# Modern Arnis: The Next Generation Goals



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2005)

What should the "next generations" goals be?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2005)

Cool a thread split. 

Well Im not a MA leader but I would think some fence mending would be in order no?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What should the "next generations" goals be?



I recently asked a similar question. Should the art be preserved to honor the Professor, or evolved as he was doing? Either way, I still worry that the art as such may disappear, even though its influence will still be felt in other arts. I hope that people try to grow and spread the art to people who currently do not study the FMA, and increase the number of people who do it as their _primary_ art.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well Im not a MA leader but I would think some fence mending would be in order no?



Looking at the history of JKD and Kenpo after their founders' deaths, and even lesser known systems like Uechi-ryu and Isshin-ryu that have suffered bitter organizational splits, I wonder if this is realistic? It'd be great, and in line with the Professor's vision and dreams for the art ("I want you to be happy, and fractice together")...but are we so different from those who practcie these other arts?


----------



## MJS (Nov 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What should the "next generations" goals be?


 
I would say to continue to spread the art of Modern Arnis.  Unfortunately, splits and bad blood happen, but its still nice to see that there are a few groups/people out there that are carrying on the art.  

Mike


----------



## kruzada (Nov 29, 2005)

I wholly agree. A primary goal for the "Next Generation" of leaders should be to make some effort to heal the Modern Arnis community, which has unfortunately fragmented into several different organizations.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Cool a thread split.
> 
> Well Im not a MA leader but I would think some fence mending would be in order no?


----------



## DrBarber (Nov 30, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> I would say to continue to spread the art of Modern Arnis. Unfortunately, splits and bad blood happen, but its still nice to see that there are a few groups/people out there that are carrying on the art.
> 
> Mike


 
Hello Mike,

I would say that there is no known way to prevent the splits that have occured.  When there is an iconic figure at the head of an organization, his/her death ususally results in the fragmentation of the once, seemingly unified group.  The fizzures were already present during the leader's life.  His/her death releases the pressure dome and the resulting eruption leads to first of several breaks in the "once unified" orgnization.  In the case of Modern Arnis, some very short-sighted perspectives have only focused on the events from 1999 - 2001.  A careful look at the entire 25 years of the late Professor's teaching career in the USA, Canada and Europe would reveal a difinate and continous progrssion of people leaving the IMAF, forming smaller, independent organizations.  

Simply take Stanley Arnold, Dennis Toelston, Michael Morton, Rocky Paswik and Tom Bolden as examples.  They all left the IMAF under Professor before 1994.  There are more, however the point is made with just these few examples.  The ideas that we need to accept and support is that the art will continue to be presented, without Professor's presence.  In a very real sense he knew this and prepared for it through his conceptual postions of "make it for yourself" and "the art within your art".  

There was never a doubt that at some point in time Modern Arnis would have to continue without Professor and his inputs.  Everyone of the next generation will also have to pass on, so the focu has to be on developing the next leaders - on a perpetually continuous basis... it's life and death in reality.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## MJS (Nov 30, 2005)

DrBarber said:
			
		

> Hello Mike,
> 
> I would say that there is no known way to prevent the splits that have occured. When there is an iconic figure at the head of an organization, his/her death ususally results in the fragmentation of the once, seemingly unified group. The fizzures were already present during the leader's life. His/her death releases the pressure dome and the resulting eruption leads to first of several breaks in the "once unified" orgnization. In the case of Modern Arnis, some very short-sighted perspectives have only focused on the events from 1999 - 2001. A careful look at the entire 25 years of the late Professor's teaching career in the USA, Canada and Europe would reveal a difinate and continous progrssion of people leaving the IMAF, forming smaller, independent organizations.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Mr. Barber,

Thanks for your reply.  My appologies, as I don't think that I was as clear as I should have been regarding my post.  I do realize that there is no way to prevent a split, and I'm certainly not against that.  By all means, people are more than welcome to break off, and begin to do their own thing.  As long as they're continuing to spread the art in a positive way, I have no problem with that.  My problem is with people who break off because they are more concerned with making themselves look good, rather than keeping their focus on the art.

Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 30, 2005)

I think that there can be a great deal of value found in making an attempt to train with people from the different organizations, so as to be able to get closer to the essence of the art.  It seems to me that there can be a longer term trend toward defragmenting the knowledge if students of the next generation can find ways to get together and share.  Then, there can be real growth, honest critique, and genuine evolution, as opposed to competition, separation and protectionism.

The concerns of the first generation need not be handed down to the next.  If my teacher has a problem with your teacher, I don't see how that need affect our relationship.  It's their problem, not ours.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 30, 2005)

Isnt the whole concept of "fence mending" a metaphor of two warring parties coming together to mend the "fence" between them? They are still separated by the fence and may never have BBQ's together, but they can be friendly enough to speak to each other over the fence, make polite conversation and live peaceably on their half of the property.


----------



## Dan Anderson (Nov 30, 2005)

I highly doubt fence mending will occur.  Too many differences in personalities and things that have happened.  I agree with Flatlander in the idea of cross-training with some of the different groups.  Your skill and experience could only improve.  

Arnisador,
I say "Don't worry."  I think prof. Remy really planted the seed and the rest of us who are active in dissemination of the art by both instruction and products are ensuring it won't up and go away.  I think we have a long, prosperous, and varied future ahead of us.

For me, the key goal is to continue to research, practice, and teach the art...just like the old man did.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## DrBarber (Nov 30, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Hi Mr. Barber,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. My appologies, as I don't think that I was as clear as I should have been regarding my post. I do realize that there is no way to prevent a split, and I'm certainly not against that. By all means, people are more than welcome to break off, and begin to do their own thing. As long as they're continuing to spread the art in a positive way, I have no problem with that. My problem is with people who break off because they are more concerned with making themselves look good, rather than keeping their focus on the art.
> 
> Mike


 
Hi Mike,

Regarding both your posts, I am in total agreement with you.  One problem that I see and that needs addressing is the tendency among some people to push for an "orthodoxy" within the art.  This comes about mainly from those who want to study and present Modern Arnis as a stand alone art.  

There is nothing wrong with the stand alone concept.  After all Professor did tell everyone who was alert and listening to him to "Make the art for yourself."  So if that means doing Modern Arnis as a stand alone art, then people should go for it and make sure that they do it well.  

On the other hand there is the "art within your art approach".  It is also a viable and reliable format for the presentation of Modern Arnis.  This is also the FIRST method that Professor used in the USA, Canada and Europe.  There is nothing wrong with this approach, but there are some people who want to denigrate and dismiss the instructors who follow this method.  Many of the original students of Professor's from 1975 through 1990 were taught the art in this manner by the man himself.  Why should they be deemed as incorrect or wrong, by the people who discovered the art and the founder at a later point in time?

There are several ways to present and promote Modern Arnis.  The most important thing that is too often being overlooked is QUALITY of INSTRUCTION.  IF we (collectively) do not present the art properly with intention, focus, power, finesse and speed it wll whither and die from student attrition.  People will move on to other arts, new crazes and 'hot fads because Modern Arnis will
have become just another fancy martial arts dance, with its' main distinction being "a dance with sticks".

Modern Arnis was and is a fighting art, a combative art and it has a very real function which should not be set aside for ego-building, money making and fanciful dance competitions in tournements.  I am not saying that everyone should follow my lead and teach Modern Arnis for self-defense purposes, but we must be careful not to emasculate it.  There are already instructors from the Western World who have chosen to ignore the reality of Modern Arnis' origins as a long blade martial art.  They have also chosen to ignore the fact that Professor published this information in his 1973 Modern Arnis book, published in the Philippines.

The bottom line is if we want this art to survive, prosper and grow, we need to support one another's variations as well as work on teaching a solid, well developed format that encompasses the past will adapting to the future.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## Black Grass (Nov 30, 2005)

This is an interesting topic cause because for me it brings more questions. I give to you all to ponder

- should the goals of Modern Arnis be the same as the Prof. before his passing ? What were they ?
- should the goal be to spread modern arnis or preserve modern arnis and/or Prof. the legacy? Is it the same thing?

I would answer some of these myself right now, but its late and i'm tired. Look forward to reading what you guys think.

Vince
aka Black Grass


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 2, 2005)

Black Grass said:
			
		

> This is an interesting topic cause because for me it brings more questions. I give to you all to ponder
> 
> - should the goals of Modern Arnis be the same as the Prof. before his passing ? What were they ?
> - should the goal be to spread modern arnis or preserve modern arnis and/or Prof. the legacy? Is it the same thing?
> ...


 
Good questions, Vince.  However, I am going to await your your answers.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## Dan Anderson (Dec 2, 2005)

Black Grass said:
			
		

> This is an interesting topic cause because for me it brings more questions. I give to you all to ponder
> 
> *1.*- should the goals of Modern Arnis be the same as the Prof. before his passing ? *1a.*What were they ?
> *2.*- should the goal be to spread modern arnis or preserve modern arnis and/or Prof. the legacy? Is it the same thing?
> ...


Hi Vince,

1.   I don't think so.  
1a. His primary goal was to introduce to the west Philippine Sport Culture.  
     His goal has been achieved.
2.  Both dedending on who you are and what you want to do with it.  My personal goal is not one of preservation but of research and growth.  Right now it is taking me to Prof. Presas' past to meld that with what he had developed up to his passing.  From there, who knows?
Other's goals will be different as to the importance they put on them.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Isnt the whole concept of "fence mending" a metaphor of two warring parties coming together to mend the "fence" between them? They are still separated by the fence and may never have BBQ's together, but they can be friendly enough to speak to each other over the fence, make polite conversation and live peaceably on their half of the property.


 
Amen brother


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 4, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I think that there can be a great deal of value found in making an attempt to train with people from the different organizations, so as to be able to get closer to the essence of the art. It seems to me that there can be a longer term trend toward defragmenting the knowledge if students of the next generation can find ways to get together and share. Then, there can be real growth, honest critique, and genuine evolution, as opposed to competition, separation and protectionism.
> 
> The concerns of the first generation need not be handed down to the next. If my teacher has a problem with your teacher, I don't see how that need affect our relationship. It's their problem, not ours.


 
Flatlander a very good post.

For myself I have made it a point to try and train (through seminars) with several of the different instructors from the different organizations, and I believe it has really helped me to have a wider view of the art.  I 've trained with his brother Ernesto to try and expand my view as well.

What I have liked to see is that some events have been held that show cases several different instrcutors from different organizations to teach and promote the art.  Dan's Brevard College camp, Dr. Barber's symposium are two that I personaly attended and know of and I'm sure there are others.  

I would like to see the leaders of MA promote and put on camps or seminars of this type in the future.  Even if everyone doesn't need to be best buddies afterwards I believe leaders in the seperate organizations could at least be given the chance and oppertunity to attend and instruct and help promote the art.  Not as a put up or shut up but lets' all get together and learn together.

I believe that if the art will prosper and grow if it is perceived that you know it's OK to think outside of the box, it's OK to go and train or attend this seminar even if it's not within our organization.

Mark


----------



## chris arena (Dec 4, 2005)

Mark:

I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective on this matter!

Chris Arena
(enthusiastic intermediate)


----------



## Black Grass (Dec 5, 2005)

Black Grass said:
			
		

> This is an interesting topic cause because for me it brings more questions. I give to you all to ponder
> 
> 1.  should the goals of Modern Arnis be the same as the Prof. before his passing ? What were they ?
> 2. should the goal be to spread modern arnis or preserve modern arnis and/or Prof. the legacy? Is it the same thing?
> ...


 
my thoughts,

1. I agree with Dan Anderson, I would say no.  The Prof. wanted to spread the art AND make a living, He acheived both. 

2. I believe that Profs legacy is  best kept by continuing t ospread the art and preserving the art. This should be done in exclusivity of each other. Again I agree with Dan Anderson that spreading the art at this point seems to be non-issue, Prof has made it the widest practiced FMA in the world and the art continues to spread even thoguh there is lack of central leadership.

However, some work needs to be done preserving the Art. The difficulty here is that  Modern Arnis was an ever changing system. 

If one want to preserve Modern Arnis a way is to encapsulate it in periods. For those of you who have attended a Dan Inosanto seminar, when he talks or shows a technique about the Art of Bruce Lee he sometimes qualifies it as coming from the time of the Oakland school, the Los Angles school, Chinese gung Fu or Jun Fan etc... What Modern Arnis' needs is a MA historian(s)  someone/persons who has been or knows the entire progression for Modern Arnis from its inception in the Philippines, I believe there are only a handful of people I believe who are qualified to this (non-american), the most qualified person who comes to mind is Roland Dantes. Another approach is to have different people be historians/experts for different time periods in particular. I beleive this is what Prof. Vee had in mind when he had diffrent succesors for Vee Arnis , Vee Jitsu (75) , and Vee Arnis Jitsu (not really sure of the real names here). Modern Arnis already has this to a certain extend, with the Masters of Tapi-Tapi, as their main focus seems to teach the art as Prof taught starting aroung 96-97  till the time of his death where a large focus seemed to be Tapi Tapi. What I believe is import here is for these historians not to alter or introduce any personal inovations, or at least clearly define "as was taught to me by Prof Presas" vs.  ones own 'style'/'interpretation' of modern arnis . I know this would become very frustrating for ones own personal groth as a martial artist

Regards,
Vince
aka Black Grass


----------



## arnisador (Dec 5, 2005)

The comparison to Bruce Lee's systems is interesting. Indeed, I find that what I do has less in common with the Philippines groups than I might hope, and differs greatly in emphasis from those who strongly focus on tapi-tapi. Yet, they're all shadows of the same art.


----------



## Dan Anderson (Dec 6, 2005)

Black Grass said:
			
		

> What Modern Arnis' needs is a MA historian(s) someone/persons who has been or knows the entire progression for Modern Arnis from its inception in the Philippines, I believe there are only a handful of people I believe who are qualified to this (non-american), the most qualified person who comes to mind is Roland Dantes. Another approach is to have different people be historians/experts for different time periods in particular. I beleive this is what Prof. Vee had in mind when he had diffrent succesors for Vee Arnis , Vee Jitsu (75) , and Vee Arnis Jitsu (not really sure of the real names here). Modern Arnis already has this to a certain extend, with the Masters of Tapi-Tapi, as their main focus seems to teach the art as Prof taught starting aroung 96-97 till the time of his death where a large focus seemed to be Tapi Tapi.
> 
> What I believe is import here is for these historians not to alter or introduce any personal inovations, or at least clearly define "as was taught to me by Prof Presas" vs. ones own 'style'/'interpretation' of modern arnis . I know this would become very frustrating for ones own personal groth as a martial artist
> 
> ...


Hmmmm, now that's an interesting idea.  Not bad.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 7, 2005)

This will be my third attempt to address this subject matter since my first two posts got lost, I guess I got logged out?



			
				Black Grass said:
			
		

> my thoughts,
> 
> 1. I agree with Dan Anderson, I would say no. The Prof. wanted to spread the art AND make a living, He acheived both.
> 
> ...


 
Vince
I agree with your post here, but I'll quote you and address something specifically.

_"However, some work needs to be done preserving the Art. The difficulty here is that Modern Arnis was an ever changing system. _

_If one want to preserve Modern Arnis a way is to encapsulate it in periods. For those of you who have attended a Dan Inosanto seminar, when he talks or shows a technique about the Art of Bruce Lee he sometimes qualifies it as coming from the time of the Oakland school, the Los Angles school, Chinese gung Fu or Jun Fan etc... " _

I totally agree here, in fact it was Dan Inosanto's influence (by hearing and seeing him do exactly like you are talking about) that first got me started taking notes back in 85.  So in my own limited way I tried to preserve his teachings, not really for a historical sense but that I could accurately represent his art if I decided to teach it.

_"What Modern Arnis' needs is a MA historian(s) someone/persons who has been or knows the entire progression for Modern Arnis from its inception in the Philippines, I believe there are only a handful of people I believe who are qualified to this (non-american), the most qualified person who comes to mind is Roland Dantes. Another approach is to have different people be historians/experts for different time periods in particular."_ 

No slight to Roland Dantes intended here but I think no one person has the whole system.  I believe it would have to be a collective effort since I think his art evolved over a pretty long time, much longer than Bruce Lee's JKD (while Bruce was alive that is).

_"What I believe is import here is for these historians not to alter or introduce any personal inovations, or at least clearly define "as was taught to me by Prof Presas" vs. ones own 'style'/'interpretation' of modern arnis ."_

This leads into the thrust of my first non post and that is what making the art your own and at what point do you go beyond teaching MA and teaching Mark's Arnis or Billbo's Arnis etc. etc.

I'll address this aspect in another post(s)

With respect
Mark


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 7, 2005)

Arnisador and Blackgrass both brought up JKD and in Arnisadors post the splitting of JKD and Blackgrass the documenting of JKD and the need for it in MA.  To me this is an interesting and yet important points that need to be brought out and discussed.

In JKD there are really two camps the Preservationists and the JKD Concepts camp with then sub groups of followers who take instruction from instructors who basically fall into these one of these camps.

The Preservationists follow Bruce Lee's curricculmn from what he taught during a given time, as he evolved in his method then depending upon what period of time the teacher was taught than that is what the students are taught.

The Concepts camp follow what they thought Bruce Lee meant by his teachings etc. etc. and they have gone beyond the physical techniques to make the art their own and therefore have added many things that Bruce Lee never taught.

And both camps claim to be teaching what Bruce taught and I believe both are right, and yet they don't get along.  (This is based on my research and dealing with JKD several years back so if it has changed, then I mean no offense or anything.)

So in Modern Arnis I see basically the same thing.  The "Preservationists" who want to be taught what Remy taught (the drills and techniques") and the "Make it your Own Art group".  And I believe there is a little animosity, misunderstanding, bad blood, between members of the two camps or members of the same camps and we (MA students and instructors) tend to get upset with other behind the key boards of our computers because we haven't addressed (either we ourselves or with others maybe) which camp we are in.

There is nothing wrong with either camp, both I think teach what Remy taught whether it be through concepts/principles or drills and techniques. SM Dan Anderson had a good post/thread a while back talking about being members of the same family. 

Well my wife tells me I must get ready for work, I try and finish my thoughts on this later.

Mark


----------



## Dan Anderson (Dec 7, 2005)

The Boar Man said:
			
		

> So in Modern Arnis I see basically the same thing. The "Preservationists" who want to be taught what Remy taught (the drills and techniques") and the "Make it your Own Art group".
> 
> There is nothing wrong with either camp, both I think teach what Remy taught whether it be through concepts/principles or drills and techniques. Mark


Regarding the above, I remember a private conversation in which someone was blasting the "Remy clones."  They only taught what "Remy did."  I had a funny thought in that if you only teach what Prof. Remy taught, you are doing "what Remy did."  If you are expanding on the art and making it grow, you are doing "what Remy did."  Hey!  We, in one way or another "Remy clones."  

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Dan Anderson (Dec 7, 2005)

The Boar Man said:
			
		

> This leads into the thrust of my first non post and that is what making the art your own and at what point do you go beyond teaching MA and teaching Mark's Arnis or Billbo's Arnis etc. etc.
> 
> With respect
> Mark


I suppose it's when you actually declare it to be so (and take the heat from other members of the family) or when you change it to another art based curriculum (eg. "adding sticks" to your taekwondo).

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## arnisador (Dec 7, 2005)

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> Regarding the above, I remember a private conversation in which someone was blasting the "Remy clones." They only taught what "Remy did." I had a funny thought in that if you only teach what Prof. Remy taught, you are doing "what Remy did." If you are expanding on the art and making it grow, you are doing "what Remy did." Hey! We, in one way or another "Remy clones."


 
I'd like to take this a step further. The Prof. encouraged _everyone_ to teach and share the art and help it grow and spread. I am confident that if he was asked who the future leaders of the art were, he'd sweep his arm out at the group of students in front of him, beginners to seniors, and say "All of them." He really wanted the art to spread, and he really hoped everyone would help to see that happen.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 7, 2005)

> I am confident that if he was asked who the future leaders of the art were, he'd sweep his arm out at the group of students in front of him, beginners to seniors, and say "All of them."


 
That may be the truest statement I have head in a long time

from all I have ever heard of the man he invissiond all his students passing on th art


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 7, 2005)

yup.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 7, 2005)

Arnisador posted
"I'd like to take this a step further. The Prof. encouraged _everyone_ to teach and share the art and help it grow and spread. I am confident that if he was asked who the future leaders of the art were, he'd sweep his arm out at the group of students in front of him, beginners to seniors, and say "All of them." He really wanted the art to spread, and he really hoped everyone would help to see that happen."

Couldn't agree more

Mark


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 8, 2005)

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> Regarding the above, I remember a private conversation in which someone was blasting the "Remy clones." They only taught what "Remy did." I had a funny thought in that if you only teach what Prof. Remy taught, you are doing "what Remy did." If you are expanding on the art and making it grow, you are doing "what Remy did." Hey! We, in one way or another "Remy clones."
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson


 
Hey Dan,

"If you are expanding on the art and making it grow, you are doing "what Remy did."  I fully agree with the intent of that statement, but in actual fact the person would not be a "clone" IF he were adding their own ideas and taking from arts that Remy did not introduce into Modern Arnis.  Cloining is to reproduce an exact replica of the orginial.

For instance, is MA-80 an exact replication of Modern Arnis as Remy taught it to you?  I don't think so based on a couple things that you have posted in the past about your system.  Therefore I would say that you have not gone the way of the "Remy Clones".  As I have read and understood your books, I see differences between you and what I know that Remy taught when I was attending seminars and camps.  However, if you choose to see yourself as a "Remy Clone", I certinly would not argue with you or try to alter your perspective on the matter.

Respectfully,

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## Dan Anderson (Dec 8, 2005)

Nahhh, I'm not anybody's clone.  I was making light of a particular statement which was meant as denigration.  In one way, yes, a clone as I am doing the same thing he did which is, as you say, 





> IF they were adding their own ideas and taking from arts that Remy did not introduce into Modern Arnis


.  RP did that with his family art and then later balintawak along with other influences.  In that way, hey, a clone.  Otherwise it's Dan doing the same as he did with karate.

Yours,
Dan


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 9, 2005)

The Boar Man said:
			
		

> Arnisador posted
> "I'd like to take this a step further. The Prof. encouraged _everyone_ to teach and share the art and help it grow and spread. I am confident that if he was asked who the future leaders of the art were, he'd sweep his arm out at the group of students in front of him, beginners to seniors, and say "All of them." He really wanted the art to spread, and he really hoped everyone would help to see that happen."
> 
> Couldn't agree more
> ...


 
A general comment, not specificly directed to Mark.  If the above statements are true, then why all the concern about who is or is not doing Modern Arnis, Remy Presas Arnis or Traditional Modern Arnis.  If the above statements are true and people are in general agreement then EVERYONE is a leader in Modern Arnis and EVERY ORGANIZATION is carrying on the ideas, concepts, theories and techniques of Modern Arnis and there should be very few arguements about what someone else is doing!  Basicly, people need to tend to their own business and encourage everyone else who is attempting to keep the late Professor's art alive, viable and expanding.

However, that cooperative effort is not happening is it?
Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 9, 2005)

DrBarber said:
			
		

> then why all the concern about who is or is not doing Modern Arnis, Remy Presas Arnis or Traditional Modern Arnis.


 
It's certainly of no concern to _me_. The Professor encouraged people to make the art their own, or to make it the art within their (other) art...I have no problem with what's being done by (for example) MARPPIO, IMAF-Schea, DAV, etc. I'm not concerned about it. My only concern is that the Professor's art not die out.



> Basicly, people need to tend to their own business


 
Yes, this seems like good advice.


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> It's certainly of no concern to _me_. The Professor encouraged people to make the art their own, or to make it the art within their (other) art...I have no problem with what's being done by (for example) MARPPIO, IMAF-Schea, DAV, etc. I'm not concerned about it. My only concern is that the Professor's art not die out.
> 
> Yes, this seems like good advice.


 
Jeff, 

It seems to me that if one is engaged in naming some people as leaders, as you have done in a post on FMA-Talk (Modern Arnis Forum) and omitting others who have been active and prominent in recent years, that you are in fact concerned about who is 
doing what in the name of Modern Arnis.

Professor's art is going to die out in one sense.  Modern Arnis was his personal expression, his personal vision of how the art can 
be done.  His encourgement for others to make the art for themselves is often repeated by many, yet a number of people jump all over others attempting to follow Professor's dictum.  Therefore, to the extent that some people are working to make the art fit their own perspectives, Professor's art will die out and there little to nothing that can be done to stop the process.

There has been a very definate shift in who is accpetable as a Modern Arnis System leader and who isn't as expressed by a number of posters on this forum over the last 5 years.  There was definately a time when Delaney, Worden, Schea and the MoTTs were considered inferior players to some other person and association.  Now these people are being openly listed and accepted as leaders.  It is very interesting to me that this paradigm shift has occurred.  

It is also worth noting that at least one person mentioned in the O'Grady article which was the source document for this thread, has been seriously attacked several times in the past on this forum.  He is no longer being mentioned as a Modern Arnis leader.  How and why has that happened?

Please note that I am not saying or inferering that you have had anything to do with attacking anyone.  I am simply observing 
that you have posted  elsewhere a leadership list.  That action would be indicative of you having some concerns about what 
others are saying and doing in the possible promolgation of the late Professor's Modern Arnis System, style or art.  In addition, you have joined the group of people who seem to believe that it is too early to identify the next generation of leaders in Modern Arnis.  I disagree the idea that it is too early to look at who might be ready to join the list of new leaders in the post-Remy era of Modern Arnis because I have former students who are already teaching the third generation.

I also believe that it would better to work toward a common consesus as to what the "core curriculum" of Modern Arnis might be, then stand aside, let people do their thing.  Remy's art will survive in an altered form.  It will be different from what it was when he was alive, active and touring.  But isn't that consistannt with life's reality?  Change is a natural, on-going part of life.  

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 9, 2005)

I think you're referring to this post. I was trying to be very inclusive by listing the heads of the major organizations. I may have missed a large org. or major player--in retrospect, I forgot Mr. Inocalla, for example--and I did have to draw the line somewhere as there are certainly small orgs. out there too. But I did try to be inclusive so as to avoid drawing conclusions about who is and isn't doing "true" Modern Arnis. As I stated, I have no opinions on that. I really don't; he encouraged people to make the art their own, so it would be silly now to judge people negatively for having done so.

I have to agree that in the sense you indicate the art must die out. But, that's a very narrow sense. Still, I can't help but worry about the future of the art. I want both to preserve it as is for future generations ("primary sources"), and to see innovations that will keep it fresh and growing. Change is indeed inevitable, and I think that will have to be what happens--change and growth.

As to someone who has been attacked, I don't know to whom you are referring. If it's Mr. Anderson, I consider him a great ambassador for the art, but his org. is too small for me to consider him a leader in the way that I take the word. I don't mean that as any sort of slight; my position is that if people aren't following your curriculum, while you may be having an influence on them, you're not the leader of a significant-size group. As for me, I know and respect Messrs. Anderson and Hartman and Ms. Spiro. I met Mr. Donovan only briefly on two occasions, and do not know Messrs. Alexander and Ward.



			
				DrBarber said:
			
		

> There has been a very definate shift in who is accpetable as a Modern Arnis System leader and who isn't as expressed by a number of posters on this forum over the last 5 years.



Well, this _is_ only an Internet forum, and it's hardly a representative sample of the Professor's students. Several major groups are either not represented here or at the least rarely visit. I don't read too much into what's posted here. Those who enjoy these sorts of discussions post their thoughts. I think the _real_ test of who is acceptable as a Modern Arnis leader is the ability to attract a large number of Modern Arnis students to your teachings. Those are the people I tried to list in my post on FMATalk.com. There are some great practitioners with some great ideas who are not on that list. Leadership is different from skill alone.

(An aside to those reading: Dr. Barber and I get along well in person. Don't take our areas of disagreement to be anything more than what they are--points on which we disagree.)


----------



## RickRed (Dec 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> There are some great practitioners with some great ideas who are not on that list. Leadership is different from skill alone.
> 
> .)


 
Since most of the people that are martial arts 'leaders' today are nothing mroe than instructors, what really is the difference between a martial arts 'leader' and a skilled martial artists/instructor of the arts?

Leaders stand for something, lead others towards something, and clearly understand what that something is.

I see 'market leaders' that are more popular, have better name recognition within MA, and my have a larger student base but that does not make them 'leaders' in any incredible sense of the word.

THere is no agreed 'core curriculum' of Modern Arnis and there seems to be no clear agreement on what a "leader" in martial arts/Modern Arnis is as well.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 10, 2005)

DrBarber said:
			
		

> Jeff,
> 
> 1) Professor's art is going to die out in one sense. Modern Arnis was his personal expression, his personal vision of how the art can
> be done. His encourgement for others to make the art for themselves is often repeated by many, yet a number of people jump all over others attempting to follow Professor's dictum. Therefore, to the extent that some people are working to make the art fit their own perspectives, Professor's art will die out and there little to nothing that can be done to stop the process.
> ...


 
Dr. Barber

I edited yor post and added numbers to address it.

1) I agree that Modern Arnis as Remy's expression died with him at his passing.  But I think that Modern Anris as a martial art system can and should remain intact and be taught as such.  There are plenty of martial art systems and styles that have remained intact with little or some change to them over the years after their founder has passed away.  Some teachers stress other areas, principles of the art where they excell in and pass these along to their students and change does occur.  But the core of the art is still there.

Akido is still based on Usheiba sensei's teaching but there are different vairants of it.  Tomiki ryu is Proffessor Tomiki's expression of the art taught to him by Usheiba.  But there are other systems that teach and mold themselves after Usheiba's teachings and they gave themselve's over to teach the art as he taught it.

Shotokan is Funokoshi sensei expression of the karate systems that he was taught.  But shotokan as taught by the JKA is how that organization teaches it.  However Wado is the expression of Otshuka sensei blending of Shotokan and jujitsu.  It is a seperate system and no longer Shotokan.

And of course there is JKD.  You have the Preservationists and the Concepts people.  The Preservationsits only teach what Bruce Lee taught at a certian time (when the instructor was taught) and the Concepts people have expanded the system to include other arts as well.

With Modern Arnis I see no problem with either being a Preservationist and trying to teach as Remy taught it, nor as expanding the art and trying to do your own thing.  The big question then becomes when are you doing Modern arnis and when are you doing your own thing.

There is enough instructors, videos, books, out there in the world to basically agree on a core curriculmn for Modern Anris.  To keep it identifible as an martial system.  I think there is enough variance in the instructors to keep the art alive and interesting and growing for years to come.

2)  I agree with this part of the post.  It will be different because it won't be Remy's expression since he has passed away.  But it still and should contain his teachings and his techniques, his progressions to teach those principles and techniques.  His forms, his stories that can be passed down etc. etc.

Maybe what should be addressed with the "Art within your Art", "Make it your Own" and such expressions are what GM Remy meant by those.  Did Remy want us all doing are own thing, or following his teachings?  Were the books and videos just meant to spread the art, generate interest in it so that people would come to the seminars, or to generate income for him, or were they meant to pass along his art and give us something to go by?

Maybe this should be another thread?

Mark


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 10, 2005)

RickRed said:
			
		

> Since most of the people that are martial arts 'leaders' today are nothing mroe than instructors, what really is the difference between a martial arts 'leader' and a skilled martial artists/instructor of the arts?
> 
> Leaders stand for something, lead others towards something, and clearly understand what that something is.
> 
> ...



Well I have been told I have some skill. 

I teach at camps and seminars, and enjoy the priviledge.

I teach and train in a Semi-private club, that is there just to train not to make money. All of the instructors make money some other way. No disrepesct to full time instructors, it is hard work to make a business go. 

I do not lead an organization. 

I do not have a Title in Modern Arnis.

I recognize that there may be others out there like myself, so I am rsponding for only myself, as an example, of a skilled practitioner or instructor who may not be the leader of an organization.


----------



## James Miller (Dec 10, 2005)

RickRed said:
			
		

> Since most of the people that are martial arts 'leaders' today are nothing mroe than instructors, what really is the difference between a martial arts 'leader' and a skilled martial artists/instructor of the arts?
> 
> Leaders stand for something, lead others towards something, and clearly understand what that something is.
> 
> ...



I think one must define what one perceives as a leader. Yes a local instructor is a leader in their school, but if youre talking about someone being a leader in the Modern Arnis community I feel that we must a higher standard. Maybe Jerome and Rick should define their perception of what an Up and Coming Modern Arnis Player is otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## RickRed (Dec 11, 2005)

WMAA said:
			
		

> I think one must define what one perceives as a leader. Yes a local instructor is a leader in their school, but if you&#8217;re talking about someone being a leader in the Modern Arnis community I feel that we must a higher standard. Maybe Jerome and Rick should define their perception of what an &#8220;Up and Coming Modern Arnis Player&#8221; is otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges.


 
This has been asked numerous times of the posters in general by me and others to get clarification.  I am not using the term 'leader' but others have been using it.

I would also like to know how one defines 'leader' as different from skilled MA player.  I imagine that the WMAA has some kind of 'Blackbelt Creed' or something along those lines that would establish the character traits of a leader very well - along with a sampe of curriculum as an example of what WMAA players see as 'core' to MA instruction.

RParsons already established his own standard of skille practitioner and not 'leader.'  That is a start IMO.

I don't remember mentioning a list of 'up and comers' in my posts, so I don't know what that is about.


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 12, 2005)

RickRed said:
			
		

> Since most of the people that are martial arts 'leaders' today are nothing mroe than instructors, what really is the difference between a martial arts 'leader' and a skilled martial artists/instructor of the arts?
> 
> Leaders stand for something, lead others towards something, and clearly understand what that something is.
> 
> ...


 
The really isn't any clear defination of leadership in martial arts in general and Modern Arnis is no exception.  Your idea that leaders stand for something is true, however leadership is qualitative and stylistic.  These are the things that need to be defined and discussed.  The 'core curriculum' is a seperate matter and there is already a thread going about that.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 12, 2005)

WMAA said:
			
		

> I think one must define what one perceives as a leader. Yes a local instructor is a leader in their school, but if youre talking about someone being a leader in the Modern Arnis community I feel that we must a higher standard. Maybe Jerome and Rick should define their perception of what an Up and Coming Modern Arnis Player is otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges.


 
Same post, different thread!  A duplicate post.  I answered on the "Up and Coming" thread.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 12, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Well I have been told I have some skill.
> 
> I teach at camps and seminars, and enjoy the priviledge.
> 
> ...


 
Rich,

Please help me out because I am unsure what the significance of your post is.  No offense intended.  This thread is about "Modern Arnis: The Next Generation Goals".  I am paraphrasing: 'You teach at camps and seminars, you have some skill, you do not lead an organization and you do not have a modern arnis title'.   Where are you going with this post, what is your intention?  I am very sorry to report that I am baffled and confused by what you wrote.  Please clarify.

Respectfully requested,

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 12, 2005)

The Boar Man said:
			
		

> Dr. Barber
> 
> I edited yor post and added numbers to address it.
> 
> ...


 
Mark,

There really isn't anything that I would be in disagreement with in your post.  I believe that the "Art within your art" idea is very easy to understand.  When Professor first began teaching Modern Arnis in the USA, Canada and Europe, he was working with established martial artists and he was teach them how to find and utilize Modern Arnis within their existing martial arts styles.  

He also used to say "It is all the same."  Translation being, the movements within all arts are very similar and a lock is a lock, a punch is a punch, a throw is a throw.  If you can do something from one perspective then you should be able to translate that same thing to another perspactive, add a piece here, delete a piece there and get a very similar result.  

"Make if for yourself" is very simply the idea that everyone of us is different in terms of strenghts, heights, weights, balance points, knowledge base, skill development and experiences therefore we will approach martial problems from slightly to vastly different points of view.  Therefore we need to make the art fit ourselves rather than being fitted into the art.  If the art is fitted to you, "tailored" in some kenpo systems, then you will move comfortably, quickly, effortlessly without thinking.  That makes the art more effective and efficent for you to utilze.  We were not told by Professor 'to do it as I do it'!!  Hence "make it for yourself" is quite self evident.

There may well be people who disagree with my understandings of the art and what Professor meant.  I respect their point of view, however, what I have stated above is what I believe he was teaching us along with the actual techniques.  Please keep in mind that there are a number of different ways of doing the anyoes.  If Professor had wanted a single, orthodox and correct way of doing Modern Arnis, the anyoes would have been the best place to establish a fixed and immutable methodology.  He didn't do it there, so from my understanding of what he was saying, Modern Arnis is an open and living art that is meant to be flexible and adaptable.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 12, 2005)

DrBarber said:
			
		

> Rich,
> 
> Please help me out because I am unsure what the significance of your post is. No offense intended. This thread is about "Modern Arnis: The Next Generation Goals". I am paraphrasing: 'You teach at camps and seminars, you have some skill, you do not lead an organization and you do not have a modern arnis title'. Where are you going with this post, what is your intention? I am very sorry to report that I am baffled and confused by what you wrote. Please clarify.
> 
> ...


 
Jerome and Rick,

Leadership can be defined by different people differently. As stated here and other places as well.

By one definition I am not a leader as I do not run an organization. As the thread digressed into the Leaders or Leadership.

In another sense I am a leader, as I do teach and I do provide a service to students of my own school. 

Just adding in a data point that could be argued either way, and until a common understanding, or approached if understood, then there will be differences. And I for one am not bothered by, someone not considering me to be a leader.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> In another sense I am a leader, as I do teach and I do provide a service to students of my own school.


 
And beyond, certainly. We've thought your presence valuable at the WMAA camps. You're knowledgeable, have excellent ideas, and are a good example of someone with skill who still works hard on the floor and shows respect to people of all ranks. Plus, you're doing seminars, which helps spread the art.

Is that a leader? It doesn't matter to me. I use the word in a more restricted sense, but other definitions cited are surely defensible.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Dec 12, 2005)

DrBarber said:
			
		

> Mark,
> 
> 1) There really isn't anything that I would be in disagreement with in your post. I believe that the "Art within your art" idea is very easy to understand. When Professor first began teaching Modern Arnis in the USA, Canada and Europe, he was working with established martial artists and he was teach them how to find and utilize Modern Arnis within their existing martial arts styles.
> 
> ...


 
Dr Barber

Thank you for your post I added numbers to it to address your points.

1) I agree with you here, as this is my understanding as well.

2) Here to I agree with you.

3) I see your point here, as I believe that anyos (like katas) can have several different applications and techniques to come out of the different moves.

However I do believe there is a standard way of doing the anyos.  Maybe with different timing, intent, application etc. etc. but the anyo should look pretty close to the same.  I had a discussion once about 4 yrs ago with Dr. Schea on the anyos.  I was under the impression that the anyos didn't mean that much to Remy since he always left it to the other instructors to teach and he would often take a break.  Coming from a TKD background I was disheartened to see the variances in the way the anyos were taught, and I basically wrote them off so to speak.  But Dr. Schea corrected me on this and told me that the anyos were an important part of the system and that Remy use to back in the 80's, put more of an emphasis on them.

So while I believe that the Proffessor was more lax in the way anyos were performed and taught at the camps that I attended 95-2001 there was still a way they should be taught.

At my first camp there was a instructor who did anyo 1 and 2 in a Preying Mantis method.  While the basic form and direction of the anyo remained the same the anyo looked nothing really like the other Modern Arnis practionars.  The strikes were all different etc. etc.  And I guess this is where I think "making it your own" or the "art within your art" was going outside of Modern Arnis.  (This was an instructor in a Preying Mantis system and it was his first MA camp.)

But here are some other examples of what I mean.

I went to one seminar and we were working on empty hand trapping and I swear the progression we did was based on more of Dan Inosanto's instead of Remy's.  Now you could take the Sinawali Boxing Drills and apply these techniques/progression to the Sinawali boxing but like I said I never saw Remy in all of the tapes, seminars camps etc. etc. teach it like this.  (I forget if the instructor made the distinction that he was teaching JKD instead of MA, I'm not sure.)
At the Symposium Guro Peter Vargas taught his empty hand series on GM Toboada's Balintawak.  Again these drills I believe could be adapted to the Sinawali Boxing drills with some modification.
While both of these drills or examples could be applied to the Modern Arnis Sinawali Boxing progression should they?  From the Preservationists view we have the drill progression that Remy left us so why add to it.  From the "Make it your Own" view why not?  It could improve my system or my skill.

Where is the line drawn on what is Modern Arnis and what isn't but an add on? 

In closing I'm not knocking either one of these instructors or what they taught (they were both very skilled and taught the material well), I'm just curious (hypothetically) if they (the skill drills, techniques, etc. etc.) should or could be added to the MA curriculmn and still have it be MA.

Mark


----------



## DrBarber (Dec 13, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Jerome and Rick,
> 
> Leadership can be defined by different people differently. As stated here and other places as well.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the clarifications, Rich.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## RickRed (Dec 13, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Jerome and Rick,
> 
> Leadership can be defined by different people differently. As stated here and other places as well.
> 
> ...



Thanks Rich,  this is a good example of how a 'skilled student' would respond vs. a 'leader.'


----------

