to some degree, I think the Pilates community itself is to blame. Once Pilates became all the rage, there was hardly any move that was not immediately called Pilates. Without a standard of what is and is not Pilates, it opened the door to all that con-fusion.
Think of that famous ‘navel to spine’ manoeuvre. Just because I cue that technique, am I teaching Pilates, a Pilates principle, a fusion?
I think it is a valid apporach to take the good of any method and incorporate it. The naming of it is largely a matter of marketing. Pilates has great name recognition, and many people like to say that they are ‘taking Pilates’.
I am curious to read the responses of the other participants here. Great question.
I think many of us have thought about that same thing. Sometimes you go to a fusion type class and you find yourself wondering, “Where’s the pilates?” On a personal level, I love taking pilates and yoga classes that follow closely in the original tradition of the discipline. There is something about moving in the way that was set down by the original teacher, that grounds me and makes me feel connected to that teacher, their creativity, and the brilliance of their discipline. B.K.S. Iyengar, and his yoga method, is another example of a long standing tradition that sometimes gets watered down in current classes, but really resonates with me.
That being said, over the years I have come to relax a bit in my teaching approach and see the benefit of offering classes that may have a wider appeal, get more people jazzed about working out and keep things fun and interesting (as long as it’s safe, of course). How can you argue with anything that gets people to feel good and live a healthier life?
As a teacher, I follow the path that feels right for me. I like to stay true to some things, but when I sense that my class or clients might need a bit of a change up, I am not afraid of venturing out and offering them a little variety.