# The fun stuff versus the real stuff...



## geezer (Jul 22, 2010)

I've noticed that there are two sides to FMA training, as with most martial arts... the fancy, "fun" stuff and the basic, sometimes brutal, "real" stuff. If you train with some contact sparring, the difference between the two shows up in a hurry. Against someone who is your equal or better, the "fun" stuff not only doesn't work, it will likely get you into trouble in a hurry. You know the stuff I'm talking about, fancy moves, spins, twirls, elaborate sequences, complicated disarms, and the like. Some fantastic instructors teach both. No problem there... as long as you keep the two separate in your own head.

Anyway, have any of you noticed the same thing in your experiences? Do you feel that the "fun" stuff is still worthwhile and teaches valuable lessons? Or do you side with those who prefer to focus on practical, "high percentage" stuff that you'd be more likely to actually use in a fight?


----------



## billc (Jul 22, 2010)

I can't speak to the reality of combat but I would suggest that you take a look at sword fighting competitions from the other arts.  Western Olympic fencing and Japanese and Korean kendo matches for example.  Also take a look at the Dog Brothers.  I would highly recommend looking at youtube, in paricular Real Knife Fights.  There is a video of a man with a knife in, it looks like somewhere in asia, against a guy with a big piece of wood.  Take a look at these things and see what you see.  let me know what you find.  Thanks.


----------



## Dan Anderson (Jul 22, 2010)

Hi Geezer,

Yes, I've noticed the difference.  It's hard not to.  Does the fun stuff help?  Certainly.  Once you are in close range all the fun stuff comes into play plus you get great 'attributes training' as well.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## K831 (Jul 22, 2010)

geezer said:


> Anyway, have any of you noticed the same thing in your experiences?



Yes, in virtually every art I have done. Some arts/instructors are better at paring down the "fluff/fun" stuff than others. Some arts/instructors can't tell the difference (forest for the trees) and others are happy to teach the fun stuff, for various reasons. 



geezer said:


> Do you feel that the "fun" stuff is still worthwhile and teaches valuable lessons?



No, at least not for me. In almost all cases, I find it worthless and have left schools that pushed it on me. 



geezer said:


> Or do you side with those who prefer to focus on practical, "high percentage" stuff that you'd be more likely to actually use in a fight?



Yes. I am limited on time. As much as I love martial arts, I have a family, a job, ongoing education,my faith, and other sports and hobbies that I love. So, I have to prioritize my time training. 

In addition to that, my number one reason for training is pragmatic. I have been forced into some very violent situations and, having had my eyes open to what people are capable of, my mindset and training goals reflect that. 

I don't need to find myself through martial arts. My self worth doesn't come from martial arts... I am not into martial arts for the mysticism, spiritualism, self confidence or bravado etc that many are. I am in it because I like athletic activities and I want to be able to handle the very dangerous individuals out there, should I ever have to again. 

All those things considered, fun fluff or rules oriented stuff just don't fit. Plus, patience is one virtue I run light on at times. If I show up to learn to defend myself, and an instructor wants me to learn some silly kick or fancy form etc... I just can't waste my time.


----------



## geezer (Jul 22, 2010)

Dan Anderson said:


> Hi Geezer,
> 
> Yes, I've noticed the difference.  It's hard not to.  Does the fun stuff help?  Certainly.  Once you are in close range all the fun stuff comes into play plus you get great 'attributes training' as well.
> 
> ...



Dan, can you please explain what you mean by "attributes training"?


----------



## Blindside (Jul 22, 2010)

Well, I was taught by an extremely pragmatic instructor whose primary clientele was military and police.  There wasn't a whole lot of fluff involved, so that is what I teach as well.  I would have a hard time adding in fluff, it would stand out rather obviously.  Just about everything is single weapon iterations of 5 main slashes, 3 thrusts, lots of footwork, and 8 or 9 offense/counter-offense patterns, and then the unarmed versions of the same.  

But we have fun doing the pragmatic stuff.


----------



## Carol (Jul 22, 2010)

I hate fluff.   

Most MA schools (not just FMA) want an efficient form of *payment*.   Why is an  efficient form of *teaching combat *too much to ask in return?


----------



## K831 (Jul 22, 2010)

Dan Anderson said:


> plus you get great 'attributes training' as well.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson



I agree that some of the fluff/filler stuff can be used for attributes training. This is the argument presented in many styles for learning forms, excessive numbers of techniques or techniques that aren't really "high percentage". 

This is the argument used in my primary art (American Kenpo) to justify such a voluminous amount of forms and techniques. 

The truth is though, as Blindside indicated, the same attributes can be developed with far less material/fluff etc. An appropriate cross-section of techniques can teach all off the needed mechanics and other attributes. 

Most important attributes are better left to development via live drills and two-man interactive sets. 

IMHO.


----------



## K831 (Jul 22, 2010)

Carol said:


> I hate fluff.
> 
> Most MA schools (not just FMA) want an efficient form of *payment*.   Why is an  efficient form of *teaching combat *too much to ask in return?



I have found two reason;

1.) Tradition; no one has the heart to drop a from or technique or method because they feel guilty, disrespectful etc...

2.) Economics; More material, more redundancy, more wrote memorization, more fluff..... longer time at the school, more money.
        - not true in my opinion, since less material should allow for greater master and proficiency in real-time application... takes just as long, but requires a more dedicated student, and a more dedicated teacher.
        - I believe this because the instructors I have had who stripped away the bulk of the fluff were not running commercial schools and didn't charge much... hmmmm


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 23, 2010)

geezer said:


> I've noticed that there are two sides to FMA training, as with most martial arts... the fancy, "fun" stuff and the basic, sometimes brutal, "real" stuff. If you train with some contact sparring, the difference between the two shows up in a hurry. Against someone who is your equal or better, the "fun" stuff not only doesn't work, it will likely get you into trouble in a hurry. You know the stuff I'm talking about, fancy moves, spins, twirls, elaborate sequences, complicated disarms, and the like. Some fantastic instructors teach both. No problem there... as long as you keep the two separate in your own head.
> 
> Anyway, have any of you noticed the same thing in your experiences? Do you feel that the "fun" stuff is still worthwhile and teaches valuable lessons? Or do you side with those who prefer to focus on practical, "high percentage" stuff that you'd be more likely to actually use in a fight?


 
I like the Basics. 

The problem is that my basics today for me are so much more than when I started. 

To answer you question, Yes, I find the Fun Stuff to have valuable lessons. 

Lesson 1) Attribute learning as mentioned by Dan Anderson and also quoted below.

Lesson 2) What not to do as when you get out of your skill and confort zone you get into trouble. 




Dan Anderson said:


> Hi Geezer,
> 
> Yes, I've noticed the difference. It's hard not to. Does the fun stuff help? Certainly. Once you are in close range all the fun stuff comes into play plus you get great 'attributes training' as well.
> 
> ...


 
I agree as stated above.



geezer said:


> Dan, can you please explain what you mean by "attributes training"?


 
I am not Dan, but I will give you my take on it. 

If I am trying to teach you a particular technique that then gets built upon to teach you more complex "fun/fluff" as it is called and you cannot get this then I cannot get you to the techniques that require the skill set. I will try other ways to get that skill set developed for the student but if they are not caring or do not try or just cannot get it then one cannot force it. 

So, why would anyone ever want to learn how to hit the hand twice, or three times let alone four times. Hit it once and hard and move on right? Maybe. 

If you hit once and move on the opponent can reset and recover. But if you are used to playing or fighting and or have built the skill set to follow up you can manage and delay the opponents weapon and get you next strike which puts them further behind and harder to shake it off and recover. 

But you say four times from multiple angles? Why? 

Well other than to show off and not know out the opponent it is skill sets and in particular timing. Not just timing of the strike but of your off hand and where it should be in the fight. 

If you only move your primary hand and then move your off hand and then move your primary hand the opponent could be moving both primary and off hand at the same time and you might feel like you are not in the fight anymore but just being used as a demo tool. 

Practice the fun stuff. Develope the techniques and skills. Also practive them and get hit. Sometimes it shows you where you need to work. Other times it shows you just what does not work. 

Let me try with an example. 

A stick used to block and the person puts two hands on it to reinforce the block or because it the the first basic block. Why would you ever have to learn to just block with your cane/stick with just one hand. I am not talking about where both of you strike out and your weapons block each other and there is space between you. I mean if you did not pt your block  up right in front of you you would have been hit. Why would anyone want to learn the Fluff of blocking with one hand when two hands works just fine?

Two hands work just fine against an opponent using two hands to strike or not using their offhand to manage, monitor or delay your weapon or primary hand. Also if my timing is good enough I could abort and trap your weapon down while both of your hands are on it and I have lots of room with no traffic to swing my primary hand and weapon. 

But you see to me, that last move is a very basic move. But to the total beginner they do not have the skill nor the technique nor the understanding to execute the move. So they do their beginning block and they learn from there. 



Now that being said, There are always cases of over complexity. One can get so deep into a move sequence, that even Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are wondering which turn at what city got them to where they are at. Anything in an extreme is bad. 


I have heard some say that what I was doing was sports car and playing and not real. One would need to know who to deal with the serious opponent trying to hurt you. Ok, that is their opinion. Yet I was able to handle what they brought and what others brought, and then I heard it was well that is just Rich. Ok, I am a big guy, but I am not really that fast. I just know when to move and where to go. I am not going to be in any calendar nor on TV and have anyone swoon or go BOY is he HOT!. I know this and understand it. But it does show that an average person, can learn to move well. If I can learn it then so can others.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2010)

geezer said:


> I've noticed that there are two sides to FMA training, as with most martial arts... the fancy, "fun" stuff and the basic, sometimes brutal, "real" stuff. If you train with some contact sparring, the difference between the two shows up in a hurry. Against someone who is your equal or better, the "fun" stuff not only doesn't work, it will likely get you into trouble in a hurry. You know the stuff I'm talking about, fancy moves, spins, twirls, elaborate sequences, complicated disarms, and the like. Some fantastic instructors teach both. No problem there... as long as you keep the two separate in your own head.
> 
> Anyway, have any of you noticed the same thing in your experiences? Do you feel that the "fun" stuff is still worthwhile and teaches valuable lessons? Or do you side with those who prefer to focus on practical, "high percentage" stuff that you'd be more likely to actually use in a fight?


 
I guess I didn't realize the 'basic and brutal' wasn't the fun stuff.  

To answer your question, my perspective is that, in a real fight, the simple and powerful will probably be what makes the difference, just like in most other things.  The fancier stuff does work, but only if you intimately understand the context of range, power and timing, and most folks train those things with a false expectation of range, power and timing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2010)

K831 said:


> I have found two reason;
> 
> 1.) Tradition; no one has the heart to drop a from or technique or method because they feel guilty, disrespectful etc...
> 
> ...


 
I think that's spot on.

There is also a third reason in some cases.....

3.) They really don't know much more than the fluff they are teaching to impart to you, because what they know about the FMA's is what little they've combined with their primary system.


----------



## MJS (Jul 25, 2010)

geezer said:


> I've noticed that there are two sides to FMA training, as with most martial arts... the fancy, "fun" stuff and the basic, sometimes brutal, "real" stuff. If you train with some contact sparring, the difference between the two shows up in a hurry. Against someone who is your equal or better, the "fun" stuff not only doesn't work, it will likely get you into trouble in a hurry. You know the stuff I'm talking about, fancy moves, spins, twirls, elaborate sequences, complicated disarms, and the like. Some fantastic instructors teach both. No problem there... as long as you keep the two separate in your own head.
> 
> Anyway, have any of you noticed the same thing in your experiences? Do you feel that the "fun" stuff is still worthwhile and teaches valuable lessons? Or do you side with those who prefer to focus on practical, "high percentage" stuff that you'd be more likely to actually use in a fight?


 
I think its safe to say that there is 'fun' stuff in every art.  Some of it is requirement material, so it has to be taught.  However, I like to keep it short and simple.   Its funny, because when you spar, half the stuff that you did when you were just drilling, goes out the window.  I've yet to see someone pull off a textbook disarm when sparring.  

I like to take something and isolate it.  Start off slow and gradually increase the speed and pressure.  

I feel that you could do the same thing with Arnis, as you do with an empty hand art.  For example...we have many SD techs in Kenpo.  They're required for the students.  They give the students a base to build from.  However, when I do a spontaneous drill, where someone is randomly attacking me, its rare that you'll see me do anything that resembles a Kenpo tech.  Instead, I take bits and pieces from the things that gave me a base, and build my own response.  That, IMO, is what we should be doing with our Arnis material.


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 28, 2010)

geezer said:


> Dan, can you please explain what you mean by "attributes training"?


Whoops - sorry for the late reply.  I haven't been to this thread for a while.

Attributes training.  This is where your perception, timing, tactile sensitivity, cane manipulation, cane leveraging, distancing, angling, and so on are developed.  In combat you might just whack the guy and end it there.  BUT let's say you get inside the swing of the cane and are in contact with your opponent, THEN all your other training comes into play.

Short answer but that is what I mean by attributes training.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Guro Harold (Oct 28, 2010)

Real is relative.

When I had some insulation installed at my house the other day and one of the workers used his box cutters with exact precision.

You can't teach that.

It reminded of a paradox that the late GM Fred Lazo spoke about a few years ago in Tampa when he presented the question as to who was more skilled with a machete, a skilled martial artist or a farmer who is so used to his machete that when a branch falls as he is climbing a tree, the farmer can casually deflect the branch without a thought.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 29, 2010)

I like the basics and my system is heavily loaded in the basics.  Yet some of the more advanced material has merit for those who can make it work!


----------

