Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
- Status
DoxN4cer
Purple Belt
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
Master of 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.
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.
"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.
"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
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
Grandmaster
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Grandmaster
"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??
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
Grandmaster
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
Tapps
Green Belt
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.
"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. (BachelorÂ’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
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. (BachelorÂ’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
OP
OP
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?
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
Grandmaster
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
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
Master of Arts
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
Master of Arts
Deader than the proverbial door nail.
Yours,
Dan
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:
- Status
