# "old" vs "new"



## stickarts (Aug 9, 2003)

I am interested in opinions on the "older" modern arnis format (more basics, 6 count drill, etc...) vs. the "newer" format (lots of tapi tapi, ground fighting), especially from folks that have trained in Modern Arnis for the past 10 years or more who have experienced both.
Do you currently train primarily in one or the other, or do you mix both? 
What do you think the pro's and con's are of each?
Do you train equally in the anyo's?
What do you think makes for a good training curriculum?
I am pretty new to Martial talk so i apologize if this has already been discussed in the past!
I look forward to hearing everyones input!!
Thanks so much!


----------



## stickarts (Aug 9, 2003)

ps. Also, what direction do you see your training going in the future?


----------



## Dan Anderson (Aug 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stickarts _
> *I am interested in opinions on the "older" modern arnis format (more basics, 6 count drill, etc...) vs. the "newer" format (lots of tapi tapi, ground fighting), especially from folks that have trained in Modern Arnis for the past 10 years or more who have experienced both.
> Do you currently train primarily in one or the other, or do you mix both?
> What do you think the pro's and con's are of each?
> ...



Hey Frank,

1.  I train in both except for the ground fighting which I have a bit of disagreement with.
2.  I use the anyos for translation exercises for empty hand work.  They're fine but not a heavy part of my school's training.
3.  Regarding pros and cons I think if you disregard one for the other, you'll miss out on the whole picture.  Each of the formats has it's place and to be a well rounded Modern ARnis player, you'll need it all.
4.  I think you'll see a lot of consolidation of both "old" and "new" in the curriculums to come.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## stickarts (Aug 10, 2003)

Thanks Super Dan!
Thats right in line with what i am trying to do too!!!
Thanks for the feedback. full steam ahead!


----------



## Dan Anderson (Aug 10, 2003)

Hi Frank,
I posted late last night so there was a point I didn't make.  To me, the "old" provides basics that one doesn't see in the more recent developments of the art.  The older curriculum developes the basics of the flow and varying range tactical actions.  The basic flow drill is slightly in a closer range than the 6 count drill.  The original tapi-tapi drill is about the same range. The disarms are slightly closer still.  Now the current tapi tapi or solo baston semi-sparring (we just called it cane sparring on the left coast) is in a closer range still.  Cane locks or empty hand locking/throwing are closer still.  You'll see a descending level of range as the drills progress.  Bit by bit you get closer and clsoer.  The entirety of them all gets one versed in the different ranges of stick usage.

So,  you can picture one trained only in the longer range getting suckered and pressured by the tapi tapi-ers and in reverse, the long rangers frustrating the tapi tapi-ers by keeping them on the outside unless they "breach the wall."

Now, RP would've never been suckered that way because he was versed in the different ranges.  He is my role model, technically.  If I am ready for most everything I won't be suckered by anything.  Thatsa how I do my Modern Arnis and is the basis for Modern Arnis 80.

There's a longer answer for you, Frank.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Brian Johns (Aug 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dan Anderson _
> *Hey Frank,
> 
> 1.  I train in both except for the ground fighting which I have a bit of disagreement with.
> ...



Dan,

Care to elaborate your thoughts on the ground fighting aspects of Modern Arnis ? Just curious.

Take care,
Brian


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 10, 2003)

For the most part, I believe that it is difficult to seperate "old" from "new" because Modern Arnis was mainly taught in seminars. Some stuff was Professors personal progression and integration of different ideas, but other stuff was always there. 

Here's what I mean: 

Professor always had "single cane sparring" in his own bag of tricks. Over the years, however, he developed different ways of teaching it. If a practitioner learned "six count" and became skilled enough, he could learn single cane sparring from that drill. Another person might learn "solo Baston" as there base for single cane sparring. If someone came in during the mid-90's, then they would have learned Tapi-Tapi. "Single cane sparring" was always a part of the art. However, whether you learned it during the 70's, 80's, or 90's, "How" it was taught depended on how professor was translating his art during his seminar circuit at the time.

Now in terms of "New," Tapi-Tapi could be considered a more recent progression in his art, but I would conject that most of it was always there. The beauty of "Tapi-Tapi" was that you could give the average first time student a flavor of how to "single cane spar" within one seminar, and they could take it home with them and try to progress from there. Prior to Tapi-Tapi, you could not teach a beginner how to "single cane spar" unless you wanted to be sweeping up teeth off the floor by the end of the seminar. Consequently, arnis players prior to the 90's would have to train for a long time before they got to a level where they could "solo-baston". Back in the day, I believe it was only reserved for black belts. So, prior to 90's you have a lot of players who were very focused on "basics." Many of these people can spar, and many cannot. Many People after 90's became more focused on "Tapi-Tapi," and the presets and "freeflow" progression from that, with less of a focus on "basics." This seperation between "pre-tapi-tapi" and post "tapi-tapi" is what is often called "old" and "new," which was really there all along, just presented in a different fashion.

My advise to anyone is this: the basics are the root to everything! You must learn your fundamentals. Learn all the fun tapi-tapi stuff; but spend a lot of time on basics. Proper stricking, footwork, angling, body postitioning, blocking, etc. The reason is because you tapi-tapi flow stuff WILL NOT WORK if you cannot block, strick, or move in an effective manner. It worked for Professor because he knew his basics, so you must do the same for it to work for you. So, find an instructor who knows good basics, and practice, practice, practice!

This is my opinion, anyways!

 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by stickarts _
> *ps. Also, what direction do you see your training going in the future? *



I just started up my "class" again here in Rochester, Michigan.

Basically any martial art can be broken up in 3 ways: 1. competition 2. exhibition 3. combative. 

Competition: Training specifically geared towards a contest; boxing, WEKEF, NHB fighting, point fighting, etc. Some of these concepts cross the line to other categories, some do not.

Exhibition: Forms, board breaking, cool demonstration or "hollywood" stuff. Some of this crosses the line to the other categories, and some does not.

Combative: Stuff that works in "Combat" or "reality" or in a "fight.

I, and my group in Rochester Michigan train for Combat, and we cut out the other 2 categories. Where modern Arnis fits in with this is that we are always thinking about how what we are doing will translate to "reality." If it is an attribute building excersise, then so be it, but we need to know how it fits. We essentially will cut anything out that we feel doesn't fit in "combat."

So, the future for my training is that it will constantly get more and more "practical" and "combative" simply because this is where my interest lies.


----------



## stickarts (Aug 10, 2003)

Thank you both for the great posts! 
Early on, the single stick sparring taught to me by Prof. was called De Cadena. It was only done right handed and had about 6 or 7 main techniques to it.
Trapping hands was empty hand de cadena.
(Tapi tapi was basically a block check counter drill off of the 12 angles of attack.)
Left handed drills were then added in along with more sophisticated techniques and it was then called tapi tapi instead of de cadena.
It seemed that many of the seminars were then about tapi tapi and groundwork. it seemed to me that the groundwork at the seminars entered the picture around the time that groundwork became popular perhaps through the ultimate challenge matches and was also being pushed in the magazines.
I am glad to hear the comments about the importance of keeping the basics! My approach currently is to keep the basic material as the center of the curriculum but also playing with the tapi tapi.
Some of the folks i have worked with consider the basics to be obsolete or "old baggage" but keeping the basics at the center of my training seems right to me!
thanks again for the great posts!
any other thoughts?


----------



## Dan Anderson (Aug 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by WhoopAss _
> *Dan,
> 
> Care to elaborate your thoughts on the ground fighting aspects of Modern Arnis ? Just curious.
> ...



Brian,

Certainly.  What I look at as "ground fighting" is grappling.  There were a number of ground fighting moves RP introduced during the beginning of the grappling craze, which I feel, your opponent could escape during transition.  Some of them were far too complex and required your opponent to lay there and take it.  These I disagreed with.  There are several RP did and Jeff put on tape later which I feel are unwieldy and unworkable.

Now, if you are talking about mobility throws and pinning techniques and calling them ground fighting, I like them. 

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 11, 2003)

Some of the "ground fighting" to me was more like: "Here's what you do after you've taken him down" techniques. I like them. They can be used with a stick in hand, or with a bladed weapon, and they are still effective.

There wasn't much to work with in terms of actually fighting from the ground, such as utilizing the guard, etc.

The "groundfighting" that was later introduced by Jeff Delenay was more or less pirated from Macado Jujitsu (a brazilian style). Many of these, as I recall from being the UKE at various camps, were laughable in my opinion. Me being short and stocky, many of these techniques would not work on me if I didn't want them too. That is not to say that macado jujitsu is a bad art; just the techniques that were presented I found to be ineffective.

What I wonder is to what level of dumog, or Japanese Jujitsu with actual "ground fighting" did RP actually know. I know that artheritis was a problem during much of the 90's, which was why he rarely presented ground fighting all together.

I wonder if some of the "old timers" can enlighten me on this?


----------



## stickarts (Aug 11, 2003)

I found the same thing. On some of the takedowns, if you really cranked a lock real good you could keep control of them, but in other cases there didn't seem to be much control.
One student started kicking at me on the way down and i found it tough to keep control. I got kicked!


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 19, 2003)

I have windows in my own training to the old and the new arnis, and I have some slants.  I like the old stuff the best, because I have a feeling that's where the new stuff will end up.

I learned a lot of Arnis in the late 80's and early 90's from Lee Lowery.  Any time he and I get together and he shows me things, they are old techniques that nobody has busted out in a decade or so.  What I've noticed is that they are often the missing link, counter, or extension among many of the new tapi-tapi exchanges that are being pursued.  (I also remember learning old-school tapi-tapi from him once or twice).  When I say old movements I'm referring to things like double zeros, certain twirls, hand exchanges...they are mostly movements which have fallen out of emphasis these days.  Often I notice that they will counter or extend what we are working these days.

I would like to comment also on the groundfighting techniques.  I am liking these less and less, because of what Dan has said--the transitions are sloppy and time consuming, and that makes them unrealistic.  However, I would like to note that they are NOT from machado (or any other brazilian) jiu-jitsu.  In fact, no BJJer would be caught DEAD doing most of these (Mr. Delaney excepted).  My own training in BJJ is what has shown me the unrealistic nature of most of these techniques.  They just won't work under fire, but that is not a trait they get in any way from BJJ.  

Best,

~TT


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> * However, I would like to note that they are NOT from machado (or any other brazilian) jiu-jitsu.  In fact, no BJJer would be caught DEAD doing most of these (Mr. Delaney excepted).  My own training in BJJ is what has shown me the unrealistic nature of most of these techniques.  They just won't work under fire, but that is not a trait they get in any way from BJJ. *



I would just like to interject that some of the stuff that was being taught from 99 on were interjections from BJJ by Jeff Delenay. They were not RP. Keep in mind that these were presented by Jeff (so the ineffectiveness of the techniques is not a slam against BJJ, but more-so on the presenter) and RP just let him do it for whatever reason. Too laid back to care, I guess.

Most of the "ground fighting" is effective in my opinion, if you don't think of it as "ground fighting". It's not grappling NHB style. A Mixed Martial Artist wouldn't be caught dead doing these techniques in a competition. I agree with that.

Most of the "ground stuff" applies only after you've wasted the guy while standing. Now your applying further control manuevers, or breaking manuvers. It's appliable if you think of it that way.

Also, the techniques shouldn't feel ackward. If they do then you are probably doing something wrong. A slight adjustment would make it more effective.

I'll give an example with "the walking throw". This technique always crakced me up cause Professor would do it in a seminar, except few people really knew what the hell he was doing. It just looked like he was stepping over someones leg, then ramming his pelvis into them as they fall to the ground helplessly. Then people would try it on their own, failing horribly. Many I am sure deem the technique ineffective today because they can't figure out a way to perform the technique effectively.

It took me a long time to figure it out myself; and I never thought it would be anything useful until I learned how to do it effectively. From that point on, I try to remember that Remy Presas "road tested" most of what he taught. He knows for sure it works because he got it to work for him when he needed it at one time or another.

The important question I like to ask when I train then is not: "Does this technique work?" Rather it is: "How did this work for Remy Presas, and how can I get it to work for me?"

Just some thoughts to chew on.
:burp:

Ramble, Ramble.... :idea: 
PAUL


----------



## Dan Anderson (Aug 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *1 - I learned a lot of Arnis in the late 80's and early 90's from Lee Lowery.
> 
> 2 - Any time he and I get together and he shows me things, they are old techniques that nobody has busted out in a decade or so.  What I've noticed is that they are often the missing link, counter, or extension among many of the new tapi-tapi exchanges that are being pursued.  (I also remember learning old-school tapi-tapi from him once or twice).  When I say old movements I'm referring to things like double zeros, certain twirls, hand exchanges...they are mostly movements which have fallen out of emphasis these days.  Often I notice that they will counter or extend what we are working these days.
> ...



TT,

1 - Great roots.  Lee was a good man.
2 - In total agreement.
3 - Again, in total agreement.  I participated in a Jean-Jacques Machado seminar once.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## stickarts (Aug 19, 2003)

thanks for the insights. 
The few times i trained with lee were very insightful also.
TT, congrats on the successful hosting of the groundfighting seminar. saw it in the newspaper!


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 19, 2003)

Dan and Frank,

Thanks guys.  Lee Lowery is awesome.  I only wish he hadn't retired.  Recently our school moved to a new location, and during the move we uncovered several photo collages from the 80's.  Some of them included great shots of him with The Prof., as well as Wally Jay (teaching at one of our old locations).

As for the seminar, it was a total success.  We made the front page of the sunday paper.  I couldn't have had a better first seminar than Roy Harris.  He is an absolutely awesome guy to work with, and a good friend.  Everyone who attended wants to know when he's coming back!

~TT


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> * 1) Some of the "ground fighting" to me was more like: "Here's what you do after you've taken him down" techniques. I like them. They can be used with a stick in hand, or with a bladed weapon, and they are still effective.
> 
> 2)  There wasn't much to work with in terms of actually fighting from the ground, such as utilizing the guard, etc.
> ...



Numbers added so I could address them.

As I read this thread I decided to go back over my notes and see what was taught at the camps and seminars I attended here in TX from 95-2001 (all of the camps GM Remy was at except for the last one)

1) According to my notes that is what most of the "groundfighting" techniques were what you can do after you' taken the person to the ground.

2) I didn't learn anything in this area as well at the camps, unless a visiting instructor taught something.  Such as Master Ron Van Browning at a couple of the camps in late 90's.

3) What ground fighting techniques are you refering to that Jeff introduced?  The reason I ask is because looking over my notes from 95 on there was a pretty consistant set of techniques that was shown that I classifed in two catorgories. 1 ground fighting (due to it being called this) although it is more after you have taken the guy to the ground and then you lock them. And 2 the leg wrap series which lead into counters if the person went to counter your technique.

And there were a couple of times that take downs were taught as defenses against kicks and so we had some leg wrap techniques that were applied after the take down.

here is a short list of the series that was taught in the camps from 95-2001 by an assortment of instructors Jeff D. and the MOTTs (before there were such a thing as successers or co GM's etc.

"Ground fighting"
1) Step around hammer lock. (96,97,98,99,)
2) Mobility turn around the knee then move into the arm bar with the arm supported on the thigh and knee behind the shoulder lock. (95,96,97,98,)
3) Step around the head pivot and apply wrist lock/ or knee behind the shoulder lock. (95,96)
4) Back stance lock (where you step on the deltiod to lift the person up and step across with your other foot placing the arm between the legs and twist your hips for the lock. (95,96,97,98,)
5) Step to the deltiod and arm bar wedging the arm against the thigh. (95,98, 99,)

Hand wrap series
1) "Squat lock" Wrap arm around the lead leg and kneel. (96-98)
2) Wrap arm around from the front of the loeg and kneel (96,97)
3) Wrap arm around rear leg and kneel (96,98,99)
4) Wrap arm around front leg and kneel towards person's feet (96)
5) Rear leg wrap around the arm placing the foot underneath the head (96, 98)
 a) Squat to apply arm bar. (95, 96,99) this move goes with 5) so we probably practiced it all at the same time.
6) Neck stretch to lying armbar, sit down arm bar with two different kick over techniques. (98) (Again this went with 5a so we probably practiced it more than I have written down)
7) Palm wrist to the ground lock (98)

Leg locks
1) Outside wrapping from the inside and stepping to the outside (97,98)
2) Inside same as the outside but staying between the person's legs.
3) Figure four leg lock (98, 99) Winter camps
4) Corkscrew motion with wrapping the leg when the person is on his back. (98,99)

At the 98 Summer camp Master RVB taught the ground work/grappling.

It appears to me that by 96 or so GM Remy had a series for the hand wraps/groundwork that was pretty standard at his camps.  Although other people taught the material GM Remy was right there watching and correcting techniques during some of these sessions.  Also the techniques that were shown are also on his tapes (the BB tapes).  During the 2001 summer camp Chuck and the other MOTTs taught the same ground work but with some variations of techniques plus counters to the person's trying to counter the techniques.  Also at this camp it was the first time that some of these techniques were really explained as to what they were.

Now over the years my notes took on some different names and different descriptions, and some years I just put groundwork same as last year.  

However to me the techniques stayed pretty consistant from 95 on.  What techniques did Jeff rob from the BJJ?

Back to your question about GM Remy's grappling experience.  I once asked GM Remy about this and he told me it has been in his system since the begining.  I think I read somewhere that he was a black belt (I think 6th) in Judo.  Anyway GM Ernesto uses some of the same techniques and such in his system as well as the leg locks.  I would venture to say that these techniques were there before Jeff D.

Respectfully submitted:asian: 
Mark


----------



## twinkletoes (Aug 21, 2003)

Yeah, I remember the Prof. teaching leglocks and ground techniques well before I met Mr. Delaney up here in New England.  I also got some from Lee Lowery, who had learned them in turn from the Prof.  

In fact, I just got a chance to watch one of the OLD old videos in which LL is the uke, and the Prof ties him all up.  I'm used to seeing him tie ME up, so it's funny to see him on the receiving end.  

I believe the official word is that the Prof. reached (at least) 5th dan in judo.  I would not doubt it, given his ability to off-balance his partner.  But if he had such extensive Judo background, I can see why it would be thought to look so much like BJJ 

(I know it's heavily debated elsewhere, but basic BJJ groundwork is not so different from basic Judo groundwork, except for its emphasis on positional dominance.  The absence of this paradigm in our Arnis groundwork suggests that maybe its origin is Judo, rather than BJJ.)  



~TT


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 22, 2003)

Very good notes!!

The ones you list are all professor techniques for sure.

There were a couple of chokes and guard techniques that Jeff tried to introduce on 2 different occassions. One specifically @ a Chicago camp. The techniques were crap, in my opinion.

It sounds like they didn't go very far though, and that Professor more or less poltitely "snuffed" them before things got out of control.


----------



## DoxN4cer (Aug 22, 2003)

Allow me to borrow one of the Professor's adages:

"It's all the same." At a fundamental level it really is all the same. Old or new doesn't matter, just train.

Tim Kashino


----------



## Mark Lynn (Aug 22, 2003)

Paul

Yeah I don't remember anything with chokes really.  I did find the kick over movements to be a pain but I tried.

I did notice that when Master Van Browning taught the ground fighting I didn't have any real notes on that because it was out of my league, I couldn't begin to describe the techniques.  However what I thought was interesting was that at one point he taught some takedowns against kicks using the low hit/block on empty hand Sinawali as the base technique.  And then some ground work after that.  My notes from the next year had once again defenses and takedown against kicks.  But they didn't show up again (again not that I remember or documented).  That was a shame.

When the MOTTs taught at the summer camp in Houston 2001 and at the camp in 2002 (Houston) I thought they did a good job of explaining why the techniques worked and what was going on as opposed to the way it had been taught before as in this technique and that technique.  Cause for the first time in my notes the applications appeared in that seminar.

Mark


----------

