# rank, titles, systems and techniques in the FMA



## thekuntawman (Aug 14, 2004)

i made this thread because i would like to see a continuing of the converstation with mscroggins.

i agree with pretty much everything you said, even the sillines of rank, titles belts etc. but only as a fighter do i agree with that. as a teacher you will have to have at least a style, and a method that you teach your art. as a school owner, here in the US, you need some way for students to see his progress. i dont use belts, but the titles i use are beginner 1, 2 3 etc.

for techniques, everyone has some kind of techniques they offer, they will have to be at least a system of basic hit and counters. now besides that, strategy is more important than techniques (hit me with this, then i do this and that, then disarm). pre arrange techniques, in my opinion are a little but of a waste. why do i say this, everybody knows them, nobody does them in fighting. if you will memorize something, then is better to memorize hit combinations, and counter attackings, with hit combinations. for the fighter who is not pursuing a teaching career, just to become a better fighter, style is depends to your philosophy. not all pilipinos were floaters. many took one method of fighting, and if he travelled it was to find work or build his reputation. build his reputation by having matches, not teaching "seminars". if the guy was a one style guy he wants to prove to himself and others that his style is superior to whatever you come to him with. (this is my philosophy). if he cant beat somebody, then is back to the drawing board, or learn what he does.

now if somebody has a mind to build a career of teaching, he might stay with one teacher, if he has a lot to teach, or travel learning as much as he can (edgar sulite, remy presas, roberto presas, and some others). style and rank is important because he wants to give credit to who he learns from, or to get permission to teach what he was given. even tho this is not my desire, how can i call it silly if i have never fought these men or there students? now if they suck , then it was silly. i have played with roberto presas, (once even with the nunchucks), and i would never call what he did silly.

but there is a whole lot of "floaters" i would call silly. and i dont feel like getting into one of those arguments again... :uhyeah:


----------



## Dan Anderson (Aug 16, 2004)

thekuntawman said:
			
		

> *1. * i agree with pretty much everything you said, even the sillines of rank, titles belts etc. but only as a fighter do i agree with that.
> *2. * as a teacher you will have to have at least a style, and a method that you teach your art. as a school owner, here in the US, you need some way for students to see his progress.
> *3. * for techniques, everyone has some kind of techniques they offer, they will have to be at least a system of basic hit and counters. now besides that, strategy is more important than techniques (hit me with this, then i do this and that, then disarm).
> *4. *  pre arrange techniques, in my opinion are a little but of a waste. why do i say this, everybody knows them, nobody does them in fighting. if you will memorize something, then is better to memorize hit combinations, and counter attackings, with hit combinations.
> ...



Kuntawman,

Hi.
1.  Rank doesn't play much into it if you cannot fight.
2.  Yes.
3.  Yes.
4.  I disagree as they can be quite useful for teaching movement, distance relationship, cane manipulation and so on.  As for their use in fighting, I agree with you.
5/6.  Right.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## bart (Aug 16, 2004)

thekuntawman said:
			
		

> pre arrange techniques, in my opinion are a little but of a waste. why do i say this, everybody knows them, nobody does them in fighting. if you will memorize something, then is better to memorize hit combinations, and counter attackings, with hit combinations.



If you mean techniques wherein the defender responds to an attacker's single technique and then unloads a series of strikes and counters while the attacker remains passive, then I agree somewhat. It's much better if the attacker keeps moving and does some additional striking and or blocking and is responsive to your defenses. But when it comes to the absolute beginner, it does help to do those static things to teach body awareness and stick manipulation like Dan said. The problem with those drills comes up when they are taught as actual fighting simulations and not drills to train "attributes". 

I'm a big advocate of not doing the same drills all of the time. But rather stringing together small exchanges and mixing it up with something new every time, so as to make everybody flex their dendrites. Another thing is that you have to actively employ your drills in sparring to train how to actually apply it.


----------



## DoxN4cer (Aug 16, 2004)

bart said:
			
		

> I'm a big advocate of not doing the same drills all of the time. But rather stringing together small exchanges and mixing it up with something new every time, so as to make everybody flex their dendrites. Another thing is that you have to actively employ your drills in sparring to train how to actually apply it.



Right on, Bart.  I like to string drills together and insert things like disarms, immobilizations (and thier related escapes) and takedowns into the context of the drills.  It's an excellent way to work on attributes.  

Tim Kashino


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 17, 2004)

Food for thought...



> 1. Live training: The apex of every drill, movement, and exercise is what we call live training. This is moving, whether through sparring or semi-sparring, with a resisting, unpredictable partner. In actual combative application, you will have an opponent instead of a partner who will be unpredictable and resisting. Therefore, what you do needs to work live.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DoxN4cer (Aug 18, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> 1. Live training: The apex of every drill, movement, and exercise is what we call live training. This is moving, whether through sparring or semi-sparring, with a resisting, unpredictable partner. In actual combative application, you will have an opponent instead of a partner who will be unpredictable and resisting. Therefore, what you do needs to work live.




That's my point exactly, Paul.   By inserting different things into a drill you take a closed loop and open it (or make something "dead" more "alive").  An excellent example of it was in one of Paul Martin's seesions at the MA Symposium in Buffalo.  He started by pairing partners up and got them doing de Cadena/trapping hands, then he had them insert different attacks (like a front choke for example) into the drill to break the rhythm which forced the defender to deal with the eminent attack and then re-enter the rhythm of the drill.

This sort of thing builds upon different attributes; timing, broken rhythm, regaining rhythm (setting the pace/tempo of the engagement), all of which are parts of what we all know as "flow".  By modifying a drill (through linking several drills or by inserting other things into it) it becomes more like what you might call semi-sparring or even sparring.  It becomes more "alive".

No one drill, or set of drills can be the end-all-be-all skill builder, not even tapi-tapi (I'll probably catch hell for that one... oh well).  Drills are combat simulations in closed loops, and only mimic combative conditions to a small degree no matter ho hard or fast you might be going. This is mainly due to the fact that your training partner is not your opponent per se.  He's playing by the same rules you are, and has no intention of killing or maiming you... most of the time anyway.    

My training progression moves from static to dynamic by first showing the techniques (static), then the drills (closed loop semi-sparring), then the modified drills ( "alive" semi-sparring), and finally reflex/free form "sparring".  It still doesn't simulate combative conditions to 100%, but we sure get close.   

r/

Tim Kashino


----------

