What makes a martial art legitimate?

This is really an issue and thoughts that makes full, wide and long debates on some people involve in Martial Arts, because being legitimate has wide meaning in it and interpretation varied a wide definition, every person insist what he thinks is right behind his minds, especially if those people had been corrupted by the wrong teachings about legitimacy of arts that rises on certain place.

But for me, if one style been occur on one place bringing the name of certain arts, it is hard to say about its legality, unless a person will check the instructors background and the origin of his skills and knowledge, judging them is like you are saying that such is the content of the books by just reading his cover.

What matter most here is the know how of the instructor and he followed the curriculum of the style the taught, he knows what to do, what to give and what to instruct.

This is the hard point on this recent forms of Martial Arts, once you are not involve or not a member under their organization, then you will feel the discrimination point of being out in the line, they will not consider you a legitimate instructor, a side scenario because most existed organization now are relying on the contribution and support you can give to them.

Being legitimate, wow, so funny but things are really hard to know if how some people consider this.

. . . . . . . .

I have had this same question pop up in my life on more than one occassion by many different people.

ALL martial arts, including the koryu (the ancient traditional schools), had a beginning. ALL of them were created by someone and refined by someone else and so on until we have what we have today. So for someone to make up a fighting style does not determine if it is a legit or illigit art.

In my humble opinion I think that if someone creates an art and knows it inside and out and can both apply it effectively and teach others to do likewise then their art is as legitimate as Shotokan Karate and Shaolin Kung Fu.

I agree that just because you have never heard of a style before it doesn't make it illigitimate. The world is a big place and we don't know everything, so to dismiss something prima-facia without knowing all of the facts is just arrogant and ignorant.

It should be pointed out that in China there were many, many, many family styles at one point. A lot of families had their own secret fighting method that they started to teach others and either those methods died off, were changed, forgotten, or codified into something else. They can still be found today, though not easily. I know of one master that has inherited his style from it's original founder and believe me when I say that he is one of if not the most incredible martial artist I have ever seen.

I think all people should be quick to listen and slow to speak. That way they may just learn something.

Legitimacy applies to what an instructor is teaching in relation to the style's founders. If s/he's teaching close to the original style, then, it's legit. If not, then not legit. Either way, it's still a martial art. If what s/he's teaching isn't legit, it doesn't mean it's not quality. It just means it's not being taught according to the philosophy of the founder(s).

Legitimacy can apply to a style "as a martial art". Haymaker Fu is a method of self-defense, but it's not a legitimate martial art. There is no stated philosophy, and it's not battlefield tested.

Legitimacy can also apply to the quality of instruction. An instructor may be teaching a legitimate style, but if s/he's a crappy instructor, s/he's not legitimate. Similarly, someone who reads a book "SumFlungDung Do for Dummies" may be learning ABOUT a legitimate martial art, but is not legitimately learning it (and depending on the author's credentials, may not even be learning a legitimate martial art either!)

Legitimacy is a tricky word as I feel it's all open to interpretation. I feel that any art that provides techniques to defend one's self from harm against any situation can constitute as a legitimate martial art.

There are tens of thousands of martial art styles that have existed throughout history. I believe that if every poster on here typed in as many arts that they know of we still would not come up with a number even a fraction of the amount of all MAs that exist or have existed. Some MAs have gone extinct so many will never know they existed. Does that make those MAs illegitimate? Heck no.

I agree in large part with ldai. It comes down to a paper trail and soild connection to something unquestioned. Dillman was at one time a very respected karateka until he started branching off into the wierd world of no touch Ki knocks. It this kind of thing that tranished his name and system. Bartitsu was a legitimate art its found actually held Menkyo in a Koryu Jujutsu (I believe Yoshin Ryu) and began mixing in french stick fighting and some other stuff. When he moved back to England had some very knowledgeable Jujutsuka teach for him at his various gyms and health clubs. Danzan Ryu, American Kempo Karate etc I don't consider legit arts. I'm not saying Gendai aren't legitimate arts, I run a study group for one, I respect there founders and thoughs that practice but I do not consider them legit. Putting the very technical look at the term martial art aside that ldai has brought up, The questions of being legitimate comes down to training. Where did you're training come from. This is at the heart of the quesiton really. If you say I learned it from etc. etc. and no one can find any information on this person anywhere and no one else can be found that trained with that person then chances are your martial art is not legit.

Example: In my younger years my training began with my uncle who did Judo in the navy. After a few months he died in a car accident, I was 6 years old. Now imagen I then spend some odd years doing a hog pog of systems never really learning anything or gaining rank I simple take a few classes learn enough to hurt myself or someone else and then move on. 20 years later I move to a new town and there is no real martial arts taught anywhere close. I decide to open up a Dojo and use my 20 years of hog pog and call it Kenshokan Jujutsu, I then go around telling people in town, an who come into my Dojo I spent twenty years learning a family martial art from my teacher old (incert name). I'm an 8th dan or worse 10th dan, I've gotten good at maybe 3 techniques over the 20 years and can apply them well an that is what I use to show my mastery, but I never bring anyone in to teach, I never go and study with anyone else, no one ever has heard of my teacher or system. I have no pictures, scrolls, cerificates, contacts, training partners, sister Dojo's or evidence of any kind that can point to having trained for any lenght of time anywhere but with this mystical old master (incert name). Is my art legit?

The answer is no. Often when you find these type of masters they are out and out fakes or frauds. I don't know about this russian karate system but usually if you find something that has a wierd name that sounds made up it is cause it is. 2+2 will always equal 4. Your standing as legitimate comes from your teacher, who got his from his teacher and so on etc. Yes someone had to start it and what made that person legit? Well I can't say but what I can say is I would rather train in something that was invented over 800 years ago or even 100 years ago who's training I can track and trace and who's name is at least known to some people then stand around shooting pretend Ki balls at my trainging partner like the Dojo is an alternate world where DBZ stuff is real.

Very good question. I'm not sure how to answer it.

Very few people have heard of Danzan Ryu, the Hawaiian Jujitsu style created for street fighting. It probably never became popular because their techniques are not fun to practice on one another. Kajukenbo people consider Danzan Ryu to be very legitimate, because it is one of the martial arts that went into Kajukenbo. On the other hand, not too many people have heard of Kajukenbo either.

I will answer your question by saying that martial arts are legitimate for the people practiticing that particular style. If you have faith in your style, it doesn't really matter if no one else heard of you style.

@kempo_jujitsu77: I meant to say that compared to Brazilian Jujitsu, which almost everyone has heard of, not too many people heard of Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. But there are many styles of traditional Jujitsu in the United States that have their roots in Danzan Ryu Jujitsu, the most well known one is Prof. Wally Jay's Small Circle Jujitsu. The late Prof. Jay was one of the guests of honor in the taping of the Fight Quest episode on Kajukenbo.

I think there are national organisations which attempt to convey legitimacy on themselves and MA styles by granting approved recognition...this is the best attempt at sanctioning any school which opens up and collects fees.

I think historical pedigree is important when there is a national pride attached like the way people will say Krav Maga can be trace back to 'ancient times' or the way Hapkido 'Fathers' deny the Japanese influence/origins?

imo-If it works its legit.............but legitimate hints at lineage which implies the student/master contact so in this way is about a cult of mr x or mr y who learned with master z etc

It has to work to be legit. That's it. There are many differences in quality, but that is really semantics.

People who have been known to create styles of 'martial art' as their own had to test them out to see if they work. If they continued they existed and were legitimate, if not they faded into obscurity.

Sadly, in today's time, the world of advertising is able to completely hide the fact that a martial art is ineffective and draws in clientele. It is also coupled with the immediate gratification, and lazy mindset, to ensure propagation. That is why this question of legitimacy is here, aside from the ego-boosting "my style is better than yours". If challenges were still made, and people had to actually prove their skill, there would be far less mcdojo, or blatant BS floating around taking people's money.

As a side note... "martial art" is a western concoction, and literal adherence to its word definition denies the meaning of the different combative systems throughout the world. They were NOT ALL created by military people, for military purposes. To define something that as closely and literally translates into English as "empty hand", "Way of harmonious spirit", "gentle way", "The gentle empty-hand art of Shuri", etc. as a only legit by military manner is just asinine.

Hi there

For me theres two problems that raise questions.

Firstly you have to acknowledge the difference between fighting systems and martial arts. By definition a martial art is a fighting system that developed from a military background. So the first stumbling block is does the art in question come from the military? Yes or No? If yes its a martial art. If not then its something else. Sorry folks if this rocks the apple cart but that is just the truth by the definition of the words martial and art. We are being very technical here but its a point often over looked.

Secondly once you have established that it comes from a military background you have to establish its roots so that it can be historically traced back to the founder by ledgitimate methods. As you know when a art claims to be 400 years old in order for it to be proven it must have written documents to back it up and its founders traceable via records of birth etc. This is not always possible as some records dont go that far back? However these names may be found in other historical records via other sources that back this up. As you know this to the Japanese is what is called densho.

Densho are all good and well but all they contain are general lists of techniques which are deceptive by their very nature. Densho must be backed up by kuden or verbal teachings of the same written techniques. Just like today when a teacher explains how it works in class. This is kuden but its kuden based on historical accuracy.

Every country has historical records and in Japan its mainly the register of Koryu arts that form the legitimate register of martial arts that are still practiced today. Granted this list is split between gendai budo and koryu. Gendai being modern arts such as karate etc. Again its a bitter pill for people to swallow but Gendai really are modern and not samurai arts. They arent even 200 years old which by my definition makes them new.

Therefore to sum up for an art to be ledgit it must tick ALL the following boxes.

1. It comes from a military background in that its techniques were historically used in warring times!

2. Its still actively being practiced. Not much point in having a list of dead techniques?

3. Its got a documented and proven family tree or linage. Backed up by historical records etc

4. Its got densho or scrolls that list all the above!

5. Its got kuden techniques that back up whats listed in the densho.

I'm basing this on Japanese history etc such as the arts that actually existed during the warring states period. You and me both know these are the arts that were actually used and not the ones that were developed after all the wars had ended?

The same rules will apply to different countries such as China etc.

And just to note because again Im sure it will come up. Just because an art is popular and has a large governing body behind it or large following doesn't make it historically correct. That would be like saying the iphone was the first phone ever created 200 years from now just because eveyones got one? Dont get me wrong an art has to adapt to fit into modern times otherwise it becomes dead in itself. But it still has to remain true to its original origins as it evolves.

So is there now a difference between what is considered ledgit and historically correct?

The term martial arts is just a buzz word like multimedia is to many. It allows people to put all their eggs into one basket without having to give it any real thought or question. Its not aquestion of if it works or not on the mat but a question of historical facts! Being ledgit is one thing. You can be Gendai ledgit but thats not koryu ledgit which means its not martial.

When someone trains with grandmaster A for 20 years and then with grandmaster B for 20 years and calls his art X factor martial arts doesnt make it a ledgit art by any means. What it does mean is that they have created a new Gendai Budo that has been created from two arts but born in modern times.

Best wishes

idai

All martial arts are legitimate. The real problem is most people don't even know half of the art they're even teaching. This could be on purpose (such as chopping up a traditional art to be used as sport) or inherited (bad teachers spreading their bad knowledge).

It's perfectly reasonable for someone to of never heard of a certain style. Most generally, you have to look for something in order to find it. If you don't look, then it's natural you won't know. Knowing the history of your style isn't going to improve your techniques in any way, so even if that style is a parent martial art, it shouldn't truly effect your experience.

What makes a martial art legitimate to me is whether or not the instructor knows the full meaning behind the art. It's either a hollowed out shell of a martial art they teach, or it's one solid piece. Some may have the "potential" to know the full meaning, but that isn't the same has having it. Everyone is still learning in their own way, but it's always obvious to me when a person is qualified to teach and knows the full deep meanings and principles.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.