Expanding beyond the "F" in FMA

[geezer]

I know several excellent FMA practitioners who have expanded the scope of what they teach far beyond the "F" for Filipino in FMA. Here are a few examples:

One example would be my first instructor in Escrima, a Filipino American and one of the FMA pioneers in this country, having been an early student of Angel Cabales, Leo Giron, Maximo Sarmiento and others at the first Escrima Academy in Stockton. He never had a particular concern with Filipino "authenticity" or whether what he taught was something being taught today in the PI. His exclusive focus was practicality. He used to say that it didn't matter who you trained under, or for how long, or how many Filipino terms you knew, or any of that crap. All that mattered is what you could do .

Another example would be the former partner of the guy above, who still teaches in the UK and Europe. He has the same basic attitude I hear, namely that he values efficacy over "Filipino authenticity" and has blended his FMA with a lot of HEMA.

A third example would be a local guy who started a group that was originally focused on Escrima, but in the late 90's started incorporating more and more of an MMA approach. Some of the more traditional groups around here don't even view what he does as FMA any more. But they sure wouldn't want to mess with his fighters. Distance and time conflicts have made it difficult for me to get together with him, but every couple of weeks I do get together with his senior instructor, a Filipino American and former US Marine. I find his stuff ....enlightening.

There are many others who fall into this category... we all know some. I'm not talking about some of the questionable characters on youtube, but rather the highly competent MA-ists who do "FMA" based arts that have become quite different from their source arts. I find that I am moving in this direction myself. I have no personal roots or overarching compunction to stick to what is purely Filipino. In fact, the "FMA" I was first taught had it's root in a blending of European and Filipino fighting systems. That much can be seen in it's very name, escrima a variant of the Spanish word for fencing, esgrima.

So as a 21st Century American martial artist, my system of escrima is eclectic. It draws on historical FMA and European roots, with plenty of contemporary influences. And, in this sense maybe it is traditional, since the FMAs have a tradition of adapting, evolving, and incorporating whatever "foreign" influences that were proven to be useful.

You know, Bruce Lee wasn't the first guy to come up with that idea. Not by about 100,000 years or so! Any thoughts?

 

[Charlemagne]

I don't have a problem at all with guys going outside of the boundaries of their art as long as they are honest about what they are doing and where they got it. In other words, if you are no longer teaching FMA, then don't claim it as such. Other than that, no worries on my end!

I would love to train SAMBO on top of my Jiu-Jitsu and I would love to train Muay Thai on top of my Pekiti Tirisa. However, I just cannot afford (in either time, money, or toll on my body), to train more than what I am now.

Having said that, even if I were able to add those, I would not personally choose to mix them when teaching. I would feel a duty both to my instructors and to the Democracy of the Dead, to pass on what I have received.

 

[Anarax]

I know several excellent FMA practitioners who have expanded the scope of what they teach far beyond the "F" for Filipino in FMA. Here are a few examples:

One example would be my first instructor in Escrima, a Filipino American and one of the FMA pioneers in this country, having been an early student of Angel Cabales, Leo Giron, Maximo Sarmiento and others at the first Escrima Academy in Stockton. He never had a particular concern with Filipino "authenticity" or whether what he taught was something being taught today in the PI. His exclusive focus was practicality. He used to say that it didn't matter who you trained under, or for how long, or how many Filipino terms you knew, or any of that crap. All that mattered is what you could do .

Another example would be the former partner of the guy above, who still teaches in the UK and Europe. He has the same basic attitude I hear, namely that he values efficacy over "Filipino authenticity" and has blended his FMA with a lot of HEMA.

A third example would be a local guy who started a group that was originally focused on Escrima, but in the late 90's started incorporating more and more of an MMA approach. Some of the more traditional groups around here don't even view what he does as FMA any more. But they sure wouldn't want to mess with his fighters. Distance and time conflicts have made it difficult for me to get together with him, but every couple of weeks I do get together with his senior instructor, a Filipino American and former US Marine. I find his stuff ....enlightening.

There are many others who fall into this category... we all know some. I'm not talking about some of the questionable characters on youtube, but rather the highly competent MA-ists who do "FMA" based arts that have become quite different from their source arts. I find that I am moving in this direction myself. I have no personal roots or overarching compunction to stick to what is purely Filipino. In fact, the "FMA" I was first taught had it's root in a blending of European and Filipino fighting systems. That much can be seen in it's very name, escrima a variant of the Spanish word for fencing, esgrima.

So as a 21st Century American martial artist, my system of escrima is eclectic. It draws on historical FMA and European roots, with plenty of contemporary influences. And, in this sense maybe it is traditional, since the FMAs have a tradition of adapting, evolving, and incorporating whatever "foreign" influences that were proven to be useful.

You know, Bruce Lee wasn't the first guy to come up with that idea. Not by about 100,000 years or so! Any thoughts?

Every style has their own "purists", some are more prevalent in other styles. The FMA instructors I've encountered have been very more open-minded in their approach and training, I'll come back to that. Personally, I think a certain level of competency must exist before a martial artist starts blending different styles together, certain concepts harmonize better than others. Without a firm rooted foundation in at least one style, a martial artist can detract from an arts "practicality" by blending it with something else.

Their is a certain point in which we can no longer call what we're teaching the original style's name. Meaning, when you add so much from another system you are no longer teaching that system. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just inaccurate advertising by calling it "FMA".

I've trained in Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, Okinawan, Korean and European styles of martial arts, and the FMA instructors have consistently been the most open minded. Look at Presas, Inosanto, Marcaida, Dionaldo, etc. They all have/had very open mindsets and approaches to training. We have a lot of seminars and guest instructors from other FMA systems and organizations.

 

[Danny T]

In my experience...
There is far more that is the same than is different in the many different martial systems. With the Philippines being influenced by the many warring cultures around it as well as the European cultures just what is distinctly Filipino within the hundreds of FMA systems/styles now?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I would love to train SAMBO on top of my Jiu-Jitsu

Having said that, even if I were able to add those, I would not personally choose to mix them when teaching. I would feel a duty both to my instructors and to the Democracy of the Dead, to pass on what I have received.

Speaking as a BJJ instructor, I have absolutely no qualms about mixing material I've learned from Sambo, Judo, Wrestling, or other arts into my classes. More prestigious BJJ instructors before me have done the same.

I'll happily give credit to the instructors and arts I've taken from, but if it works and it fits with the rest of what I'm teaching, then I'm stealing it and it's part of BJJ now. (Actually, it's probably already part of BJJ because some other practitioner has already stolen it before I saw it. We're martial thieves and we have no shame.)

 

[Buka]

We're martial thieves and we have no shame.)

I've been thankful for that since I started. Kind of hard to figure when/if an instructor learns something from outside of his style, that does fit beautifully and works tactically well with what he already does - that he wouldn't pass it on to those he teaches. Never could really grasp that.

 

[Juany118]

I think another example of what the OP speaks to is my own Guro. He teaches Inosanto Kali but it is via this lineage...

Guro Dan>Vunak>James Keating. With Master at Arms Keating being very schooled in Western Blade work I don't doubt that he made some "tweaks" that were passed to my Guro. FMA has a fair amount of Euro influence already but when you have people teaching any art that was learned after they had become skilled in others there will inevitably be "tweaks."

 

[Charlemagne]

Speaking as a BJJ instructor, I have absolutely no qualms about mixing material I've learned from Sambo, Judo, Wrestling, or other arts into my classes. More prestigious BJJ instructors before me have done the same.

I'll happily give credit to the instructors and arts I've taken from, but if it works and it fits with the rest of what I'm teaching, then I'm stealing it and it's part of BJJ now. (Actually, it's probably already part of BJJ because some other practitioner has already stolen it before I saw it. We're martial thieves and we have no shame.)

Nothing wrong with that at all in my view. Giving credit where it is due, and letting people/students know that it is a mix of those things is my concern.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I know this thread is several years old now, but I like the question. And I'd like to see some more discussion here. So...

Yes, I happily train and teach things that extend beyond being strictly Filipino. For several reasons:

1) Eskrima wasn't my first style. So my practice of eskrima can't really help but be influenced by my prior experience. My empty hand--for example--was informed by my taekwondo background early on. Less so as time wore on, but more on that below.

2) My initial interest in FMA stems from a fairly predictable interest in Bruce Lee. So FMA and JKD ran concurrently in my brain, Guro Dan Inosanto being a huge influence on me over the years. My first eskrima teachers knew Guro Dan but aren't affiliated with him, so my initial FMA training wasn't expressly informed by Guro Dan's "usual suspects" (e.g., muay thai, pentjak silat, etc.). But the general idea of being integrative was in my head from early on in the process.

3) My next FMA teacher was a student of Guro Dan, so I practiced "Inosanto Blend" kali alongside lethwei, muay thai, silat, and other things in the JKD concepts canon.

4) I originally come from Doce Pares Eskrima, Cacoy lineage. And GM Cacoy was himself highly influenced by styles outside of FMA. He told me himself that his personal practice incorporated boxing, karate, jiujutsu, aikido, and judo. To me, this sort of eclectic approach is baked into FMA.

5) I've taken training opportunities as they've arisen. In some cases, I've done that specifically in aid of my FMA practice. In others, something has just taken my interest. I studied a bit of Western fencing, for instance, because I knew about its connection with FMA and wanted more experience with (simulated) blade work. The fencing club at my college seemed like a good way to do that. Likewise, I studied a bit of boxing and kickboxing as a way to better operationalize my FMA in the empty hand arena.

I think of FMA as the chassis onto which I bolt things. When I box, I do so southpaw because in FMA I'd lead with the dominant weapon hand. When I fenced, I immediately broke the rules and sidestepped because my interest in fencing was primarily as a window onto FMA. My interest in muay thai and lethwei come down to the idea that they fit well with the principles of FMA, etc.

The thing is that I see this willingness to adapt other material to the needs and priorities of FMA as being traditional to FMA in a way that it might not be traditional to something like karate or gung fu. It seems very much in keeping with the approaches taken by the FMA teachers current and past who inspired me.

 

[Haruhiko]

I know several excellent FMA practitioners who have expanded the scope of what they teach far beyond the "F" for Filipino in FMA. Here are a few examples:

One example would be my first instructor in Escrima, a Filipino American and one of the FMA pioneers in this country, having been an early student of Angel Cabales, Leo Giron, Maximo Sarmiento and others at the first Escrima Academy in Stockton. He never had a particular concern with Filipino "authenticity" or whether what he taught was something being taught today in the PI. His exclusive focus was practicality. He used to say that it didn't matter who you trained under, or for how long, or how many Filipino terms you knew, or any of that crap. All that mattered is what you could do .

Another example would be the former partner of the guy above, who still teaches in the UK and Europe. He has the same basic attitude I hear, namely that he values efficacy over "Filipino authenticity" and has blended his FMA with a lot of HEMA.

A third example would be a local guy who started a group that was originally focused on Escrima, but in the late 90's started incorporating more and more of an MMA approach. Some of the more traditional groups around here don't even view what he does as FMA any more. But they sure wouldn't want to mess with his fighters. Distance and time conflicts have made it difficult for me to get together with him, but every couple of weeks I do get together with his senior instructor, a Filipino American and former US Marine. I find his stuff ....enlightening.

There are many others who fall into this category... we all know some. I'm not talking about some of the questionable characters on youtube, but rather the highly competent MA-ists who do "FMA" based arts that have become quite different from their source arts. I find that I am moving in this direction myself. I have no personal roots or overarching compunction to stick to what is purely Filipino. In fact, the "FMA" I was first taught had it's root in a blending of European and Filipino fighting systems. That much can be seen in it's very name, escrima a variant of the Spanish word for fencing, esgrima.

So as a 21st Century American martial artist, my system of escrima is eclectic. It draws on historical FMA and European roots, with plenty of contemporary influences. And, in this sense maybe it is traditional, since the FMAs have a tradition of adapting, evolving, and incorporating whatever "foreign" influences that were proven to be useful.

You know, Bruce Lee wasn't the first guy to come up with that idea. Not by about 100,000 years or so! Any thoughts?

Good points. FMA already have European influence from Jesuit soldiers and Spanish colonisation – escrima itself shows that blending is part of its DNA. Adapting with HEMA or MMA makes sense, but if you lose the core principles, it stops being FMA and becomes just another hybrid. Respect the roots – build on them with caution and without losing sight on tradition.

How do you balance preserving FMA’s essence while evolving it?

 

[ap Oweyn]

How do you balance preserving FMA’s essence while evolving it?

I can't speak for geezer, who I believe might be on sabbatical from MartialTalk for a bit. But this is a good question. Perhaps its mostly about what you treat as the "chassis" of your approach. What are you building AROUND when you add these other influences? Like, when I look at muay thai, I'm not using that very typical muay thai stance because it doesn't support the FMA footwork I like. Instead, then, I'm trying to learn how to throw those muay thai techniques from a stance that does support that footwork. Just as one example.