# A question



## DoxN4cer (Oct 19, 2003)

I posed this question in another thread, but I would like to ask this question in a separate thread.

Does anyone teach "strictly Remy A. Presas' Modern Arnis"?

Tim Kashino


----------



## arnisador (Oct 19, 2003)

I think we need some definitions! Does that mean _all_ of the Professor's material? Does it mean _only_ material from the Professor (including the SCJJ techniques and the Shotokan-based anyos)?

The WMAA adds some Balintawak concepts for black belts, but is overwhelmingly true to the Professor's system at the underbelt level, and includes all of the Professor's regular teachings. (I think counter-disarms are missing, but I always considered those extra--I don't remember them apeparing on tests at camps, for example.) The presets are added material based on the Proefssor's system, but the bulk of the curriculum is based on the testing sheets Mr. Hartman made up that were used for gradings at so many camps. If one is quite literal, there's additional material, but I feel comfortable saying it is the Professor's art--especially since it was the Professor who directed Mr. Hartman to Mr. Buot to further his understanding of Modern Arnis.

We have so many different "images" of Modern Arnis, from people who trained with the Professor at different times. There's no set curriculum. I think many people could fairly make the claim that they do Remy A. Presas Modern Arnis.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 19, 2003)

I think an important question too is "where do we make the cut off" or, rather "at what point is Modern Arnis so far from it's origin that we can no longer call it modern arnis?"

I have run into people who seem to believe that Modern Arnis encompasses all things, including their kenpo techniques, their brazilian jujitsu grappling, or whatever art they decide to take up and add to their "modern arnis." It's fine to train in other systems, but this is too broad in my opinion to say modern arnis encompasses all of these.

I also run into others who do the opposite. They are "purists" and are afraid to deviate or progress from anything they have learned from Professor; they are only trying to preserve, and anything outside of their interpretation is a hybrid of Modern Arnis, and not the art. I can't agree with this either; I think that Modern Arnis is a progressive art, and Professor intended for the art to progress even after his death.

But...how do we seperate progression from hybrid? I think I have an answer...but I am interested in hearing what others have to say. I think that this is a major question related to defining what is pure Modern Arnis and what isn't.


----------



## DoxN4cer (Oct 19, 2003)

Paul brought up some really good points.

I don't think that I define just what "pure" Modern Arnis is, and I think that many would be hard pressed to do so as well. Modern Arnis is certainly not the all encompassing super-complete art that some claim it to be. If it were, then the Professor would not have spent so much time and effort refining it. 

Progressive vs. hybrid... hmm... Well with Modern Arnis being the eclectic system that it is, can any of it be defined as pure? 

I'm curious to know how others may define the Professor's art vice the various configuation we see today.

Tim Kashino


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 19, 2003)

The Modern Arnis Club I belong to in Flint only teaches Modern Arnis. My First Instructor in Modern Arnis, Master James Power only studied Modern Arnis as did I.

We both now train in Balintawak also with Manong (GM) Ted Buot. Our introduction was approved by GM Remy Presas and Rocky gave his opinion as well when asked.

Even with the addition of studying a new art, we still only teach Modern Arnis.

Is this the question you wanted Tim K?


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 20, 2003)

My personal opinion is that the only true Modern Arnis was taught by RP and even he didn't teach true Modern Arnis.  He *was*, moreso, Modern Arnis but his teaching changed with the times.

Opinionatedly yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## DoxN4cer (Oct 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dan Anderson _
> *My personal opinion is that the only true Modern Arnis was taught by RP and even he didn't teach true Modern Arnis.  He was, moreso, Modern Arnis but his teaching changed with the times.
> 
> Opinionatedly yours,
> Dan Anderson *



My view exactly, Dan. 

In terms of "progressive" vs. "purist", I think that the progressive approach is to training is closer to what the Professor did. I mean that it's closer to the Professor's spirit in the art. If we take an objective look at where the material came from we can see that  he took a great deal of material from other sources and called it Modern Arnis. There's the Shotokan influence in the anyos, the SCJJ locking techniques, some pressure point theory from the Dillman method as well as the Presas family methods and Balintawak Eskrima. It's all put into the mix we call Modern Arnis. 

Following in the spirit of the Professor, many of his students (both long and short timers) have either added Modern Arnis to their "base" art or brought material from other systems into their interpretations of the system. I think to be true to the "spirit of the art" you have to pull it all in and personalize it somehow. When the Professor would tell people to "make it for yourself" he was saying take the ball and run with it. The way he practiced an taught was *his* way... *a* way, not *the* way. 

I honestly can't say that I can believe that anyone teaches "pure RP Modern Arnis".  As Paul said previously, it is a progressive/eclectic art.  


Tim Kashino


----------



## Dan Anderson (Oct 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DoxN4cer _
> *I honestly can't say that I can believe that anyone teaches "pure RP Modern Arnis".  As Paul said previously, it is a progressive/eclectic art.
> Tim Kashino *



I do, however, acknowledge that there are those who started out in Modern Arnis and in that, what they learned from the beginning is *their base art*.   But a "pure Remy Presas Modern Arnis," since he was always evolving, there never was one and will never be one.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 21, 2003)

If there is no pure Modern Arnis, then where do we make the cut off. When is an art considered not Modern Arnis?

I have a simple formula that I follow:

* What IS Modern Arnis *

1. "Pure" Modern Arnis: The closest thing to Pure Modern Arnis that we have is anything that Professor taught as his art while he was alive. I am not talking about broad concepts, like "the flow," which in concept can be found in every art. I am talking about nuts and bolts movement and technique. Block-check-counter, the tapi-tapi presets, Anyos, 1-12 disarms, etc., etc. etc. Sure, the art remained progressive, but there were certian things that remained the same once Professor instituted it, regardless of where the progression went. These things that Professor had taught while he was alive do need to be preserved, in my opinion. This doesn't mean we can't expand upon these drills and moves, but we need to keep these in tact the basic "meat and potatoes" of our art.This, to me, is the closest thing we have to pure Modern Arnis. 

I think that 98% of the WMAA cirriculum from white belt to black contains material that was taught by Professor while he was alive. Now I am sure there are others who preserve the art well, but I can't attest for all the other orgs. and schools out there.

2. "Hybrid" Modern Arnis: I believe that both during and after Professors life, instructors had gone outside what could be considered "pure" Modern Arnis to learn other things, and have incorporated what they have learned into their modern arnis. For example, I know that my Balintawak training has vastly changed the way I do Modern Arnis. I have integrated concepts, style, and techniques from Balintawak into my Modern Arnis. There is nothing wrong with this, however, this isn't "pure" Modern Arnis. Because I have added stylistic flairs from other systems, I would consider this more of a hybrid. However, Hybrid that it may be, since I still preserve what was originally taught to me, it still remains to be Modern Arnis.

3. "Progressed" Modern Arnis: This is where a student expands upon their "pure" Modern Arnis. It isn't exactly the same as what Professor taught them, but it has been evolved from what Professor has taught them. A good example of this would be Bram Franks knife system. Bram Franks roots are clearly Modern Arnis. When I did a few sessions of his knife work, it was clear to me that we both do the same art; Modern Arnis. However, he has progressed his art and redefined it to fit his needs, and the needs of those who he trains. This is not "pure" Remy Presas, but it is Modern Arnis just the same. It has been progressed from what was originally taught. And, the basic concepts and movements have been preserved as well. 

So...What can be considered Modern Arnis? I believe that every school that can truely say they teach Modern Arnis keeps up with #1. If you can't maintain what you were originally taught by Professor, then your not doing the art, in my opinion. Most Orgs. and schools also have elements of #2 and #3, which is O.K., because to me they are still doing Modern Arnis. They are doing what Professor wanted by making it their own, and taking it into the direction that they wish to go.

* What ISN"T Modern Arnis? *

What isn't the art? I would say that if the students aren't at the very least preserving what they learned originally while Professor was alive, then they are not doing the art. So I believe that the explaination is simple. However, I think that there are a few additional things that are worth mentioning.

#1 If someone does another art, like Toaboda's Balintawak, or karate, or whatever, and they learn some Modern Arnis, and integrate it into their art, then to me they are not teaching Modern Arnis. They are teaching Toabodas Balintawak with Modern arnis mixed in, maybe, but this is not the same as teaching Modern Arnis.

Now, there is nothing wrong with doing this. Professor taught with the "art within your art" concept that you could use Modern Arnis to complement your other arts. It is O.K. to teach your art, TKD lets say, and integrate Modern Arnis into it. However, it is not O.K. in my opinion to claim to be teaching Modern Arnis, when it really is TKD with a few Modern Arnis drills mixed in. For you to be teaching the art, I think that the root of what you are teaching needs to be in the art itself.

So, if the base of what you teach at your school is Kenpo, but you have added some Modern Arnis Drills and concepts, then guess what? Your still teaching Kenpo. You can say, "We teach Kenpo, with some Modern Arnis integrated into our curriculum." You shouldn't say, "Sure...we teach Modern Arnis!" because this would be misleading.

#2 If you've evolved, or changed your Modern Arnis without at least preserving the original movements that were taught by Professor, then you are teaching something other then Modern Arnis. 

And....So what if Professor evolved; he still kept certian things the same. Also, he was the Founder his art, so he could change it anytime he wanted too, and it was still the art. I think people lose sight of this, and instructors too often think that they have this same power. They don't. If you want this power, start your own art. If you want to teach Modern Arnis, however, then at the very least, you must maintain what you were taught by the man.

So, if your "Modern Arnis" bares little resemblence to what Professor was teaching at the time, then your Modern Arnis probably isn't REALLY Modern Arnis at all.

* Sooooo......... *

All and all, that is how I categorize things. Other opinions or suggestions are welcome!


----------

