Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
- Status
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?
"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
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
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
"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
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
Grandmaster
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.
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.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
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.
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.
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 doesnÂ’t mean I donÂ’t have them.
IÂ’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
Grandmaster
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.
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
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
I agree.
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.
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!
When my student overseas teach the system they use thier native language. At the end of the day it's all the same!
Cruentus
Grandmaster
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.
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.
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!
- Status
