FMA concepts

[loki09789]

There has been alot of talk, by me included, about the conceptual approach of FMA's, and how it makes FMA's distinct in the larger MA community.

What are some of the 'concepts' that your FMA stresses? How does it teach the concept (drill/pattern...)? How does your system apply these concepts as tactics within the application training?

Paul M

 

[lhommedieu]

There has been alot of talk, by me included, about the conceptual approach of FMA's, and how it makes FMA's distinct in the larger MA community.

What are some of the 'concepts' that your FMA stresses? How does it teach the concept (drill/pattern...)? How does your system apply these concepts as tactics within the application training?

Paul M

Paul,

I hope you don't mind me playing Devil's Advocate: I'm not sure that FMA "concepts" are distinct from those found in other MA's. For example, a lot of people talk about the "flow" of Filipino martial arts as if this concept does not exist in other MA's - but whether you're speaking of a boxer's "adaptability" or a wrestler's ability to "read" his opponent's intentions(to give just two examples) I think that the "flow" exists in any high-level martial art.

Similarly, "sensitivity" drills such as "sumbrada" or "tapping" are ultimately designed for just that: to develop sensitivity to the ways that an opponent can wield a stick. I don't know if there's much difference between these kinds of drills and e.g., "push hands" in Tai Qi Quan. Ultimately the sensitivity developed in these and other drills does not lead directly to specific applications, but to spontaneous, appropriate movement that comes out under pressure.

However, I think that it's definitely true that the FMA's share high-level concepts with other MA's. One that I've given a lot of thought to lately is ability to "root" one's strikes while simultaneously being able to remain mobile. I think that most people would agree how difficult it is for the average person (and I include myself in this description) to turn over both sides of the coin in actual practice.

Hopes this livens up the discussion.

Best,

Steve

 

[bart]

That MA share concepts at a higher level is understood by most medium to advanced practitioners in my experience. A kick is just a kick ...yadayadayada. Fighting is fighting regardless of the art if skill in such a thing is your goal. And within the context of a fighting art, a concept that intrigues me about the FMA is that of developing existing strengths.

At first it doesn't seem like a concept per se, but it contains many and much can be extrapolated from it. The idea that a person can be skilled in combat without training is alien to some of the arts that I've trained in. In many other martial arts you begin by being retrained in how to stand and how to punch. Essentially you relearn how to move by breaking down what you naturally came to the class with and rebuilding something completely different based upon the principles of the system. It's the process in which those arts internalize principles.

In the FMA though, someone's natural strengths are played up and when those have become sharp enough to be able to defend oneself, then the skills that come less naturally are worked on and developed.

As a concept, this means that the Filipino Martial Arts have a tendancy to be more individualized from the get go. Also, it means that no two practitioners will look exactly the same in there techniques and applications because they come to the table with different pre-existing strengths and capabilities.

You see this in boxing, and you see it in fencing as well, but in the Asian arts it is rare. I can't name one off the top of my head. The sublimation of the self is the goal in the general run of the other arts, but the FMA's trust in natural skills and strengths is very different. Other arts do come to this point, but only after they've torn you down and rebuilt you in their likeness.

 

[lhommedieu]

...In the FMA though, someone's natural strengths are played up and when those have become sharp enough to be able to defend oneself, then the skills that come less naturally are worked on and developed.

As a concept, this means that the Filipino Martial Arts have a tendancy to be more individualized from the get go. Also, it means that no two practitioners will look exactly the same in there techniques and applications because they come to the table with different pre-existing strengths and capabilities.

You see this in boxing, and you see it in fencing as well, but in the Asian arts it is rare...

Bart makes some excellent points. In boxing, in particular, you often hear things like, "so and so didn't really use his jab a couple of years ago, but he's been working with his trainer and you can see the improvement," or "so and so's ring generalship in the 'x fight' was poor - but look at the way he's learned how to cut off the ring," etc.

Perhaps given the original family and village orientation of most FMA's there is much more attention given to individual needs. For example, I recently heard Tuhon William McGrath say a seminar that a certain defensive/offensive technique was typically the first one taught to a young boy as it is immediately practical and expedient, as well as being easier to learn. As time went on however and the boy's skills became more advanced, other skills would be taught to make him an well-rounded fighter. I can see a parallel with this in some martial arts (the Filipino martial arts in particular) where the relationship between student and teacher is analogous to athelete and coach. This is in stark contrast to how many martial arts are taught in large school settings, wherein martial artists perform techniques in lock-step with each other, and the ability to conform to a uniform movement is the most reliable indicator of success.

Best,

Steve

 

[thekuntawman]

i consider when you teach a student more in a athlete-coach relationship, to be best for the intermediate/advance level. the reason i say this, is because you cannot look a fighter up and down in the beginning, and say, well you are skinny, so i will work on this and that, or you are slow, so i will work on this and that with you.

its just like people who say, tae kwon do is for tall people with long legs, southern style kung fu is for short strong people, etc. is that saying a small skinny guy will never learn to grapple better than a big guy? no, and a student who comes through the door slow and strong with no leg flexibility, might end up as a lightning fast kicker. for beginners its best to teach him the basics of everything, then as he develops and learns the basics of each style you teach, then let him specialize. sometimes i pick what i will focus on with intermediate students, sometimes i will look at what is his favorite way to fight, and build up that.

its important for fighters to at least understand and be able to use the basics of each style you teach before you or him "pick" one. this is how you become a "complete" fighter. he learns many styles, and then picks a specialty he can use to fight against all of them. i agree that its not good to use one size fits all with your students. i also think its not a good idea to just pick one way to fight, and not show him others before you get a good chance to see what works best for him.

but i dont see anything wrong with one size fits all for beginners while you build there foundations. but after he has a few years, he should specialize in something to take to the advance level. if he tries to specialize in too much, none of those skills will ever see the potential he can reach.

which leads me to "concept approach". some teacher spend too much time on "concept". concept is good when they first learn something, so they can keep it in the back of his head while he's learning to do it. but after a while he will need "hands on", lots and lots of repetition, then lots of lots of doing. one thing i see a lot of, is people who want to demonstrate everything, with demonstration speed and demonstration power. so they say, "feed me a number..." what is more of a display of skill, is when he can say, "spar with me, and watch out for my ___ technique." and then hit you with it. when a tennis player is showing you his secret weapon, he does not tell you to hit the ball to him once, you have to play the game. "concept", is good for the fighter to understand what he is doing, but it is a very small, thing that should be emphasized. instead, people make there whole system of concept of this style and that technique. to me, "concepts approach" is like saying "collection of techniques approach".

 

[thekuntawman]

also i wanted to comment on something bart said, about no two fighters learning the same thing should look alike.

this is very true, just like we do not use the same style for only one or two things. how many times did you see a karate/kungfu/jkd/whatever, teach "limb destructions" and "coordination drills" as his "filipino martial arts". there is so much more to a style than a few things we read about every month in the magazines. the abaniko style is much more than overhead strikes, its a whole way of fighting. stick and dagger is a lot more than criss crossing movements and tying up the opponent. inside of one style, you will have many concepts, but you cannot take the "concept" of a whole style. this is why one modern arnis fighter will stay at a longer range when he fights, one likes to close the distance, and another doesnt fight at all he just does drills. but to say you know "modern arnis" you have to know and able to do (DO, not demonstrate) everything in that system. if not, you have only learned a little of it even if you did it for this many years or took this many classes. you cannot take a "concept" of a style and say, well, basically wing chun is like this...

this is one reason i do not put on demonstrations, not even for a new student. especially not for another martial artist who wants to "see some kuntaw or arnis". go to a basketball player and ask him to show you his technique. he might laugh as loud as i to. you cannot "concept" a style, only small parts of it.

 

[loki09789]

My point with this thread was not to say that other MA don't have concepts, or that FMA has the corner stone on them, only that the niche that FMA seems to be recognized for in the MA community is the conceptual approach to training. Concepts, by virtue of what they are can be found in anything. The one thing can become ten thousand idea from Mushashi is true here.

Conceptual training, as a systematic approach, tends to speed up the training curve, it tends to make the promotion track within FMA's faster on the average relative to other MA. This doesn't make it superior to other MA, only distinct. I think that trad arts develop better technicians at earlier stages, but take longer to develop tacticians. Where, FMA's tend to produce more tactically minded students, who later can spend time developing more finesse and minute technical skills once they have it down at a working level. By the very nature of the history behind the styles and cultures, the approach to training fit. Japanese/Korean/Chinese arts tended to be systemized in an age when there was time to devote to more spiritual and work ethic related goals. FMA was and is more about simplicity and effectiveness first, if you get that down - and depending on what point in history you survived - the technical development was refined at later stages.

Since Flow was mentioned we can start with that. In Modern Arnis there is a drill called flow as well as the concept flow. One is used to give students a hands on/application level of understanding. Techniques are combined and taught for two purposes: 1. Technical proficiency and 2. Conceptual understanding right from the beginning. Later, as training progresses, the drills that were originally to develop #'s 1 and 2 become tactical drills when students are allowed to throw in timing breakers, in between strikes and other things that demonstrate the importance of flow controll so that you can respond to changes as well as break your opponents flow....

Here is one example of a concept that is identified in an FMA style and the drills and training that reveal it to students as concept and then tactic. What other concepts do FMA'ers see emphasised within the training, and how do the drills/training reveal them as well as their application in self defense training?

Paul M

 

[KumaSan]

Just wanted to say "Good Post!" to thekuntawman. I'm not here as often as I used to be, but I appreciate your view on the Filipino Martial Arts.

Thanks,
Chris