I think so. You make a very good point that the act of grasping the weapon changes things further down the (body's) line than people realize. I think if empty-hand expertise is what one is training for, then training with hands empty is the way to go. Arnis takes the point of view--coming from the Philippines' traditionally knife-friendly society--that one might have to fight empty-handed, or with a knife, or with a stick, or with a sword, or...and aims to develop a good level of proficiency across these possibilities ("It's all the same"). Of course, one risks losing the smaller tweaks that make for greater expertise in just one of these areas. (We often argue this point as stick vs. sword in the FMA; what is lost in training with the stick but thinking of it as a sword?) It's a question of what one's training goals are.
I can easily see both sides of this. Apart from those in certain occupations, if one is attacked then one is likely unarmed--both because most people usually are, and because if one is obviously carrying or in proximity to something dangerous, why would the attacker choose an armed victim? Many people who do carry knives say they don't have time to deploy one when attacked and end up defending empty handed anyways; things just happen too quickly and empty-hand reflexes are what come into play. Others say that your odds of successfully defending against a weapon (or multiple opponent) attack are already low and so spending a lot of time on that may not be rewarded proportionately. (I hear this commonly from BJJ players.) For all these reasons and more, focusing on empty-hand makes sense.
On the other side of the coin, one might have a weapon or find a makeshift one, or take one away from one opponent in a multiple-attacker scenario. If one is attacked by a knife-wielder, say, it would be helpful to understand the weapon's capabilities. Some people feel that training with weapons increases strength or helps channel a certain type of energy--I hear both of these arguments for the Kung Fu/Tai Chi weapons such as the spear--or develops certain other attributes such as good body mechanics for getting one's weight behind a technique, as is argued in JKD. For all these reasons and more, including weapons training makes sense.
I see it as a design issue. When the founder of an art designs that martial art, he or she has a strategy in mind and an array of scenarios in mind. If sword attacks are seen as a possibility, one designs the art a certain way; if multiple opponent attacks are considered likely, other choices will be made. I don't believe that one can "have it all" and so I see each art as gaining something, and sacrificing something. To my mind, most FMA styles sacrifice some empty-hand ability to gain more weapons skills. What remains is a style that is quite effective over a range of weapons and weaponless scenarios, but is perhaps not optimized for any one of them. (There are exceptions, like Sayoc Kali's focus on knives and Balintawak's focus on the single stick.) Other arts focus on the empty-hand techniques and so develop fewer skills in weapon usage. It's a choice...which is good for the would-be student, to my mind.
Of course, I have a Karateka's build and mindset but somehow ended up in arnis...but that's another story.
I can easily see both sides of this. Apart from those in certain occupations, if one is attacked then one is likely unarmed--both because most people usually are, and because if one is obviously carrying or in proximity to something dangerous, why would the attacker choose an armed victim? Many people who do carry knives say they don't have time to deploy one when attacked and end up defending empty handed anyways; things just happen too quickly and empty-hand reflexes are what come into play. Others say that your odds of successfully defending against a weapon (or multiple opponent) attack are already low and so spending a lot of time on that may not be rewarded proportionately. (I hear this commonly from BJJ players.) For all these reasons and more, focusing on empty-hand makes sense.
On the other side of the coin, one might have a weapon or find a makeshift one, or take one away from one opponent in a multiple-attacker scenario. If one is attacked by a knife-wielder, say, it would be helpful to understand the weapon's capabilities. Some people feel that training with weapons increases strength or helps channel a certain type of energy--I hear both of these arguments for the Kung Fu/Tai Chi weapons such as the spear--or develops certain other attributes such as good body mechanics for getting one's weight behind a technique, as is argued in JKD. For all these reasons and more, including weapons training makes sense.
I see it as a design issue. When the founder of an art designs that martial art, he or she has a strategy in mind and an array of scenarios in mind. If sword attacks are seen as a possibility, one designs the art a certain way; if multiple opponent attacks are considered likely, other choices will be made. I don't believe that one can "have it all" and so I see each art as gaining something, and sacrificing something. To my mind, most FMA styles sacrifice some empty-hand ability to gain more weapons skills. What remains is a style that is quite effective over a range of weapons and weaponless scenarios, but is perhaps not optimized for any one of them. (There are exceptions, like Sayoc Kali's focus on knives and Balintawak's focus on the single stick.) Other arts focus on the empty-hand techniques and so develop fewer skills in weapon usage. It's a choice...which is good for the would-be student, to my mind.
Of course, I have a Karateka's build and mindset but somehow ended up in arnis...but that's another story.
