# Where have all the FMAs gone?



## Carol (May 9, 2007)

Interesting point for discussion.

In his blog Tuhon Gaje muses that indiginous FMAs are hard to find.

What do you think?   Are they?


----------



## kuntawguro (May 13, 2007)

True, many of the  original FMA are still around unaltered- but, isn't that the nature of FMA?


----------



## Bill Bednarick (May 13, 2007)

Failure to adapt is failure to survive.

But what do I know I'm a just another %-}


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 14, 2007)

Bill Bednarick said:


> Failure to adapt is failure to survive.
> 
> But what do I know I'm a just another %-}


 
Definately a very true statement Bill!

I really respect Leo T. Gaje and his Pekiti Tirsia FMA.  However, in general the filipino arts have been adding and subtracting techniques for years. (based on what works)  They are a real melting pot of deadly fighting systems.  That truely is the beauty of the FMA's in my opinion!


----------



## Bill Bednarick (May 14, 2007)

I sometimes wonder about the arts now here in the states. All the arts not just FMAs.

How many generations have to go by for the art to be considered native to the area?

Can they truly be anything other than American when taught by Americans to Americans in America.

Please feel free to substitute any place and people in the above statement.

Does BJJ have no value as it is now Brazilian? When can it be considered Canadian [SIZE=-1]Jujitsu[/SIZE]? 

I do understand the point Tuhon Gaje is making, and it sort of fits with my line of questioning.

I could teach you arnis and eskrima but is it still Filipino at this point?
This is not to say you don't give credit to the culture your art is from or that you conceal the origin of it.

But is it truly pure and does it really matter?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 14, 2007)

kuntawguro said:
			
		

> True, many of the  original FMA are still around unaltered- but, isn't that the nature of FMA?



I wonder if this has something to do with Japanese styles influence on the martial arts.  Where things where codified into specific styles that where not to be altered by mere mortals, but preserved.

Prior to early in the 20th century the idea of a "style" in the modern sense seems pretty absent.  Just about all the masters crosstrained and combined things that where taught to them by different people.

Nowadays a lot of people seem to want a unbroken chain back to some famous guy in Asia with a style that is exactly as he taught it.





Bill Bednarick said:


> Does BJJ have no value as it is now Brazilian? When can it be considered Canadian [SIZE=-1]Jujitsu[/SIZE]?



When you pull his gi over his head and punch him on the face


----------



## stickmaster2000 (May 14, 2007)

I agree with most of what has already been said. The FMA has always adapted to the times, that's what gives it its great strength. Adaptability in a changing world (and in combat) is essential for survival and FMA exemplify this more than most other styles or systems.


----------



## Carol (May 15, 2007)

Something that has has impressed me is the way that Filipino arts have been able to add and subtract influences...and still stay recognizably Filipino.  

American Kenpo for example...its...well...American (Hawaiian) and Kenpoists sometimes debate over how much is of Chinese influence and how much is Japanese or Okinawan influence.   However, I don't usually hear Modern Arnis referred to as anything other than a Filipino art, depsite the influences of Shotokan on Professor Presas.


----------



## stickmaster2000 (May 15, 2007)

I had another thought on this subject last night. Although the FMA often graft other ideas/techniques etc to the art which has allowed it to develop and grow it has also caused a decline in its depth. Not to those who really study the FMA as a central focus but to the other styles and systems that often attach it as a kind of sub-section to their own art.

For example, Taekwondo schools where the instructor attends a few FMA seminars and then attaches thes techniques to their Taekwondo so that they have some weapons tactics etc.

Often, what is then called FMA is nothing more than a few FMA techniques taught within a Taekwondo class. The level of knowledge is often very low as are the technical skills taught.

I think there are too many (fast track) learning programmes out their which allow Instructors to become certified to teach FMA to soon. It is the depth of skill and knowledge that is often lacking.

Perhaps this is what Tuhon Gaje was getting at??


----------



## Carol (May 17, 2007)

stickmaster2000 said:


> I had another thought on this subject last night. Although the FMA often graft other ideas/techniques etc to the art which has allowed it to develop and grow it has also caused a decline in its depth. Not to those who really study the FMA as a central focus but to the other styles and systems that often attach it as a kind of sub-section to their own art.
> 
> For example, Taekwondo schools where the instructor attends a few FMA seminars and then attaches thes techniques to their Taekwondo so that they have some weapons tactics etc.
> 
> ...



Interesting point.  That could indeed be what Tuhon is referring to.  

And it's a very valid point...one that I can relate to personally. 

At my last private, Guro May was reminding me for the umpteenth time to not use backhand strikes when doing strikes.  She didn't remind me of this because she saw me actually doing backhand strikes, but because this was a bad habit that I had when I began my training under her earlier and dogged me for several months.  

I developed the habit from having learned a sinawali pattern in a non-FMA situation from an instructor that didn't catch the bad mechanics.  The FMAs are popular with other MAists because of their weaponry, much like BJJ is popular with other MAists because of its ground game.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid there are too many examples of both arts being taught very badly due to an instructor's insufficient background. 

Time will tell how much effect that will have on the FMAs as a whole.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 17, 2007)

stickmaster2000 said:


> I had another thought on this subject last night. Although the FMA often graft other ideas/techniques etc to the art which has allowed it to develop and grow it has also caused a decline in its depth. Not to those who really study the FMA as a central focus but to the other styles and systems that often attach it as a kind of sub-section to their own art.
> 
> For example, Taekwondo schools where the instructor attends a few FMA seminars and then attaches thes techniques to their Taekwondo so that they have some weapons tactics etc.
> 
> ...


 
This is definately a very serious issue in the FMA's.  However a school or program that does this certainly is not really teaching FMA's (as they do not have the depth) but generally in my observation just some flashy stick work that many FMA practitioner's would not care for.


----------



## Bill Bednarick (May 17, 2007)

Carol,
You were just hitting with whatever part of the stick that was available?

In this case the backside? 

I'm prone to blame that more on the use of a stick in the place of a blade, and I see it frequently with people that have never trained in any other arts.

In fact I did a little bit too when I started.

I still do it now BTW, but it is used as a hooking clear of the opponents weapon.

On to the issue of purity in FMA.

Truthfully I think it's more about proper application and usage than purity.

You could have generations of students that do some technique purely, based on the one way and never changed it cause "that's how we do it".

And that technique could be seriously flawed even dangerous to the user. But it would be "pure" because it had NEVER been changed or diluted.

Problem is, the best way of measuring an art is very difficult to describe to people with words.

Flow? A good art has this, all good arts do.

But can you describe it when you don't have it yet? 
You may have seen it at the start of your training.
But could you put it into words?

It's the very heart of FMA and even people that have it may be hard pressed to give you a description of it.

Is flow assured by "purity"?

NOPE, but a toolbox full of non connected techniques certainly won't give it.
And a lot of the non pure "systems" are just that. 
A big bag of stuff with little connecting the parts.

I know there are systems of FMA that are not pure in the sense of a long unchanged lineage that have the connectedness and FLOW.

But how do you draw the line?

Is it purity of linage? Or purity of martial intent?

I choose martial intent.%-}


----------



## Carol (May 17, 2007)

Bill Bednarick said:


> Carol,
> You were just hitting with whatever part of the stick that was available?
> 
> In this case the backside?



Yup.    I knew absolutely squat about knuckle alignment, blade position, or anything like that...and was never advised to make a correction.  

I knew I was wailing at my assigned partner and we were making contact so I thought I was doing something right.  

I probably developed the bad habit because when we did stick drills, most of us used the school's sticks...which were all hardwoods.   I know the impact the hardwood transferred in to my hands was very disturbing, I suspect what I did was move my hand around a lot over the course of the drill to help lessen the discomfort of the impact.

Bad habits burn in so easily.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 17, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yup.  I knew absolutely squat about knuckle alignment, blade position, or anything like that...and was never advised to make a correction.
> 
> Bad habits burn in so easily.


 
Carol you have no idea how many people I have had to correct through the years because their initial instructor had very little training and made lot's and lot's of mistakes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Sometimes it is almost impossible to correct.


----------



## JBrainard (May 17, 2007)

Bill Bednarick said:


> Flow? A good art has this, all good arts do.
> 
> But can you describe it when you don't have it yet?
> You may have seen it at the start of your training.
> ...


 
Perhapse off topic, but perhapse not: The flow of FMA is one of the things that got me interested in the first place. I don't have the "flow," but my teacher has amazing flow, and some of the black belts are pretty good too. I think the "tool box" is what you learn up to around the black belt level, then it is up to you to develop your own flow, as it is a pretty personal thing. What flows naturally from my teacher most likely won't be what flows naturally from me.
But being as I am a begginer, some of this is just conjecture


----------



## stickmaster2000 (May 17, 2007)

Yes, flow is a defining concept within the FMA which is why, I think, so many new students to the FMA who have come from backgrounds that teach 'stacato' movement i.e. Karate etc. Have such difficulty with this concept.

Regarding backhand striking. A student of mine who went to train at the Inosanto Academy found himself getting into trouble during training. When taking a Jun Fan class the techniques would use backhand strike, when taking an FMA class, similar techniques would use hammer fist strike. He found it frustrating that one class told him one thing while the other class told him diffently.

Getting back to the point regarding the thread. One of the driving reason for me originally coming over to the Philippines from the UK was the very fact that I could never find an instructor who had a deep enough understanding of FMA. So I decided that if the mountain won't come to me, then I must go to the mountain.

It is certainly true that you gain a very different perspective of FMA once you actually train in the Philippines.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 17, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Carol you have no idea how many people I have had to correct through the years because their initial instructor had very little training and made lot's and lot's of mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I have heard this for many years as a chief complaint in the FMA world. Would it be better to get rid of the round sticks and go to a wooden blade weapon that the sticks replaced for training the FMA's instead?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 18, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I have heard this for many years as a chief complaint in the FMA world. Would it be better to get rid of the round sticks and go to a wooden blade weapon that the sticks replaced for training the FMA's instead?


 
Personally I think so and yet training with the sticks has been very important because you can move quicker and hit harder.  However, with some of the new age materials that we now have you can easily start with the blade from day one and keep it that way and this is probably the way to go for the future.


----------



## JBrainard (May 18, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Personally I think so and yet training with the sticks has been very important because you can move quicker and hit harder. However, with some of the new age materials that we now have you can easily start with the blade from day one and keep it that way and this is probably the way to go for the future.


 
I must add that some modern FMA techniques wouldn't work with a real blade. You have to use a stick (i.e. blunt weapon) or get yourself all cut up. With that in mind, I really don't see the value in moving from sticks to simulated blades.


----------



## Carol (May 18, 2007)

The way Mike and May train, teaching good mechanics is only the first part of training.  They also drill like they were taught in the Philippines, so the movement is natural, instantanious, and instinctual.

They've recommended to me to practice with a training blade as well as a stick.  The blade for understanding the mechanics and fine-tuning the movements, the stick for flow and instinctuality. I can't "cheat" by peeking at the blade when I'm using a stick.

I don't think the physical medium of the training should be changed, I think the instruction should be changed.  I see on forums for other arts how different stylists are trying to add different elements to their art and even propogate it through their organizations...leaving some teachers trying to teach principles that they themselves have never done properly.  That results in a bad situation for all the arts involved.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 18, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> I must add that some modern FMA techniques wouldn't work with a real blade. You have to use a stick (i.e. blunt weapon) or get yourself all cut up. With that in mind, I really don't see the value in moving from sticks to simulated blades.


 
That is definately true if you are working with a blunt impact tool mentality.  However, many FMA's work with an edge/blade first mentality and those that train this way need to work with wooden blades, simulated blades, etc.  If you want to work with just sticks that is fine but remember all of those things you learn certainly do not translate to the blade.


----------



## Bill Bednarick (May 18, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *JBrainard*
> 
> 
> _I must add that some modern FMA techniques wouldn't work with a real blade. You have to use a stick (i.e. blunt weapon) or get yourself all cut up. With that in mind, I really don't see the value in moving from sticks to simulated blades._



It's fine if you only want to use sticks in your practice.

There are FMAs that are only stick arts.

But don't kid yourself into believing that blade training has little value or that being single faceted is a good thing.

It may have little value for you at this time, but why limit your growth?


----------



## Hand Sword (May 18, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> I must add that some modern FMA techniques wouldn't work with a real blade. You have to use a stick (i.e. blunt weapon) or get yourself all cut up. With that in mind, I really don't see the value in moving from sticks to simulated blades.


 

I'm not a FMA'er per se, although I've dabbled, so I'm not trying to ruffle feathers. Just some honest thought being given to a subject, as I've said heard complained about for years. From my understanding the sticks replaced blades for training purposes originally. As we've experienced, bad habits form, that are hard to get rid of. I wasn't going for blade use for practice. That would be foolish, and get you cut up as you've said. I was thinking along the lines of "wooden" weapons. Shaped like the ones used in the FMA's. That would allow the "blunt" practice and stop bad habits from forming.


----------



## Bill Bednarick (May 18, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I'm not a FMA'er per se, although I've dabbled, so I'm not trying to ruffle feathers. Just some honest thought being given to a subject, as I've said heard complained about for years. From my understanding the sticks replaced blades for training purposes originally. As we've experienced, bad habits form, that are hard to get rid of. I wasn't going for blade use for practice. That would be foolish, and get you cut up as you've said. I was thinking along the lines of "wooden" weapons. Shaped like the ones used in the FMA's. That would allow the "blunt" practice and stop bad habits from forming.



Precisely!

Live blades have their place in training but rarely will it be in a partner drill.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 18, 2007)

Even better than wooden training blades are aluminum and other new composite training blades.

Though I like to practice with them all!


----------



## Hand Sword (May 18, 2007)

Good stuff too! It's time for the FMA's to evolve then? Get rid of the "sticks"? Go with more realistic representations to aquire accurate skills! This rational thinker agrees! (I also agree that you gotta handle the real stuff too and get used to it)


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> The blade for understanding the mechanics and fine-tuning the movements, the stick for flow and instinctuality.



I prefer a blade for flow, but both will work!



> I can't "cheat" by peeking at the blade when I'm using a stick.



I don't think I've heard it put quite this way befoer, but we do emphasize that the students must strike correctly, with blade awareness, without following the stick with their eyes!


----------



## Carol (May 18, 2007)

arnisador said:


> I prefer a blade for flow, but both will work!



They could very well be teaching the blade for flow as well.  I'm seeing what I see through the eyes of someone who is very much an inexperienced novice.


----------



## LocknBlock (May 18, 2007)

I can see all the points as valid, however it seems that the part the sticks plays is to be able to absolutely manipulate the tip of the stick. While training it was stressed to us to learn as we train to watch the tip of our sticks to the target, so as to get results such as broken thumb & knucle, wrist bone shattered, forearm bone fractured, then there are the pressure point strikes with the tip of the stick etc..., also I think getting your body to truly attune to the movement that will give you max force with least amount of effort, thus meditation in motion. Simulated blade training I agree is a good phase of training to supplement or even compliment other training such as 'dulo-dulo', taught in Kombatan & Eskabo Daan out of San Francisco . It is training that will enable one to utilize the little 'maglite' flashlite as an effective defensive weapon, so one could use the side of the blade or the back if it is one-side sharp, puno or the handle, if a folder use it closed , an excellent 'dulo-dulo'. CHEERS!!:jediduel:


----------



## Carol (May 18, 2007)

Should the ART change?

Or should the STUDENT change?

If someone doesn't want to train with sticks...perhaps they largely want to know how to fight with their everyday carry clipped to their pocket...should the arts eliminate stickfighting to fit these students goals/desires? 

Or should the student seek out training that is specifically knifefighting, such as AMOK or an RBSD?


----------



## stickmaster2000 (May 18, 2007)

Use of the blade within the FMA may well have been the original method, especially with styles from the Southern regions however, the use of the stick as a weapon in itself is also part of the FMA. 

When using the stick (as a stick) there are certain skills and techniques that can be applied that you could not apply with a bladed weapon, for example; some of the locks, throws and takedowns etc (especially from the Cacoy Doce Pares Eskrido System). Were you to use a bladed weapon to achieve some of these techniques you would either cut your opponents limb/s off, (ok, nothing wrong in that!...) or worse, cut off your own! (very wrong!....).

I have seen many students who utilise the stick as a substitute for a blade manipulate it in such a way as would be impossible were it actually a blade. This comes from a misunderstanding of the weapons attributes and functionality.

I think it is important to train both, stick and blade (wooden, aluminium, dull edge steel or live blade - yes even with a partner... someone you trust would be a benefit!). Each will teach something very different. 

The secret is to ensure that your training methodology reflects the type of wapon you are using and it is not true that the stick is mearley a substitute for the blade..... it is also a weapon in its own right.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 19, 2007)

I agree with that assessment. Sticks and stick styles have become their own animals, and are legitimate, as opposed to being substitutes. I don't think that was ever being argued. My points came from my dealings with the FMA. I was commenting on the "bad habit forming" ideology that was being presented, which rang a bell with me, having heard the same comments for years. Going with previous points made, if sticks can do the "blade" movements (which they do), and can be manipulated in ways that a blade can't (which is also true), then I would ask all of you FMA'ers, are their "bad habits" then? If you're "back handing" to go with the fastest movement at the time to strike the opponent, is that wrong? Or, if there are "bad habits" (not moving like a blade), should that be focussed on? If so, does that mean round sticks gotta go? I guess the question is what are The FMA's? Blades or sticks? Sticks as sticks, movements etc.. or sticks as blades? Apparently it can't be both, as the overlaps of movements and techniques contradict each other.

Not trying to cause problems here (really) I just find this interesting and stimulating to my dormant M.A. thinking-LOL.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2007)

Hand Sword said:


> I agree with that assessment. Sticks and stick styles have become their own animals, and are legitimate, as opposed to being substitutes. I don't think that was ever being argued. My points came from my dealings with the FMA. I was commenting on the "bad habit forming" ideology that was being presented, which rang a bell with me, having heard the same comments for years. Going with previous points made, if sticks can do the "blade" movements (which they do), and can be manipulated in ways that a blade can't (which is also true), then I would ask all of you FMA'ers, are their "bad habits" then? If you're "back handing" to go with the fastest movement at the time to strike the opponent, is that wrong? Or, if there are "bad habits" (not moving like a blade), should that be focussed on? If so, does that mean round sticks gotta go? I guess the question is what are The FMA's? Blades or sticks? Sticks as sticks, movements etc.. or sticks as blades? Apparently it can't be both, as the overlaps of movements and techniques contradict each other.



These are good and fair questions!


----------



## stickmaster2000 (May 19, 2007)

I agree, the subject is very interesting and yes bad habits can be formed in both cases, 'stick as stick not blade' and 'stick as blade not stick'.

I have always found it best to ensure that when I teach stick based techniques I make my students use a stick and when I am teaching blade I make sure they use either a wooden blade shaped weapon or aluminium/dull edge steel blade. In this way, there is never any confusion.

I also tend to steer away from telling them that the stick is used as a substitute for the blade, especially in the early stages of their training.


----------



## Hand Sword (May 21, 2007)

Good ideas. I also found that people move in terms of what they're holding. If it's a knife, they cut properly, making the effort to use the blade. If it's a stick, they move in terms of a stick. I doesn't do any good to hand them a stick, and say "cut like a blade, follow the tip etc. That's why I feel what is being learned should be established, and trained that way, with the right equipment.


----------



## stickmaster2000 (May 21, 2007)

Yes, I have found this to be very true. I have also found that the 'mindset' also changes once a blade is placed in the hand/s as opposed to a stick and viceversa.


----------

