Is your FMA an "Add-On", "Stand Alone" or ???

[geezer]

I stole this question from the Modern Arnis sub-forum, but I feel that it's a question that applies to all FMAs. So, do you teach your FMA as a complete art by itself, as an "add-on" to another core art, such as Karate, TKD, or Wing Chun, ...or do you see it as something else altogether?

 

[Blindside]

Stand-alone, I can show its blend points to members of other systems, but it get taught as a stand-alone. There is far too much good material in the system to make it some bolt-on "weapon training" for a karate class, without a complete loss of identity.

 

[MJS]

I stole this question from the Modern Arnis sub-forum, but I feel that it's a question that applies to all FMAs. So, do you teach your FMA as a complete art by itself, as an "add-on" to another core art, such as Karate, TKD, or Wing Chun, ...or do you see it as something else altogether?

Stand alone. IMO, Modern Arnis blends very well with my Kenpo, and I feel that it would blend with many other arts as well. As I said in the other thread, some Arnis material is taught in the Kenpo class as well, but when I do teach it, I make it clear that what we're doing is Arnis, not Kenpo.

 

[geezer]

When I first started formal FMA training in Latosa PMAS Escrima, I guess it was sort of an add-on to my core system at the time: Wing Tsun. I continued training and got deeper into Escrima, and even taught the art, but mostly with WT circles. Later, I got out of the martial arts completely for a long time... about 16 years. When I started training again it was the FMAs that pulled me back. Soon I was back at my old core art too, but this time under the name "Ving Tsun".

Now I see each art as complete, yet compatible, since I now aproach them more from a conceptual perspective. At longer range, when I can get any improvised weapon in my hand, what I do looks like escrima. Closer in, and empty-handed, it looks like Ving Tsun. But under the surface, I'm applying the same fighting concepts in the way that works best for me. And, best of all, my instructors in both systems are cool with that.

So for me, neither art is an "add-on", and though each system is complete by itself, I find that without trying to make some kind of "chop suey blend" nevertheless, each one has strengthened the other for me. In other words, they are neither separate nor blended, but different expressions of the same concepts of combat.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I started in Modern Arnis and later learned Baliantawak as well.

Both are stand alone systems.

Both are FMA.

 

[James Kovacich]

It's a stand alone but more and more is "becoming" apart of my own system which was my original intent. So it is rightfully both.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

I was fortunate to start my martial arts career in Modern Arnis. Since then I've added several FMA systems to my repertoire. I have learned them as stand alone systems and that's the way I teach them in my school.

 

[James Kovacich]

I have a lot of instructors and I do as my instructors wish. If I teach their system, it is the way the want it taught and with their permission and guidance. Also they know as well that it becomes a part of "me-the martial artist."

 

[ap Oweyn]

I teach and train FMA primarily. I don't know whether to call what I do a stand-alone for two reasons: 1) I've trained in more than one FMA (Doce Pares mostly, with Inosanto Kali and Modern Arnis in the mix) and 2) I've learned other things as well, but consider them more the add-ons to my FMA.

When I teach, I don't teach Doce Pares as distinct from Modern Arnis, for instance. Nor do I feel qualified to teach any other complete system, though there was a time that I could have taught taekwondo as a complete system.

I do incorporate a lot of other things from boxing, kickboxing, Western fencing, and other sources. But they're there as ways to inform the FMA curriculum.


Stuart