# true?



## maressa (Feb 27, 2016)

I heard that in the Filipino arts you learn weapons first and hand to hand second. Is that true?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 27, 2016)

Yep.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 27, 2016)

There is a logic to it. There is no reason to learn two different arts. One will do.


----------



## HW1 (Mar 18, 2016)

Makes sense actually. You should always use a force multiplier in a fight and hand to hand should be your last resort. I can't think of a time/place/situation where I can't find something around me that I can use as a weapon. If you're fighting fair, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## geezer (Mar 18, 2016)

HW1 said:


> Makes sense actually. You should always use a force multiplier in a fight and hand to hand should be your last resort. I can't think of a time/place/situation where I can't find something around me that I can use as a weapon. If you're fighting fair, you're doing it wrong.



Well the shower is a bad place to be attacked (think _Psycho_). But even in the shower, there's the shampoo bottle, the bar of soap and maybe a long handled brush or loofah. Or maybe you could even rip loose the towel rack. I think one of the worst scenarios was in the movie _Eastern Promises_ where the character played by Viggo Mortensen was attacked by two knife wielding thugs when alone in a Turkish bath. Good thing life is usually not like a movie!


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 18, 2016)

HW1 said:


> Makes sense actually. You should always use a force multiplier in a fight and hand to hand should be your last resort. I can't think of a time/place/situation where I can't find something around me that I can use as a weapon. If you're fighting fair, you're doing it wrong.


Well prison is a good reason not to use a force multiplier. I'm a practirioner and instructor of FMA but some guys over rely on weapons.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 18, 2016)

Not 100%, but according to a friend of mine when I asked, he said that they learn both together, from the beginning. From his skillset, I would guess more time is spent on weapons though.


----------



## geezer (Mar 18, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> Well *prison* is a good reason not to use a force multiplier. I'm a practirioner and instructor of FMA but some guys over rely on weapons.


Yes, unless you are _already there_. I'm thinking shanks, shivs, clubs, heck, a rock or bar of soap in a towel, or whatever else you can think up. Plenty of time to scheme, right. 

Seriously, your _brain_ is the weapon, your body and anything you can get your hands on are just extensions of that weapon. From a self defense perspective, I'm all about awareness, avoidance, de-escalation and escape. If it comes to physical violence, you've already screwed up in my book. If _weapons_ are necessary, you've screwed up bad. ...And then again, once in a _rare_ while $hit happens.


----------



## oaktree (Mar 19, 2016)

It really depends on the teacher, most either start off with weapon and may explain principles with open hand. When you can do weapon routine fast doing things with hands is much easier plus a punch doesn't look as threatening when you see sticks or knife coming at you


----------



## MAfreak (Mar 21, 2016)

there's also the saying that in japanese arts, barehanded techniques have their origin in weapons techniques, for example the outside "swing" with the tonfa is the same movement than a backfist strike.
so it doesn't have to be irrational didactics.
but other arts like hapkido do it late after weaponless training.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 22, 2016)

Depends on the FMA.  Most do weapons first but not all


----------



## Juany118 (May 23, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> Well prison is a good reason not to use a force multiplier. I'm a practirioner and instructor of FMA but some guys over rely on weapons.



I would only say that the use of a force multiplier is all about articulation.  I am a skinny dude (5'10" 165).  If a bigger guy comes at me I can justify using my expandable baton because, well he is bigger and stronger (yes I am a LEO).  In the shower scene noted you can justify it under the Castle Doctrine even if you are the same size or bigger.

This is why I wish, when it came to armed Martial Arts Training, the Teachers were also well versed in the use of force statutes of their States and taught them as well.  This way someone doesn't default to a weapon technique and get themselves in trouble.


----------



## MI_martialist (May 23, 2016)

Real classical martial systems will start with weapons first because there are consequences to training...life and death.  The real question is...why do the Karate, Tae Kwon-Do, and other "Traditional" martial arts start empty handed?  Completely backwards.


----------



## drop bear (May 23, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Real classical martial systems will start with weapons first because there are consequences to training...life and death.  The real question is...why do the Karate, Tae Kwon-Do, and other "Traditional" martial arts start empty handed?  Completely backwards.



Pretty sure wrestling boxing and sumo were always unarmed. Some were designed to give you skills with a weapon and some were designed to give you skill without one.


----------



## Juany118 (May 23, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Pretty sure wrestling boxing and sumo were always unarmed. Some were designed to give you skills with a weapon and some were designed to give you skill without one.



Indeed true.  What makes the order is based on evolution.  Many, but not all, Asian Martial Arts had an origin of people forbidden to carry weapons by law, so you teach them unarmed first.  Wing Chun and Okinawan Karate are in this boat.  Even then eventually the weapons taught are ones not seen as weapons, but tools.  The Butter Fly knife in Wing Chun is basically a refined cleaver, their staff is LONG because it is the staff a boat man would use.  Farm implements were popular in Okinawa.

The FMA have their origins in Tribal Warfare.  When you are training openly for war you train first with weapons.  Kenjutsu, the resurrected European long sword fencing all start with weapons due to the blessing of authority.

Inside Martial Arts I see a subset that I have decided to call "Warrior/Soldier Arts." These  are arts designed for open warfare under the umbrella of the legal authority, vs many other martial arts (starting unarmed) that were designed to fight against that authority which prohibited them being armed.  Since my school's patron, Lapu-Lapu, was the Chieftain who killed Magellan, I would say FMA was created by the authority... even if later the Spanish tried to crush it.

The thing I love most about Martial Arts, if you can't tell, is that my love of history fits right in


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 2, 2016)

MI_martialist said:


> Real classical martial systems will start with weapons first because there are consequences to training...life and death.  The real question is...why do the Karate, Tae Kwon-Do, and other "Traditional" martial arts start empty handed?  Completely backwards.



Takenouchi Ryu starts unarmed. Hontai Yoshin Ryu (and it's Takagi bretheren) start unarmed. Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu starts unarmed. A number of lines of Araki Ryu start unarmed. Some Sosuishi Ryu lines start unarmed. Yagyu Shingan Ryu starts unarmed. 

Do you want me to continue?


----------



## Danny T (Jul 2, 2016)

Though not trained as such at this time the man who is concerned the sole heir to pekiti tersia has said he began with 3 years of training with no weapons under his grandfather. Weapons were always there and he witnessed the training but it wasn't until after 3 years that his formal weapon training began.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 2, 2016)

maressa said:


> I heard that in the Filipino arts you learn weapons first and hand to hand second. Is that true?



This really depends on the system, the organization, and the instructor, but yes, that is true more often then not.  When I did Modern Arnis, we learned empty hand right along with weapons, and the same thing was true for Lacoste-Inosanto Kali.  In Pekiti Tirsia Kali, this is less true. However, what _is_ more accurate in PTK than other systems I have trained, is that the empty hand movements really do mimic that of the knife system.  Other systems claim this, but I have not seen that in my observations.  Most older FMA systems have empty hand material that looks nothing like their weapons work and when you observe it, you can easily see that they have borrowed heavily from Western Boxing, Thai Boxing, Judo/Jujutsu, etc.  I'm not suggesting that is a problem or anything, just trying to make things clear.  Many groups are open about their having borrowed from other systems, while many others are not.  Stealing material from others and then pretending your system had that stuff all along seems to be a bit of the FMA way of doing business. 

If you are looking to gain high level empty hand skills, you will need to pick your FMA instructor and system carefully as classically, most did not focus there.  Systems which have developed in more modern times have expanded their empty hand work by borrowing from other places, sometimes more effectively than others.  Some modern FMA styles (Yaw Yan, NUDDA, etc.) are almost exclusively empty hand, which is interesting. 

The other option you have is to study some empty hand on the side so that you have your own blend from a functional perspective.  If your FMA system has good footwork and tactics, all your really need to round that out are some basic striking mechanics to blend in with the mano y mano material they already have there.  There are a bunch of options, but I haven't seen an FMA style yet that basic Thai Boxing striking mechanics would not blend very well with.  One does not have to create their own system or anything, just have a personal skill set that covers all your bases.

Depending on where you are at in Brazil, some FMA groups have started to teach down there.  If you are interested, reply here and I will post a link.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 2, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> Well prison is a good reason not to use a force multiplier. I'm a practirioner and instructor of FMA but some guys over rely on weapons.


I don't disagree with that.  One must be sure of the situation (is my life, or the life of another innocent, in danger?) before deciding to deploy a weapon in an actual fight.  If the other guy has a weapon or if it is two/three-on-one, then I am going to draw my knife.  If it is a simple bar scuffle over a stupid misunderstanding, then a weapon is probably overkill and could land you in serious trouble.  That is one major reason I combine my FMA training with other things.  I love FMA and consider it to be my primary focus, but I want to have options along the force continuum, not to mention skills on the ground, etc. in case I end up there against my will.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Though not trained as such at this time the man who is concerned the sole heir to pekiti tersia has said he began with 3 years of training with no weapons under his grandfather. Weapons were always there and he witnessed the training but it wasn't until after 3 years that his formal weapon training began.



I believe Mr. Gaje was talking about doing footwork primarily for the first three years.  However, the system is not structured that way by any of the organizations/groups that teach it today.  Gaje himself does not teach the system that way.  

The head of my organization, Tim Waid, had been studying Pekiti Tirsia for a very long time under instructors here in the USA when he decided to move to the Philippines to train.  Tim told Gaje that he wanted to learn the system the same way Gaje himself was taught it, and then lived with Gaje for 5 years training daily and re-learning the system from the ground up.  What he put together for the Pekiti Tirsia Global Organization's curricular structure is based upon a re-examination of the curricular charts he took over to the Philippines and asked Gaje to critique, combined with his own observations on how Gaje was teaching the system to those who were training with him daily compared to the seminar structure often used in the USA.  We do some empty hand in the beginning, but it is primarily a focus on footwork, basic strategy/tactics of self-protection, and striking mechanics with the long and short weapon.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 2, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> I don't disagree with that.  One must be sure of the situation (is my life, or the life of another innocent, in danger?) before deciding to deploy a weapon in an actual fight.  If the other guy has a weapon or if it is two/three-on-one, then I am going to draw my knife.  If it is a simple bar scuffle over a stupid misunderstanding, then a weapon is probably overkill and could land you in serious trouble.  That is one major reason I combine my FMA training with other things.  I love FMA and consider it to be my primary focus, but I want to have options along the force continuum, not to mention skills on the ground, etc. in case I end up there against my will.



And what makes this even more complicated is what FMA school of thought are you following.  I know one school of thought has it that they are all largely they same but they aren't.  Now I don't mean the Eskrima>Arnis>Kali argument though.  It's more about the specific Lineages, because the FMA I study has ground techniques.  Not to the degree of BJJ mind you but they are certainly there, mostly from Silat and Kuntao influences

Let's start with the "straight from the Philippines" Lineages.  The differences start with where in the Philippines are they from?  The ones from Mindanao as an example tend to have less Spanish influence, because Spain never really pacified it and more Silat influence because of its proximity to Indonesia.  Then you end up with different tribes or even different families creating their own variations.  Same themes?  Yes but different "weight" in ingredients, some integrate more unarmed, if they do that some more grappling than striking etc, if striking, some more boxing than kicking etc.

Then you come to the US and people like Guro Inosanto.  Yes he certainly started with the system taught to him by John LaCoste, but he seems to bring a JKD attitude along.  So that while it include  "traditional FMA" weapons, boxing, kicking and wrestling it also includes Kuntao (the martial arts that evolved in the Chinese communities in SE Asia) and contemporary additions of Silat and more.

Now the above may be an overly anal retentive view of how different the FMA styles are, but the more I study, the more I read and the more I talk to other practitioners the more I impressed with the variety in the "details"


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 2, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Now the above may be an overly anal retentive view of how different the FMA styles are, but the more I study, the more I read and the more I talk to other practitioners the more I impressed with the variety in the "details"



I would agree with pretty much all of that.  I have found that there are far greater differences in FMA systems, in their manner of movement, their techniques, and their philosophy than there are in something like Okinawan Karate systems, or lineages within grappling arts.  Everyone's number 1 and 2 strike is going to be the same, but after that, there are a ton of differences.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 2, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> I believe Mr. Gaje was talking about doing footwork primarily for the first three years.  However, the system is not structured that way by any of the organizations/groups that teach it today.  Gaje himself does not teach the system that way.
> 
> The head of my organization, Tim Waid, had been studying Pekiti Tirsia for a very long time under instructors here in the USA when he decided to move to the Philippines to train.  Tim told Gaje that he wanted to learn the system the same way Gaje himself was taught it, and then lived with Gaje for 5 years training daily and re-learning the system from the ground up.  What he put together for the Pekiti Tirsia Global Organization's curricular structure is based upon a re-examination of the curricular charts he took over to the Philippines and asked Gaje to critique, combined with his own observations on how Gaje was teaching the system to those who were training with him daily compared to the seminar structure often used in the USA.  We do some empty hand in the beginning, but it is primarily a focus on footwork, basic strategy/tactics of self-protection, and striking mechanics with the long and short weapon.



As I stated, “though not trained as such at this time”…

Tim is an excellent practitioner and instructor, have trained with him many times over the years from back in the late 80s through the mid to late 90s. He was training with a number of other PTK people back then along with Gaje and traveled to the PI for several months at a time back then prior to finally moving to the PI.

Every PT instructor I have been able to train with who has trained under Gaje and has been in the system for any real length of time instructs differently though the fundamental material is the same. The #1 takeaway I’ve gotten from all, including Gaje, has been counter attacking angles and power generation through proper footwork and body movement first; whether it is empty hand, short, or long weapon.



I also agree with you on the empty hand movements really do mimic that of the knife aspect of the system


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Every PT instructor I have been able to train with who has trained under Gaje and has been in the system for any real length of time instructs differently ...


  That has been my experience as well.  Gaje seems to reinvent things every once and a while and/or at the very least, teaches different things to different people.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 2, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> That has been my experience as well.  Gaje seems to reinvent things every once and a while and/or at the very least, teaches different things to different people.



Seems that way…
However, when one really looks at the fundamental aspects of what he presents it is really the same thing just in a different package and with some of the material being presented at a different period in the training.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Seems that way…
> However, when one really looks at the fundamental aspects of what he presents it is really the same thing just in a different package and with some of the material being presented at a different period in the training.



I agree, but only to a point.  There is good stuff to be found in a number of places, so this isn't intended to be a slam, but some people move so much differently that I am not convinced at all that they were taught the same things as others.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 2, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> I agree, but only to a point.  There is good stuff to be found...but some people move so much differently that I am not convinced at all that they were taught the same things as others.


For certain.
But then, were they actually trained differently or have they simply gravitated to certain aspects of movement. I have received different movement from Gaje and others based upon what being was emphasizing at the time.
I've seen large movement and lots of distance traveled by some as well as  far less movement and distance traveled but with good angles and close range by others.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> As I stated, “though not trained as such at this time”…
> 
> Tim is an excellent practitioner and instructor, have trained with him many times over the years from back in the late 80s through the mid to late 90s. He was training with a number of other PTK people back then along with Gaje and traveled to the PI for several months at a time back then prior to finally moving to the PI.
> 
> ...



I dont know much about the particular lineage you guys are speaking of but the more I have thought about it the more I have thought, within reason, that most open hand attacks can be seen as mimicking the angles of the sword or dagger, or vice versa.  FMA has you learn the weapon and then either in tandem, or later down the road shows you how to translate it to open hand.  Other martial arts teach open hand and then show you the translation to weapons. 

A straight punch in a thrust (in Inosanto Kali a #5), a downward angle hammer fist or knife hand is a #1 or 2.  You look at palm  strikes to the ear/side of head, horizontal hammer fists or back fists and you see a 3 and a 4 (3-9s) etc.  At least in the Lineage I study these numbers are simply angles of attack with no particular target in mind.  I know some try to say #X is for target Y and of course their my analogy falls apart. 

Now there are limits of course, some of the angles don't have a practical open hand counter part (a Redondo for example), but most of them do.  This however is not surprising to me because biomechanics are biomechanics.  There is some fine tuning of course but the basic principles are the same.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> For certain.
> But then, were they actually trained differently or have they simply gravitated to certain aspects of movement. I have received different movement from Gaje and others based upon what being was emphasizing at the time.
> I've seen large movement and lots of distance traveled by some as well as  far less movement and distance traveled but with good angles and close range by others.



I believe they were trained differently.  According to my current instructor (who trained a long time with another instructor before starting to train with Tim), very few people were taught the Tirsia Largo portion of the system.  PTKGO has close range, but Tim asks the question that I very seldom hear others ask, which is, "how did you get there?"  As such, the long range and the bridging from long to close is something that Tim teaches that sets him apart of what I see from others.  A previous instructor of mine stated flat out that Gaje didn't really want anyone to have his complete system, and as such, taught different people differently.  

Compare Tim's movement to Rommel's.  Rommel looks like he is doing silat much of the time and Tim rarely goes low.  They both earned the rank of Tuhon at roughly the same time (give or take), yet they don't move alike at all.  Yet they were both in the Philippines at the same time, presumably interacting and training with Gaje.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> For certain.
> But then, were they actually trained differently or have they simply gravitated to certain aspects of movement. I have received different movement from Gaje and others based upon what being was emphasizing at the time.
> I've seen large movement and lots of distance traveled by some as well as  far less movement and distance traveled but with good angles and close range by others.



I would actually lean in both directions.  There is an old saying that a true master never ceases to learn himself.  As such a Master over time will change things he teaches.  Heck you may even catch him in a moment of transition. At the same time we all, I think, gravitate to our strengths and weaknesses.  A combination of the two can make for two students look quite different I think.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 2, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I dont know much about the particular lineage you guys are speaking of but the more I have thought about it the more I have thought, within reason, that most open hand attacks can be seen as mimicking the angles of the sword or dagger, or vice versa.  FMA has you learn the weapon and then either in tandem, or later down the road shows you how to translate it to open hand.  Other martial arts teach open hand and then show you the translation to weapons.
> 
> A straight punch in a thrust (in Inosanto Kali a #5), a downward angle hammer fist or knife hand is a #1 or 2.  You look at palm  strikes to the ear/side of head, horizontal hammer fists or back fists and you see a 3 and a 4 (3-9s) etc.  At least in the Lineage I study these numbers are simply angles of attack with no particular target in mind.  I know some try to say #X is for target Y and of course their my analogy falls apart.
> 
> Now there are limits of course, some of the angles don't have a practical open hand counter part (a Redondo for example), but most of them do.  This however is not surprising to me because biomechanics are biomechanics.  There is some fine tuning of course but the basic principles are the same.



Guro Dan shows from time to time what boxing with knives in each hand looks like.  He is the only one I have seen do that, but I am sure it is authentic or he would not be showing it.  However, in my (admittedly few) interactions with him, he has only shown that in passing, but not actually taught knife that way.  As for other systems, most of what I see is that their empty hand systems are pretty distinct from their weapons systems.


----------



## geezer (Jul 2, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> ...some of the angles don't have a practical open hand counter part (a *Redondo* for example), but most of them do.  This however is not surprising to me because biomechanics are biomechanics.  There is some fine tuning of course but the basic principles are the same.



My advice would be not to be too literal. Look beyond what the stick or blade is doing and you may find many more meaningful "translations" from weapon to empty hand. For example, can you see_ huen sau_ or _kau sau _in a _redondo_ ...the way it lets you move around an obstruction and continue your energy into a strike? 

Or when your arm is hit or pressed down into a bong sau  ...going from bong and rolling the elbow over and then unleashing a back-fist or fak sau? Elements of a cross-side (left) redondo are there. 

Personally one thing I love to do to shake things up in class is to stop in the middle of a drill and take the sticks away, then make people continue, figuring out how to apply the same movement with empty hands, ...or a palm stick, etc.

BTW Pardon my use of WC terms to describe how you can translate from baston to empty hands, but since my empty hands practice is strongly WC based, that's my _accent,_ if you will!


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 2, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> Guro Dan shows from time to time what boxing with knives in each hand looks like.  He is the only one I have seen do that, but I am sure it is authentic or he would not be showing it.  However, in my (admittedly few) interactions with him, he has only shown that in passing, but not actually taught knife that way.  As for other systems, most of what I see is that their empty hand systems are pretty distinct from their weapons systems.



In the details yes. I am not talking direct technique application.  I was admittedly a tad simplistic. When I have seen Guro Dan do such things I believe it was just to illustrate the principle, that angles of attack are just that, simply angles of attack.  You of course have to adapt the form to account for the fact you re punching, or palm striking, with an open hand and not thrusting with the dagger or sword.

My main point is to kinda go back to an earlier post when someone said (paraphrase) "teaching open hand first is backwards." To me it's a chicken or the egg kinda point.  In either case the foundation appears the same; basic stance/structure, footwork, angles of attack etc. The rest is simply applying the foundation to the fact you have, or lack, a force multiplier and the nature of the force multiplier (if present).  Going to the open hand may require more adaptation yes, but the foundation at it's core, the central concepts it imparts, seems consistent across all of them.

FMA starts with the weapons, some teach open hand in tandem.  WC starts with open hand but the weapons forms later  bu they apply the same foundation that you learned with the open hand.  Hence chicken and the egg.

Please free to correct me if I am completely off base here.  The other contributors to the thread currently definitely have more experience in FMA over all.  This is just how I am perceiving it at the moment.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 2, 2016)

geezer said:


> My advice would be not to be too literal. Look beyond what the stick or blade is doing and you may find many more meaningful "translations" from weapon to empty hand. For example, can you see_ huen sau_ or _kau sau _in a _redondo_ ...the way it lets you move around an obstruction and continue your energy into a strike? Or when your arm is hit or pressed down into a bong sau  ...going from bong and rolling the elbow over and then unleashing a back-fist or fak sau?
> 
> Pardon my use of WC terms to describe how you can translate from baston to empty hands, but since my empty hands prsctice is strongly WC based, that's my _accent,_ if you will!



And you know I would understand it .  I agree with you entirely btw, that is why in my follow-up, just above, made it a little more clear that, imo, it was more about basic foundational principles, concepts, vs a 100% literal translation, but I was concerned that might add some confusion (referencing how my WC works with FMA).  I will admit I hadn't looked at Redondo quite like that before and that makes perfect sense and I think will prove useful in how I think of things...look that little bit deeper.  Thanks


----------



## Danny T (Jul 2, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> I believe they were trained differently.  According to my current instructor (who trained a long time with another instructor before starting to train with Tim), very few people were taught the Tirsia Largo portion of the system.  PTKGO has close range, but Tim asks the question that I very seldom hear others ask, which is, "how did you get there?"  As such, the long range and the bridging from long to close is something that Tim teaches that sets him apart of what I see from others.  A previous instructor of mine stated flat out that Gaje didn't really want anyone to have his complete system, and as such, taught different people differently.
> 
> Compare Tim's movement to Rommel's.  Rommel looks like he is doing silat much of the time and Tim rarely goes low.  They both earned the rank of Tuhon at roughly the same time (give or take), yet they don't move alike at all.  Yet they were both in the Philippines at the same time, presumably interacting and training with Gaje.


I can agree that some of their movements are different but both have distinct PTK movements. Tim, from what I have seen of late, spends more time in largo engaging and disengaging. He will range out drawing the opponent toward him and then engage. I've been taught to snipe the hand/arm and then either move in and finish or to move on to the next opponent or leave. 

When training different parts of the system I learned to enter from long range through medio to corto and back out or to enter and finish either standing or kneeling. The different parts of the system teach different principles and concepts. How one utilizes them will for the most part be somewhat different.


----------



## tim_stl (Jul 5, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> Everyone's number 1 and 2 strike is going to be the same,



Not even that - even looking just on youtube, you can find a variety of types of #1 strike.  #2 has even more variety.  And that's not even looking at any of the lesser-known styles.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 5, 2016)

tim_stl said:


> Not even that - even looking just on youtube, you can find a variety of types of #1 strike.  #2 has even more variety.  And that's not even looking at any of the lesser-known styles.



What systems have a number 1 that is different?  I've trained several, and observed several others and have not seen this.  I'm not disputing you, but I am curious.


----------



## tim_stl (Jul 5, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> What systems have a number 1 that is different?  I've trained several, and observed several others and have not seen this.  I'm not disputing you, but I am curious.



Three well-known examples:

Cacoy Doce Pares has a vertical downward forehand #1.

Inosanto Kali has a diagonal downward forehand #1.

McGrath's Pekiti-Tersia has a horizontal forehand #1.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 5, 2016)

tim_stl said:


> Three well-known examples:
> 
> Cacoy Doce Pares has a vertical downward forehand #1.
> 
> ...



Didn't know about the first.  However, from what I recall from back when I was with PTI, the abecedario form is not really attacking angles, but rather to show target areas.  That is definitely how it is taught in PTKGO as well as the PTK Pit Bulls group I trained with a while back.  I also did one class with Rudy Salazar when I was shopping training groups after a move.  Rudy was one of Erwin Ballarta's students, so I would presume he would teach things the same way that Bill McGrath does.  From what I recall the angle was the same, though it was only one class and a couple of years ago, so I could be mistaken on that part.

For us, the #1 strike is a downward diagonal forehand such as is seen in Inosanto Kali, albeit with different mechanics. The #1 target area from abecedario is the left temple of the opponent, but could be attacked with attacks from differing angles.  I'm with a different PTK group now, but I _believe_ that is the same between groups.  

Regardless, you were correct on that.  I definitely wasn't aware of that one from Cacoy DP.  

Good stuff.  Thanks!


----------



## Danny T (Jul 5, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> Didn't know about the first.  However, from what I recall from back when I was with PTI, the abecedario form is not really attacking angles, but rather to show target areas.  That is definitely how it is taught in PTKGO as well as the PTK Pit Bulls group I trained with a while back.  I also did one class with Rudy Salazar when I was shopping training groups after a move.  Rudy was one of Erwin Ballarta's students, so I would presume he would teach things the same way that Bill McGrath does.  From what I recall the angle was the same, though it was only one class and a couple of years ago, so I could be mistaken on that part.
> 
> For us, the #1 strike is a downward diagonal forehand such as is seen in Inosanto Kali, albeit with different mechanics. The #1 target area from abecedario is the left temple of the opponent, but could be attacked with attacks from differing angles.  I'm with a different PTK group now, but I _believe_ that is the same between groups.
> 
> ...


In PTI and under Tuhon Gaje there are some horizontal strikes as well as vertical strikes out of the #1 angle quadrant in the contradas, re-contras, alphabito, and numerado.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 5, 2016)

Danny T said:


> In PTI and under Tuhon Gaje there are some horizontal strikes as well as vertical strikes out of the #1 angle quadrant in the contradas, re-contras, alphabito, and numerado.



Agreed.  But if Tuhon McGrath is working with you at a seminar and asks you for demo purposes to give him a number 1, you are going to feed him the same angle I would, correct?  Also, am I correct on the manner in which you interpret abecedario?


----------



## Danny T (Jul 5, 2016)

The abecedario...yes.

To the #1 strike...
If I knew what was being covered in the seminar and what the material he was demoing at the time I'd probably know what attack feed he was wanting and it could well be a diagonal or horizontal strike. In my experience he usually will say what kind of feed he is wanting to demo against.


----------



## geezer (Jul 6, 2016)

Everybody numbers the angles differently. And really there aren't five, ...or a dozen, ...or even 360 (as in degrees around a circle). There are an _infinite_ number of angles. So at a mixed style FMA gathering, I always just say, "feed me something like _this_" and demo what I want. I appreciate that when others do the same for me. Heck I have a hard enough time keeping left and right straight!


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2016)

Danny T said:


> The abecedario...yes.
> 
> To the #1 strike...
> If I knew what was being covered in the seminar and what the material he was demoing at the time I'd probably know what attack feed he was wanting and it could well be a diagonal or horizontal strike. In my experience he usually will say what kind of feed he is wanting to demo against.



Interesting.  The PTI instructor I trained with several years back taught I a number one the same way we do it in PTKGO.  If he wanted a horizontal, he simply said horizontal.  He had some Inosanto background a well, so perhaps that influenced him.  

Thanks


----------



## Danny T (Jul 6, 2016)

Charlemagne said:


> Interesting.  The PTI instructor I trained with several years back taught I a number one the same way we do it in PTKGO.  If he wanted a horizontal, he simply said horizontal.  He had some Inosanto background a well, so perhaps that influenced him.
> 
> Thanks


PTI, as one advances, tends to use a stick a bit differently than an edged weapon. Blunt object damage vs edged weapon damage is not the same.


----------



## crazydiamond (Jul 12, 2016)

I train within an Inosanto lineage school. I am still a beginner really. But FMA seems such a huge system - like saying Kung Fu. My impression is that the stick and knife portions of FMA are a big part - but just one part of FMA. We do show how weapons transitions into empty hands fighting. 

I have been exposed (but not not alot) to Panantukan, and silat under FMA and think these are really amazing open hands systems - but feel they simply are not taught that much in favor of weapons.


----------

