Sokeship? Is there any worth to a "new" soke?

Some good points have been made here. There are many mis-conceptions about the term soke and what it means. Having been researching the martial arts longer than I care to tell, I can set things straight. First off the Soke is the highest authority for a particular martial art. A few years ago no one had even heard the word used. As with many martial arts ranks and titles the title soke has been mis-understood and misused. So what is a legitimate Soke? The soke is the person that inherits an existing martial art. It is passed on from one person to the next. Now here is where the problem comes in. Someone creates what they think is a new martial art. Then they either name themselves Soke or go to some other person or organization and and get them to recognize them as a Soke. Unfortunately that is not how it is done historically. Only a true Soke can recognize another person as the soks of a new style. By that I mean that a new Soke can't appoint another person as a soke. Only someone that inherited a legitimate style from a soke and became one can recognize another person as a legitimat Soke. What is happening all over the martial arts world is that someone starts a new style. He then recognizes someone else. That is not how it is done. The creator of a new style is known as a Shodai-Soke. Soke is the Headfounder. Shodai is a term used to describe only the very first person to be the head of the new style. Traditionally, the Shodai-Soke can't recognize anyone else as a soke. The new style is not considered to be complete until after the Shodai-Soke passes away leaving the Ryu/style to his heir. That heir now is Soke. He can recognize another art and issue a soke title for a new art. There are many martial arts organizations out there that are made up of a board of Shodai-Soke. That does not mean that they can issue a soke title to someone. However that is exactly what is happening all the time. Traditionally in Japan or Okinawa, the creator of a new ryu is not deemed a legitimate soke unless he was given that title by a legitimate soke, not a Shodai-Soke or a board of Shodai-Soke. This is the way it has been done for hundreds of years. Consider The founder of Judo. When Dr. Kano first created Judo he was ridiculed for creating it. However now no one questions that it is a legitimate martial art. As I said before, the real test is simple. two things must be present for an art to be considered legitimate by the Japanese and Okinawans. 1. the new arts must be recognized by a legitimate Soke. 2. the art must survive the founder and continue to be a system that is taught by the founders heir. If so it is legitimate. If not it is just a case of another wanna-be.

I think pugpaws2 hit the nail on the head. In my style of iaido, the current Soke isn't bring something "new" as much as actually reviving something old and increasing our understanding of it all.

After WWII many sword styles died out or were watered down to make them more palatable to (meaning they felt it was less likely to be effective if used against) the US occupation force. Also, our Soke of that time lived and kept many of the styles scrolls in Nagasaki, so much of the original documentation was lost. Since our current Soke (and a few other top members) was trained before the occupation of Japan, he is bringing back the way our style was taught then, and several techniques are much more direct and deadly than we were taught before Soke inherited the style, and we learn new interpretations of the techniques that may apply to different situations.

I think it is usually done by someone that wishes to break with their own teacher. At a certain point, people that are a black belt in one style and maybe a 2nd black belt in another say they combine them and "found" their own style. I do not think it is valid unless the person has legitimate credentials. Such as Bas Rutten who has world championships, black belts and a couple of different arts instructorship certifications would be valid - but he wouldn't call himself a Soke. It is usually people in traditional martial arts that make a "new" and yet still "traditional" martial art. It would be like me taking the kicks, joint locks and grappling of Hapkido and combining it with some of the Wing Chun hand techniques and calling myself a Soke of this new art Hapki-Chun - 10th Dan. Hey, I like the way that sounds. ;)

Can't have it both ways, founding a "new" and yet "traditional" art seems silly.

No. It's more often than not no longer valued at it, considering the fact that it might be regarded "chatting" besides. But, this is likely one of the issues with Y!A. Making those dull laws towards "chatting" and quite innocent questions simply allows the trolls to record the well men and get persons's debts taken away for no well intent. Instead of seeking to give up "chatting" and persons having well blank a laugh, they must be disturbing approximately the way to give up those silly, no-lifestyles, record-loopy trolls.

No one actually creates a "new" style as he can only teach what he has been taught .He may have a new approach to practicing those methods or a change in direction or emphasis but an entirely new never seen before techniques not possible.

Visited a school once in which the owner professed to teach secret hidden never before revealed methods.Maybe never seen in his area but they turned out to be mid level kali and kenpo techniques he probably learnt from videos.

SOKE doesn't always mean founder but more innovator whose ideas and inovations are not acceptable to his parent organization.

IMHO, 99% of all those "soke" have had a little too much "sake".. ha ha.

Especially since most of them have no real Japanese art anymore... Why are they trying to use a Japanese term to make their non-Japanese art seem more legitimate?

Forgive me if I am wrong.

But...from your previous posts, I would imagine that your motive is, since a Souke is a Founder, that person should have exceptional abilities.

Do you want the "Souke" to see if he/she can stand up to the title and want to challenge the Soukeship?

Again, forgive me if I am wrong.

Bunmin, I understand.

I have this situation.

I teach what I have learned.

I had difficulty with delivering the message using the method I learned from.

When I met my Hsing I teacher, he showed me a complete different approach to applying the techniques that helped me discover a method of effectively conveying my art.

It is based on what I learned from Sensei and from LaoShr who both teach the old ways.

Sensei did not allow me to use my method to teach as a branch dojo.

LaoShr was happy to to see his influence lead to innovation.

Hard to say.

not me

what?