# Intention in FMA



## Black Grass (May 26, 2003)

I believe much of the conflict that has arisen as of late between different individuals on the the forum is because the styles/systems they represent  comes to the table with different purposes and intent. I think there is room for everyone at the FMA table.

What is the purpose of studying Filipino martial arts and what are your intentions ?

1) Health
2) Fun/Interest
3) Self Defence
4) Fighter
5) Instructor 
6) Self Enlightment/ Become a better person

This is not a comprehensive list but I believe you all get the idea. Some believe that the FMA is about fighting. I disagree. Just as in martial arts in general I believe that there is room for all kinds of FMA. And just as the MA in general, not all FMA system/styles do each if these equally well. You don't study Daoist Tai chi to become a fighter just as you don't learn knife fighting for health! 

Here are some different approaches in the FMA as I see it. I may get some flack here but here goes....

For example, I do not beleive Modern Arnis is a system to develop fighters. The yes the Prof. was a fighter and there are defintley techniques for fighting. There are some instructors who do develop fighters (off the top of my head Doug Pierre out of NYC) and there are Modern Arnis fighters out there. But they are the exception. A fact that points to this is that the vast majority of practitioners do not practice anytime of real free sparring. The Prof. taught the system primarily for self defence (at least from my perspective in the mid 90's). Hence a strong focus on disarming and locking up the opponent. 

In contrast a system such as Kalis Ilustrisimo there really are no locking techniques. The techniques are designed to take someone out or seriously injure. As a method of self defence this is questionable. The law would not be on my side if I took someone out even if I was provoked. A fact that points to this is that Antonio 'Tatang' Ilustrisimo went to jail several times. Although eventually cleared, he was first arrested!

So real question is not if your style/system is "really" FMA but what is your styles/system intention ?


Vince 
aka Black Grass


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 26, 2003)

Vince,

Thank You.


I Agree that there are diffrences.

I agree that people have different things to offer.

I agree that each art has a different approach to learning or education.

:asian:


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (May 26, 2003)

You are right about the beginning stages of Modern Arnis. Remy's first goal was to teach good self-defense first, but as you progress in the art, the material starts to emphasize more stick vs. stick combat.  The biggest reason why people think that Modern Arnis is not a fighting system is that most Modern Arnis players dont train it that way.  This is no different than two karate schools that chose to emphasize different things.  In one school, the head instructor may enjoy the combat, where in another school the head instructor may enjoy the forms.  Ultimately, it is the same system where the difference is how each school chooses to express itself.  

As Arnisador has expressed in the past, people at the 1987 Michigan summer Camp were looking at the two of us like we were crazy free sparring with live sticks and no protective gear.  Many people may not realize this, but in addition to hosting point and full contact stick tournaments, I am also a competitor and champion of this style of tournament.  In addition to Doug Pierre, a Modern Arnis player who fights in full contact tournaments, Ed Pilsits (sp) another Modern Arnis person won the first US tournament in Baltimore around 1987.  

Ultimately you are right.  People train for different reasons and are taught different ways, and because of this sometimes lead to misunderstandings.
:asian:


----------



## Guro Harold (May 26, 2003)

HI Renegade,

I was waiting for you or some of the WMAA to mention these points.

Tim's voice was on of the few that I heard in the five years of studying Modern Arnis on the East coast before the splits.  He would also separate and show the combat modifications of the Tapi-Tapi drills.

I also remember him talking about the fallicy of padded sparring in the fact that some people don't respect the stick and hit.

I am not saying that other Modern Arnis groups didn't spar but my impressions were that Tim was more outspoken and appeared to lead in that area.

Conversely, one of the positive things that I discovered about the Phili Memorial service for the Professor was the work done by Doug Pierre in terms of fighting, awesome!!!

Palusut


----------



## Mark Lynn (May 26, 2003)

I think Vince that you hit the nail on the head.

What interested me first in the FMA was the self defense side of it.  That was what I was first exposed to and what I wanted to get out of different systems how could I use it to possibly save my life.

What interested me in Modern Arnis/ Kombatan Arnis was getting to learn from the heads of the system themselves.  And through that I came to really enjoy the whole arts, instead of just parts  (i.e. the self defense aspect).

Many people don't like what GM Remy taught in the mid 90's on beacuse he really spent alot of time on his Tapi Tapi (TT) material.  But to me the TT material is an interesting way of teaching techniques and concepts about fighting/sparing.  But you have to dig for it.  And that to me is the fun of it.  It's like digging into katas (forms) for application of techniques.  Or like someone described it as playing chess at 90 miles an hour.

We each come away from our study of the FMA or MA in general with different things.  And we should accept that instead of harrassing people on the web site.

Mark


----------



## KenpoDragon (May 26, 2003)

So far this thread has been a civil one let's see how long it stays that way. Do you FMA guys feel anyone lurking around, you guys know who I mean.

:stoplurk:


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (May 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KenpoDragon _
> *Do you FMA guys feel anyone lurking around, you guys know who I mean.
> 
> *



It's only a matter of time before he shows up.


----------



## Mao (May 27, 2003)

Querry,
  When it is time to use "self defense", is it not time for "combat", and vise versa? Now, I did my time in full contact and tournaments and can come up with a difference but in reality, are they not the same. In self defense it would be optimal to be able to save your hiney. I believe that it is the same in combat, eh? Would it be more accurate to say "stick fighting" than "combat" since in combat, or self defense, we might use whatever is available i.e. dirt, rocks, broom handles, chairs, telephones, barbie dolls etc. along with body parts/movement?

respectfully,
Mao


----------



## Cruentus (May 27, 2003)

I'd have to agree with you MAO.

"Self-Defense" and "combat" to me are the same.

I believe that they're different subcategories within' "self-defense," and different arts have different ways of addressing these subcategories.

For instance, Pekiti-Tersia is mostly a knife system. Granted, they have espada, baston, and empty hand techniques, but they're focus is on knife vs. knife deuling, in my opinion.

I study Balintawak, which is primarily a single cane art. We fight, but it is with the single cane. We have other "self defense" techniques, but the focus is on cane vs. cane dueling.

Modern Arnis is unique because I don't believe that Remy ment for it to be primarily a "stick-fighting" system, I believe that he intended it to be a "self-defense" system. I believe that he wanted his system not to be one where we go around trying to fight each other to see who is better with the "cane" or "knife", but where the average person (man, woman, or child) could learn how to defend themselves. Now although this can be motified, Modern Arnis was ment to teach the "average" person how to defend themselves in the most efficient way possible.

This is out of the realm of FMA, but now let's look at an art like Systema. Systema is an all around "self-defense" system, but it is designed to teach "self defense" to soldiers. It is intended to turn soldiers into efficient killing machines. So their form of "Self Defense" is not intended for the "average" person, it is intended for someone who might have to go into battle.

Now, all of the arts I mentioned are "self defense" systems, but they are all different. No one art is superior over another, it just depends on what your needs are. 

If you desire to be a "stick fighter," then take an art that focuses on self defense with a stick. If you want to be a tournament fighter, then take an art that focuses on the sport aspect of the arts. If you just want "basic" self defense, or overall self defense, take an art that can allow you to make the connection between the stick, knife, club, or barbie doll, and that will cover the many different aspects of self defense. If you are a soldier, and you might need to "proactively" defend yourself, so you would take an art (or combination of arts) that will facilitate that need.

What I like about Modern Arnis is that it is kind of the "Jack of all trades" of the FMA. I think that this is a perfect base style for FMA. Because of Modern Arnis, I can participate in just about any seminar, or visit any school, and I have an "idea" at the very least of what I need to do to participate in what they are doing. It is easy to discover what aspects of FMA you like best in an art like modern arnis also. Some people are good single stick players from Modern Arnis, others are better at the double stick, or the knife. Some have expanded Modern Arnis to facilitate soldiers in battle, some have just used it to make some sense out of their Kata's in their other systems. The possibilities are endless with this one.

I guess the point is, it all depends on the needs of the practitioner; and different arts are more focused to satisfy different needs. I think that we should all respect that when we get on the internet. For example, a student (Burt Hill) of my teacher (Ted Redish) before Remy Presas became my primary instructor was one of the agility coaches for the Detroit Lions (about 10 years ago). He used to teach the line men Sinawali's w/ double stick to improve their coordination. These Lions players ONLY learned sinawalis, and ONLY learned it for coordination. They didn't care about learning how to "fight" with FMA. And you know what....I think that's great! However, I'll bet you that an unsuspecting person would get hammered if they got online and said "Hey, does anyone have a good source for siniwalis? I'd like to learn some new ones to incoorperate in my training." This would not be very fair to that person.

So I think that we just need to respect each other, because people have different needs, and not everyone takes FMA for the same reason. As long as people aren't being unethical, we shouldn't be so quick to hammer people out there because they study the arts for a different reason then ourselves

Sorry for the rant...

PAUL

P.S. MAO...I don't think you are the one who shows disrespect towards others; in fact your a heck of a lot nicer then I am on the net. But lately there have been flames in the FMA forum, and I am just addressing the flamer(s). Just clarifying myself.


----------



## Mao (May 27, 2003)

Paul,
  You make some good points. I don't agree totaly with everything you wrote, but it was well written. Self defense and combat are, to me, an experienced m.a.tist and fighter, nearly the same. I would agree that for a beginner (i hate that word) there would be a much bigger difference. I would say that in Modern Arnis one can sort of pick their fortee. I tend to like the edged weapons alot. I can still do tapi tapi and the traditionals, but lean toward the blade. Others may lean toward something else. One of the beauties of Modern Arnis is that one can do this. In some other styles this option is very limited. In Pencak Silat Mande Muda I really like the Harimau. There is a vast repetoir of other material, and I love it all, but I like the Harimau the most. I know you get the idea. Thanks for your perspective. By the way, I've read some of the flames. I've had to bite my tongue a few times.   

Best Regards,
Mao


----------



## arnisador (May 28, 2003)

*PAUL* wrote: _"Self-Defense" and "combat" to me are the same._

I disagree. Self-defense is for defending oneself, including running away. Combat means trying to kill the other person, not protect oneself, and presumably not running (retreating) unless necessary. The techniques are not identical.

The current issue of Black Belt has an article on the USMC's program and they make this distinction. I agree with it. Many of the knife-fighting techniques in e.g. Michael Echanis' knife book are combat techniques. The self-defense value of a sentry neutralization technique that kills a person from the rear is very low. (Someone will argue that it could conceivably happen.) I say that if you are trying to kill the other person it's a different situation, and requires different techniques and attitude, than if you're trying to save your own life. For one thing, you need more offensive techniques! Of course there's a large overlap, but there are important differences.


----------



## Mao (May 28, 2003)

There are so few reasons to fight in a real time situation that, for me, when it comes time to fight, it is combat and I am trying to protect myself/family by whatever means it takes. I had a talk with some of my medics today and told them that if they are in fear for their safety, do what you need to to get safe. The mindset should, of course, be a bit different since we are not applying sentry removal techniques etc.. Soldiers, at  war, must have the all go or no go attitude at times. We as civilians have to have the same attitude when defending ourselves/families from violent aggresion. We are not soldiers at war per say, so, they can have different definitions. When you see a person in the throws of trying to defend themselves or trying to keep from getting killed, and I have both during and after, it definately looks like combat. The difference is that they are usually not trained, experienced, employed soldiers. Just my thoughts.
respectfully,
Mao


----------



## Cruentus (May 28, 2003)

> I disagree. Self-defense is for defending oneself, including running away. Combat means trying to kill the other person, not protect oneself, and presumably not running (retreating) unless necessary. The techniques are not identical.



What arnisador would consider "combat" I would call "proactive" self defense. If you are a soldier at war, and you have to proactively kill to protect yourself, your unit, and your country, then to me your still "defending" yourself and others. So by definition, I still consider that self defense. It is just more proactive then, lets say, the woman who pepper sprays, then runs from a rapist. I agree that the techniques are not the same. 

I also think, however, that there can sometimes be a very fine line with many degrees between "proactive" and "passive" self defense, and the dynamics of a situation can change very drastically and quickly. Example: if I am in a bad neighborhood, and some suspicious looking characters are looking at me while I am in my car, and I choose to lock my doors, and cautiously drive away, this is more of a "passive" form of self defense. If I am blocked in by another vehicle when trying to pull away, and these suspicious looking characters try to hurt me, and I have to leave my vehicle, cut one or two with a blade, and run like hell, then this is now more proactive then just driving away. If I couldn't run very easily because I had a woman or child in the car with me, then my attempt to defend could turn into what Arnisador would call "combat," even if I am not a soldier. I might have to take on a considerably more violent and proactive method of self defense.

I think that Arnisador and I are in agreement, though, for the most part, and I think the difference might just be semantics. I just believe that there is many different shades between proactive and passive self-defense with no real definate line between the two methods, therefore I choose to not classify the methods as "combat" or "self-defense," and I tend to look at these words as just one in the same. My preference, that's all!



:asian:


----------



## norshadow1 (May 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *PAUL wrote: "Self-Defense" and "combat" to me are the same.
> 
> I disagree. Self-defense is for defending oneself, including running away. Combat means trying to kill the other person, not protect oneself, and presumably not running (retreating) unless necessary. The techniques are not identical.
> ...



You have made a valid and convincing argument, Arnisador.  Combat is a military term and it clearly involves terminating your opponent by any and all means available.  In my studies in arnis  I was taught by a active duty miltary non-com, who made it very to all of his students that he was teaching us "civilian self-defense" techniques.  Lethality was the last of a four level escalation progression:

  1.  avoid and retreat 
  2.  engage, hurt and put to the ground, then retreat
  3.  engage, injure; there are multiple numbers & retreat
  4.  engage, injure with breaking of joints, a weapon and intent  
       expressed by actions and/or words, then reteat.

You will note that retreating is paramont and present at every level.  Levels three and four are most serious because you are deliberately injuring your opponent to stop his aggression.  At level four, you have moved beyond injury, to breaking bones, joints and tearing muscle groups.  This will require hospitalization and a period of recovery, but the actions were done to save your own life.  At no point in our training were we justified in seeking to intentionally end an outlaw's life.  If it occurs in the course of the encounter that is a different matter.

BTW, Arnisador, I saw a short comment that you posted on the knife forum that DocB briefly showed you some Gunting knife techniques during the WMAA Camp.  You are right, you should take the time and opportunity to learn more about how to use this knife and why it works so well in self defense situations without going for the lethal finish.  

I bet DocB showed you impact usage, jointlocking and bio-mechanical cutting, but nothing involving stabs to the chest, mid-section or groin areas!  The very first time and ever since that was his approach whenever I trained with him using the Gunting.
That is also the way Sgt. Armstrong taught us as well with the fixed blade.  De-fang the snake!  Disable his muscle groups in the arms and hands.

Lamont


----------



## thekuntawman (May 28, 2003)

self defense has levels.
I. subduing a person you dont want to hurt.
II. subduing a person even if you have to injure him.
III. injuring somebody who is trying to hurt you
IIII. killing somebody who want to hurt you.
IIIII. stopping somebody who wants to kill you (or more than one person) and escaping
IIIIII. fighting against somebody when you have another person with you (like a child or parents)

combat in my opinion is self defense, i believe it is your minds' state that makes a difference. a person who has little confidence, will be more concerned to stop and attacker or escape a situation. this might be self defense. but a trained person who feels his skills are superior will be able to control his opponent and the outcome of the fight. he will look at an attacker and himself, not as a victim, but as if " i am going to hurt this person". you cannot treat a long term student of the fighting art, the same way you teach a person who came to you for a few lessons in self defense.

i agree with the original post, that everyone has a reason why they study the art. i do have to admit that i am prejudiced against a person who is not a fighter, or has never fought, then he claims to teach others how to fight. becuase his inexperience might end up getting the student hurt. i see this all the time in USKFW tournaments (us kung fu wushu), where they have san shau fighters being trained by teachers who know nothing about fighting that style, and it shows. the result is injury and hurt pride and confidence and embarassment.

i do agree that not all fighters make good teachers, but i do not agree that you cannot learn from a fighter who is not a good teacher. the good fighter is the best person to learn from, even though his teaching is not likable, he can teach what he knows, especially by sparring with you. but an average fighter might be able to make a good fighter if he is smart and knows how to study and analyze fighting. but a poor fighter, or a man who has never fought cannot teach you to fight period.

even some of the great boxing trainers who did not fight were pretty good as fighters themself. i believe that even mike tyson, who is not very smart, will be a great trainer, if somebody can convince him to train fighters. jerry cooney, who was really not that bad, is a smart man, and i think he would make a good trainer. but somebody who did not box (like aerobic boxing teachers) will make lousy boxing trainers, even if you consider them good teachers. you have to have experince doing what you teach. so if your specialty is not fighting (whether you are average or good at something else), i dont believe will be a good fighting teacher.

but a good teacher is one who can do them all, even if specialty is someting else.


----------



## Cuentada (May 29, 2003)

i agree with the original post, that everyone has a reason why they study the art. i do have to admit that i am prejudiced against a person who is not a fighter, or has never fought, then he claims to teach others how to fight. becuase his inexperience might end up getting the student hurt. 

 - I somewhat agree with you here but it's not impossible if what i read in another forum is true - a Japanese Karate master who did not fight but produced great fighters and teachers? But i guess that's rare.

- I think that it's important to observe and analyze other arts, especially if you're a tournament fighter. But I also think that, for the average person/people who have to work the next day, knowing how to apply your concepts and principles in a fight/self defense situation will suffice with lots of practice. When i was training in Wing Chun, my teacher always said it was about opportunity and timing (when fighting other styles you weren't sure about)....if you saw the opportunity to apply your art then go in and don't stop and don't worry too much about the other person, just yourself. This concept is similiar to Balintawak's. The mental game and your attitude is just as important as the techniques you apply.


----------



## norshadow1 (May 29, 2003)

Hello Sir,

I am glad to see that we are essentually in agreement.  No need to be exact copies of one another, just knowing that we are dealing within the same general ideas is enough for me.  Thank you.

Lamont Norshadow



> _Originally posted by thekuntawman _
> *self defense has levels.
> I. subduing a person you dont want to hurt.
> II. subduing a person even if you have to injure him.
> ...


----------

