Full Contact No Armor Event!

[Cruentus]

To lighten up the mood...

I hacked into the Sayoc site and I found the footage from this weekend. You'll want to click on the clips after you go into this link:

http://members.tripod.com/mickfl/wbw/id4.htm

Needless to say...I laughed, I cried, and I cried again. I would have to say that some of those fighters in the video are definatily bigger then me. My personal favorite was "kendo stick shots" and "Phantom slams Big Shot on trash can."

:ultracool

 

[JPR]

I have a question that is not related to if you should have done this, nor how legal it to do this.

You stated:

1. No one was injured seriously ...

Which confuses me and I hope you can clear it up. From what I have read I understand that you did full contact, no armor, no limitations, stick on stick duels. This leads to my question, if you were going all out, why wasn’t anyone seriously injured? I thought the whole idea of me hitting you with a stick was to injure you, whether it is a strike across your knuckles in an attempt to break your hand and do an impact disarm, or pop you in the head as you charge in to make you not want to charge in.

So I am left wondering the following things:

1. Are sticks an effective weapon? Trained fighters with no armor and full contact didn’t do serious damage to anyone. If, for some strange reason, I am involved in a conflict should I abandoned using a stick(s) because they don’t do damage?
2. A corollary question from #1, does a trained fighter negate your ability (even if you are trained) to do damage with sticks?
3. Did I miss understand the nature of what you were doing? Were these no limits duels, or were they training scenarios?
4. Were you mostly looking at grappling? In other words, did you start at largo, blitz through to corto and enter into grappling, or did you have people staying out and striking?
5. What do you consider serious injury? My definition includes; broken bones (while not life threatening they do require trained medical intervention), concussions, loss of consciousness due to head trauma, amoung others.

I probably have other questions, but these will do for now. Again, just to make sure everyone understands, I am not passing judgment on what happened, I am just trying to understand and learn from the experience.

JPR

 

[Sun_Helmet]

To lighten up the mood...

I hacked into the Sayoc site and I found the footage from this weekend. You'll want to click on the clips after you go into this link:

http://members.tripod.com/mickfl/wbw/id4.htm

Needless to say...I laughed, I cried, and I cried again. I would have to say that some of those fighters in the video are definatily bigger then me. My personal favorite was "kendo stick shots" and "Phantom slams Big Shot on trash can."

:ultracool

LOL.. we said we were good but not THAT good!

--Rafael--

 

[loki09789]

1. You were given a DIRECT link to the person (still not ME) who was ORGANIZING the event.
2. Yet somehow you feel that I somehow evaded your first question. My appearance on this forum AFTER the event could not possibly be the reason you didn't attend.
3. Because you're still making assumptions. You do NOT develop the required CORRECT gross muscle memory UNLESS you first place under the microscope valid data that supports appropriate training and tactics. Untrained that gross muscle memory can be standing there frozen as someone attacks you.
4. No one validated the Tueller drill until someone took footage of it and timed it.
5. From THAT point people created CORRECT responses based on that data. They studied the MINUTE details down to milliseconds. They understood offlining, obstacles, lateral /circular, when to deploy, etc.. All this was tried and documented.
Now people have CORRECT gross muscle memory responses.
6. It was never changed if you followed up the DIRECT Links. There's even mention of cups and mouthpieces on our website. You're only listening to your daughter's date again.
7. Lots of IFs.
8. Let me know when you think this material has any positive purpose beyond cheap shots on a keyboard.
9. People like to toss out personal insults and then 'disguise' it by using it as something they don't really want to own up to. They can get it out there, and then retreat from it.
10. I think you're doing just fine discrediting yourself. See the first question.
11. Let me return to my time machine so I can answer your questions PRIOR to the event.

--Rafael--

1. Explained my process on this, 'nuf said.
2. Yup, you have not answered any of the questions I asked you directly.
3. You are confusing 'assumptions' with researched based curriculum learning. Based on your 'from the video footage and the 'proof'' comment, you have already established and built the Sayoc program on these sound premises - why do I need to get hit in the head? I don't have to get shot to know that it hurts and understand what impact it will have on the body....
4. Actually Tueller only established the 21 foot distance as the minimum reactionary gap. Before that others had done reactionary training and such, Fairbaern (sp?) for one from what I remember. Tueller drill is the most recent trend of commonly used researched data.
5. And again, the miniscule is going to become insignificant because of loss of fine motor skills...I can't explain it any clearer - it is based on clinical research.
6. No, it wasn't 'changed' but yours was the first mention by anyone of it in a public setting. Now, I can't say for sure that it would tip the scales, but knowing that the event would be refereed so to speak might make the difference for some (even if they ignore the lethal force issue).
7. All the IF's are ways of linking the information that has been provided by you...still no answers to some of the questions.
8. My hope is that this discussion will get people to examination what type of 'training' they are involved in and whether it is worth risking your brain and body over when there are reasonable and more contextual ways of doing it that are within the law. That is my positive goal.

As a civilian OR an LEO or a military operator participant let's assume that you don't get hurt BUT your participation in this type of training in the past is documented/used when you are under the microscope to decide if you were reasonable and justified in your use of force for a 'good shoot' (for LEO), 'justified use of force' (Civilian)or a 'conduct unbecoming' or such case under the UCMJ (for the military types), then you have a documented behavior/participation that could be interpretted as a clear disregard of responsible use of force....making it harder to defend yourself in a legal scrutiny.

9. "People like this..." huh? I said what I said and haven't wavered from it. If you percieve insult what of it? That is your interp, not my implic.
10. I lack credibility? Thanks, I wanted to lose wt. ... at least I consulted legal topic experts about this and can reference training pedagogy and understand 'lead by example' as a trait of educational philosophy.
11.Just go back to where I asked you direct questions and haven't yet to get direct answers.

Now I could go one step farther and contact the Central Police Services instructor (now retired) or the County prosecutor/former student of my instructor that also acted as consultants on the use of force guidelines within the self defense curriculum, start writing up notes for a piece on 'full contact martial arts training - is it practical or even legal?', site this thread and the event as a source document/example to get a more in depth take on the legallity/consequences of causing injury or paricipation in this type of event.
To avoid that 'assumption' thing, you could do the same by consulting your own local prosecutors and we could share the results in counterpoint.

If you did the same, then you might be applying your training philosophy to something more than a stick.

 

[Sun_Helmet]

From what I have read I understand that you did full contact, no armor, no limitations, stick on stick duels. This leads to my question, if you were going all out, why wasn1t anyone seriously injured? I thought the whole idea of me hitting you with a stick was to injure you, whether it is a strike across your knuckles in an attempt to break your hand and do an impact disarm, or pop you in the head as you charge in to make you not want to charge in.

hello,
There were limitations, since there's the ability to call the action off at any time (by yourself, the other fighter or a third party) and submit. Others chimed in and force teamed the no limitations rule on here, and did more to add to the confusion. The option of submitting or quitting at any time takes away the unnecessary shots that induce the real damage. We found there was more strategy, caution and footwork than padded events.

1. Are sticks an effective weapon? Trained fighters with no armor and full contact didn1t do serious damage to anyone. If, for some strange reason, I am involved in a conflict should I abandoned using a stick(s) because they don1t do damage?

If one trains in how to use a stick, then it will be very effective to someone who is untrained. Look at how an untrained person handles a stick for the first time and see how awkward and open their gross motor skills are.

It's much harder to hurt a trained fighter who knows what you are doing and has trained to avoid, or counter it. I've found that people deliver their shots much more frequently and more in the danger zones when they are armored. It is human nature. That doesn't exclude training armored because you can focus on other tactics with that as well.

A regular untrained person won't see half of what you are doing before it is too late. Especially if one trains honestly and know the danger zones.

2. A corollary question from #1, does a trained fighter negate your ability (even if you are trained) to do damage with sticks?

Yes. If one has never seen a HARD combination of shots in their life they will most likely think they can stay in there and take it or exchange until they get hit. They might think they can close and grapple to attempt to smother the stick But a stick is a great equalizer to some grappling moves.

3. Did I miss understand the nature of what you were doing? Were these no limits duels, or were they training scenarios?

There's limits, and it was controlled in terms of there's intervention before any damage happens. We broke fights up into several 'stick' scenarios as well. However, it is VERY close to how tactics with a stick work. Certain things we train in; like picking up a dropped stick or switching hands in flow make more sense. Because no matter how great we think our grip and striking is, stuff happens and one has to train to answer these before they happen for real.

For example, people told us that projectiles don't work. We in the FMA know that they do work, in the proper context. One of the fights illustrated this plainly.

4. Were you mostly looking at grappling? In other words, did you start at largo, blitz through to corto and enter into grappling, or did you have people staying out and striking?

We asked various fighters to agree on different ranges to start. We even started one with both fighters laying on their backs about twenty five feet apart and then standing up and engaging.

We had some fights that stayed largo (outside) the whole time and ended in largo but it didn't end with a KO - the repetitive strikes to the limbs worked along with exhaustion. However, full power of these strikes was nullified because the other guy was aware of the corto dabger zone. The largo guy knew he was striking at a real good grappler, so he avoided the corto range where the grappler would close. Proving that in a stick to stick fight, the corto range is the MOST dangerous IMPACT space.

The most dangerous striking zone is CORTO in a STICK fight. No one wants to stay in that zone if all things are equal.

5. What do you consider serious injury? My definition includes; broken bones (while not life threatening they do require trained medical intervention), concussions, loss of consciousness due to head trauma, amoung others.

Yes those count as serious. With the ability to submit or quit and allowing oneself to leave the padded safety net and egos behind.. people were responsible and avoided that from happening. We all fall into the safety net of padded fights, if we are all honest with ourselves. We will take that extra risk if we KNOW we are armored. We might try to avoid it but it still happens. Again this was not a fight club style event. People who entered had training and were responsible about keeping this less about winning than about testing their material and seeing if it worked in real time.

I probably have other questions, but these will do for now. Again, just to make sure everyone understands, I am not passing judgment on what happened, I am just trying to understand and learn from the experience.
JPR

No sweat. Glad to help.

--Rafael--

 

[KyleShort]

That submission bridge was awesome All the clips needed was a little dueling banjos in the background!

 

[Sun_Helmet]

1. Explained my process on this, 'nuf said.

We all read what you said initially. Then you tried to imply I was here to answer them. You never followed up on a DIRECT contact.

2. Yup, you have not answered any of the questions I asked you directly.

Yes I have, you don't like the answers.

3. You are confusing 'assumptions' with researched based curriculum learning. Based on your 'from the video footage and the 'proof'' comment, you have already established and built the Sayoc program on these sound premises - why do I need to get hit in the head? I don't have to get shot to know that it hurts and understand what impact it will have on the body....

No one ever said YOU have to get hit in the head.
We don't have to prove our training methods to you if they are already being used in REAL time on the field. nuff said.

4. Actually Tueller only established the 21 foot distance as the minimum reactionary gap. Before that others had done reactionary training and such, Fairbaern (sp?) for one from what I remember. Tueller drill is the most recent trend of commonly used researched data.

Fairbairn. Which supports making CURRENT up to date research important.

5. And again, the miniscule is going to become insignificant because of loss of fine motor skills...I can't explain it any clearer - it is based on clinical research.

You can't explain it further, because again you refuse to grasp what I wrote. You can NOT TRAIN people to become efficient with INCORRECT reflexive responses. One can have TRAINED gross motor skills or UNTRAINED gross motor skills. The TRAINED gross motor skills are incorporated by using CORRECT responses culled from REAL data. You can only TEACH a proper response if you KNOW that someone CAN pull it off in a high stress environment, in REAL time. That they can take a NEWLY TRAINED, CORRECT gross motor response and replace their INCORRECT gross reflexive motor response. It can be done because trained individuals do it all the time. They have the TRAINED muscle memory to react CORRECTLY.

When trained operators shoot they move the way they are trained. That is their NEW CORRECT RESPONSES working their gross motor skills. They no longer react the way they did before they got any training.

And unlike you, we work with individuals who ARE routinely tested on the FINE points of their TRAINED gross motor skills.

I'm not talking about trying to pull off a fancy move that makes no sense. I'm talking about finding the move that seems to work BEST at the time even against trained individuals.

6. No, it wasn't 'changed' but yours was the first mention by anyone of it in a public setting. Now, I can't say for sure that it would tip the scales, but knowing that the event would be refereed so to speak might make the difference for some (even if they ignore the lethal force issue).

There was no lethal force issue in our training environment. You put that false premise there and ran with it. I'm just watching how you run it to the ground.

7. All the IF's are ways of linking the information that has been provided by you...still no answers to some of the questions.

Yes and I'm saying your links don't work, they are based on a false premise.

8. My hope is that this discussion will get people to examination what type of 'training' they are involved in and whether it is worth risking your brain and body over when there are reasonable and more contextual ways of doing it that are within the law. That is my positive goal.

My hope is that people actually go and research something before coming on here and piling on misconceptions based on a false premise.

As a civilian OR an LEO or a military operator participant let's assume that you don't get hurt BUT your participation in this type of training in the past is documented/used when you are under the microscope to decide if you were reasonable and justified in your use of force for a 'good shoot' (for LEO), 'justified use of force' (Civilian)or a 'conduct unbecoming' or such case under the UCMJ (for the military types), then you have a documented behavior/participation that could be interpretted as a clear disregard of responsible use of force....making it harder to defend yourself in a legal scrutiny.

Again that is YOUR limited instructional curriculum showing through.
Why? because you haven't the data we have. You pushed valuable info into the 'dueling' box and can't get out of it.

Just the the FACT that this will be included in a TRAINING and INSTRUCTIONAL DVD supports someone's case that they used the CORRECT method to subdue or restrain someone. Instead of wailing away at Rodney King, you saw ON the DVD that said individual LEARNED to use less violent means to apprehend someone. It's happened to our guys on the field and they were NOT placed on trial they had a great writeup on the local papers as using the proper force to stop a knife wielding attacker in a dark New Jersey ally.

That's the difference. You are going by what you think, we are going by what we KNOW to be true.

Here's some stuff to consider:
1. This training teaches someone weapon retention in REAL time. Actual tactics that may work, when modified to the client's requirements.
2. Switching dominant hand to gain access to one's secondary weapon, or radio.
3. Misdirection using unorthodox projectiles that will allow one to close.
4. Restrain WITHOUT the use of sharp force trauma even against someone who is armed with an impact weapon.
5. Losing head gear doesn't mean you are without options. You can still smother and take down a person.
6. Posting techniques that counter grappling entries,so that you aren't trying to strike at their knees as they come in.

I can go on and on but then again you probably got nothing out of the above.

9. "People like this..." huh? I said what I said and haven't wavered from it. If you percieve insult what of it? That is your interp, not my implic.

Perhaps people call you 'ignorant' all the time and therefore you don't get any negative interp out of it.

0. I lack credibility? Thanks, I wanted to lose wt. ... at least I consulted legal topic experts about this and can reference training pedagogy and understand 'lead by example' as a trait of educational philosophy.

That's the point of it. You are in back obtaining research. We are in the forefront GATHERING the necessary data that EVOLVES the training. That's why Sayoc Kali has been recognized as such by many as a highly evolved curriculum by those in the know.

11.Just go back to where I asked you direct questions and haven't yet to get direct answers.

Just go back to where you were given a DIRECT contact from the person holding the event and you didn't follow it up and are now trying to get it from me AFTER the fact.

Now I could go one step farther and contact the Central Police Services instructor (now retired) or the County prosecutor/former student of my instructor that also acted as consultants on the use of force guidelines within the self defense curriculum, start writing up notes for a piece on 'full contact martial arts training - is it practical or even legal?', site this thread and the event as a source document/example to get a more in depth take on the legallity/consequences of causing injury or paricipation in this type of event.

I like this quote:
"Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety."

You have started on a FALSE premise and you might as well go all the way and run with it. So many here have already understood the purpose and practicality of the training.Perhaps you should go all out and ban ALL stick training that involves UNARMORED participatints. Sticks are blunt 'lethal weapons' according to your false premise so any training should be under licensed governmental criterions.

If you did the same, then you might be applying your training philosophy to something more than a stick.

Yeah, that's what Sayoc Kali does... only teach stick.
Limits continue.

--Rafael--

 

[Tgace]

Legally, its the application of the weapon that counts. Sticks arent "classified" as anything. When used against another person they become "weapons", legally, as would a chair, shovel, steel toe boot...Hitting somebody in the head with any of these could "readily cause death or serious physical injury". Becoming deadly force.

If some guy came swinging a rattan cane at my head on the street...Im shooting him down.

 

[DoxN4cer]

Legally, its the application of the weapon that counts. Sticks arent "classified" as anything. When used against another person they become "weapons", legally, as would a chair, shovel, steel toe boot...Hitting somebody in the head with any of these could "readily cause death or serious physical injury". Becoming deadly force.

If some guy came swinging a rattan cane at my head on the street...Im shooting him down.

Nicely articulated, Tom.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm a little unclear on the hypotheses of the things tested in these bouts. Ergo some questions...fired in a staccato manner reminiscent of a three year old:

Isn't much of this stuff merely reinventing the wheel? How is this any different than what the Dog Brothers do? Granted, they wear fencing masks, but little else. Is the difference that significant?

Fighting like this serves to test the theories and techniques taught in the FMA, but fighting with protection will often do that as well. The "data" acquired, stating that hand shots and head shots do not always work on the first hit with rattan canes is valid...but didn't we allready know that? How does the data change if we switch to kamagong or hickory? We know that these sticks are harder to wield with speed (for some) and change certain dynamics...but how do solid hits with those heavier weapons effect the outcome of a fight? What if the sticks were flat and edged, or carved into a square cross sectional shape? When do you plan on doing this?

In our culture people generally don't "stickfight". How is any of this information applicable to everyday scenarios that civilians and LEO's face? For the latter, would it be more appropriate to conduct these fights with those high impact plastic batons they carry? I suppose this would test the damage potential of said baton (which is allready done nightly across the country) and also test what would happen if two LEO's who were highly trained in FMA got into it over, say, rights to a donut.

Are we trying to validate FMA stickfighting concepts or relate what we do to American street conflict? If the latter, when will we see fights like this with copper cable and pipe? Is that on your schedule?

Why is it bad for "wannabees", "lookalees" and their ilk to show up to events like this? Ought not a "wannabee" be thrown into the mix to see how their skills fare as driven by this ego? What is it exactly they "wannabee?" How is this any different than what the other fighters "wannabee?"

I failed to see this anywhere...maybe it was posted and I missed it. How many people showed and fought?

On that note, who was represented? What styles fought? How did they do? Did any person/style have a distinct edge because of their training? Did any little guys fight? I suspect there weren't weight classes...how did the littles do against the bigs? Did anybody record weight and height in the matches as a part of the acquired data? How long did the average match last? For that matter, how many matches were fought?

Why is the sky blue? Can I have ice cream for supper?


Regards,


Steve

 

[GAB]

Hi Sunny oh reflective dude,

I would just like to say that the conventional fighter, like's the conventional fighter, ever notice how hard it is for the conventional to fight the unconventional, was anyone on pcp, coke or meth???

Regards, Gary

 

[Sun_Helmet]

I'm a little unclear on the hypotheses of the things tested in these bouts. Ergo some questions...fired in a staccato manner reminiscent of a three year old:

No problem. You have some good questions.

Isn't much of this stuff merely reinventing the wheel? How is this any different than what the Dog Brothers do?

No one claimed the wheel being reinvented in terms of how the event was what 'WE' in the FMA call training. 'We" was used to cover that this isn't something new, but some techniques and moves might need closer scrutiny to see if they may be effective for other usage. It isn't THAT different. Some of our students ARE Dog Brothers,most importantly one of the founders. We've done Sayoc Kali seminars at the Dog Brothers previous weekend gathering events. The MAIN difference is that in these matches we were focusing on training some Sayoc principles that will be introduced to the public.

We feel that the Dog Brothers are very important contributors to the FMA community.

Granted, they wear fencing masks, but little else. Is the difference that significant?

I think we shouldn't make this an either /or issue. BOTH have their advantages. Just like using armor might.

In the Sayoc event, the fighters focused on staying OUT of impact range more. Now that might be PSYCHOLOGICAL... not having the fencing mask on. The fencing masks in terms of impact do NOT really give that much more protection as one is led to believe. Psychologically, perhaps some folks would believe that it does, so would attempt to stay in corto longer. You might even see some DBs choose a heavier thicker rattan, why is this? Because the thinner rattan do not do as much damage. So they get a heavier weapon.

We found less hard thrusts to the head because the counter thrust/strike to the head is also open. So you don't want to risk it against someone who is aware of it.

The second factor are the gloves.
Most DBs use street hockey gloves and it gives a lot of protection, so you see less stick switching while in midst of movements than if you had no gloves. You find less disarms, lost grips, stick grabbing, chambering and trapping are less apparent with padded gloves. In some fights the stick lead switch factor was CRUCIAL to the outcome. Especially in grappling and long range.

Fighting like this serves to test the theories and techniques taught in the FMA, but fighting with protection will often do that as well.

Yes and no. You've seen fighters who do this with armor and they fight totally different than they should if unarmored.

Now we in the FMA KNOW that RATTAN sticks were our TRAINING equipment. Rattan sticks were NOT the FMAs lethal weapons.
Rattan was what our Filipino ancestors used to make sure no one died in TRAINING, using the alternatives of bahi or real edged weapons.
They lived on to do battle for real.

If we are confused by this historical fact, then we have to wonder where in our training did this concept get lost?
As many here (even those who didn't agree with me) have said, rattan is NEVER our ideal weapon of choice in a REAL life encounter.

If we REALLY look at the history of FMA, RATTAN is our weapon for TRAINING.

Some add the buzzword, 'lethal' carelessly. You read a lot of 'IF' scenarios. ALL these 'IFS' can be applied to ANY training situation. However, the Footage is proof that rattan may be painful, but in the correct TRAINING environment and guidance, it is NOT lethal.

The "data" acquired, stating that hand shots and head shots do not always work on the first hit with rattan canes is valid...but didn't we allready know that?

We want to go beyond that. That fact is evident right away in this scenario (at least to FMAers), however we are focused on what ELSE can we learn to counter getting hit in the head and hands MORE. Are there flows that work better than most in certain circumstances. We did discover there were certain tactics that minimized getting hit in the hands and head less. It occured in all three ranges. Watching the DVD, I'm SURE that the FMA's innovative minds will come up with their own revelations.

Our whole point is to push the evolution of FMA. We can all sit back and say everything has been done. Well, perhaps.. but has everything been remembered? How much have we lost?

Tuhon Chris Sayoc once stated, "Imagine how our ancestors LIVED the FMA, becuase it was about self preservation that was CONSTANTLY tested. So think if ALL the athletes and soldiers of today who don't train FMA were suddenly in a culture where the FMA was ALL they did. How much better do you think those OLD warriors of old were to today compared to us?"

How does the data change if we switch to kamagong or hickory? We know that these sticks are harder to wield with speed (for some) and change certain dynamics...but how do solid hits with those heavier weapons effect the outcome of a fight? What if the sticks were flat and edged, or carved into a square cross sectional shape? When do you plan on doing this?

Rattan is a training implement that minimizes the lethality of hard wood like kamagong. Pain from rattan hits are the best motivators for HONESTLY respecting the damage that the kamagong would induce.

I think you answered your last question by your indication that there IS a difference. Similar to those who said doing this with blades is the same.
They should ask themselves WHY they think there's similarity at all?

In our culture people generally don't "stickfight". How is any of this information applicable to everyday scenarios that civilians and LEO's face?

Here's one :
One of our instructors, a New Jersey LEO was able to restrain and disarm a knife wielding attacker in a dark alley with his impact weapon. He was commended not placed on trial. It was in the papers. VERY positive article.

How many times have we seen the opposite happen?
What was in those officer's training that told them to use the wrong use of force? Perhaps they had limited training that also had gaping hole in it.
If the officers had training in our LEO stick restraint course, they would find out that impact blows are not always lethal, they just compound the problems in the long run.
Are there other ways to restrain someone with a stick that works on a TRAINED uncooperative person?
The DVD will show that there IS an alternative. It will show a fight that ends with a submission standing up with a stick. No hits to the head necessary.

That one clip in itself is invaluable to someone who is seeking another option.

For the latter, would it be more appropriate to conduct these fights with those high impact plastic batons they carry? I suppose this would test the damage potential of said baton (which is allready done nightly across the country) and also test what would happen if two LEO's who were highly trained in FMA got into it over, say, rights to a donut.

The one who has trained and found other options in the use of the stick will get the donut.

Are we trying to validate FMA stickfighting concepts or relate what we do to American street conflict? If the latter, when will we see fights like this with copper cable and pipe? Is that on your schedule?

See above.

Why is it bad for "wannabees", "lookalees" and their ilk to show up to events like this? Ought not a "wannabee" be thrown into the mix to see how their skills fare as driven by this ego? What is it exactly they "wannabee?" How is this any different than what the other fighters "wannabee?"

In SAYOC we will throw a wannabe in on less intense workouts and testings if they want. It will be quickly apparent to themselves, that they will need to get more training. It saves everyone a waste of time.

Ego gets a LOT of people killed.

As for 'lookeeloos" ... this was not fight club.

I failed to see this anywhere...maybe it was posted and I missed it. How many people showed and fought?

Covered earlier.

On that note, who was represented? What styles fought? How did they do? Did any person/style have a distinct edge because of their training? Did any little guys fight? I suspect there weren't weight classes...how did the littles do against the bigs? Did anybody record weight and height in the matches as a part of the acquired data? How long did the average match last?

Since Sayoc Kali has individuals that encompass just about every other style or system out there, several were represented. Sayoc Kali isn't about excluding any style of FMA or otherwise.... we've gone beyond that and found that our system enhances those who seek it... regardless of style/system. We care not for where a student came from, so you can see a DB, a BJJ, a boxer, a wrestler, kung fu, another FMA system, etc. represented in Sayoc. We do care that they do NOT bring their personal baggae from elsewhere into the system.

Also, in this day and age of cross training- I'm sure many of those involved would say I missed something that they trained in if I try and cover it here.

Little guys did well. Big guys did well. It all depends on which one uses their training and physical attribute the best. Yes, size and other factors were noted.

In my initial sequence of posts I stated that each individual did well. They used several styles and it came down to the individual executing the appropriate move in the correct time. So many styles were validated.

For that matter, how many matches were fought?

There's at least four or more matches on the DVD. Not all matches will be on the DVD. Since the DVD is INSTRUCTIONAL , we chose to omit repetitive fights in terms of outcome and dynamics (one long range fight, one close, one both, etc.) So if there's two fights that ended with the same range and move, we'll choose the one that we can see better and study closer for the DVD.

Any other number I say will just be heresay.

--Rafael--
------
-------
-------

 

[loki09789]

I'm a little unclear on the hypotheses of the things tested in these bouts. Ergo some questions...fired in a staccato manner reminiscent of a three year old:

Isn't much of this stuff merely reinventing the wheel?

The "data" acquired, stating that hand shots and head shots do not always work on the first hit with rattan canes is valid...but didn't we allready know that?

In our culture people generally don't "stickfight". How is any of this information applicable to everyday scenarios that civilians and LEO's face?

Are we trying to validate FMA stickfighting concepts or relate what we do to American street conflict?

Why is it bad for "wannabees", "lookalees" and their ilk to show up to events like this? Ought not a "wannabee" be thrown into the mix to see how their skills fare as driven by this ego? What is it exactly they "wannabee?" How is this any different than what the other fighters "wannabee?"

I failed to see this anywhere...maybe it was posted and I missed it. How many people showed and fought?

On that note, who was represented? What styles fought? How did they do? Did any person/style have a distinct edge because of their training? Did any little guys fight? I suspect there weren't weight classes...how did the littles do against the bigs? Did anybody record weight and height in the matches as a part of the acquired data? How long did the average match last? For that matter, how many matches were fought?

Why is the sky blue? Can I have ice cream for supper?


Regards,


Steve

LOL...

SHelmet,

You have not answered questions directed at you. I know..."Yes, I have. You just choose not to read them." Well, I have yet to read your explanation/justification for the level of force used that would make this legal. What I have gotten from you is comments on my comments, not answers.

I think GAB/Tgace have made the legal position on force/deadly force pretty understandable from a legal interpretation so it isn't just my assumptions talking (which is never really was so much as research and background being used).

I don't think events like this elevate FMA or martial arts. They degrade it because they demonstrate a disregard for the social values of the time we live in. As responsible martial artists, we will always be 'diplomats of our arts' to those who are uninitiated. If we do things that are flat out outside the legal/social culture of the day, it isn't a good impression to leave. And for training application/validity...it isn't a strong enough case to justify the potential injury caused by the lethal force levels used. Remember it isn't the end result but the force you are applying and what INTENT it demonstrates because of the use. I don't see any other interpretation of intent for a full contact head strike with a stick other than deadly force. You might not 'mean for it to happen' but actions speak louder than words and if your action is head strikes with a stick - it is deadly force.

At the least, there will be some mutual combat/endangerment issues. Given the skill, intent and information that a lawyer can get about the incident, a case could be made for 1st Degree Murder if you hurt some guy under these circumstances because you pre-meditated the act by contacting the coordinator and possibly finding out who was going to be there, demonstrated intent with the travel and stepping into the match/participation as well as the head shots themselves - which you were not obligated to 'back off' of in intensity or frequency unless the other person was knocked out/submitted or heard the third party signal.

Why would I want to comment on what others in MA are doing along these lines? Well, if some are seeing this as 'elevating' FMA/MA I don't and have explained why. I am in essence being 'my brother's keeper' so to speak (philosophically, not trying to impose my Christian Dogma on folks )concerning this issue as others have done on other topics time and time again - what keeps things 'lively' here.

There have been many a thread about professions, situations, politics that people have dived into freely with no thought about the 'live and let live' logic at all. Why is it any different for me to comment on something that will affect the way martial arts could be viewed - as a martial artist? I have a conviction and a belief and am exercising some 'moral courage' in presenting it - something I thought was suppose to be part of the development of a 'martial artist as a person'....

This event type is dangerous disproportionately to the 'rewards' of it. It is illegal and participants could be charged just for playing, let alone for causing injury/death. It also demonstrates a serious lack of respect or understanding of penal law in relation to force/deadly force.

Show me where I am wrong in the above summary of my position with more than just the 'your assuming' BS or your training rationale - what about the social/legal context?

 

[Sun_Helmet]

Hi Sunny oh reflective dude,

I would just like to say that the conventional fighter, like's the conventional fighter, ever notice how hard it is for the conventional to fight the unconventional, was anyone on pcp, coke or meth???

Regards, Gary

I give you the benefit of the doubt and treat this as a serious inquiry to keep the thread productive.

The focus of the event was not focused on that.
However, in the field the Sayoc tactics have been HIGHLY effective against the unconventional, because OUR tactics are sound and researched.

Remember that the majority of the higher ranks in Sayoc have lived, live and worked in the world of making sure the unconventional are kept in check.

Some may even say our Sayoc training is unconventional... instead of drugs, we use methods that we KNOW to be true.

--Rafael--

 

[Sun_Helmet]

Show me where I am wrong in the above summary of my position with more than just the 'your assuming' BS or your training rationale - what about the social/legal context?

Social /legal context ALL depend on whether or not your premise is TRUE.

Anyone can argue social/legal context. However, one of the main elements of making a VALID social/legal argument is if the basis of your contention was based on something that is TRUE.

What would be a FALSE premise?

How about focusing on your 'intent of force'?

If the intent was NOT to KILL someone with a strike and instead focus on maintaining safe range while keeping the other fighter HONEST (as stated numerous times on this thread) in the corto range. In YOUR training you MIGHT not have the capacity to understand what I am talking about, but that does not make your premise correct.

If you incorrectly ASSUME that the intent was LETHAL, then you can go on and on based on a FALSE premise. You can build a FALSE social/legal argument based on YOUR inconsistencies in your personal history of training. That is possible.

Some things to ponder:

FACT:

You ASSUME we are there to kill one another and that is a FALSE premise, YOU continue to run with.

There is NO indication to anyone who was personally involved that the main intent was anything BUT training, and that safety of all involved was covered. For example, no one was there to 'wait' for a fight to end from a third party once another fighter was hit hard. All fighters were instructed to acknowledge a hard hit and keep their training HONEST. Therefore, you ASSUME otherwise.

The RESULTS of the event BACK this.
That is TRUE.

ALL PARTICIPANTS (not Paul R. Martin) WERE INFORMED PRIOR TO ATTENDING THE EVENT WHAT THE EVENT WAS DESIGNED TO DO. That is TRUE.

YOU were NOT given this info and will NOT be given this info, because you didn't ASK the direct contact, even when given their contact info. That is TRUE.

YOU can NOT/REFUSE to make the distinction that I was NOT the EVENT organizer, but a Sayoc Kali rep. You keep asking the same question that someone MORE qualified to answer (and YOU chose not to contact) could make. That is TRUE.

As a Sayoc Kali representative, if I were on this forum PRIOR to the event I would have directed you to the identical DIRECT contact info that Steve L. did. That is the most responsible thing to do... go to the source. That is TRUE.

ALL initial info and the lack of info was designed to weed out people who would not understand that this type of event was designed for our instructional purposes. It is called a probe to see if anyone would follow up. In the followup they were informed of the FACTS. You never went BEYOND the first probe which CLEARLY indicated BLATANT inconsistencies in the content of the original post. That is TRUE.

NON Sayoc FMAs practioners on this thread, have gradually figured out that the 'We call this training" phrase also relates to their OWN training. With minor changes here and there, it is what FMAers do. They check and rechekc if their training is valid and practical, and sometimes it comes with hard contact. By their own questions and my answers- I have reinforced this. They made the logical leap long ago.

You build arguments based upon YOUR continuous barrage of false premises. That is ... um... what IS that?

There's a difference in opinion, I don't begrudge you for having a difference of opinion. However, by allowing that, it doesn't make you right. That is TRUE.

Posting the EXACT same content over and over again here on this thread does NOT change anything.
That is TRUE.


--Rafael--

 

[GAB]

Hi Rafael,

Yes, it is/was a good question and I got a good answer. Thanks.

The thing I was trying to bring forth, I should have been clearer.

I am sure you would have the skills to take care of someone who was under the influence of a drug that would help them to overcome pain and still be able to fight. (Rational or not)

The Cabalas system talks about, when in close and the stick is not that productive resort to the other (empty hands) techs.

The way you are calmly discribing this incident and what you are/were looking for is much more informative than the original publication...

If there were spectators and they wanted to see blood and gore, they probably would have been unsatisfied in their quest.

It is getting tiresome to read the rhetoric, but the thread is still informative:
Re: on how to duel with words in a good debate...

Thanks, regards, Gary

 

[loki09789]

Social /legal context ALL depend on whether or not your premise is TRUE.

Anyone can argue social/legal context. However, one of the main elements of making a VALID social/legal argument is if the basis of your contention was based on something that is TRUE.

What would be a FALSE premise?

How about focusing on your 'intent of force'?

If the intent was NOT to KILL someone with a strike and instead focus on maintaining safe range while keeping the other fighter HONEST (as stated numerous times on this thread) in the corto range. In YOUR training you MIGHT not have the capacity to understand what I am talking about, but that does not make your premise correct.

If you incorrectly ASSUME that the intent was LETHAL, then you can go on and on based on a FALSE premise. You can build a FALSE social/legal argument based on YOUR inconsistencies in your personal history of training. That is possible.

Some things to ponder:

FACT:

You ASSUME we are there to kill one another and that is a FALSE premise, YOU continue to run with.

There is NO indication to anyone who was personally involved that the main intent was anything BUT training, and that safety of all involved was covered. For example, no one was there to 'wait' for a fight to end from a third party once another fighter was hit hard. All fighters were instructed to acknowledge a hard hit and keep their training HONEST. Therefore, you ASSUME otherwise.

The RESULTS of the event BACK this.
That is TRUE.

ALL PARTICIPANTS (not Paul R. Martin) WERE INFORMED PRIOR TO ATTENDING THE EVENT WHAT THE EVENT WAS DESIGNED TO DO. That is TRUE.

YOU were NOT given this info and will NOT be given this info, because you didn't ASK the direct contact, even when given their contact info. That is TRUE.

YOU can NOT/REFUSE to make the distinction that I was NOT the EVENT organizer, but a Sayoc Kali rep. You keep asking the same question that someone MORE qualified to answer (and YOU chose not to contact) could make. That is TRUE.

As a Sayoc Kali representative, if I were on this forum PRIOR to the event I would have directed you to the identical DIRECT contact info that Steve L. did. That is the most responsible thing to do... go to the source. That is TRUE.

ALL initial info and the lack of info was designed to weed out people who would not understand that this type of event was designed for our instructional purposes. It is called a probe to see if anyone would follow up. In the followup they were informed of the FACTS. You never went BEYOND the first probe which CLEARLY indicated BLATANT inconsistencies in the content of the original post. That is TRUE.

NON Sayoc FMAs practioners on this thread, have gradually figured out that the 'We call this training" phrase also relates to their OWN training. With minor changes here and there, it is what FMAers do. They check and rechekc if their training is valid and practical, and sometimes it comes with hard contact. By their own questions and my answers- I have reinforced this. They made the logical leap long ago.

You build arguments based upon YOUR continuous barrage of false premises. That is ... um... what IS that?

There's a difference in opinion, I don't begrudge you for having a difference of opinion. However, by allowing that, it doesn't make you right. That is TRUE.

Posting the EXACT same content over and over again here on this thread does NOT change anything.
That is TRUE.


--Rafael--

Check out this link to http://www.rantpipe.com/Articles/Includes/NassauPistolPermit/DeadlyForce/DeadlyForce.asp

It isn't NY or PA but I doubt that there is much difference in the foundation of the definitions.

Key in on the "readily able to cause death or other...." for the definition of physical force/deadly force - which full contact head strikes even with Rattan are capable of (remember my Concussion comments).

AND

The FACT that you are NOT legally justified in the use of deadly force if "he can avoid doing so..." (in reference to using deadly force)...which you can do in a full contact/'no rules' competition because participation is voluntary.

AND

I have cited two current legal professionals who are backing up the 'lethal force/intent' interpretation that I have posted.

Where is the false premise?

Again, you can organize it under your own set of philosophical ideas and set up your own 'rules' (call them goals if you don't want to get caught in the loop) for a no rules fighting match (which negates ANY philosophy or intent that you verbalized/wrote to the participants because even those implied 'rules' don't matter in a no rules match - correct?) but it don't make it legal or ethical.

 

[Sun_Helmet]

The Cabalas system talks about, when in close and the stick is not that productive resort to the other (empty hands) techs.

Yes, that is the norm of most research on close quarter stick. We are developing ways (or maybe 'uncovering') to make the stick useful in a close quarter environment that doesn't involve trying to get an impact strike at such a range. A punyo may be effective but to an LEO is it counter productive? Is there another way to restrain someone so that your partners can close with :
1. Not getting hit themselves by their or your stick strikes.
2. Offers partners access to isolate limbs to cuff/hold while still holding the perp down.
3. Keep the perp focused on the stick applied to them as others can get in and offer assistance.

The way you are calmly discribing this incident and what you are/were looking for is much more informative than the original publication...

If there were spectators and they wanted to see blood and gore, they probably would have been unsatisfied in their quest.

I agree. The only blood we got was when someone hit their nose on an forearm trying to get out of a triangle choke. NOT stick impact related.


--Rafael--

 

[Sun_Helmet]

Where is the false premise?

It all goes back to your initial posts when you linked a car to a rattan stick as an impact weapon.

If you can NOT distinguish the difference between a historically verified TRAINING tool for the MAJORITY of FMAs ie: rattan stick, and equate said rattan stick (that WE used in the event) to having the same 'deadly force' as the impact of a metal firearm, billy club or car then that is a false premise.

You also keep stating 'repetitive' rattan strikes (now backing off of the one hit rattan kill shot) with disregard of safety from everyone involved, that is a false premise.

You also refer to 'No rules'... it has been quite OBVIOUS from the ORIGINAL post that the probe was meant to instigate query from those serious about participating that there was BLATANT inconsistencies with the wording. How can there be 'No rules' if the followup sentence says you can 'submit'? We placed red flags in there to help us weed out those who wished to seriously participate in our project.

Also your false premise indicates you do not want to take in the info I readily gave that the training had the purpose of focusing the advantages of staying in long range and close grappling range... NEGATING the more powerful corto range striking. That the event was under CLOSE scrutiny to test out certain moves and tactics.

The fact that one can HEAR Sayoc instructors call out danger zones, instruction and safety warnings throughout the matches support that this was all meant for instruction, study and training. It wasn't the picture you created in your mind of a 'fight club'.

That false visual context still blurs much of your judgement. Many here have begun to understand the bigger picture.

Only instructors were allowed to yell out to the participants and non compliance to the commands meant stoppage of action.

YOUR limited access to OUR information about the event made you go several directions. The way YOU demand info after not following up on the direct source, allowed me the opportunity to feed some FMA and Sayoc principles to this forum. Perhaps it made it more productive, I tried to steer clear of the emotional danger zones as much as possible.

'Concussions' during training would be supported by MA/FMA training concussions and other impact related activities that may cause concussion. However, no one got a concussion after our event.

In the context of Training, a concussion might occur, but many would argue the point that to NEGATE any possibility of someone getting a concussion during ANY MA training is not only impossible it is also no longer training the FMAs.

As per 'readily able..." In the context of the event, that was NOT readily available. Neither is their legal precedent of rattan sticks as readily available lethal implements.

If it were so, no one would be allowed to use them in FMA training and it would not have been the UNIVERSAL TRAINING TOOL of our FMA ancestors.

Why do the FMA use rattan?... to make the training HONEST, to keep the impact HONEST but NOT deadly.

Why did the Filipinos CONTINUE to use rattan as a training tool even AFTER the Spanish were ousted? The manongs understood from HONEST training that it was the closest thing and the safest thing to reality.

If one were to research all the recorded unpadded stick 'death' matches...if you can actually find any; you will note that they did NOT use rattan. They used bahi or kamagong.

--Rafael--

 

[GAB]

Hi Sun_Helmet,

The more information you are giving the more I can relate to the very things you are saying.
I have been in lots of controlled contests and sure we got damaged a little. With the idea of instructors yelling out instructions and others being quiet leads one to believe, this was what you are saying it was. (training exercise)

Yes, you have clairified many times, hooked, line, and sinker is not something I think was happening. The time outs were probably there and other ways of saving someone from permanent damage( like for like )not a black belt against a white new be dude (belt)..

I will have to follow up on your school more, based on your techs. regarding debate...

Regards, Gary

ps: were you using the twigs, as I have heard them called 3/4" or so in Dia.