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:
