# Modern Arnis Basic Striking Patterns Discussion



## arnisador

Modern Arnis, WMAA organization:

  1. High forehand diagonal swing
  2. High backhand diagonal swing
  3. Mid-level forehand horizontal swing
  4. Mid-level backhand horizontal swing
  5. Mid-level thrust
  6. High forehand thrust
  7. High backhand thrust
  8. Low backhand diagonal swing
  9. Low forehand diagonal swing
  10. High vertical swing

 Of course, we focus more on the angles than the level. The angle in the first two diagonal swings is not the same as that in the last two. The forehand thrust has palm down (or to the right), and the backhand thrust has palm up (or to the left), when done in the right hand. The #5,6,7 strikes are also done hooked. (Other strikes can also be hooked.) The #10 strike may be done as an overhead strike or one that moves with the tip in almost a horizontal line, straight into the face.


----------



## James Miller

arnisador said:
			
		

> Modern Arnis, WMAA organization:
> 
> 1. High forehand diagonal swing
> 2. High backhand diagonal swing
> 3. Mid-level forehand horizontal swing
> 4. Mid-level backhand horizontal swing
> 5. Mid-level thrust
> 6. High forehand thrust
> 7. High backhand thrust
> 8. Low backhand diagonal swing
> 9. Low forehand diagonal swing
> 10. High vertical swing
> 
> Of course, we focus more on the angles than the level. The angle in the first two diagonal swings is not the same as that in the last two. The forehand thrust has palm down (or to the right), and the backhand thrust has palm up (or to the left), when done in the right hand. The #5,6,7 strikes are also done hooked. (Other strikes can also be hooked.) The #10 strike may be done as an overhead strike or one that moves with the tip in almost a horizontal line, straight into the face.


Here is our chart for the angles of attack.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> James,
> 
> According to your chart, your numbers 1 & 2 strikes are to the shoulder or clavicles, your #10 is Remy's #12, and there is no 10 & 11 pokes to the eye?  Is this correct?



That's correct Dan. I streamlined the striking program back around March. As Jeff said those angles are usually done the same. Since we are going *Angles* of attack and not *Targets* of attack, it doesnt matter much. Case in point, Jeff and I were stick sparring one day and I did a number 5 thrust to the knee. Even though it was not a strike to the belly it was still the same *Angle. *

As far as the 1 & 2 being to the shoulder see above. In addition, I was taught to strike the shoulder. Remy was always trying to improve on the program. I feel that it is safer for beginners to strike the body at the beginning. Later apply all of the angles to the entire body. I look at the Modern Arnis angles as a template to learn from, as is much of our system.

 :asian:


----------



## DrBarber

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> James,
> 
> According to your chart, your numbers 1 & 2 strikes are to the shoulder or clavicles, your #10 is Remy's #12, and there is no 10 & 11 pokes to the eye? Is this correct?
> MA-80 striking pattern
> 1. forehand strike to the temple
> 2. backhand strike to the temple
> 3. forehand strike to the elbow
> 4. backhand strike to the elbow
> 5. straight on stab to the stomach
> 6. overhand stab to the shoulder insertion
> 7. underhand stab to the shoulder insertion
> 8. backhand strike to the knee
> 9. forehand strike to the knee
> 10. overhand stab to the eye
> 11. underhand stab to the eye
> 12. straight down strike to the top of the head or crown, can be to the clavicle
> 13. any strike to the groin (humor)
> artyon:
> 
> I go by forehand and backhand as far as the number strikes go so the left hand #1 strike would be to your opponent's right temple while your right hand #1 strike would be to your opponent's left temple. I also have a numbering pattern for what I call "_clip strikes_."
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson


Hey Danny,

You might be joking about #13, but Guro Abu Jamilali and Jun Garcia were quite serious and their 13 strike format is exactly as you have presented it.
I will give you the full citation tomorrow when I have their book in front of me.

Sincerely,

Jerome


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> Hmmm.... The angles are the same for Remy's #6, #7 and #10, #11? Head/Eye level is not the same as the Chest/Heart level of the human body, therefore there is in fact a different angle of attack. Look in a mirror make the strikes slowly to the targets and WATCH your own arm, particularly the elbow and wrist of the striking hand. There is definately a difference in the angle of the striking arm in relation the elevation of the strike to the head or the chest.


In my opinion the angles are similar enough to be classified as the same. Im not going to sweat a couple of degree difference. I prefer to put more emphasis on the lines of attack and less on predetermined targets. Weve recently applied the same approach to disarming.


> I have no problem what so ever with your decision to present a 10 strike system. Your orgainzation, your curriculum, your choice. Is it still Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas? It is definately WMAA.


I think you might be focusing too much on the method and not enough on the result. None of us will ever be Remy. I dont teach things like he did, yet my students could pass the instructors test. In addition to preserving the art we must also look to the future. It is *MODERN* Arnis, not traditional Arnis. It is our duty as students of our late teacher to help the art progress, much like he did.

 :asian:


----------



## Dan Anderson

T Hartman said:
			
		

> I streamlined the striking program back around March. As Jeff said those angles are usually done the same. Since we are going *Angles* of attack and not *Targets* of attack, it doesnt matter much.
> :asian:


I keep the original angles of attack the same as Prof. Presas taught me.  I look at it from the aspect of the weapon.  Since the cane is an impact weapon, I look at where an impact weapon is the most useful - hard bony areas.  For the knife or bolo, my blade numbers of attack are a hair different as they go for cutting fleshy and connecting tissue areas.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Cebu West

We all learned the 12 basic angles of attack in Modern Arnis. That was a solid foundation to start with. What we do with this knowledge and how we apply it is another story. For quite some time now I've been applying the 6/10 and 7/11 angles to different targets. For example, hitting the 7/11 or right side with a 6/10 strike and visa versa. These cross ripping strikes still maintain the basic striking angles while adding a wider variety of targets. Combining these angles is a natural progression in advancing the art. Without exploring the possibilities you sit around and gather dust while others pass you by. 
Professor gave us everything we needed. Now it is our turn to explore all that he left for us and keep his Modern Arnis MODERN and on the cutting edge of the Filipino arts.

Sal


----------



## Dan Anderson

arnisador said:
			
		

> I think too much focus on targets runs the risk of losing the idea that in the FMA we defend against angles of attack, not enumerated attacks.


The key here is the term _too much._  Targeting is very important, especially depending upon the weapon being used.  As one becomes familiar with the techniques and so on, motion and angles are more easily recognized and looked at as such.

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

Dan Anderson said:
			
		

> The key here is the term _too much._  Targeting is very important, especially depending upon the weapon being used.  As one becomes familiar with the techniques and so on, motion and angles are more easily recognized and looked at as such.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan Anderson



Agreed, my approach is to apply all of the angles to as many different targets as possible. As I said before, while sparring with Jeff I was able to execute a number 5 strike to his knee. If you pick a body apart and try to hit it with all of the angles, you my feel it redundant to using 6, 7 and 10, 11. 

I have no problem with people using all 12 strikes and by no means do I think its wrong. In my opinion dropping two angles isnt changing the system as much as streamlining or helping with in its evolution.


----------



## DrBarber

Re: Basic Striking Patterns 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Referring to Professors Modern Arnis strikes #10 and #11; Tim Hartman posted the following comment:  



In my opinion the angles are similar enough to be classified as the same. Im not going to sweat a couple of degree difference. I prefer to put more emphasis on the lines of attack and less on predetermined targets. Weve recently applied the same approach to disarming.



You are certainly free to what ever opinion you wish to hold.  If you wish to eliminate strikes #10 and #11 that is your decision to make, however you are not presenting Modern Arnis, as developed by Professor.  You have altered a central or core feature.  Given that you are very quick to pull the trigger and denounce things that others have done as not being Modern Arnis, 

I would apply your very same criteria and strongly question the efficacy of eliminating these to strikes and retaining the claim of teaching Modern Arnis as Professors art.  In all 3 of his books and all three of the video series that he produced including the one for Black Belt Productions and the tapes sold through Jeff Delaney, Professor showed a 12 count striking system.  You have a 10 count striking system.  WMAA, yes, absolutely and quite acceptable from any point of view as long as you call a spade a spade.  As I said earlier and you correctly quoted me: 



I have no problem what so ever with your decision to present a 10 strike system. Your organization, your curriculum, your choice. Is it still Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas? It is definitely WMAA.  I stand by that statement.  



Tim Hartman wrote:



 I prefer to put more emphasis on the lines of attack and less on predetermined targets.  



I that statement as fuzzy logic being used to justify the WMAA 10 strike system.  Lines of 

attack and targets are not one and the same thing.  Professor gave us short-handed targets and lines/angles of attack in a single unified format.  That format gave us both the targets to be struck and the broader defensive system to counter those same strikes.  The defensive stick blocks are equally applicable whether one is taught from a 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15 or 16 strikes

system.  I have worked with each of those systems.



Targeting on the other hand is whole other matter.  Targeting is usually quite specific and each target is chosen with a desired effect in mind, if that target is actually struck.  Targets also should change when the tool used to attack or counter-attack changes.  The effects one can expect from an empty hand strike, a kick, a knife or a stick are different.  A stick strike to the clavicle will produce a different effect from a hand chop to the same spot.  A knife cut/slice would be different yet again.



Tim Hartman wrote:



I think you might be focusing too much on the method and not enough on the result. None of us will ever be Remy. I dont teach things like he did, yet my students could pass the instructors test. In addition to preserving the art we must also look to the future. It is MODERN Arnis, not traditional Arnis. It is our duty as students of our late teacher to help the art progress, much like he did.



Working in reverse order and answering your statement.  Helping the art to progress is not the issue.  Why would I disagree with that idea?  I have never told others that what they were doing is not Modern Arnis, because that was your ax to grind.  The latest example of that was in your review of the Tipunan in August of this year.



It is very possible to preserve an art and modify things to meet new situations or cultural differences.  Learning from the past and applying those lessons so that one can effectively deal with the present and future is very forward thinking and admirable.  It seems that you have shifted gears somewhat from earlier positions that you have taken in posts to this forum.  Welcome to the progressive side of Modern Arnis instruction.  Given that you are beginning to sound like Tom Bolden, Bram Frank, Dan Anderson and Kelly Worden, not to mention this writer, I welcome you to the other side of Modern Arnis thinking.  We have long held and stated that Professor provided the system and philosophy; however it was necessary for each individual to move forward making the art for themselves.  And before you or anyone else gets their knickers knotted up, I am NOT SAYING that 5 of us are all on the same page all of the time.  We are individuals, we have our differences in approach and emphasis; however, our general points of view are compatible.  It sure looks like you are wading into the broiling waters of making it for yourself.  Welcome. 



Instructors test?  Whose test are you referring to, Professors or the WMAA?  The question is for the purpose of gaining clarity so that we are talking about the same thing.  As for being Professor or even trying to be like Professor forget that garbage.  I am Jerome Barber.  Always have been and always will be.  I NEVER saw myself as being in Professors image nor did I want to try that suit on for size!  It wasnt going to fit.  Thats your gig, Tim.  I never stated that I was going to teach and preserve Modern Arnis as Professor taught it YOU did that as part of your WMAA Mission Statement.



Tim Hartman wrote:



I think you might be focusing too much on the method and not enough on the result.  



OK, lets look at the results because I believe that you have failed to acknowledge or understand what could happen when the targets struck are the eyes versus the chest of a human being.  In actual fact the results of being struck in the eye with either strike 10 or 11 is going to be quite different from being struck in the chest by strikes 6 or 7.  And for clarity and not to further confuse the issue I will only consider a blunt end stick as the striking instrument, not a pointed stick, knife or bolo. 



All strikes to the chest are not equal.  Strikes to the right side of the chest are generally less damaging than strikes to the left side.  On the right side the major damage is to the muscle sheath and breast plate.  It is essentially painful and might induce muscle cramping.  The lung is not very likely to be impacted since we are using a blunt instrument and the ribs are not broken.



A strike to the left side of the chest is a different story, since it is possible that the impact of the blow could jar the heart muscle causing palpitations (skipped or missed beats) which are very painful.  BTW in EMT circles this is known as a thoracic thump which is a sharp blow to the breast plate to force the heart to start beating, when a defibulater is not available during heart attack.     



A stick strike to the solar plexus is even more serious because all of the following internal organs are associated with that nerve grouping: liver, stomach, kidneys, pancreas, spleen and gall bladder.  Disruption to or internal bleeding of any of these organs can result in very serious problems and/or death.  Of course the solar plexus is not a specific target within the Modern Arnis listings of Professor.  When struck to the right side of the chest most people can continue fighting.

Strikes to the left side will cause some people to quit the fight after just one or two blows.  Other may fight on and require 5 or 6 blows before the stoppage occurs.  A solid and powerful blow to the solar plexus could cause the person to stop immediately and the internal damage may not be immediately obvious.



A stick strike to either eye is very likely to put an immediate end to the fight.  This is because the optic nerve of the eye is attached directly to the brain.  The pain of the strike is transferred immediately to the brain.  The targets of strikes 6/7 do not have the direct connect to the brain.



The next point for consideration is the eye is made entirely of soft tissue and very thin muscle that offers no protection from possible injury.  A stick strike to the eye is very likely going to injure the cornea and lens.  Beyond that there is a good chance that a powerful directed strike will also affect the vitreous humour or fluid sack behind the lens and in front of the retina and optic nerve.

If this fluid sack is ruptured, the eye will lose both its shape and function.  At minimum, the results will be temporary blindness in that eye.  Permanent blindness can not be ruled out.



In my opinion, I would suggest that an eye strike off of #10/#11 is roughly equivalent to being shot by a .45 caliber bullet and a chest strike, not including the solar plexus is akin to being shot with a 38. caliber.  The impact and bodily damage in more severe when struck by the former bullet.

If you consult Brain Adams book, The Medical Implications of Karate Blows, published by Unique Publications, there will be very little doubt about the damage that can inflicted to the eye.  In that book, the attacking tool is the finger!  We are discussing a stick being used as the attacking object.



Removing strikes 10/11 is a very poor decision in my view, particularly when the stated rationale is that #10/11 is duplicating #6/7.  If students are trained, drilled and practiced in the use of the former strikes, how will they learn to defend against thrusting attacks to their eyes?  In my opinion you are doing them a long term disservice by omitting those two strikes.   If you want to stream line the strikes and present a reduced numbering system why wouldnt you adopt the 9 count striking system that Professor taught at the Erie County Central Police Services Academy back in 1984?  All you need to do is eliminate strikes #10, #11 and #12.  That striking system is still being taught at the academy, today.  



Professor and John Bryant presented the Modern Arnis 9 Count Striking System because in NYS, police cadets are not allowed to use blows to the head in training courses according to the rules of the NYS Chiefs of Police Association that sets the rules for training requirements.  I am aware of this information because the ECCPSA was located at the South Campus of ECC for some 15 years, I knew a number of the instructors and I have taught as a guest instructor on several occasions.



As my final comment, I would also suggest that removing strikes 10 and 11 is a very poor idea because of something that Professor himself wrote about the 12 strikes:



*The twelve striking techniques are the life and soul of arnis. They are the hinges around which other techniques in arnis revolve.* (Presas, 1974, p. 32)  Remy Presas.  _Modern Arnis: Philippine Martial Art, Stick Fighting_.  National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 1974.



Sincerely,



Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## bart

What about Cinco Tiros? I've heard directly from several GM's and well known teachers, one of whom was Remy Presas, that all of the strikes could boil down to 5. 

There is a myth that seems to pervade the FMA community that if you know someone's angles then you know their system. That is far from the truth unless you have a very shallow system.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

DrBarber, in bold:

*As for being Professor or even trying to be like Professor forget that garbage. I am Jerome Barber. Always have been and always will be. I NEVER saw myself as being in Professors image nor did I want to try that suit on for size! It wasnt going to fit. Thats your gig, Tim. *

Hardly Tim's "gig" as he's said here on MT that the suit wouldn't fit any of us.

I'm getting a real sense here that the issue isn't a technical one, given the tone of that last post.  You write: 

*I never stated that I was going to teach and preserve Modern Arnis as Professor taught it YOU did that as part of your WMAA Mission Statement.*

Let's check this from the mission statement on the WMAA web site:

_Our first goal is to further the growth of Arnis throughout the world...We will achieve this by designing specific training programs that will advance the progression of our art while developing maximum student proficiency._

That contradicts what you wrote above.  Do your homework, professor.

Regardless...this whole "teaching it as the Professor taught" is nothing more than grabbing on to Remy's reputation and running with it.  If you're NOT doing that...great.  A personal agenda seems to be the issue then insofar as your vitriol.  

So what's the deal here?  You seem to take umbrage to Tim dropping the strikes and deviating from the way Remy taught it...then you say "I never stated that I was going to teach and preserve Modern Arnis as Professor taught it..."   

Could you make up your mind and then tell us what is on it?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Guro Harold

bart said:
			
		

> What about Cinco Tiros? I've heard directly from several GM's and well known teachers, one of whom was Remy Presas, that all of the strikes could boil down to 5.


I agree with Bart on this point. Remy Presas Jr even has taught that the 12 strikes can be reduced to 5 basic strikes.

The incredible thing about GM Remy Presas is that he was an educator, as such, he provided templates. The 12 strikes along with the 12 blocks are a template. They are the abecedarios ("ABC's") of the art.

-Palusut


----------



## arnisador

I'm reminded of tapado and its paucity of strikes.

I'd buy that it basically comes down to three strikes: Forehand, backhand, and a stab.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

arnisador said:
			
		

> I'd buy that it basically comes down to three strikes: Forehand, backhand, and a stab.


This is how I teach at my seminars. I've had great success with this and even Dan Anderson made comments that he liked my approach. I dont think the quantity of angles should be a big concern. The important thing is what we do with what we have! In Modern Arnis I look at 6, 7 & 10, 11 as being specialty attacks. On the street the most common are the forehand, backhand, thrust and overhead. The rest of the angles come into play as well encounter skilled opponents. We must train for as many type of opponents and attacks as possible. My approach is to focus on the most common at first and increase the variety as the training continues.

 :asian:


----------



## arnisador

To me, 6,7, 10, and 11 as done in the "standard" 12-count template make more sense as knife attacks; with a hooking motion, they make more sense as stick attacks. Yet, I score #6 in stick sparring reasonably often. It's not a great shot, but when the rule is just to touch, I take what scores. In actuality, I'd rather be swinging most of the time.


----------



## RickRed

T Hartman said:
			
		

> In my opinion the angles are similar enough to be classified as the same. Im not going to sweat a couple of degree difference. I prefer to put more emphasis on the lines of attack and less on predetermined targets. Weve recently applied the same approach to disarming.
> 
> I think you might be focusing too much on the method and not enough on the result. None of us will ever be Remy. I dont teach things like he did, yet my students could pass the instructors test. In addition to preserving the art we must also look to the future. It is *MODERN* Arnis, not traditional Arnis. It is our duty as students of our late teacher to help the art progress, much like he did.
> 
> :asian:


But as an instructor, doesn't having standard methods make it easier when you are teaching at seminars at so many different locations?

Is the instructor's test one that you made or is it one that Remy made?

If it is a test that you made, of course the change would be no big deal.

If it is one that Remy made, and they become instrucors, do they teach students 'your way' or 'Remy's way' when they teach their students basic strikes and other fundamental skills?

This seems like a change from past posts where you were critical of others for doing things differently from Remy.

If it is, that's fine.  I just want to know how you are okay with changing this now, but weren't okay when others made changes in the past.


----------



## James Miller

How does a thread about striking patterns turn into a pissing match about how the WMAA is wrong and is not doing Modern Arnis?


 :bs:


----------



## Guro Harold

There was much variety in terms of the order of some of the strikes and disarms as well.

Pure Modern Arnis was and can only be the late GM Remy A. Presas!


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

I think if you were to ask Remy what's the difference between 6 & 7 vs. 10 & 11 his answer would be simple. *"It is ALL the same."*

 :asian:


----------



## arnisador

Yup, that sounds like him.

Every Modern Arnis person I've ever heard teach at a school or camp has described #10 as #6 but to the eye, etc. No one has _ever_ said "Now #10 is very different from all the previous strikes..."


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

I have more striking charts from other systems that James or myself will be posting in the next week. I need to convert them to image files first.

 :asian:


----------



## RickRed

T Hartman said:
			
		

> I think if you were to ask Remy what's the difference between 6 & 7 vs. 10 & 11 his answer would be simple. *"It is ALL the same."*
> 
> :asian:


Or he might say that two are to the chest and two are to the eyes because that is what he said in his books, videos and seminars.

If no one can be Remy, no one can speak for him now.


----------



## arnisador

RickRed said:
			
		

> Or he might say that two are to the chest and two are to the eyes because that is what he said in his books, videos and seminars.


 In different orders at different times, and with varying energies.

 If the angle is what matters, I can't see the difference between #6 and #10. If the target is what matters, I do see the difference. My understanding is that it was always the angle that mattered most.

 Yes, it's a change. No, I don't think it's a significant one. It drops a redundancy. You can do a #1 at almost any elevation--same for a #6.


----------



## Guro Harold

arnisador said:
			
		

> In different orders at different times, and with varying energies.


And with different emphasis.

How many techniques were taught publically by GM Presas that involved the sungkiti? I recall more of the #5 thrust usage in Palis-Palis more than the #6 and #7 sungkiti.


----------



## modarnis

Palusut said:
			
		

> And with different emphasis.
> 
> How many techniques were taught publically by GM Presas that involved the sungkiti? I recall more of the #5 thrust usage in Palis-Palis more than the #6 and #7 sungkiti.



Sometimes the 6 from the dagger hand in palis palis  or even abanico corto espada y daga style, but those were extensions, and not a primary emphasis.  When I trained with Dr. Remy a few years back, he did the bulk of a seminar on sungkhiti.

In my opinion, the angles are a basic training template.  They also illustrate potential counterattacks from an opponent.  One key to higher levels of the art, is understanding what your opponent can and can't do. 5 angles, 10, 12, 14 , far less imortant than understanding how the angles relate to attack, defense and counterattack in the flow of a system


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

RickRed said:
			
		

> Or he might say that two are to the chest and two are to the eyes because that is what he said in his books, videos and seminars.


If the targets are the only difference then we have already addressed it and you chose to ignore it. I think that everyone on this thread *(except for Jerome Barber and yourself)* get the point. As Dr. Leader pointed out when he first posted the angles this was the* WMAAs version*. Feel free to take all the shots you like. I have better things to do with my time. It is very evident that the members of camp Barber would rather cause trouble than contribute to the growth of our late Teachers legacy.


 :asian:


----------



## DrBarber

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> So, following your rational, an angle #1 delivered to the shoulder/collarbone isn't the same as an angular forearm delivered to the head? A #8 delivered to the knee isn't the same as a backhand delivered to the ankle or shin?
> 
> The #10 and #11 targeted the eyes. The six and seven the clavicular area. They're virtually the same strikes, and the difference are so small that they're not worth mentioning, regardless of your perceptions on the positioning of the elbow. Remy's reasons for the reduncancy are clear--it was a targeting issue. He wasn't proposing some zippy new angle.
> 
> Thus the reactionary response rears its ugly head.
> 
> When you say "Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas," which era are you talking about? Do you teach it exactly the way it was taught you, uncorrupted by time, ill memory, and the need for modification or creativity? Did he never intend it to progress beyond his death?
> 
> I saw him proctor tests where at least three versions of his forms were performed, and he didn't caution his instructors on the variability of the technique nor seem to care all that much. He allowed us great license in execution of those alone.
> 
> The man was eclectic and fluid in his approach to the art. We are not allowed to be? He encouraged sharing of ideas and on at least one occasion incorporated T'ai Chi push hands methods into his de cadena drill. So with his passing we have to lock up everything he showed us and keep it pristine and unchanged?
> 
> We've seen this exhortation of "teaching the true art as the late master taught" play out with every single personality driven martial art that ever existed...and its simply silly. Even if in the modern age we were able to archive a master's methodology and know exactly what it was he taught, and when he taught it, that doesn't mean such a methodology ought to be religiously and obssessively followed. At that point we stop being artists and merely become plagiarists. The art stops progressing, and we settle down into arthritic thinking. We stop trying to be ourselves and try to be the shadow of one now gone.
> 
> I suspect he wouldn't have liked us to do that.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Steve


Hello Steve,



I guess that you dont know who I am and apparently, my reputation has not preceded me.  That could be a good thing.  I would be the very last person to push/demand orthodoxy and blind conformity to tradition or past practices.  I fully encourage exploration and innovation.  Improving ones understanding of the art, the foundations and various components is absolutely worthwhile in my opinion.  I am a fervent exponent of making it for yourself as well as the art within your art concepts of Modern Arnis as devised and presented by Professor.  Therefore, I believe we are actually on the same page and we really have no serious disagreements.



Ive read and re-read all three of Professors books.  In addition, I have viewed and re-viewed all of Professors tapes from the original 1986 group of five, plus the later addition of 2 others.  There

Is also the 3 tapes in the Black Belt Series as well as the series of tapes that Jeff Delaney was selling before Professors death.  I believe that Im fairly well versed in the subtleties of what Professor was teaching.  I attended seminars and camps from 1981 through 1994, and I hosted the same for Professor from 1986 and 1994.  Given the time and studies that Ive put into this art, I am well aware of the possibilities for personal development and growth.  I refuse to portray myself as an expert or authority, but I am quite knowledge about the art.  I consider myself a skilled student as well as an instructor.  I dont have any exalted rankings, just a strong working interest in Modern Arnis.  My rank under Professor is a mere Lakan Tatlo.  There is no way that I would ever presume that I could be a working leader in the art.  After all is said and done, my IMAF working title was _Technical Assistant for International Affairs_.  That title ceased to exist 

after I resigned from the IMAF.



During my years of blending Kenpo and Arnis, I have seen various permutations of the 12 angles of attack and anyos.  Until I came across the 10 angles of attack statements, I viewed all the various variations as being MAFP and IMAF sanctioned.  Ive taught both empty hand and stick anyos differently from Tim Hartman and Professor approved of both methods. I never told anyone or announced that someone elses approach was not the correct way of doing Modern Arnis, but then I came across the 10-strike method.



Please understand that I have seen and worked with at least six different versions of the 12 angles of attack while actively involved with Professor and the IMAF.  The printed versions by Professor always were #1 & #2, horizontal strikes to the temple.  #3 & #4 were diagonal downward strikes to the clavicles.  Those first four strikes had a number of different versions depending on who was teaching the methodology and when.  There was #1 & #2 to the temples with #3 & #4 as horizontals to the Elbows and Floating Ribs.  Another version also retained #1 & #2 but lowered #3 & #4 to the waist and or top of the hipbones.  Then there was the diagonal #1 & #2 with the horizontal #3 & #4 to the earlier mentioned Elbow/Rib targets.  I also recall the horizontal #1 and #2 but #3 & #4 were reversed and became backhand (#3) to Forehand (#4)  with a retraction to the forehand side to set up strike #5 the Upward Thrust.  



One could retain the standard printed format of Professors texts with strikes #1 - #5, and use thrusts #6 and #7 on the forehand to backhand method or one could alter the order using #6 as a backhand reverse thrust and #7 as the forehand thrust.  If one were to reverse #6 & #7, then strikes #8 through #11 were also changed to the opposite sides from what Professor has published in his three texts.  Therefore, the question becomes which of the above methodologies 

is the correct order?  Alternatively, one can take the position that Professor was highly dynamic and fluid in his approach to the 12 striking angles; however, one thing NEVER CHANGED, there were ALWAYS 12 Strikes.  On that one singular fact, Professor was always very consistent.   He meant it when he wrote:



 *The twelve striking techniques are the life and soul of arnis. They are the hinges around which other techniques in arnis revolve.* (Presas, 1974, p. 32)  Remy Presas.  _Modern Arnis: Philippine Martial Art, Stick Fighting_.  National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 1974.





I have consistently taught my students four Modern Arnis 12 strike methods.  I learned all four from Professor himself as well as Sifu Don Zanghi and Guro John Bryant.  The rationale behind my decision to use all four patterns was that I did not want my students to become fixated on a particular method of striking to the exclusion of all others.  Rigidity like cloning is not an option in my school.  Flexibility of methodology and thinking supercedes rote replication and mindless copying of motion in my teaching philosophy.



Hardhead-Jarhead also wrote:



 At that point we stop being artists and merely become plagiarists. The art stops progressing, and we settle down into arthritic thinking. We stop trying to be ourselves and try to be the shadow of one now gone.



First and foremost a plagiarist is someone who authors a written work, created by another person and pass that work off as his/her own, consciously and deliberately denying proper credit to the original author.  I am not suggesting that anyone is failing to give proper credit to Professor.  The problem is exactly the opposite some people are trying to claim that what they are doing by teaching a 10 strike system of Modern Arnis is consistent with what Professor taught and simply is not true.  As for the art progressing, I am in general agreement with you.  I support the contention that Professor wanted the art to grow and that people should make Modern Arnis principles and skill sets fit themselves.  In other words the students should be alive and actively seeking to understand how to translate the various components of Modern Arnis into their own method of presentation and execution. 



Given my position as stated above, I now return to that _10-strike method of the WMAA_.  It is my contention that the Tim Hartman and his WMAA leadership group can adopt any striking system with any number of strikes that they wish.  I am not objecting to their decision to go with 10 strikes.  *I support their right to modify the count* in any manner that they deem appropriate *for the WMAA*.  Just *dont* call it Professors Modern Arnis striking system because it is not what he taught at _ANY TIME_ that I am aware of during his 25 years of teaching in the USA.  These folks should call what they are doing by its true and correct name: *WMAA 10 Angles of Attack!* 



Yours truly,



Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## DrBarber

T Hartman said:
			
		

> If the targets are the only difference then we have already addressed it and you chose to ignore it. I think that everyone on this thread *(except for Jerome Barber and yourself)* get the point. As Dr. Leader pointed out when he first posted the angles this was the* WMAAs version*. Feel free to take all the shots you like. I have better things to do with my time. It is very evident that the members of camp Barber would rather cause trouble than contribute to the growth of our late Teachers legacy.
> :asian:


Come on Tim, I fully support your right to modify the count to 10 from 12 strikes.  I have already said that and posted it.  No problem, it was an internal matter within the WMAA, so just call it what it is, the WMAA 10 Angles of Attack.

Further, I posted reasons why strikes #10 and #11 are effective and why they should be kept as part of the training.  Disagree or not, but look at the documented effects, not the fact that I posted them.   I have made several positive contributions to the thread and never said that you should do anything my way.  My posts pointed out that #10 and #11 are not redundent, repetitive or the same.  I gave anatomical and physiological rationales for retaining these two strikes in the instructional mode.  You are perfectly free to reject my suggestions, but you really ought to read my comments much more carefully.  In addition, I contributed quotes from Professor himself, from his own books and interviews to support my contentions.  When did that become agrumentative and disruptive?  My 
posts have contributed in a very positive manner to the threads while taking nothing away from your decision and right to use a 10 strike system.  When I quoted Professor:

*The twelve striking techniques are the life and soul of arnis. They are the hinges around which other techniques in arnis revolve.* (Presas, 1974, p. 32) Remy Presas. _Modern Arnis: Philippine Martial Art, Stick Fighting_. National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 1974.

My intention was to remind everyone that he had a reason and purpose behind every strike and target selected.  Why would you be opposed to seeing/reading what the GM had to say about the system that he designed.  
I have freely acknowledged that I am not a strict adherent to every little subtle nuisence of what Professor did within Modern Arnis.  I have always freely stated that my training was a blending of Tracy Kenpo and Modern Arnis from white belt to black belt under Sifu Don Zanghi.  I posted earlier today that I use four (4) different versions of the 12 Modern Arnis Angles of Attack.  That alone would clearly indicate that I am not a Modern Arnis purist.  So exactly where is is it that I have "cause(d) trouble than contribute to the growth of our late Teachers legacy."?  Please be specific, quote me!  And please do take the time to reply since I am writing directly to you in response to the quote above that you authored.

And just in case some of the forum readers are unaware of what I have done in the past to positively contribute the legacy of Professor, I have taught Modern Arnis at Erie Community College in both Orchard Park and Buffalo, NY since 1987 to the present.  My four course sequence is taught for academic credit through the PE Department.  Professor himself approved the entire program in writing in 1989.  I also hosted Professor for at least one seminar and camp every year from 1986 to 1994.  After leaving the IMAF because of some internal differences with a local Modern Arnis instructor - not Tim Hartman, by the way - I continued to teach Modern Arnis and sent people to seminars and camps with Professor through 2000, when he stopped teaching in order to deal with his terminal illness.  

In 2003, I hosted the first Modern Arnis Symposium and met with considerable opposition both before and after the event.  Some people were even critical of the fact that I would not dictate or restrict how the Modern Arnis would be presented.  People were critical of the fact that I wanted and encouraged people to bring forward and show everyone assembled how they understaood Modern Arnis to be constructed.  My position was that Modern Arnis is and continues to be a living adaptive martial art.  Professor often told everyone that they should make it for themselves.

The major complaints against the Symposium concept and program itself 
were that it occured too soon after Professor death.  The wrong person 
was hosting the event.  It was being held in the wrong city.  Not all of the presenters were well known.  The "big name people" (Kelly Worden, Jeff Delaney, Randi Schea) were not on the program.  That is quite interesting since I formally invited all of them to appear and all declined.  Rocky Paswik was a no show along with David Ng and Bruce Chiu.  

Given the fact that I had asked both the leaders and some memebers of all 
of the US Modern Arnis groups to participate and people chose to decline, I refused to accept that as a negative.  I planned for no shows.  I put other people in those slots - Tim Kashino, Paul Martin and Paul Janulis.  I had also stated in print that I would hold the event so long as I had four (4) instructors willing to teach.  Seven (7) instructors indicated that they would be there and they kept their word.  

One person who did not even attend the event referred to the instructors assembled as the "Replacement B Team".  That is a very telling as well as  interesting remark because two of those 'B Teamers' were invited to teach 
at the 2005 Modern Arnis Tipunan in Anaheim, along with this writer.  All 
three of us are on the advanced list of invited instructors for the upcoming 2006 Tipunan in Boston.  Not too shabby, in my opinion.  However, in spite 
of all of the above stuff, I have never wavered in my conviction that the Symposium was the right thing to do.  Others disagree, so be it.   

I have made some significant and continous contributions to Modern Arnis over the years and I will continue to teach the art along with my Tracy Kenpo.  My offer to teach anyone the connections between Kenpo and Arnis stands.  Since I have been actively involved in learning and teaching both arts since 1981 to the present, there are only a few people whom I would regard as more knowledgable than myself in this area.  

So, any time you are ready, Tim, to talk directly to me and point out where 
I was negative in my comments on this thread, I await your response.
To paraphase your comment made above 'I have better things to do with my time than answer the comments of others speaking in your behalf, since you are the one who refered to "camp Barber".  Let's dialogue, without the 'camps', Tim.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## Guro Harold

*Mod note:*

Now seems to be an excellent time for Mr. Hartman and Dr. Barber to discuss this offline.

Best regards,

Palusut
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Dan Anderson

Just got back from Canada and haven't read any more of this thread except for that it is separated from the original.

Here is how I look at it.  *Offensively*, I think the target based numbering system is very important, especially when you change the weapon from impact based to cutting based.  *Defensively*, the direction of motion is senior to targeting.  You don't need to know if the incoming strike (cut) is going to the head, shoulder, or neck.  It is an upper level strike (cut) that is coming from that direction.  And so on.  I'll keep it short but I can see Tim's viewpoint of what he is doing, whether or not I agree with it (for the record it doesn't matter to me).

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## hardheadjarhead

T Hartman said:
			
		

> I think if you were to ask Remy what's the difference between 6 & 7 vs. 10 & 11 his answer would be simple. *"It is ALL the same."*
> 
> :asian:




Oh wow. 

Actually, I agree.  He would have said that.






Regards,


Steve


----------



## Guro Harold

*Mod Note:*

Post temporarily removed per review.

Palusut
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Jerome,

In the future don't contact me either through e-mail or PM.  If you have anything to say to me, say it here.  Do not contact me in any other way.  If you can't say it to me publicly, don't say it.

You're suggesting here that I am speaking on Tim's behalf.  If you post something I disagree with, I can assure you I will speak for myself.  And if you post here--as it is a public forum--I'll jump in and comment as I see fit, and vigorously.  

You've contradicted yourself a number of times here.  You state you're progressive, but then suggest locking Modern Arnis in amber and keeping it pristine and unchanged.  You write:

_I would be the very last person to push/demand orthodoxy and blind conformity to tradition or past practices. I fully encourage exploration and innovation. Improving ones understanding of the art, the foundations and various components is absolutely worthwhile in my opinion. I am a fervent exponent of making it for yourself as well as the art within your art concepts of Modern Arnis as devised and presented by Professor. Therefore, I believe we are actually on the same page and we really have no serious disagreements._

The bulk of the post then takes exception to any changes to what Remy taught.  It seems you can be progressive, but Tim can not be.  Must he first clear his actions with you?

You then write:

*The problem is exactly the opposite some people are trying to claim that what they are doing by teaching a 10 strike system of Modern Arnis is consistent with what Professor taught and simply is not true.*

Tim knows that Remy never taught ten strikes.  We all do.  None of us ever stated otherwise.  We were at the seminars and camps and we also bought the videos and books.  The statement above is sheer nonsense.  The elimination of two strikes that are virtually identical to two preceding it are not going to cause the wrath and ruin to descend on the art of Modern Arnis. Give it a rest!

At first you attempted to suggest the disputed strikes were structurally different  (they're clearly not), then you fell back on the books/videos argument  And now youre quibbling and playing with semantics.  All this is making you look rather silly and exposes your motivation.  This clearly isn't about two angles of attack.

Further, if you're going to condescend to me as you did in the e-mail and here, do so with some intellectual weight to back your statements.

I repeat...do not contact me in any other way unless it is in the open and here on Martial Talk.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You're suggesting here that I am speaking on Tim's behalf. If you post something I disagree with, I can assure you I will speak for myself. And if you post here--as it is a public forum--I'll jump in and comment as I see fit, and vigorously.


 Hey, I can definitely attest to this!


----------



## DrBarber

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Jerome,
> 
> In the future don't contact me either through e-mail or PM. If you have anything to say to me, say it here. Do not contact me in any other way. If you can't say it to me publicly, don't say it.
> 
> Further, if you're going to condescend to me as you did in the e-mail and here, do so with some intellectual weight to back your statements.
> 
> I repeat...do not contact me in any other way unless it is in the open and here on Martial Talk.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve


OK, Not a Problem, As you wish!

Note:  My statement was generalized and not specific to you.  Just taking a very good suggested offered numerous times by others and re-applying it since the "camp Barber" thing was reintroduced.

Respectfully yours,

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## RickRed

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Let's check this from the mission statement on the WMAA web site:
> 
> _Our first goal is to further the growth of Arnis throughout the world...We will achieve this by designing specific training programs that will advance the progression of our art while developing maximum student proficiency._
> 
> That contradicts what you wrote above. Do your homework, professor.


This clip from the Horizon Martial arts instructors page might help clarify some contradictions in what WMAA/Hartman are about:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"After Professor Presas retirement due to illness Hartman formed the WMAA (World Modern Arnis Alliance) in order to *preserve* and continue the progression of the art of Modern Arnis. He is currently the WMAAs President and Technical Director."[/font]

This would confirm to some degree what Dr. B was saying about goals.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

RickRed said:
			
		

> This clip from the Horizon Martial arts instructors page might help clarify some contradictions in what WMAA/Hartman are about:
> [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"After Professor Presas retirement due to illness Hartman formed the WMAA (World Modern Arnis Alliance) in order to *preserve* and continue the progression of the art of Modern Arnis. He is currently the WMAAs President and Technical Director."[/font]
> 
> This would confirm to some degree what Dr. B was saying about goals.





The key phrase here...and thank you for including it...is "continue the progression."   One can preserve, and yet progress.  

As I've said elsewhere, I think we do a great deal of harm if we do one at the expense of the other.  Life and art are fluid and dynamic and demand progression...yet it would be both sad and unwise to lose the contributions of geniuses such as Remy or (insert great martial artist here).  

We can draw a great deal from archival knowledge, but we can't let the game pass us by.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Guro Harold

*Mod Warning:*
Let's use this thread to discuss the theory, execution, and application of the Modern Arnis 12 strikes only.

Let's let Mr. Hartman and Dr. Barber resolve their differences offline.

This Mod warning will also be a reminder of this Admin warning: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15344.

Please review it.

Best regards,

Palusut
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I can see to an extent both views. In order to move forward you must know where you've been. There are nuances to these things that we beginners don't get. 

I see preserving it as maintaining the system as Remy developed. Knowing where he got things, who he got them from, why he kept what he kept, and wht he dropped what he dropped. MA didn't just "be", it was evolved over decades.

Progress is also important.  Remy to my knowledge never stopped looking for ways to improve. I look at some of the 'known' influences (SCJJ, kenpo, karate, etc) and see where he took some things that worked, and made them "his" for his system.

THe WMAA removed 2 angles that, when done with a stick were a tad awkward and seemingly redundant. I assume there was a long period of discussion as I recall asking Tim about them (the angles) seeming to be the same when I first met him and the answer being something along the lines of 'alot of people say that'. (I met Tim in 01, to give a time frame here).  I've also tried those angles open-hand, knive and sword. Some are more condusive to 'working' than others at least to me and my 'golum gate' style of non-movement.  

When looking at 'systems' one has to also look at the "difficulty level" of the system.  A system such as EPAK has a high level due to it's encycopedia of techniques, it's 'language', and it's concepts.  Modern Arnis is more a dictionary in comparison. What people often forget, is that there is still an alphabet at a simplier level.

Kenpo has 360' of attack.  Modern Arnis has 12. WMAA dropped that to 10. Tim's taught it as low as 3 (to absolute newbies). I see it as making good sence.  Start simple, then expand the mind.  For me, 6/7 and 10/11 were the same, just a slightly awkward hand positions difference. To someone at a higher level, they can not only "get it" but make "it" work as well.

Hope that made sence...I haven't had my caffine yet.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Sorry Harold.  Was typing while you were.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Palusut said:
			
		

> *Mod Warning:*
> Let's use this thread to discuss the theory, execution, and application of the Modern Arnis 12 strikes only.




I thought the thread was about WMAA's ten strikes.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Well, the title doesn't indicate version, so I'd say it's for the discussion of the angles period.  The WMAA folks just need to know when the other groups say 12 it means 10, and when they say 10 that everyone else should think 12.

It's simple...like counting in base 8 and converting to base 12.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Well, the title doesn't indicate version, so I'd say it's for the discussion of the angles period.  The WMAA folks just need to know when the other groups say 12 it means 10, and when they say 10 that everyone else should think 12.
> 
> It's simple...like counting in base 8 and converting to base 12.





Wait...hold a minute while I take my shoes and socks off.

Okay.  Now I'm set.  We can go to twenty if anyone wants.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Just keep yer shorts on.


----------



## arnisador

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Just keep yer shorts on.


 Not the infamous _corto baston_ technique!!!


----------



## DrBarber

RickRed said:
			
		

> This clip from the Horizon Martial arts instructors page might help clarify some contradictions in what WMAA/Hartman are about:
> [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"After Professor Presas retirement due to illness Hartman formed the WMAA (World Modern Arnis Alliance) in order to *preserve* and continue the progression of the art of Modern Arnis. He is currently the WMAAs President and Technical Director."[/font]
> 
> This would confirm to some degree what Dr. B was saying about goals.


Thank you RickRed, I thought that I understood what had been posted on the website.  Again, I have no quarrel with someone or some group wanting to alter the strikes, just keep the name/source correct.

JB


----------



## Mark Lynn

FWIW on the discussion about the different striking patterns that are found within MA influenced systems.

When teaching I use to take different weapons/items and have students perfrom the 12 AOA with different 
1) Weapons 
2) Grips on the baston
3) Types of hits
4) Inject the alive hand between the strikes
5) Kicks between the strikes

This was part of Hock Hochhiem's arnis (Presas based) programs back in the mid 90's.  He also modified the strikes of 10/11 to make them more of a hooking type strike than a straight strike due to the redundency of the strike as discussed here on this thread.

In time Hock has modified/stream lined the delivery system even more with his clock (taking the approach of Kenpo) angle teaching to where it no longer even resembles the 12 AOA.

I bring this up because Hock originally expanded the instruction on the 12 AOA by including different weapons/items to hit with, different strikes, grips etc. etc.  Then he modified the strikes that repeated.  Then he developed a different delivery system to where it no longer even resembles it's source material even though the strikes are contained in the source material.  The more he injected his thoughts, his beliefs (on how and what should be taught), the more it became Hock's material and not the Professor's.  Along the same line the more he didn't claim it was MA as well.

Mark


----------



## Mark Lynn

Again for FWIW

Bram Frank also changed the 12 AOA with the direction of his 6 and 7 strike, in that he felt that the edged weapon would be more effective coming in a slightly upward angle (up under the ribs), in stead of the higher thrusts where the ribs protect the organs of the body.

Mark


----------



## DrBarber

The Boar Man said:
			
		

> Again for FWIW
> 
> Bram Frank also changed the 12 AOA with the direction of his 6 and 7 strike, in that he felt that the edged weapon would be more effective coming in a slightly upward angle (up under the ribs), in stead of the higher thrusts where the ribs protect the organs of the body.
> 
> Mark


Good point, Mark,

Edged tools such as the knife, bolo and sword present different problems for proper application than blunt instruments such as a stick.  Proper orientation of attack with each type of tool is essential if one is to get the most effective usage out of the tool.  My instructional format consists primarily of the single and double stick applications therefore strikes to boney areas is paramount in my targeting scheme.  I supplement the baston/stick with the palm stick and kubaton keychain.  The latter two items also are directed toward boney areas and the eyes because of the short range nature of these two tools.  The above mentioned tools than lead toward the Gunting Knife and the applications of impact strikes, joint locking and bio-mechanical cutting off of the kinetic opening feature of the Gunting.  Now there is a shift in the target areas to muscles.  The idea is to obtain a stoppage of the limbs in terms of their proper and intended functioning.

The key is of course know how and when to use each tool and the proper angles of attack that maximizes the functioning of each seperate tool.  In order to achieve this maximization I use the various Modern Arnis 12 angles as taught by Professor Presas, plus his 9 count that I mentioned in an earlier post and I supplement these with the Paradigm Escrima 9 Count pattern and several cinco Teros or 5 count patterns.  Diferent students find different striking patterns easier to understand and use.

Respectfully,

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.


----------



## Cthulhu

*sigh*
<rant>

This thread is a very good example of why I don't wish to belong to any Modern Arnis organization, even though I train and teach Modern Arnis as part of our curriculum...some weenie has to turn a nice principle/technique thread into a political pissing match.

Sometimes, these people really make me sick.  Scratch that: they always make me sick.

I never had the good fortune to meet or train with Professor Presas, but I'm sure he'd just love to beat the holy hell out of the whole lot of you pontificating political peons.

</rant>

Cthulhu
(my apologies to the admins and moderators...as Kaith probably remembers, I feel your pain)

3 points for alliteration!


----------

