On new 'styles' being created...
Last edited by Edge; 8/12/2005 2:48pm at .
If you learn how to box at "Al's Gym", and then you open your own place, does your gym have to be called "Al's Gym" too?
It's immoral to keep teaching it in the same order if you know it could be done a better way.
Hmm, yes, my question isn't so much about the name of the person who owns the club, but more about the name of the style.
I think order of progression is very important, also too many advanced techniques or too many at once is a waste in my opinion.
The reverse argument is if say a person studies Shotokan, then starts to add lots of stuff from other martial arts, it would be deceptive to continue to call the art Shotokan. One sees a fair amount of fake marketing when people claim their art traces back to a particular person unchanged. Is it really "Ed Parker's Kempo", or "James Mitose's Kempo" if you are separated by 7 or 8 teachers from Ed or James, and the art changed somewhat from person to person. The problem comes when the new art is accompanied with all kinds of claims that aren't true. "I created this" as verses "I synthesised this".
Though I don't like everything he says in his ad, take a look at this http://www.koba-ryu.com/whatiskobaryu.asp where Peter Rodgers explains exactly where he got the system he teaches. This provides a positive example of someone explaining in a straightforward way how they synthesised their art.
I think I know where you're going with thisOr is this discussion purely on people who make claims as having the same style as they were thought.
Those this have anything to do with some guys who seem to try to justify their rank by claiming to create a new style.For instance there's this guy who actually has a 3rd dan in a kempo style.But in his style he made himself an 8th Dan.
Fyi.The only difference with his style, is that it is Kempo Karate but with kung-fu
techniques.Like thats an improvement.
Last edited by CanucKyokushin; 5/21/2005 4:37pm at .
Right. Synthesis is one reason I agree is acceptable to create a new name , but I believe it is wrong to create a new name for your art if you have only studied that single art.
Yeah, creating a new style in order to promote yourself is definately Bullshido. However, I want this discussion to be open to any circumstances.
Originally Posted by Canuckyokushin
First time I hear about these style, wonder how their groundwork is. However, I like how this sounds, bolding mine:
Originally Posted by Samuel Browning
KOBA-RYU uses a lot of kick boxing techniques and is set apart from other systems that don not train
in full contact fighting. This is beneficial to the KOBA-RYU student because that student will experience what it is like to strike another person and to be struck by another person
. This experience is obtained in a Do Jo where the training can be stopped to avoid or minimize injury. A person should not experience these
actions for the first time in a crisis situation where the fight cannot be stopped
Yes, notice I'm not bad mouthing the guy ;)
Oh Good! I thought this was about bad Senei's. If you want an example of an Instructor who may be making claims here’s one. May I introduce to you Shihan Don Rogrigues.In the style he's created explains that his has Judo, Jujtisu, Kung-fu and of course Kempo-Karate.
Originally Posted by Edge
Although. I got to ASK how anyone found the time to be ranked high enough to be able to understand every minute "BUNKAI" of every one of theses styles. Why I would have to say a person would need at least 4th Dan's in each one for you to be able to claim your knowledge of these arts. Also, to be able to back up your claims.
May I also mention that this fat looser is the head coach of Team Paul Mitchell of the Sport-Karate circuit in the US.
Last edited by CanucKyokushin; 5/21/2005 6:05pm at .
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO