# Basic Striking Patterns



## Rich Parsons

I know this could get large, yet I still ask:

Post the striking pattern or numbering of your system.

Please do it one pattern per post.

Thank you


----------



## arnisador

Modern Arnis, WMAA organization:

  1. High forehand diagonal swing
  2. High backhand diagonal swing
  3. Mid-level forehand horizontal swing
  4. Mid-level backhand horizontal swing
  5. Mid-level thrust
  6. High forehand thrust
  7. High backhand thrust
  8. Low backhand diagonal swing
  9. Low forehand diagonal swing
  10. High vertical swing

 Of course, we focus more on the angles than the level. The angle in the first two diagonal swings is not the same as that in the last two. The forehand thrust has palm down (or to the right), and the backhand thrust has palm up (or to the left), when done in the right hand. The #5,6,7 strikes are also done hooked. (Other strikes can also be hooked.) The #10 strike may be done as an overhead strike or one that moves with the tip in almost a horizontal line, straight into the face.


----------



## James Miller

arnisador said:
			
		

> Modern Arnis, WMAA organization:
> 
> 1. High forehand diagonal swing
> 2. High backhand diagonal swing
> 3. Mid-level forehand horizontal swing
> 4. Mid-level backhand horizontal swing
> 5. Mid-level thrust
> 6. High forehand thrust
> 7. High backhand thrust
> 8. Low backhand diagonal swing
> 9. Low forehand diagonal swing
> 10. High vertical swing
> 
> Of course, we focus more on the angles than the level. The angle in the first two diagonal swings is not the same as that in the last two. The forehand thrust has palm down (or to the right), and the backhand thrust has palm up (or to the left), when done in the right hand. The #5,6,7 strikes are also done hooked. (Other strikes can also be hooked.) The #10 strike may be done as an overhead strike or one that moves with the tip in almost a horizontal line, straight into the face.


Here is our chart for the angles of attack.


----------



## pesilat

The first one that we use in our curriculum is from Bobby Taboada's Balintawak:

1: forehand to temple or clavicle
2: backhand to temple or clavicle
3: backhand to waist
4: forehand to waist
5: forehand curving thrust to abdomen
6: backhand curving thrust to upper chest
7: forehand curving thrust to upper chest
8: forehand to knee
9: backhand to knee
10: backhand thrust to eye
11: forehand thrust to eye
12: forehand to crown of head

Mike


----------



## pesilat

For some drills we use this set (I believe it's one of many from Lacoste/Inosanto).

1: forehand downward to neck/clavicle
2: backhand upward to waist/groin
3: forehand upward to waist/groin
4: backhand downward to neck/clavicle
5: forehand straight thrust to abdomen
6: backhand to waist
7: forehand to waist
8: backhand thrust to throat/face
9: forehand thrust to throat/face
10: backhand curving thrust to abdomen
11: forehand curving thrust to abdomen
12: forehand to crown of head

Mike


----------



## pesilat

Another we sometimes use is from Cacoy Canete's Eskrido.

1: forehand to crown of head
2: backhand to temple
3: forehand to temple
4: backhand upward to ribs
5: forehand upward to ribs
6: backhand to waist
7: forehand to waist
8: backhand to knee
9: forehand to knee
10: backhand thrust to face
11: forehand thrust to face
12: forehand thrust to abdomen

Mike


----------



## pesilat

Another we use on a rare occasion is from traditional Doce Pares.

1: forehand to temple
2: backhand to temple
3: forehand to waist
4: backhand to waist
5: forehand thrust to abdomen
6: backhand thrust to abdomen
7: forehand to knee
8: backhand to knee
9: backhand thrust to face
10: forehand thrust to face
11: forehand to crown of head
12: backhand to crown of head

Mike


----------



## Raewyn

pesilat said:
			
		

> The first one that we use in our curriculum is from Bobby Taboada's Balintawak:
> 
> 1: forehand to temple or clavicle
> 2: backhand to temple or clavicle
> 3: backhand to waist
> 4: forehand to waist
> 5: forehand curving thrust to abdomen
> 6: backhand curving thrust to upper chest
> 7: forehand curving thrust to upper chest
> 8: forehand to knee
> 9: backhand to knee
> 10: backhand thrust to eye
> 11: forehand thrust to eye
> 12: forehand to crown of head
> 
> Mike


 In my organisation we use this as well.


----------



## Dan Anderson

James,

According to your chart, your numbers 1 & 2 strikes are to the shoulder or clavicles, your #10 is Remy's #12, and there is no 10 & 11 pokes to the eye?  Is this correct?
    MA-80 striking pattern
1. forehand strike to the temple
2. backhand strike to the temple
3. forehand strike to the elbow
4. backhand strike to the elbow
5. straight on stab to the stomach
6. overhand stab to the shoulder insertion
7. underhand stab to the shoulder insertion
8. backhand strike to the knee
9. forehand strike to the knee
10. overhand stab to the eye
11. underhand stab to the eye
12. straight down strike to the top of the head or crown, can be to the clavicle
13. any strike to the groin (humor) 
artyon: 

I go by forehand and backhand as far as the number strikes go so the left hand #1 strike would be to your opponent's right temple while your right hand #1 strike would be to your opponent's left temple.  I also have a numbering pattern for what I call "_clip strikes_."

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## jfarnsworth

Pesilat,
Thanks for the various oatterbs. It goes to show you that when your comfortable with a pattern forget it and learn another. 
 :asian:


----------



## pesilat

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> Pesilat,
> Thanks for the various oatterbs. It goes to show you that when your comfortable with a pattern forget it and learn another.
> :asian:



Absolutely. We use different patterns as we move through the curriculum because we draw from several systems and some of the drills work best with certain angling systems.

The reality of the situation is that the angle systems just give a common "shorthand" method of communication within a system or school. I don't have to tell someone, "Give me a forehand strike to my tempmle." I just say, "Give me an angle 1."

Or, describing a drill, I can say, "Angle 1, counter with angle 2, counter with angle 4" (or whatever).

That's the only real thing a specific set of angles does.

Angle sets in general, though, IMO also help to engender a conceptual understanding which, in turn, leads to people looking more at the underlying principles and concepts than at specific techniques.

Mike


----------



## arnisador

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> According to your chart, your numbers 1 & 2 strikes are to the shoulder or clavicles, your #10 is Remy's #12, and there is no 10 & 11 pokes to the eye? Is this correct?


 Yes. The WMAA has dropped the #10 and #11, which were the same as #6 and #7 but at a slightly higher target. They didn't offer a different angle! I know some people hook one of the pairs to get a different-looking strike.

 This leaves a 10-count template.



> 13. any strike to the groin (humor)


 I attended a seminar with an instructor whose system used a 12-count template with an added a 13th strike to the groin--basically making #12 and #13 an example of rompida or of up-and-down, to put it in Modern Arnis terms.


----------



## Epa

Pesilat, 

Do you have any idea where the Inosanto blend striking pattern you listed might come from? I'm a student of Guro Inosanto and I didn't recognize the pattern. I'm pretty sure it's not from Lacoste system, Ilustrisimo (Regino) system, Lameco system, or Villabrille system because I've seen those patterns before. Also, what drills do you use this numbering system for? That might help explain where it comes from. I know the question might be too obscure to answer because Guro Inosanto mixes systems so often, but anything you've got would be appreciated. 

Eric


----------



## Casey_Sutherland

WMAA said:
			
		

> Here is our chart for the angles of attack.


Thank you for posting that pic


----------



## pesilat

Epa said:
			
		

> Pesilat,
> 
> Do you have any idea where the Inosanto blend striking pattern you listed might come from? I'm a student of Guro Inosanto and I didn't recognize the pattern. I'm pretty sure it's not from Lacoste system, Ilustrisimo (Regino) system, Lameco system, or Villabrille system because I've seen those patterns before. Also, what drills do you use this numbering system for? That might help explain where it comes from. I know the question might be too obscure to answer because Guro Inosanto mixes systems so often, but anything you've got would be appreciated.
> 
> Eric



My instructor says it's one from Lacoste. And I've seen Guro Dan use it at seminars. We primarily use it with the meets & passes drill (I believe Guro Dan calls it abecedario). As I understand it, Lacoste had several numbering systems that he used.

However, it's possible that my instructor got the sources confused in his notes from training with Guro Dan. Show it to Guro Dan and I'm sure he'll be able to tell you where it came from (as I said, I've seen him use it at seminars). If you find out it's from a different source, please let me know 

Mike


----------



## Epa

Pesilat,

Thanks! I think I heard before that Lacoste used multiple numbering systems and I've seen two of them, but this may very well be a third. I wanted to clarify what you meant by curving thrust on numbers 10 and 11:

I'm assuming that means you're moving the stick in an arc, much like a normal strike with a stick, but that you're leading with the tip of the stick (or sword) as opposed to the edge of the weapon. Generally, when I've seen this done it's a fluid motion that cuts through all the way to the other side, with the stick kept at a 90 degree angle to the stick arm. I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about, I just wanted to clarify so that I do the right thing in front of Guro Inosanto, since I'm going to see him this weekend in Waterloo. Thanks again. 

Eric


----------



## Rich Parsons

Epa said:
			
		

> Pesilat,
> 
> Do you have any idea where the Inosanto blend striking pattern you listed might come from? I'm a student of Guro Inosanto and I didn't recognize the pattern. I'm pretty sure it's not from Lacoste system, Ilustrisimo (Regino) system, Lameco system, or Villabrille system because I've seen those patterns before. Also, what drills do you use this numbering system for? That might help explain where it comes from. I know the question might be too obscure to answer because Guro Inosanto mixes systems so often, but anything you've got would be appreciated.
> 
> Eric



Eric,

Can you post some of the differences of these others striking patterns from the systems you mentioned?

Thank you


----------



## pesilat

Epa said:
			
		

> Pesilat,
> 
> Thanks! I think I heard before that Lacoste used multiple numbering systems and I've seen two of them, but this may very well be a third. I wanted to clarify what you meant by curving thrust on numbers 10 and 11:
> 
> I'm assuming that means you're moving the stick in an arc, much like a normal strike with a stick, but that you're leading with the tip of the stick (or sword) as opposed to the edge of the weapon. Generally, when I've seen this done it's a fluid motion that cuts through all the way to the other side, with the stick kept at a 90 degree angle to the stick arm. I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about, I just wanted to clarify so that I do the right thing in front of Guro Inosanto, since I'm going to see him this weekend in Waterloo. Thanks again.
> 
> Eric



It sounds like you've got it. In GM Bobby Taboada calls it a "sungkiti" (sp?). If you watch this clip, you'll see me do some of them. The first is at around 7 seconds into the clip - I do a backhand curving thrust at chest level then a forehand curving thrust at chest level followed by an umbrella to a knee strike. This is a form called "shadowboxing" that GM Bobby Taboada teaches (or used to teach) in his system of Balintawak.

Mike


----------



## Epa

Lacoste System: (One Version)

1. Diagonal downward forehand strike high
2. Diagonal downward backhand strike high
3. Horizontal forehand strike middle
4. Horizontal backhand strike middle
5. Centerline thrust middle
6. Backhand straight thrust high
7. Forehand straight thrust high
8. Vertical strike (sometimes done as a very steep backhand angle)
9. Diagonal downward forehand strike low (typically done from a squatting position)
10. Diagonal downward backhand strike low (typically done from a squatting position)
11. Diagonal upward forehand strike middle
12. Diagonal upward backhand strike middle

The way I was taught, the Lacoste-Inosanto system doesn't focus as much on specific targets with each angle, but on understanding the angle of attack. For example, the backhand straight thrust can be targeted to the eye, neck, chest, abdomen... and still be considered a #6 strike. Though some instructors do teach a basic set of targets to give students an idea of where they could target their strikes.


----------



## CMS

Epa said:
			
		

> Lacoste System: (One Version)
> 
> 1. Diagonal downward forehand strike high
> 2. Diagonal downward backhand strike high
> 3. Horizontal forehand strike middle
> 4. Horizontal backhand strike middle
> 5. Centerline thrust middle
> 6. Backhand straight thrust high
> 7. Forehand straight thrust high
> 8. Vertical strike (sometimes done as a very steep backhand angle)
> 9. Diagonal downward forehand strike low (typically done from a squatting position)
> 10. Diagonal downward backhand strike low (typically done from a squatting position)
> 11. Diagonal upward forehand strike middle
> 12. Diagonal upward backhand strike middle
> 
> The way I was taught, the Lacoste-Inosanto system doesn't focus as much on specific targets with each angle, but on understanding the angle of attack. For example, the backhand straight thrust can be targeted to the eye, neck, chest, abdomen... and still be considered a #6 strike. Though some instructors do teach a basic set of targets to give students an idea of where they could target their strikes.


This is the Inosanto numbering system I've been taught and have seen in his seminars. It's very symmetrical and easy to learn. The 11 and 12 are basically uppercuts that don't seem to appear in the other numbering systems described in this thread.


----------



## Epa

Ilustrisimo striking pattern: (Regino's system taught by Guro Inosanto)

1. Forehand to neck/clavicle
2. Backhand to elbow/floating rib
3. Forehand to elbow/floating rib
4. Backhand to neck/clavicle
5. Centerline thrust to stomach
6. Uppercut backhand strike to groin/waist
7. Uppercut backhand strike to groin/waist
8. Backhand thrust to neck
9. Forehand thrust to neck
10. Vertical strike to crown (can be slightly forehand or backhand angle)
11. Forehand downward strike to knee
12. Backhand downward strike to knee


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> James,
> 
> According to your chart, your numbers 1 & 2 strikes are to the shoulder or clavicles, your #10 is Remy's #12, and there is no 10 & 11 pokes to the eye?  Is this correct?



That's correct Dan. I streamlined the striking program back around March. As Jeff said those angles are usually done the same. Since we are going *Angles* of attack and not *Targets* of attack, it doesnt matter much. Case in point, Jeff and I were stick sparring one day and I did a number 5 thrust to the knee. Even though it was not a strike to the belly it was still the same *Angle. *

As far as the 1 & 2 being to the shoulder see above. In addition, I was taught to strike the shoulder. Remy was always trying to improve on the program. I feel that it is safer for beginners to strike the body at the beginning. Later apply all of the angles to the entire body. I look at the Modern Arnis angles as a template to learn from, as is much of our system.

 :asian:


----------



## Bammx2

In Rapid Arnis,we use:

  1.Forehand slash to temple(opponents L)
  2.Backhand slash to elbow or mid-section(R-L)
  3.Forehand slash to elbow or mid-section(L-R)
  4.Backhand to temple(opponents R)
  5.Thrust to mid-section
  6.Palm down thrust under chin(opponents L)
  7.Palm up thrust under chin(opponents R)
  8.Low Backhand to knee slashing upwards(R)
  9.Low forehand to knee slashing upwards(L)
  10.Outside witik to oppenents left side of head or neck(stab to neck with dagger)
  11.Inside witik to opponents rightside of head(stab with dagger)
  12.Overhand strike to top of head.

 We use the same principle of "Angles" and not "targets" of attack.

  For those who would like to read more....

www.rapidarnis.com


----------



## lhommedieu

*SAN MIGUEL ESKRIMA

Basic Strikes  12 Angles of Attack*​
1.	Diagonal forehand slash to neck or collarbone

2.	Diagonal backhand slash to neck or collarbone

3.	Horizontal forehand slash to waist, hip, or elbow

4.	Horizontal backhand slash to waist, hip or elbow

5.	Thrust to lower right quadrant  palm down

6.	Thrust to lower left quadrant  palm up

7.	Upward forehand diagonal slash to knee or hip

8.	Upward backhand diagonal  slash to knee or hip

9.	Thrust to upper right quadrant  palm down

10.	Thrust to upper left quadrant  palm up

11.	Vertical slash downward to crown of head

12.	High palm-down thrust to temple or eye

____

After the 12 Striking Angles are taught other striking patterns are taught that are combinations of the above.  For example, "Vertical" is comprised of Angle 7, Angle 8, and Angle 3.  The use of other strikes that are not part of the orginal 12 are also combined with footwork and incorporated into other patterns to form several other "basic striking patterns."   For example, "Downward" is comprised of the following:

Step left back and Strike #1 
Uno Dos
Strike #7 
Cross Step and 2 Flywheel
Half Strike (Media)
Forward w/ Uno Dos

Cf. http://northshoreac.com/san_miguel_eskrima/downward_files/downward.mpg

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## Dan Anderson

T Hartman said:
			
		

> 1. That's correct Dan. I streamlined the striking program back around March. As Jeff said those angles are usually done the same. Since we are going *Angles* of attack and not *Targets* of attack, it doesnt matter much. Case in point, Jeff and I were stick sparring one day and I did a number 5 thrust to the knee. Even though it was not a strike to the belly it was still the same *Angle. *
> 
> 2. As far as the 1 & 2 being to the shoulder see above. In addition, I was taught to strike the shoulder. Remy was always trying to improve on the program. I feel that it is safer for beginners to strike the body at the beginning. Later apply all of the angles to the entire body. I look at the Modern Arnis angles as a template to learn from, as is much of our system.
> 
> :asian:


1.  Ahh, you changed it.  I can understand why.
2.  I know he taught to to shoulder to some, to the head to others.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Wes Tasker

From Pekiti Tirsia Kali

Solo Baston Abcedario Set 1 

1 - Horizontal Forehand to Left Ear
2 - Horizontal Backhand Right Ear
3 - Horizontal Forehand Left Elbow
4 - Horizontal Backhand Right Elbow
5 - Upward Thrust Perineum
6 - Backhand Diagonal to Right Clavicle all the way down to Left Foot
7 - Horizontal Forehand Left Knee
8 - Palm Up Thrust Solar Plexus
9 - Palm Down Thrust Heart
10 - Left Hand assisted Vertical Strike to Crown of Head
11 - Double Grip Downward strike to Bridge of Nose
12 - Right Downward Thrust to Bridge of Nose w/ Left Upward
      Ridgehand to Groin


-wes tasker


----------



## DrBarber

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> James,
> 
> According to your chart, your numbers 1 & 2 strikes are to the shoulder or clavicles, your #10 is Remy's #12, and there is no 10 & 11 pokes to the eye? Is this correct?
> MA-80 striking pattern
> 1. forehand strike to the temple
> 2. backhand strike to the temple
> 3. forehand strike to the elbow
> 4. backhand strike to the elbow
> 5. straight on stab to the stomach
> 6. overhand stab to the shoulder insertion
> 7. underhand stab to the shoulder insertion
> 8. backhand strike to the knee
> 9. forehand strike to the knee
> 10. overhand stab to the eye
> 11. underhand stab to the eye
> 12. straight down strike to the top of the head or crown, can be to the clavicle
> 13. any strike to the groin (humor)
> artyon:
> 
> I go by forehand and backhand as far as the number strikes go so the left hand #1 strike would be to your opponent's right temple while your right hand #1 strike would be to your opponent's left temple. I also have a numbering pattern for what I call "_clip strikes_."
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson


Hey Danny,

You might be joking about #13, but Guro Abu Jamilali and Jun Garcia were quite serious and their 13 strike format is exactly as you have presented it.
I will give you the full citation tomorrow when I have their book in front of me.

Sincerely,

Jerome


----------



## DrBarber

T Hartman said:
			
		

> That's correct Dan. I streamlined the striking program back around March. As Jeff said those angles are usually done the same. Since we are going *Angles* of attack and not *Targets* of attack, it doesnt matter much. Case in point, Jeff and I were stick sparring one day and I did a number 5 thrust to the knee. Even though it was not a strike to the belly it was still the same *Angle. *
> 
> As far as the 1 & 2 being to the shoulder see above. In addition, I was taught to strike the shoulder. Remy was always trying to improve on the program. I feel that it is safer for beginners to strike the body at the beginning. Later apply all of the angles to the entire body. I look at the Modern Arnis angles as a template to learn from, as is much of our system.
> 
> :asian:


Hmmm.... The angles are the same for Remy's #6, #7 and #10, #11?  Head/Eye level is not the same as the Chest/Heart level of the human 
body, therefore there is in fact a different angle of attack.  Look in a 
mirror make the strikes slowly to the targets and WATCH your own arm,
particularly the elbow and wrist of the striking hand.  There is definately a difference in the angle of the striking arm in relation the elevation of the strike to the head or the chest.

I have no problem what so ever with your decision to present a 10 strike system.  Your orgainzation, your curriculum, your choice.  Is it still Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas?  It is definately WMAA.

In the Paradigm Escrima/Arnis System, we use a number of different Cinco Teros or 5 strikes patterns with the base pattern being consistant with your strikes 1, 2, 9, 8 and 5 in that order but numbered 1 - 5.  The other patterns are designed for usage determined by the relative positions of the bodies of the two individuals and target availability.  We hit to targets and defend against angles of attack.  Within our formating we will hit all 12 of the Modern Arnis targets and use all of the Modern Arnis attacking angles as well as some angles from several other systems.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## lhommedieu

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> 6. overhand stab to the shoulder insertion
> 7. underhand stab to the shoulder insertion



I.e. to the glenohumeral joint?  This would (potentially) dislocate the head of the humerus.  But is it to the same-side shoulder or the opposite shoulder?

Best, 

Steve Lamade


----------



## Dan Anderson

DrBarber said:
			
		

> Hey Danny,
> 
> You might be joking about #13, but Guro Abu Jamilali and Jun Garcia were quite serious and their 13 strike format is exactly as you have presented it.
> I will give you the full citation tomorrow when I have their book in front of me.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jerome


I only joke about it being numbered 13.  I don't joke about the validity of the strike.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Flatlander

lhommedieu said:
			
		

> I.e. to the glenohumeral joint? This would (potentially) dislocate the head of the humerus. But is it to the same-side shoulder or the opposite shoulder?


Do you mean, cutting patterns like those awareness ribbon things that people hang on their lapels vs. more of a "u" shape between the strikes?


----------



## DrBarber

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> I only joke about it being numbered 13. I don't joke about the validity of the strike.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson


Cool.  Just a quick follow-up to yesterday's post.  The 13 strike system was mistakenly reported as belonging to Abu Jalmaani/Jun Garcia, actually it was shown to me by a friend of Ama Guro Billy Bryant's, Santiago Cananteo.  He simply added the 13 strike, a forehand uppercut to the groin, to the Modern Arnis 12 count system.

Guro Abu Jalmaani and Jun Garcia actually use a 14 count structure:

1. Forehand Strike to Temple
2. Backhand Strike to Temple
3. Horizontal Forehand Strike to Elbow/Rib
4. Horizontal Backhand Strike to Elbow/Rib
5. Downward Diagonal Forehand Strike to Knee
6. Downward Diagonal Backhand Strike to the Knee
7. Upward Forehand Strike to the Groin
8. Upward Backhand Strike to the Groin
9. Overhand Straight Jab (thrust) to the Eye
10. Reverse Overhand Straight Jab (thrust) to the Eye
11. Downward (chop/drop) Forehand Strike to the Collar Bone 
12. Downward (chop/drop) Backhand Strike to the Collar Bone
13. Downward (chop/drop) Forehand Strike to Crown of the Head

Source: ARNIS: Filipino Art of Stick Fighting
            Abu Jalmaani & Jun Garcia
            Koinonia Productions, 1976; Stockton, CA.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> Hmmm.... The angles are the same for Remy's #6, #7 and #10, #11? Head/Eye level is not the same as the Chest/Heart level of the human body, therefore there is in fact a different angle of attack. Look in a mirror make the strikes slowly to the targets and WATCH your own arm, particularly the elbow and wrist of the striking hand. There is definately a difference in the angle of the striking arm in relation the elevation of the strike to the head or the chest.


In my opinion the angles are similar enough to be classified as the same. Im not going to sweat a couple of degree difference. I prefer to put more emphasis on the lines of attack and less on predetermined targets. Weve recently applied the same approach to disarming.


> I have no problem what so ever with your decision to present a 10 strike system. Your orgainzation, your curriculum, your choice. Is it still Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas? It is definately WMAA.


I think you might be focusing too much on the method and not enough on the result. None of us will ever be Remy. I dont teach things like he did, yet my students could pass the instructors test. In addition to preserving the art we must also look to the future. It is *MODERN* Arnis, not traditional Arnis. It is our duty as students of our late teacher to help the art progress, much like he did.

 :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead

DrBarber said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... The angles are the same for Remy's #6, #7 and #10, #11?  Head/Eye level is not the same as the Chest/Heart level of the human
> body, therefore there is in fact a different angle of attack.  Look in a
> mirror make the strikes slowly to the targets and WATCH your own arm,
> particularly the elbow and wrist of the striking hand.  There is definately a difference in the angle of the striking arm in relation the elevation of the strike to the head or the chest.



So, following your rational, an angle #1 delivered to the shoulder/collarbone isn't the same as an angular forearm delivered to the head?  A #8 delivered to the knee isn't the same as a backhand delivered to the ankle or shin?

The #10 and #11 targeted the eyes.  The six and seven the clavicular area.  They're virtually the same strikes, and the difference are so small that they're not worth mentioning, regardless of your perceptions on the positioning of the elbow.  Remy's reasons for the reduncancy are clear--it was a targeting issue.  He wasn't proposing some zippy new angle.  



			
				DrBarber said:
			
		

> I have no problem what so ever with your decision to present a 10 strike system.  Your orgainzation, your curriculum, your choice.  Is it still Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas?



Thus the reactionary response rears its ugly head.  

When you say "Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas," which era are you talking about?  Do you teach it exactly the way it was taught you, uncorrupted by time, ill memory, and the need for modification or creativity?  Did he never intend it to progress beyond his death?  

I saw him proctor tests where at least three versions of his forms were performed, and he didn't caution his instructors on the variability of the technique nor seem to care all that much.  He allowed us great license in execution of those alone.  

The man was eclectic and fluid in his approach to the art.  We are not allowed to be?  He encouraged sharing of ideas and on at least one occasion incorporated T'ai Chi push hands methods into his de cadena drill.  So with his passing we have to lock up everything he showed us and keep it pristine and unchanged? 

We've seen this exhortation of "teaching the true art as the late master taught" play out with every single personality driven martial art that ever existed...and its simply silly.  Even if in the modern age we were able to archive a master's methodology and know exactly what it was he taught, and when he taught it, that doesn't mean such a methodology ought to be religiously and obssessively  followed.  At that point we stop being artists and merely become plagiarists.  The art stops progressing, and we settle down into arthritic thinking.  We stop trying to be ourselves and try to be the shadow of one now gone.

I suspect he wouldn't have liked us to do that.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Dan Anderson

T Hartman said:
			
		

> I streamlined the striking program back around March. As Jeff said those angles are usually done the same. Since we are going *Angles* of attack and not *Targets* of attack, it doesnt matter much.
> :asian:


I keep the original angles of attack the same as Prof. Presas taught me.  I look at it from the aspect of the weapon.  Since the cane is an impact weapon, I look at where an impact weapon is the most useful - hard bony areas.  For the knife or bolo, my blade numbers of attack are a hair different as they go for cutting fleshy and connecting tissue areas.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## arnisador

I think too much focus on targets runs the risk of losing the idea that in the FMA we defend against angles of attack, not enumerated attacks.


----------



## Cebu West

We all learned the 12 basic angles of attack in Modern Arnis. That was a solid foundation to start with. What we do with this knowledge and how we apply it is another story. For quite some time now I've been applying the 6/10 and 7/11 angles to different targets. For example, hitting the 7/11 or right side with a 6/10 strike and visa versa. These cross ripping strikes still maintain the basic striking angles while adding a wider variety of targets. Combining these angles is a natural progression in advancing the art. Without exploring the possibilities you sit around and gather dust while others pass you by. 
Professor gave us everything we needed. Now it is our turn to explore all that he left for us and keep his Modern Arnis MODERN and on the cutting edge of the Filipino arts.

Sal


----------



## Dan Anderson

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think too much focus on targets runs the risk of losing the idea that in the FMA we defend against angles of attack, not enumerated attacks.


The key here is the term _too much._  Targeting is very important, especially depending upon the weapon being used.  As one becomes familiar with the techniques and so on, motion and angles are more easily recognized and looked at as such.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> The key here is the term _too much._  Targeting is very important, especially depending upon the weapon being used.  As one becomes familiar with the techniques and so on, motion and angles are more easily recognized and looked at as such.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson



Agreed, my approach is to apply all of the angles to as many different targets as possible. As I said before, while sparring with Jeff I was able to execute a number 5 strike to his knee. If you pick a body apart and try to hit it with all of the angles, you my feel it redundant to using 6, 7 and 10, 11. 

I have no problem with people using all 12 strikes and by no means do I think its wrong. In my opinion dropping two angles isnt changing the system as much as streamlining or helping with in its evolution.


----------



## guromkb

Kali~Rongan

Abakada Isa striking template.

1.Horizontal strike to right temple
2.Backhand horizontal strike to left temple
3.Thrust to throat/upper chest area off of the right side
4.Horizontal strike to right elbow/floating rib area
5.Backhand horizontal strike to elbow/floating rib area
6.Straight thrust to abdomen
7.Horizontal strike to right knee
8.Backhand horizontal strike to left knee
9.Vertical cut to the top of head, through the body.


----------



## bart

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think too much focus on targets runs the risk of losing the idea that in the FMA we defend against angles of attack, not enumerated attacks.



I agree. In most systems of FMA the angles of attack are arbitrarily assembled and the attacks are purposefully vague. They exist to serve as reference points by which to group attacks and defenses primarily for teaching beginners. The trend of narrowing the angles to specific attacks departs from the generality that makes the art flexible. 

In Doce Pares all of the odd angles are forehand, all of the even are backhand. We go down the body and then back up again. It's more a matter of keeping it simple rather than anything else. 

Attached below are the angles that we use:


----------



## DrBarber

Re: Basic Striking Patterns 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Referring to Professors Modern Arnis strikes #10 and #11; Tim Hartman posted the following comment:  



In my opinion the angles are similar enough to be classified as the same. Im not going to sweat a couple of degree difference. I prefer to put more emphasis on the lines of attack and less on predetermined targets. Weve recently applied the same approach to disarming.



You are certainly free to what ever opinion you wish to hold.  If you wish to eliminate strikes #10 and #11 that is your decision to make, however you are not presenting Modern Arnis, as developed by Professor.  You have altered a central or core feature.  Given that you are very quick to pull the trigger and denounce things that others have done as not being Modern Arnis, 

I would apply your very same criteria and strongly question the efficacy of eliminating these to strikes and retaining the claim of teaching Modern Arnis as Professors art.  In all 3 of his books and all three of the video series that he produced including the one for Black Belt Productions and the tapes sold through Jeff Delaney, Professor showed a 12 count striking system.  You have a 10 count striking system.  WMAA, yes, absolutely and quite acceptable from any point of view as long as you call a spade a spade.  As I said earlier and you correctly quoted me: 



I have no problem what so ever with your decision to present a 10 strike system. Your organization, your curriculum, your choice. Is it still Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas? It is definitely WMAA.  I stand by that statement.  



Tim Hartman wrote:



 I prefer to put more emphasis on the lines of attack and less on predetermined targets.  



I that statement as fuzzy logic being used to justify the WMAA 10 strike system.  Lines of 

attack and targets are not one and the same thing.  Professor gave us short-handed targets and lines/angles of attack in a single unified format.  That format gave us both the targets to be struck and the broader defensive system to counter those same strikes.  The defensive stick blocks are equally applicable whether one is taught from a 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15 or 16 strikes

system.  I have worked with each of those systems.



Targeting on the other hand is whole other matter.  Targeting is usually quite specific and each target is chosen with a desired effect in mind, if that target is actually struck.  Targets also should change when the tool used to attack or counter-attack changes.  The effects one can expect from an empty hand strike, a kick, a knife or a stick are different.  A stick strike to the clavicle will produce a different effect from a hand chop to the same spot.  A knife cut/slice would be different yet again.



Tim Hartman wrote:



I think you might be focusing too much on the method and not enough on the result. None of us will ever be Remy. I dont teach things like he did, yet my students could pass the instructors test. In addition to preserving the art we must also look to the future. It is MODERN Arnis, not traditional Arnis. It is our duty as students of our late teacher to help the art progress, much like he did.



Working in reverse order and answering your statement.  Helping the art to progress is not the issue.  Why would I disagree with that idea?  I have never told others that what they were doing is not Modern Arnis, because that was your ax to grind.  The latest example of that was in your review of the Tipunan in August of this year.



It is very possible to preserve an art and modify things to meet new situations or cultural differences.  Learning from the past and applying those lessons so that one can effectively deal with the present and future is very forward thinking and admirable.  It seems that you have shifted gears somewhat from earlier positions that you have taken in posts to this forum.  Welcome to the progressive side of Modern Arnis instruction.  Given that you are beginning to sound like Tom Bolden, Bram Frank, Dan Anderson and Kelly Worden, not to mention this writer, I welcome you to the other side of Modern Arnis thinking.  We have long held and stated that Professor provided the system and philosophy; however it was necessary for each individual to move forward making the art for themselves.  And before you or anyone else gets their knickers knotted up, I am NOT SAYING that 5 of us are all on the same page all of the time.  We are individuals, we have our differences in approach and emphasis; however, our general points of view are compatible.  It sure looks like you are wading into the broiling waters of making it for yourself.  Welcome. 



Instructors test?  Whose test are you referring to, Professors or the WMAA?  The question is for the purpose of gaining clarity so that we are talking about the same thing.  As for being Professor or even trying to be like Professor forget that garbage.  I am Jerome Barber.  Always have been and always will be.  I NEVER saw myself as being in Professors image nor did I want to try that suit on for size!  It wasnt going to fit.  Thats your gig, Tim.  I never stated that I was going to teach and preserve Modern Arnis as Professor taught it YOU did that as part of your WMAA Mission Statement.



Tim Hartman wrote:



I think you might be focusing too much on the method and not enough on the result.  



OK, lets look at the results because I believe that you have failed to acknowledge or understand what could happen when the targets struck are the eyes versus the chest of a human being.  In actual fact the results of being struck in the eye with either strike 10 or 11 is going to be quite different from being struck in the chest by strikes 6 or 7.  And for clarity and not to further confuse the issue I will only consider a blunt end stick as the striking instrument, not a pointed stick, knife or bolo. 



All strikes to the chest are not equal.  Strikes to the right side of the chest are generally less damaging than strikes to the left side.  On the right side the major damage is to the muscle sheath and breast plate.  It is essentially painful and might induce muscle cramping.  The lung is not very likely to be impacted since we are using a blunt instrument and the ribs are not broken.



A strike to the left side of the chest is a different story, since it is possible that the impact of the blow could jar the heart muscle causing palpitations (skipped or missed beats) which are very painful.  BTW in EMT circles this is known as a thoracic thump which is a sharp blow to the breast plate to force the heart to start beating, when a defibulater is not available during heart attack.     



A stick strike to the solar plexus is even more serious because all of the following internal organs are associated with that nerve grouping: liver, stomach, kidneys, pancreas, spleen and gall bladder.  Disruption to or internal bleeding of any of these organs can result in very serious problems and/or death.  Of course the solar plexus is not a specific target within the Modern Arnis listings of Professor.  When struck to the right side of the chest most people can continue fighting.

Strikes to the left side will cause some people to quit the fight after just one or two blows.  Other may fight on and require 5 or 6 blows before the stoppage occurs.  A solid and powerful blow to the solar plexus could cause the person to stop immediately and the internal damage may not be immediately obvious.



A stick strike to either eye is very likely to put an immediate end to the fight.  This is because the optic nerve of the eye is attached directly to the brain.  The pain of the strike is transferred immediately to the brain.  The targets of strikes 6/7 do not have the direct connect to the brain.



The next point for consideration is the eye is made entirely of soft tissue and very thin muscle that offers no protection from possible injury.  A stick strike to the eye is very likely going to injure the cornea and lens.  Beyond that there is a good chance that a powerful directed strike will also affect the vitreous humour or fluid sack behind the lens and in front of the retina and optic nerve.

If this fluid sack is ruptured, the eye will lose both its shape and function.  At minimum, the results will be temporary blindness in that eye.  Permanent blindness can not be ruled out.



In my opinion, I would suggest that an eye strike off of #10/#11 is roughly equivalent to being shot by a .45 caliber bullet and a chest strike, not including the solar plexus is akin to being shot with a 38. caliber.  The impact and bodily damage in more severe when struck by the former bullet.

If you consult Brain Adams book, The Medical Implications of Karate Blows, published by Unique Publications, there will be very little doubt about the damage that can inflicted to the eye.  In that book, the attacking tool is the finger!  We are discussing a stick being used as the attacking object.



Removing strikes 10/11 is a very poor decision in my view, particularly when the stated rationale is that #10/11 is duplicating #6/7.  If students are trained, drilled and practiced in the use of the former strikes, how will they learn to defend against thrusting attacks to their eyes?  In my opinion you are doing them a long term disservice by omitting those two strikes.   If you want to stream line the strikes and present a reduced numbering system why wouldnt you adopt the 9 count striking system that Professor taught at the Erie County Central Police Services Academy back in 1984?  All you need to do is eliminate strikes #10, #11 and #12.  That striking system is still being taught at the academy, today.  



Professor and John Bryant presented the Modern Arnis 9 Count Striking System because in NYS, police cadets are not allowed to use blows to the head in training courses according to the rules of the NYS Chiefs of Police Association that sets the rules for training requirements.  I am aware of this information because the ECCPSA was located at the South Campus of ECC for some 15 years, I knew a number of the instructors and I have taught as a guest instructor on several occasions.



As my final comment, I would also suggest that removing strikes 10 and 11 is a very poor idea because of something that Professor himself wrote about the 12 strikes:



*The twelve striking techniques are the life and soul of arnis. They are the hinges around which other techniques in arnis revolve.* (Presas, 1974, p. 32)  Remy Presas.  _Modern Arnis: Philippine Martial Art, Stick Fighting_.  National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 1974.



Sincerely,



Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## bart

What about Cinco Tiros? I've heard directly from several GM's and well known teachers, one of whom was Remy Presas, that all of the strikes could boil down to 5. 

There is a myth that seems to pervade the FMA community that if you know someone's angles then you know their system. That is far from the truth unless you have a very shallow system.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

DrBarber, in bold:

*As for being Professor or even trying to be like Professor forget that garbage. I am Jerome Barber. Always have been and always will be. I NEVER saw myself as being in Professors image nor did I want to try that suit on for size! It wasnt going to fit. Thats your gig, Tim. *

Hardly Tim's "gig" as he's said here on MT that the suit wouldn't fit any of us.

I'm getting a real sense here that the issue isn't a technical one, given the tone of that last post.  You write: 

*I never stated that I was going to teach and preserve Modern Arnis as Professor taught it YOU did that as part of your WMAA Mission Statement.*

Let's check this from the mission statement on the WMAA web site:

_Our first goal is to further the growth of Arnis throughout the world...We will achieve this by designing specific training programs that will advance the progression of our art while developing maximum student proficiency._

That contradicts what you wrote above.  Do your homework, professor.

Regardless...this whole "teaching it as the Professor taught" is nothing more than grabbing on to Remy's reputation and running with it.  If you're NOT doing that...great.  A personal agenda seems to be the issue then insofar as your vitriol.  

So what's the deal here?  You seem to take umbrage to Tim dropping the strikes and deviating from the way Remy taught it...then you say "I never stated that I was going to teach and preserve Modern Arnis as Professor taught it..."   

Could you make up your mind and then tell us what is on it?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## bart

I don't think anybody is going to be happy with the way this discussion is going. The discussion here is about striking angles, but particularly in "sharing" the striking angles. If there is going to be a pissing match over whose Modern Arnis striking angles are the correct ones, then maybe the concerned parties should take the discussion over to the Modern Arnis area and not let what could be a good informative discussion about the FMA in general degenerate into a really crappy one about the legacy of RAP and who is more in tune with his ghost.

Both sides learned from him and I personally respect both sides' opinions. Each group has valid and seemingly ever interchangeable arguments if you follow this business over the years. But let's not let this continue its descent into a West Staines vs East Staines confrontation. After a point, this conflict can get pretty ridiculous and serves more to belittle and embarass rather than to "big up".


----------



## Guro Harold

bart said:
			
		

> What about Cinco Tiros? I've heard directly from several GM's and well known teachers, one of whom was Remy Presas, that all of the strikes could boil down to 5.


I agree with Bart on this point. Remy Presas Jr even has taught that the 12 strikes can be reduced to 5 basic strikes.

The incredible thing about GM Remy Presas is that he was an educator, as such, he provided templates. The 12 strikes along with the 12 blocks are a template. They are the abecedarios ("ABC's") of the art.

-Palusut


----------



## lhommedieu

bart said:
			
		

> What about Cinco Tiros? I've heard directly from several GM's and well known teachers, one of whom was Remy Presas, that all of the strikes could boil down to 5.
> 
> There is a myth that seems to pervade the FMA community that if you know someone's angles then you know their system. That is far from the truth unless you have a very shallow system.



I agree with Bart on this one.  I'd go further and suggest that all the strikes could boil down to 2:  forehand and backhand.  Even a vertical strike down to the middle of the crown of the head of your opponent has to be chambered, however slightly, on the forehand or backhand side of your own body.  (You _can_ chamber your own stick to line up with the middle of the crown of your own head, but the tension in your deltoid muscles pulls your elbow slightly off-center - unless you pull your elbow in with your pectoral muscles, which is kind of ridiculous)  Thrusts will also be forehand or backhand; the only exception that I can think of would be a palm-up thrust down the centerline starting with a palm-up chamber of your hand on the middle of your chest - and even that can be considered a backhand due to the curvature of your own arm (or a forehand if you turn the hand over so that it ends up palm-down).  

Everything else is just a template.  Whether you teach your students 2, 5, 10, or 12 strikes (or whatever), they are only meant to introduce them to the concept that one can think of strikes as angles of attack _or_ attacks to targets (or both) depending on what you want to emphasize.  For example, if you're teaching a downward, (near-vertical) forehand diagonal strike do you emphasize (a)  _attacking_ an opponent's centerline (somewhat target specific) as a means of defending your own centerline,  or do your emphasize (b) aiming for the collarbone (with stick) or neck (with blade) (very target specific) - or do you emphasize (c) _defending_ your own centerline and striking whatever comes into range (non-target specific), or do you step slightly off-line to (d) counter from an inside or outside angle (very target specific)?  In the examples given above only methods (a) and (c) present the same angle of attack/defense; (b) and (d) are different both from each other and from (a) and (c).  

As for the purity of a systems angles of attack (and whether system x is still system x if it teaches a slightly different angling system) I prefer to go less with the A is A, not-A is not A form of argument and more with family resemblances school of thought.  If I can shoot the spade out of an Ace of Spades at 300 yards and my cousin Elmer can shoot the spade out of an Ace of Spades at 300 yards, then whether or not he brings his rifle to his shoulder in a subtly different manner than me is not as important as whether or not all the other elements of shooting a rifle properly are in place.  Who cares if I live on one mountain and Cousin Elmer lives three mountains over?  Our daddies taught us how to shoot (and our daddies were brothers once whose daddy taught them to shoot).  Compare the Modern Arnis, Balintawak, Doce Pares, and San Miguel Eskrima angles of attack presented above, and you will see that they are all country cousins to each other.  (Its interesting that they all remain based, to one degree or another, on the teachings of the Saavedras, huh?)

If I may wax (further) poetic:  basic striking patterns are taught so that you can see the canvas upon which you're ready to paint.  And while canvas should be somewhat clean and or pure to start (the formal elements of attack and defense), sooner or later you have to get paint on it to make a painting.  Now it's not clean - but it has meaning (hopefully).  

For example, I was taught that "Arko" is done as two perfectly horizontal cuts done at about head level: 

http://northshoreac.com/san_miguel_eskrima/arko_files/arko.mpg

But _changing _ levels (head to knee for example) is simple strategy.  And what I'm using a light, sharp weapon instead of a heavy, dull one?  Sliding down the weapon to cut at the fingers makes sense here because now I've hurt my opponent without much effort and without giving too much away - and I don't have to swing for the bleachers (at his knees) the way that I might want to with a stick in the first example.  Now that I've changed "Arko" as it was previously, "formally," defined, is it still "Arko"?  Of course it is.

Again:   I was taught that "Arko-Arko" is done as two perfectly horizontal forehand cuts done at about head level, that is followed by the mirror image done as a backhand.  But when I teach the San Miguel Form I like to emphasize that bringing the second backhand Arko strike _down_ lets the following #7 strike come up just a little faster:

http://northshoreac.com/san_miguel_eskrima/san_miguel_form_files/smf_eg.mpg

Now that I've changed "Arko-Arko" as it was previously, "formally," defined, is it still "Arko-Arko"?  Of course it is.  But Ive made it more biomechanically efficient (if the next strike in the sequence was an upward, forehand diagonal) and can now teach a target-specific application (a high backhand attack/defense followed by a covering strike to the daga-holding left hand of the opponent).

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## arnisador

I'm reminded of tapado and its paucity of strikes.

I'd buy that it basically comes down to three strikes: Forehand, backhand, and a stab.


----------



## Guro Harold

*Mod Note:*

This thread has been split.

Please continue the great discussions on FMA striking patterns in the current thread.

However, to discuss the Modern Arnis striking patterns, please go to this link, http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27023.

Best regards,

Palusut
MT Moderator


----------



## dearnis.com

Most angled systems can be reduced to the 8 angles taught in Japanese swordsmanship; each angle can be emphasized as a thrust or one of a number of types of strike. 
Why so many 5 angle sets?  Hmmm....Simplicity?  Why so many 12-angle sets?  Might be worth examining the religious component to some FMAs...
 NONE of the angle-based systems limit themselves to specific targets; if one wishes to go that route go to an anatomical rather than angular reference such as seen in Sayoc Kali.
Wow, pretty simple when one doesn't have an axe to grind.Thanks for the information on some of the myriad striking patterns provided by those actually trying to contribute to the thread.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

I have more striking charts from other systems that James or myself will be posting in the next week. I need to convert them to image files first.

 :asian:


----------



## Wes Tasker

The one thing I always wondered about Pekiti Tirsia, before I started training in it, was - "What the heck are the 12 sets of 12 stick strikes?".  As it turns out they exist, not as subtly different angles, but as ways to swing the stick: single grip, double force, punyo, hooking with the punyo, bayonet grip, reverse grip.  The multiplicity lies not in the number of angles - but in the permutation of different mechanics.  Then, as you get more subtle in your power generation the angles pretty much decrease into five.  Then they decrease into conceptual examples of power generation / mechanics while covering the centerline as much as possible (Seguidas set I).  Kind of an inverse emanationist thing I guess....  As far as the prediliction for 12 - Tuhon Bill McGrath is fond of saying that it's a good thing their weren't 20 apostles.....  

And for what it's worth - I think Mr. Steve Lamade made some very cogent and acroamatic points about both the idea that striking angles can boil down to two angles, and the idea of striking angles teaching a root mechanic that can manifest in different ways but still retains the "traditional" ideal of that technique.

-wes tasker


----------



## Epa

I was wondering if anyone here has had experience with the Villabrille system and its striking patterns because I have been shown these methods but have little to no formal training in that system. The striking pattern as I was shown is a Stick and Dagger method which is as follows: 

1. Diagonal downward forehand to clavicle
2. Diagonal downward backhand to clavicle
3. Horizontal forehand to elbow
4. Horizontal backhand to elbow
5. Centerline thrust to stomach
6. Backhand thrust to neck
7. Forehand thrust to neck
8. Vertical Abaniko to the crown of the head
9. Forehand uppercut to the leg
10. Backhand uppercut to the leg
11. Forehand horizontal strike to the ankle
12. Double thrust with two forehand thrusts forming a male triangle in front of you. 

The unique thing about this system was not the actual angles, but how they trained them because they don't seem to spend much if any time striking while standig still. They practice the angles, advancing, retreating and circling. 

The advancing method begins from a neutral stance, then shift to a specific chamber (each strike has very specific chamber for both the stick and the dagger) in a forward weighted stance (estoka). Then you shift back into a backward weighted stance (parada). Then you move forward and deliver the specific angle, each angle is accompanied by a dagger thrust. The dagger thrust goes before most of the forehand lines and after most of the backhand lines. After each angle is completed the practitioner returns to a neutral stance and then does the next angle. This system also has a unique way of counterbalancing that looks a lot like western fencing, where the non striking weapon is held directly behind you in line with the striking weapon. The stances also tend to be more extended than many FMA styles I have seen with angles 9-11 done in an extremely low squat. 

I was shown the retreating method only in passing and it delivers most of the angles using a retreating cross stepping footwork that looks similar to Illustrisimo retreating footwork where you swing your lead leg back. 

The circling method begins the first angle from the same chambered position as the advancing method. After that angle is delivered you do a 180 degree turn and deliver #2 and a dagger thrust to a point behind you. Most of the angles have you take a quarter or a half circle before you deliver them (the exact pivots are hard to write out so I'm not going to try here) and the knife comes into play after each swing of the stick, except for between the forehand thrust and the abaniko. As in the advancing method, angles 9-11 are done from low squatting positions. I was told that this circling method forms the basis of the feeding pattern for the numerada drill (the basics of the Villabrille system), which trains the person receiving the angles to try to get behind the feeder which causes the feeder to pivot like he does in the basic circling method. 

I'd like to point out again that I'm not a Villabrille instructor and this information is from two private lessons I've taken with Villabrille instructors so there's probably a lot I've missed. If there is please correct me. The thing that struck me the most is how different this training method is from every other Filipino Martial Art that I have trained in with regards to the longer stances, very precise chambers,  counterbalancing with the off hand, and a combination stick and dagger numbering system. Has anyone else seen this approach to basic striking in other FMAs? Does anyone know why an FMA style would train their basics like this? 

Thanks,
Eric


----------



## lhommedieu

Wes wrote:



> Then they decrease into conceptual examples of power generation / mechanics while covering the centerline as much as possible (Seguidas set I).



A fundamental example of this is the "Seguidas Jab:" (if your weapon is in your right hand/right foot forward) the weapon is drawn horizontally across your body as you torque your hips and shoulders clockwise to the right until the point ends up chambered at the center of your own chest. When the tension is released as your hips and shoulders snap back to the left in a whip-like manner, the right hand shoots out as if you were throwing a boxer's jab - and the tip of the weapon shoots out as a product of the mechanic.  What's interesting is that the tip of the weapon actually follows a _straight line _ to the target as a centerline _thrust_ (there is also a hooking action at the end of the thrust but that's another story). A lot of people (myself included) have misread the jab because its set up to _look like a backhand half-strike (media) that will come in on an arc_ (it doesn't).   You can also slip _inside _ the opponents centerline if you use it in conjunction with a lateral step-step shuffle to the right.  And  because of the binocular blind spot in front of the bridge of the nose  it can be very difficult to see if it comes in exactly on a straight line.  

It should also be noted that this jab will not work as described unless the _length _ of the weapon allows the tip to line up with the center of the chest as described above - which is an excellent example of function following form.

Eric asked about training methods with stick and dagger in the Villabrille system.  I've never seen this system so I can only give you my "best guess" answer:

1.  Espada y daga is generally taught after single stick, double stick, etc. so you may have been given an advanced-level lesson.

2.  That being said, the _optimum_ way of training striking angles would be to combine them with footwork that gave you forward and backward stepping, lateral stepping, pivots, and large turns.  Ideally you want the tip of the stick to hit the target just as the weight is settling into the foot that you've moved.  Pekiti Tirsia gives you this training methodology with its emphasis on triangle stepping, ducking, take-offs, etc. (an excellent example is Eric Knauss' "Exploded Star" demonstration at the end of the Dog Brothers' "Footwork" video in their first series of tapes).  With respect to Espada y Daga, there is also Pekiti Tirsia Attack #12 in the first level of Attacks.  San Miguel Eskrima gives you this training methodology in a progression of forms that starts with the San Miguel Form.

3.  Most FMA's are going to want you to use your footwork to generate your strikes and to strike from any and to any angle; unfortunately that's generally too difficult for beginners and so they're taught angles of attack from a static position.  That's not to say that someone couldn't introduce the kind of training that you seem to have experienced during your private lessons. 

***

I'm not even going to touch the "inverse emanationist thing" unless to suggest that emanationism is something made manifest on the seminar circuit...

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## Guro Harold

*Mod Warning:*

Again, this thread has been split.

To discuss the Modern Arnis striking patterns, please go to this link, http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27023.

Please do not post any other discussions regarding Modern Arnis striking patterns in this current thread.

Best regards,

Palusut
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Mark Lynn

Went back into my files and found this on dated back in the late 80's early 90's from Guro Inosanto.  It's quite long, I left my notes included with the strikes to help explain the drill.


The following single baston striking drill is from Guro Inosanto.  This drill combines different types of strikes and targets all in the same drill.  Where the Presass system twelve count drill has one type of strike on different angles of attack, this drill has multiple types of strikes on different angles of attack. It should be practiced with both left and right hands, but for these notes the stick hand is the right hand.

1.Downward forehand strike:   Target could be the head, neck, or shoulder.

2.Downward backhand strike :    Same targets but opposite side of body.

3.Sideward forehand strike:   Targets could be side of body, elbow, or arm.

4.Sideward backhand strike:   Same targets but opposite side of body.

5.Straight thrust:   Target is the midsection of the body.

6.Thrust to heart:	  Inverted thrust with the elbow up and outside of the body, stick is pointed slightly down.

7.Slash across body and down the right side of collar bone:   The stick is flipped over from the #6 strike, to the partners right side of their collar bone and drawn back towards your left side.   The stick hand palm is now almost at the hip with the palm facing out towards the left.   Stick is pointed at your partner.   #8 then is an inverted palm up thrust to partners eye the palm is turned over as the stick rips out across the face to the right ending up by the right side of your partners head.

8.Hooking (Gaff) thrust to eye:   Inverted right then rip out to the right stick is now in almost the same position as a #1 strike.

9.Horizontal forehand strike to knee:

10.Horizontal backhand strike to knee:

11.Upward diagonal slash / strike from right to left, starting at or about knee level going to the collar bone:

12.Upward diagonal slash / strike from right to left, starting at or about knee level going to the collar bone:   Same as #11 but from left to right. The motion for #s 11 and 12 is like an X, flowing from 11 into 12.

13.High horizontal strike from right to left:	Strike is a lobtick with the target being the head.

14.High horizontal strike from left to right:	Reverse strike from #13.

15.Vertical split strike:   Strike that cuts straight down the middle, then retracts to the left side of the head.

16.Circular slash / strip:   Left foot steps forward to the right, right steps back (short step) as the stick comes up then slashes down in a circular motion to end up on the right hip.  Alive hand comes forward as (almost shuto, open hand chop position) a guard.  This is a slash / strip motion, meant to disarm an opponent.

17.Uppercut with stick:   Right foot steps forward and upper cut with stick, slash up bringing stick to the left side of the your body.

18.Diagonal Redondo on the left side of the body:

19.Vertical Redondo on the left side of the body:

20.Horizontal backhand witick:    Target is the head, strike follows the same line as #11, but hits and retracts along the same line.

21.Umbrella then horizontal forehand witick to head:   Bring stick around behind the back of the head in an umbrella motion, and follow through with a forehand witick.

22.Forehand Abaniko witick to the head:

23.Backhand Abaniko witick to the head:

24.Two handed vertical split:   Move left foot forward to the right foot then step out to the left into a straddle stance, both hands grasping the stick striking down in a vertical motion.   

Please forgive any mispellings of the words, like I said above this is an old pattern, that I learned back in the early 90's and then transfered to the computer in the late 90's and haven't practiced since really. 	   

Mark


----------



## kuntawguro

The basic striking pattern in Maharlika Kuntaw 

1. Diagonal Downward forehand
2. Diagonal Downward Backhand
3. Horizonal  forehand
4. Horizonal backhand
5. Diagonal upward forehand
6. Diagonal Upward backhand
7. Vertical Upward
8. Vertical downward

The target s don't matter. #1 could hit the neck, shoulder, hip, knee , or ankle.
#3 could do the same. What matters is the torque created by the body positioning and the flow back from each strike. Each set alleigns to the next numbered set, and each  slash can return as a thrust. Each thrust turns into a slash on it's recovery.

There are 3 thrusts, but these are not angled attacks, these are straight line attacks. Underhand , Overhand, Backhand

 These movements are the same angles as those in the  Kuntaw emblem and as in the arrows of a compass- North , south, east , west etc.


----------



## avm247

Rich Parsons said:


> I know this could get large, yet I still ask:
> 
> Post the striking pattern or numbering of your system.
> 
> Please do it one pattern per post.
> 
> Thank you



Didn't see anything on Kabaroan.:

We have 8 lines (Similar to Maharlika Kuntaw):  Vertical (Top->Down) Right/Left, Radical (Botton -> Up) R/L Horizontal R/L, Over R/L and Under R/L (Diagonals).  Grandmaster likes to say this gives you your PHD in eskrima: Perpendicular, Horizontal and Diagonal. 

We have 6 Stricks that can be executed along those 8 lines of attack:  Slash, Chop, Butt, Gore, Slam, Thrust.

There are 3 levels of targets:  Neck up (head), Torso (including arms), Waist down (legs).    

All six strikes can be delivered along the 8 lines of attack to any of the three targeting levels.


----------

