# Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis



## Makalakumu

I have trained in Arnis for about two years and a general type of Kali for two.  I also have a long background with other striking arts.  I am wondering about peoples opinions regarding the empty hand arnis techniques.  Could anyone give a good comparison/contrast of these techniques to other arts?


----------



## MJS

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I have trained in Arnis for about two years and a general type of Kali for two.  I also have a long background with other striking arts.  I am wondering about peoples opinions regarding the empty hand arnis techniques.  Could anyone give a good comparison/contrast of these techniques to other arts? *



I think the empty hand techs. are great.  Nothing fancy or hard to learn, just simple and to the point.  They tend to focus of the joint locks and controlling, which is good because not every situation you're gonna come across is going to warrant you breaking someone knee.  The also focus on the limb destructions which I love!!  

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

Modern Arnis empty hand techniques are a mixture of Filipino trapping and small circle jujitsu techniques, making for a highly devistating combination.

I believe that the empty hand application is why people of other Filipino arts should get some exposure to Modern Arnis; modern arnis is truly unique with its empty hand application, and its approach among other FMA.

The empty hand application is also why I believe that Professor Presas' time here in the United States was vital, and really helped his art come to maturity. He had "large circle" grappling techniques from Dumog, Judo, and Japanese Jujitsu, as well as trapping techniques from the Philippines when he 1st came to the U.S.. What got added over about a 15 year period was the developement and integration of Wally Jay's small circle method. Wally Jay and Remy Presas were road buddies and training buddies for this time, and they both learned from each other. This method of jujitsu fit in perfectly with our filipino trapping techniques, and translated well from weapon to empty hand. 

I always knew the small circle jujitsu method was in our system, but the lightbulb really went on for me recently as to how important it was. I was at the bookstore, so I decided to pick up Prof. Wally Jays book. Virtually every single technique in there I had done before in modern arnis, and the methods explained coincided perfectly with how Professor used to joint lock. I have never trained under a small circle jujitsu instructor, yet I KNOW small circle jujitsu! Needless to say, I was completely amazed to find out how important this progression of small circle was to Modern Arnis. When Professor is your instructor, you see him as almost an invincable hero who must have always known what he has known, and that Modern Arnis always was the way you're learning it. I have learned more about the roots of his art since he has passed away then when he was alive. Needless to say, the small circle method is inseperable from Modern Arnis empty hand.

Having said that, The Modern Arnis empty hand system is good for COMBAT and real life fighting over anything else. The fact of the matter is that it took a long time before Wally Jay's jujitsu people started winning jujitsu tournaments. This was not because the style was inferior, but because they had to learn how to modify their techniques for competition; their method works well for performing techniques that are against tournament rules, such as small joint manipulation and control, and overall breaking. Modern Arnis with these roots has the same problem...our empty hand stuff works well for real life fighting rather then competition. Unfortunatily most of the ways other martial artists try to test the effectiveness of their techniques happends to be through competition. I often hear critiques like, "I can't trap a boxer" or "I can't block check strike when I point fight" or "I use most of my wristlocks when I grapple". Modern Arnis empty hand method was not designed for competition, so it would have to be modified for that. For combative application, though, it is the ideal mixture of trapping, limb destructions, striking, lower leg work, and small joint grappling for a deadly combo. 

I would pit Modern Arnis empty hand work for real life fighting against ANY other style.

Now, with that all being said, I would suggest for Modern Arnis people, especially if they learned the art 1990 and beyond like myself, to learn some ground fighting and submission wrestling from a submission fighting art of some kind. The reason is because Professor had arthritis and knee problems for the last 10 years of his life, so he did very little ground grappling. As far as I understand, there wasn't much ground fighting in the earlier days either. So you may want to seek out a ground fighting instructor to help you fill in some blanks. You'll find that it is "all the same" on the ground, and that the Modern Arnis method fully applys to the ground, yet you might need an experienced grappler to help you see the connection.

Good luck with training, all...

Cheers!
PAUL 
:cheers:


----------



## bart

Arnis empty hand is pretty good compared with other systems right off the bat. The checking and trapping is definitely stronger in FMA than it is in other systems. Sensitivity training is also an integral part of the curriculum so people are able to pick up more telegraphed movements, haymakers and such. Respect for the weapon is also a plus and it makes the hand techniques more practical. 

Often times though FMAists tend to be right side only, cross position only fighters. I experienced this firsthand coming from Wing Chun which is notoriously ambidextrous and mirror position. This is a shortcoming that is often glossed over which allows lefties like me to gain an advantage in some cases. A righty on lefty fight is almost always done in mirror position, making the fight a competition for the outside. If you don't train for that, it is difficult to adjust for. 

I also think that a lot of FMAists have a tough time dealing with kicks, especially low ones and that most of the skill in that arena comes from cross training in other arts in which that is an emphasis. 

These two problems are not so much a difficulty within the system, it's more of one that comes from not including it as a regular part of training. The emphasis in FMA is weaponry, and as all of the empty hand is distilled from the stick work, mirror position off hand training, and legwork are often sacrificed for other aspects like disarms and the like.


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by bart _
> *I also think that a lot of FMAists have a tough time dealing with kicks, especially low ones and that most of the skill in that arena comes from cross training in other arts in which that is an emphasis. *



This was my observation.  In my arnis classes, when we sparred, the students were pretty much unprepared to deal with kicks of any kind.  These guys were awesome with their weapons and extremely fast hands, but I could control the distance with them all day.  That is, unless, they also trained in a kicking art.  Then my tricks were null and it was all out until we went to the ground and again, the training gave me the advantage.  

I liked Paul's post.  Small Circle jui-jutsu is great on the street when combined with trapping.  Yet, I would like to caution, do not forget the big circles.  On large opponents, that is often the only thing that works.  Also, when you are tired and injured, big circles are easy and devestating.


----------



## sercuerdasfigther

i train serrada not arnis, but i have noticed a few things. like said earlier i'm mostly strong side oriented. all my senstivity and sticking ability are in my weapon arm. i just use my checking hand to catch a little bit. my teach is formally from wing chun and when he forces me to start left arm on left arm he tunes me up. i always switch back to my right side. 
    i have noticed that fma's ability to attack with hands across both high and low lines mess up alot of people( i've notice manthis kung fu does this also.). 
    against boxers i've noticed the ability to stick to there arms is quite handy. also the fact that when we go in we don't really come back out.


----------



## Cruentus

> I also think that a lot of FMAists have a tough time dealing with kicks



I never thought of that. Reason being, I came from a kicking art (TKD). I also boxed, kickboxed, and wrestled, then did some submission stuff later. So when someone says "I have trouble using my stuff against ________ (Grappler, kicker, etc.)" I tend to not think that it might be a gap in their Modern Arnis, rather I tend to think that it is a gap in their training. THis may be incorrect on my part, because Presas Modern Arnis (which is what I am talking aout here; not all FMA are the same) certianly addresses some things better then others, depending on how you are taught.

I believe, though, that the modern arnis "concepts" translate over whatever your medium is. So, my suggesting to you if you are a modern arnis player if their is a gap in your training and your having trouble addressing a ground fighter, or kicker, (or whatever) then I say cross train and "Cross spar" a little with a skilled person in the medium your having trouble with. You will eventually find out how your modern arnis translates to that medium if you do this.

 :asian:


----------



## Pappy Geo

Good fast high kickers can definitely be a problem for me, My training is all in low kicks including blocking them. My strategy is to close the range shutting down those high kicks, which works very well normally until I spar with an exceptionally talented kicker. Then it comes down to keeping out of range until timing presents itself.

My left side is trained to be a mirror of my right side since I am right handed, albeit left side is not as efficient and I still favor my right side. Utilizing the left side can be suprise to an opponent just like left handed boxers can be hard to cope with for most right handed boxers. I don't know why boxers don't train more with both leads and switch up in a bout confusing your opponent, that works for me.


----------



## MJS

> _Originally posted by bart _
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Often times though FMAists tend to be right side only, cross position only fighters. I experienced this firsthand coming from Wing Chun which is notoriously ambidextrous and mirror position. This is a shortcoming that is often glossed over which allows lefties like me to gain an advantage in some cases. A righty on lefty fight is almost always done in mirror position, making the fight a competition for the outside. If you don't train for that, it is difficult to adjust for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  Learning the left side is something that IMO is often overlooked, but its definately important to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also think that a lot of FMAists have a tough time dealing with kicks, especially low ones and that most of the skill in that arena comes from cross training in other arts in which that is an emphasis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with this.  There are destructions that can be done against the high to medium level kicks, just like the ones that are done against punches.  As for the low kicks, the best way to block those would be like you'd see a Thai fighter doing.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


----------



## Cruentus

As someone who used to kick a lot when sparring with the gear on, I'll lend some advise to everyone.

One of the most common ways I was able to kick people in the head had to do with where non-boxers keep their hands, where their eyes are focused, and how they block. 

Modern Arnis people who are used to parrying don't usually protect themselves like a boxer, so their hands are usually positioned with one in front of the other, and often times below their jaw line. Their vision is usually focused between the eyes and shoulders triangle. They can see upper body movements fairly well, but if you know how to throw a kick without telegraphing too much with your upper body (until maybe right before impact), then this can be very decieving to them. I was often times able to hit people right in the face with my lead leg round house because they wouldn't even see it coming, and my foot would come right over their guard due to the positioning of their hands.

More on hand positioning; as a kicker, my objective was to get past their hands with my kicks to my target, or to get BEHIND THE HANDS with my kicks. I would come overtop, underneath, or in between to accomplish this. The further away their hands were from my targets (head, body) the easier it would be for me to get behind their hands. So, when the average martial arts person faught (especially from trapping systems), their hands in their guard often wandered outward, one hand before the other. They also often wandered below the jaw line. this gave me great opportunities to get behind their guard with my kick.

The third thing involves how they would block. With most people who parry, they reach out to meet the attacking limb with their hand to intercept the attack. This creates a great opportunity to fient with kicks if you are a kicker, especially if their hand and eye position is as described above. I'd throw a kick or two, maybe one high and one midrange (I would really try to hit them, and buy suprise); if they were able to parry, then this gave me an opportunity to study their parry; to learn its timing, how far out it travels to meet my kick, the start and end of his parry, and how fast it travels. I use that as a gauge; I now know when they execute their parries in relationship to the attack, how fast the parry travels, and how far out they are willing to go to meet the attack. As the kicker, the further out their parry is willing to travel, the better. So now I can throw a midlevel kick, and as their hands travel downward to parry, I change the direction of my kick and pop high. Or I aim high, then go low. It's all about timing, then, at this point.

Now, having this information, how would you defend against a kicker if you are not one yourself, especially in a geared sparring situation? There are a number of ways, but I'll address the 3 issue's above (hand positioning, eye focus, method of blocking). I'll address vision 1st. The one mistake you can't afford to make is to start looking at his legs. Kicks can become so decieving to a modern Arnis person because we don't kick high and modern arnis, so we are used to focusing our eyes on the upper body. As soon as we are facing a kicker, our instinct may be to start to focus our vision lower and lower. This is a huge mistake; if you are looking at the guys legs you will definatily get popped up top. Now, ideally with your perephials you should be able to look into the opponents eyes and see both hands and both feet. THis can be hard to do at times though. Regardless, keep your eyes up, and try to look at the whole body, not just upper, and definatily not just lower. 2nd thing would be hand positioning and blocking. As a kicker, I had the most trouble with boxing type defenses. rolling, taking impact of the blow in the arms, using arms and elbows to block the mid section, and always keeping the hands up, both hands, protecting the head. If you don't know how to move like a boxer effectively, learn. If you are sparring someone and you haven't yet learned, then I wouldn't try this. The reason why boxing type defenses are difficult for a kicker is because the objective is to get behind the guard; a difficult thing to do with a guard held as tightly to the body as a boxers. A secondary problem is that boxers don't "reach out" to meet an attack, so this is difficult to fient them. Regardless of what stance you take, position your arms closer to your body against a deceptive kicker. I'll repeat myself because it is worth repeating; kickers like to hit under, over, between, and mostly behind the arms with their feet. The closer your arms are to your body, the more difficult it is to do this. 3rd thing is your block, which is directly related to hand positioning. If you parry, don't extend too far. Remember much of your parry is how you position your body rather then the hand movement. you don't need to flail your hand WAY out to meet the attack. try to stay tight because once again, a kicker wants to get behind your hands to the target, and the tighter your parries and blocks are, the better. One final thing, remember that distance is key to pulling off effective kicks. They need the RIGHT distance to kick you. If you are too far for them to reach, this is good, but remember that they can slide in to get you. However, the closer you are, the more difficult it will be for them to kick.

I hope you all find my advise useful!

  :asian:


----------



## bart

I'm not a long range kicker. My footwork is generally below the waist ala Wing Chun principles. The main difficulty that I've experienced in FMAists is the same that you get against alot of Karateka. Once you go to Corto range, if you keep the fight from grappling, the short low kicks and knee strikes are often missed and can do a lot of damage. Mainly the reason is not lack of strategy within the system, but rather lack of time spent training against that. The thing here is to control the kicker's balance because you are too close to block or parry with your hands without opening up targets in your head region. A slight tug down on the arm can take most of the power out of a knee strike or a kick. That idea is there in the art, but I got that from Wing Chun training and not directly from Arnis.


----------



## bart

> My footwork is generally below the waist...



Hmmm...isn't everybody's?  

I meant kicks.


----------



## MJS

When I was in Chicago at the Oct. Arnis camp, all of the Inst. were really trying to focus everybody to keep their hands up.  They would want us to keep them higher up, closer to our face, kind of like you'd see a boxer doing.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by bart _
> * Mainly the reason is not lack of strategy within the system, but rather lack of time spent training against that. *


*

Agreed! I think FMA in general are more equipted technically speaking to deal with low kicks rather then high kicks, yet the problem I see is lack of training time against it. If the sensitivity principles with the hands are applied to the feet, it becomes a very learnable transition to make.




			A slight tug down on the arm can take most of the power out of a knee strike or a kick. That idea is there in the art, but I got that from Wing Chun training and not directly from Arnis.
		
Click to expand...

*
That concept is in Balintawak! We utilize that to protect from knee shots!


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *When I was in Chicago at the Oct. Arnis camp, all of the Inst. were really trying to focus everybody to keep their hands up.  They would want us to keep them higher up, closer to our face, kind of like you'd see a boxer doing.
> 
> Mike *



We always had this through the Sinawali boxing drill; and the Filipines has strong boxing systems both native and western influenced. Yet, I still find with a lot of "stick based" styles (because they are translating directly their stick methods to empty hand) the hands are not very boxer-like. It's not like boxing is an end all be all either, but one has to understand the strengths and limits of what they are doing.

I think it is good that you guys worked on keeping the hands up! Keep up the good work! This is something I see lacking in modern arnis players, so its good that this sort of thing is addressed.

 :asian:


----------



## MJS

I always had my hand up, but it was more IFO the chest.  I think its better to keep it near the face for several reasons.  First, that would probably be the most likely target for a punch, therefore your hand is already there.  Second, it allows you to also deliever a punch faster than if it was a chest height.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *I always had my hand up, but it was more IFO the chest.  *



Dude...I totally understand!  Although this is more on the competitive side, when I was about 14 years old I started getting in the ring kickboxing. I had come from a point fighting and wrestling background. Granted, I was a little kid then, but yet when I would point fight my hands were, respectively, all over the place, and this worked to my advantage. I tryed this when I first got in the ring, and I got pounded. In fact, I'll never forget it. I was fighting the protege' of my TKD/kickboxing instructor(kickboxing world champ); he was a grown adult male who fought in more then one championships (never won, lost by decision). I was all over the place and thought I was doing sweet. All of a sudden, jab, strong right hand, turns my body completely around for a roundhouse to my left kidney area. I drop to the mat, and was out for 2 weeks with a pulled muscle in my back.

I decided that maybe I should learn how to kickbox, and keep my hands a little bit tighter to my body in the ring.

But, even when learning, and fighting in the ring with the protection of rules so my hands could/should be up, it was difficult. Especially when your getting hit, your arms start getting tired, and all of a sudden, your hands start dropping. There were many times when I would watch the fight tapes later to find that my hands weren't up like I thought they were.

Anyways, there is no "right" answer; boxing and gear fighting isn't a street fight, and boxing isn't an end all. I think it all comes down to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of what your doing. It's just some methods are good for some things, and others good for other things. Its at least good to know how and when to keep your arms tight and up, and when you can deviate from this.

:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I have trained in Arnis for about two years and a general type of Kali for two.  I also have a long background with other striking arts.  I am wondering about peoples opinions regarding the empty hand arnis techniques.  Could anyone give a good comparison/contrast of these techniques to other arts? *



My Opinion is that the techniques are there. It all depends upon the person to put into it what they want to get out of it. It will not happen over night just like anything else.


As to low line kicks, I like them, and I like to block them with my feet and legs. (* Yes, I am giving away my secrets  *) Some people will argue that the kick was not properly blocked if they get a partial extension and you block with a raised shin or knee. Then again many people will cry foul if you heel check someone's ankle.


As to having your hands too loow or too high, well if they are too low then people can come over top. If you have them right in front of your face they can be used against you. If they are too high and you need to use your hands low or low middle then you cannot get there in time. Be aware and watch your opponent, and how they move. Use your game, and your way of fighting and keep on it.

Just my thoughts
:asian:


----------



## MJS

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, there is no "right" answer; boxing and gear fighting isn't a street fight, and boxing isn't an end all. I think it all comes down to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of what your doing. It's just some methods are good for some things, and others good for other things. Its at least good to know how and when to keep your arms tight and up, and when you can deviate from this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.  IMO, I believe that you have to be as well rounded as possible if you want to be prepared.  That being said...making sure that you have a strong punching skill, kicking skill, close range (trapping) as well as the evil grappling!LOL!  JK about the grappling--I love it!!
> 
> Granted boxing isnt the answer, but it does teach you the proper way to punch, cover, move, etc.  Compare boxing to the way you'd see a regualr karate student throwing punches....HUGE difference.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


----------



## DoxN4cer

Aside from the differences in whatever system you may use; it's the man, not the system that makes the art effective. Modern Arnis empty hand techniques are very effective, but not effective for every one. I'm sure that you have all met a person or two that practice, but couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Ah... I digress...

The effectiveness of the system lies in simplicity. I agree with Paul. There are gaps in the Modern Arnis system which is why many MA people cross train in systems like jujitsu. You can fill in the gaps with combative information, but where many fall short of effective self defense is in the realm of mental preparation and "legal system" training. 

I'm short on time at present, otherwise I would elaborate. Perhaps Paul Martin ot Tom Gerace would like to follow this up.

Tim Kashino


----------



## loki09789

The man makes the art through commitment and training with a clear purpose.  MA is a good empty hand art, if you understand and train Translation constantly.  Know what you are preparing yourself for and get good at the skills that you need, simple enough.

There are things that you learn through training and things that you bring to your training like your will, character, toughness... Unfortunately, most of what I see - myself included sometimes - is a focus on the technical aspects over the situational aspects of a real down and dirty fight for your life.

Situational training or training exercise models similar to LEO/Military training I think is still the best way to prepare people for 'real' situations.  Training technique on the floor in work out clothes with multiple repetitions or controlled power random striking is good for aspects of fight-ability, but it is not enough.  When you have people role playing a mugger/rapist/attacker who will not quit and swears and grabs and does all those things that a real attacker will do (as closely as possible without sacrificing safety entirely) is the only way to help students tap into their internal strengths, or recognize the weaknesses that they have to overcome?

If a student has to go through a complete situation from zero to writing out a police report they are applying a complete package of physical/mental skills that cannot be 'trained' as much as experienced and then reviewed like a post game report or mililtary After Action Report.

Paul Martin


----------



## Tgace

The "problem" of talking self-defense with martial artists is that the answer to the problem is almost always a "technique". Its like the old cliche "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." 

There was another thread on martial talk called "how do you handle someone bigger than you?" All replies revolved around fighting technique. Nobody said run, use a weapon of some type, OC spray etc. Every solution to a self-defense situation seems to be a fight. Hand to hand fighting is only one tool to solve violent encounters. Notice that the caveman figured that out pretty quick when he clobbered the other guy with a rock.

Even within the realm of martial arts training for self defense, very few I have come across teach the use of environmental weapons. There is almost always something on hand to use, but how many of us train to grab something like a pen, chair, key-ring etc. The beauty of FMA is the "concept" approach. Put anything in your hands (pretty much) and have at it.


----------



## Cruentus

Modern Arnis Empty Hand Defense: Spray with OC spray, shoot em', or run like hell??

Paul M. and Tom; you make good points regarding defensive tactics, but I think the thread might be getting steered a little. I think that our "Modern Arnis Empty Hand" does refer to the techniques (and the timing, spacial relationship, etc. of those techniques) rather then the tactics. The tactics are important, but yet, they are a different animal. Example: if someone asked you, Tom, how you would handle a grappler from a tactical perspective, your answer as a police officer would involve how you would legally restrain him, cuff him, etc.. Sure this could involve pulling your gun and telling him to get on the ground, or spraying him with OC, or whatever. However, if someone asked you from a technical Modern Arnis perspective how you would handle a grappler, your answer might involve types of strikes, rips and gouges, mobility throws, small joint manipulation, etc.

There is a difference between the tactical and technical perspectives of defense. And yes, the tactics are important because the technical is within the context of of the tactical. Yet, they are not the same.

So, when someone asks in a thread like this about the effectiveness of Modern Arnis Empty Hand  _techniques_, I believe they are refering to the technical.  

:asian:


----------



## loki09789

The original thread author was asking about Arnis empty hand and I am not clear on whether he/she intended MA or just Arnis as the blanket term for PI arts/empty hand.  If the original intent was to talk technique, tactical 'techniques' as conceptual applications are fitting in my mind because they help round out the entire scope of techniques that effect a scenario.  

Based on my view of Arnis training (conceptual/tactical/technical) anything that will help me be effective to control as best I can the what, when and how I might have to apply empty hand techniques.  

You, Paul, yourself mentioned in the clinching on the street thread that you would never clinch because that would limit your environmental awareness.  I would think that to be a tactical consideration that influences technique.  When does a fight really start?  At what point in a fight do you start applying the concepts that manifest as techniques empty hand or otherwise?

To me, the physical techniques are just another expression of the concepts, as the 'tactical' elements are just an expression of the concepts.  To me, there is no separation because they are all based on the same concepts.  I don't want to get lost in the parts and miss out on the whole.

Paul Martin


----------



## Tgace

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *However, if someone asked you from a technical Modern Arnis perspective how you would handle a grappler, your answer might involve types of strikes, rips and gouges, mobility throws, small joint manipulation, etc.
> 
> There is a difference between the tactical and technical perspectives of defense. And yes, the tactics are important because the technical is within the context of of the tactical. Yet, they are not the same.*



I understand what youre saying, folks want to discuss the empty hand details, but it kinda reinforces my point...If the "best" way to handle a grappler is to OC him, Its the best way regardles of the fact that youre a cop or a FMA. The value of pedantic discussions about technique vs. technique is an issue of "mission". Are we talking self-defense effectiveness or "art" comparisons? IMHO forum situations such as this are better suited to the "philosophical" issues than the technical. Technique is better shown than discussed.

And I was always taught that "tactics determine technique"...a quote from "The Tactical Edge", Charles Remsberg, Calibre Press 1999

"Tactical Thinking that works involves a simple formula: you match options for defense and control to the type of threat you're facing. Obviously, that's easier said than done. But it is easier done than a lot of officers imagine. The key is the way you think.... Good tactical thinking begins with assessing your potential dangers. And that begins with your recognizing that despite their infinite variety of detail, high-risk situations share some uniersal characteristics. People and places can present threats to you in only certain ways."


----------



## Cruentus

In regards to the thread starter, since he put his questions in the Modern Arnis Forum instead of the Filipino arts forum, I am going to assume that he is refering to specifically the art of Modern Arnis, at least until he says differently.

Having said that, I think some of the differences in our opinion exist due to how we view the art of Modern Arnis differently. I noticed that yourself, and some of your peers with a similar learning background (such as Tim Kashino and Tgace on this forum) gear more towards the broader conceptual aspects of Modern Arnis. For you guys, Modern Arnis is mainly a broad concept driven art. It seems that you take any concept or Modern Arnis idea and apply it over many different mediums, and consider it "Modern Arnis." For instance, a guy pulls a knife, so you throw a chair into his head. You applied the "countering" and "flow" concept of Modern Arnis, therefore you throwig a chair into the attackers head was, in a sense, Modern Arnis. With this mindset, any art, technique, or method could potentially fit into the umbrella of Modern Arnis.

My approach, and according to the way I was taught by Remy, is a bit different. I agree that Modern Arnis is concept driven, yet probably not as broadly as you define it. I also believe that there are core technical movements, and technical concepts that make Modern Arnis Unique among other Martial Arts, or Filipino systems. Now, there are tactical considerations that Modern Arnis concepts fit into broadly, but these tactical considerations aren't nessicarily the art to me. Oftentimes, the tactical considerations are more common sense to me then anything else.

But, in regards to the technical and conceptual, the concepts were taught THROUGH the technique, not the other way around. Take the concept of "countering the counter" for instance. Professor didn't get into a long disertation about countering the counter. We just learned....12 angles of attack, block check counter, decadena, tapi-tapi presets, disarms, counter disarms, then later, tapi-tapi sparring, etc., etc.. All the while repeating the mantra, "It is important to counter the counter"...."You must know how to counter the counter"...."IF you can counter the counter you will not be beaten..." etc, etc etc. No long disertation as to what countering the counter actually was; nope, not for us. We just did the techniques while he repeated the concept over and over and over. Then eventaually, the two came together and the lightbulb went on for the student. This way, his students became "doers" rather then just "talkers." In fact, many of his concepts that were expressed through movement he never defined with words. 

So, to me, both the techniques and the concepts made the art...yet the techniques came first, and without them Modern Arnis would not be what it is. Without the techniques and movements, in my opinion, you are left with a philosophy rather then a martial system. Without the techniques, you have Soyac Kali, or Kenpo, or police combatives, or whatever system you study with a modern arnis philosophy behind it. To me, kenpo with Modern Arnis concepts (for example) is not really Modern Arnis to me.

Now that I have illustrated my perspective on the relationship between Technical and conceptual Modern Arnis, Lets see how tactics and tactics training fit in. In my opinion, every technique and concept (every martial art) must be put in a tactical perspective for it to be effective for the practitioner. So, I agree that tactics are important. Yet, I view tactics seperately from the art because of how Professor taught. To give an analogy, Modern Arnis is like all the tools in the toolbox, as well as how all these tools are used (hammer does this, screwdriver does that, etc.). Yet, my plans to build the shelving unit for my closet, as well as how these tools will apply to my building of the unit would be the tactics. So, I believe Modern Arnis is the techniques and concepts that drive the art, not general combative tactics. How a police officer would use Modern Arnis against a perp, or how a civilian would use Modern Arnis against the mugger for example is tactics, but not the art by itself.

So to me, tactics are a seperate study. Usually Tactics are common sense, and just need to be pre-resolved before the confusion of combat to be effective. Other aspects of tactics have been studied more scholarly with FBI stats and studies taken into account. Some of these tactics do need to be practiced in order to raise the awareness of the martial art student. However, any civilian has access to experts on the subject for tactics training, and can learn these fairly quickly. Yet, these are not the art itself.

Tactics are very important. I work through scenarios and tactic training with my students, and I always encourage others to think about the context of when and where their technique will be effective. Yet, I understand that although these tactics are applying Modern Arnis, and not Modern Arnis in itself. They don't replace the fundamental movements and concepts of the art. And...how do I know this? Remy Presas didn't have us do drills where, for example, one person gets in a circle of people, shuts there eyes and gets turned around, so when he opens his eyes the members of the circle all yell and scream, and a few throw controlled techniqes that he has to defend; all to train how to deal with the disorientation of combat. This may be a fine drill to train tactics, but it isn't Modern Arnis in my opinion. Remy Presas didn't have us do these tactics drills. He had us work on techniques, movements, and concepts specific to his art.

So, in a nutshell, we just see the art differently, probably based on how we were taught. You and some of your peers see the art more conceptually, so that the art can encompass tactics and other techniques that may be non specific to what Remy Presas taught, yet fit into the umbrella of the broad concepts. I see the art on a more technical and conceptual level, while looking at the tactics seperately and according to the need of the practitioner of the art. As you said, "I don't want to get lost in the parts and miss out on the whole." For me, I like parts; and I like to seperate and analyze the parts to better understand the whole (just ask my fiancee; anyway, that's my excuse when I choose to focus mostly on her boobs while she is talking about lord knows what... :rofl: ). Plus, we were probably taught differently. Part of the beauty of Modern Arnis is that we can look at the art differently if we want to.

btw...

on a side note, I talked to Datu Hartman recently about something completely unrelated, but this subject came up. He made a good point that I have to agree with. Most people who teach Modern Arnis aren't really qualified to comment on how effective "Modern Arnis Empty Hand" is or isn't. The reason is because most people who study and teach the art came from another system. So, a point fighter fights more like a point fighter with Modern Arnis influence, a grappler fights like a grappler with Modern Arnis influence, etc. etc. Most haven't spent enough time trying to seperate what technical and stylestic aspects are Modern Arnis, and what has been influenced from their base styles. So their opinions regarding the effectiveness of the Modern Arnis empty hand system is skewed; what they are really commenting on is their opinions of their own personal style rather then Modern Arnis as its own art. I personally have noticed this problem with many long time practitioners in the art. This is an interesting point to think about. For me, this is how the WMAA brings benefit to my teaching and progression in a major way. As a martial artist, my personal fighting style is not strictly Modern Arnis, and is clearly influenced by outside arts. Same is true with my teaching. Yet, we have the Modern Arnis white to black curriculum as a guide to seperate what is strictly Modern Arnis and what isn't. THis way, no matter what direction I move, I'll still be able to give my students the same Modern Arnis base that I had the benefit of getting while Remy was alive.

This is an interesting point, and something to think about. For myself, having been in Modern Arnis actively seeing Remy Presas and training with qualified instructors in the art for about 14 years, I feel that I am able to seperate what Modern Arnis is and what is not. However, how many others from other base styles are able to do this? An intersting thought.

Anyways, I hope my long post makes sense so you can all see my perspective on things.

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

I understand your points, and I agree with your quote, among other things.

Yet, the fundamental question we come to is this: What exactly are we talking about here? If we are talking about the art (in this case Modern Arnis) my response will be in more of an art specific, technical nature. If we are talking about "self defense" or "combat," my response will be in more of a tactical nature, and not art specific per say.

I believe that we were talking about Modern Arnis, and more art specific topics rather then defensive or combative tactics, at least on this thread, anyway.


----------



## Makalakumu

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *In regards to the thread starter, since he put his questions in the Modern Arnis Forum instead of the Filipino arts forum, I am going to assume that he is refering to specifically the art of Modern Arnis, at least until he says differently.*



I was thinking about arnis when I started this thread.  My instructor traces his liniage through Maestro Rick Miyahara and through him to Angel Cabales (I believe).  Yet, I think that discussing the umbrella systems of Kali, could be helpfull.  If I know anything, FMA is varied.  There are as many systems as there are kinds of bread.  All of them are good to eat.  

Also, from my limited experience, kicking seems to be a weakness in the system.  This can be countered by experience, for instance I have had my butt handed to me by veteran arnis players with more MA experience then I have.  Still, against someone with equal or lesser experience in MS, empty handed, I have usually come out on top.  (Yes, I know, with sparring its not a really good measure, but still...)


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I was thinking about arnis when I started this thread.  My instructor traces his liniage through Maestro Rick Miyahara and through him to Angel Cabales (I believe).  Yet, I think that discussing the umbrella systems of Kali, could be helpfull.  If I know anything, FMA is varied.  There are as many systems as there are kinds of bread.  All of them are good to eat.
> *



Hmmm....

In that case perhaps you'd get better answers in the FMA forum.

The word "arnis" is about as general as the word "Karate".

"Modern Arnis" which is what this forum is dedicated too, refers to a style of "Arnis" that was founded by GrandMaster Remy Presas. It sounds like you learned a different style then Modern Arnis.

We can still answer some questions here, but it would be more helpful to answer them more generally, as opposed to art specific. We can still help, but the style you learned and Modern Arnis are not exactly the same.


----------



## sercuerdasfigther

in response to angel cabales' art the empty hands are very good, but from the limit time you have in the system your skills won't appear yet. most of the empty hand skills come at the advanced stage of training after the foundation is learned. advanced skills of reverse reversing , picking,and sticky stick all bring the empty hand skills out. there were two types of empty hands taught,one was  cadena de mano(chain of hands) which was mostly taught by max sarmiento . angel hand his own empty hand call kamay kamay(sticky hands). cadena de mano is very good, similar to wing chun in some respects(i.e. sticking ability , chain punching,deflect and hit, etc.).


----------



## Mickey

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *I understand what youre saying, folks want to discuss the empty hand details, but it kinda reinforces my point...If the "best" way to handle a grappler is to OC him, Its the best way regardles of the fact that youre a cop or a FMA. The value of pedantic discussions about technique vs. technique is an issue of "mission". Are we talking self-defense effectiveness or "art" comparisons? IMHO forum situations such as this are better suited to the "philosophical" issues than the technical. Technique is better shown than discussed.
> 
> And I was always taught that "tactics determine technique"...a quote from "The Tactical Edge", Charles Remsberg, Calibre Press 1999
> 
> "Tactical Thinking that works involves a simple formula: you match options for defense and control to the type of threat you're facing. Obviously, that's easier said than done. But it is easier done than a lot of officers imagine. The key is the way you think.... Good tactical thinking begins with assessing your potential dangers. And that begins with your recognizing that despite their infinite variety of detail, high-risk situations share some uniersal characteristics. People and places can present threats to you in only certain ways." *



Tgace,

No disrespect, just curious.

In 1983 the movie War Games had the computer play Tic-Tac-Toe to learn that there was no winning move.

If OC (Not sure what it is?) is used against a person is the best. Then not being in range is better. Then maybe not being on that street is better yet. So I should drive around bad sections of town. Yet, most accidents occur within 25 mile radius of your home, so know you should leave home and not come back to avoid this also? Yet, if I do not leave home then I cannot get into an accident.

So either I have to leave home and always wonder to be safe, or stay home and never let anyone in nor go out.

So, the only way is not to play at all. So, if you are not alive then you are ok? Yes, this might be takng your point or arguement to the extreme, yet that is a test.

I know you are talking tactics, and I thought I read before that you wanted a forum on this. Yet, the Mods asked that those interested to start posting on this subject and to show the interest. Yet, in browsing, I see you take subject off to this Tactics sense, or like only the Military can teach you the proper tactics. Maybe if you were to start some threads and, discuss these issues you might get some responses. 

I see it that if you take this tactic only discussion, all discusson will cease to exists. Since you will either not play or destroy the opponent before they can move. I know I could be wrong, and hance asked for the other threads to discuss these types of topics. 

Mick
:asian:


----------



## loki09789

Well, now that we know what the author's intent was:

Arnis (FMA in general) is a very effective empty hand pool of systems as far as I am concerned.  The ONE element that I thing makes FMA's distinct is it's flexibility and adaptability.  Most of the FMA arts that I have any exposure to push application - thus forcing the student to think about the how and when (tactical) right away.  I think that FMAer's can be more effective as self defense/fight performers than students with the same amount of training from other systems.

This is ultimately my point about tactical skills within FMA systems, whether MA or any other.... all force you to work on staying focused and aware from the beginning.  Translated to a larger scale (tactics/strategy) that considers the situation that a fight could take place in, the conceptual training is the next evolution from FMA technical training.  I think that it is the major advantage of FMA over other arts.

Focusing on technique is important for instruction and systemization as well as building a personal foundation, but as an individual practitioner, getting to the higher understandings of tactics and strategy help to make sense of the how, when and why of an art.

Euro fencing has been called chess at mock two.  I am pretty sure that could translate to FMA and other arts as well.  It takes more than just knowing how to move a pawn or knight to win at chess.

It takes masters of fencing and chess years of thought and practice to see that bigger picture.  I doubt that tactical and strategic understanding that could save your life can be picked up and learned quickly.

Paul Martin


----------



## DoxN4cer

Technical proficency and tactical proficiency are interconnected. They are part of the same whole that is know as effectiveness or perhaps even competence. You apply technique within tactical context.  Technical proficiency without tactical proficiency equates to having useless (empty) knowledge. 

Techniques and Tactics are inseperable, like two sides of the same coin. One without the other is incomplete. In order to be truly effective you must have proficiency in both.

Tim Hartman's comment to Paul Janulis is correct. Most people who teach Modern Arnis aren't really qualified to comment on how effective "Modern Arnis Empty Hand" is or isn't.  However, I agree for a different reason. Is MA empty had effective? Yes, but few have had the opportunity (or necessity) to apply it in the real world under the stress of hostile situations.  Many haven't "been there or done that", and they have no credibility with regards to what works and what doesn't; regardless of their "technical skill", time in studying the art, what title they hold (or have given themselves) and/or whom they studied the art with.  

Many people who teach Modern Arnis are still riding on the late Professor's name and shirt-tails. We often hear "Remy taught me this" or "Remy told me that" as though using this reference or chanting his name gives them credibilty as an authority on what works and what doesn't.  Few have actually earned that credibility through their own endeavors and actions. Regardless of that, there are some very good "technical instructors" teaching the art.

Respectfully,

Tim Kashino


----------



## Tgace

I think Paul has said it more concisely than I. The only reason I bring up the tactical issue here is because I believe that FMA (IMHO) is the art bet suited to incorporating some of the more modern tactical developments. This can be seen in some of Sayoc's teachings. Police/military trainers like Jim Wagner outright say that FMA is a must have when developing combative techniques. As to police/military being the only sources, I dont believe I ever stated that or do I believe that. The sources of most Tactical/Combative developments and equipment has come from the civillian sector.


----------



## Tgace

Sorry....double tap.


----------



## loki09789

Tim K as eloquent and oozing of courtly grace as ever!

Paul Martin


----------



## Cruentus

> I doubt that tactical and strategic understanding that could save your life can be picked up and learned quickly.



I disagree, but probably because our definition of "tactics" and "Concepts" differ (maybe).

The dictonary definition of "tactics" is: "a method of employing forces in combat." I view this seperate from the technique itself. What tactics really are for most civilians is basic "common sense" self defense. "Avoid groundfighting on the street because he may have friends or a weapon," or "make sure your aware in 'fringe' or transitional environments such as parking garages, deserted streets or alleys, or elevators, because these are where a lot of assults occur," "It's best to pick up a weapon of opportunity when your attacker has a knife" are examples of tactics. Most tactics are very easy to learn. Most people can do a fair amount of research and reading to get the tactics that they will need for a lifetime. For some of the more complex tactics, some scenario training helps to get a feel for it. With LEO or Military, Tactics are much more important to their jobs, so much more time should be spent on them, yet, this doesn't make them more difficult to learn, in my opinion. Now if you take the definition of "tactics" to be as broad as mission planning for the military, or something like that, then yes, tactics can be much more involved. Yet, for most of us civilians, LEO, and Military, tactics are fairly easy to learn.

"Concepts" on the other hand are much more difficult to learn, because they are very abstract. The dictionary definition of Concepts is: "1. Something Concieved in the mind: THought or Notion. 2. an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances." This definition is much more abstract, and thus, much more difficult to learn. "The Flow" is much more difficult to explain and learn then "Avoid groundfighting in a streetfight." Concepts are more abstract, and therefore can only be fully expressed by "Doing" rather then explaining and philosophising. This is how the movements in our arts are crucial in understanding concepts, because they are the only true expression of the concepts; words are only abstracts of these concepts.

So, I believe that   _tactics_ are easy to verbalize, and easy to learn, especially in a short amount of time. In fact, most tactics are easy, simple-stupid to learn by design....because that makes them more effective and efficient in the end. _Concepts_, on the other hand, are abstract, and not easy to learn also by design; and we will spend a lifetime deepening our understanding of concepts. The two are not the same.


----------



## loki09789

Okay, I am going to double post, so groan away now and get it out of your systems (or is it an art?... bad joke)

FMA empty hand vs other empty hand arts cannot be discussed strictly on a technique versus technique level, IMO.  It has to be a comparison of how the systems train the student to think, move and act and that is the HOW of technical application, or ... here it comes... that dirty word... TACTICS and STRATEGY (audible groan).

I have already explained why I think FMA/arnis is an effective empty hand art so I won't do it again - this time.  But because of the conceptual/thinking approach of FMA/arnis arts, I think the whole of FMA can be more effective.

I have trained students and had them on the floor working with and sparring students of equal rank from other systems and schools, sometimes with more training time than my people and my students consistently smoked the other person on adaptability, intensity, skill.... This isn't a 'I am the greatest teacher testimony' but a 'FMA makes students fight effective earlier testimony.  

Paul martin


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by DoxN4cer _
> *Technical proficency and tactical proficiency are interconnected. They are part of the same whole that is know as effectiveness or perhaps even competence. You apply technique within tactical context.  Technical proficiency without tactical proficiency equates to having useless (empty) knowledge.
> 
> Techniques and Tactics are inseperable, like two sides of the same coin. One without the other is incomplete. In order to be truly effective you must have proficiency in both. *


*

I am in agreement on this. I do agree that if you don't know the context in which the techniques can be used, then your techniques are "empty". In other words, Tactics are important to know to make your art (your technique) effective. My thing is, tactics aren't the art itself, even if abstract concepts from the art fit.




			Tim Hartman's comment to Paul Janulis is correct. Most people who teach Modern Arnis aren't really qualified to comment on how effective "Modern Arnis Empty Hand" is or isn't.  However, I agree for a different reason. Is MA empty had effective? Yes, but few have had the opportunity (or necessity) to apply it in the real world under the stress of hostile situations.  Many haven't "been there or done that", and they have no credibility with regards to what works and what doesn't; regardless of their "technical skill", time in studying the art, what title they hold (or have given themselves) and/or whom they studied the art with.  

Many people who teach Modern Arnis are still riding on the late Professor's name and shirt-tails. We often hear "Remy taught me this" or "Remy told me that" as though using this reference or chanting his name gives them credibilty as an authority on what works and what doesn't.  Few have actually earned that credibility through their own endeavors and actions. Regardless of that, there are some very good "technical instructors" teaching the art.

Respectfully,

Tim Kashino
		
Click to expand...

*
I don't know if I fully agree with the rest. What it sounds like your basically saying is that you need to get into fights to see if your art is effective. I don't think this is nessicary, or an exacting determination of anything. I could have been in many fights, but what if all the people I fought with weren't good fighters? How would I know the difference? I could have not been in one fight, but if I learned some of the most effective combative arts in the world, wouldn't it be safe to say that in a "fight" I could probably handle myself? There are other indicators that your art will be effective. One indicator is _has your art been effective for other people?_  Remy Presas road tested his art in real fights, and was successful. Remy's teachers did the same. His dad taught soldiers and fought in WWII. Outside of Professor, there are many people who have used Modern Arnis in real life situations and have been successful. This is not an exacting indicator, but the "road tested" factor is good evidence that the art you are learning is effective in combat. A second way you could tell is during "live training." Basically, trying your techniques on resisting opponents in a controlled environment (dojo) to find out what works and what doesn't. You find out more this way much like scientests find out more through experiments under controlled conditions over trying to observe isolated events.

I just think that the notion that you have to take your art out and "fight" with it on the "street" to know if it is effective is a falicy.

However, I do understand what you are saying about people riding on Professors coatails. On the one hand, he is an authority; he has road tested his techniques AND it is his art. Yet, it does get annoying when people pull the "Remy showed me this way" card, especially considering that their interpretation of what "Ramy showed them" is oftentimes wrong.

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *I think Paul has said it more concisely than I. The only reason I bring up the tactical issue here is because I believe that FMA (IMHO) is the art bet suited to incorporating some of the more modern tactical developments. This can be seen in some of Sayoc's teachings. Police/military trainers like Jim Wagner outright say that FMA is a must have when developing combative techniques. As to police/military being the only sources, I dont believe I ever stated that or do I believe that. The sources of most Tactical/Combative developments and equipment has come from the civillian sector. *



Agreed! I think that conceptually FMA is great for developing modern tactical developments!! :cheers:


----------



## loki09789

I think the definition you found for tactic is slightly limited for this discussion.

The word tact basically means doing the right thing at the right time.  If you are tactful, you always seem to say/do the right thing.  You seem relaxed, at ease and 'on' - not a bad goal for a martial artis I would think.  If you are tactless, then you say/do things that seem odd or inappropriate or at least don't accomplish the goal.  This is more than a laundry list of catch phrases for the civilian/military/leo it is a thought process. 

A tactical view of martial arts sees technique as a foundation.  Using tactics takes time to train so that the right thing at the right time happens more often, it is far from quick and easy to learn because it is a mentallity and an understanding of when and why you are employing the How of techniques.  Good technique makes for more fluid, fast and effective accomplishment of a goal but techniques are only the beginning for smart fighters.

Watch boxing and you will see many an 'unskilled' or 'unconconvential' boxer beat a 'technically superior' fighter because he fights smart.  I think FMA is better at making smart fighters at an earlier stage of development.  Ali was a master of boxing tact even when his technique didn't look as sharp or right compared to other fighters.  

Paul Martin


----------



## Tgace

OK Paul you started it so ill repost something too..

"Tactical Thinking that works involves a simple formula: you match options for defense and control to the type of threat you're facing. Obviously, that's easier said than done. But it is easier done than a lot of officers imagine. The key is the way you think.... Good tactical thinking begins with assessing your potential dangers."

Tactics is working out general soultions to problems. If the problem is street attack than you will work out different solutions than you would if the problem is home invasion/hijackings etc.

That is what I think is key. Each practicioner has to determine why it is hes spending time practicing. If its "self-defense" then theres many more issues than just hand to hand to consider. If its for fun, art, hobby (and those are absolutely valid reasons too) than by all means work out every possible defense/counter/etc. that you can. Its a matter of evaluation.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Watch boxing and you will see many an 'unskilled' or 'unconconvential' boxer beat a 'technically superior' fighter because he fights smart.  I think FMA is better at making smart fighters at an earlier stage of development.  Ali was a master of boxing tact even when his technique didn't look as sharp or right compared to other fighters.
> 
> Paul Martin *



It sounds like some of what you are talking about is crossing over from tactics to the technical aspect of the martial art. Keep in mind that the technical portion of a martial art doesn't just involve "technique"; it involves the whole enchalada - timing, angling, distancing, footwork, etc. "Doing the right thing at the right moment" to me refers to good timing rather then "tactics". How your timing, footwork, technique, etc., is effected by an Icy sidewalk would be an idea of "tactics".

Your boxing example has little to do with "tactics" to me. The unconventional fighter wins fights because of the proper timing and angling of his techniques, as well as other factors. To me, this is all part of the technical aspects of his boxing. The tactics would refer to what kind of shoes he wears, how far he pulls his pants up, etc. - and notice that because of the rules, the "tactical" portion of boxing isn't real deep.

Your definition of "tactics" seems to include what I would consider technical aspects of the art. I guess thats just what makes us different.  

Definition of Tactics: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Tactic&x=15&y=15

Definition of "Tact": http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Tact&x=21&y=15

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *OK Paul you started it so ill repost something too..
> 
> "Tactical Thinking that works involves a simple formula: you match options for defense and control to the type of threat you're facing. Obviously, that's easier said than done. But it is easier done than a lot of officers imagine. The key is the way you think.... Good tactical thinking begins with assessing your potential dangers."
> 
> Tactics is working out general soultions to problems. If the problem is street attack than you will work out different solutions than you would if the problem is home invasion/hijackings etc.
> 
> That is what I think is key. Each practicioner has to determine why it is hes spending time practicing. If its "self-defense" then theres many more issues than just hand to hand to consider. If its for fun, art, hobby (and those are absolutely valid reasons too) than by all means work out every possible defense/counter/etc. that you can. Its a matter of evaluation. *



I totally agree with what you are saying. People do need to evaluate what their techniques/art is FOR. Remember, I never viewed tactics as being unimportant; I just view tactics as seperate from the art. Tactics to me runs along the lines of "Good common sense" and "Good self defense". 

Its a matter of being prepared. Prepared Families have a preplanned escape from their homes in case of a fire. A prepared martial artist has gone through the different possible scenarios both in their head and training when needed to prepare to use what they know in real life. 

I still maintain, though, that a "tactic" such as "lower your center of gravity if you are on slippery terrain" is much easier to learn, verbalize, and understand then learning a concept like the "Flow" through our Modern Arnis Movements.

Most practical tactical knowledge, I believe, you can gain from a little research and forethought. If the tactic is too complicated to learn fairly quickly, I often find that it isn't appliable at all.


----------



## Cruentus

Here is a definition of "technique"; I think Definition #2 applies more to what we are talking about here: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Technique&x=19&y=16

Also, here is a definition of "Concept": http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Concept&x=12&y=10


----------



## Tgace

Heres an interesting definition from a non-military/LEO source. A Soccer coaching article states...

1. Technical Proficiency is:
- The ability to perform the underlying techniques accurately, consistently   and at match tempo.

2. Tactical Prowess
Different definitions of Tactical Prowess apply to different modes of play.

When in Attack Tactical Prowess is:
- The ability to weigh up match situations, and decide on what option   to take and when to take it in order to maximise scoring   opportunities. 

When in Defence Tactical Prowess is:
- Knowing what option to take and when to take it in order to minimise   the amount of clean possession, time and space available to   opponents to make clear use of the ball.

Make whatever necessary translation you wish..this shows the hand in hand relationship.

And this Krav Maga site has a pretty good explination of what Im trying to say...

http://www.sdtactics.com.au/html/methods/tactical_approachp2.htm

Please take a look, its very good, states my view better than Ive been able to so far....and Id like to see FMA give Krav a run for its money in the Tactical Combatives niche its built for itself....


----------



## Mickey

loki09789, Tgace & Paul,

I have no problem with someone making a connection with tactics and or strategy at all. Thank you to those who did.

What gets me is well that is not right, since you have no tactics. Or That is not valid without tactics. 

These statements mean nothing to me. What means something is when people tie it together, give examples, and make meaningful discussions.

Once again thank you for those that did give teh connections.

Mick
:asian:


----------



## DoxN4cer

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Tim K as eloquent and oozing of courtly grace as ever!
> 
> Paul Martin *



Oh, behave.


----------



## DoxN4cer

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I don't know if I fully agree with the rest. What it sounds like your basically saying is that you need to get into fights to see if your art is effective...
> 
> ...I just think that the notion that you have to take your art out and "fight" with it on the "street" to know if it is effective is a falicy...
> 
> 
> :asian: *



You interpretation of my statement is askew. You must really consider me to be a ruffian. I'm more like Uncle Sugar's hired muscle... not completely a ruffian, but I am one of those rough men that stand ready to do harm on your behalf. Sleep well do ya?

That's not exactly what I'm eluding to. What I'm getting at is  that regardless of the "faith" someone has in their chosen system/art/whatever,  you have a better appreciation of its effectiveness if you have tested it "under fire".  And thus, afterwards one has a better understanding of what works, what doesn't  and why.

To go out in search of a street fight in order to test one's martial prowess is brutish, archaic and the act of an insecure fool. There is enough violence in the world without people doing that.  

Tim Kashino


----------



## MJS

I agree.  Going out to look for a fight is not the answer to seeing if what you know is gonna work.  If you have some good training partners, who can provide you with a realistic attack, some resistance and some aliveness, then you should be able to find out what works right in your own training area.  Granted, your partner is not really trying to take your life, but he can put you into a realistic setting.

An example of this is Peyton Quinn.  At his school, he works on adrenal stress conditioning.  He'll put a guy in a red man suit, and he'll act like a total nut, thereby giving the defender a realistic feeling of an attack, causing them to get that adrenalin rush.  The defender can go all out w/o the attacker getting hurt.

Mike


----------



## loki09789

Focusing on technical development really makes 'art' over 'martial' because you are ignoring how important the thinking, problem solving and planning elements of self defense are.  The canvas that we demonstrate our artistry on requires more creativity and composure than the perfect side kick or #1 strike.

We believe now a days that 'old school' martial arts training is to beat and get beat on for a time and have your instructor 'hint', or straight out tell you what is important and along the way you get these 'flashes of enlightnment' that are exciting and mark your progress.  That may be fine for movies and philosophical/personal development goals but not for reality preparation.

I say it is possible to work hard AND smart at this.  I would rather have TGace or a street smart bouncer at my back in the real deal than the most technically perfect black belt.

What are you (plural 'you') focusing on?  Training or Application? 

When you are working out are you motivated more by looking good for the next summer camp/tournament/promotion than you are motivated by the desire to survive another day if the fit hits the shan?  

I don't claim to be the 'tactical guro' or be more right or anything but I am clear about what I am out to do and how skilled I am.  I think that we have to be clear about what we are doing and really getting from it. 

I USE training to PREPARE for application/self defense/effective survival.  I don't ignore the fact that I get alot of other cudos  (fitness,self confidence, promotion....) from training, but those are benefits, not the goal. 

As far as I am concerned, that is why FMA is a very effective training pool of arts.  The techniques and concepts allow for translation and adaptability.  Creativity under pressure is tough and needs nurturing and development.  Tactics/strategy/doctrine... are terms and ideas that are intrinsic parts of FMA training that exist within FMA training.  Seeing parallels or other ideas that are liken to it in strategic theory isn't outside the art, it is recognizing that FMA/Arnis is still the art within any martial art.

Paul Martin


----------



## Cruentus

DoxN4cer: How's the weather and the food out there in sicily?

Is my interpretation of what your saying askew? Maybe, maybe not. I am not sure yet.

Riddle me this: Is it possible for a person with a lot of training who, lets say, has never had to defend themselves to have a better understanding of the application of their art then someone who has had to defend themselves? 

Hmmmm....? :ubercool:


----------



## Cruentus

I think we both agree that Tactical considerations are a must when figuring out how to apply your art to real life self defense.

The difference in our opinions is in how our interpretation of how tactics, concepts, and technique relate.

My belief is that Your technique and your concepts behind the technique are like your car. All kinds of work and years of experience went onto making your car. The Engineering would be the concepts behind the car, and the moving parts that make up of the car would be the actual "technique." Tactics would be after the car is made, you go out and road test the car. Under controlled experimental conditions, you test all the possabilites of how the car could be used to test its effectiveness. This is "tactics training." Tactics is how the car is used in real life. The difference in how the car drives in slippery conditions vs. nonslippery conditions is a tactical consideration. Now, under these experiments, you may find way of improving the engineering and "technique" or moving parts of the car. Hell, it wouldn't be safe to sell a car unless they went through these "experiments," correct? The tactical considerations are very important. However, the one thing to remember is that these experiments and enviromental considerations ARE NOT THE CAR ITSELF.

Furthermore, it is much more difficult to design, engineer, and build a car then it is to experiment on how the car works in its environment.

The tactics are important to consider, but are not the art itself. Your tactics are useless unless you know how to punch, parry, stab, shoot, or what have you. Working on Tactics without good technique or conceptual understanding of your technique is like trying to road test a poorly engineered car. If the car has a crappy engine, bad breaks, crappy tires, etc., you will only be able to move so fast, break, and turn so well, and it won't be very good. Spend the time and energy on engineering and building the best car for the job, and your "tactics" will fall into place beautifully.

This is why (and I hate to pull the Remy card) when Professor was alive our seminars were technique oriented. You learned the technique to get to the concepts behind the technique. And, that was the art. Professor was trying to build us a nice Ferrari to go road test.

It seems that you consider the road testing as a part of the car when you consider the tactics a part of the art. Furthermore, this can be detramental if your primary concern is building tactics rather then solid technique and concepts; I fear that your martial ability could end up being the equivelent of trying to creatively road test your ford pinto with bald tires and no breaks. No matter how creative your experiments are, and no matter how good and powerful you feel from developing cool enviromental experiments, your pinto just doesn't work as well as the ferrari.


----------



## Cruentus

One more thing here; you should know how to drive with whatever car you got TODAY, even though your Ferarri is in developement.

In other words, try to consider every technique you learn from a tactical perspective. In may not be "the art" per say, but I always encourage my students to think about how you would use what I am teaching if you were attacked in REAL LIFE, and I give them some examples and considerations to think about. I want them to be able to fight with whatever they have TODAY...even while they are building that ferarri.

Military and LEO have to be able to use whatever they have TODAY for their jobs, even if some of them never take their technique beyond the equivelent of driving a pinto with no tires. That is why what they train in is tactics oriented. We of course hope that they at least slap some new tires, or a new paint job on that POS at some point!


----------



## loki09789

Paul J.,

You keep referring to 'tactics' as a list of techniques, when it is really a thought process - I don't know if you are getting the point.

I think comparison to other physical performance arenas would be more appropriate than cars and cabinets.  People think and grow and cars/cabinets don't.

Hockey is hockey.  The techniques and skills that a novice (oh me for instance - I suck  ) uses are the same ones that an NHL player uses, obviously at very different levels of form, power, focus and speed.  

At any level of skill though, it is the player's tactical ability read and react to situations that make them game effective.  The tactical part of the game is far more important when the game is played, coaches don't care how beautiful the shot is if you don't time it write.   Look at Jagr, great player, but without his head in the game, he sucks. Ugly or not a goal is a goal.  

There are guys who I can outskate or out puckhandle, but because they have 'been there done that' from childhood, and are starting up again later in life, they are better during a game than I am.  They 'see the ice', or are better at the tactical thinking of the game than I am - even though I am more technically proficient than they are.

In FMA or hockey or whatever athletic performance... the artistry and master is expressed in how well you do in the real thing, not how great you look during practice.

Paul Martin


----------



## Cruentus

I don't look at tactics as a list of techniques, but as strategies. Yes, there is definatily a thought process there. In fact, I believe that it is mostly a thought process rather then a physical process. This has been part of my point. 

And when I refer to "Techniques" or good technique, I am not refering to what looks pretty. With good technique, the mechanics of movement, the timing, the distancing, angling, and positioning are as such where the desired end result is achieved. It doesn't matter what it looks like. 

Ah well.

I have to go to a meeting, so I am out of time....perhaps I'll post more later. Or, perhaps someone who thinks they know what I am saying can reiterate.

:asian:


----------



## Tgace

I dont think anybody here has said "Ignore technique and focus on tactics." Or if you think tactics than you can survive with $&!%^ technique. Technical skill is is what you get from repetitive practice. Thats hopefully what you get from your class. Tactics is "the game" in whole. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

We talk a lot about tactics is because we believe that self-defense oriented students may be getting only 1/2 the skills they need to survive on the "street" by believing that the training they get in a dojo is all they need.


----------



## Tgace

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *The tactics are important to consider, but are not the art itself. Your tactics are useless unless you know how to punch, parry, stab, shoot, or what have you. Working on Tactics without good technique or conceptual understanding of your technique is like trying to road test a poorly engineered car. If the car has a crappy engine, bad breaks, crappy tires, etc., you will only be able to move so fast, break, and turn so well, and it won't be very good. Spend the time and energy on engineering and building the best car for the job, and your "tactics" will fall into place beautifully.*



With all due respect, I dont know where the belief that we are saying tactical training means you forget about technique is coming from. Like in Pauls hockey analogy... the game is much more than skating, puck handling and shooting, but players spend a lot of time honing those skills. Just like military combat is more than individual soldier skills (shooting, land nav. H2H et.) soldiers train regulary and to standards.

Like the author of that Krav article stated...

http://www.sdtactics.com.au/html/methods/tactical_approachp2.htm

"An approach I choose to term the "tactical approach" is a different way of addressing self defence training. I didn't invent it; you just have to look outside the martial arts' square we have been conditioned to think within. But I am defining it. *It isn't style related, it can be applied to all existing styles or systems intended for self defence but not without changes to those systems. It's a framework that sits over the top and is not prescriptive about which technique to use (hence independence of style).*

The concept is straightforward, but the full description would fill a book (this series of articles are in fact extracts from the draft form of a book on this subject). *It states that street confrontations should not be viewed as a contest of skill - a typically martial arts perspective. These are situations to be 'survived' by all means available*, internal (physical and psychological) and external (environment), technical and tactical. It is about outthinking as well as outfighting your opponent(s) - using what you have to best advantage. Consequently the training required is broader and higher level than is typically found in martial arts' curriculum."

Like I said before, these issues are only issues if you are teaching "self-defense". If that isnt the primary focus, that isnt a BAD thing. People study for various reasons. And a technically competent student will "snap into" the "tactical mode" much more efficiently down the road as its a "mindset" shift not a physical retraining. If you are teaching self-defense, than sending students out on the street believing that they have learned "all they need to know" in the "classical"/family dojo to survive, you MAY be sending them out unprepared. I make no claims of expertise here, I dont teach, and I dont know what anybody else teaches. This is just an interest of mine and I would like to see more FMA taking a leading role in it.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

I think you guys have *WAY* too much time on your hands!


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Renegade _
> *I think you guys have WAY too much time on your hands! *



Yes...we do!


----------



## Cruentus

Please understand, I am not saying that *YOU* or anybody else here focuses on tactics, negating the honing of good technique and conceptual developement. I am saying that this is the danger of what can happend if one can't seperate the tactics from the martial system, and I have seen other people do this in martial arts programs (outside of "self defense" or Military/LEO type programs which are tactics oriented). I think that these schools are doing a disservice to themselves and their students who want to go beyond the basics of self defense.

I have seen instructors that play tactical games all day with their students. All they succeeded in doing was building false confidence in groups of people who can't even strike effectively. Sort of the equivelent of some womens self defense courses where all they have learned to do is sissy strike a padded attacker, and they leave with the false confidence that they can take out any large male attacker in a real life attack. This is a sad situation.

If you want to learn how to use your martial art in a live self defense scenario, tactics are the key. If you want to improve your abilities as a martial artist, tactics won't get you anywhere.

This deep conversation started because someone asked about the effectiveness of the Modern Arnis (actually it was more general in that he refered to any "arnis" but that's a mote point) empty hand system. You, followed shortly by Paul M. responded with some tactical considerations that could apply to any martial art. Your response was also in rebuke of "martial artists" who try to talk self-defense without taking tactical considerations. I felt that the thread was getting steered in a different direction. Why? Because when someone asks about the effectiveness of a martial art, they are usually talking from a technical and conceptual perspective. WHY? Because if they were talking from a tactical perspective, then they wouldn't be talking about one martial art, because tactical principles could apply to ANY martial art. your quote, "It's a framework that sits over the top and is not prescriptive about which technique to use (hence independence of style)." So am I correct?

So, I pointed this out because I believe that tactics, although important, are seperate from style. If someone asks about the effectiveness of my art, that is a technical/conceptual question. If someone asks how I would use my art if I was attacked by 3 guys, that would require a tactical answer because you can't predict what "technique" or concept will come out in real life self defense.

We are in agreement with a lot of things refering to tactics. Just because I am a "civilian" and "martial artist," I am no stranger to tactical training. In fact, a good portion of the class I teach is tactics oriented due to the needs of the students I get in my class. However, I still believe that when I am teaching Tactics, I am not teaching the art per say...I am teaching them how to put the art into the context of real life scenarios.

Also, I couldn't negate teaching tactical considerations for the reasons you illustrated; I don't want my students to have the false confidence that their "Dojo training" is the end all. Yet, I know where the seperation is between the technical, conceptual, and tactical... even if they are interelated.

So, the question is, do you believe as I do that tactics are independent from the Martial system? The article (good article by the way) seems to believe this. Do you? Paul Martin, do you?

PAUL

btw...I don't know about you guys, but I think this is a great discussion, and it seems that we are learning a lot about each other and how our opinions are both similar and different. Also, like you, I would like to see FMA take more active role in tactical research and training because I do think that FMA are well equiped for the task.


----------



## Cruentus

Here is an example of how your technical profeciency directly effects your tactical considerations.

Lets say you have a pinto of a strike. You wittic your cane with no body behind it, hitting with the belly of the stick. What if you had to defend yourself with a blunt sticklike object (such as an ASP batton, a bat, a crowbar, an actual stick, or what have you) when this is your technique? What tactical considerations do you need to have? You need to be prepared to have to strike your opponent multiple times before he goes down, for one. You need to probably consider what will happend if your strike fails horribly.
Chances are, your fight will turn into a grappling situation of some kind.

Let's say you have a Ferrari of a strike. You have good body mechanics, with your whole body behind your cane. You have pinpoint accuracy as well, meaning that you can strike the temple with only a few milimiters of your cane touching a few milimeters of bone, thus maximizing your power. Plus, you hit with the end of your cane every time, accelorating your power.

With a Ferarri of a strike, you can now deliver bone shattering blows. In one strike, you can shatter their wrist, kneecap, or crack their skull, thus putting them down. How does this change your tactical situation? You still need to consider your options if your strike fails, but with bone shattering strikes, your odds of survival are much higher then someone who strikes poorly.

Developing a ferrari takes much more then repeatition and drills. And, your tactical training won't help you build that ferrari. It takes much time spent on constant correction of body mechanics, best learned under a competitent instructor. It takes time and energy in learning your "art" that will help you with this.


----------



## DoxN4cer

Using your analogy; if the Farrari repesents technical expertise, then tactical expertise should be represented by a highly skilled mechanic that will fix your Farrari if and when it breaks down.  Farrari's ain't all that... I'd rather have a Benz.

Your question:

"Is it possible for a person with a lot of training who, lets say, has never had to defend themselves to have a better understanding of the application of their art then someone who has had to defend themselves?"

My answer:

The proverbial student you speak of might have a grasp on many of the technical aspects of his chosen system and may even be considered to have a high degree of skill. However, never having applied that ability under the stress of combat; he is not able to captalize on the tactical knowledge gleaned through lessons learned from hard earned experience.  

He will certainly know "how" to perform a technique in an environment that isn't 100% hostile to him.  This however, isn't the case on the street.  The student you speak of knows "possible" solutions rather than "probable" solutions to combative scenarios.  He may not be able to apply his highly technical abilities under stress where the capacity for fine motor movement is diminished and the field of vision narrows. 

In short, no; provided that we're discussing two people of similar or equal techncal ability where one has has real fighting experience ant the other has not.

Training will only get you so far, and you cannot discount the value of experience.

Tim Kashino


----------



## Cruentus

In regards to "real fighting experience," I think its overrated.

From my experience, my first "real fight" as an adult (not talking high school or grade school experiences) was an important one because I was "green" so to speak. I had to recognize how to handle myself under enviromental conditions, as well as handling my own emotions, adrinaline, etc. When you do this for the first time, it is a strange feeling. Yet, because I trained to "relax" I was able to deal with these conditions fairly quickly. After my 1st encounter as an adult, I had no problem with the few other encounters I had, because that "greeness" was gone.

My point is, outside of that "first experience", for me the rest was all the same. I only needed one experience to overcome my "greeness." And, even with that first experience, I handled it fine even though it felt different and strange to me.

Now, other people might need more then one experience to overcome problems that they might have; fear, tunnel vision, etc. Maybe I am unique, but I don't think so. I think training to "relax" made all the difference in the world for me.

My point is that although real world experience is helpful, it doesn't make or break whether or not your a good fighter. I think that in terms of personal ability, its overrated. I think it is nice to know that FMA has been combat tested, but it doesn't need to be combat tested by ME for me to know how it "truely" works. I think there are a lot of pseudo tough guys out there who ride on their "real world experience" for credability, and I think its pretty silly. I'm sure you've seen them: The military guy who comes out in desert cammos who has been through all the "secret" training the government has to offer who is going to tell you the secrets of "real" combat. Or so-and-so has been a "street fighter" since he was 13 years old on the mean streets of LA, and he is going to dispell all the "martial arts myths" with his real world experience. In fact, for more info, check here (lol): http://www.trsdirect.com/product.php 

I think all that S**t is stupid as hell. My instructors all had real "world experience" to draw from, yet they let their technical powress speak for itself. I have met people with very little "real world" experience that I wouldn't mess with, and who I'd learn from. Real World experience does not make you a better fighter by itself...its just another thing to put in your mixing bowl of knowledge. It doesn't make or break your fighting ability. If it did, then we should be encouraging each other to go out and get into fights.  

That's my feeling on the subject. I am not sure if it is the same, or different then yours.


----------



## loki09789

Paul J,
"So, the question is, do you believe as I do that tactics are independent from the Martial system? The article (good article by the way) seems to believe this. Do you? 

Obviously, based on the past posting, no I don't agree.

"This deep conversation started because someone asked about the effectiveness of the Modern Arnis (actually it was more general in that he refered to any "arnis" but that's a mote point) empty hand system."

This is not a moot point because the original poster clarified that he meant multiple FMA systems when he referred to 'arnis' as a general term, therefore a tactical/strategic discussion is appropriate and essential..

"Because if they were talking from a tactical perspective, then they wouldn't be talking about one martial art, because tactical principles could apply to ANY martial art."

Again back to the original idea of 'arnis' and not a single art discussion.

You are discussing from the single system position and I still disagree.
Tactics/strategy of a particular system are used to accomplish the goals of the system or the 'style' of fighting that the system will teach (grappling, weapons, empty hand, warfare doctrines, police procedures...).  This goal or strategy will dictate the techniques that make up the system.  RP and every system head decided, based on experience and training, what the goals of his system were, picked the type of strategic/tactical skills the fighter in his system would use and those dictated the techniques the fighter would need to be successful. 

I read your posts and see your interp of tactics as 'street tactics' not tactical/strategic theory.  The tactical theory is an entire scientific area that has been developed over time.  Every fighting system ever made has a set of tactical skills imbedded in it.  Consider Balintawak and the baiting strike that pulls an opponents stick to a certain place.  That is a fighting tactic that used the techniques within the system.

Paul Martin


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Paul J,
> "
> This is not a moot point because the original poster clarified that he meant multiple FMA systems when he referred to 'arnis' as a general term, therefore a tactical/strategic discussion is appropriate and essential.. *


*

I agree that because the if original question was framed at Arnis in general, the answer would have to be more tactical. Yet, we didn't know that was what he was truely asking in the beginning, so we have been talking about single systems. And even still, I am not convinced the original poster realized how general his question really was.

Regardless, we have been talking about single system (Modern Arnis mainly), and how tactics relate to single systems. So, I'll stick to that discussion.




			You are discussing from the single system position and I still disagree.
		
Click to expand...


No Problem...lets see where our ideas differ.




			Tactics/strategy of a particular system are used to accomplish the goals of the system or the 'style' of fighting that the system will teach (grappling, weapons, empty hand, warfare doctrines, police procedures...).  This goal or strategy will dictate the techniques that make up the system.  RP and every system head decided, based on experience and training, what the goals of his system were, picked the type of strategic/tactical skills the fighter in his system would use and those dictated the techniques the fighter would need to be successful.
		
Click to expand...


I agree that environment and experience, or "tactical" considerations dictate what makes up your martial art. However, I don't believe the "tactical considerations" IS the martial art. That is all I am saying. The "tactics" will vary from person to person, and environment to environment...and martial arts will be influenced by the tactics, but they aren't the same.

I picture it like a Vinn diagram. I like Vinn diagrams...you know, overlapping circles. It seems to work well in martial arts explainations. Picture 3 overlapping circles, and each circle you have this:

1. Technical
2. Conceptual
3. Tactical

The technical is the "movement" of your system, including your timing, angling, etc. 

The conceptual is the principles behind the movement. 

The Tactical is HOW you use your techniques and concepts in "real application."

The Technical and Conceptual ALONE make up your art; the tactical is HOW YOU USE the art. They have a inner working relationship. Now the tactical does not make up your art, but it is an outside consideration that effects the technical details of the art. For instance, a difference in terrain may effect your footwork. However, what does remain unchanged is the concepts...that's what is "all the same." The concept 'Countering the counter' is the same no matter what the terrain is that effects my footwork, for instance.

The relationship between the technical and conceptual is vitally important to the make-up of any martial system. The conceptual by itself is just a "philosephy," that could apply to any art, and therefore, NOT the art by itself. The Technical by itself is only a surface level understanding of the art. The relationship between these 2 is what makes your art what it is. It's a mixture of concepts (countering the counter) with gross movements and techniques (12 angles, 6 count drill) that make up the art.

The tactics effect how your art is to be used, and does effect the technical details of the art. It is not within the art itself, however, it is an outside concideration. It being an outside consideration makes it "universal" as the Krav article states. 

If the tactics were within the art same as the conceptual and technical aspects, then you would have NO BASE or continuity within your art.    




			I read your posts and see your interp of tactics as 'street tactics' not tactical/strategic theory.  The tactical theory is an entire scientific area that has been developed over time.  Every fighting system ever made has a set of tactical skills imbedded in it.  Consider Balintawak and the baiting strike that pulls an opponents stick to a certain place.  That is a fighting tactic that used the techniques within the system.

Paul Martin
		
Click to expand...

*
First off, I am using what you call street tactics as examples, but I do understand that tactics is more of a soft science that is being developed. Yet, I still don't think this is the same as your art.

See, a lot of what you describe, I don't consider to be tactical considerations. For example, the gross movements and body mechanics that makes up your "bait" is your technique...the "bait" is the concept. Neither is a tactical consideration. How my environment, weapons, and opponent relate to my "bait" would be the tactical considerations.

Well, unfortunatily, I got to run. I will post more later.

In a nutshell it seems that your definition of "tactics" is more encompassing then mine, and I am not sure that your definition fits the conventional definition.

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

I was always discussing in terms of 'arnis' as a general term because I understood Upnorthkyos(sp?) from the beginning.

Paul M


----------



## loki09789

It isn't my definition of tactic that is being used.  It is the definition of military/strategic sciences that are used to explain and understand everything from chess and other strategy games all the way to up to war doctrines and it isn't being developed now/recently it is a respected science (if you mean soft as a distinction between human sciences and the hard sciences of chemisty ands stuff, sure) and even a degree program in some colleges under the heading of military sciences (kind of a specific term, but it is really about strategic theory).

Based on your explanation, you are using tactics as a way to consider the environment and what to do there, but concept to talk about the fight.  Your use of concept is the same as my use of tactics based on my use of the term because it is the application of techniques.  Your terminology is either a working definition that you use, but haven't studied based on strategic theory or internal definitions that were given to you by instructors.

Paul Martin


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *I was always discussing in terms of 'arnis' as a general term because I understood Upnorthkyos(sp?) from the beginning.
> 
> Paul M *



Um...I am dropping this point after I say this: No you didn't. :shrug: 

At least, not indicated by your first response, page 2 of this thread: 



> *MA* is a good empty hand art, if you understand and train Translation constantly. Know what you are preparing yourself for and get good at the skills that you need, simple enough.



I added the bold type for emphasis, but you first responded "MA" standing for "Modern Arnis." No big deal, I assumed the same because we ARE in the Modern Arnis forum, and most of the conversation is about Modern Arnis.

Like I said, it doesn't matter...we are talking about how Tactics relate to singular arts, particularly Modern Arnis, at this point.

moving on...


----------



## Tgace

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *This deep conversation started because someone asked about the effectiveness of the Modern Arnis (actually it was more general in that he refered to any "arnis" but that's a mote point) empty hand system. You, followed shortly by Paul M. responded with some tactical considerations that could apply to any martial art. Your response was also in rebuke of "martial artists" who try to talk self-defense without taking tactical considerations. I felt that the thread was getting steered in a different direction. Why? Because when someone asks about the effectiveness of a martial art, they are usually talking from a technical and conceptual perspective. WHY? Because if they were talking from a tactical perspective, then they wouldn't be talking about one martial art, because tactical principles could apply to ANY martial art. your quote, "It's a framework that sits over the top and is not prescriptive about which technique to use (hence independence of style)." So am I correct?...
> 
> So, the question is, do you believe as I do that tactics are independent from the Martial system? The article (good article by the way) seems to believe this. Do you? Paul Martin, do you?
> 
> PAUL
> *



Well, yes and no. I think I see where you are coming from. No you shouldnt sacrifice technical development and say "my tactics will make up for it". I think I said that before (I loose track ). Carrying out a tactical plan is dependent on working technique, absolutely. To use your analogy though, you dont want to make a bunch of Ferari mechanics that have never driven a car either. Even if they never race competitively, you need to get them out on the practice track. The issue of if you have the time to build a Ferari when you may just need a jeep to get out to the battlefront is a different issue. 

In regards to the "framework" quote the author also said...

 "It isn't style related, it can be applied to all existing styles or systems intended for self defence *but not without changes to those systems*" 

I believe hes saying that a "tactical approach" can be made by any martial art because martial arts (in the modern sense) provide the technical training/expertise but are lacking an aggressive tactical training component. Hence the change in mindset and training approach. I dont think hes implying that one can be had without the other (if you want to develop an effective "fighting" student). I believe that Tactics and technique are ineseparable. Various arts (techniques) develpoed for tactical reasons. Okinawa'n (SP?) arts developed from the from the fact that the Japanese invaded and disarned the population. In order to defend themselves against armed and armored Samurai they developed techniques and weapons to counter their foes advantages. Tactical considerations resulted in stylistic technique. On the "yang" side of the symbol, tactics also change and are selected based on the technical strengths of the combatants. US military tactics have changed due to our "technical" superiority. Its a relationship that shouldnt be split but has.

PS. I too have been enjoying the conversation. Yes it may be a tangent, but its the most Ive posted and/or read here in a long time.


----------



## Cruentus

I think we are mostly in agreement on the issue. I don't know if you got there yet, but if you read my post on the relationship between "technical," "conceptual," and "tactical," I think you'll see that we might be on the same page. Although I said "Vinn Diagram" which Implies 3 overlapping circles, I think I would rather use a different diagram to describe the relationship (I wish I could draw diagrams here on MT! Where's Bob Hubbard when you need him!  )

So, we have to visualize...


Conceptual      > > > > > > > > > > > > > >               

...................................................................Tactical

Technical           < <  << < < < <  < < < < < < < <



Now...with the outlay of the words above, picture 2 overlapping circles with one circle "conceptual" and the other "technical". That is your "art" or Combat System. Now, picture a seperate circle around the word "tactical". Tactics are seperate, more universal things that involve "real life" applications of the "art". Do you see the arrows? The art and the tactics feed off each other, effect each other, and build off one another. They are inseperable. Yet, do you see how they are not the same?

If you can visualize what I am saying, I think the above is an even better visual then a vinn diagram. I see tactics as more enviromental things that are vital to consider in the continuing developement of your art, but are not the same as the art. In this illustration, you can see how they effect one another, but are not exactly the same.

See, in this way, you can learn an art...Modern Arnis. Yet, as a cop you can make the tactical adjustments for your job, making adjustments for gun retention, cuffing the BG, etc. Your art, Modern Arnis, is the same as my art. Yet, your tactical adjustments for your job are different then tactical adjustments I'd have to make as a civilian. See what I mean about how they are differen't, even though they are related?


----------



## Tgace

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *See, in this way, you can learn an art...Modern Arnis. Yet, as a cop you can make the tactical adjustments for your job, making adjustments for gun retention, cuffing the BG, etc. Your art, Modern Arnis, is the same as my art. Yet, your tactical adjustments for your job are different then tactical adjustments I'd have to make as a civilian. See what I mean about how they are differen't, even though they are related?
> 
> *



I see your concept...mine is a Yin/Yang diagram. While they may be separate issues, they are locked together as a whole. They dont just overlap. Technical development/perfection without a tactical reasons results in WuShu/Extreme Martial arts. Like the "Do" arts developed from the "jutsu" arts from Japan. Based in fighting but developed into something else. Im pretty certain that the "tactical" environment of the Phillipines resulted in the FMA we see today. Im just as certain that those techniques, once developed, helped Fillipino warriors select the tactics they used against opponents. Each flows into the other. When we stop taking modern "tactics" into consideration we lock into preserving "tradition" at the sake of "combat effectiveness".


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *I see your concept...mine is a Yin/Yang diagram. While they may be separate issues, they are locked together as a whole. They dont just overlap. Technical development/perfection without a tactical reasons results in WuShu/Extreme Martial arts. Like the "Do" arts developed from the "jutsu" arts from Japan. Based in fighting but developed into something else. Im pretty certain that the "tactical" environment of the Phillipines resulted in the FMA we see today. Im just as certain that those techniques, once developed, helped Fillipino warriors select the tactics they used against opponents. Each flows into the other. When we stop taking modern "tactics" into consideration we lock into preserving "tradition" at the sake of "combat effectiveness". *



I agree! :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

First off, in regards to tactics being a soft science, I did mean it as the distinction between hard sciences like Chemistry, and soft science like psychology. Tactics or Combat science is a soft science, but that doesnt make it any less credible then any other soft sciences. As with soft sciences, it becomes difficult to distinguish correct from incorrect, like in psychology. Yet, soft sciences are still both important and valid. 

Having said that, we seem to be in dispute over the definition of the word tactics. I think that your definition goes too far beyond what has been generally excepted by Tactical experts. Your opinion is that my definition is my own, and doesnt take in consideration what modern combat science. I disagree with your opinion.

Now, if you look for a good definition by experts on what tactics actually means, youll find it hard to find that information. Its one of those words that is used a lot without specific definitions given. However, in the context in which the word is used, we can gather what tactics means.

The dictionary definition of tactics is: A Method for Employing Forces in Combat

Now the actual Forces would be your arttechnical and conceptual. I believe that this dictionary definition is what Modern Combat sciences go off of. 

I believe this because when you look at some of the leaders in Modern Self Defense and Combative  tactics, They all say the same thingthat what they do is independent from Martial Arts style.

This is what they say, not me. Check any and every website or advertisement from every tactics instructor with credibility. Ill let you pick, because they all say the same thing about their methods or tactics being separate from style, which fits in with the dictionary definition, and fits in with what I have been saying.

Soif you dont agree with the dictionary definition which coincides with what the 'experts' say, then fine. So, what IS your definition of tactics, if your not going by conventional standards?

PAUL


----------



## Tgace

Strategy, Tactics and Doctrine
The terms "strategy", "tactics" and "doctrine" express three related, but distinct, concepts. The distinctions are important to note if we are to understand the concepts.



Strategy

Strategy describes a broad perspective on how resources are to be used to achieve some goal.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed., 2000): "1a. The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war. b. The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations."

The Department of Defense definition is: "The art and science of developing and using political, economic, psychological, and military forces as necessary during peace and war, to afford the maximum support to policies, in order to increase the probabilities and favorable consequences of victory and to lessen the chances of defeat." (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/)

In Foundations of Leninism, Stalin writes: "Strategy is the determination of the direction of the main blow of the proletariat at a given stage of the revolution, the elaboration of a corresponding plan for the disposition of the revolutionary forces (main and secondary reserves), the fight to carry out this plan throughout the given stage of the revolution."

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) provides this historical definition: "The art of a commander-in-chief; the art of projecting and directing the larger military movements and operations of a campaign. Usually distinguished from tactics, which is the art of handling forces in battle or in the immediate presence of the enemy."



Tactics

As the OED definition indicates, "strategy" is usually opposed to "tactics", where tactics is the deployment of forces in some specific instance of applying strategy.

For example, The American Heritage® Dictionary states: "1a. The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy"



The Department of Defense defines tactics: "1. The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities."

Stalin states: "Tactics are the determination of the line of conduct of the proletariat in the comparatively short period of the flow or ebb of the movement, of the rise or decline of the revolution, the fight to carry out this line by means of replacing old forms of struggle and organization by new ones, old slogans by new ones, by combining these forms, etc." And later in the same paragraph: "Tactics are a part of strategy, subordinate to it and serving it." 

The OED, in its definition of strategy, includes this quote from A. T. Mahan's Sea Power: [Strategy applies] "*efore hostile armies or fleets are brought into contact (a word which perhaps better than any other indicates the dividing line between tactics and strategy)."



Doctrine

Doctrine is an overall statement of principles as to how forces are used at any stage.

The Department of Defense defines doctrine as: "Fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application."

How does this relate to and differ from strategy and tactics? Doctrine describes how a force operates, or how an army fights. Strategy describes the overall approach to achieving the goal; tactics describes the specifics, e.g., when an army is in contact with the enemy. Doctrine describes in both cases the principles as to how the fight will be waged.

The DoD describes this relationship between doctrine, strategy and tactics: "The levels of war are doctrinal perspectives that clarify the links between strategic objectives and tactical actions. Although there are no finite limits or boundaries between them, the three levels are strategic, operational, and tactical." That is, doctrine is applied at both the strategic level, and at the tactical level. Doctrine is an abstract, general (and practical) statement. Doctrine is applied via strategy and tactics (the "strategic level", and at the "tactical level." A U.S. Marine Corps document on urban warfare suggests the distinction between doctrine and tactics: the document"provides doctrinal guidance and detailed information on tactics, techniques, and procedures to be employed in [Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain] within the operating forces."

Doctrine is a general statement of how we fight; strategy a broad description of how we are going to fulfill our mission; tactics the specific actions to implement strategy.*


----------



## Cruentus

Neat post! 

I don't have a lot of time today, so I'll let that digest and I'll post more later.

One question; where did you dig up the information for the dept. of defense definitions? I know with your career you have access to much cooler stuff then I do (unless you think the market is "cooler" then guns, a squad car, and info like what you posted... if so then I would have access to cooler 'stuff'!  ), but I would like to be able to look at some of that information if possible. I think its a great help for someone in my position as a civilian instructor to know the military definitions of things, outside the dictonary definitions.

Anyways, gotta go...more later!


----------



## Tgace

Check out my web site (button below my screen name). Its a sort of refrence library I made for myself from when i was still in the reserves. Its kinda old and some links may not work but the DoD library links are interesting. You have to go down the rabbit hole to get to some things but its all in there.


----------



## Tgace

Since nobodys screaming at me to stop, heres some more...

FM 22-100 MILITARY LEARERSHIP 1990

"Technical Knowledge: Technical knowledge is the knowledge required to perform all tasks and funcions related to your position, including the ability to operate and maintain all assigned equipment. You should strive to learn how to use your equipment in the most effective manner to support your mission accomplishment..."

"Tactical Knowledge: Tactical knowledge is the ability to employ your soldiers and their equipment. Combat arms leaders work directly to gain an advantage over the enemy while combat support and combat service support leaders provide the necessary support for that employment. The Army recognizes 9 principles of war. You must understand these principles and consider their applicability to your situation.

-Objective
-Offensive
-Mass
-Economy of Force
-Maneuver
-Unity of Command
-Security
-Suprise
-Simplicity"

FM 3-90 TACTICS
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-90/toc.htm


----------



## loki09789

Paul, 

The memory fades with age, I reread the posts and saw, as you mentioned, that I wrote MA first.  But after Upnorth... clarified, I moved to the mulit-art discussion.  It works either way because tactical theory, can be applied to either discussion.  

Tom took the best of the sources for some of the definitions but here are some samples that I generally work from:


----------



## loki09789

Sorry, hit enter too early trying to cut and paste  

Technical knowledge is the knowledge required to perform all tasks and funcions related to your position, (Same as Tom's post)

tactical

Characterized by adroitness, ingenuity, or skill ("Winning Chess").

Tactics
A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal (Strategy and tactics - USMC Officer course manual).

An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver (Dictionary).

Concept
A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences (Dictionary). 

A scheme; a plan: began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept

strategy
n 1: an elaborate and systematic plan of action [syn: scheme]



tact - as the root word for tactics.

ready power of appreciating and doing what is required by circumstances (dictionary).


If I were to organize this stuff the techiques in a martial art would be stances,strikes,blocks...

Tactics would, in part, be the ability to organize techniques into maneuvers that would achieve a goal.  Like I said before, baiting to me is an example of tactics because the techniques are being used - or force is being employed - to accomplish a goal ('fighting tactics' for the sake of clarity).  The better a student's technical skill, the better/faster a student will be able to make the baiting tactic work.  That is where I get the idea that tactics are imbedded in the art.  Tactics that exist within a system like preset baiting or striking or blocking combinations are multiple techniques organized into a maneuver to accomplish a goal.  FMA and MA specifically use these combinations to accomplish two goals:  Fighting skill and conceptual understanding.  The first makes fighters, the second makes artists.  One drill that develops two parts of a persons ability had to be based on a strategic theory, or intricate plan - in this case FMA/MA.

Now, like you were saying earlier, environmental tactics would use the techniques of observation, mobility (walking, running, driving...) and other skills to position and maneuver based on the situation.  Some martial arts include this in the curriculum, some don't.  MA, on a curriculum/technical level, doesn't have it, but on the conceptual/strategic level of understanding, it can be there.

Simultaniously, there could be the concept of baiting within an art that students derive and understanding of from applying and drilling the tactics of preset baiting combinations/drills - specific instances of either fighting or training.  This reminds me of a past thread on counter for counter existing as a drill and a concept.

I see where you are coming from and it is the training approach of a lot of excellent martial arts:  Technical training will lead to conceptual understanding and artistic perfection.  Tactical training is a separate issue because it pertains to situations and condition.  Great, and I don't think that you can be doing badly if you have achieved BB and instructor levels, as well as being alive...

I come from instruction and a view that FMA's and MA as strategic theory/conceptual arts (I like how the definitions for both have a common wording in one case).  

I see MA/FMA as a school of strategic/tactical theory that teaches through tactical applications or drills (counter for counter, de cadena...)  giving students opportunities to use techniques to accomplish  the goal of fighting skill and derived understanding of the larger concepts (sometimes with the same names as the drill which can get very confusing). 
Once the student can grasp several concepts, the strategic theory of the art as a whole is possibly revealed (I don't know if that can truly happen in a single life time, in reality).  How else could RP say that it is the 'art within your art'?

My Venn diagram would have the same categorized as yours, Paul J, only I would have all three circles overlapping equally in triangular pattern as such


                                            technical


                                   tactical         conceptual



All three circles would overlap in the center and that would be where the the system would exist.

This is really long and I apologize for that, but I am really into this.

Paul Martin


----------



## loki09789

OOps venn didn't come out right

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiTechnical

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiioverlapping area
iiiTacticaliiiiiiiiiiiiiiConceptual

There!  Have fun with that one

Paul M


----------



## loki09789

Yes, it's Sunday and I am bored, and there is a lot of snow that I am trying to avoid shovelling...

Paul J. mentioned how the definitions for tactics/tactical in by combatives 'experts' and combatives arts are varied and generally talk in terms of outside/over... martial arts/systems.  

Some of them do talk in this way, but they aren't talking purely for the sake of tactical theory.  I think they are trying to make themselves distinquishable (sp?) as martial artists, so that they can be recognized as a self defense art.

Like Krav Maga, they use the tactical art mentallity and define the physical art as separate from the tactical.  That really is an in house/internal separation that they use to organize topics of instruction as well as good marketing to stand out in a world of 'martial arts', they - and other - tactical art schools - can be recognized for their primary goal of self defense.

I think that this is Tom's point about FMA's as the best source to give them a run in the market if someone can package it the right way.  The concepts that make FMA's distinct can be understood through the practice of physical techniques, but once the idea or pattern is recognized it can be applied on any level, strategic/tactical/technical) and still be within the framework of FMA training.  

Paul M.


----------



## Makalakumu

In my experience with FMA, tactics and technique feel like they are one unified concept.  For instance, we never just swung a stick or stabbed something.  We ALWAYS had a target and goal in mind.  And with defense, we never just blocked something.  The footwork associated with the block was suppose to put us in a good place to counter.  I think we end up training tactical techniques in the end.


----------



## Tgace

Here is Jim Wagners definition of reality-based martial arts;

http://www.jimwagnertraining.com

"Training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that the practitioner is likely to encounter in their environment (their reality).

   It was Jim Wagner who first coined the term reality-based in connection to the civilian martial arts, and it is his definition that is the baseline (accepted standard) for this new movement.

   The term reality-based is a powerful, image producing description, for those whose primary purpose for investing in the martial arts is self-defense or the defense of others.

   In modern times the ancient martial arts systems (most notably the Asian systems) are predominantly embraced and popularized by civilian instructors who have no direct connection to actual paramilitary conflict training, and who are unaware of the three-prong split of the martial arts. All three branches of the martial arts legitimate, and meet different needs for different people. The problem arises when examining the subject of self-defense. Although the traditional martial arts have training methods and techniques that can be applied to self-defense situations, it is not a true system for self-defense. Although fightsport (contact sport fighting) also has training methods and techniques that can be applied to self-defense situations, it also is not a true system for self defense.  

   When keeping within the context of self-defense, fightsport and the traditional-based arts are to be comparable to Civil War military tactics. Although such ancient tactics are still reenacted for tourists and movies, and are quite appealing, they are not applicable to todays modern warfare. Todays military rejects those practices. That is not to say that there is not any benefit to being familiar with Civil War tactics. In the U.S. Armys War College, Civil War battles are studied, lessons drawn from them, and applied to possible modern future scenarios. Likewise, there will be some Civil War training methods and techniques that have change little over time  like running a bayonet through an enemy soldier. The rifles may have changed dramatically, but the blade is relatively the same in nature. Yet, so many other techniques have been changed or modified since 1865 that it would be counterproductive for a modern soldier to study Civil War tactics if the main goal is to prepare for a modern enemy. For example: why waste time practicing how to shoot from skirmish lines when we shoot from available cover today. Likewise, what may have worked in ancient Asia, when the Oriental martial arts were developed (the era of the Samurai, Shoalin monks, and Korean warriors, etc.), cannot be passed off today as a viable self-defense system for the modern warrior anymore than Civil War tactics could be for todays military.  

   For years (since the end of World War II in 1945) the ancient Asian martial arts have influenced the way people think about self-defense. Not only have these ancient training methods and techniques been propagated, but some schools go so as far as to adapting foreign traditions, rituals, customs, and in some cases - religion. Again, such knowledge is very rich and colorful, but for those seeking only genuine self-defense, traditional-based martial arts would be in the same category as Civil War enthusiasts.

   So, how is it that many people today still are entrenched with the idea that the traditional-based martial arts are real self-defense? The answer is  mass communications. The ancient Asian martial arts systems were popularized by the movie industry beginning in the 1960s. Films portrayed bigger-than-life individuals, who with their Asian fighting skills were able to single handedly, defeat those using inferior skills or those who lacked any formal training. The subliminal message to audiences was that these screen techniques would actually work in real situations.

   The first superstar actor/martial artist Bruce Lee (1949  1973) openly acknowledged that this gender of films were strictly entertainment. However, as his popularity steadily grew, Lee managed to slip in his own version of reality-based (Jeet Kune Do) methods into his later films. He broke the East-West barrier by including boxing techniques, wrestling, French Savate, and other systems right along side his own Asian styles. Movie audiences loved it, but he was at odds with traditionalists. In his private life Bruce Lee was always seeking the truth of combat.  In a 1971 interview to Black Belt magazine Bruce Lee stated, I have in no way set Jeet Kune Do within a distinct form governed by laws that distinguish it from this style or that method. On the contrary, I hope to free my comrades from bondage to styles, patterns and doctrines.

   As the public became more aware of the crime culture and modern warfare in the 1980s the movie industry was quick to adapt to the new market by placing their martial arts/action heroes into roles where they could use their traditional-based skills in contemporary settings. Not only could these actors kick and punch in beautifully choreographed scenes, but they could also manipulate a variety of weapon systems  assault rifles, explosives, and military equipment. Of course, images on the big screen have a big impact on people, and many martial arts practitioners tried to imitate this new martial arts role model. Even in our own decade the theme has not changed much.

   Although martial artist-turned actor types (such as Chuck Norris, Steven Segal, Brandon Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, etc.) seemed to have lent a sense of credibility to the combination of traditional-based martial arts with modern conflict, they themselves did not change the way people trained and fought. One reason is that these actors styles are civilian-based, but with a hint of realism given to them by technical advisors. They were still forcing, and some still are, a square peg into a round hole.

   When focusing primarily on realistic techniques for modern self-defense situations, it was the creation of hybrid systems that ultimately paved the way for reality-based martial arts. The most notable example of hybridization of the martial arts is instructor Dan Inosanto, the protogé of the late Bruce Lee. Influenced by the Jeet Kune Do concept (which went from concept to system), Dan followed Bruce Lees example and mixed fighting systems. In the Filipino Kali Academy (Dans original school in Torrance, California) students would find themselves doing Filipino kali, Wing Chun, Chinese kickboxing, and grappling all in a nights session. Although the teaching was not seamless, Dan would always tell his students, Take what is useful, and throw out what is not. Of course, Jim Wagner had been taken under Dan Inosantos wing at the impressionable age of 16 and would train with him off and on until his mid 20s. Jim would take many of Dans concepts, and Richard Bustillos, and add to them. 

   Today we take hybridization for granted now, but in the late 70s and early 80s, there were only a handful of schools worldwide doing teaching this way. It was indeed the JKD crowd that was breaking away from the traditional-based systems, yet they themselves would not bring the martial arts into the next era."

Note the Filipino connection. While Mr. Wagner is predominantly concerned with military/LEO issues, a lot of what he has to say illustrates my conception of what FMA could contribute. While this article states that FMA was a component of Mr. Wagners program, I believe that FMA as a whole due to its conceptual teachings could form a solid combatives system of its own with the proper "tactical framework".


----------



## Tgace

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *In my experience with FMA, tactics and technique feel like they are one unified concept.  For instance, we never just swung a stick or stabbed something.  We ALWAYS had a target and goal in mind.  And with defense, we never just blocked something.  The footwork associated with the block was suppose to put us in a good place to counter.  I think we end up training tactical techniques in the end. *



Footwork, punches, kicks, strikes (w/weapons), blocks, checks, passes etc... those are all "techniques". They are tools that are used to defeat an opponent. Even if an enemy is imagined in training you are not dealing with a person that is actively attempting to $@#%&-up all your plans. Even conventional sparring is "canned"... its only the "fight stage". Most trainers dont consider or train their students in the pre-fight or post-fight stages. And if you believe that you will "do as you are trained" in a confrontation then you should train the whole shebang. Thats why scenario training has become so dominant in military/LEO training.

"Tactics" depend on direct competition with an opponent who is trying to thwart your every move. An actual hand-to-hand fight can employ tactics on a small scale (feints, diversions, etc) but also  involves the sum total of a confrontation. The terrain, the time of day, nubmer of opponents, weapons and their capabilities (yours and your opponents), your knowledge of law (you gotta know when to stop, run, or call in the cavalry so you dont wind up in the clink), cover and concealment and a whole spectrum of other issues. Of course this all depends on your and/or your instructors goals. Martial Arts can also be about everything from exercise, spiritual/personal development, a social gathering, traditional preservation, sport etc. And those are all very valid reasons too. I suppose it depends on how important the "self-defense" issue is.


----------



## Cruentus

Dude...awesome webpage!! 

That's a great resource you have there. Some of the military stuff I have read before in my personal research, but I find it hard to dig up again as I don't have it as nicely put together and referenced as you. 

Very Nice!  

In regards to the military definitions, I am finding that they coincide well with the civilian dictionary definitions. On this page (http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-90/ch1.htm) I found these couple of definitions:

For Tactics:
"Mastery of the science of tactics is necessary for the tactician to understand the physical and procedural constraints under which he must work. These constraints include the effects of terrain, time, space, and weather on friendly and enemy forces"

"The art of tactics consists of three interrelated aspects: the creative and flexible array of means to accomplish assigned missions, decision making under conditions of uncertainty when faced with an intelligent enemy, and understanding the human dimensionthe effects of combat on soldiers."

"Tactics is the employment of units in combat.

Techniques are the general and detailed methods used by troops and commanders to perform assigned missions and functions, specifically the methods of using equipment and personnel."

It seems that what is generally accepted by the military is the idea that the technical details HOW to employ the method, while the tactical details how to choose which method to employ, and employing that method in combat.

In a nutshell, these definitions and explainations seem to support my approach. My approach is that "technique and concept" is your art. Tactical is how you employ your art, and will vary per situation. Strategy regards more of a long term plan."Doctrine" as you introduced to me here would be the mentality or mindset behind the action and planning.  I still choose my earlier described diagram over a vinn diagram.

Now, my way of interpretation definatily isn't the only way, but it seems to be working rather well so far.

Again, I appreciate your link ups, and I hope you don't mind me using your webpage as a good reference in the future!


----------



## Cruentus

I like this quote:

"War is, above all things, an art, employing science in all its branches as its servant, but depending first and chiefly upon the skill of the artisan. It has its own rules, but not one of them is rigid and invariable." 

                                          - Captian Francis V. Greene

In other words, you may indeed choose to interpret your Modern Arnis, and your arts relationship to "tactics" differently then I. As long as it works, no one is "wrong" per say.

I do think my method of presentation does fit with the military explainations and definitions. Yet, that doesn't mean that alternative methods of presentation won't fit. 

You choose to present your tactics as a part of your art, with the Venn Diagram as your chosen idea for how it fits together. This is fine if it works for you and your students. I choose my method a bit differently.

I think it has been a good discussion because when we talk about the arts, or tactics, or what have you, we will have better understanding of where each other is coming from.

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus

> It seems that what is generally accepted by the military is the idea that the technical details HOW to employ the method, while the tactical details how to choose which method to employ, and employing that method in combat.



Ha ha...I like quoting myself! (as the meglomania sets in)  

Given my interpretation of what the military texts are saying regarding definitions of tactics and technique, I can see where we differ in our interpretations of what defines technique. 

I don't define "technique" in this case as ONLY the gross body movement. I also think that angling, timing, positioning, etc. is also a part of that "technique;" because without it yout technique is nothing.

You seem to define technique as only the gross body movement. Other factors such as timing, you would define as a tactic.

To me, timing and other factors are part of "how" the move works, so the "technical" to me goes beyond just "the move". For you, your definition of technique does not seem to go beyond "the move," so your definition of "tactics" then overlaps to encompass aspects such as timing, angling, etc.

This is fine if that is the way you want to interpret it. I don't see any compelling reason why I should change my interpretation here, but at least we can see where we differ so that at least when have discussions we won't argue over semantics.

PAUL


----------



## Tgace

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *In a nutshell, these definitions and explainations seem to support my approach. My approach is that "technique and concept" is your art. Tactical is how you employ your art, and will vary per situation. Strategy regards more of a long term plan."Doctrine" as you introduced to me here would be the mentality or mindset behind the action and planning.  I still choose my earlier described diagram over a vinn diagram.*



Cant find anything to debate ya there. Yes techniques and tactics are separate elements (otherwise they wouldnt have different names). My point is that many martial "arts" become too wrapped up in the "technique and concept" that they loose touch with the "martial" side of the house. a la that article of Wagners refering to many arts becoming analgous to Civil War re-enactors. Tactics also mean many other things other than "fighting" concepts (timing, distance, footwork etc.). Tactics also involve issues of surroundings, environment, terrain, vehicle issues, weapon issues and anything else that can be leveraged to your advantage in a confrontation (or avoiding on altogether). How do you train that? Or do you leave that up to the student to do their own research/training from other sources?


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *Cant find anything to debate ya there. Yes techniques and tactics are separate elements (otherwise they wouldnt have different names). My point is that many martial "arts" become too wrapped up in the "technique and concept" that they loose touch with the "martial" side of the house. a la that article of Wagners refering to many arts becoming analgous to Civil War re-enactors. Tactics also mean many other things other than "fighting" concepts (timing, distance, footwork etc.). *


*

I totally agree with modern martial arts not being "martial" enough. Tactics definatily makes your art more martial.




			Tactics also involve issues of surroundings, environment, terrain, vehicle issues, weapon issues and anything else that can be leveraged to your advantage in a confrontation (or avoiding on altogether). How do you train that? Or do you leave that up to the student to do their own research/training from other sources?
		
Click to expand...

*
Darn good questions with no short and definate answers.

So first, I'll start with the bottom line: Tactics have to be trained in some way, shape, or form.

Now having said that, Tactics are going to vary from person to person and from situation to situation. Furthermore, many tactical circumstances need to be drilled over and over again, while others only need to be addressed once.

Now, my main job as an instructor is 3-fold. First, to impart my technical knowledge. Second, the conceptual knowledge comes to play when the technical is addressed. With that technical/conceptual knowledge, I verbalize, demonstrate, and even let them drill sometimes the tactical circumstances that their technique can be used, so they can put their technical/conceptual knowledge into some sort of context. 

The 3rd part of the "fold" is I need to be able to impart to them the ability to "translate" what they have learned. In other words, apply what they have learned to different circumstances. This is a basic Modern Arnis Concept that I think applies universally to whatever Martial Art you are doing. The ability to translate is vital because I cannot teach, nor can a student practice every single combative situation that could happend to them. Furthermore, there is no "training" substitution for the real thing. So, in my opinion, if you can't translate what you learn in the dojo in different situations that you might come accross in a combative circumstance, then your training becomes useless. 

Now other instructors may disagree with me on this point, but because I teach my students how to translate, I don't think it is nessicary to attempt to train EVERY tactical circumstance. Not only will this be an impossability, but it will be almost useless because no training simulation completely mirrors the real thing. Furthermore, it would take away from what they should really be learning from me, which is the technical/conceptual, and how to translate.

A simple example of putting technique into a "tactical" circumstance, as well as teaching my students how to "translate" what they know: 

"I have a stick and so does he. He attacks me #2 angle, I block, strike, armbar, takedown, then disarm." 

[demonstrates, then I have students work on that technique]

"O.K...everybody back. Now, what if I don't have a stick and he does? I can still do the technique...[demonstrates technique w/o a stick]. Now, chances are, your attacker won't have a rattan stick.... people just don't carry those around. But what if this is a pipe, crowbar, tire iron, etc.? It's all the same...the technique still works. What if it is a blade? We all know that there are blade concepts that could drastically change the dynamics of the situation, but as you can see [put blade in Uke's hand, and demonstrate] the technique works the same in this case. Now...if he had a broken bottle, could you do the same technique? [they all nod yes]. Good. You see, we may only work on a few techniques in class due to the time we have available, but as you can see ALL your techniques can apply to different situations. You just need to be able to translate what you learn in here to your situation out there."


So, there is a simple, classic Modern Arnis example on how we learn the technique to learn the concept, and then, they are put into reference of a tactical circumstance. This is the majority of the way class goes. Keep in mind, that I use the same idea for drills and sparring as well as singular techniques as described above. Also, please consider that by my definition, technique and concepts are being worked first and formost when sparring in a controlled environment, with very little tactics involved. If I had people spar outside on the concrete in their street clothes, then this becomes a bit more tactical in nature, by my definition anyways.

Now, even though I don't believe that I should try to cover every tactical circumstance: do I teach and have my students train tactics on a deeper level? The answer is yes. How deep and what kind of tactics always depends on my students in the class. Training grappling on concrete is good for everyone. Having a larger male student grab and simulate a scenario for a smaller female student is an example of tactical training that is more important for my smaller female students. Discussing awareness, conflict avoidence, and pre and post conflict behavior, as well as training these things is a component as well. Discussing and training in different clothing, terrain, and other environmental conditions is a consideration. These are all tactics, but this is not the bulk of our training or what I teach. Remember, my job first and formost is to teach technique, concept, and then the ability to translate among different real life circumstances. If I do that, then my job is mostly fullfilled. The other stuff is important, but not as much.

Now, in terms of what I cover...tactics for my civilian students is usually fairly easy to cover. Most of the civilian tactics only take some forethought, with very little training. Tactics for my Military and LEO students is much more difficult because they are job specific, and I don't do their job myself (I am a civilian). So, I leave it to the U.S. Government who has the best military in the world to teach my military students their tactical training, and the Municipalities to train LEO their tactical training. My focus for them is almost competely technical/conceptual, and I let them translate what I teach to their circumstance. So, I don't cover much situational training with the cops or military because it is so much more specialized, but I do cover it on a base level to give them context in which to use what I am teaching. Also, for situational training for LEO or Cops, I like to act as more of a technical advisor, while they dictate the scenario training and I advise what to do on a technical level, rather then me trying to create the scanario as a civilian.

Also, one last component, is I always encourage my students to do their own research, and to do their own thinking in terms of tactics. Ultimately, they are the ones who have to use what they know, so they are the ones who need to put what they know into whatever tactical circumstance they might be in. I give them reference materials that they can read. I give them homework assignments (like: this weekend, go outside and practice your movements in the snow and see how it feels). And I encourage them to do their own research as well, and tell me what they find. Ultimatily, from a tactical perspective even moreso then an art perspective, the student needs to take ownership for their own learning.

So, in a nutshell, my primary job is to teach the technical and conceptual aspects, which is the martial art, while teaching them how to translate what they know into whatever tactical circumstance they may find themselves in. The tactical training is there, but as a martial arts/combatives instructor rather then a tactics instructor, my main focus is the martial system and how to translate.

I don't know if I answered your question, but hopefully this explains it.

PAUL


----------



## Tgace

Well I think I finally see where our paths diverge a little regarding "tactics" and self-defense. If you take a "combat" situation from the moment you enter the area it occurs, to what you do when the whole thing is over, you have been talking about dealing with the tactics of the "battle" or "engagement", in the sense of the martial arts techniques being applied in a fight (the tactics of grappling, feints, "fight" stuff).

My idea of application of tactis are across the whole spectrum. i.e. you present fighting in a context. Where are you when it occurs and what are the cirmcustances? Instead of presenting a problem as, a guy draws a knife, what response do you give? I would say... "you are in a restaurant when a knife wielding man attempts to rob the cashier, what do you do?" The response could be "Let him take the money" which I would reccomend. Now you say "he starts stabbing bystanders" at which point the student could say "I run out to get help". This brings up the point of tactical positioning, has the student placed himself in a position where he knows where the exits are and can he get to them? If he does get out and calls police does he know his location? Ive lost count of people who ive asked "where are you right now?" who couldnt give a street name or address. If the student decides to fight the offender does he use an environmental weapon? (chair, eating utensil, weapon on his person) NOW you are entering the point you have been talking about, the "fight". Here issues of law may apply. If hes using deadly force against you (which a knife is) you may use deadly force in return. If he drops the knife and runs the situation changes. Now you get into the post confrontation....issues of first aid, calling 911, getting a subject description, vehicle description, and issues of reporting the incident to the authorities arise. There are "tactical" issues across the whole spectrum.


----------



## Cruentus

Right. I see and agree that these are all tactical issues that you described. In a situation, you are making many strategic and tactical decisions before anything technical comes into play. If you know how to relax, and think clearly under stress, you will be able to make good tactical decisions even if you haven't thought of the circumstance before hand. Then, when the time comes, your technique that you have been training will come to play without thought because the movements and your ability to translate your movements will be second nature. 

That is why the technical/conceptual is so important, and takes so much practice. It's much more difficult to learn how to do something without thought then with thought. For your technique to come without thought, you need to practice this correctly and repetitively. You want your technique to come without thought so that you can focus on thinking through your tactics (even if you are thinking on your toes), because proper tactics require quick thinking rather then the use of muscle memory.


----------



## loki09789

"I do think my method of presentation does fit with the military explainations and definitions. Yet, that doesn't mean that alternative methods of presentation won't fit."

Paul J.

As I said before, the environment is definitely part of the tactical theory, but is still only one element that has to be considered, and the scale has to be taken into account when it is considered.  
One method of considering all the tactical elements for mission success and survivability at the individual/small unit leadership level that I was taught as, both a Marine Infantryman and as an Army MP.  I never made it to the upper NCO or officer ranks, but I am pretty sure that they learn to apply it on their level of scale too.

METT-T

Mission  What is your/enemies goal or purpose?
Equipment  What do you have to work with/what doe the enemy have to work with?
Troops  How many and how fit, skilled, experiencedare you/enemy (if possible to know)?
Time  How much prep time, time on task/mission, before the next task/mission?
Terrain  the ground that you will be accomplishing the mission on?

When a tactician answers the you part of these questions, he/she is recognizing the imbedded/internal tactical skill within his art and his ability to be ingenious and creative with it, as well as his personal make up that he can bring to the fight.

When a tactician answers the enemy part of these questions it is definitely the environmental elements that he has to consider.

Translating the military source definitions for unit commanders/officers in charge of units of soldiers/Marines/sailors/Airmen needs some tweaking to translate to individual martial artist development.  It can get confusing to make accurate translations from military tactical training to civilian/self defensive/combative training because specificity of the definitions and training of tactics in the military use is for leadership, so training was always preparing you for fight-ability as the head of a unit of fighting elements  whether that meant a team/squad/platoon/company the definitions, procedures (tactics) were all to be applied by a leader of a body that has different specifications and capabilities than a single person.

As a system/head instructor, it is very helpful to understand these theories from the perspective of leadership so that you can apply them to understanding your instruction and system and fighting/self defense better.  But, since, as civilians, we generally train others and ourselves for individual applications and not as a member/leader of a team/unit it is more accurate to look at how the military defines technical and tactical skill for the individual.  

Now, as far as definitions, the military definitions and applications of technical and tactical are based on the same ideas, and partial sources for me, when I say that I am using the scientific definitions.  Looking at how the military applies those definitions to organize training into phases for the individual and not a unit  though the same pattern is there - will put it into the proportionate scale to relate it to individual martial arts training.

Those who served remember this phase as painfully boring, but military technical training phase is the boring classroom stuff where they introduced you to the equipment, tell you its specs/capabilities and then train you on how to use that piece of equipment.  Marksmanship is a technical skill, according to military training definitions for individual techical skill.  

They introduced you to the rifle (M16A2, in my active time), explained the specs (construction, weight, length) and capabilities of the weapon (rate of fire, ranges of accuracy).  After all of that, you demonstrate technical proficiency when you shoot/maintain and maintain your rifle on the training and qualification ranges.  Tactical proficiency is the employment of your marksmanship skill (technical) as a tool of force deliver during an ambush (offensive) or immediate action drill (defensive). Marksmanship is the technical skill that can be used in combination with other technical skills in tactical procedures to accomplish a goal, but the technical skill alone will not get it done.

Based on this definition, used by the military to delineate the phases of individual training progression, a punch is a technical skill.  The equipment used for the technique is introduced, in this case the arm (duh!).  The specs and capabilities in this case would be the joints and muscles that you will be using, the range/reach based on your arm length and other factors that make up a good technical punch.  Then you execute the punch to demonstrate/develop good form in the air during shadow boxing or striking focus mitts, bags, bodies Tactical proficiency is the employment of your punching technique, in combination with other technical skills to connect and cause damage to hit first (offensive) or to stop an attack with something like trapping hands (defensive).

Shadow boxing, solo repetitions of technique in the air, forms, are chances to develop technical skill.  I would even say that hitting a focus mitt that isnt being moved or flashed is technical development.  When you combine a technique and start using them to defend or attack someone, you are training tactics.  Application is the fight itself.  Of course, tactics would expand out to running, throwing up; acting really crazy to win a positional/psychological advantage, but that is what you are considering outside of the art tactics.

What you are calling technique and concept might be 'fighting skill development' in a Krav or other Combatives system.  While what you are using the term tactics for is only the situational responses.  

Paul Martin


----------



## loki09789

Paul J wrote:

"You want your technique to come without thought so that you can focus on thinking through your tactics (even if you are thinking on your toes), because proper tactics require quick thinking rather then the use of muscle memory."


Amen! That's why I like the tactic/tactical definition that refers to creativity/ingenuity.  A solid technical foundation is essential to tactical and strategic mastery because it frees up the mind.

I see/saw this when I watched RP/Taboada/Bolden/Inocalla... seemingly moving like lightning in a bottle.  Their technique is so good that their tactical skill - artistically referred to as concept within FMA's - that they seem to anticipate and control the entire exchange.

Paul Martin


----------



## Tgace

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Right. I see and agree that these are all tactical issues that you described. In a situation, you are making many strategic and tactical decisions before anything technical comes into play. If you know how to relax, and think clearly under stress, you will be able to make good tactical decisions even if you haven't thought of the circumstance before hand. Then, when the time comes, your technique that you have been training will come to play without thought because the movements and your ability to translate your movements will be second nature.
> 
> That is why the technical/conceptual is so important, and takes so much practice. It's much more difficult to learn how to do something without thought then with thought. For your technique to come without thought, you need to practice this correctly and repetitively. You want your technique to come without thought so that you can focus on thinking through your tactics (even if you are thinking on your toes), because proper tactics require quick thinking rather then the use of muscle memory.
> 
> *



Hmmm...I dont know if I agree or disagree with this statement. On one hand I absolutely agree with the point about technique being trained to the point of reflex. On the other hand I get the impression that you are saying that all those other tactical considerations can then be made "on the fly" and dont need any formal instruction. If you are not making conscious decisions about positioning (with your car, sitting in a theater, etc.) , weapons(what you have on you, whats in the environment that you can use/or be used against you), and various other issues (law, medical training, etc.), than you are not using "tactics" properly. I believe they should be trained, predominantly through scenario type training as I described before. Leaving all those other issues up to the student to figure out is shortchanging their self-defense training.

IMHO, I think that yes...technical training is a must untill the student has a solid foundation. However once a workable level of technique is reached, those "other" issues become very important because they can make all the difference. No matter how technically proficient you are.


----------



## Cruentus

> What you are calling technique and concept might be 'fighting skill development' in a Krav or other Combatives system. While what you are using the term tactics for is only the situational responses.



Exactly. 

Now, in your post you seem to distinguish "inside the art tactics" from "outside the art tactics." Where you consider execution of the punch "inside the art tactics," I would still consider this as part of the technical training. How you make adjustments to make your punch work in the field would be a tactical consideration for me, and an "outside of the art tactic" for you.

You make a distinction between "inside" and "outside" of the art tactics. I don't; by my definition tactics are outside of the art, and the stuff inside of the art iare your concepts and techniques.

My definitions still seem to fit the military definition. Just like a marksman working on stationary and moving targets is working on the technical and conceptual: in other words "the art of combative shooting." Now, when you are practicing the art of tactics, these are considerations outside the art of shooting that cause you to apply what you know from the art of shooting to realistic scenarios. 

I see how you make your distinction with inside and outside the art tactics. I just choose to consider tactics as only outside the art, and technical and conceptual as inside instead of making the distinction. Where you may find my outlook limiting, I find my outlook less confusing when distingishing "combatives" from "tactics".

PAUL

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus

> On the other hand I get the impression that you are saying that all those other tactical considerations can then be made "on the fly" and dont need any formal instruction.



Where we would disagree (if we do disagree) is on how much emphasis we would place on scenario training in a martial arts class. As I said before, I think some scenario training should be done, but it depends on the student when considering what amount and what kind of scenarios to train.

As for a Civilian, tactics are not brain surgury. Most of it is pretty simple stupid, and only needs to be thought about before-hand. Stuff like, "Don't get too close to a stranger when there are not a lot of people around" or "Don't walk down the poorly lit, desolate areas to your car if you can take an alternate route" are examples of civilian tactics that usually take some forethought, yet some of it can be done on the fly. Its just not that hard make smart tactical decisions as a civilian, even without training. Much of this can be covered with research and forethought. Now, there are some things that should be trained, but again, that is dependent on the student, and much of this can be covered by the student on their own. Example, the if the student wears winter gloves often, then they can practice deploying their tactical folder with gloves and a coat on to get the feel....they don't need me to conduct a class where everyone is doing knife work with winter gloves on, per say (even if I decide to conduct a knife session outside in the winter where everyone wears their gear, this is still something they can become familiar with on their own).

So, I believe that much of this can and should be done on their own. The reason is because tactical circumstances will vary per student. I have had a cop, a Army Ranger, an Airforce guy, a woman civilian, and a handful of other civilians all in the same class before. I could not possibly cover the tactical needs of everyone in that class through scenario type training. Yet, if I could show how the technical/conceptual translates to tactical circumstances, then they will apply what they know to their specific circumstance. The LEO might be concerned about gun retention with an armbar, while the civilian won't be, for instance. But, the LEO can still translate how to apply the technique while retaining his gun.

Now, I encourage my students to ask questions, and if appropriate I will coach them on the tactical side. I have had a cop student who has asked before how to apply certian moves to his tactical circumstance. He informed me of the specifics, and I ended up giving him private coaching on the tactical side because he was the only cop I had in my class, and it wouldn't have applied to everyone else. 

So, no, I don't believe "all" tactics should be made on the fly. Yet, I don't believe that "all" tactics need to be trained either. It would be impossible to cover every single possible tactical scenario in any class. I do believe that most tactics(at least for a civilian) can be learned with a little forethought. Some instruction (mostly verbal)  should be there to lead the student in the right direction, but I feel that getting overly involved in scenario training is unnessicary at best.

So yes, we might differ on oour opinions regarding how much emphasis should be put on scenario training in a martial art class.

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

If you were to teach shooting by itself it would be the 'art' and then you would cross train other 'arts' and then you would be combat effective.  MA and other FMA's have stick techniques, empty hand, grappling, that are all encompassed under the heading of MA or what ever the system name.  They are not separate arts, they are categorization of skills for training purposes only.  Conceptual understanding is an academic/training goal. Tactical skill/tactics are about application and must be part of the art for it to be self defense/combat effective.  

Shooting, within the military context of individual skills is not a separate art, it is a basic skill that is developed for tactical proficiency.  For range rats/doggies (firearms enthusiasts- it is an affectionate term, not intended to be derogatory), the shooting is the art, for serviceman it is one part of the whole list of technical skills that he/she needs to be well rounded.

The biggest difference is that as a student of civilian trained/traditional view martial arts, at least from what I am getting from your posts, the goal of training is firstly technical mastery which leads to conceptual understanding, but concepts are realizations and 'aha!' discoverys about the art and are instructional goals accomplished by having students drill combinations of movements like sinawali, flow, sombrada.... 

The combat effectiveness, which was the original point of all this digression and discourse,  is a secondary goal, or residual affect of artistic perfection.

There isn't an inside/outside distinction for me because tactics are tactics, my use of 'fight tactics' and other terms as 'stuff tactics' is to emphasis the repetition of tactics to illustrate the goal of martial arts is application, not training.   Whether the application is combat, self discovery, personal fitness or some combination of these, the purpose and goals that the student/system/instructor's are trying to accomplish have to be clearly understood and prioritized or you could be fooling yourself about what you are prepared for.

Paul Martin


----------



## Tgace

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *So, no, I don't believe "all" tactics should be made on the fly. Yet, I don't believe that "all" tactics need to be trained either. It would be impossible to cover every single possible tactical scenario in any class. I do believe that most tactics(at least for a civilian) can be learned with a little forethought. Some instruction (mostly verbal)  should be there to lead the student in the right direction, but I feel that getting overly involved in scenario training is unnessicary at best.
> 
> So yes, we might differ on oour opinions regarding how much emphasis should be put on scenario training in a martial art class.
> 
> PAUL *



Just to keep the discussion going (cause I find this interesting ) let me give a little example of the tactical/technical relationship in training from the LEO side of the house....In the late 60's to the late 70's police officers were being killed on duty at a staggering rate compared to todays stats. In my dept alone, 2 officers were killed at separate robbery calls within 2 months of each other in 76'. The 80's ushered in a more modern "tactical" approach to police training. While firearms and defensive tactics were revamped, it was the "other" issues that made the difference; how to approach a car stop, proper distance/blading to the subject, how to respond to alarms/robberies, etc. If you look at firearms skills as "techniques", yes better "technical" skill may give us an edge in a gunfight, but its wasted if we stand still in a doorway or stick our heads in car windows and the BG blasts us from the other side. Some modern gunfighting gurus place firearms survival components in this order; Tactics 40%, Accuracy (shot placement) 30%, Power (caliber/ballistics) 20%, Speed 10%.  While these may sound like, "rules of thumb", they have to be experienced in application to experience the benefit they provide and to ingrain them as habit. My SWAT team training almost always follows the same matrix; weapon/range training, team employment (dynamic entry, officer rescue, stealth clearing, etc.), and a scenario to bring it all together. 

The danger of depending on your technical prowess is that you may take risks that you shouldnt.  In the 70's many cops believed the way to handle a robbery was to walk in and due to their "technical" mastery of gunfighting shoot it out and win....didnt work....even if i made myself into a Ferrari of a gunfighter (which I do strive for), I wouldnt just solve a hostage situation by kicking in the front door and beating the BG to the shot, although that may be a last resort option.

No, you cant train EVERY tactical possibility, what scenarios attempt to do is reinforce basic tactical principles that can be applied across most situations. And dont think for a minute that LEO/Military personel couldnt benefit from "civillian" tactics either. We also are "citizens" and frequent all the same locations/situations any "civi" would. Ive met quite a few that could use such reinforcement. What is key is a thought out, purposefull application of scenario training that attempts to evaluate and improve the students tactics, not just scenario training for its own sake.


----------



## loki09789

My son has 'challenge' units in gym class where they make the kids do things like 'cross the dangerous Alligator River' or 'get the treasure out without tripping the booby traps'.  There are many things being accomplished with this type of scenario training.  Cooperation, teamwork, listening, ... but one of the things that is part of the benefit is tactical thinking.  They have be creative and work with a specific list of materials to accomplish a task/goal.

For civilian training and especially kids, they call it problem solving or team challenges, but it is the same thing with a different name.
Tactical proficiency is really being creative under pressure at its purist sense, whether it is a fight, first aid situation or house fire... How well can you assess your METT-T issues and then formulate a plan, and then execute the plan.

When someone is swinging a strike at you, your METT-T is dealing with a very small environment

M - 
mine - survive the strike/enemy - take my head off

E - 
mine - any weapon/mobilitytool I percieve right now/
enemy - the strike that is he/she has committed to.

Time - 
mine - the time it takes for the strike to connect/enemy - same

Troops - 
mine - at this level it means about the same as equiptment, but here it takes into consideration technical skill, trained responses/procedures, health, fitness, strength, speed...
enemy - Hand strike,kick, lead pipe... being employed.  If there is enough time even how many, how big, how agressive, ....

Terrain - what do you have to move over/around/through when you take action, to avoid the strike.

For me, based on the tactical responses to this moment that I have practiced, I would think (but can't say absolutely) that I would use a triangular pattern of movement combined with a trapping hands pattern as a deflecting/countering maneuver all in one motion.

Now, apply the METT-T process to the restaurant with the knife wielder and the data you would plug in would be different, especially time - much more of that in comparison.

Application of METT-T as part of a tactical process takes practice to be more creative and effective in responding to what ever the situation.  The specificity of the scenarios is less important than the application of what ever tactical process you want to use.  Just like, within MA the flow drill is less important than the concept of flow because it can be recognized in other parts of the art once you have made the realization.

I also think that adds more effective techincal training because it is already within a context and doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Paul Martin


----------



## loki09789

WOW, I wrote a post that actually fits in one screen!

Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

Quick question:

I know that Tom isn't teaching at this time, but are you teaching right now, Paul M.?

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

Tom and I train as opportunity provides, but no I am not running a program right now, in martial arts.  I am a teacher by trade, English - if you haven't already figured out from the lecturing tone.

Paul M


----------



## DoxN4cer

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *In regards to "real fighting experience," I think its overrated...
> 
> ..My point is that although real world experience is helpful, it doesn't make or break whether or not your a good fighter. I think that in terms of personal ability, its overrated. I think it is nice to know that FMA has been combat tested, but it doesn't need to be combat tested by ME for me to know how it "truely" works...
> 
> ...I think all that S**t is stupid as hell. My instructors all had real "world experience" to draw from, yet they let their technical powress speak for itself...
> 
> ... It doesn't make or break your fighting ability. If it did, then we should be encouraging each other to go out and get into fights.
> 
> That's my feeling on the subject. I am not sure if it is the same, or different then yours. *



Did I ever say that to be sure of your skills that you have to go out and purposely get into fights? No. You're putting too much spin on the matter, paul. 

Real world experience overrated? So then how credible would Modern Arnis have been is the Professor hadn't had his real world experiences? What about other legendary people like Bruce Lee and Joe Lewis? Would they be as venerated as they are today if it weren't for their "real fighting experience"? It was their real experiences that made them who they are/were.  

Something that you have neglected to consider people are different in terms of what they are capable of doing. is that what worked for the Professor, might not necessarily work for you or somebody else. What works for you might not work for some of your students under stress. 

Combative experiences from the world outside of the training hall are translated into valuable lessons learned on the application of technique and tactics. You can pick the brain of people who have had these experiences and formulate your methodology, but often those lessons don't really sink in until you've really walked that mile and looked back on your perfomance under fire.  

I do agree that it may not make or break a persons fighting ability. However, it does make a difference in the individual's development as a competent exponent of the system that he chooses to practice... which leads us back to the old saying that "it is not the art, but the man".  


Tim Kashino


----------



## Dan Anderson

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I have trained in Arnis for about two years and a general type of Kali for two.  I also have a long background with other striking arts.  I am wondering about peoples opinions regarding the empty hand arnis techniques.  Could anyone give a good comparison/contrast of these techniques to other arts? *



Left turn at Abuquerque here - I'll answer the original queston as this thread has taken a very different turn.  The empty hand techniques in Modern Arnis will stand against any providing you don't go off the deep end and try something cockeyed such as trapping hands against a fast triple left jab.  When you use the techniques in the "right spot,"  they hold their own.  I thnk it's the judgement more than the style the technique comes from.

Yours,
Dan Anderson

PS - Blatant promo time - Mano y Mano is nearly done.  I'm waiting for one more contribution to the forward section and then we're off to the races.


----------



## loki09789

Paul J wrote

"Remy Presas didn't have us do drills where, for example, one person gets in a circle of people, shuts there eyes and gets turned around, so when he opens his eyes the members of the circle all yell and scream, and a few throw controlled techniqes that he has to defend; all to train how to deal with the disorientation of combat. This may be a fine drill to train tactics, but it isn't Modern Arnis in my opinion. Remy Presas didn't have us do these tactics drills."

That is called "pickle in the middle" in training, sort of a variation of the Rondori training - an essential training drill in arts like Aikido/Judo....  I see it as an effective scenario training tool to apply the concepts of 'flow','angling' and 'translation' on a situational/self defense level.

"He had us work on techniques, movements, and concepts specific to his art."

The technical basis may have been generally uniform, but the concepts were the goal as well as good movment.  But, how can the concepts be specific to MA and still be the 'art within your art?'

RP did and didn't do a lot of things, but I remember that RP DID say/exemplified the practice of constant innovation.  Remember the RP comments about 'stealing techniques', if he saw one he liked - whether a teaching technique/drill or a fighiting technique - he would 'steal' it, study it and make it part of his repetoire.  That is what he did with the entire art of MA. Sinawali,Espada y Daga... all were entire systems that he 'stole' from and incorporated into Modern Arnis.

If the goal is to discover/realize the concepts through technical training, what happens when you 'get' the concept?  

What happens when many/core concepts are revealed through those techniques and drills?  At that point the systematic strategies and style/and how the techniques and tactics fit that system/style is understood.  

Where do you take it?  

Where does conceptual application end once the realization is made?  On the floor?  In the physical techniques?

It seems a waste to just redirect it into an even faster punch,kick,... Especially since RP presented MA as a Self Defense art.

In the warriorship posting by TGace, you, Paul J, talked about:

"one way that Martial Arts carries over into my daily life is through the idea of "perfection." I train for perfection; I train to achieve a 'perfect' fighting ability... I try to carry over this paradox of perfection into my daily life. I try to do better, and strive for perfection in all that I do. And the more I fail, as in martial arts, the more I can overcome, and the better I can become."

How can this 'perfect' idea translate or 'carrying over' to everyday life and yet the concepts (which are only ideas) not be translated (another MA concept) from the small scale focus of a fight and applied as a tactical theory on the larger scale focus the entire spectrum of self defense training?

Maybe it isn't "what RP did/taught", but I think he would recognize and be excited about seeing his students take the concepts they learned through technical training and apply them to another aspect of self defense.  I thought RP left a legacy of Modern Arnis, not "The traditional art of Modern Arnis."

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

"Most importantly, this system will not interfere with your current training and in fact it is most easily used as a bridge to any complex motor skill transition."

This sounds like the "art within your art" approach that RP was promoting, and folks like Tim H, Shishir I, Dan A and others are continuing.  I have heard this same type of language about most FMA

Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by DoxN4cer _
> *
> 
> I do agree that it may not make or break a persons fighting ability.
> 
> Tim Kashino *



This quote alone tells me that we are on the same page with this.

Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity.

Thats all I am saying.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *
> The technical basis may have been generally uniform, but the concepts were the goal as well as good movment.  But, how can the concepts be specific to MA and still be the 'art within your art?'
> *


*

The concepts can and do "translate" accross the board to other mediums. That is why Modern Arnis can be "the art within your art." Yet, if you are doing TKD movements while applying a modern arnis concept, then are you doing modern arnis? I'd say, no. What differentiates Modern Arnis from other martial arts, or from tactical training, or from anything else is the technical portions of the art. I personally don't look at the technical portion of the art as merely a means to get to the concept. I look at the technical portions as an expression of the concepts; the technical movements express the concepts of the art better then words, in my opinion. 

That was how Remy Presas, who in my opinion was not very good at verbally explaining things, was a great teacher. His technical ability coupled with his understanding of the concepts enabled him to illustrate the concepts of his art through technique.





			If the goal is to discover/realize the concepts through technical training, what happens when you 'get' the concept?
		
Click to expand...


I don't think that we ever stop discovering the concepts (I am sure you agree, and I know that you are refering to the initial discovery here, but I am just making the point). I think that Remy was consitantly finding a way to connect concepts through movement. Once we initially realize the concept, we can then try to discover how the concept applys to many different movements within the art, as well as mediums outside of the art. That is why Modern Arnis can be a great influence to pure tactical training, or to other arts; one can rediscover these concepts through these mediums.




			What happens when many/core concepts are revealed through those techniques and drills?  At that point the systematic strategies and style/and how the techniques and tactics fit that system/style is understood.  

Where do you take it?  

Where does conceptual application end once the realization is made?  On the floor?  In the physical techniques? 

It seems a waste to just redirect it into an even faster punch,kick,... Especially since RP presented MA as a Self Defense art.
		
Click to expand...


Here is the thing about technical knowledge (going by my definition where timing, angling, body mechanics are all included in the 'technical)...

In Balintawak, I have probably been taught 98% of the "moves" in the system at least once. I can probably merely 'remember' 65-75% of these in a real fight. By looking at just knowledge of the "moves," I could be considered a master in Balintawak, not much unlike most of Manong Teds private students. Think about it....I think that many of the people who could be considered "masters" in modern arnis probably only know about 50% of the "moves" that Remy Knew, so having knowledge of 98% of the moves in the Balintawak system might make me a master. Yet, I don't consider myself a "master." Why? Because Manong Ted can smoke me, even if he limited himself to less "moves" then the 65%-75% of the moves that I could remember in a fight. 

The thing is, the Balintawak that I know doesn't have a lot of "moves" by modern arnis standards. The difference is the "moves" that we do have are all quality moves. But the real reason why Manong Ted can smoke me at will has nothing to do with moves; it has to do with all the other technical aspects (what you would consider "inside the art tactics") such as timing, body mechanics, and distance/angling. Its these other technical aspects that one can constitantly improve, and this is done through a constant rediscovery of concepts. The idea of "baiting" or "creating distance" are examples of concepts that can help me improve every aspect of my technical knowledge...and this improvement is constant and never ending, and through a constant re-discovery.

So I don't think it is a matter of wasting time getting "faster" punchs or kicks. I think its a matter of constantly improving your technical ability (or technical and "inside the art" tactical ability by your definition).

Now, as it relates to other arts, including the art of tactics, you can apply your concepts to these other mediums. This is "the art within your art" concept, and this is great. It doesn't make your other arts "modern arnis," but it does help you improve your other arts through Modern Arnis Concepts.





			How can this 'perfect' idea translate or 'carrying over' to everyday life and yet the concepts (which are only ideas) not be translated (another MA concept) from the small scale focus of a fight and applied as a tactical theory on the larger scale focus the entire spectrum of self defense training?
		
Click to expand...


Remember, I didn't say that the "concepts" couldn't be translated to other mediums, such as tactical theory. On the contrary, I think that the concepts should translate to other mediums; just as your "training" should translate to "real life," otherwise it is useless.

I thought I was very clear in saying that teaching the student how to "translate" is very valuable, so they can make their art useful. I apoligize if I wasn't clear enough on that point.

The art can translate to "tactical sciences" very well. It can translate to TKD well also. But that doesn't make "tactical sciences" or "TKD" Modern Arnis because concepts were translated to these other mediums. 

Modern Arnis, is a progressive art, but in my opinion it is made up of technical and conceptual knowledge. The technical knowledge is unique to the system. Sure...we borrowed techniques too, like small circle jujitsu. Yet, it wasn't that Remy added SCJ moves to Modern Arnis and called it a day. He didn't just "steal" the moves. He had to figure out a way to integrate into his art to make it his own. It had to "fit" with the rest of the system. So, I can't just do a sayoc kali drill and call it modern arnis because the "concepts" translate. It don't work that way. I would have to pick apart the movements and make them my own to fit them into my art for them to work. And even then, it wouldn't be Modern Arnis "as Remy taught;" it would be my version of Modern Arnis.  




			Maybe it isn't "what RP did/taught", but I think he would recognize and be excited about seeing his students take the concepts they learned through technical training and apply them to another aspect of self defense.  I thought RP left a legacy of Modern Arnis, not "The traditional art of Modern Arnis."

Paul M.
		
Click to expand...

*
I fully agree with you there! I think that Professor would be happy to see his art being applied to other areas of self defense. I agree, he left a legacy, and not a "traditional" art by conventional definitions.

But, also remember that when Remy Presas was alive he was very protective of his art. If you recall, there were a lot of people, good people that both you and I know, who fell out of Remy's favor for long periods of time. These people, some of them, were supposed to be stripped of their rank, or considered "retired," or what have you. The reason in most cases was because they went outside the boundries of what Remy believed was his art. You could make a bunch of innovations, and he would congratulate you. But, if your innovations went too far out of the umbrella of what he was doing at the time and you called it "Modern Arnis" without his blessing, you were in big trouble. If you took Modern Arnis and "made it your own" but gave it a different name (especially if you stopped going to events and supporting him), you were also in trouble. 

If you don't believe this is true, ask some of your seniors who you are very close too, and they'll tell you. This was part of the flaw in his methods; everyone was told that they were great at what they were doing, and everyone was told to "make it your own" and to "make innovations" and "art within your art" and so forth. But, if you went to far without keeping him in the loop, you got slammed for it.

Outside of personality differences and structural issues, I believe that this occured because Remy Presas was very protective of his art, and what Modern Arnis WAS....and what it WASN'T. He knew that with his approach, his art could lose its identity. To prevent this, while he was alive, HE became the art. Remy was the driving force and the glue that held it all together.

Now that Remy has passed away, it is up to us to do 2 things as his students. #1. we need to make sure that the art continues to grow and progress. #2. we need to make sure that the art maintains its identity.

We all have an idea of how to grow the art, but what I think is little understood is Modern Arnis can maintain its identity. And, I don't believe that there is a singular solution to this problem. What I believe that one of the best things we can do is maintain the "technical" portion of the art that Professor taught as a means to illustrate the "concepts." Then from there, we can make our own innovations. I also think another thing we should do is be more distinct then Remy was when he was alive and well. In other words, if the technique or movements come from TKD, then its TKD, not Modern Arnis. If the drill you do in class is a tactics drill, then its "tactics" not Modern Arnis.

We can still grow and move forward. I just don't think that Modern Arnis should lose its identity in the process. And, I think that if we approach it appropriately, then it won't.

PAUL


----------



## Tgace

"If the drill you do in class is a tactics drill, then its "tactics" not Modern Arnis." -Paul J

Not to be arguementative (honestly). But if Technique and Tactics are 2 different things (which I think we agreed on), wouldnt you be doing "modern arnis" in a "Tactical Drill"? You would be doing MA in the middle of that circle right??


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *"If the drill you do in class is a tactics drill, then its "tactics" not Modern Arnis." -Paul J
> 
> Not to be arguementative (honestly). But if Technique and Tactics are 2 different things (which I think we agreed on), wouldnt you be doing "modern arnis" in a "Tactical Drill"? You would be doing MA in the middle of that circle right?? *



Yes...your right, and I'm retarded.  

I guess I mean to say that the tactics drill doesn't come from "Modern Arnis," and therefore isn't Modern Arnis by itself (as any fighting system should be appliable in the tactics drill). But I agree, you would be using your art, in this case Modern Arnis, in the tactics drill.

PAUL


----------



## Tgace

OK


----------



## Tapps

> Now that Remy has passed away, it is up to us to do 2 things as his students. #1. we need to make sure that the art continues to grow and progress. #2. we need to make sure that the art maintains its identity.




Great Point !

I think the model for this is Dan Insanto JKD (kind ironic actually)

As I understand it (I'm not a JKD player):

Dan teaches a core system that is exactly what Bruce Lee left him.

He also teaches another system that includes all he has learned since Bruce's death.


Paul is right, Remy was the art.  What he left us is now frozen.

The confusion is (and a big part of what made Remy brillient) was that he also left us concepts of how to look at combat and martial Arts.  We can and should re-evaluate and modify other styles and techniques. just don't attribute them to Remy. Make a distinction between what he taught us and where we have taken the art.


----------



## loki09789

"Paul is right, Remy was the art.  What he left us is now frozen."

If RP was the art, and RP is dead, that would mean the art itself is dead and everyone now is doing a variation, personalization of the dead art, and not MA, and therefore should not call what they do MA.  Based on that logic, each artist IS their art, and therefore cannot be doing MA, because they are not RP.

I have yet to hear from anyone who can say exactly what RP left as the 'frozen' portion - 'body' of the art might sound less limiting.  There have been curriculum battles in the past and that is not what I am looking for, just as precise an answer as possible about what makes up the technical/conceptual core of MA.  I have seen the WMAA curriculum (only mentioned because there is a large population of WMAA members on this forum) and other MA organizational curricula over the Internet - they are all different in some way, yet all called MA.  Also, all have elements from other arts - either because of the naming or inclusion of techniques/drills that RP didn't do or use to teach MA, himself.

I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING (he says as he gets his head on a swivel and crouches - preparing for the salvo of spit wads and rotten fruit.) Just trying to understand how there can be a single 'body' of MA that can be identified and still have different 'bodies' out there.

I don't think the prior is the case by the way, because I view MA as a tactical/strategy system that uses the metaphor of techniques/drills to give students a medium and opportunity to 'discover' the concepts/tactical rules and how they can be applied on an individual level.  Sort of how science classes are broken up into instruction and lab time.  But once you understand the ruling ideas of that particular science, say Biology, and apply those ideas to your own topic of research for your own discoveries/applications it is still defined under that overall discipline heading of Biology.  


"... he (RP) also left us concepts of how to look at combat and martial Arts."

I like this because I can infer that RP/the art lives on through the concepts as well as the techniques/drills.  

To tie it back into the tactical/technical/conceptual direction in the latest tangent, if you can truly use MA to look at combat and other arts, it is more than just a 'frozen' art.  It is a living tactical theory.

Like any school of theory, the basic level training is the foundational skills technical and conceptual that have to be established.  To me that is the path up to the Lakans in MA.  Sort of an MA equivalent to a B.S. (Bachelors of Science) degree (no pun intended), the graduate/PhD level study of MA is when you 'see' and apply those ruling fundamental theories/concepts effectively in areas other than what you were taught.  Based on this model, the credit is always given to the source because the core training established the mental structure that the innovator used.  The innovation is credited to the author/innovator, but there is no separation or loss of respect for the discipline/art and instructor who took you through.

"We can and should re-evaluate and modify other styles and techniques. just don't attribute them to Remy. Make a distinction between what he taught us and where we have taken the art. "

I agree, but even if it is where WE have taken the art  if you view it as a complete art, the fundamental core is intake -only the artistic medium has changed.  There is a huge difference in being able to recognize MA concepts in other martial arts and saying that MA is TKD or what ever.  The ability to recognize concepts is a credit to the art of MA/FMA training.  Saying that MA is the same as or can be taught through TKD is ridiculous and inaccurate.  

I think the conceptual training of MA/FMA is why I as an MA/FMA student can walk into an Aikido/Karate/Kung Fu seminar and pick up the technique faster than someone from say TKD or another more traditional approach.  We learn to see the patterns, and adapt to those patterns instead of being bogged in the minutia (Uh Oh, now I am going to be accused of not caring about technique J).  

If MA can be described as a system of studying an art form, it would be like the Bohemian movmenent, Neo Classicalism or Deconstructionism - not just painting or sculpture or poetry.  These artistic theories are expressed in Literature;and Architecture and Theatre... the medium of expression changes, but the ruling theories are still evident.

In any view, art or science or a little bit of both, MA is larger than RP because of the way he organized and taught.  Even if preservation of the fundamental training was his goal, I believe, when he described it as a complete art or a self-defense art  he knew that it could and should be applied in various tactical arenas and artistic mediums, at the very least to validate the concepts that he taught through the individual technique and skill of the MA core.  

Jabbing is a base of fire is like a tactical missile strike is like a  kiai shout  according to tactical theory because they are all being used to seize/control the momentum of the engagement.  The concept, or tactical theory behind the application will be the same, even if the scale/textuallity of application is not the same.  As long as your tactical/conceptual/artistic discipline is the basis for your application, it is still within the art/movement/theory,  MA or any other  just expressed in a different lab or medium.

Paul Martin


----------



## Makalakumu

When Bruce Lee died, there were two schools of thought that concerned JKD.  One school of thought was that the art needs to be frozen where it is in order to preserve the teachings of Sifu Lee and honor his memory.  The other school of though was that the nature of the art was evolution that that Sifu Lee's teachings should be taught and expounded upon.  Dan Inosanto teaches a form of JKD that is constantly evolving from that which Bruce Lee left.  In no way is the art frozen at the point in which he died.  Inosanto's art incorporates grappling, muey thai and other techniques that have proven their effectiveness.  The point of the system is to create a well rounded martial artist who grasps the fundamentals of combat.  There are many of Sifu Lee's senior students who disagree with this.

I imagine there are many of Remy Presas's students who espouse both points of view.  What do you think?  If the art were frozen at the time of the Master's death, wouldn't that kill the art eventually?


----------



## Cruentus

Well there is some truth that some of the art died with the man. Remy Presas' _personal style_ of Modern Arnis is no longer alive.

The 'stuff' he gave us, though, is alive and well. The abiltiy to progress the art by his students is also alive. 

I know that some people take the approach of just preservation. They only want to preserve what Remy taught. Others take the approach of pure progression; they believe that the movements are merely roads to the concepts, and they are not interested in preserving the movements so much as they are interested in trying to progress and expand their art.

I think to do purely one or the other would be a mistake. We need to find a way where we are doing both; preserving what the man taught, while also progressing and moving forward.

In regards to the JKD example, it doesn't fit exactly. Bruce Lee wrote in his book that JKD was not a martial art, and was ment to be applied to any and all arts. Professor never wrote such a book. Professor Presas believed that Modern Arnis could revolutionize the martial arts world, and he believed that his concepts applied over vast mediums...and I agree. However, he protected his methods and the identity of his art. Presas distinctly expressed that Modern Arnis was a specific art; Lee expressed that JKD wasn't a specific art.

Regardless, the main point is progression, but not forgetting how we progressed, thus preserving our roots.

PAUL


----------



## Dan Anderson

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Just trying to understand how there can be a single 'body' of MA that can be identified and still have different 'bodies' out there.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Martin *



There can't.  Had RP set down an established curriculum with expressly delineated requirements for each belt level, there would still be someone who would come up with Modified Modern Arnis, Renegade Modern Arnis, Modern Arnis 80 or some such.  The only way it could become so is by one group hiring the Corleone family and wipe out the others in one fell swoop.  Then you _might_ have a single body of MA out there.

Yours,
Dan, the Godfather fan, Anderson


----------



## Dan Anderson

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *If the art were frozen at the time of the Master's death, wouldn't that kill the art eventually? *



Deader than the proverbial door nail.

Yours,
Dan


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by Dan Anderson _
> *There can't.  Had RP set down an established curriculum with expressly delineated requirements for each belt level, there would still be someone who would come up with Modified Modern Arnis, Renegade Modern Arnis, Modern Arnis 80 or some such.  The only way it could become so is by one group hiring the Corleone family and wipe out the others in one fell swoop.  Then you might have a single body of MA out there.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan, the Godfather fan, Anderson *




Hmmmm,

I wonder if I could get a carear in this type of work? I jus think sooner or later a personin this lie of work would run out of targets or would become one themselves 

How you doing Gaffer Dan?


Seriously, There can be no single body. Let us assume that everyone plays nice here in North America.

Yet, how many times, was the professor in the PI since his arrival in the USA in 1974 (* Yes he was here before that for a short period *). What about those in Europe.

If and only If you say the GM R Presas had a set in stone curriculum that he taught to the leaders on each continent and all was exactly the same then you could look for a single source or group. Yet, given human personalities people would split off even if based upon geographical location only.

Now, does the IMAF group have a leg to stand on? For, I can hear the replies already. I do not know if they do or not. I have never seen a legally binding document or will to set it all into place. If there is one, as has been claimed (* And no disrepsect to those who have *), then I would like to read it. I wish it was otherwise and I had my friend and mentor back here today. He is gone. Yet, his family and students live on. Some now might say that the family has the right to the system and in some cases they would be right. Yet, for all the people who never meet them, while the Professor was alive, nor understand their training. So, now you have two bodies that have a semi to completely legitimate claim to controling or ruling body. 

If you look at rank then you get other pictures. If you look at titles there were Seven Master's of Tapi-Tapi and Six Datu's. There were other titles used as well. 

Now add into all the other human nature into the mess, and having one Modern Arnis group does not seem possible, no matter who much one might wish it to be so. 

I do hope that we can all get along with each other thoigh. 
:asian:


----------



## DoxN4cer

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *...Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity...
> 
> *



There is no such thing as "end-all/be-all" anything. It's all A way, not THE way.

Tim Kashino


----------



## DoxN4cer

> _Originally posted by Dan Anderson _
> *...The only way it could become so is by one group hiring the Corleone family and wipe out the others in one fell swoop.  Then you might have a single body of MA out there...
> 
> *




Hmm...


----------



## DoxN4cer

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *...The 'stuff' he gave us, though, is alive and well. The abiltiy to progress the art by his students is also alive...
> 
> 
> ...I think to do purely one or the other would be a mistake. We need to find a way where we are doing both; preserving what the man taught, while also progressing and moving forward....
> *



I think that the Professor would probably say that "too many people are making too much fuss over it... it's all the same".

Tim Kashino


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Also, all have elements from other arts - either because of the naming or inclusion of techniques/drills that RP didn't do or use to teach MA, himself.*



Two questions

1. How would you know this if you haven't been taken throught the programs by someone?

2. How often were you around Remy to see* EVERYTHING* that he every taught?


----------



## loki09789

"Two questions

1. How would you know this if you haven't been taken throught the programs by someone?

2. How often were you around Remy to see EVERYTHING that he every taught?"

Answering a question with a question usually shifts the focus from the topic begin discussed to those doing the discussing... but to answer:

1.  If the program, curriculum and mpeg clips are available on the internet, I can see, recognize what is being done, even if it isn't the same as what I have been shown during my MA/FMA training.

2.  Not very much, honestly, but from conversations/posting discussions with you, Tom Bolden, Bobby Taboada, Jerome Barber, Dan Anderson, Rich Parsons....and past thread topics here, I think that there is a pretty good overview of what Remy was teaching.  Along with that, there are his published works, magazine articles, radio interviews on Kelly Wordens website.... the sources are boundless, if you are willing to do the research.

I NEVER said that I could claim to be the most accurate RP/MA historian.  If that were the case, I wouldn't be asking all these questions, from those who do know more than me.  I know what I have seen and learned from MA training.  I am learning different perspectives that others are presenting.  My main goal in this dialogue:  Keep it going because it is damn interesting and informative.  Any other agendas are purely interpretted and not intended. 

Again, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with anyone organizing, incorporating and adapting their MA training based on RP direct training or through an MA instructor into a package that works for them and lets them pass that on to others with quality and intengrity. 

As I said in a last post, I am looking for as accurate as possible the core techniques/drills/concepts that RP taught and - since he didn't seem to maintain a curriculum, as evidenced by the posts here and in the past - could be defined as the 'body' that RP used and others have adapted/adopted to continue the MA art.

Paul Martin


----------



## loki09789

Paul J wrote:

"Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity.

Thats all I am saying."


Based on this model, if the real fight experience is analogous to playing in a game, The best NHL team/players would be the winners of the All Star Skills competition and not the winners of Lord Stanley's Cup.... doesn't work for me.


Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Paul J wrote:
> 
> "Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity.
> 
> Thats all I am saying."
> 
> 
> Based on this model, if the real fight experience is analogous to playing in a game, The best NHL team/players would be the winners of the All Star Skills competition and not the winners of Lord Stanley's Cup.... doesn't work for me.
> 
> 
> Paul M *



The analogy doesn't work to that extent.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> * I have seen the WMAA curriculum (only mentioned because there is a large population of WMAA members on this forum) and other MA organizational curricula over the Internet - they are all different in some way, yet all called MA.  Also, all have elements from other arts - either because of the naming or inclusion of techniques/drills that RP didn't do or use to teach MA, himself.
> *



You see Paul, I have a problem with the above statement. You say that Curriculum on the net have elements from other arts. The only curriculum that I know of on the net is my own. Based on what I have posted on the net I'm curious what elements are not Modern Arnis?

http://www.wmarnis.com/curriculum.html


----------



## Tgace

I may be wrong, but I think the point theses guys are trying to make isnt directed (so much) toward the individual practicioner or even the corner dojo instructor. I think it is a valid point when directed at the "higher-up's" who are making curriculum's and claims of "combat effectiveness" (im pointing no fingers, just my angle on this point) in their version of an art. If they dont have "field experience" or reports from the field by students who have used their skills, what do you base your claims and decisions on? 

One thing I have seen (personal opinion here) in many arts is the drive to create more and more variations, the "you can do this, or this, or this, etc." in response to this attack. Many people look down their noses at the KISS application of combatives as a "shake and bake" approach. Its been my experience that when the adrenaline is flowing, its the basic, simple techniques that wind up being used (or at least the only ones that work) on the street. Theres a qoute that goes "being an expert means being able to apply the basics faster than your opponent." Theres a lot to be said there.


----------



## Tgace

Man is the thread that will not die or what?


----------



## Cruentus

I think that instructors will know what is combat effective and what isn't if they take an academic approach over anything else.

A college professor teaching medical science to pre-med students doesn't have to have had Polio to understand the biology of how the disease works, or to understand how to cure it. The reseach on the disease and the cure has already been done for the instructor. If they study it and learn it, they can know how it works and they can teach how it works even if they didn't have the disease or invent the cure themselves.

The same is true for combat sciences. You can understand and teach combat sciences by studying the research that has already been done before you.

Now, is real world experience helpful? Yes. But, it shouldn't be the basis of what you are teaching. If an academic approach is your basis then you have an understanding of a multitude of experiences outside your own. If what you teach is all based on "I know this works because I have been in a fight before," then all you can offer is your own perception of what you have been through, which will be very limited comparitively no matter what you know.


----------



## Tgace

Yeah but the doctor/scientist wont know his vaccine works untill its been tested on animals and then humans. Then when they find it dosent work as expected they go back and change it.....


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *Yeah but the doctor/scientist wont know his vaccine works untill its been tested on animals and then humans. Then when they find it dosent work as expected they go back and change it..... *



Right...which is why I am skeptical about "new" martial arts that haven't been proven.

My analogy was directed more towards instructors teaching methods that has been proven rather then instructors making stuff up that hasn't been proven.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *I may be wrong, but I think the point theses guys are trying to make isnt directed (so much) toward the individual practicioner or even the corner dojo instructor. I think it is a valid point when directed at the "higher-up's" who are making curriculum's and claims of "combat effectiveness" (im pointing no fingers, just my angle on this point) in their version of an art. If they dont have "field experience" or reports from the field by students who have used their skills, what do you base your claims and decisions on? *



Speaking as one of the *"Higher - Up's"*, just because I don't advertise that I have had hands on experience in fights and / or defensive tactics situations doesnt mean I dont have them. 

Ive had;
A shotgun pointed at me.
An arrow shot at me.
I was cut by a machete.
Cut on 2 separate occasions by people with knives.
Countless fight with both single and multiple opponents.

That being said I do agree with less is more. I think before we condemn a technique we should first find out if it is meant for combat or to build ones attributes.


----------



## Tgace

Like I said it was IMHO....I dont know you (or any other instructor) well enough to make any accusations. It was a general statement about the necessity of realistic evaluation of technique, nothing more. But I believe that if any instructor is making claims of "combat effectiveness" the student has a right to ask "how do you know?". Also note that I think that "field reports" from students are legitimate sources too. In the firearms fields, a lot of the big name training schools are having a bonanza of feedback from spec-ops/military folks sending back info from the middle east on how the stuff they teach is actually panning out in combat.


----------



## loki09789

Paul J

If you are saying that fight experience is "not even a necessity" for developing the fighter, and I parallel that to the human performance arena of Hockey, where the 'fight experience' is actually playing the game,  I think it does work.  Even for the higher ups in Martial arts, most/if not all coaches have played their particular game and bring that experience to coaching - even if it wasn't at the elite levels, it's experience.

If it doesn't, how/why?


Tim H.

This tangent from effectiveness is about the 'body' of MA as a whole.  That includes the information on the internet provided by other groups to include the technical samples and rank progressions.  But, specifically within yours:

The naming of some of your empty hand techniques are not directly "MA" based on our conversations in the past.  You said straight out that you liked the way that Kenpo named techniques and that it was an adoption that you thought effective within your program - go for it!  Plus, the categorization of terms like Kali, Dumog... to specify the categorization are not directly "RP usages" according to that same conversation.  And, again, this is not a slam on what you are doing.  It is not to say that when you are on the floor moving, your 'not doing MA' because you have simplified the terms to make it easier to explain to those you teach.

I have explaind my goals and motivations:  Any other agendas are pure interpretation.

Paul M


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *But I believe that if any instructor is making claims of "combat effectiveness" the student has a right to ask "how do you know?".  *



I agree.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *The naming of some of your empty hand techniques are not directly "MA" based on our conversations in the past.  You said straight out that you liked the way that Kenpo named techniques and that it was an adoption that you thought effective within your program - go for it!  Plus, the categorization of terms like Kali, Dumog... to specify the categorization are not directly "RP usages" according to that same conversation.  And, again, this is not a slam on what you are doing.  It is not to say that when you are on the floor moving, your 'not doing MA' because you have simplified the terms to make it easier to explain to those you teach. *



Using other systems as examples for structuring terminology is not changing the system, the material is still Modern Arnis. 

A rose by any other name is still a rose.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

If I was to teach a Modern Arnis class and used Japanese terms to teach a group doing Karate or Ju-Jitsu is that changing the system or just using a language that they understand?

When my student overseas teach the system they use thier native language. At the end of the day it's all the same!


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Paul J
> 
> If you are saying that fight experience is "not even a necessity" for developing the fighter, and I parallel that to the human performance arena of Hockey, where the 'fight experience' is actually playing the game,  I think it does work.  Even for the higher ups in Martial arts, most/if not all coaches have played their particular game and bring that experience to coaching - even if it wasn't at the elite levels, it's experience.
> 
> If it doesn't, how/why?
> *


*

The analogy doesn't work for a couple of reasons. 

One is the difference between hockey and individual self defense is in hockey you are relying on the collective skill of a team, where as in self defense you are concerned primarily with your own skill. In hockey, you could have a team with all the best players in the NHL, but if they are all puck hogs and can't work like a team then the team with the 2nd or 3rd best players who can play like a team will most likely win the game. In a team sport, the skill of the individual is only part of the equation. Perhaps this is a good analogy for Military or SWAT team units to illustrate how tactics and playing like a team is more vital then individual poweress and skill, but it falls short, I think, when refering to individual experience vs. practice because of the team element. Perhaps an anology comparing a sport like boxing to real fighting would have been better. But then we still run into the other major difference...

The other major difference is 2-fold. The first "fold" is that training will never fully simulate the real thing. In Hockey, you can scrimage, and play your offense against the defense in practice, and basically simulate the actual games; and all the elements will remain the same. You cannot simulate a life or death circumstance. Preparing for a game and preparing for defending your life are extremely different in this regard. Now, I know you are probably thinking that for this reason it would seem that getting into "real fights" would be a nessecity for knowing if your technique is combat effective, but let me finish. The other part of the "fold" here is that in combat there are no rules. In hockey there are rules and regulations that controls the way the game has to be played. In hockey, you don't have to worry about the rules changing and all your plays becoming obsolete. This element of "no rules" adds to the fact that there are an infinate amount of possabilities, factors, and elements in combat. In hockey, you can simulate a game every practice, and the fundamental elements remain the same. In combat, the fundamentals could change very drastically, so you cannot practice for only one (or even a few) sets of elements without risking getting lambasted when the real thing comes along. 

So that is why the analogy doesn't really work. There is an element in team cooperation that is nessicary for success that may not be an element in individual self defense, and the "no rules" aspect of combat makes preperation for it entirely different then a sport with rules. Under an environment with "rules," to use the boxing analogy, the better boxer will win most of the time. Under an environment without rules, the better fighter doesn't even win most of the time, because the other side can always change the "rules" to work in their favor (hey looky...I brought my gun to the knife fight!).

Now in regards to the idea that "no training situation adequetly simulates real combat" supporting the idea that real fighting is nessicary to know if your methods work, this idea is squashed when you consider that in combat, there are infinate possabilities. So, lets say I have been in 200 fights. I would consider that a lot of fights, but that doesn't mean that I will be a great fighter. Since no combat situation is the same, and there are infinate possabilities, success in one fight does not determine that I will be successful in another. Its not just that the opponent is different like the opposing team in hockey; almost everything from the terrain to the mental state to the dynamics of the situation to the time of day is different. With all these differences, one real fight can't really prepare you or determine victory in another.

Now, I do know what message your trying to get accrossed, despite that I don't agree with the analogy. I do think that the "Combat System" should be field tested, but that doesn't mean that I have to personally test it to see if it works.  

Furthermore, there is something to be said about field experience in that it takes a bit of adjustment dealing with your fight or flight response, adrenaline, and stress in combat. So that 1st encounter is very important when your "green." Some of the people I know who have seen active duty have told me the first time they saw live fire they wet themselves, threw up, there head was cloudy, etc. Yet, after that 1st experience, it got significantly better. I can't fully relate to being in military combat, but I can relate in that my first real fight I was totally in a daze, but in my other encounters after that my head was fairly clear and I was more able to respond appropriately.

But after the 1st (or for some the 1st couple) of encounters, and you are no longer green, then does it matter? What is the differnce between someone who had gotten into 20 fights from someone who had been in 200? I would say not enough to consider one person having an edge over the other. Not enough for it to matter, at that point. 

Bottom line: Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity.

The fight is the test, not the lesson. You may learn from taking tests, but not enything you couldn't learn in the lesson.





			Tim H.

This tangent from effectiveness is about the 'body' of MA as a whole.  That includes the information on the internet provided by other groups to include the technical samples and rank progressions.  But, specifically within yours:

The naming of some of your empty hand techniques are not directly "MA" based on our conversations in the past.  You said straight out that you liked the way that Kenpo named techniques and that it was an adoption that you thought effective within your program - go for it!  Plus, the categorization of terms like Kali, Dumog... to specify the categorization are not directly "RP usages" according to that same conversation.  And, again, this is not a slam on what you are doing.  It is not to say that when you are on the floor moving, your 'not doing MA' because you have simplified the terms to make it easier to explain to those you teach.

I have explaind my goals and motivations:  Any other agendas are pure interpretation.

Paul M
		
Click to expand...

*
I just wanted to say on this point that developing names or organizing a curicculum is not the same as changing the fundamental movements that RP taught. Particularly because RP's curriculum and names for techniques were always changing themselves. 

I can vouch that there really is only maybe 1-2 actual techniques that could be argued to be "add-ons" by Tim...the rest is all Remy, technically speaking.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *Man is the thread that will not die or what? *



We've had longer
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=157

This one ended at 13 pages!


----------



## loki09789

Tim H.

My posts about the names/art.... were directed to the post by Tapps about MA being 'frozen' because RP was the art, and now he was dead.  For the sake of that discussion if the art is truly frozen at the death of RP, then even the naming of techniques, drills... falls under the frozen idea.   I never said that I agree with it, only trying to understand how a frozen art can have so many variations on the source - if it it truly frozen.  The comments were about and for that topic.

I don't think that the art is 'frozen,' personally.  I think that it is a living thing that various groups are keeping alive in their own way, all based on the core training that RP established.  Personally, I don't CARE if you change the naming of the techniques, drills or organization of MA to make it easier/better for your students.  If it works for you, go for it.  

Paul Martin


----------



## Tgace

Heres a link to a free "self-defense" book. It was funded by a defense spray company so theres a sales pitch in the middle of it, but its a pretty comprehensive book dealing with a lot of issues on the subject. 

http://www.lubrinco.com/lg7steps.html


----------



## loki09789

"One is the difference between hockey and individual self defense is in hockey you are relying on the collective skill of a team" 

which can be analogous to the collective skill of the individual if you can concieve of the team as a single unit - which you seem to have done if you are adapting the unit leader tactical definitions from the military for your individual self defense training.

"In a team sport, the skill of the individual is only part of the equation."

Much like good punching is only part of the equation to a total individual skill set.

"Perhaps this is a good analogy for Military or SWAT team units to illustrate how tactics and playing like a team is more vital then individual poweress and skill, but it falls short, I think, when "

Well recognizing the team as a single operative unit is still less of a stretch than cabinets and cars...

" refering to individual experience vs. practice because of the team element. Perhaps an anology comparing a sport like boxing to real fighting"

I am comparing a 'fight' to a 'game' because they are the performance arenas that the unit has trained and prepared to perform in.  Comparing experience to practice is incongruous and inaccurate.


"But then we still run into the other major difference"

An analogy, by its very nature is limited and flawed if you take it too far....

"The first "fold" is that training will never fully simulate the real thing. In Hockey, you can ... simulate the actual games"

Sounds like tactical scenario training or sparring or tapi tapi if you can translate the team/unit coordinating all its parts to the individual/unit coordinating all its parts.

"and all the elements will remain the same."

Don't all the elements of a fighters training stay the same?  If you are implying that hockey practice is the same as hockey game, that is far from true because, for those who play ANY sport, practices are never as 'real' as games.  Just like fight training, no matter how intense, will not be the same. 

"You cannot simulate a life or death circumstance."

Agreed, but you can come damn close in training with full contact work, scenario training/sparring to simulate elements or phases that a student might encounter and then put them together with a safety buffer of some kind. 

"Preparing for a game and preparing for defending your life are extremely different in this regard."

Again, analogies only go so far....

" The other part of the "fold" here is that in combat there are no rules. In hockey there are rules and regulations that controls the way the game has to be played. "

combat and self defense are different, but combat DOES have rules that combatives (at least USA combatives) are expected to adhere to such as the laws of land warfare, geneva code, rules of engagement.... 

In self defense, there are state laws covering use of force/deadly force 

"In hockey, you don't have to worry about the rules changing and all your plays becoming obsolete."

Well, yeah you do because the officialling from game to game can change the way a game is played.  Sometimes they call every little thing, sometimes they only call the really bad stuff.  You just have to be adaptive.

"This element of "no rules" adds to the fact that there are an infinate amount of possabilities, factors, and elements in combat."

Tactical and technical training, I would hope, reduces the infinite into logical options - consider the baiting tactic/concept as a way to limit the infinite angles that your opponent can counter from.

"In hockey, you can simulate a game every practice, and the fundamental elements remain the same. In combat, the fundamentals could change very drastically, so you cannot practice for only one (or even a few) sets of elements without risking getting lambasted when the real thing comes along."

The fundamentals of combat/self defense, I would think, would be the same in training or in application, otherwise how could we ever train for self defense preparation or combat units justify the expense of money on field exercises that 'simulate' combat so they can practice applying the fundamentals at an individual and unit level. 

"There is an element in team cooperation that is nessicary for success that may not be an element in individual self defense"

But if the translation can be made from team/unit to individual/unit, team coordination is similar to body coordination.

"Under an environment without rules, the better fighter doesn't even win most of the time, because the other side can always change the "rules" to work in their favor (hey looky...I brought my gun to the knife fight!)."

Honestly, in this day and age, if you are not expecting a gun to pop up in a self defense situation, you are not the better fighter.  And there are certain constants that you can learn - beyond justfied use of force laws for your area.  Biomechanics dictates that your opponent(s) can only move in certain ways at certain speeds.  Psychological study can help you recognize body signals/language/distance (this study is called Haptics), verbal signals.  Medical training/study can help you recognize the indicators of drug/alcohol use.... things can happen fast, but there are 'rules.' that can be understood.

"Now in regards to the idea that "no training situation adequetly simulates real combat" supporting the idea that real fighting is nessicary to know if your methods work"

I think the original message, that I agree with, is that - all other things being equal - the fighter with real experience will have a deeper understanding relative to the person with no real experience.  This is true in other arenas, otherwise it wouldn't be such an advantage in the job market ('No one wants to hire me because I have no experience, but I can't get experience if no one hires me...')  

"So, lets say I have been in 200 fights. I would consider that a lot of fights, but that doesn't mean that I will be a great fighter."

For self defense, 200 fights means your doing something wrong.  For a combative, you would definitely have a wealth of experience that, while not automatically making you a great fighter, would influence your future training much more than no real experience.  Otherwise, veterans of combat would not be so sought out for instructor/trainer positions for military units.  

"Since no combat situation is the same, and there are infinate possabilities, success in one fight does not determine that I will be successful in another. "

But success in 200 would mean that you had a solid technical and tactical handle on the fundamental that allowed you to survive/succeed.

"I do think that the "Combat System" should be field tested, but that doesn't mean that I have to personally test it to see if it works."

And no one has said that you have to seek out fights to gain this experience.  That is ridiculous and counter to sound self defense practices. 

"So that 1st encounter is very important when your "green." "

But if every situation is different and unique, and you can't train/prepare for them all, wouldn't you be 'green' in every engagement?

"but I can relate in that my first real fight I was totally in a daze, but in my other encounters after that my head was fairly clear and I was more able to respond appropriately."

So your fight experience has helped you...if it got easier to deal with from the first to now.  I am sure that you bring this experience into play when you teach your inexperienced students to help prepare them...

"Bottom line: Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity."

Again, I don't remember reading that anyone thought experience was the end all be all deciding factor, but I do think it is a big deal.

"The fight is the test, not the lesson. You may learn from taking tests, but not enything you couldn't learn in the lesson."

The fight is NOT a test, it is a life and death event that you hope to survive, it is reality, and it sucks.  

The lessons and tests evaluate your adeptness in your system, experience reveals things for the fighter that will never come up in training.  What you do with that revelation develops the fighter first, after that it's up to you what to do with it.

Paul M


----------



## DoxN4cer

> _Originally posted by Renegade _
> *Using other systems as examples for structuring terminology is not changing the system, the material is still Modern Arnis.
> 
> A rose by any other name is still a rose. *



"it's all the same..."


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Tim H.
> 
> My posts about the names/art.... were directed to the post by Tapps about MA being 'frozen' because RP was the art, and now he was dead.  For the sake of that discussion if the art is truly frozen at the death of RP, then even the naming of techniques, drills... falls under the frozen idea.   I never said that I agree with it, only trying to understand how a frozen art can have so many variations on the source - if it it truly frozen.  The comments were about and for that topic.
> 
> I don't think that the art is 'frozen,' personally.  I think that it is a living thing that various groups are keeping alive in their own way, all based on the core training that RP established.  Personally, I don't CARE if you change the naming of the techniques, drills or organization of MA to make it easier/better for your students.  If it works for you, go for it.
> 
> Paul Martin *



No one is saying "Modern Arnis" as a progressive art is frozen. "Modern Arnis as Remy taught" is frozen because the man is dead. "Modern Arnis as a progressive art" is alive in well. There is a big difference between the two.

All I was saying was that in order to appropriately progress, we still have to maintain what Professor taught, otherwise his teaching will be lost in the progression. Tapps was agreeing with me, I believe. :asian:


----------



## loki09789

"Paul is right, Remy was the art. What he left us is now frozen."

Tapp's words are there.  

Following the logic of this statement.  Remy was the art, and what he left as the art is frozen, then it is frozen.  If the art is frozen, everything else is variation and personalization.  Based on this logic ANY practice will not be "true MA" if you add or change anything - even the names.

My point is that this logic is not accurate relative to what I was taught about MA or RP, directly from the man at seminar, from his books and videos or through instructors.

I would agree that MA is progressive and doing fine, and will change in technique, drill and terminology over time.  But it will always have to come from a kernel of stuff that keeps it rooted in the source.

My big question is what was that core of concepts/techniques/drills that RP presented as MA?  I know it wasn't a set curriculum, but there was still a core.


Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

> _Originally posted by Renegade _
> * A rose by any other name is still a rose. *



Actually it is "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...
I don't want to smell you after you have tended your MA rose  PEE YEW!


Paul M


----------



## loki09789

"A college professor teaching medical science to pre-med students doesn't have to have had Polio to understand the biology of how the disease works, or to understand how to cure it."

No, but if the idea is to compare a Doctor in a teaching role to a Martial artist/Instructor - it would be more logical to focus on the relationship between the Doctor/Martial Artist and his experience practicing/applying his trade and craft - not the experience as a patient/victim.  There is a lot to be said for secondary and tirtiary sourse 'experience' through research but there is a lot of personal validity in Impirical research.

In the case of Doctors, yes Doctors have loads of medical practice experience in their field before they can instruct. 

Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

I am responding to your last post regarding your hockey analogy.

Don't take offense to this please, but what I am not going to do here is respond by breaking up your post quote by quote. I don't mind that you did this to me, but through my experience I have found (as I have been guilty of doing this too) that it alienates the other readers. We'll be able to follow our conversation, but they won't. So I'll try to respond without totaly doing that.

You did say:  





> An analogy, by its very nature is limited and flawed if you take it too far....



I totally agree with this. Your analogy might apply in some comparisons, and you did describe some similarities that might fit in your last post. But taken too far, the analogy is flawed. When you said, "Based on this model, if the real fight experience is analogous to playing in a game, The best NHL team/players would be the winners of the All Star Skills competition and not the winners of Lord Stanley's Cup.... doesn't work for me." Well, what doesn't work for me is your analogy. Individual "fight experience" is not analogous to "playing in a game" for this to even remotely fit, as the team element, controlled environment, and the fact that the players lives aren't on the line are elements in a game that makes it vastly different then a "real fight". Say what you want, but no matter how far you try to stretch the analogy, I don't think it will work.



> I am comparing a 'fight' to a 'game' because they are the performance arenas that the unit has trained and prepared to perform in.



As I said before, the elements of the environment are reletively unchanged in a sports arena like hockey. This is not true for combat. You said that the officials could make different calls and such to try to prove your point, however, different officials or calls does not change the fundemental aspects of the environment. If the ice changed to concrete in areas of the arena, or if your opponent brandishes a knife or decides to take your head off with his stick, then THESE would be fundemental changes in environment. You don't have these in hockey...you do have these unexpected changes in combat. 



> combat and self defense are different, but combat DOES have rules that combatives (at least USA combatives) are expected to adhere to such as the laws of land warfare, geneva code, rules of engagement....
> 
> In self defense, there are state laws covering use of force/deadly force



These aren't really "rules" like in sports because in combat there aren't any refs to put my opponent in the penelty box for breaking them. State Law isn't going to prevent the criminal from stabbing me, no matter how loud I cry foul. If a cop asks a perp to show his hands, and the perp decides to point his gun, then that perp just changed the "rules." Rules in the sense of sport cannot be changed in the middle of the game.

Also, if I break the rules in sport, depending on how badly, I could lose the game. If I am boxing and I bite my opponents ear off, I lose. In combat, if I break the rules I could very well win. 

The bottom line here is that there are no rules in combat, no matter how elequently you try to argue that there are. "State laws" and "geneva convention" are not REALLY rules because breaking these could result in a win rather then a loss, and there is no one to cry foul until after the battle is over. These are mere guidelines.

Guidelines in combat may be helpful, but rules will get you killed.

Now, in regards to training for combat, as Professor taught and as I have mentioned, your ability to "translate" or apply what you know is what will make your training worth while and effective. You can't simulate real combat, period, no matter how much you want to argue over how "close" your training can be. But, your ability to translate will allow you to apply your training. That is why "translating" is so important.

Now to the original arguement:



> I think the original message, that I agree with, is that - all other things being equal - the fighter with real experience will have a deeper understanding relative to the person with no real experience.



Well if "all other things were equal" then I'd agree.

What I asked Kashino originally was "Is it possible for a person with a lot of training who, lets say, has never had to defend themselves to have a better understanding of the application of their art then someone who has had to defend themselves?"

He said no. Now, by putting the words "all other things being equal" then this is limiting your answer. I didn't say "all other things being equal." when I framed my question.

Now, through discussion he was able to agree with me that experience does not make or break fighting ability, which was my point. 

My point on this subject has been, from the start, that experience is a factor, but does not make or break ability, and does not determine that you'll win your next self defense circumstance. Because of this, I think that it is overrated when people try to use their "experience" to make themselves credable.

So far, my point hasn't been shown to be wrong.

For fun, one more analogy: Our U.S. soldiers are fighting terrorists overseas. Some of these soldiers are 18 and 19 years old. Others not much older then their early 20's. Most have not seen real combat prior to going active duty. The terrorists on the other hand are much different. Many of them have been fighting in wars since they were children. Terrorist groups in the middle east clearly have more "fighting experience" then our soldiers. Yet, outside of superior technoligy, our "green" soldiers will smoke just about any terrorist group out there. Why...? Our soldiers are better trained!


----------



## loki09789

My post was for you, and any interested readers.  If they are interested, they will read, if not they will skim/ignore.  I do it too.

There are many points that you are ignoring in this response, but that is because you don't agree and are using the elements that you want to rebut... okay.  You don't like the analogy, but I think it works if you can conceptualize it.

As far as the experience counts discussion:

Tim K wrote:
"Many haven't "been there or done that", and they have no credibility with regards to what works and what doesn't"

You replied:
"What it sounds like your basically saying is that you need to get into fights to see if your art is effective" 

Tim replied:
"regardless of the "faith" someone has in their chosen system/art/whatever, you have a better appreciation of its effectiveness if you have tested it "under fire". "

You wrote:
"Is my interpretation of what your saying askew? Maybe, maybe not. I am not sure yet." 
After he clarified and elaborated to make sure you knew what he did mean.

I think Tim K's position is entirely clear in response to your question:
"In short, no; provided that we're discussing two people of similar or equal techincal ability where one has has real fighting experience ant the other has not."

Training will only get you so far, and you cannot discount the value of experience."

"I do agree that it may not make or break a persons fighting ability. However, it does make a difference in the individual's development (omitted section)... which leads us back to the old saying that "it is not the art, but the man". 

But you go on:
"This quote alone tells me that we are on the same page with this.  Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity."

Based on these exchanges, I don't see Tim K agreeing with your point of view,and he also makes the limit of 'all things being equal' as part of his process as well as clarifying that experience is not or make or break factor.

I think Tim K and I agree on this issue but that you see things differently.

Analogies aside, I can't think of any trade/craft/profession where an academic will be discounted for his/her contribution. At the same time, though, I also can't think of a single such field where experience is NOT a very important element of the individual development.

As far as our troops overseas, technology/money is a HUGE factor in our military successes in any conflict.  Man for man, Iragi resistance/ or the war on terror campaigns, our soldiers have a healthy respect for their particular enemy and their experience.  Ask the 10th Mountain Infantrymen that were pinned down and taking heavy fire in Afg.  Some of the unit leaders were vets of Somalia and Operation Just Cause (Noriega apprehension) leading well trained but green troops.  They had a hell of a time and took some hard hits.  Air support and radio communication saved the day for them.

Paul Martin


----------



## Cruentus

> Analogies aside, I can't think of any trade/craft/profession where an academic will be discounted for his/her contribution. At the same time, though, I also can't think of a single such field where experience is NOT a very important element of the individual development.



And rightfully so, because there is no profession out there like combat.

I'll repeat myself: Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessicity.

So what portion of this statement do you disagree with, Paul M.?

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

I'll see your repeat and raise you a rant:

UH UH... YOUR WRONG!  

I agree there is no profession the same as being a combative, after serving/training as a logistical support, combat support and a direct combat troop, I would have to agree on a personal satisfaction/challenge level.  

Here we go...

But, I would disagree on the inability to make comparisons and analogies, understanding that none will be perfect fits.

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

In the spirit of getting this thread back on track:

What about MA/FMA's makes it effective relative to other arts in your opinions?

Paul M.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *I'll see your repeat and raise you a rant:
> 
> UH UH... YOUR WRONG!
> 
> I agree there is no profession the same as being a combative, after serving/training as a logistical support, combat support and a direct combat troop, I would have to agree on a personal satisfaction/challenge level.
> 
> Here we go...
> 
> But, I would disagree on the inability to make comparisons and analogies, understanding that none will be perfect fits.
> 
> Paul M. *



O.K... 

We agree that no profession compares to being in real combat. And btw, I am not talking about the military profession, but Combat in general. Regardless, I think we agree here.

We disagree regarding your hockey analogy, in that you think it fits, and I don't. This is fine, and we can agree to disagree on that one.

But what about this statement alone: 

 Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity.
 

How do you feel about that statement? If you disagree, then exactly what part do you disagree on? 

This is where I am confused.

PAUL


----------



## Tgace

*Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity.*

I agree...but i would add... "Real world fighting however is a necessity when developing/advancing a fighting system, as the focus of any system of combat should be "combat effectiveness".

I think many (not all) "traditional" systems "froze" at some point of their combative history. Arts that were "cutting-edge" during their development stopped at some point...many became exercises or preservations of ancient times (like SCA or civil war re-enactors). If an art desires to be "alive" in a combat sense it has to keep up with modern weapons/tactics/developments. IMHO as always.


----------



## loki09789

Paul J.

We DO agree on no profession comparing to combat because combat is an event/experience and a profession is a vocation.

What we have been discussing has been the role of combat in the development of the fighter/individual.

In order to do that, Tim K, you, others and I have been comparing the relationship between fighter development and experience to the relationship of other human performance crafts/trades and experience to illustrate how experience is very important to individual development - period.

I said that nothing is LIKE combat based on my service/training NOT that we could not be compared.

"Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity."

You have two different things going on here when you ask this, which is why Tim K, myself and now Tom have answered in a Yes and No format.

Is real fighting experience the end all be all of fighter development, I don't think so.

Is it a necessity?  Depending on your goal in fight training, yes.  If you are training for the purpose of the perfect technical skill and the perfect understanding of your art, then no it isn't a necessity.  But if you are training/developing with the purpose of applying your art or creating innovations, real experience is a necessity.  Does that mean run out and get into a fight to see?  NO.  

Though Impirical evidence is the best for any scientific/artistic development.  Thus, the difference between taking an art appreciation course and a sculpture class, or the difference between a survey of science and a chemistry class.  In the first, your just taking the instructors word for it without doing it.  In the second, you are really applying the instructors teaching to internalize the material.  I know, in this analogy, they both are happening in an instructional setting... but analogies, by their nature are imperfect.  The point is there none the less.

As I said before, seeking fights for personal tests is ridiculous and against any sound self defense training.

You could, more safely, piggy back off of other's experience by researching crime statistics, interviews with combat vets, ride alongs with LEO's, touring prisons/mental institutions.... to come as close to direct experience as you can, but it will never make up for actually being there.  

Even taking a job as a security guard/bouncer/serviceman for a while could be seen as a way or a phase of your fighter development in a realistic, moral and socially acceptable way.  You are not directly instigating/seeking fights, only moving closer to the application by getting into a trade where it comes with the job.  At this point it goes from hobby/research/enthusiasm to a profession.  In this professional setting, it becomes 'real' because it is a component of your profession and will influence 'real' acknowledgements of proficiency through promotions, pay, reputation as well as survivability.

As civilian/self defense artists, to quote myself:

"200 fights means your doing something wrong. For a combative, you would definitely have a wealth of experience that, while not automatically making you a great fighter, would influence your future training much more than no real experience. Otherwise, veterans of combat would not be so sought out for instructor/trainer positions for military units."

Paul M.


----------



## Toasty

Paul J. said   
"Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity"

With all due respect Paul, I have to disagree with the part about it not being a neccesity.

If you are going to call yourself a "fighter" but have never been in fight - well that makes no sense at all. Thats kinda like saying I am a flyfisherman & I dont even own a fishing pole.

Also, I believe it is a neccesity in as much as you really have no idea 1) how all that stuff you have been practising in the controlled atmosphere of mutual training is going to work against someone who is actually trying to hurt you, very badly. And 2) this is the real important part I think, you dont know how you are gonna react when you get kicked in the groin & punched in the grill in the space of 1.2 seconds  (and dont gimme the whole - "well I wouldnt let them get that close" or I wouldnt let it escalate that far" - sometimes you really dont have a choice in the matter).

Yes, you can learn & benefit from people and who have real world experience, but therein lies the a problem/difference - its all their experience - not yours. 
Now I am not saying go out & start beating the crap out of people (or getting the crap beat out of you either. LOL  ) . But perhaps get in the ring or octogon or a dogbrothers gathering (slightly different - but probably a good litmus of your skill) or what have have you, where you can test yourself. And even these are not going to be the same as real street fight. 
Which, by the way I am pretty sure most people have never been in (and I'm not taking about the little punch fest in highschool most people call a street fight) - see Marc "Animal" Macyoungs's website regarding this.

anyway, just my opinion
with respect
Rob Perkins


----------



## loki09789

This quote might press the point better than I can:
Pappy Geo said:

"There are warriors that are the real thing like the Special Ops and then there are wanna bees. No matter how much I train, what my mind set is I am still a wanna bee."

Pappy Geo is making a separation between those who apply the fighting art, thereby gaining experience, and those who only train and 'get it' but don't have the experience.


Paul M


----------



## loki09789

This is what happens when the teacher turns a class over to a student teacher:  Boredom and over posting.... I can't stop!

"Hi, my name is Paul and I am an over poster."

"HIIIIIIPAULLLLLLLL"

Here's a snip from Phil Elmores article about martial arts:

"Overwhelming an opponent with aggression, when done by a fighter who understands the principles of fighting and is skilled and experienced in their application, will always decide a violent altercation.  It will also decide a violent altercation in favor of the assailant if the defending "martial" artist fails to grasp the importance of it."

Something to chew on.

Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

First off, let me disclaim that I myself have done some security work, and I have been in "real fights" and I was going to work at the OC jail before I got swooped up by a research team for my mental skills (drrrr :erg and now I am an investment banker.

So, I have no alternative motives for my conjecture here. I could claim real world experience just as rightfully as the next guy. I am not someone with no real world experience trying to argue a point out of envy because I have never had to use my skills. Furthermore, I think its childish and stupid to talk about all my bad@$$ 'street fighting' experience to try to give myself credability (as too many people do), so I generally don't. I would rather let my skill speak for itself.

Having said that, here's the deal...

IF you think it is *nessecary* for someone to have real fighting experience to truely have good combative skills, then you are promoting for others to seek out these experiences. In other words your promoting for others to get into fights. In other words (in case your a mental cripple and can't understand) your promoting violence.

That's the bottom line, folks. That's the REAL DEAL. I don't care if you disclaim it by saying, "I don't condone getting into fights." Your disclaimer is the equivelent of a parent telling a child that swearing is wrong, after rebuking them with a slew of F and S bombs.

This is a really important issue, guys. If I put "real world" experience on a pedistal that it doesn't belong, then I am promoting violence, plain and simple. You see, I have bled, and I have made others bleed. But if I use this to promote foolish ideas that your fighting skills will only "go so far" without real fighting experience, then what am I REALLY saying? It will be on my conscience and my soul as part of an ongoing problem if people seek violence; and frankly I'd rather it be me to face death then any of my collegues, teachers, or students.

Since I don't want to promote violence, I had to ask myself, "IS there another alternative?" And in fact, there is. Ask anyone who has seen real combat, or has had to really defend themselves. They will tell you that the first experience is unlike anything they have ever trained for. This was my experience as well. You have to deal with your own adrinaline, internal turmoil, and instincts that you have never had to deal with before. After that first one (or first couple for those who take longer to adjust), the internal struggle is over, which is the hardest thing to deal with, in my opinion. However, I found that even with the internal conflict of my first real encounter, because I trained to "RELAX" under pressure, and I learned to "TRANSLATE" what I know, I was still able to react accordingly, dispite my inner feelings.

After being in multiple encounters myself, and after listening to others who have been in much more encounters then I, I came to the realization that * No violent encounter is identical! * After this understanding, I was able to realize that being in a violent encounter, or being in multiple violent encounters, is not a nessecity to understand violent enounters, and is not nessecary in helping you be a better fighter. In the fly fishing example, the more you fly fish the better you'll be because you have a consistant environment, and a fairly consistant circumstance every time. There is not the same consistancy in combat, so you can't really build a solid learning base from it. Plus, one man can't have enough encounters to really build an effective fighting base that could be put into a martial system (without significant training and study outside real fighting).

So, I found the solution. This is the same solution that people like Remy Presas found, so it is nothing new! I can help build someones ability to handle real life encounters, without them having to be in a "real life" encounter themselves, and they will be just as effective, or even more effective as someone with a load of experience. First, I am training in martial arts that have been "combat proven" within the last century by my instructors, my instructors instructors, and many people that have been influenced by these combat systems. So I know that what I do has been "road tested," even if not by myself. Second, I can bring modern examples to the table by learning from FBI and police stats and reports, combat statistics and reports, and other peoples experience. I can learn from other people experience and mistakes without having to have been there done that. Third, AND THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT, I can learn and teach my students to TRANSLATE what they know to different circumstances. This way no matter how the dynamics of a violent encounter change, I can be prepared and I can still use what I know. And Fourth (and this is the hardest to teach) I can teach them to learn how to relax under pressure, and I can prepare them mentally and emotionally so if a violent encounter were to occur, they could handle their own internal turmoil. 

This is the solution. I, as well as all of you can build competitent "fighters" (I don't like the word "fighters", but this is for lack of a better term) without promoting for them to go out and get into fights. I can learn myself, and build good fighters without promoting violence.

Now, I will disclose that I am not saying that "real world experience" has no value. It most certianly has, and for someone who has experience, they can add it to the mixing bowl of what they know and have learned. There are many poeple who have brought valuable lessons to the table from their real world experience. Yet, just because it can be valueable, that doesn't make it nessecary or even desirable. 

I think *Tgace's* answer is the closest to my view. I do agree with him that the fighting system, or at least the methods you learn should have been "road tested" at some point. I just don't believe that myself or my students have to go out and road test these methods to be able to "truely understand" them.

So that's the real deal.   If you believe that it is nessesary to get into violent scenarios to truely understand how to be a competitent "fighter" or to be competitent in surviving violent scenarios, then your promoting violence! That is a simple fact. Now I know what I say here goes against the grain of what is accepted by the martial arts or "combatives" community, so I know that I'll get disagreements. Personally, I don't give a flying F**k if the whole world disagrees with me on this one. I will stand behind my opinion on this, because I *will* learn/teach survival, I *will* learn/teach martial arts, but I *will not* promote violence.

Will you?

PAUL
:armed:


----------



## loki09789

Well,  based on the volume of posts and time spent here on this topic, I think it is clear that I will stand behind my opinion.

If you READ the replies to your posts, the general tone is not the promotion of violence and fighting, but the value of experience for development.  I have not read a single reply that said otherwise.

Besides which, based on your attempts to define warrior spirit in other threads, you do condone the use of violence under certain conditions.  That I can hang my hat on as well.

By the way, no one "swept you up" and made you become an investment banker, you made a choice not to go to corrections - and probably a better choice for family stability if your getting married - to say anything else denies your free will and ability to exercise choice which you refer to in the Philosophy and Spirituality area.


Paul M.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Well,  based on the volume of posts and time spent here on this topic, I think it is clear that I will stand behind my opinion.
> 
> If you READ the replies to your posts, the general tone is not the promotion of violence and fighting, but the value of experience for development.  I have not read a single reply that said otherwise.
> *


*

If you don't understand, or if you simply refuse to realize the logical inconsistancy of "I don't promote violence, but I think experience is nessecary to truely understand "fighting" " In an activity (martial art) where the focus is trying to better understand "fighting," then I can't help you. 

Don't worry, I don't fault you too badly for it, as I am sure that you won't be alone in your opinion.




			Besides which, based on your attempts to define warrior spirit in other threads, you do condone the use of violence under certain conditions.  That I can hang my hat on as well.
		
Click to expand...


There is a big difference between condoning violence under the proper circumstance, and promoting it or seeking it.




			By the way, no one "swept you up" and made you become an investment banker, you made a choice not to go to corrections - and probably a better choice for family stability if your getting married - to say anything else denies your free will and ability to exercise choice which you refer to in the Philosophy and Spirituality area.
		
Click to expand...


Gee, thanks. I thought I had gotten sucked into something against my free will there for a second. I am glad you l cleared it up for me! :rofl: Seriously, I think I fully understand that I was presented with opportunity, and choices, and I made them, and I am proud of the choices I made. When I say "swept me up" I mean that I was given an opportunity.

So, you can disagree with me all you want. Like I said "I don't give a flying F**k if the whole world disagrees with me on this one. I will stand behind my opinion on this, because I will learn/teach survival, I will learn/teach martial arts, but I will not promote violence." *


----------



## loki09789

If you are teaching someone to swing a stick at another person, what are you promoting?

Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *If you are teaching someone to swing a stick at another person, what are you promoting?
> 
> Paul M *



Its not the action, its the thought behind it.

You could be promoting violence, or survival, or something else.

I promote survival. I promote improving the quality of your life through combative studies and physical expression. I don't promote violence.

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

Read the posts carefully, at least from me, and show me where I am saying 'get into fights to get experience' as opposed to 'those with experience have a deeper understanding than those who don't'

And, I don't EVER remember reading a post where ANYONE was inferring that you were working an agenda, or had no experience.

Come on, Paul, this has been topical and fun, can we keep it that way?

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

"I am not threatening, I am just being frank. If one of my friends gets hurt over some B.S., there is going to be hell to pay. Most likely charges will be pressed, and nothing will have to happened from my end. If someone is severely hurt or injured beyond what is acceptable for training, and charges aren't able to be pressed, I am voluntering to return the favor."

This doesn't sound like the promotion of violence?

Paul M.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Read the posts carefully, at least from me, and show me where I am saying 'get into fights to get experience' as opposed to 'those with experience have a deeper understanding than those who don't'
> 
> And, I don't EVER remember reading a post where ANYONE was inferring that you were working an agenda, or had no experience.
> 
> Come on, Paul, this has been topical and fun, can we keep it that way?
> 
> Paul M. *



Hey man...I'm still having fun! artyon: 

No one inferred I had an agenda; I was just disclaiming is all.

And, I am not suggesting that you or anyone else INTENDS to promote violence. You, as well as others have said many times that you don't.

I am pointing out a major logical falicy that exists in combative arts. Namely that there is a major logical inconsistancy in the idea of, "I don't promote violence, but I think experience is nessecary to truely understand "fighting" with regards to an activity (martial art) where the focus is trying to better understand "fighting."

It's logically inconsistant no matter what way you cut it. And in my opinion, if you think experience is nessecary to understand "fighting" in a field where the goal of the student is to understand "fighting," then you are promoting "Fighting" or violence.

You can believe what you want, say what you want, and do what you want. I choose to take a different route then what is conventional right now. I choose to promote survival rather then violence.

I am not pissed off or anything, I am just telling it like it is.

You can disagree, as I am sure you and many others will. However, this happends to be an opinion that I not only stand behind, but that I intend to actively promote.

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

"And, I am not suggesting that you or anyone else INTENDS to promote violence. You, as well as others have said many times that you don't."

okay, but you said"

"If you don't understand, or if you simply refuse to realize the logical inconsistancy of "I don't promote violence, but I think experience is nessecary to truely understand "fighting" " In an activity (martial art) where the focus is trying to better understand "fighting," then I can't help you. 

Don't worry, I don't fault you too badly for it, as I am sure that you won't be alone in your opinion."

Sounds suggestive to me.

Paul M.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *"I am not threatening, I am just being frank. If one of my friends gets hurt over some B.S., there is going to be hell to pay. Most likely charges will be pressed, and nothing will have to happened from my end. If someone is severely hurt or injured beyond what is acceptable for training, and charges aren't able to be pressed, I am voluntering to return the favor."
> 
> This doesn't sound like the promotion of violence?
> 
> Paul M. *



Yes it does. 

And I will say that we all make mistakes, and that I have done things or said things in my life that go against what I believe. We all have.

Having said that, given the context of the statement, I don't regret it. Right or wrong, at the time of that statement, I felt there may have been a threat.

I am not "ghandi." I do believe in survival. Sometimes that means that there needs to be a mutual "threat" in place so that one party doesn't take advantage of another. Ex. If the drunk guy at the bar understands that I will not allow him to blast my friend in the face without a "fight," he may think twice or reassess his motive.

Sometimes immediate"threat" or "violence" is needed to prevent violence, and to survive, which is why we train. However, this is not the same as "promoting violence" in my opinion.

PAUL
  :asian:


----------



## loki09789

Black Bear wrote, on your WS Poll page:

"I like PAUL's fine, except that I'd put something in there specifically about the willingness to use force or violence when these things are threatened. That seems to be a part of what we mean by warrior spirit. "

And you responded with adding the clause

"by any means necesary"

That would include violence, I think.

Also

How immediate is a threat if you are a "six hour drive away"

I don't think the 'survival' defense would hold up if you had followed through.  


Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *"And, I am not suggesting that you or anyone else INTENDS to promote violence. You, as well as others have said many times that you don't."
> 
> okay, but you said"
> 
> "If you don't understand, or if you simply refuse to realize the logical inconsistancy of "I don't promote violence, but I think experience is nessecary to truely understand "fighting" " In an activity (martial art) where the focus is trying to better understand "fighting," then I can't help you.
> 
> Don't worry, I don't fault you too badly for it, as I am sure that you won't be alone in your opinion."
> 
> Sounds suggestive to me.
> 
> Paul M. *



Your right. I am clearly saying that the stance of, "I don't promote violence, but I think experience is nessecary to truely understand "fighting" " in an activity (martial art) where the focus is trying to better understand "fighting" is logically inconsistant, and inadvertently promoting violence.

I don't believe that this is your INTENT, but I believe that this is what is happening with that logic.

It is what it is.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Black Bear wrote, on your WS Poll page:
> 
> "I like PAUL's fine, except that I'd put something in there specifically about the willingness to use force or violence when these things are threatened. That seems to be a part of what we mean by warrior spirit. "
> 
> And you responded with adding the clause
> 
> "by any means necesary"
> 
> That would include violence, I think.
> 
> Also
> 
> How immediate is a threat if you are a "six hour drive away"
> 
> I don't think the 'survival' defense would hold up if you had followed through.
> 
> 
> Paul M *



Again, I am not Ghandi. "By any means nessicary" means that your willing to use violence to protect yourself, family, friends, etc. "willing to use violence" is not "promoting violence." "Promoting violence" is what happends when you want to or thirst to use violence or get into violent encounters. THis can be particularly propigated when the belief is that you don't truely understand "fighting" unless you are in "real fights."

The threat was not to me, it was to a friend. I warned the person (Dr. B) who I thought was being threatening not to hurt someone with his antics. My mistake was in my anger, I worded my "warning" wrongly, and it resulted in my suspension. What you don't know is that I also warned the recipient (Bob) of the threat that if he seeks out this person (Dr. B) for a "training exchange" and gets thumped, then he is asking for it and I won't back him on that one.

Regardless, thats all water under the bridge now. I can say that my choice in words was desirable, but I can't say I was promoting violence, even if I am treading a thin line. The FACT is, if you, myself, or anyone sets up a circumstance where someone gets injured or hurt or killed, then there will be "Dire consequences" whether I drive 6 hours to deliever them or not. These consequences would most likely be of a legal nature over anything else. These are just the facts. Pointing them out is protection, not promoting violence.

PAUL


----------



## Dan Anderson

*FOOD FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
:flame:                         :biggun: 
:zap:                            :ripper: 

Sorry, couldn't help it.  

Yours,
Dan


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Dan Anderson _
> *FOOD FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> :flame:                         :biggun:
> :zap:                            :ripper:
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help it.
> 
> Yours,
> Dan *



Hey Dan...your promoting culinary violence! :rofl:


----------



## Tgace

So how effective is Modern Arnis empty hand???


----------



## loki09789

I will clarify one point about old business and then let this drop:

"What you don't know is that I also warned the recipient (Bob) of the threat that if he seeks out this person (Dr. B) for a "training exchange" and gets thumped, then he is asking for it and I won't back him on that one."

Bob spoke/wrote Jerome and clearly understood the training exchange as sincere and not an ambush.  I know this because I spoke with Bob H. directly about this.  

I would not want a misinterpretation of Dr. Barber's intention with the training exchange to become accepted as publicized 'fact'.  Much like some of the percieved reasons for separations/leavings of MA and such.


Paul M.


----------



## Cruentus

> I can say that my choice in words was desirable, but I can't say I was promoting violence, even if I am treading a thin line.



What I ment to say way "I *can't* say that my choice in words was desirable, but I *can* say that I *wasn't* promoting violence, even if I was treading a thing line."

Whew.

Sometimes you get-a-typin' too fast for your ability to correct grammer!  

So...uh....how 'bout that Modern Arnis empty hand effectiveness!?

:rofl:


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *I will clarify one point about old business and then let this drop:
> 
> "What you don't know is that I also warned the recipient (Bob) of the threat that if he seeks out this person (Dr. B) for a "training exchange" and gets thumped, then he is asking for it and I won't back him on that one."
> 
> Bob spoke/wrote Jerome and clearly understood the training exchange as sincere and not an ambush.  I know this because I spoke with Bob H. directly about this.
> 
> I would not want a misinterpretation of Dr. Barber's intention with the training exchange to become accepted as publicized 'fact'.  Much like some of the percieved reasons for separations/leavings of MA and such.
> 
> 
> Paul M. *



Given past experiences and performance, nothing can be "clearly understood" regarding that issue. Especially at the time that my comments were made.

However, that's good that people talked and sorted things out.

Like I said, its all water under the bridge for me...

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

Okay, things were dicey at that time because attitudes were swollen but, between Bob and Dr B, they decided what was clearly understood.  Your perception has little to do with that.

And... 

Isn't the 'answering a percieved threat with a counter threat' a way of escalating the stress and likelyhood of a fight?  Thereby, within the tactic, fighting is being promoted.  I only say this because if the person doesn't back off, what next?  You have to follow through on your counter threat - or be percieved as weak, which is like blood in the water to a shark, when you are dealing with someone who is already demonstrating a disregard for humanity.

Paul M.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *So how effective is Modern Arnis empty hand???  *



I say very, but I also think that most people who teach Modern Arnis don't know enough about it to prove it either way.  Most people become competent martial artists and then add Modern Arnis to their training.  The majority of them never had to make their arnis training work, because they can fall back on their primary system to fall back on.  There are very few of us out there who started in Modern Arnis and actually had to make it work for them.  :asian:


----------



## Dan Anderson

> _Originally posted by Tgace _
> *So how effective is Modern Arnis empty hand???  *



Quite effective.  Modern Arnis was designed as a self defense art as opposed to a fencing art.  That includes the empty hands aspect, whether one is looking at the striking, parrying, locking or throwing aspects.  Speaking of the empty hands Modern Arnis, isn't there a book coming out on that shortly?  

Yours,
Dan Anderson


----------



## Dan Anderson

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Hey Dan...your promoting culinary violence! :rofl: *



I'm sorry.  I like food...really I do and I don't want any food out there to get hurt.

Apologizingly Yours,
Dan


----------



## Tgace

I believe that "real world experience" actually has a lot to do with integrating personality traits with technical training. Things like the will to survive, the will to inflict harm when necessary,  tolerance of pain, dedication, fear (and the handling of it) and dealing with post traumatic stress all are very important regardless of your training. That being said, how do you train these "intangibles"? While upbringing and enviornment do play a role, they are also trainable, the success of our (US) military lies in such training. Rather than retyping it, ill just post a link to a good article from the USArmy NCO Journal...

http://www.usarc.army.mil/100thdiv/xxi/spirit1.htm

Granted its oriented toward the "team building" aspect of military service, but you can make your own connections to individual training. Notice that "technical" expertise is almost a given. Technical training is the "easy" part, you learn ,practice and test. The "other" traits are where leadership, self-analysis and creativity come in.....


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Okay, things were dicey at that time because attitudes were swollen but, between Bob and Dr B, they decided what was clearly understood.  Your perception has little to do with that.
> *


*

It wasn't just my perception then, nor is it now. Furthermore, just because they talked that doesn't erase what the original intent was, or might have been, or is, or whatever. As I said, nothing is "clearly understood" regarding that issue, despite what "they" SAY they decided. As I also said, it was nice that they talked.

And wasn't this going to be dropped?  

Water under the bridge...




			And... 

Isn't the 'answering a percieved threat with a counter threat' a way of escalating the stress and likelyhood of a fight?  Thereby, within the tactic, fighting is being promoted.  I only say this because if the person doesn't back off, what next?  You have to follow through on your counter threat - or be percieved as weak, which is like blood in the water to a shark, when you are dealing with someone who is already demonstrating a disregard for humanity.

Paul M.
		
Click to expand...

*
It depends. In hindsite, that wasn't the best way of handling that circumstance. I could have called Bob and/or pmed or called Dr. B to try to understand what the real intention was, and if there was truely a threat or not.

But, I am not the one who initiated the problem regarding the issue, and I am not the one who has staged challanges or arranged for "bad things to happend," (at least by my perception at the time those things were said) in the past. So, it wasn't really my job to dance on the head of a f**king pin regarding the issue. My comments should have been expected then, as I am sure they were. Because of this, I don't regret them, even if I could have handled things better.

Now in regards to "answering a threat with a counter threat." It can and often is a viable option. If someone says, "I'm gonna rape your sister when your not around...," what else would be a viable self defense option? Knocking him upside the head is not a viable option, cause he hasn't done anything yet. Telling him that there where be dire consequenses such as law suit, jail time, and/ or personal injury would be a viable option, as well as calling the authorities. If I am in a bar, and someone says that they are gonna kick my @$$, I can respond with, "Not only do you not want to do that, but I'd rather you didn't." If he asks why he wouldn't want to do that, I can say that not only do I intend to defend myself as best as I can, but I intend to press charges afterwards. "Answering a threat with a counter threat" if done correctly can be the most prudent way to handle a self defense circumstance. 

Cops do this all the time. If someome has a gun out (threat) the cops pull their guns (counter threat).

The idea of offering a counter threat to make your attacker think twice is simple, prudent self-defense, provided it is done correctly. Your counter threat doesn't have to be "oh yea....well, I'm gonna beat YOUR face in!" Your counter threat needs to be "assertive" but not "aggressive." 

This is a pretty basic self defense concept, and I don't think that the idea "promotes violence" as I have described.

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

Paul J.

I was willing to drop it, but your constant focus on the 'unknown' is bothering me.  Bob and Jerome were privately and publicly building a bridge of a kind:

From what I read here, Bob H. was the one making the invitation, with sincere intention:
Purhaps Jerm, you and I should get on the mats together sometime. We both might learn a few things. (And no, thats not a threat....just an invitation to share, somewhere down the road when all this BS is behind us all.)

Jeromes response was in the same tone.
Actually, Bob, one of the two white boys writing as Lamont, says that I should say hello for him and he would love to have the opportunity to have a training exchange with you.
Getting together on the mats would be fun. I do not harbor grudges over disagreements. 

Now on top of this public exchange, Bob and Jerome communicated this same message in private, and Bob H told me directly over the phone that he did not percieve a threat.  Now unless, you want to call Bob H a liar and a gamesman in his own right I think it is pretty clear.  Besides, he runs this whole show of MT, we could always just let him tell it.

Now, according to your own criteria for lethal force:
if you can prove these 3 things in a court of law, you are justified in using lethal force:

1. The attacker has the means to perminently disable or kill you.
2. The attacker has the opportunity to perminantly disable or kill you.
3. The attacker expresses intent to perminantly disable or kill you.

I don't see any reasonable threat directed at Bob, nor do I see any justification for a third party counter threat from a six hour drive away.

They communicated clearly under some very unclear conditions, which was/is a positive thing.  Based on our multiple thread exchanges, it looking hopeful that Bob's hoped time when the BS was behind us was close, if not here already.  Now, I don't know if it is behind us or just politely supressed.  That is sad.

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

Paul J.

"Cops do this all the time. If someome has a gun out (threat) the cops pull their guns (counter threat)."

IN LEO training this usually defined as a defensive posture or defensive tactics, not a counter threat.  I guess the term of a 'counter threat' starts to blur into mutual combat and not self defense in terminology for me.

In your example where you clearly state that you will be forced to defend yourself as well as pressing charges, I like the actions you describe because, with a confident delivery, it might throw the agressor off because you don't seem shaken.  This is very different from telling the guy in the bar who just threatened you that you are going to Bash him in the face.  I just don't know about calling that a counter threat instead of clear communication.

This above example reminds me of the rape defense training of not ***** footing around a 'no' during a date.  Say it loud, firm and clear and if he doesn't stop his advances, you can take action because you communicated clearly you didn't want him to continue.  

But, if you say things like "Whoa, hold on now"  "Down, boy, not so fast..." or anything else along those lines the 'date' might not get the hint.  I am NOT saying this is a valid excuse for rape, only pointing out that clear, unclouded communication is a powerful tool in a self defense moment, as well as in supporting your defendable position in court after the fact.

Paul M.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Paul J.
> 
> I was willing to drop it, but your constant focus on the 'unknown' is bothering me.  Bob and Jerome were privately and publicly building a bridge of a kind:
> 
> From what I read here, Bob H. was the one making the invitation, with sincere intention:
> Purhaps Jerm, you and I should get on the mats together sometime. We both might learn a few things. (And no, thats not a threat....just an invitation to share, somewhere down the road when all this BS is behind us all.)
> 
> Jeromes response was in the same tone.
> Actually, Bob, one of the two white boys writing as Lamont, says that I should say hello for him and he would love to have the opportunity to have a training exchange with you.
> Getting together on the mats would be fun. I do not harbor grudges over disagreements. *


*

Oh man, you really want to relive this, don't you? 

Taken out of context, it might look like they were friendship building. Put in the context of the thread, it was a heated discussion with tempers flaring from ALL parties involved. Bob saying he'd like to see Jerome on the Mat wasn't exactly an invitation to hug and be friends and sing kumbia. It would be very niave to think that this was the case. Bob wasn't threatening anyone either, but let me put it to you this way. If I am tired of argueing with somebody in Martial Arts, "See you on the mat" is a common way to end the arguement, implying that words are no longer of use, and we can prove our points through training (not the same as a challange per say); but this doesn't mean that we're friends and that we'd be comfortable hanging out together.

So that explains Bobs comment. Now let's look at Jeromes. Lets see, what happend in recent history prior to that invitation? I distinctly remember something of a staged challange match between Tim H and "Lamont Norshadow;" a fictitious internet character. I distinctly remember a lot of vague language so there couldn't be legal reprecussion for setting up a "challange" so it was called an "audition" instead. The person demoing in place of "Lamont Norshadow" was "one of the 2 white boys" writing as Lamont (well, we are all pretty sure it was Jerome doing most of the writing, but whatever). And it would appear from certian actions that Tim H, or at least SOMEONE was supposed to get hit. As it turned out, I went on the floor instead of Tim H., "foiling" the plans.     hmm... lets take a trip down memory lane...if your confused, or if anyone think I am making this up, refresh yourselves here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136943#post136943

Yes, as comic book villian-like that this immature display all is, its all true, in case you forgot, Paul M. You can peruse the thread to see the many times Dr. B refers to the event as an "audition" in quotations. Why all the cloak and dagger B.S.? Why not call it a demonstration, as what it ended up being? 

I'll tell you why, because SOMETHING bad was supposed to happend to SOMEONE. SOMEONE was definatily supposed to look stupid here. SOMEONE was supposed to lose credability somehow. And, quite possibly, SOMEONE was supposed to get hurt from the "audition"

So, that's the background. Then after all that is said and done, in a later thread Jerome asks Bob if he would like to have a "Training exchange" with the same student who was a part of the infamous "audition."

What the hell is a "training exchange"? Who on this planet talks like that, with all these vague undertones? Could it be that it was a pending arrangement where SOMEONE was supposed to be at the least embarrassed, at the most injured, from this "training exchange"?

Paul M., I had every reason to believe that Bob was being either threatened or "set up." And...I still do. I don't care who talked to whom, or what excuse or explaination was or will be given to try to cover it. As I said before, nothing is "clearly understood." 




			Now on top of this public exchange, Bob and Jerome communicated this same message in private, and Bob H told me directly over the phone that he did not percieve a threat.  Now unless, you want to call Bob H a liar and a gamesman in his own right I think it is pretty clear.  Besides, he runs this whole show of MT, we could always just let him tell it.
		
Click to expand...


Quite trying to pit me against Bob. I am not calling a Bob anything. In all seriousness, what the hell was he supposed to say regarding the issue? He was trying to put the issue to rest, where it belongs, so of course he was going to say, "naw, theres no threat, everything is cool." Even if he truely believes that there was no threat at all, couldn't he be wrong? If he was, being wrong wouldn't be lieing either.

I don't think Bob is a liar, just someone who is trying to keep the flames off his website.

But the fact that you have even brought this issue up, and have tried to twist the facts, and that you have tried to bait me into calling Bob a liar makes me believe that your motives are less then what would be considered honest, trustworthy, or with good intent.




			Now, according to your own criteria for lethal force:
if you can prove these 3 things in a court of law, you are justified in using lethal force:

1. The attacker has the means to perminently disable or kill you.
2. The attacker has the opportunity to perminantly disable or kill you.
3. The attacker expresses intent to perminantly disable or kill you.

I don't see any reasonable threat directed at Bob, nor do I see any justification for a third party counter threat from a six hour drive away.
		
Click to expand...


First of all, that is my quote regarding the use of lethal force. Lethal force was not used or present for anyone regarding the Jerome Barber issue, nor was it "threatened" by either parties, so you quoting my there to try to prove your point is fallacious.

Given the history, there was plenty justification to point out that if someone were to get physically harmed from his antics, that there would be consequences. That was the message I was getting acrossed to him. In my anger, I didn't relay that message the best way, but regardless, that message still stands for any of of us. If You, Dr. B., myself, or anyone were to cause physical harm to someone through game playing and antics, we could expect there to be negative consequences. Correct?




			They communicated clearly under some very unclear conditions, which was/is a positive thing.  Based on our multiple thread exchanges, it looking hopeful that Bob's hoped time when the BS was behind us was close, if not here already.  Now, I don't know if it is behind us or just politely supressed.  That is sad.

Paul M.
		
Click to expand...

*
Putting an issue behind us doesn't mean that everyone has to agree, and it doesn't mean changing history so everyone comes out unscathed. I have done things in my past that I have to own up too, right or wrong. So do you, and so does Dr. B. Just because what happened is water under the bridge for me, meaning that I am not holding a grudge over it, that doesn't mean that it didn't happened. It doesn't change the truth. And it definatily doesn't make you, Dr. B, or anyone else involved "trustworthy."

Now, I have been letting "bygones be bygones" despite the TRUTH about what happened. To you, if this means polite suppression, which isn't enough, then why don't you take the steps to remedy the problem.

The first thing that might help remedy the "past," if you feel it is nessecary, would be a public, written apoligy from Dr. Barber, you, and anyone else who chose to be involved. It can be addressed first to Tim H., Rich Parsons and myself second who were dragged into the issue. And don't even try to argue that an apology would be unwarrented. If at the very least lying and trying to ruin someones credability doesn't warrent an apoligy, then I don't know what does.

If you really want to address the past beyond "polite suppression," then you and your buddies can start with an apoligy. Although, I am sure you don't think ya'll did anything wrong, and that an apoligy would be unwarranted. The probability that you and your buddies won't apoligize is what's far more "sad" then just letting it be water under the bridge.

*Last thing:* I'll start with my own apoligy, to show that hey, I'm not beyond apoligies myself. I apoligize to Dr. Barber for dragging his name in the mud a second time in this thread over past issues. He hasn't done anything to provoke this that I know of, but unfortunatily because I was backed into a corner by Paul Martin, the issue was forced to the surface. I was perfectly happy to let it all be water under the bridge, and I still am.

So Paul M., because you have a hard time admitting that you might be wrong when your losing an arguement more or less, you decided to bring up Dr. Barber and past issues to try to make your points. This only resulted in dragging someones name through the mud...again. Remember the Bobby Toboada incident in a different thread?

So, like with that incident, I'll ask again:

Are you done yet?

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by loki09789 _
> *Paul J.
> 
> "Cops do this all the time. If someome has a gun out (threat) the cops pull their guns (counter threat)."
> 
> IN LEO training this usually defined as a defensive posture or defensive tactics, not a counter threat.  I guess the term of a 'counter threat' starts to blur into mutual combat and not self defense in terminology for me.
> 
> In your example where you clearly state that you will be forced to defend yourself as well as pressing charges, I like the actions you describe because, with a confident delivery, it might throw the agressor off because you don't seem shaken.  This is very different from telling the guy in the bar who just threatened you that you are going to Bash him in the face.  I just don't know about calling that a counter threat instead of clear communication.
> 
> This above example reminds me of the rape defense training of not ***** footing around a 'no' during a date.  Say it loud, firm and clear and if he doesn't stop his advances, you can take action because you communicated clearly you didn't want him to continue.
> 
> But, if you say things like "Whoa, hold on now"  "Down, boy, not so fast..." or anything else along those lines the 'date' might not get the hint.  I am NOT saying this is a valid excuse for rape, only pointing out that clear, unclouded communication is a powerful tool in a self defense moment, as well as in supporting your defendable position in court after the fact.
> 
> Paul M. *



Good points here. I like your term "defensive posturing" over counter threat. I'm going to use it, if you don't mind! 

Despite our last few posts regarding past issues this has been a good discussion where valuable things come up.

PAUL


----------



## loki09789

Again, I just think it is sad.

Paul M.


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

Let's keep this to the thread. The Paul / Jerome stuff was taken of the net. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## Dan Anderson

> _Originally posted by Renegade _
> *Let's keep this to the thread. The Paul / Jerome stuff was taken of the net. Let's keep it that way. *



Ditto.

Yours,
Dan


----------



## loki09789

"Good points here. I like your term "defensive posturing" over counter threat. I'm going to use it, if you don't mind!"

It is a standard term in LEO training and defensive tactics.  Since it isn't my term, and is public knowledge, go for it.

Check Tom's website for the links to other tactical/defensive sources for this kind of thing.  The sites are easily found in a google or yahoo search if you are doing any research, but Tom made it a one stop shopping convenience by linking the research.

Paul M.


----------



## Cruentus

loki09789 said:
			
		

> "Good points here. I like your term "defensive posturing" over counter threat. I'm going to use it, if you don't mind!"
> 
> It is a standard term in LEO training and defensive tactics.  Since it isn't my term, and is public knowledge, go for it.
> 
> Check Tom's website for the links to other tactical/defensive sources for this kind of thing.  The sites are easily found in a google or yahoo search if you are doing any research, but Tom made it a one stop shopping convenience by linking the research.
> 
> Paul M.



Yea...Toms Website is a great resource.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace

Just an honest question......One question that didn't come up was whether Remy would have been as good as he was if he hadn't fought?


----------



## loki09789

Paul J,

I think that there is some confusion about the link between respecting and acknowledging the role of experience in the development of the fighter and the intent of the training.  I dont think that I am promoting Nazism, even though I can acknowledge Hitlers public speaking skills.  He was an incredibly motivating speaker, but he used that along with other skills for horrible things.  I have studied the public speaking techniques, practice them and then apply them, but for my own purposes, with my own intent - hopefully less evil but that doesn't mean that I am practicing/promoting Nazism.

From the bio on RP in regards to his experience:

"Although this training helped Remy hone his stick skills to a razor's edge, he found the senseless violence disturbing. "I began to change my concept," he recalls, "I was doing fighting all the time, for real, not sport. My reputation was that all the time if they spar with me, there will be blood. Soon no one will practice with me. I have a bad reputation. So I thought to myself I should change my way."

I see the RPs experience as a necessity for his development, not only as a fighter, but as a human being.  RP recognized that this type of gang level of violence was a waste of his time, and making it hard very hard to accomplishing his martial arts/career goals because of the impact on his reputation.  So he re-evaluated his priorities and:

With the blessing of Grandmaster Bacon, Presas left Cebu to design his own system of fighting that would emphasize self-defense

I would definitely say that I acknowledge/respect RP's experience and would also say that it was very important to his development as a fighter, but I would also say that I am not interested in gang style street duels, nor would I promote that.  RP is/was a more developed fighter than I am/will be because of his experience.

I helped teach at both a suburban and a city campus for Dr B's self defense program.  The some of the student's direct experience was very important to their development because they trained with intention and purpose.  They used their experiences to recreate the 'fight' mind that they needed to generate good technique and realistic reactions for the street.  I would consider some of those students more developed as self defense artists than I was at the time, all because of their experience.

Conversely, most of the suburban students were very slow in developing, mainly because they had grown up in such a safe and wonderful place that fighting and attacks were not an immediate danger.  The best students were the girls who had 'been there done that' because of either actual attacks, or just coming damn close to being jumped/raped.  

The other group of good performers in both the city and suburb program were former athletes.  They used their experience - though not fighting - of full contact (football and wresting mainly) experience to click into the level of intensity and force generation that they had used in competition.

Luckily, in your fight experiences you found your training and preparation as effective.  Based on that experience, you kept working on what worked.  But, what would you have done if it hadnt worked at all?  Chances are, during a re-evaluation you would have either trained harder or trained differently.  In either case, your experience was the basis for the decision, and essential to your development.

Paul M


----------



## loki09789

"IF you think it is nessecary for someone to have real fighting experience to truely have good combative skills, then you are promoting for others to seek out these experiences. In other words your promoting for others to get into fights. In other words (in case your a mental cripple and can't understand) your promoting violence."

I think the confusion is best illustrated in this statement.  I, not speaking for the other posters to this point, am making the point that experience is essential for FIGHTER development - not good combatives skills.  Skills can be developed in training, definitely.  During Vietnam, MAC-V SOG boasted the only 'training program' (RECONDO SCHOOL) that finished with real combat patrols as part of the certification process.  They combined experience and training. LEO's have to be on the road with a training officer for at least 6 months around here where real experience is part of their development.  

Based on this discussion, my point is that those with more experience than I have will be more developed fighters because they will know themselves/their personal art better because they have 'been there done that'.  I may be a more developed fighter (at this point, I am really a self defense artist) than someone with less experience.... and so on.  If someone is stupid enough to go looking for real fights to gain experiences firstly, they are really stupid and secondly, they won't stay one of my students for long.

Paul


----------



## Rich Parsons

Tgace said:
			
		

> Just an honest question......One question that didn't come up was whether Remy would have been as good as he was if he hadn't fought?




Maybe , maybe not.

I know at least one person who did not fight like nor as often as GM Remy Presas. And GM Remy Presas respected this person, and knew him. THat person being Manong (GM) Ted Buot. Manong Buot would play or fight with others, only he would not allow the other person to control the fight. He would place his cane about two inches from his opponents head, and let the guy know he was hit. He would not "*POP*" anyone just because.

Yes, he was hit, as he was learning. Yes, he has it back. Yet, he never had the type of reputation that GM Remy Presas did, nor did he want too.

So, I say amybe because it may be requried for an individual, not for all individuals.
 :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

Once again, I'll express that experience is a factor in someones "mixing bowl" of knowledge. 

What I am sort of standing up against is this kind of behavior:



> Spec op vet Dale Comstock has developed this unique and deadly fighting style over a period of 28 years and has used it in 8 bloody combat missions. This "instant domination" training really fits with the way Americans think. A little boxing, a little grappling, lots of pure streetfighting smarts and the simplest "menu" of end-the-fight-fast moves you've ever seen. You'll learn the exact "condensed fundamentals" that Delta Force soldiers demand before facing combat. "Condensed" means there are NO complex moves, NO boring practice required... yet it's still the most lethally dangerous skills a fighter can know. In this amazing video, Dale will teach you how to throw a devastating punch just like a top-ranked American boxer... which will instantly stun anyone who thought you were "easy pickings"... plus much more!



THis was taken directly off an ad. I don't know if Mr. Comstock is skilled or not, but I'll bet you that before he tells you about all his "deadly fighting style", he'll tell you about how he doesn't promote violence. This is a stupid and ridicules "double negative" that exists in all facets of the martial arts.

Another stupid thing that occurs is so and so says he's been in 10 fights. So then another so and so says that hes been in 30 "deadly encounters". So then another so-and so says he has been in 100 "knock down drag out brawls with multiple opponents and weapons. Whats next? It just gets stupider and stupider now that reality based martial arts has been the "in thing" lately. And to top off all the stupidity, they are usually blatent lies and fantasy. Not in every case, but usually. Personally I don't want some desk jockey telling me about how his extensive military experience will give me the secrets of combat "beyond traditional martial arts," when I can get the same info he has with a trip to the library.

And to top off all this posturing, lieing, shady marketing, and egotism...THESE PEOPLE ARE PROMOTING VIOLENCE. Some do it on small levels just by glorifying their experiences with their students in the school. Other blatently advertise it. Bottom line is its wrong.

The other bottom line is this: "Experience" is not condusive of success in a self defense encounter. The experienced vet could take a bullet just as easily as the green private. The experienced "brawler" can be taken out by a first timer. One doesn't mean the other.

Since this is true, experience is not a nessecity in developing skill, or abilities when we are refering to "combatives".

If your propigating anything but this idea, then not only are you indulging in "martial fantasy" yourself, but your promoting violence with your own students. 

I am not accusing anyone here of anything, so don't misunderstand me. I am saying that perhaps we should analyze our stance on certain issues before we hastily buy the platter of B.S. that is being currently served in the majority of RBSD and martial arts circles.

PAUL

p.s. Remy Presas is my model example of how to handle this. He talked about some of his experiences with me, but in large groups he didn't glorify his "combat experience." He taught, and realized, that being in violence doesn't make you the better "fighter," and isn't nessesary for self defense, and in fact contrasts it. He let his charisma and technical ability speak multitudes for himself. Perhaps we should strive for this, rather then glorifying "our life on the streets" or "the blood I've seen when I was in the service" or whatever foolish pile of S**T that is popular now a days.

Hmmm? what do yall think? :idunno:


----------



## Tgace

I dont think any of us are trying to equate "experience" with skill. My friend Paul M. made an analogy with hockey, Im going to try and make a comparison with a different sport, rock climbing.

Climbing is a very technical sport. There are specific physical techniques for climbing different features and various ways to use your hands and feet to adhere to the rock. Beyond using your body, there are ropes and knots. Theres hardware with specific uses and precise applications; carabineers, descenders, cams+chocks, harnesses, chalk, webbing and on and on. Many climbers (me) start by top roping (rope goes from ground to top and back to climber, so you dont fall more than a few feet) or gym climbing. This is a safe environment where you can practice technique, train with gear and even compete. Many climbers never leave this level and thats OK, it's as close to a real cliff as you can get without a real cliff. The skills built here can be applied to the "real thing". Most walls are 50'-100'. 

"Real" rock climbing is called lead climbing. A length of rope connects two climbers. One climbs up placing anchors and clipping the rope through them as he goes. The length of fall depends on how far back your last anchor is and if it holds. Once the rope runs out the leader sets up an anchor system called a belay and the second climber climbs up, removing the anchors and the system repeats. Ive climbed faces as high as 800'-900' and those are on the small side of average.

The first time I "lead" a climb, it was an eye-opener.... I had the technical skills; I knew the ropework, the knots, and the gear placement techniques. I could climb gym routes 2-3 grades higher than the cliff I was on BUT.... I could die here, I was getting way up, I was getting scared, my physical technique was degrading, I was clinging and scrambling more than I was climbing, I was slapping in anchors as quick as I could (OK was good enough,  #@$% perfect). I learned that some techniques I could pull off in the gym I couldnt do (yet) on the face so I tossed them. Many times I "just did things" without thought, sometimes there were moments of "wow I actually planned to do that and I did". I did it though and made it to the top.

Did the gym training help? Couldnt have done without it. Did it apply on the cliff? Yep. Did "real" climbing improve my technique? That is a qualified "yes", yes in the sense that it gave me a better grasp on what I had to work on back in the gym. It gave me a different perspective on what my training produced and my "real" (current) ability to apply what I learned. Was the "real" climbing "necessary"? Obviously no. I did my first climb successfully with what I had.  If I lived near real cliffs and could climb on them regularly I probably could have improved my technique with constant practice on them, if I survived. Did "real" climbing give me more clout in teaching a new climber? Not really, there are many climbers WAY better than me in the gym and on the cliff , BUT...I think I could give a new climber a better grasp on what the "real" thing is like and what he should know, at a minimum, to reach the top than a gym only climber. I would advise him to get better training on technique than I could provide though.

Now an analogy cant be perfect in all its facets. I chose to climb, it wasnt something I was forced into or would rather have avoided like a fight. But this is as close to an explanation of "experience counts" as I can make right now.



> The other bottom line is this: "Experience" is not conducive of success in a self-defense encounter. The experienced vet could take a bullet just as easily as the green private. The experienced "brawler" can be taken out by a first timer. One doesn't mean the other.


Now, I do understand what you are saying here and I dont say this as argument. Yes the random bullet can kill the commando as easily as the private, but every military man will tell you that experienced soldiers will put themselves into fewer situations where that random bullet will get the chance. Every war tells the story of new replacements being killed quicker than the veterans. In your field whom would you hire? 2 applicants with identical educations and personnel traits but one has 5 years of successful experience in the field where the other has none? Again, a perfect analogy, no. But I think you get my point.
So, in the martial arts, do I believe that "fight experience" (read:street fight) is necessary for my personal development? No, I would rather have MA training as a "better to have it and not need it, than a need it and not have it" type thing. However I would want to simulate it as close and often as possible.


----------



## loki09789

"We disagree regarding your hockey analogy, in that you think it fits, and I don't. This is fine, and we can agree to disagree on that one.

But what about this statement alone: 

Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity."

Wasn't this the point being discussed?

Paul M.

I have heard stories on the training floor from Dr Gyi, Bobby Taboada, Mark Pacholec (IsshinRyu/LEO/Marine), Remy Presas, and countless other instructors civilian and military/LEO tell 'cautionary tales' or use personal experiences for the purpose of instruction and never felt that they were promoting violence.  I think what may happen is that some student, hungry for personal challenges/proving themselves... whatever, makes some poor judgement and doesn't deal with a potentially violent situation with self defense in mind, but proving themselves...I have heard this called the "GREEN BELT MENTALLITY." How is this the responsibility of the instructor who was using a story/experience for the purpose of illustration/instruction?  That is entirely on the accountability of the individual in the fight.  If the person chooses to ignore the entire context that the story/experience was being applied to (the above mentioned instructors ALL teach with self defensive purposes) that is their screw up.

I would never blame my Driver's Ed instructor of 'promoting drunk driving' if he brought in a driver from a DWI accident and had the DWI driver tell the story/experience.  If I miss the point of the story/experience and get drunk and drive, that is on me, not anyone else.

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

"Experience" is not condusive of success in a self defense encounter. The experienced vet could take a bullet just as easily as the green private. The experienced "brawler" can be taken out by a first timer. One doesn't mean the other."

"Experience", the way you are using it implies only successful outcomes - not always the case.  "Experience" just means that you have 'been there done that' maybe be survival was just dumb luck.  But it is essential to a fighters development because, if it was an 'unsuccessful' experience, the fighter will be forced to assess what went wrong: observation skills, judgement, fighting skills, personal courage...and train/prepare better/differently.  Individual or military unit, if you get your a(* handed to you on a platter, but are lucky enough to survive, that is essential to the development of the fighter.

Successful 'experiences' are both indicative of and conducive to fighter development because the fighter will be more confident in a theoretical future situation, and sometimes that confidence will come through in bearing, making him seem like a less likely target.  More successes in diverse situations will reinforce the application of the fundamentals the fighter is applying, and in his will and judgement about using it.

A fighter with in depth, realistic, intense training will have confidence in himself and his abilities, but without experiencing the reality, confidence is like faith - and a very essential component to survival success.  A fighter with experience will have knowledge that they can or can't do it and have to make adjustments from there.   

"Since this is true, experience is not a nessecity in developing skill, or abilities when we are refering to "combatives".

True, the development of skills/abilities can be honed and refined in training, but the fighter as a human complete package will develop as a whole from experience more from experience than the lack of it.

Paul M


----------



## loki09789

"Spec op vet Dale Comstock has developed this unique and deadly fighting style over a period of 28 years and has used it in 8 bloody combat missions...". 

This is a whole 'nother kettle of fish!  Firstly, whether you like his sales pitch or not, it is a sales pitch.  We all make them for ourselves or someone else in this business.  It is embellishment and exageration to get people to sign your name on their checks.

Listing a martial arts instructor as a "military trainer" because he has Reservists and Guardsman in his/her class is true, but exagerated.

Relatively speaking any martial art could be described as 'deadly', just part of the game.

Claiming personal application experience has gotten people in the door of many Martial Arts instructors, including RP - whether he intended to use it or not.

Comstock's claim that there are no boring practices and so on is common language in advertising as well, will he give the money back if you raise your hand and say "I'm bored, I want my money back."  Besides if he is tapping into his military/martial arts experience to develop his 'system', it will have some 'boring' stuff in it.  I have been through a lot of military training that made me want to saw off my arm and beat myself with it to stay awake.  

After reading the sample of his advertising, I would say he is promoting himself as the 'anti-trad martial artist' instructor, the 'anti-family TKD center' type, moreso than he is promoting violence.  "Money makes the world go around"

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

Geesh, I gotta get another hobby

"p.s. Remy Presas is my model example (sic) but in large groups he didn't glorify his "combat experience." He taught, and realized, that being in violence doesn't make you the better "fighter," and isn't nessesary for self defense, and in fact contrasts it."

Based on his bio, the gang level, machismo fighting that he experienced that lead to this conclusion is sound, but that is not exactly the same as military/leo service as promotion of or a source of innovation within a self defense art.

"He let his charisma and technical ability speak multitudes for himself. Perhaps we should strive for this, rather then glorifying "our life on the streets" or "the blood I've seen when I was in the service" or whatever foolish pile of S**T that is popular now a days."

His charisma and technical ability was inspirational and spoke volumes to his role as an instructor, not a fighter.  THe fact that he was standing there with all his fingers and toes spoke to his role as a fighter.  And again, I would really hesitate to question the validity of a serviceman/leo's experience as a credible part of his resume as a martial arts instructor/system head.  The purpose/application and type of preparation for these types is very different from that of an admitted reformed 'gang banger' in essence.

There will be a whole generation of military martial artists who could be giving us a run for our money if the rest of the US military follows the trend of the USMC's martial arts program (loosely modelled after the ROK Marine and Krav programs).  They will be able to say that they are the only 'government sponsered/sanctioned' art taught by and for Marines.... I can just picture the advertising.  Entirely legitimate and accurate WITH a solid moral structure in place with the USMC Corps values program.  Not to mention the ONLY modern lineage recorded and verified by the US government via military service records.  Stiff competition in the future.

Paul M>


----------



## Cruentus

I am not talking about someone who uses his experience as a teaching tool. Back to the Remy P. example, I remember when he was talking about how rompida saved his life when all he had was a stick, and his attacker chased him with 2 swords. Professor came to a cliff with running water underneath, so he could no longer run. He used rompida to live through that circumstance.

Hmmmm.....what happened to the reast of the tale about the "bloody battle"? He didn't need to tell it. 

Even if someone does use their experience to teach a lesson, there is a big difference between "This is what happened, I survived, and here is what I learned.." and "I was in a violent bloody battle so look at how tough I am, and how credible of a "fighter" and "instructor" that I must be." There are many people who use their experience as teaching tools who I respect. There are also many who try to use their experience to promote themselves or give themselves credability by saying that their experience somehow elivates them above every other instructor. I think that these people are promoting violence, and most often they are spreading lies and fantasy.

Fact: Experience doesn't mean you'll survive.
Fact: Experience doesn't make your skilled.
Fact: To promote the idea that YOU are somehow "better" because of your experience is not only promoting lies, but it is also encouraging your students to seek the same experiences so that they can also be "better"; you are promoting violence and fantasy despite what you may say to the contrary.

Now, do many credible instructors do this sort of self promotion in their ads? Yes they do. However, I still think that it is stupid and misleading. Yes, I am going against the grain of what is generally accepted. However, just because "everyone else is doing it", that doesn't make it right.

The fact is, just because you were a gang member, hitman, streetpunk, LEO, Military, bouncer, or whatever, this doesn't mean that you are skilled, and it doesn't make you a credible instructor. All this means is that you have a particular point of view. Because of this, it can and should go on your resume' as part of your viewpoint and what you have to offer; but if you are trying to use this to try to boost yourself above everyone else then not only are you falsely advertising yourself, but you might be helping to spread violence and martial fantasy if you find yourself indulging in all your "real world" experience. Sorry to break to any of you who were looking to use this as a boost for your credability....lol.

So, that's the way that it is. And it really doesn't matter how people 'feel' about the subject, because the fact is, WE all have to make the choice as to whether we are going to sacrifice morality, the prevention of violence, and quality instruction for self-promotion. WE have to decide if we are to engage in outright stupid marketing tactics and ridicules claims or not. 

I happened to choose not.

PAUL

btw.. I liked Tom's analogy with Rock climbing. It seemed to fit a bit better. Also, it expressed the idea that experience is a factor, but is not the measurement or garaunteer of success, which is the main point I have been getting at all along.


----------



## MJS

loki09789 said:
			
		

> "IF you think it is nessecary for someone to have real fighting experience to truely have good combative skills, then you are promoting for others to seek out these experiences. In other words your promoting for others to get into fights. In other words (in case your a mental cripple and can't understand) your promoting violence."



Unless I'm reading wrong here, and that is very possible, I gotta disagree with the above.  Going out and looking for a fight is stupid.  However, in your training, you should be training as realistically as possible.  Now, before someone starts yelling, let me explain what I mean.  Am I saying that if you want to learn "real" knife defense or "real" gun defense, that you need to train with a real weapon?? Not at all.  But, why not use a water gun or a marker?  Dont you think that'll give a more realistic response?  Adding a little aliveness and resistance will be a huge plus in anyones training.

Mike


----------



## Toasty

Wow, this has alot of posts!! It kinda went all over the place & has left the actual question of the effectiveness of Arnis empty hands so I will add a little "gas to the fire" if you will...

Can you call yourself a fighter/warrior if you have never been in a fight/war?
And, outside of going out & picking fights (which will get you hurt & probably put in jail - so dont do that) what are our options to "test" our abilities (or lack thereof)?

looking forward to replies,(remembering that all answers are personal opinions & not facts by the way)

Rob


----------



## MJS

Toasty said:
			
		

> Wow, this has alot of posts!! It kinda went all over the place & has left the actual question of the effectiveness of Arnis empty hands so I will add a little "gas to the fire" if you will...



Yes, you're right.  It did get off topic, and it would be nice if it got back on track.



> Can you call yourself a fighter/warrior if you have never been in a fight/war?



Sure, why not.  Look at it like this.  There are people that are excellent when it comes to drawing pictures.  Now, jsut cuz their pics. dont end up in a museum or art gallery, does that mean that they suck??  We all train for different reasons.  Some for fighting, and some for the tradition.  I train to learn to defend myself.  I'm always striving to improve myself and get better.  Do I have to enter a cage to do this?  IMO, not at all.



> And, outside of going out & picking fights (which will get you hurt & probably put in jail - so dont do that) what are our options to "test" our abilities (or lack thereof)?



There is always gonna be rules and limitations with our training.  If every time we trained eye jabs, we actually hit our opp. then we'd be running out of training partners.  So....how are we gonna know if that eye jab is gonna work?  All you can do is train as realistic as you can, and hope that everything you've been doing over the past X number of years, is gonna pay off if you need it.

Mike


----------



## loki09789

MJS said:
			
		

> Unless I'm reading wrong here, and that is very possible, I gotta disagree with the above.  Going out and looking for a fight is stupid.  However, in your training, you should be training as realistically as possible.  Now, before someone starts yelling, let me explain what I mean.  Am I saying that if you want to learn "real" knife defense or "real" gun defense, that you need to train with a real weapon?? Not at all.  But, why not use a water gun or a marker?  Dont you think that'll give a more realistic response?  Adding a little aliveness and resistance will be a huge plus in anyones training.
> 
> Mike



I agree with you Mike, and the quote you pasted was originally by Paul J. that I was responding to.

I think that effective training that simulates reality as closely as possible will create confidence, reasonable confidence in a student/fighter's abilities.  This is also the most reasonable way to get as close as possible within the moral, ethical and legal world of self defense training.  My point here, based on the original discussion idea of whether real experience is a necessity to fighter development, is that these are great ways to train right to the edge, but unless you have been over that edge, you are instilling training experience and confidence.  These are very different from actual experienc.  I will gladly spend the rest of my life being 'confident' in my abilities at the sacrifice of my 'fighter development.' But, if I ever do have to use my training experience, I will have gained knowledge which is very different.

Paul M


----------



## Tgace

I dont see where Paul M's view and mine part. Neither of us stated that getting into fights is necessary to make you a better fighter or recommended doing so. As a matter of fact we bolth stated that avoiding fights is the best defense (and were accused of putting "tactics" above fighting skills). What I believe we are saying is that "fighting is fighting" and "training is training". You have to get as close to "real" as you can get if you expect your training to work. And admit it, all things being equal (thats important enough to repeat) regarding training and technical expertise, we naturally tend to give more credibility to those who have "been there, done that".


----------



## Cruentus

Toasty said:
			
		

> Can you call yourself a fighter/warrior if you have never been in a fight/war?
> And, outside of going out & picking fights (which will get you hurt & probably put in jail - so dont do that) what are our options to "test" our abilities (or lack thereof)?
> 
> Rob



Good questions. 

I'd say for the first one that it depends on what your definition of "fighter" or "warrior" is. We have a huge definition problem in the self-defense/martial arts industry. It comes up all the time, and many arguements have been caused because both parties are not seeing eye to eye on a definition or two, so they are both argueing from differrent points of references.  The "Martial Arts" industry (including Reality Based self defense and combatives) is a specialized field, therefore "dictionary" definitions or definitions from other industries don't directly apply to the meaning of certian words in the "martial arts" community. Also, other specialized industries, have boards or organizations setting the standards of practice and defining terms (Doctors have a medical board and resources to define industry specific terms for example). With no one board or organization setting the standards or defining terms, we have no set meaning of many of these terms that are commonly thrown around.

You can find examples of this particularly all over the net. For specifics, look earlier in this thread where Paul M. (Loki) and myself both had different definitions of the word "tactics." Also look here where there was a discussion of the word "warrior spirit": http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12959

I gave a basic definition (not one that I was married too, but one that I proposed for a conversation piece) of the word that one would think would cover it, yet there were many different ideas. You can see how this definition problem that we have effects us in the thread that caused me to start the above discussion about the definition of "warrior spirit" here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12917

You can see how obtuse some of these conversations and arguements can be. People in my last link are intensely discussing whether "warrior spirit" is learned or instinct, or what have you; yet no one really has agreed on what the definition of "warrior spirit" is.

Another discussion of "definitions" here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12992

So, as you can see, it all depends. I used the word "fighter" for lack of a better term in my arguement previously in this thread. Instead of arguing over the term "fighter" looking at my different posts and the context of how I used the word will illustrate my arguement in regards to "experience".

So can you be a "fighter" or "warrior"....? Depends on the definition of these words.

*Second Question:* To answer the second question, I think that training as realistically is possible is the key. Training both the technical and conceptual aspects of the art, added with the tactical aspects of your environment is key. Including all elements of self defense in your training instead of only certian elements that convienently fit with your skillset is key. Adding "Live" training or making sure you train with resisting unpredictable partners (sparring type) is key. Learning how to "translate" what you know to different circumstances so you can apply your knowledge is key. And also, understanding that no 2 "real life" circumstances will be the same, and that "training" is not the same as "real life" will allow you to be prepared for the unexpected is key.

These are some elements that I think we can do, anyways.

 :ultracool


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman

Paul Martin-

just curious, what is your MOS in the Marines?


----------



## loki09789

There have been many tangents to the original thread, but the last one as far as I knew was reactions and opinions about the statement:

"Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity."

The change of topic to that of morals, false claims, and credibility isn't the focus of the posts I was making.  The development of a fighter is.

"So, that's the way that it is. And it really doesn't matter how people 'feel' about the subject, because the fact is, WE all have to make the choice "

This is the only "fact" that I agree with, but just because I agree with it doesn't make it a fact, but a shared opinion.  Facts are just evident, we organize them into logical constructs to reveal 'truth.' But, since 'truth' changes from person to person, culture to culture it is really opinion/values.  I respect your stand that you will not promote violence, again I agree and also don't do this.  But, the logical link from experience/fighter development and promotion of violence is really opinion and not fact.  I could line up a logic thread that 'proves' that Ray Charles is God.

This is my problem with the idea that just because an instructor doesn't boast in advertising, or list fight resumes in advertising he/she is promoting violence:

"No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously...

"Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you
meet.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
H. L. Mencken


PAUL Ghostface Killa

These signatures and the images of pirate's and skull/crossbones don't mention anything about 'self defense' justifications for the violence promised or intended.  These images/quotes could be seen as 'promotion' of violence because they express a pirate/raider/mercenary philosophy/justification of violence for the preservation or improvement of a way of life.

If these images/quotes were hanging on the window/posters of a school I was interested in attending, or sending my son to, I would not make past the lobby.  Since this is an internet forum, globally accessible it is a form of advertising....  who is getting the message?

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

Renegade said:
			
		

> Paul Martin-
> 
> just curious, what is your MOS in the Marines?



I am no longer in the USMC, I was in from 1988 to 1992 (active), 92 to 94 (reserve).  I then joined the 105th MP Company with TGACE (thanks again Tom) from 94 to 2001.  

My first MOS was as a USMC clerck/typist.  I served with 3rd Force Service Support Group in Okinawa (fun, good 'get out of the office' training) then Headquarters Marine Corps in Wash DC (not so fun, no real training).  I was approved for the Public Affairs/Journalism MOS (my original enlistment choice, but got lied to by a recruiter - old story) but decided to get out of active service for my college/family priorities.  After that, in the reserves I was a Corporal Fire Team Leader, then a Squad Leader in charge of 12 Marine infantrymen (general and cold weather operations).

When I joined the National Guard (MP's), I was assigned as a Fire Team leader, and after completing MOS Qualification I was promoted to Squad Leader in charge of 9 MP's and three HMV's with attached weapon systems.

Now I am out, but really want to finish my 20 years eventually, more as a personal commitment issue than the retirement. There are family issues that make that a complicated issue though.

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

Sorry, forgot a piece...in the USMC reserve I got out because the last 6 months of my contract the unit commander reassigned me to the admin shop because I was the one with the 'experience' (not good in this case). I said I would do it, but when they wouldn't let me go back to the rifle platoons when I conned... I mean recruited another Marine with Admin experience/mos to take the job, I left.  The office was just not as fun.  Come on, getting to play cowboys and indians all day compared to typing....filing......SNORE!


Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

loki09789 said:
			
		

> There have been many tangents to the original thread, but the last one as far as I knew was reactions and opinions about the statement:
> 
> "Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity."
> 
> The change of topic to that of morals, false claims, and credibility isn't the focus of the posts I was making.  The development of a fighter is.
> 
> "So, that's the way that it is. And it really doesn't matter how people 'feel' about the subject, because the fact is, WE all have to make the choice "
> 
> This is the only "fact" that I agree with, but just because I agree with it doesn't make it a fact, but a shared opinion.  Facts are just evident, we organize them into logical constructs to reveal 'truth.' But, since 'truth' changes from person to person, culture to culture it is really opinion/values.  I respect your stand that you will not promote violence, again I agree and also don't do this.  But, the logical link from experience/fighter development and promotion of violence is really opinion and not fact.  I could line up a logic thread that 'proves' that Ray Charles is God.
> 
> This is my problem with the idea that just because an instructor doesn't boast in advertising, or list fight resumes in advertising he/she is promoting violence:
> 
> "No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously...
> 
> "Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you
> meet.
> 
> "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
> H. L. Mencken
> 
> 
> PAUL Ghostface Killa
> 
> These signatures and the images of pirate's and skull/crossbones don't mention anything about 'self defense' justifications for the violence promised or intended.  These images/quotes could be seen as 'promotion' of violence because they express a pirate/raider/mercenary philosophy/justification of violence for the preservation or improvement of a way of life.
> 
> If these images/quotes were hanging on the window/posters of a school I was interested in attending, or sending my son to, I would not make past the lobby.  Since this is an internet forum, globally accessible it is a form of advertising....  who is getting the message?
> 
> Paul M.



First of all, what is our definition of "fighter"? I'd actually like to renege the word "fighter" because I used it for lack of a better term. 

Regardless, despite a semantics dispute, my arguement is quite clear when you put it into the context of the entire thread where I have expressed my arguement in many different ways. Examples:

""Experience" is not condusive of success in a self defense encounter. The experienced vet could take a bullet just as easily as the green private. The experienced "brawler" can be taken out by a first timer. One doesn't mean the other."

"experience is not a nessecity in developing skill, or abilities when we are refering to "combatives". If your propigating anything but this idea, then not only are you indulging in "martial fantasy" yourself, but your promoting violence with your own students."

"To promote the idea that YOU are somehow "better" because of your experience is not only promoting lies, but it is also encouraging your students to seek the same experiences so that they can also be "better"; you are promoting violence and fantasy despite what you may say to the contrary."

So, I think its pretty clear what my arguement is. I'm not the one who has been trying to change the context of the argement here.

Now, a "fact" is "a piece of information presented as having objective reality".

"Reality" is 1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

An opinion is: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.

Now, the antonym for fact is "illusion". An illusion, as applied to this conversation, is: something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature.

Indulging in "illusion" over "fact" creates "fantasy". A fantasy, as it applies here is: the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need. 

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Fact&x=20&y=11
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=reality&x=13&y=17
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Opinion&x=13&y=9
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=illusion&x=12&y=13
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Fantasy&x=19&y=15

A statement like "We make choices" is either fact or illusion, and can be logically proven either way. Your opinion or belief as to whether this statement is fact or illusion is inconsequentual to the arguement. What your "opinion" does demonstrate is if you are willing to accept "reality" or if you would rather indulge in "fantasy." A statement like, "Well, in my opinion the idea that 'we make choices' might not be true because, uh, how do we know that our minds aren't being controlled by aliens," would be an extreme example of how a refusal to argue facts and instead indulge in opinions leads to indulging in fantasy. This happends in Martial Arts/self defense all the time. "In my opinion weapons aren't useful because they can be turned against you in a fight!" As it pertains to this discussion, "In my opinion he MUST be skilled in self defense because he was trained in the military and got into lots of fights" Or, "In my opinion you just can't be skilled in self defense or combat unless you've been in the trenches like me!" These statements are examples of using an opinion to indulge in illusion or fantasy to appeal to a psychological need.   

Now, the statements that I have said to be "fact" here have been shown as such through a logical arguement. To try to deminsh these "facts" as mere "opinions" with no logical arguement to prove that the statements in question are "illusion" is a blatent demonstration of an inability to accept "reality," and an inclination towards "fantasy".

I choose to look at "facts," and I find "facts" through evidence and logic, and I choose to accept "reality". I think it is imperitive to good self defense and martial developement to look at "reality" rather then to indulge in "fantasy." I can't help it if many people in martial arts/self-defense circles would rather indulge in "illusion" and "fantasy" over "reality," to appease some psychological need to be better/tougher/etc. then someone else. 

We can discuss whether a blatent statement is fact or illusion. If you'd rather indulge in your opinion, that's your choice, although I don't know how many people will be interested. If you'd rather indulge in fantasy and illusion too, well, hey, go for it. I just ask that we not misunderstand what I am saying, dispite what planet we'd like to pretend we're on today.

and, btw, I'd love to argue over whether Ray Charles is God anyday!   

Now you said: 





> This is my problem with the idea that just because an instructor doesn't boast in advertising, or list fight resumes in advertising he/she is promoting violence:



I am not sure what you mean with that statement.   

Now in terms of the rest, you are committing the very common logical falacy of "Argumentum ad hominem" or "arguement against the man." Your trying to bring down the credability of my arguement by criticizing me and my behavior. Me or my behavior, whether right or wrong, has nothing to do with the arguement. In fact, you have been doing this throughout the thread, and I find it pretty laughable. I haven't said anything until now, because, well, a good sign that someone is clearly losing an arguement is when they resort to trying to bring down your credability. Perhaps my signature lines do promote violence if "you find a way to take it too seriously." I have them there because I find them humorous, but I have been thinking about changing some of them since this thread so I don't come accross as one who promotes violence.

Yet...what do my signature lines, or even my past behavior have to do with my arguement, or the facts that I have presented?

NOTHING!  :rofl:


----------



## loki09789

Perhaps my signature lines do promote violence if "you find a way to take it too seriously." I have them there because I find them humorous, but I have been thinking about changing some of them since this thread so I don't come accross as one who promotes violence.

This acknowledges an inconsistency between you as the messenger and the message of refusing to promote violence. Any inconsistencies in the communication chain  - messenger/message/receiver  will create confusion and lack of credibility of the point.  Much like your:

That's the bottom line, folks. That's the REAL DEAL. I don't care if you disclaim it by saying, "I don't condone getting into fights." Your disclaimer is the equivelent of a parent telling a child that swearing is wrong, after rebuking them with a slew of F and S bombs.

You are stating that any inconsistency between the action of the person making a claim/disclaim invalidates the persons claim.  You say you stand for something, yet your behavior is inconsistent, that undermines your topical stance, because you are not applying it yourself.  You are talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

You are condoning fighting with these signatures as well as by your no regrets statements about past behaviors. Using you as a living example was an attempt to make my point clearer because you are in the example, and have direct experience with the example. Since analogies dont seem to work for you, this direct exampling was an attempt to make my opinion clear.  "If you cant even live by this code, is it valid?" was the basic message.

Personally, I don't give a flying F**k if the whole world disagrees with me on this one. I will stand behind my opinion on this, because I will learn/teach survival, I will learn/teach martial arts, but I will not promote violence.

You have said that it is a fact, yet here it is your opinion.  Facts are evident, meaning observable and existent.  Opinions are personal. 

I can help build someones ability to handle real life encounters, without them having to be in a "real life" encounter themselves, and they will be just as effective, or even more effective as someone with a load of experience.

Building ability is not the same as building or developing the fighter.  And again you can be confident and have faith that students' are prepared, but saying that you know that they will be just as effective is the ultimate in martial fantasy, and a dangerous piece of advertising (in the form of a testimonial/claim) to make.

Paul M


----------



## DoxN4cer

Well this thread has certainly become a turd tossing contest. Hasn't it? Some of it was quite interesting, while much seems to be the same old personality conflict driven rhetoric.



			
				PAUL said:
			
		

> ...Now in terms of the rest, you are committing the very common logical falacy of "Argumentum ad hominem" or "arguement against the man." Your trying to bring down the credability of my arguement by criticizing me and my behavior. Me or my behavior, whether right or wrong, has nothing to do with the arguement. In fact, you have been doing this throughout the thread, and I find it pretty laughable. I haven't said anything until now, because, well, a good sign that someone is clearly losing an arguement is when they resort to trying to bring down your credability...



Why is it an argument? I thought this was a discussion forum.

Paul Martin isn't the only one doing that, Mr. Janulius. You have also done that throughout this thread, and I belive it isn't so mouch what Paul, Tom and I are saying rather than who we are and what we represent in your mind. On occasion you even paraphased things that someone else had said as if it were your own idea, after you had already disagreed with the original statement. You are making argument just for agument's sake. Do yourself a favor and step away from the computer and back into the training hall.   

I don't know how say this in a nice way, so if I offend you please allow me to apologize in advance. You're missing the point in terms of what is being said, and ridiculing things that you know little nothing about. It appears as though you spend more time ranting on the internet than you do in persuit of "perfect technique" as you say. Your arguement belies your lack of "real world experience". It's just my observation based on my experience that the man with the loudest voice has the least. 

The hockey analogy was flawed in the way it came across. However, the analogy is quite valid. Any team sport makes a valid analogy. Hockey, Football, Lacrosse...you name it... is a team working together as one entity to dominate and the oppostion. Much like an infantry squad conducts fire and maneuver to out-position and overwhelm an objective, which in turn is much like the way your arms, legs and mind work together when you're in individual combat. Anyone a small amount of knowledge and experience could see that and make a valid comparison.

I have already conceded that experience is not "end-all-be-all". However, you continue bring extreme cases persons claiming "X" number of battles, brawls, etc.  High profilers like that are on ego trips and are out for your money rather than your betterment. In my experience, the most serious operators out there are people with real world experience that keep a low profile. If you have the opportunity to learn from them you are fortunate.  

What's worse: a "high profile" braggard with real world experience, or "master" with none claiming to teach "combat oriented", effective self defense?  

Your de-valuing of experience is short sited, Paul. It's all part of the combative equation, so to speak. Experience is how you learn beyond the classroom, beyond the training hall, beyond the private lessons. it is an essential part in the development of any skill set.  That's my last word on the matter. I won't let you drag me into your urination conflict, though I do expect you to run off at the mouth (or keyborad in this case) in a response disigned to discredit what I have to say.  

Tim Kashino


----------



## loki09789

Here's my point in a nut shell:

IMO, experience is not the end all be all of fighter development, because there are other factors to weigh into the equation - training, character, fitness, age, education.....  But, experience is a necessity in fighter development because it is 'combat' (I prefer self defense, but this is what was proposed) that we are preparing for, therefore everything else is preparation.

The enigma is that, within my own view, in order to develop yourself as a fighter then requires that you have experience.  This does not automatically mean that I, my students (past and future) or other practitioners MUST SEEK experience.  It does mean that for those who are well trained, fight in full contact and scenario formats, can break boards and recite the state penal laws on use of force are only well trained.  

Within the self defense focus of my training/instruction, Students with no experience are not as well developed as those with experience, they know that, and I know that.  And within the context and INTENT of the training, that is good.  I train them to 'avoid' experience because that is moral, ethical and legal.  But, if avoidance will only put them in further danger than defending themselves, they will respond based on their personal make up/character combined with their training - that is the whole fighter.  Not just combatives skills/abilities, but the whole fighter.  

If they/I am lucky enough ( and by that I mean I have tilted the odd in my favor with training and preparation, but acknowledge the other factors beyond my control)  to survive, I have gained experience that cannot be replaced by training.

I guess I am comfortable enough with my place in this overall pecking order of martial arts/combatives community to know that I will be in the 'confident' category as long as I don't have 'experience' and therefore a less developed fighter than someone else.  If I spend the rest of my life 'confident' and not 'experienced' I guess I am the better "self defense/fighter" because I have used the minimal amount of force to stop a threat - because I wasn't even there, or defused it before it could manifest.  Conceptually this would be, to me the highest level of Economy of Motion in a realistic expression.

How can any of that be spun into me, knowingly or not, promoting violence?  I ask because you have said that anyone who says that experience is a necessity for fighter development is promoting violence.  That would be me, and I don't think that I am engaging in Martial fantasy - which sounds like an attack on the character/ego/intelligence of anyone who doesn't see it your way.

Paul M.


----------



## loki09789

"a good sign that someone is clearly losing an arguement is when they resort to trying to bring down your credability. "

First, I am on board with Tim K's point about this being a 'friendly discussion' and not an argument.

Secondly, I think it is clearer that, based on the 'fact' that you see this as an argument you are feeling the heat because none of the three following posts are related:

""Experience" is not condusive of success in a self defense encounter"
Basically, experience in self defense means dooky to future encounters.
So this one is about encounters and experience. Not experience/development as a necessity.

"experience is not a nessecity in developing skill, or abilities when we are refering to "combatives". 
Basically, skills and abilities can be developed outside of actual application.  So this one is about skills and abilities. Again, not fighter development...

"To promote the idea that YOU are somehow "better" because of your experience is not only promoting lies,"
Basically, if an individual artist thinks they are better because of fight experience, they are wrong.
So this one is about ego and identity. You know the song, sing along.

Three different messages/themes when the original point was, for me at least, to respond with my opinion on the following.

"Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity."

I responded, you disagreed.  We continued to go back and forth. Somewhere along the way it seemed to become personal with you because you felt the need to make a disclaimer, regardless of your "it's not any of you..." statement.  Now it is an argument. And in the process told me and those like me that believe, not as a fact but opinion that experience is a necessity...and if I am alone, okay you are telling me...we were stupid and dilluded about what we were doing and how we saw our training....

"If your propigating anything but this idea, then not only are you indulging in "martial fantasy" yourself, but your promoting violence with your own students."

I think it might be time to move on if this has become an argument.

Paul M


----------



## Cruentus

There are a lot of posts here, so please excuse me as I'll be addressing them one at a time.  :asian: 

*Paul M.: In regards to your fist response to my last post *



> This acknowledges an inconsistency between you as the messenger and the message of refusing to promote violence. Any inconsistencies in the communication chain - messenger/message/receiver  will create confusion and lack of credibility of the point.



NO...this is a falacy. I can argue that cheating on ones spouse is wrong, even if I have cheated on my spouse before. Whether the arguement is right or wrong has nothing to do with the credability of the arguer.

_ Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.
_ 

There...I did the research for you. "Argument against the man" is a very common fallacy, and truthfully if you were to try this tactic in a university debate its safe to say that the judges would deem that you lost the arguement.

If I have done things, inadvertantly or otherwise, to promote violence in the past, or if I do so in the future, this doesn't make my arguement regarding the promotion of violence wrong. If anything, it says that I am human and that I can make mistakes. I already admitted that I should have used different language in the "warning" post in regards to Dr. B and Bob. In my anger, I was promoting "violence" through my language, and it was wrong. But as I said before, I didn't initiate the problem, therefore I am not apoligizing for it. Secondly, the "warning" WAS warranted, I just should have used different language.

We all make mistakes...I don't regret mine, but I can admit to them and learn from them. Regardless, no mistake I have made or will make renders my arguements invalid. An inability to admit when we are mistaken does make us hippocrites though...hmmm.  :idea: More on that later...



> Building ability is not the same as building or developing the fighter. And again you can be confident and have faith that students' are prepared, but saying that you know that they will be just as effective is the ultimate in martial fantasy, and a dangerous piece of advertising (in the form of a testimonial/claim) to make.



Well, I'll concede that my statement sounded pretty blatent. I should reiterate that I am not gaurunteeing to develop the "ultimate fighter" of any kind. I am simply saying that I can teach them, and the possability is there that they will be just as effective as someone with a load of experience. Obviously there are a lot of dynamics involved with that.

PAUL


----------



## Tgace

I went back and re-read this entire thread. Believe it or not  . Albeit tangental and wandering at points, much of it was quite interesting and, looking back, I enjoyed being made to put my point of view into type. Its good to be made to define your stance sometimes. 

The thing that confuses me is where this became an arguement. Yes some points of view and definitions were in conflict, but there are so many instance of general agreement that Im confused as to how we have taken this latest turn. Im getting the impression from the tones of some posts here, that some people believe that Tim K., Paul M. and myself are implying that (due to our professions/experience) we are somehow trying to lay claim to some sort of superiority....I can only speak for myself, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Things were much more constructive when we discussed things as "philosophy" rather than personal agenda.

In the grand scheme of internet discussion though.....admit it to yourself or not, we all like this kind of thing. Its the most active I have been on this board in a long time and I have been looking forward to seeing what the latest posts are. If only everybody could adhere to the saying "fight all we want as long as we are willing to drive each other to the hospital when we are done".


----------



## Cruentus

*Tim Kashino* 

First of all, an arguement is:  a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT.

It seems like Paul M. and I are in disagreement. I have given a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion, which is my _arguement_. Arguements can exist in a discussion, and they don't have to be inflamatory.



> Paul Martin isn't the only one doing that, Mr. Janulius. You have also done that throughout this thread, and I belive it isn't so mouch what Paul, Tom and I are saying rather than who we are and what we represent in your mind. On occasion you even paraphased things that someone else had said as if it were your own idea, after you had already disagreed with the original statement. You are making argument just for agument's sake. Do yourself a favor and step away from the computer and back into the training hall.



First of all, don't try to play "Mr. Psychologist" here. Your not smart enough nor do you have the training to try to decifer the psychology behind my posts. You have no idea what you guys "represent in my mind."   Also, don't think that you can say things without being called out on it. If you want to make the false claims that I have paraphrased things that someone else had said as if it were my own ideas, then you had better have the evidence to back it up. If you don't have the evidence, then your spreading lies and false information. And if your evidence is wrong, then unless you retract the statement and ADMIT THAT IT WAS WRONG, then you are also spreading lies. Wow...this ought to be fun.  :rofl:  Evidence please?

And since we are in the business of giving each other advise, apparently, I'll do myself a favor and go to the training hall as I always do, but I'll give you some advise as well. "A good commander only fights battles that can be won" - Sun Tzu. You should go back to the docks, Kashino, cause you can't win this one.

Now, to the heart of the problem:



> I don't know how say this in a nice way, so if I offend you please allow me to apologize in advance. You're missing the point in terms of what is being said, and ridiculing things that you know little nothing about. It appears as though you spend more time ranting on the internet than you do in persuit of "perfect technique" as you say. Your arguement belies your lack of "real world experience". It's just my observation based on my experience that the man with the loudest voice has the least.



Here in lies the problem I have with the false logic of "experience is a nessesity for martial arts/self defense skill." The same false logic that Paul M. has been argueing with me over and that you are now coming to his rescue over. You admitted previously to me being correct because you know that logically I am correct, but now your wanting to renege on that statement because, well, it would seem that if my conjecture were true, then you wouldn't be able to use your military experience to elevate you above the rest of the world. So sad, too bad.

Yes, I do see that you especially, and Paul M., seem to want to be able to use your "real world" experience to elevate yourselves above others. At least for you, it is evident in this post. "Your arguement belies your lack of 'real world experience.'"   And how do you know what my experiences are? People wondered why I felt the need to disclaim that I have had real world experience before...well now you all know why. lol...its like I'm psychic...scary, isn't it? It must be my tin hat I'm wearing....  



> The hockey analogy was flawed in the way it came across. However, the analogy is quite valid. Any team sport makes a valid analogy. Hockey, Football, Lacrosse...you name it... is a team working together as one entity to dominate and the oppostion. Much like an infantry squad conducts fire and maneuver to out-position and overwhelm an objective, which in turn is much like the way your arms, legs and mind work together when you're in individual combat. Anyone a small amount of knowledge and experience could see that and make a valid comparison.



Oh... I see how the analogy works now. My arms and legs and hands and feet are like the members of a team! It makes total sense because of all those times my crazy elbows don't listen to my hands, my shoulders are always arguing, my knees are in perfect cooperation but ankles are a bit weak and my *** is slow to follow, and my pee-pee sometimes, well, just isn't in the game.  :roflmao: Yea...I think you can give it up now.  :deadhorse 



> I have already conceded that experience is not "end-all-be-all". However, you continue bring extreme cases persons claiming "X" number of battles, brawls, etc. High profilers like that are on ego trips and are out for your money rather than your betterment. In my experience, the most serious operators out there are people with real world experience that keep a low profile. If you have the opportunity to learn from them you are fortunate.



The examples I bring up aren't that extreme; they are all over the martial arts/self-dfense community. Yet, these examples partially prove exactly the flaw in the conjecture that experience is a nessecity.



> What's worse: a "high profile" braggard with real world experience, or "master" with none claiming to teach "combat oriented", effective self defense?



Two wrongs don't make a right.



> Your de-valuing of experience is short sited, Paul. It's all part of the combative equation, so to speak. Experience is how you learn beyond the classroom, beyond the training hall, beyond the private lessons. it is an essential part in the development of any skill set. That's my last word on the matter. I won't let you drag me into your urination conflict, though I do expect you to run off at the mouth (or keyborad in this case) in a response disigned to discredit what I have to say.



That's fine that this is your last word. In your last word you have shown your true belief that "experience" is a nessesity, you know, to have "true knowledge". If you want to propigate these kinds of fantasies, I can't stop you. However, you are the one who decided to poke your head in this toilet...I didn't drag you into anything. So, go back to the "Dox"...uh...."enforcer" 

PAUL

btw...What the hell is a "urination conflict"? If that something they do in the navy, or just in sicily?  :idunno:


----------



## Cruentus

Last couple of things, then I gotta run...



> IMO, experience is not the end all be all of fighter development, because there are other factors to weigh into the equation - training, character, fitness, age, education..... But, experience is a necessity in fighter development because it is 'combat' (I prefer self defense, but this is what was proposed) that we are preparing for, therefore everything else is preparation.



Well, say what you want in a nutshell. I agree with everything except the thing about "necessity." And understand that if you believe that "experience" is a necessity to fully develop your skills then you are inadvertantly encouraging "experiences", and therefore inadvertantly encouraging violence. Understand also that by doing this, this could lead to the propigation of "fantasy" and other things that negate good self defense.

That's my "opinion", anyways... :wink2:

Also, I have been very clear on my arguement up until this point. I pointed out the problem with my use of the word "fighter" because of the inconsistancy in the possible definitions of that word, but I explained my points in a variety of different ways. Since there appears to be some confusion as to how these connect, I'll break it down further. Yes, this can be confusing because there are multiple points being made here. Howver they all logically connect.

A. No two "experiences" are the same.
B. There are many factors involved in the developement of "skill," and experience is just one of these that may be a factor.
C. Because of A, experience does not ensure success in future encounters. 
D. Because of C and B, The inexperienced person could survive a self defense encounter over an experienced person.
E. Because of D, Experience is not a nessecity in the developement of skill, or a determination in the ability to survive.
F. Because of E, to promote the idea that Experience is a nessecity in the developement of skill or a determination in the ability to survive, then you are promoting lies.
G. Promoting "lies" leads to promoting "fantasy."
H. In a "Martial art", the goal is to develop skill and the ability to survive.
I. To encourage real world experience in martial arts is to promote violence.
J. If you commit the falsehood as described in F., then not only are you promoting lies, you are promoting fantasy (G), and because of H, you are encouraging violence as described by I.

Thats the arguement broken down in a logical format. You can see how it all connects. If you can't see the arguement, then you might need to go back to school.

* Tgace *

I know that the tendency is to lump you into the same category of Tim K and Paul M., but I don't believe your doing the same thing that they are. You are saying things a bit different then them in ways that I can accept and agree with much of what you are saying. Also, I don't think that your using your military/leo experience to lay claim to superiority at all. I do think that there are other things going on with Paul M. and Tim K.; things that I do have a problem with... :asian: 

* Things that seem to be occuring here that I have a problem with... *

#1. Inability to admit that you might be wrong. It would seem, Paul M. and Tim K., that you have an inability to admit that you might be wrong when we have disagreements. Its not fair, because If I am wrong, I'll admit it. I've admitted to being wrong on a couple of things in this thread already. You guys seem to stand by your arguements even when they are clearly false. It seems pathalogical; like you trying to appease a psycholigical need to be better then everyone else.

#2. Aversion in admitting when I (and others) might be correct. This goes hand and hand with #1. This isn't a d**k measuring contest ya know. If I happend to be correct in something, that doesn't make you PaulM or TimK, the lesser man. You have admitted it at times, as I have backed up your points at times. Yet, when it comes to the possibility that you might be wrong by admitting me right, there is a major problem. This fits with the pathology as described in #1.

#3. Inclination to use your "real world experience" "military training" and so forth to make you more "all knowing" then others around you. Paul M. and Tim K., That is why you are so adament in not seeing my arguement in regards to real world experience...this would crush your entire fantasy that you might just be better then everyone else because of your experiences. This also fits in with the same patholigy.

These are 3 major problems that I am seeing. I may be wrong, but I don't think so at this time. Solutions anyone? So...when do you think the D**k-waving is going to stop, fellas?

 :idunno:


----------



## Tgace

I do see your logic here BUT...I just cant entirely agree with playing down experience too much. Id much rather have experienced troops with me in combat, just as Id rather have an experienced cop backing me up over a brand new rookie. Somebody with a record of success has a better chance at future success (IMHO), while a rookie is "unknown". So my "personal" experience (not claiming fact here just IMHO) goes against C,D,E+F to some extent. So I cant accept all of your premises (SP?) as "Fact". But this goes back to my "tactics" thread.....experience goes beyond technique into all those "other" issues (terrain,positioning,taking advantage of situations, blah...blah...), those harder to quantitfy things that experience gives you a different perspective on. Is it "necessary"? If you do as you are trained, and you are trained well and "realistically", then you should do well. So I still say no. I aim to be a good gunfighter but Im not going out looking for a gunfight to prove it. But in defense of the other guys here, I cant find them stating the opposite. Granted theres some "history" here Id rather not get into. Id just like to see this turn back to the "constructive disagreement" we had earlier in this monster thread.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Tgace said:
			
		

> I do see your logic here BUT...I just cant entirely agree with playing down experience too much. Id much rather have experienced troops with me in combat, just as Id rather have an experienced cop backing me up over a brand new rookie. Somebody with a record of success has a better chance at future success (IMHO), while a rookie is "unknown". So my "personal" experience (not claiming fact here just IMHO) goes against C,D,E+F to some extent. So I cant accept all of your premises (SP?) as "Fact". But this goes back to my "tactics" thread.....experience goes beyond technique into all those "other" issues (terrain,positioning,taking advantage of situations, blah...blah...), those harder to quantitfy things that experience gives you a different perspective on. Is it "necessary"? If you do as you are trained, and you are trained well and "realistically", then you should do well. So I still say no. I aim to be a good gunfighter but Im not going out looking for a gunfight to prove it. But in defense of the other guys here, I cant find them stating the opposite. Granted theres some "history" here Id rather not get into. Id just like to see this turn back to the "constructive disagreement" we had earlier in this monster thread.


Tom,

Dr. Demming has study and book out about the willing worker and the red beads.

You have a tray that holds ten beads. You have a tub full of Non-red beads with a small percentage being red. You dip in your tray and you get your beads. You total them up. After five tries this is your week (* could be months of years *) work experience. You then lay off a third of the group, for being poor performers. You keep the rest as experienced and well trained employees. You have the top 10 percent train the new employees. Repeat the process, until you either loose all your employees or you shut down because you cannot produce.

In your case you would rather have a trained or experienced person at your side. What if there training was not real enough or actual enough, or they got through just by pure luck. So, your trained person could be a total loser when it comes to a gun fight in a house, because you experienced partner has no experience at all. Let us say 20 years of experience.

Next Case, you rookie partner has been in street fights and and knows how hold and shoot a gun, and also to treat a wound. Yet, he is green out of the academy and only 20 years old, with no work expereince.

Add, in that the 20 year experienced person has only dealt with traffic stops and not crack addicts.

The 20 year old knows how to carry himself and presents himself to handle a crowd and the crack addict.

Yes, you can say this is taking your point out of context. What I am trying to point out is that your point is that you properly trained people for the job with experience in the job at hand. I apologize for I do not mean to put words into your comments.


I agree I would like to have experienced people around me also.
:asian:


----------



## loki09789

Paul J.

Now, if the point of your post is to discredit Tim K's and My motivations/intentions/intelligence/self esteem, to indicate that our/my posts and opinion is wrong or that we are evading a lose, isn't that as invalid an argument by your own definition, as your perceived attack on you?  It doesn't take away from the points or topic being discussed:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

Aren't you basically saying? 

"Of course you'd argue that experience is a necessity, you have it." 

Sayings like Lead by example, Clean up your own yard and ducks in a row come to mind when we are having this discussion as the instructors and role models of students, some young enough to still be very impressionable. Especially when youre making statements like I will not promote violence, but you are saying that signatures with killing people is funny, and those signatures are on the internet.

Inconsistencies between word and deed do count in the real world when you are taking the role of teacher seriously.  We live in the real world, and in martial arts  like the skill you bring to the floor  your presentation of yourself is an expression of your values and beliefs.  If you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk or both you and the values you are promoting come into question.  I am focusing on the topic/discussion being invalid here, so dont spin this.

I could point to suspicions of personal attacks/set ups in the past as well.  I could have suspected an attempt at a personal attack with Tim Hs shift from topic to me earlier in this thread concerning how much I know about RP, or from your questioning my current instructor/training status, or the latest what is your MOS question by Tim H (who knew me when I was with the USMC Reserve, and have made no secret about my military experience to).  Based on this problem, you have should I see the Desk Jockey as me since one of my MOSs was a Clerk/Typist?  But, I chose to answer those questions frankly and honestly.  I could only go on what I readnot what I was reading into it.  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  So much for water under the bridge...

Conversely, you have made disclaimers about not being the 'inexperienced' person that only has training to rely on.  When I said that no one is trying to discredit you, your reply was it isnt any of you(paraphrase) and now it seems that it is 'us.'  

I have yet to find a time when Tim K, myself or anyone else has said that we are superior or better because of our experience/professional history.  I have yet to see how you can spin anything I have said as a promotion of violence.

I have been consistently talking about fighter development and experience, where you have been switching to topics of skills and abilities, false claims of experience, and the link between experience as essential and the promotion of violence was the questions/response searching suppose to be a trap?  You seem to have had this idea for a while. It didnt just come to you. And as soon as we said yes you pounced.

Ultimately, anyone teaching martial arts is 'promoting violence' by nature of the art.  The hole in your logic is that there is no mention of what type of violence, what type of justification continuum is being applied... to set up the contextual appropriateness of violence.  Look at my 'nutshell' post again and find where I am promoting violence, or using my experience to say I am better... than who by the way?  You, everyone.... Who are you accusing me of claiming to be superior to?

I was discussing, you were arguing.  I think it is time to leave this.  Reply all you want, I left questions and I know that you will respond to them.  Take the last word, I know how much it means to you.


Paul M>


----------



## Tgace

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Tom,
> 
> Dr. Demming has study and book out about the willing worker and the red beads.
> 
> You have a tray that holds ten beads. You have a tub full of Non-red beads with a small percentage being red. You dip in your tray and you get your beads. You total them up. After five tries this is your week (* could be months of years *) work experience. You then lay off a third of the group, for being poor performers. You keep the rest as experienced and well trained employees. You have the top 10 percent train the new employees. Repeat the process, until you either loose all your employees or you shut down because you cannot produce.
> 
> In your case you would rather have a trained or experienced person at your side. What if there training was not real enough or actual enough, or they got through just by pure luck. So, your trained person could be a total loser when it comes to a gun fight in a house, because you experienced partner has no experience at all. Let us say 20 years of experience.
> 
> Next Case, you rookie partner has been in street fights and and knows how hold and shoot a gun, and also to treat a wound. Yet, he is green out of the academy and only 20 years old, with no work expereince.
> 
> Add, in that the 20 year experienced person has only dealt with traffic stops and not crack addicts.
> 
> The 20 year old knows how to carry himself and presents himself to handle a crowd and the crack addict.
> 
> Yes, you can say this is taking your point out of context. What I am trying to point out is that your point is that you properly trained people for the job with experience in the job at hand. I apologize for I do not mean to put words into your comments.
> 
> 
> I agree I would like to have experienced people around me also.
> :asian:



Like i said I dont "entirely" agree. Yes I see your point, but the rookie with "street" experience right out of the academy still has "experience" dosent he? What about the guy from the burbs straight out of community college with only "book training"? Im not certain I can agree entirely with the "bead dipper" analogy. The professions I mentioned involve more than simple manual labor. BUT I do find points I can agree with in almost everybodys points. And like I said, I dont believe that experience is the "end all, be all", but I hesitate to minimize its importance either. The trouble here lately is everybody wants "all or nothing" with their drive to force their opinion down each everybodys throat. (theres enough of that to go around so dont assume im talking about anybody in particular)

 :asian:


----------



## Tapps

Thinking like a fighter IS manditory.

Actual fights can be valuable but evry fight is different. You never know exactly how you will react till you're in a situation.


----------



## loki09789

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Tom,
> 
> Yes, you can say this is taking your point out of context. What I am trying to point out is that your point is that you properly trained people for the job with experience in the job at hand. I apologize for I do not mean to put words into your comments.
> 
> 
> I agree I would like to have experienced people around me also.
> :asian:



I don't think that this is taking Tom's quote out of context as putting it back into context.  Tom is discussing experience as a separate topic and you are plugging it back into an analogous contruct, sounds fitting - considering that even though he, and I have been discussing experience singly, the discussion and points are only valid if all things being equal.  I would say, meaning me and not you, that you are implying that experience AND training are necessities to fighter development.  That I can respect that point.

If I am off on my interp, sorry and let me know.

Paul M.


----------



## Cruentus

First of all, I will concede that if I were a LEO or in the military, I would want the experienced person, depending on who they are and what they know, by my side too. It would have little to do with hand-to-hand combatives skill, and would have more to do with the other knowledge they have. This still doesn't make experience a nessecity, but I do see what you mean when coming from a military/LEO perspective.

* Paul M. *

First of all, don't be a Kashino and fault me for "having the last word." Thats not fair, considering that you posed questions to me and comments that warrant explaination on my part.

#1. I am not trying to discredit you or Tim K in saying that you are bad people, or you have ill motives, or whatever. I AM _questioning_ you motives and behavior though. There is a difference. I am saying that it SEEMS that both have A. an inability to being able to admit that you might be wrong, B. an aversion to being able to admit that someone else (particularly me) might be correct, and C. an inclination to try to elevate yourselves through various methods. This behavior would be fitting with a psychological need to be better then others. And a psychological need to elevate oneself implies a short coming in other areas, whether technical or otherwise. I know that this comes across as disrespectful and insulting, and I do apoligize for that. Unfortunatily, I don't know another way to be frank about what I think might be going on here. I either have to sacrifice honesty for politeness, or vice versa. I choose to sacrifice politeness. Now, am I saying that all these things are "fact"....no. I don't know if this is what is occuring or not, but it sure does seem that some shady motives are in place here. I am trying to figure it out.

#2. You thinking that experience is "nessecary" does convienently suit the pathology of "I'm better" given that you can try to lay claims to "experience" with a military background. It does make me question your motives in your refusal to even see my arguement as a valid one, even if you don't agree with my downplay of experience. Yet, I am not saying, "Of course you'd argue experience is a necessity, you have it, so your arguement must be wrong." If I was saying that, then yes, I'd be guilty of logical falacy. I can question your motive to understand why you'd stand by a losing arguement so ademently, but I must recognize that your arguement isn't a losing one BECAUSE of your motive. Like credability, motive doesn't make an arguement right or wrong. I have understood this all along, hence why I am not the one guilty of falacy here.

#3. You can try to "defame" me all you want by drawing attention to my signature lines or past behavior, but the FACT is that you don't know how I interact with my students or how I act on the training floor (outside the symposium, but we weren't really able to interact much there) to be able to say that I am "setting a bad example". 

But, I can admit when you are right, because I don't have the patholigy where I have to be "right" all the time. I may be very blunt and vocal, but that doesn't mean that I am not here to gain insight and to learn. Having said that, I'll say that you have a valid point about my signature lines. I am only screwing around with them, yet someone may get the wrong idea. As I said previously, as soon as I figure out what to change them too, I plan to change them.  :asian: 

#4. Hey, in regards to your military experience, I respect your honesty and the fact that you have been very candid about your duty. I also respect what you do even if it is behind a desk; your serving your country and that's what is important, and you are not lieing about your service and that is very respectful. My "desk jockey" comment was not a shot at you at all, nor were any of my other comments a shot at your military record. I respect your honesty in this manner, and I respect that you have been able to serve our country. My respect for service extends to Tim K. as well. As much as you guys can piss me off at times, this doesn't mean that I disregard or disrespect the fact that you are serving our country. Thanks again for your honesty....you should be proud of your service!   

#5. When I gave my disclaimer about my own personal experience, I stated that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but that I was just "disclaiming" it. This was true, however, I KNEW that some idiot was going to try to say how my arguement points to my "lack of experience," I just didn't know which idiot. Low and behold, I was correct. Wow....like I said, it must be that tin hat.... :viking3:  

#6. I wasn't baiting you by asking about "fighter experience" so I could "pounce" if you gave the "wrong answer." I honestly wanted to know what people thought about the subject, because it is a subject that is taken for granted in the self-defense business. I got various opinions, and some opinions didn't match my own (in fact many did until I could explain my position). Even one of my friend/peers in Balintawak (Toasty) came in and disagreed with me, at least at first. No big deal, but I stated the logic and facts behind my opinion. Instead of "good point, I understand what your saying" or "wow I never thought of that" or even just a good logical arguement to counter what I am saying, I got all kinds of crap and flames because God forbid I question you or Tim K's all knowing authority(I am being facesious, but that's the impression). And YOU have been insistant that I am the one holding a grudge, yet you are the one who backed me into a corner by rehashing old flames and problems. All of this makes me wonder about your motives when you talk with me. It makes me "feel" that you and certian others are "out to stick it to me" with all that is going on.

So anyways, unless more is brought up that warrants discussion, I am going to back off of this one now that I have said my piece. I am the type of person who can have a knock down drag out arguement with a friend, and have a beer with them later. Yet, this seems to be getting too personal, and feelings are going to get hurt if they haven't been hurt already. Just understand that my arguement regarding experience still stands strong. Also, understand that because of the way things have been going when we talk, I do question your motives sometimes (same goes with Tim K).

With that, I'll leave it the mods to lock the thread to prevent future flames, or I'll leave it to someone to change the subject to a more relevent topic.

Thank you,
PAUL


----------



## Cthulhu

Since this thread has degraded into an argument involving a few people, this thread is now locked.  Those who wish to continue to discuss the topic are welcome to start a new thread on the same topic.  Thank you.

Cthulhu
-MT Admin.-


----------

