# Beginning in Modern Arnis



## IFAJKD (Jul 5, 2002)

Met with Arnisador this past weekend and enjoyed it very much. This was the beginning of our formal training in Modern Arnis for myself and one of my Instructors under me. We had two left feet again and that was a nice change. 
We will be training regularly. It was facinating to see similarities as well as the differneces in what we already teach, not only in technique but in teaching delivery. Thank you very much Arnisador. You have been very open and very kind to have let us i your home at the drop of a hat. see ya soon. Can't wait to continue in MA and also meeting Mr. Hartman. I believe It will prove to compliment our system in ways I cannot even see at this time. 
I have a very strong Filipino Martial arts background from the Inosanto/Lacoste method. As such however, I have no one complete FMA system. For this and other reasons establishing myself with MA is very important to me. Thanks again.


----------



## Kirk (Jul 5, 2002)

Is there a difference in the number of angles of attack, from
Inosanto/Lacoste method to this one?  I heard that Mr Inosanto
preaches something like 64 angles.  Any truth to this?


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Jul 5, 2002)

In Modern Arnis we only use 12 angles.


----------



## IFAJKD (Jul 5, 2002)

I have only heard Guru Dan Inosanto speak and teach of 12 yet he acknowledges that although they really become infinite they are variations still of the 12. Guru Inosanto also speaks of the 12 angles of attack as the most common angles. This is an important distinction. In MA from my exposure this weekend the 12 are somewhat different. This is common place among FMA in general. I have found angles 1 through 5 to be most common but not cut in stone.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by IFAJKD _
> 
> *I have only heard Guru Dan Inosanto speak and teach of 12 yet he acknowledges that although they really become infinite they are variations still of the 12. Guru Inosanto also speaks of the 12 angles of attack as the most common angles. This is an important distinction. In MA from my exposure this weekend the 12 are somewhat different. This is common place among FMA in general. I have found angles 1 through 5 to be most common but not cut in stone. *



* . . . but not cut in stone. *

I think this is a real important concept to any FMA. They might have a specific technique for a specific application / timing, but almost nothing is set in stone.

This is one of the things I like best of the FMA's.

Just my Rant

Rich


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 5, 2002)

I know I saw a system somewhere that had 15 angles.  If I survive work, I'll try to dig up the name when I get home.

Cthulhu


----------



## arnisador (Jul 5, 2002)

I had a great time working with *IFAJKD* and his colleague. A few of his comments/questions opened my eyes on some similarities between Modern Arnis and other systems! It was fun. He's got a great facility with the stick but just as I have found in my JKD classes, the drills are off _just_ enough to make one feel clumsy. A count is missing here or added there, or a low strike is high, and it's hard to break the habit!

A thought on the angles of attack: We have to distinguish between the number of _angles_ of attack and the number of _counts_ in the numerada. At the WMAA camp Mr. Manglinong demonstrated the Kombatan numerada drill. It had 24 counts but I would say it had fewer distinct angles than 24. In fact, look at Modern Arnis #6/7 and #10/11--some people consider them the same pair of angles, others consider #6/7 a little more downward-pointing or coming from a wider hooking strike than #10/11; I've seen various interpretations. I think we need to distinguish the actual angles that are used from the counts that are used in order to make up a drill with a nice, round number of strikes in it.


----------



## IFAJKD (Jul 5, 2002)

Arnisador you stated that a striking habit is hard to break. No doubt it is but I am not only trying to learn a new system here but also maintain my current habits. Kinda trying to develop a switch that allows me to do both. I want MA to enhanse what I do, not become it.  Any feedback on similar attempts by others would be appreciated. I wish we had more time to spend. I really want to be saturated with it. (sometimes I get way too hungry) 

I have also discovered that MA is not too different in approach from Guru Dan Inosanto's efforts in FMA. That being drawing from many systems to form a more complete method. Example being that De Cadena, (chain of hand) found in I/L also found in MA: Considered by some to be a system by itself others a stage of training (according to Dan Inosanto, the 4th stage) and yet others a technique or series of technique. I train DeCadena all the time yet a particular DeCadena drill that Arnisador introduced to me really messed me up. Someone said that this is the beauty of FMA. I agree. 

Arnisador I like your approach to angles. Personally I look at the angles as more significantly issues of forehand, backhand and target. New angles cannot be created. Thus the number is not as significant really. This being said, The same general angle can be delivered very differently. Not just in degree of angle but also in regard to flow, motion, power, hesitation rhythym etc. All of it changes response to the attack. The point here is to train "live angles" with many different energies.............. Just a Random Thought. Could be nothing.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by IFAJKD _
> 
> *Arnisador you stated that a striking habit is hard to break. No doubt it is but I am not only trying to learn a new system here but also maintain my current habits. *



Our positions are symmetrical of course since I am trying to do the same with JKD! Yes, what I meant was to turn it off as you put it, not to break it permanently. As an example, at my JKD instructor's class double sinawali (called standard sinawali there) is done the same _except_ they don't really tuck the stick much--they keep the sticks well out in front of them the whole time. It makes me seems slow because I want to tuck more in the closed position!



> *Personally I look at the angles as more significantly issues of forehand, backhand and target. New angles cannot be created. Thus the number is not as significant really. This being said, The same general angle can be delivered very differently. Not just in degree of angle but also in regard to flow, motion, power, hesitation rhythym etc. All of it changes response to the attack. The point here is to train "live angles" with many different energies *



Mr. Hartman has been emphasizing recently this issue of how exactly the angle is struck (at, in, or through). I agree, these _do_ make a big difference. Dr. Gyi also emphasized this fact at the WMAA camp--very effectively.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 6, 2002)

Arnisador said :

* Our positions are symmetrical of course since I am trying to do the same with JKD! Yes, what I meant was to turn it off as you put it, not to break it permanently. As an example, at my JKD instructor's class double Sinawali (called standard Sinawali there) is done the same except they don't really tuck the stick much--they keep the sticks well out in front of them the whole time. It makes me seems slow because I want to tuck more in the closed position! *

Could you explain why, the 'standard' Sinawali of JKD does not tuck? Usually there is a reason for things such as this. 

Just curious

Rich


----------



## jaybacca72 (Jul 6, 2002)

rich i learned from my jkd instructor as well as edgar sulite himself at a camp that when you tuck it is for practice and when you don.t you are hitting with intention for real.if you fired off a number 1 strike for real and it was a solid shot you wouldn't be able to tuck from the impact and rebound,but if it were just a glance then sure you could tuck personally i agree with both ways depending on how you percieve it. oh and if you try to tuck on tim he has a plethora of traps from his balintawak to draw from so it depends on who you are encountering i guess?
later
jay :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Jul 6, 2002)

I should emphasize that this is all based on my very limited knowledge of JKD (I started in January). I also agree with *jaybacca72* that the exaggerated tuck is more of a training drill and that keeping the sticks further in front of you, as in JKD, would make sense if one were really fighting stick-on-stick. Of course, one wouldn't fight in a sinawali pattern anyway--my JKD instructor stresses it as an attribute drill (left-right coordination) and says for fighting with two sticks you'd use these as striking patterns if you had broken through your opponent's defenses (e.g. reverse sinawali for a dropped opponent)--so I'm not sure that treating it as much more than a drill is relevant there either. I like the tuck for learning to strike with more power, for learning to clear the stick around your own body, and because you could always shorten it. (_Help me! I'm using the Tae Kwon Do reasoning that if you can kick to the head you can kick to lower targets easily!_) Of course when going at high speed we "cheat" it a bit.

It's certainly true that tucking a stick around Mr. Hartman is often dangerous nowadays because of the Balintawak--he'll use one of your arms to tie up the other.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 6, 2002)

Hey Guys,

Thanks for the feedback. I have seen people who try not to tuck and then have problems developing the a greater speed. They tie themselves up. This is why I like to teach the tuck for teaching the drill. It helps develop overall body mechanics. In my limited opinion.

I agree that one would not use a striking pattern to fight a person. I also agree that one could use various striking styles from the outside and then others once you are passed their guard.

Jaybacca's comment and information on not being able to tuck after a hit not only seems reasonable, but is true from my experience.

As for who you meet, will determine what is good and bad is true no matter what the technique or the art.

A general principal of Balintawak, is one should avoid crossing themselves up. If the opponents timing is 'on' or sufficiently better than the other, then the one who crossed up can be pinned. Notice I said 'CAN' be pinned. Not always will it happen. It is just one of many techniques.  

Have a great day and keep cross training, I believe it helps you see new and different things that keep you improving.

Rich
:asian:


----------



## IFAJKD (Jul 6, 2002)

Arnisador: I'm sorry. how stupid of me. of course you are doing the samr thing I am in reverse. you training JKD. It can be difficult.

About sinawali tucking....I tuck wen going at speed but have practicied keeping the strikes short and crisp. also don't tuck as much maybe but still never keep them out infront of me too much. As for trapping the tucked stick. In theory maybe but in reality it really won't be trapped as it is fluid. ebtering at 6 hits a second is not realistic. In this way standard sinawali becomes the straight blast of double stick. Tucking is an attribute that can be developed and used well.

Vunak use to talk about not turning your back with spin kicks as others would enter.....true but.......if you try to enter to someone who knows how, when and has the skill to pull it off there is no safe entry realistically. There is a time for spin kicks and actually a place for them however limited. ( I know this will start some whole new thread so if it does someone let me know where it is)

There is no excuse for poor attributes....If someone doesn't tuck intentionally then I consider that stick control but if someone does so because they have not been taught to tuck then that is poor attributes for that weapon.

Not crossing....I don't believe you can be good if you spar or fight everyone the same way. In truth you cannot as everybody has their own attributes and dictate different approach. I sparred this guy who entered on everything and hit. Finally I chambered and attacked his centerline with sinawali and began scoring at will. Others I have met have held centerline so well that sinawali was no good but high/ low abinico and rodondo worked well.


----------

