The attack to the "stomach meridian no. 5", that was what tipped me off. Kempo based, but Dillman influenced I perceive. Look at the revive in Chess Match.
But to top it all off, I only read the first 2 paragraphs of the reply by our good natured founder of Matrix. I only needed to read that far to see a glaring inaccuracy between his own statements fluffing his style and those defending it.
"Even with 30-40 years of experience in martial arts, these masters and experts have found my Matrix to be more innovative and effective than anything else they have ever seen." As written in Scrapper's post.
"I am not declaring "this art is better", but rather, here are some new information and
insights to consider. It is different. It has new fighting concepts and
theories for the martial artist." As written in the reply.
So, which is it? "More innovative and effective" than their own arts, even with "30-40 years of experience in martial arts", or "not declaring 'this art is better'"? There can be only One...The One.
Give me 20 minutes, a compliant opponent, and a camera, and I'll give you a system that looks fuckin' awesome, but is largely useless. That's the problem with most "Systems", most Aikido schools, and pretty much all forms of DVD/Video/Online only learning. It can look awesome after a couple of takes against an opponent who is letting you do all these crazy, Samurai Saturdays on IFC maneuvers and techniques. But can it actually do anything against an opponent who doesn't mind being slapped a little bit because they've been punched or kicked full force in a full contact event before?
Ultimately, as pretty as it looks, I'm going to give it, based on their own videos lauding it's performances, a 2 out of 10 for effectiveness, a 5 out of 10 for reply to discussion and a 9 out of 10 for cool sound effects.