you can see this in top class BJJ academies and so on

    In some cases the style is rigid and so these combinations of evolution & personalisation become necessarily defined as a new art. In some cases the definition of the art is broad enough to accommodate plurality. In some cases the martial artist in question decides to break away
    You can see this dynamic throughout the history of traditional Japanese styles and I’m sure it’s the case in other arts & cultures

    If a martial artist is the real deal then perhaps it’s visible to experienced & discerning martial artists. For me that’s the key criteria - whether their dojo/school/academy has a particular branding is secondary. The person's history and dealings with their teachers & other martial artists says something about their character, which is is an important factor, but secondary to the quality of their movement & methodology
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
  20. pgsmith

    pgsmith Valued dismemberer

    Gotta love the arguments that happen in the Ninja forum! :)

    Here's my two cent's worth ... Of course anybody can create their own style. Toss a few things together, give it a (hopefully) cool sounding name, taaadaaaah ... a new style.

    Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't total crap. It also doesn't mean that experienced martial artists aren't going to be laughing at those people, the same way they've laughed at most people creating a new style throughout history.

    Those that argue that it can be done based on past history are automatically eliminating themselves from any relevance in a discussion of this sort, because someone that truly believed they had discovered a new style of martial arts wouldn't really care what the rest of the martial arts world had to say about it, they would just do it because they felt they were right. The only ones that would argue to try and convince others are those that are only looking for recognition and an ego boost. (Like Trump, he would definitely have made his own style up if he did martial arts!)

    My opinions, worth what you paid for them. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page