Kombatan question from an outsider

[LAKANPOPOT]

Hi Boar Man!
I trained with GM Ernesto in the PHilippines for five years. But now have been with him for almost 14years. How can I help you sir.

 

[Cruentus]

Hi everyone. My take on a couple of things...

#1. Remy Presas created Modern Arnis to beat Balintawak...

I cover this in MT magazine in my multi-issue article/interview with Manong Ted Buot in the conclusion of that interview. The short answer is the art itself was not created to beat another style, whether it be Balintawak or Pekiti, or whatever. The art was created for a lot of reasons: To teach the masses, to teach Filipino fighting methods, to teach people how to "make it their own" so they could learn self defense, etc. beating another system was not the premise of Modern Arnis.

#2. Remy Presas' own personal style was designed to beat Balintawak...

Professors style WAS a mixture of 3 styles of Balintawak, his families style, and other influences both Filipino native and foriegn. He devoloped his personal style to beat whomever he had to fight. He did indeed have to fight some people from the Balintawak system when he was in Cebu, but as far as we know, none from Anciong's club (other then through play in the club). I believe that some of Moncols guys may have caused him trouble, but I have no collaborating evidence to substantiate that. I do have evidence that he fought Bebe Piaz (and won), who was affiliated with Delphine Lopez.

Also, Professors personal style WAS Balintawak in that Balintawak was responsable for much of his development with the single cane fighting. (Although not learned in this order) His personal style matches closely with Maranga's Balintawak (in terms of aggressiveness, strategy, and some signature moves), added with the left handed capabilites learned from Maranga who was a leftie, and added with some insights into timing as well as some signature moves from Anciong.

The only conclusion I could come up is that Remy's personal style was designed to beat certian players, but not an entire style. Other players he never faught or played with (he never faught Manong Ted Buot for example), so he would have never had to develop a method of beating those people. He even gave credit to Anciong as well; a reliable source once asked Professor if he was ever able to beat Anciong, and Professors response was, "No way!"

Now, remember that there are language gaps. So, if he said (which I never heard) that, "This (fill in blank here) could beat Balintawak," remember that he could be refering to a number of different things. I doubt that he is refering to an entire martial art, but more likely refering to a number of players within an art.

I also covered this in that article for MT magazine.

Aren't there techniques/strategies from Modern Arnis that could beat Balintawak?

Sure. If your timing and execution of a technique bests my Balintawak technique, then I guess your Modern Arnis beat my Balintawak. But, you could replace the words Modern Arnis and Balintawak with the name of any art.

My take on Tapi-Tapi

I have written extensively on this before, but I have a different way of presenting what I think.

My belief is that all aspects of Modern Arnis are different roads to the same end: Real life application.

This "real life application" was articulated (for lack of a better word) through The Flow, and the ability to counter the counter.

The ability to flow and counter the counter was fully demonstrated in practice by ones ability to spar or semi-spar.

So, within the template of every "drill" or excersise, you could make that drill "live" by sparring out of it. Yes...I mean every excersise. Sinawali's, 6-count, flow drill, tapi-tapi template, or whatever.

Problem: seminar training. You can't go teach a seminar, teach single sinawali to a bunch of beginners and seminar junkies, teach a couple of moves, and then say "spar!" They won't know how to spar for one, for too, there is extreme liabilites in doing this.

So Tapi-Tapi became a way to teach seminar students how to "spar" with the single cane (then translate to other mediums such as empty hand or knife) in the seminar format.

I was there for the developement, so let me articulate it from my point of view.

It started as the solo-baston, right vs. right drill (single sinawali w/ one stick, one person enters, then you go through a series of puno-passes, then you break out back into single sinawali). The passing of the puno in the manner in the drill is what the words "Tapi-Tapi" directly translates to in Cebuano (and Taglog, I think), and "tapi" was used to describe that pass in Cebu. Plus, understanding Professors sense of humor and play on words, the sticks "tapping together" during the tapi-tapi drill as well as the passing from the solo baston drill of its origin seemed like a fitting name for his new discovery.

Now, from the solo-baston drill, we had 2 sticks against one. Now the 2 stick guy would throw in pokes and the 1 stick guy would have to defend. Then, the 2 stick guy practiced entering on with the left or right, and followed a template that led back into single sinawali (remember this one guys).

Now, we had solo-baston, and how to enter and insert. Then we had 2 sticks vs. one where the 2 stick guy enters. This guy was commonly known as "the driver." Now for actual tapi tapi, the 2 stick guy puts down one cane. Whether or not he holds the cane in his left or right does not matter, as he learned to enter from both sides when he had 2 sticks. He enters, and can continue with the templates with only one stick, then break back into single sinawali. Now he can start adding inserts from solo-baston as well.

O.K....so now that that is down, Professor would start introducing trap and lock sets from the inserts to add to that template.(btw...right vs. right was introduced 1st, but left vs. right became what was taught first eventually. I know this because me and my little brother were one of the first to demo the right vs. right tapi-tapi (with the trap and lock set inserts) at the MI State summer camp, and this was before teaching left vs. right was introduced)

Once you understood how to enter, intercept, monitor, etc., with trap sets and techniques, you could spar. In other words, no more "sticking to the drill," as I can interupt his trap sets to counter, and he can counter me, and so on and so forth. We are now sparring from a single sinawali/tapi-tapi template.

Once that was achieved, you could abandon the single sinawali/enter portion, and go right into sparring from whatever angle of attack your fed (or that you feed).

That was the developement. Now, eventually the solobaston to 2 stick vs one to single stick tapi-tapi progression slowly deminished, and people would go to seminars and they'd just learn tapi-tapi presets, which they'd put in "the drill."

My critique on many Tapi-Tapi-ers is that they never progressed to sparring from the tapi-tapi template. It was just a series of dynamic trap and lock sets for them. If you did something outside of the template you were warned to "stay in the drill." Then, these dynamic trap and lock set sequences and presets were seen as being the pinicle of the art.

Nonsense. If you saw that you were supposed to spar or "free-flow" from the tapi-tapi tempelate, you would see that you could spar out of any template, and with any medium (not just single stick). If you looked at people who understood this who learned in the 70's and 80's as well as the 90's, you would see evidence that reaching this level of profeciency where you could "spar" to demonstrate your ability to counter the counter and flow was really the goal of any template/drill, not just "tapi-tapi." You would then truely realize that it is "all the same!"

That's my opinion on the subject, anyways...welcome to it! :boing2:

:asian:
PAUL

 

[Gama]

John, would that have been you watching class last Thursday ?

 

[Mark Lynn]

Hi everyone. My take on a couple of things...


My take on Tapi-Tapi

I have written extensively on this before, but I have a different way of presenting what I think.

1) My belief is that all aspects of Modern Arnis are different roads to the same end: Real life application.

This "real life application" was articulated (for lack of a better word) through The Flow, and the ability to counter the counter.

The ability to flow and counter the counter was fully demonstrated in practice by ones ability to spar or semi-spar.

So, within the template of every "drill" or excersise, you could make that drill "live" by sparring out of it. Yes...I mean every excersise. Sinawali's, 6-count, flow drill, tapi-tapi template, or whatever.

2) Problem: seminar training. You can't go teach a seminar, teach single sinawali to a bunch of beginners and seminar junkies, teach a couple of moves, and then say "spar!" They won't know how to spar for one, for too, there is extreme liabilites in doing this.

So Tapi-Tapi became a way to teach seminar students how to "spar" with the single cane (then translate to other mediums such as empty hand or knife) in the seminar format.

3) I was there for the developement, so let me articulate it from my point of view.

4) It started as the solo-baston, right vs. right drill (single sinawali w/ one stick, one person enters, then you go through a series of puno-passes, then you break out back into single sinawali). The passing of the puno in the manner in the drill is what the words "Tapi-Tapi" directly translates to in Cebuano (and Taglog, I think), and "tapi" was used to describe that pass in Cebu. Plus, understanding Professors sense of humor and play on words, the sticks "tapping together" during the tapi-tapi drill as well as the passing from the solo baston drill of its origin seemed like a fitting name for his new discovery.

5) Now, from the solo-baston drill, we had 2 sticks against one. Now the 2 stick guy would throw in pokes and the 1 stick guy would have to defend. Then, the 2 stick guy practiced entering on with the left or right, and followed a template that led back into single sinawali (remember this one guys).

Now, we had solo-baston, and how to enter and insert. Then we had 2 sticks vs. one where the 2 stick guy enters. This guy was commonly known as "the driver." Now for actual tapi tapi, the 2 stick guy puts down one cane. Whether or not he holds the cane in his left or right does not matter, as he learned to enter from both sides when he had 2 sticks. He enters, and can continue with the templates with only one stick, then break back into single sinawali. Now he can start adding inserts from solo-baston as well.

6) O.K....so now that that is down, Professor would start introducing trap and lock sets from the inserts to add to that template.(btw...right vs. right was introduced 1st, but left vs. right became what was taught first eventually. I know this because me and my little brother were one of the first to demo the right vs. right tapi-tapi (with the trap and lock set inserts) at the MI State summer camp, and this was before teaching left vs. right was introduced)

Once you understood how to enter, intercept, monitor, etc., with trap sets and techniques, you could spar. In other words, no more "sticking to the drill," as I can interupt his trap sets to counter, and he can counter me, and so on and so forth. We are now sparring from a single sinawali/tapi-tapi template.

Once that was achieved, you could abandon the single sinawali/enter portion, and go right into sparring from whatever angle of attack your fed (or that you feed).

7)That was the developement. Now, eventually the solobaston to 2 stick vs one to single stick tapi-tapi progression slowly deminished, and people would go to seminars and they'd just learn tapi-tapi presets, which they'd put in "the drill."

8) My critique on many Tapi-Tapi-ers is that they never progressed to sparring from the tapi-tapi template. It was just a series of dynamic trap and lock sets for them. If you did something outside of the template you were warned to "stay in the drill." Then, these dynamic trap and lock set sequences and presets were seen as being the pinicle of the art.

Nonsense. If you saw that you were supposed to spar or "free-flow" from the tapi-tapi tempelate, you would see that you could spar out of any template, and with any medium (not just single stick). If you looked at people who understood this who learned in the 70's and 80's as well as the 90's, you would see evidence that reaching this level of profeciency where you could "spar" to demonstrate your ability to counter the counter and flow was really the goal of any template/drill, not just "tapi-tapi." You would then truely realize that it is "all the same!"

That's my opinion on the subject, anyways...welcome to it! :boing2:

:asian:
PAUL

Paul

Interesting post, I edited out the parts I didn't want to address or had no questions on and added numbers to your post so I could keep myself on track and respond to your post.

1) I agree whole heartedly with this point about real life application. And about how from any drill you can train for this.

2) I agree pretty much with your points here, however I think the Professor had other teachniques and concepts that would be say double stick disarms/traps that would then be added in the form of a single stick disarm or trap in the drill. Same with the empty hand material the trapping hands technique from single sinawali could then be applied as a single stick technique (compound lock) which then could be inserted into the tapi drill.

3) When did the development start on the R to R Tapi, and the L to R Tapi? As far as my notes from camps go 96 was the first time I saw the L to R, and I think the R to R was introduced in 97-98 I think (at the Texas camps). Although I have seen short segments on tape of the Professor showing a drill out of single sinawali back I think in the early 90's.

95 was my first camp with the Professor and he might have taught the R to R there but I don't reflect it in my notes.

4) The way I thought it was introduced here was more along the lines of the block check and counter drill off of the 12 angles of attack. From there we were told to always return a #1 or a #2. Then the feeder would block that and feed the next technique. And then we went into feeding certain patterns (templates) of working strikes and thrusts. The passing in the order I learned it came later.

The drill format of feeding the strikes or the thrusts and the defender responding with a #1 or a #2 is where I was drawing my observations about it being similar to the grouped Balintawak drills. Also with the person driving the drill.

I thought the term Tapi Tapi had been discussed on this forum before, and I had typed in that according to some other sources that the word meant checking hand or had to do with the checking hand, in the act of programing your opponent's response. Anyway I allways felt that that fit the aspect of the drill pretty well.

5) I always considered that the 2 vs. 1 stick drills were just ways of training several things, thrusting (and the defense against the thrust), entering with the punyos (and the defense against them), wrapping of the stick and techniques off of that entry, countering the punch, and dissolving the trap.

However I thought they were an out growth of double stick material and the empty hand single sinawali patterns (again taking a drill and having multiple applications or uses for it). Of course they allso lead into the Tapi drills as well.

6) Actually for us (from my notes of the Texas camps) Professor started teaching the L vs. R first with the locking sets right off of the bat. In a sense there were locks first then lock flows. He also showed us some combative applications of the locks, but the drill was changed the next year at camp.

What year was the that summer MI camp?

7) Actually at the camps I went to the 2 vs. 1 drills were (was) still taught up till the Professor's passing. So much as just learning the presets and putting them in the drill, I disagree. We went over the material that we covered the year past or the previous camp, but the Professor would add more techniques for both the L to R and the R to R. Some combative applications and such.

8) So much as staying in the drill, I understand what you mean and yet I understand why they wanted you to stay in the drill as well. IN 96 we learned an off balancing shove that was changed the next year for safety sake and to keep the drill going. But the Professor changed it, cause after I was corrected I went to him and asked and he told me to do it the safe way for the beginners.

Many people I think still stay within the drill, HOWEVER my experience at seeing the MOTTs at these camps from 99-2002 several of them knew how to ROCK with the drill. Others from Dr. Schea's group as well knew how to ROCK, I got my butt handed to me several times playing Tapi with them. I can rember when Chuck and Ken were going after it and everyone stopped including the Professor and watched. They diffiently weren't staying in the drill but the Professor was very pleased with them. So again I think it might be who or when you worked with these people who are stuck in the drill.

I've heard people trash the drill cause they only stayed within the realms of the patterns of L to R or R to R and never explored outside of it.

Now is the ultimate aim of this drill is it to teach you sparring or higher concepts in the art? I think sparring plays a role but it's not all it. Think about it if it was only about sparring why not teach more of the longer range instead of the closer range of Tapi. I think it teaches more.

I mean no disrespect. I have to go and eat and practice MA with my son.
Mark

:asian:

 

[Guro Harold]

Here is some of my personal thoughts on Tapi-Tapi...

- Tapi-Tapi was designed with the Professor in mind and the Professor always was in the driver's seat!!! There hasn't been alot of sets developed when roles are reversed at first.

- Tapi-Tapi was a culmination of the Professor's experiences but was not the finished product when he died. The Professor was always learning and innovating so to think that we have the finalized product is short-sighted.

- Tapi-Tapi is not magic. Its a drill that can help develop some attributes but even then, the right power, speed, timing, body positioning and reflexes must accompany the training for any real benefit.

- Knowing L v R Tapi-Tapi does not give you an automatic edge over a left-handed fighter if you are right-handed. It might be prudent to fight a lefty with your right hand.

- Tapi-Tapi is a primarily a fencing drill. However, most people don't fence when they spar or fight.

- Tapi-Tapi is a choreographed fight. Like Sword and fight choreography, it is beautiful to watch and the participants must be well skilled to pull it off, but it does not look like Olympic fencing. Therefore, tapi-tapi can be used to recognize some isolated scenarios, but a sparring session will not be that clean cut.

Finally, like the sport of tennis, drills themselves do not make Aggasi(s) Sampras(es) and Federa(s). Part of a pro's training is understanding strategy, the concept of percentiles, proper anticipation, and being able to plan a point, game, and match moves ahead. From what I have observed in a very limited way, GM Presas had some of the same concepts and it appears some of those concepts are within Balintawak.

Later,

Palusut

PS Hi Paul, I appreciate some of the points that you have made. I also agree that GM Presas created his personal style to defeat his opponents.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Hi Rich,

Actually, my recollection was I thought that he said once in a seminar that L vs R Tapi-Tapi was to counter Balintawak.

I am sure someone can counter that statement if they wish but I am merely going from my recollection.

Later,

Palusut

Palusut,

I do not doubt you. :asian:

I just could not speak in the first person as to that comment.

With Respect
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich,
Your description of (GM) Ted Buot's methods, seem very similar to the Villasin/Velez grouped method (also referred to as palakaw and/or padagan). The terms abecedario (spanish for alphabet), seguidas (sequence), and corridas (flow), are not used anymore (or atleast my teacher does not use these terms anymore). Cuentada, though, is still used, and is considered the pinnacle of Balintawak training.

Basics is as you've described it under Abecedario. Seguidas and Corridas, as you've described, fall under the "grouped" drill/method (actually "drill" is a misnomer, since much of the grouped method is random). The best analogy for the palakaw/padagan (grouped) method is that one can view it as a rail road, it's the infra-structure of this particular training method. The individual train cars are the various techniques. At the start of the journey, you only have one train car--the Basics (12 strikes, 12 defensive blocks, and basic footwork). The more you progress on the tracks (the padagan),the more cars are added (various techniques). Your ability to "flow" is what propels the train. Eventually you become this really efficient locomotive. Which means you move on to the next level. This is the longest to master. And before, you move on from this level, you have to learn the instructor's part.

The next, and final level, is Cuentada, and you need a completely different analogy to describe this, maybe a rocket ship, which just keeps on soaring, discovering more about yourself as an individual fighter. But, I'm not there yet, so I won't even try to describe this level.

Joe,

The grouped method from my limited understanding is that a series of techniques are taught is a psecific order. These techniques are practiced and then a new order is learned. From the new lists of grouped techniques, you see where the lists are bridged and where you can cross from one to another. I do nto see anything wrong with this teaching style, nor did I say it was or made the traning invalid. I just said it was a difference between the approach in teaching. Nothing more nothing less. :asian:

Cuentada (* Counting *)

This can have many meanings in Balintawak training. It is the pinnicle or apex as you mentioned. I have had it described to me by Manong (GM) Ted Buot that it is like chess. You will move your Pawn to get a reaction from your opponent, and then you make move your bishop to lock or limit the moves your opponent can make, then you set up your opponent so that he does nto have an option but to move in a certain direction, and then you get the move you were after all along. Some may say this is Lansis or setting or baiting the opponent, only this is not one move out, it is many moves out, with a game plan in place to direct the opponent into moving where you wish them too.

You might not be a real advanced player yet you can or could get a beginner to move in a certain way while Playing with them. This si a way to practice your Cuentada. It is truley Cuentada when you can acomplish this against your peers and other advanced fighters of your system and other systems.

:asian:

 

[Joe Eccleston]

Joe,

The grouped method from my limited understanding is that a series of techniques are taught is a psecific order. These techniques are practiced and then a new order is learned. From the new lists of grouped techniques, you see where the lists are bridged and where you can cross from one to another. I do nto see anything wrong with this teaching style, nor did I say it was or made the traning invalid. I just said it was a difference between the approach in teaching. Nothing more nothing less.

You are somewhat on the right track here, Rich. There's namely 5 "groups", or "series of techniques" as you've mentioned. Group 1, mainly deals with the various possibilities of grabbing, in which the student has to respond by lifting, clearing, etc. other techniques present in this group is the hakop, sablig, etc. Group 5, deals w/ the various possibilities of trappings. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is, these 5 groups are arbitrarily arranged. Group 5, could just as easily be Group 1, and vice versa. I, for one, was not told about these "Groups", until I was already well past this stage. And this was revealed to me in passing, "by the way, these are the groups". After Group 5, is a great variety of other techniques, like pushing, pulling, tripping, kneeing, and others. Group 1 to 5 is actually just 1% (I'm using a quantifying symbol here) of the whole padagan/palakaw process. After Group 5, everything, as you've said, is a "mixing bowl".

All these techniques after Group 5, could just as easily been their own individual "group", i.e. Group 6, 7, 15, and so on. But it stops at Group 5. This leads me to assume (this is only my interpretation), that Villasin (the guy who developed this method of training for himself) tried to establish ranking in Balintawak. Group 1 would be considered the beginner, while the Group 5 guy would be his senior in training. But the nature of Balintawak, or it seems to me atleast, would not allow this, so Group 5 was as far as Villasin went.

Cuentada (* Counting *)

This can have many meanings in Balintawak training. It is the pinnicle or apex as you mentioned. I have had it described to me by Manong (GM) Ted Buot that it is like chess. You will move your Pawn to get a reaction from your opponent, and then you make move your bishop to lock or limit the moves your opponent can make, then you set up your opponent so that he does nto have an option but to move in a certain direction, and then you get the move you were after all along. Some may say this is Lansis or setting or baiting the opponent, only this is not one move out, it is many moves out, with a game plan in place to direct the opponent into moving where you wish them too.

This is the same description or explanation I got also, Rich. So, in Velez's method, there's the Basics, the Flow (the padagan/palakaw), and Cuentada. The most advance portions of the padagan, in which the student is now introduced to the instructor's role, is the sana-sana (not really sure what this means literally). The sana-sana level is the area between the Flow/padagan and Cuentada. This is the student's introduction to Cuentada, being able to "read" the opponent, timing, setting-up, counter, etc. The student and instructor are now able to switch roles, in which the student does the agak, when he sees the opportunity to exploit the instructor (by trapping, disarm, tripping, etc.) he does so, there's a pause or break in the Flow, then the two resume the padagan again. Although this prepares the student for Cuentada, this portion of the training is completely on another level.

Question: Training with (GM) Ted Buot, are students encouraged to learn the instructor's role in the Agak (not become an Instructor)? I was told that only Teofilo Velez encouraged everyone of his students to do this, and that others in Balintawak were more picky about who they taught the intructor role. The philosophy behind this was that the only way to truly understand Balintawak, was to do the Agak yourself (i.e. a guy 5 months in the training, was encouraged to "instruct" the fresh new guy of the group). :asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

You are somewhat on the right track here, Rich. There's namely 5 "groups", or "series of techniques" as you've mentioned. Group 1, mainly deals with the various possibilities of grabbing, in which the student has to respond by lifting, clearing, etc. other techniques present in this group is the hakop, sablig, etc. Group 5, deals w/ the various possibilities of trappings. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is, these 5 groups are arbitrarily arranged. Group 5, could just as easily be Group 1, and vice versa. I, for one, was not told about these "Groups", until I was already well past this stage. And this was revealed to me in passing, "by the way, these are the groups". After Group 5, is a great variety of other techniques, like pushing, pulling, tripping, kneeing, and others. Group 1 to 5 is actually just 1% (I'm using a quantifying symbol here) of the whole padagan/palakaw process. After Group 5, everything, as you've said, is a "mixing bowl".

Thank You for further information.

This is the same description or explanation I got also, Rich. So, in Velez's method, there's the Basics, the Flow (the padagan/palakaw), and Cuentada. The most advance portions of the padagan, in which the student is now introduced to the instructor's role, is the sana-sana (not really sure what this means literally). The sana-sana level is the area between the Flow/padagan and Cuentada. This is the student's introduction to Cuentada, being able to "read" the opponent, timing, setting-up, counter, etc. The student and instructor are now able to switch roles, in which the student does the agak, when he sees the opportunity to exploit the instructor (by trapping, disarm, tripping, etc.) he does so, there's a pause or break in the Flow, then the two resume the padagan again. Although this prepares the student for Cuentada, this portion of the training is completely on another level.

When the student begins to see and take advantage is when the instructor is being Jaun, or the average joe off the street, this allows the student to practice their techniques. Also when the instructor returns to being the instructor the student needs to be able to read this, or is more likely to make a mistake.

Question: Training with (GM) Ted Buot, are students encouraged to learn the instructor's role in the Agak (not become an Instructor)? I was told that only Teofilo Velez encouraged everyone of his students to do this, and that others in Balintawak were more picky about who they taught the intructor role. The philosophy behind this was that the only way to truly understand Balintawak, was to do the Agak yourself (i.e. a guy 5 months in the training, was encouraged to "instruct" the fresh new guy of the group). :asian:

I cannot speak for all of his, Manong (GM) Ted Buot's students. I have not met them all. I do know that myself and those that I train with regularly have asked to learn the teaching side. In Abecedario and also in Seguidas, as well as Corraidas. Of course amongst ourselves as friends we will try to lansis or even cuentada our friends and peers. This is our practice. Our training is one on one with Manong Buot. You can have others come and watch or two people share two sessions to watch the other one. This is fine. Only one person though is truely working with the "Old Man" (* Said with much respect *) at any given time.

I guess some may not be interested in the teaching aspect, and only interested in their own self develpment or fighting capability. This in itself is fine. I also know that Manog Buot's son learned from his Manong Buot's Brother-in-law for his final training. This is one of the first questions I asked. Do your children train? Yes they do. Good, I like to see that.

:asian:

 

[Brother John]

John, would that have been you watching class last Thursday ?

YES!
That was me, my wife, our son and our daughter!
Very pleased to meet you Gary.
Wish we'd had time enough for me to introduce myself...but as Mr. Pernice was puting you guys through what appeared to be "Chi-Sao" (I could be wrong) my 3 year old daughter looked at me and said "I've gotta poop daddy".
Ahhhh fatherhood.
Do you go to the K2 forum also?
Are there any other K2 people that frequent Martial Talk???

Later
Your Brother
John

 

[Cruentus]

Hi Mark,

When did the development start on the R to R Tapi, and the L to R Tapi?

I have a hard time remembering dates for stuff (I didn't realize how important it was until it was too late!). But, if your notes show that 96' was the year that L to R Tapi-Tapi was intoduced, then I am guessing it was 95' at the MI State summer camp where my little bro Nate and I demoed right vs. right. That would make sense, as I do remember still being of High School age when we demoed (16 or 17, would have been 17 in 95', graduated from H.S. in 96').

Nate and I partnered together a lot during the camp, and Professor would come over to us periodically and show us an insert here, a trap or lock set there, and would have us put it in the solo-baston drill (right vs. right). He would show us stuff at odd times too, like on breaks or by his room, and then he'd send us off to go practice it. We worked on it for the weekend, and got pretty smooth with our flow, and transitions from one move to the next. Then on Sunday, he pulled me aside and said that I was going to demonstrate with my brother. Then he stopped everyone from whatever we were doing, and I led, my brother followed, and we demoed R vs. R. If I recall correctly, I believe he said that we (Nate and I) were the 1st to demonstrate R Vs. R Tapi-Tapi (although, I am sure a few others had the same material, but just weren't used to presenting it in the manner that Nate and I did). I know that he in so many words told everyone that this was the direction he wanted everyone to go in.

Next thing you know, as the year progressed, by summer camp the next year, L vs. R Tapi-Tapi was the in thing. It seemed that people had some difficulty picking up on R vs. R, but an easier time picking up L vs. R. I have no idea why that was, but I think that was why eventually L vs. R was taught first.

Most people don't know this (as our little demo was considered insignificant to them, probably) and just assumed that the L vs. R version came 1st because that what they learned 1st.

Wow...it's wierd talking about it. Brings back a lot of memories.

Some other points:

#4. It's kind of like "which came 1st, the chicken or the egg?" Some people may have learned it from single sinawali 1st, others from the 12 angle feed (very much like abecedarios and seguidas from Balintawak). I believe that he 1st taught what he called "tapi-tapi" from single sinawali. The problem with this was that too many people didn't have the timing to enter properly; if you can't enter from single, then your screwed with this version. Doing it from the 12 angle feed was actually easier because your didn't have to worry about entering from single sinawali. I remember as an ADHD kid, I found the 12 angle feed boring compared to banging single sinawali as fast as I can and trying to enter without getting smacked (lol).

So it is my belief that he started R vs. R and from single sinawali, but people had trouble w/ R vs. R, so he taught L vs. R 1st; then because people had trouble entering from single, so he taught it from the 12 angle feed (some people still think you can only enter in on single from puno's, lol). I would also like to mention that sometime during that time period prior to the 12 angle feed, Rocky Paswick and Hal Edwards were coming down and demoing Balintawak, and many Modern Arnis Student in Michigan (like Jaye Spiro, for example) were training with manong Ted Buot. People who didn't understand Rocky and Hal's demo didn't think it was significant, or that Balintawak was significant, for that matter; but Remy certianly did. I know for a fact that Remy probed Ted's students for questions. It isn't too far fetched to believe that Remy thought, "I can teach them tapi-tapi from an abecedario's or a seguidas type drill instead of single," so he began teaching Tapi-Tapi from the 12 angle feed. THis is all speculation, though.

Now, the tough thing is where to seperate "Tapi-Tapi" from just entering from anything and semi-sparring. There are people who learned to semi-sparring before the 90's, but who don't know one "Tapi-Tapi" preset. As I said before, its all the same, there are just different roads to get there; so the line isn't that distinct.

That was the other wierd thing about Tapi-Tapi (or, at least, I thought it was wierd). As people had trouble learning it, Professor broke his method of teaching it down further and further to more simplisticity. That is the difficulty with seminar training; if it's too complicated, students won't retain it. The problem I see then and even now a days is that many people think that their way of doing it is the ONLY way (or best way) because that was what Professor taught them, when what they were taught was simplified to fit the seminar format.

#5. I agree that the 2 vs. 1 stick drill was a way to learn several things. But, it sort of became the enterance to Tapi-Tapi. But remember, because you can semi-spar out of anything, it could have just as easily been something else that he chose as the enterance to Tapi-Tapi.

#6. Again, years are screwy in my head, as when your a young guy you really don't think that stuff will be important later. I want to say 1995 or 94. It couldn't have been before that because I know I had my drivers license then, but it couldn't have been after that because I know it wasn't the year I graduated from High School (96). If your notes say you were taught L vs. R 1st in 96, then 95 would make sense to me when I demoed R vs. R.

Remember, though, not many people knew the R vs. R template back then, as it wasn't taught in mass until later, so most learned L vs. R 1st.

#7 I don't know if we are in disagreement here. I never said the 2 vs. 1 drill went away, it just deminished, or was reduced in favor of a single-cane tapi-tapi cirriculum. Also, I agree that more techniques were added to the excersise. Isn't that what I said? :idunno:

#8 I trained with all the MOTTs except Brian while Remy was alive, as Brian and I did not officially meet until after Professor passed on. The MOTT's were my contemporaries. I played with all of them. For many (not just MOTTs) if I did something they weren't prepared for, I was told to stay within the drill. Often, they started the free flow, then they'd "correct" me. It seemed no fun to free flow, for many people, if it ment that a "kid" 10 or more years younger could possibly best you. Now, I am not saying that I was the best stick on the block back then, but I am saying that if it came to free flowing, unless it was with the man himself (Professor), I could definatily get my licks in.

Also, to address the "all roads lead to sparing," when I say that, I don't mean that all roads lead to flex stick sparring, or Dog Brother style largo sparring. I mean that all techniques, drills, and sets lead to "live" training with an unpredictable, resisting partner. "Semisparring" if you will. It is there that you can really get into the higher concepts of the art, and where you can really see how to put your "moves" into a live self-defense scenario.

So, to define a few terms so you don't misunderstand me, when I say "spar" I just mean "live" training. When I say "preset" I mean a series of techniques connected together, but sort of predetermined. I hope I am making sense! :uhyeah:

No Disrespect taken. You raise good points and questions, Mark! :asian:

Thanks,
Paul Janulis

 

[Mark Lynn]

Paul

Thanks for the input and response.

Years ago I started taking notes at seminars and classes and over the years at work (on breaks and lunches) expanding on them so I relate a bunch of stuff by dates, years or camps, seminars etc. etc. But in no way do I mean that in the case of L to R tapi or Tapi in general that it started in 96 or whenever, it's just that's when it was taught at the particular camp I was at.

I think the Tapi info kind of deviated from the Kombatan thread, sorry if I helped lead it astray.

Mark

 

[Mark Lynn]

Lakanpopot

Thanks for your offer of assistance.

I wonder if you could help me understand how the double stick protion of Kombatan (Mano Mano Arnis) is taught. I know the techniques and the order that GM ernesto taught it to us in a seminar format but I was wondering how or if it was taught differently in his school.

Off of the 14 or the 24 count feeding drills there are four basic responses (I think GM Ernesto might refer to them as systems)
1) same side block
2) Cross body block
3) Double block (same side block, cross body block) then hit
4) same side block, parry (under or over top the stick hand), and hit.

Two questions.
1) Did GM teach these responses as a system (say system 1 refering to the same side block and hit) and then teach the different thrust and strikes (banda y banda, sinawali etc. etc. etc.) off of that one response? Or did he teach the four responses and then later on introduce the different strikes?

2) Did Gm Ernesto group the sinawali drills when he taught them. I mean did he teach the single sinawali drills, then say the chambered or closed sinawali patterns, then move into say double stick sinawali, then teach the reverse sinawali patterns, or loop sinawali drills?

I guess what I'm trying to do is organize a teaching structure and the way I was going about it was to teach some single sinawali drills first, then some double sinawali drills, then teach the reverse sinawali drills, or loop sinawalis or double double sinawalis etc. etc. but teach them in a group fashion. I was wonder if that was how GM Ernesto presented it in his classes.

In a seminar format we might cover some of the drills from each segment over the 2-3 day camp and it would be in a more random order. which is why I'm trying to figure out a structure. I did ask GM Enresto a couple of years ago (when we had him in for a seminar) to help me lay out a structure/progression however he took one look at my note book and told me I knew the system well enough and left it at that. So I'm just wondering how he taught it in his classes.

Any input would be appreciated
Thanks

Mark

 

[Gama]

YES!
That was me, my wife, our son and our daughter!
Very pleased to meet you Gary.
Wish we'd had time enough for me to introduce myself...but as Mr. Pernice was puting you guys through what appeared to be "Chi-Sao" (I could be wrong) my 3 year old daughter looked at me and said "I've gotta poop daddy".
Ahhhh fatherhood.
Do you go to the K2 forum also?
Are there any other K2 people that frequent Martial Talk???

Yup, that was chi sao at the end. You can find me on our K2 forum too. As far as I know I am the only one of us here on this forum. Might have to try and get some of the others to start visiting.
Hope to see you in class soon.
Oh, by the way, I am the one with the ponytail, and if you heard it, the funny accent.

 

[Brother John]

Yup, that was chi sao at the end. You can find me on our K2 forum too. As far as I know I am the only one of us here on this forum. Might have to try and get some of the others to start visiting.
Hope to see you in class soon.
Oh, by the way, I am the one with the ponytail, and if you heard it, the funny accent.

OK...now I can put a face with the name, thanks Gary. I recall watching you and your partner, but you were too busy flinging a stick and a knife around your partner's body/face to reveal your accent. What is it? Brittish? Ya'll talk funny...

Your Brother
John

 

[Andrew Evans]

Just want to say that Guro Vincent Pernice showed me and my spouse an excellent representation of Kombatan a couple of months ago. His skills as a teacher and practitioner are extremely sharp. One thing about him that rivals his Kombatan skills is his character, as he's a caring individual and great guy.

The close-knit group and family environment that he maintains in Wichita can make many instructors jealous.

To sum things up, Kombatan is good stuff!

Andrew

 

[Mark Lynn]

Just want to say that Guro Vincent Pernice showed me and my spouse an excellent representation of Kombatan a couple of months ago. His skills as a teacher and practitioner are extremely sharp. One thing about him that rivals his Kombatan skills is his character, as he's a caring individual and great guy.

The close-knit group and family environment that he maintains in Wichita can make many instructors jealous.

To sum things up, Kombatan is good stuff!

Andrew

Andrew

I met Vincent and his group at a Kombatan seminar in Tulsa back several years ago. I have to agree with you. Imagine having your students (several of them) caring enough about their art to go to not one mind you but several seminars with the GM trying to learn all they could from the man. Heck that makes me jealous, thinking about that even the thought of having several students makes me jealous.

Looking forward to next weekend
Mark