Modern Arnis Basic Striking Patterns Discussion

[arnisador]

Yup, that sounds like him.

Every Modern Arnis person I've ever heard teach at a school or camp has described #10 as #6 but to the eye, etc. No one has ever said "Now #10 is very different from all the previous strikes..."

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

I have more striking charts from other systems that James or myself will be posting in the next week. I need to convert them to image files first.

:asian:

 

[RickRed]

I think if you were to ask Remy what's the difference between 6 & 7 vs. 10 & 11 his answer would be simple. "It is ALL the same."

:asian:

Or he might say that two are to the chest and two are to the eyes because that is what he said in his books, videos and seminars.

If no one can be Remy, no one can speak for him now.

 

[arnisador]

Or he might say that two are to the chest and two are to the eyes because that is what he said in his books, videos and seminars.

In different orders at different times, and with varying energies.

If the angle is what matters, I can't see the difference between #6 and #10. If the target is what matters, I do see the difference. My understanding is that it was always the angle that mattered most.

Yes, it's a change. No, I don't think it's a significant one. It drops a redundancy. You can do a #1 at almost any elevation--same for a #6.

 

[Guro Harold]

In different orders at different times, and with varying energies.

And with different emphasis.

How many techniques were taught publically by GM Presas that involved the sungkiti? I recall more of the #5 thrust usage in Palis-Palis more than the #6 and #7 sungkiti.

 

[modarnis]

And with different emphasis.

How many techniques were taught publically by GM Presas that involved the sungkiti? I recall more of the #5 thrust usage in Palis-Palis more than the #6 and #7 sungkiti.

Sometimes the 6 from the dagger hand in palis palis or even abanico corto espada y daga style, but those were extensions, and not a primary emphasis. When I trained with Dr. Remy a few years back, he did the bulk of a seminar on sungkhiti.

In my opinion, the angles are a basic training template. They also illustrate potential counterattacks from an opponent. One key to higher levels of the art, is understanding what your opponent can and can't do. 5 angles, 10, 12, 14 , far less imortant than understanding how the angles relate to attack, defense and counterattack in the flow of a system

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Or he might say that two are to the chest and two are to the eyes because that is what he said in his books, videos and seminars.

If the targets are the only difference then we have already addressed it and you chose to ignore it. I think that everyone on this thread (except for Jerome Barber and yourself) get the point. As Dr. Leader pointed out when he first posted the angles this was the WMAA’s version. Feel free to take all the shots you like. I have better things to do with my time. It is very evident that the members of camp Barber would rather cause trouble than contribute to the growth of our late Teacher’s legacy.


:asian:

 

[DrBarber]

So, following your rational, an angle #1 delivered to the shoulder/collarbone isn't the same as an angular forearm delivered to the head? A #8 delivered to the knee isn't the same as a backhand delivered to the ankle or shin?

The #10 and #11 targeted the eyes. The six and seven the clavicular area. They're virtually the same strikes, and the difference are so small that they're not worth mentioning, regardless of your perceptions on the positioning of the elbow. Remy's reasons for the reduncancy are clear--it was a targeting issue. He wasn't proposing some zippy new angle.

Thus the reactionary response rears its ugly head.

When you say "Modern Arnis as taught by Professor Remy Presas," which era are you talking about? Do you teach it exactly the way it was taught you, uncorrupted by time, ill memory, and the need for modification or creativity? Did he never intend it to progress beyond his death?

I saw him proctor tests where at least three versions of his forms were performed, and he didn't caution his instructors on the variability of the technique nor seem to care all that much. He allowed us great license in execution of those alone.

The man was eclectic and fluid in his approach to the art. We are not allowed to be? He encouraged sharing of ideas and on at least one occasion incorporated T'ai Chi push hands methods into his de cadena drill. So with his passing we have to lock up everything he showed us and keep it pristine and unchanged?

We've seen this exhortation of "teaching the true art as the late master taught" play out with every single personality driven martial art that ever existed...and its simply silly. Even if in the modern age we were able to archive a master's methodology and know exactly what it was he taught, and when he taught it, that doesn't mean such a methodology ought to be religiously and obssessively followed. At that point we stop being artists and merely become plagiarists. The art stops progressing, and we settle down into arthritic thinking. We stop trying to be ourselves and try to be the shadow of one now gone.

I suspect he wouldn't have liked us to do that.


Regards,


Steve

Hello Steve,



I guess that you don’t know who I am and apparently, my reputation has not preceded me. That could be a good thing. I would be the very last person to push/demand orthodoxy and blind conformity to tradition or past practices. I fully encourage exploration and innovation. Improving one’s understanding of the art, the foundations and various components is absolutely worthwhile in my opinion. I am a fervent exponent of “making it for yourself” as well as “the art within your art” concepts of Modern Arnis as devised and presented by Professor. Therefore, I believe we are actually on the same page and we really have no serious disagreements.



I’ve read and re-read all three of Professor’s books. In addition, I have viewed and re-viewed all of Professor’s tapes from the original 1986 group of five, plus the later addition of 2 others. There

Is also the 3 tapes in the Black Belt Series as well as the series of tapes that Jeff Delaney was selling before Professor’s death. I believe that I’m fairly well versed in the subtleties of what Professor was teaching. I attended seminars and camps from 1981 through 1994, and I hosted the same for Professor from 1986 and 1994. Given the time and studies that I’ve put into this art, I am well aware of the possibilities for personal development and growth. I refuse to portray myself as an expert or authority, but I am quite knowledge about the art. I consider myself a skilled student as well as an instructor. I don’t have any exalted rankings, just a strong working interest in Modern Arnis. My rank under Professor is a mere Lakan Tatlo. There is no way that I would ever presume that I could be a working leader in the art. After all is said and done, my IMAF working title was Technical Assistant for International Affairs. That title ceased to exist

after I resigned from the IMAF.



During my years of blending Kenpo and Arnis, I have seen various permutations of the 12 angles of attack and anyos. Until I came across the 10 angles of attack statements, I viewed all the various variations as being MAFP and IMAF sanctioned. I’ve taught both empty hand and stick anyos differently from Tim Hartman and Professor approved of both methods. I never told anyone or announced that someone else’s approach was not the correct way of doing Modern Arnis, but then I came across the 10-strike method.



Please understand that I have seen and worked with at least six different versions of the 12 angles of attack while actively involved with Professor and the IMAF. The printed versions by Professor always were #1 & #2, horizontal strikes to the temple. #3 & #4 were diagonal downward strikes to the clavicles. Those first four strikes had a number of different versions depending on who was teaching the methodology and when. There was #1 & #2 to the temples with #3 & #4 as horizontals to the Elbows and Floating Ribs. Another version also retained #1 & #2 but lowered #3 & #4 to the waist and or top of the hipbones. Then there was the diagonal #1 & #2 with the horizontal #3 & #4 to the earlier mentioned Elbow/Rib targets. I also recall the horizontal #1 and #2 but #3 & #4 were reversed and became backhand (#3) to Forehand (#4) with a retraction to the forehand side to set up strike #5 the Upward Thrust.



One could retain the standard printed format of Professor’s texts with strikes #1 - #5, and use thrusts #6 and #7 on the forehand to backhand method or one could alter the order using #6 as a backhand reverse thrust and #7 as the forehand thrust. If one were to reverse #6 & #7, then strikes #8 through #11 were also changed to the opposite sides from what Professor has published in his three texts. Therefore, the question becomes which of the above methodologies

is the correct order? Alternatively, one can take the position that Professor was highly dynamic and fluid in his approach to the 12 striking angles; however, one thing NEVER CHANGED, there were ALWAYS 12 Strikes. On that one singular fact, Professor was always very consistent. He meant it when he wrote:



“The twelve striking techniques are the life and soul of arnis. They are the hinges around which other techniques in arnis revolve.” (Presas, 1974, p. 32) Remy Presas. Modern Arnis: Philippine Martial Art, Stick Fighting. National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 1974.





I have consistently taught my students four Modern Arnis 12 strike methods. I learned all four from Professor himself as well as Sifu Don Zanghi and Guro John Bryant. The rationale behind my decision to use all four patterns was that I did not want my students to become fixated on a particular method of striking to the exclusion of all others. Rigidity like cloning is not an option in my school. Flexibility of methodology and thinking supercedes rote replication and mindless copying of motion in my teaching philosophy.



Hardhead-Jarhead also wrote:



“ At that point we stop being artists and merely become plagiarists. The art stops progressing, and we settle down into arthritic thinking. We stop trying to be ourselves and try to be the shadow of one now gone.”



First and foremost a ‘plagiarist’ is someone who authors a written work, created by another person and pass that work off as his/her own, consciously and deliberately denying proper credit to the original author. I am not suggesting that anyone is failing to give proper credit to Professor. The problem is exactly the opposite some people are trying to claim that what they are doing by teaching a 10 strike system of Modern Arnis is consistent with what Professor taught and simply is not true. As for the art progressing, I am in general agreement with you. I support the contention that Professor wanted the art to grow and that people should make Modern Arnis principles and skill sets fit themselves. In other words the students should be alive and actively seeking to understand how to translate the various components of Modern Arnis into their own method of presentation and execution.



Given my position as stated above, I now return to that 10-strike method of the WMAA. It is my contention that the Tim Hartman and his WMAA leadership group can adopt any striking system with any number of strikes that they wish. I am not objecting to their decision to go with 10 strikes. I support their right to modify the count in any manner that they deem appropriate for the WMAA. Just don’t call it Professor’s Modern Arnis striking system because it is not what he taught at ANY TIME that I am aware of during his 25 years of teaching in the USA. These folks should call what they are doing by its true and correct name: WMAA 10 Angles of Attack!



Yours truly,



Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[DrBarber]

If the targets are the only difference then we have already addressed it and you chose to ignore it. I think that everyone on this thread (except for Jerome Barber and yourself) get the point. As Dr. Leader pointed out when he first posted the angles this was the WMAA’s version. Feel free to take all the shots you like. I have better things to do with my time. It is very evident that the members of camp Barber would rather cause trouble than contribute to the growth of our late Teacher’s legacy.
:asian:

Come on Tim, I fully support your right to modify the count to 10 from 12 strikes. I have already said that and posted it. No problem, it was an internal matter within the WMAA, so just call it what it is, the WMAA 10 Angles of Attack.

Further, I posted reasons why strikes #10 and #11 are effective and why they should be kept as part of the training. Disagree or not, but look at the documented effects, not the fact that I posted them. I have made several positive contributions to the thread and never said that you should do anything my way. My posts pointed out that #10 and #11 are not redundent, repetitive or the same. I gave anatomical and physiological rationales for retaining these two strikes in the instructional mode. You are perfectly free to reject my suggestions, but you really ought to read my comments much more carefully. In addition, I contributed quotes from Professor himself, from his own books and interviews to support my contentions. When did that become agrumentative and disruptive? My
posts have contributed in a very positive manner to the threads while taking nothing away from your decision and right to use a 10 strike system. When I quoted Professor:

“The twelve striking techniques are the life and soul of arnis. They are the hinges around which other techniques in arnis revolve.” (Presas, 1974, p. 32) Remy Presas. Modern Arnis: Philippine Martial Art, Stick Fighting. National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 1974.

My intention was to remind everyone that he had a reason and purpose behind every strike and target selected. Why would you be opposed to seeing/reading what the GM had to say about the system that he designed.
I have freely acknowledged that I am not a strict adherent to every little subtle nuisence of what Professor did within Modern Arnis. I have always freely stated that my training was a blending of Tracy Kenpo and Modern Arnis from white belt to black belt under Sifu Don Zanghi. I posted earlier today that I use four (4) different versions of the 12 Modern Arnis Angles of Attack. That alone would clearly indicate that I am not a Modern Arnis purist. So exactly where is is it that I have "cause(d) trouble than contribute to the growth of our late Teacher’s legacy."? Please be specific, quote me! And please do take the time to reply since I am writing directly to you in response to the quote above that you authored.

And just in case some of the forum readers are unaware of what I have done in the past to positively contribute the legacy of Professor, I have taught Modern Arnis at Erie Community College in both Orchard Park and Buffalo, NY since 1987 to the present. My four course sequence is taught for academic credit through the PE Department. Professor himself approved the entire program in writing in 1989. I also hosted Professor for at least one seminar and camp every year from 1986 to 1994. After leaving the IMAF because of some internal differences with a local Modern Arnis instructor - not Tim Hartman, by the way - I continued to teach Modern Arnis and sent people to seminars and camps with Professor through 2000, when he stopped teaching in order to deal with his terminal illness.

In 2003, I hosted the first Modern Arnis Symposium and met with considerable opposition both before and after the event. Some people were even critical of the fact that I would not dictate or restrict how the Modern Arnis would be presented. People were critical of the fact that I wanted and encouraged people to bring forward and show everyone assembled how they understaood Modern Arnis to be constructed. My position was that Modern Arnis is and continues to be a living adaptive martial art. Professor often told everyone that they should make it for themselves.

The major complaints against the Symposium concept and program itself
were that it occured too soon after Professor death. The wrong person
was hosting the event. It was being held in the wrong city. Not all of the presenters were well known. The "big name people" (Kelly Worden, Jeff Delaney, Randi Schea) were not on the program. That is quite interesting since I formally invited all of them to appear and all declined. Rocky Paswik was a no show along with David Ng and Bruce Chiu.

Given the fact that I had asked both the leaders and some memebers of all
of the US Modern Arnis groups to participate and people chose to decline, I refused to accept that as a negative. I planned for no shows. I put other people in those slots - Tim Kashino, Paul Martin and Paul Janulis. I had also stated in print that I would hold the event so long as I had four (4) instructors willing to teach. Seven (7) instructors indicated that they would be there and they kept their word.

One person who did not even attend the event referred to the instructors assembled as the "Replacement B Team". That is a very telling as well as interesting remark because two of those 'B Teamers' were invited to teach
at the 2005 Modern Arnis Tipunan in Anaheim, along with this writer. All
three of us are on the advanced list of invited instructors for the upcoming 2006 Tipunan in Boston. Not too shabby, in my opinion. However, in spite
of all of the above stuff, I have never wavered in my conviction that the Symposium was the right thing to do. Others disagree, so be it.

I have made some significant and continous contributions to Modern Arnis over the years and I will continue to teach the art along with my Tracy Kenpo. My offer to teach anyone the connections between Kenpo and Arnis stands. Since I have been actively involved in learning and teaching both arts since 1981 to the present, there are only a few people whom I would regard as more knowledgable than myself in this area.

So, any time you are ready, Tim, to talk directly to me and point out where
I was negative in my comments on this thread, I await your response.
To paraphase your comment made above 'I have better things to do with my time than answer the comments of others speaking in your behalf, since you are the one who refered to "camp Barber". Let's dialogue, without the 'camps', Tim.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[Guro Harold]

Mod note:

Now seems to be an excellent time for Mr. Hartman and Dr. Barber to discuss this offline.

Best regards,

Palusut
MT Senior Moderator

 

[Dan Anderson]

Just got back from Canada and haven't read any more of this thread except for that it is separated from the original.

Here is how I look at it. Offensively, I think the target based numbering system is very important, especially when you change the weapon from impact based to cutting based. Defensively, the direction of motion is senior to targeting. You don't need to know if the incoming strike (cut) is going to the head, shoulder, or neck. It is an upper level strike (cut) that is coming from that direction. And so on. I'll keep it short but I can see Tim's viewpoint of what he is doing, whether or not I agree with it (for the record it doesn't matter to me).

Yours,
Dan Anderson

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I think if you were to ask Remy what's the difference between 6 & 7 vs. 10 & 11 his answer would be simple. "It is ALL the same."

:asian:

Oh wow.

Actually, I agree. He would have said that.






Regards,


Steve

 

[Guro Harold]

Mod Note:

Post temporarily removed per review.

Palusut
MT Senior Moderator

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Jerome,

In the future don't contact me either through e-mail or PM. If you have anything to say to me, say it here. Do not contact me in any other way. If you can't say it to me publicly, don't say it.

You're suggesting here that I am speaking on Tim's behalf. If you post something I disagree with, I can assure you I will speak for myself. And if you post here--as it is a public forum--I'll jump in and comment as I see fit, and vigorously.

You've contradicted yourself a number of times here. You state you're progressive, but then suggest locking Modern Arnis in amber and keeping it pristine and unchanged. You write:

I would be the very last person to push/demand orthodoxy and blind conformity to tradition or past practices. I fully encourage exploration and innovation. Improving one’s understanding of the art, the foundations and various components is absolutely worthwhile in my opinion. I am a fervent exponent of “making it for yourself” as well as “the art within your art” concepts of Modern Arnis as devised and presented by Professor. Therefore, I believe we are actually on the same page and we really have no serious disagreements.

The bulk of the post then takes exception to any changes to what Remy taught. It seems you can be progressive, but Tim can not be. Must he first clear his actions with you?

You then write:

The problem is exactly the opposite some people are trying to claim that what they are doing by teaching a 10 strike system of Modern Arnis is consistent with what Professor taught and simply is not true.

Tim knows that Remy never taught ten strikes. We all do. None of us ever stated otherwise. We were at the seminars and camps and we also bought the videos and books. The statement above is sheer nonsense. The elimination of two strikes that are virtually identical to two preceding it are not going to cause the wrath and ruin to descend on the art of Modern Arnis. Give it a rest!

At first you attempted to suggest the disputed strikes were structurally different (they're clearly not), then you fell back on the books/videos argument And now you’re quibbling and playing with semantics. All this is making you look rather silly and exposes your motivation. This clearly isn't about two angles of attack.

Further, if you're going to condescend to me as you did in the e-mail and here, do so with some intellectual weight to back your statements.

I repeat...do not contact me in any other way unless it is in the open and here on Martial Talk.



Regards,


Steve

 

[arnisador]

You're suggesting here that I am speaking on Tim's behalf. If you post something I disagree with, I can assure you I will speak for myself. And if you post here--as it is a public forum--I'll jump in and comment as I see fit, and vigorously.

Hey, I can definitely attest to this!

 

[DrBarber]

Jerome,

In the future don't contact me either through e-mail or PM. If you have anything to say to me, say it here. Do not contact me in any other way. If you can't say it to me publicly, don't say it.

Further, if you're going to condescend to me as you did in the e-mail and here, do so with some intellectual weight to back your statements.

I repeat...do not contact me in any other way unless it is in the open and here on Martial Talk.

Regards,

Steve

OK, Not a Problem, As you wish!

Note: My statement was generalized and not specific to you. Just taking a very good suggested offered numerous times by others and re-applying it since the "camp Barber" thing was reintroduced.

Respectfully yours,

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[RickRed]

Let's check this from the mission statement on the WMAA web site:

Our first goal is to further the growth of Arnis throughout the world...We will achieve this by designing specific training programs that will advance the progression of our art while developing maximum student proficiency.

That contradicts what you wrote above. Do your homework, professor.

This clip from the Horizon Martial arts instructors page might help clarify some contradictions in what WMAA/Hartman are about:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"After Professor Presas’ retirement due to illness Hartman formed the WMAA (World Modern Arnis Alliance) in order to preserve and continue the progression of the art of Modern Arnis. He is currently the WMAA’s President and Technical Director."[/font]

This would confirm to some degree what Dr. B was saying about goals.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

This clip from the Horizon Martial arts instructors page might help clarify some contradictions in what WMAA/Hartman are about:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"After Professor Presas’ retirement due to illness Hartman formed the WMAA (World Modern Arnis Alliance) in order to preserve and continue the progression of the art of Modern Arnis. He is currently the WMAA’s President and Technical Director."[/font]

This would confirm to some degree what Dr. B was saying about goals.

The key phrase here...and thank you for including it...is "continue the progression." One can preserve, and yet progress.

As I've said elsewhere, I think we do a great deal of harm if we do one at the expense of the other. Life and art are fluid and dynamic and demand progression...yet it would be both sad and unwise to lose the contributions of geniuses such as Remy or (insert great martial artist here).

We can draw a great deal from archival knowledge, but we can't let the game pass us by.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Guro Harold]

Mod Warning:
Let's use this thread to discuss the theory, execution, and application of the Modern Arnis 12 strikes only.

Let's let Mr. Hartman and Dr. Barber resolve their differences offline.

This Mod warning will also be a reminder of this Admin warning: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15344.

Please review it.

Best regards,

Palusut
MT Senior Moderator

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I can see to an extent both views. In order to move forward you must know where you've been. There are nuances to these things that we beginners don't get.

I see preserving it as maintaining the system as Remy developed. Knowing where he got things, who he got them from, why he kept what he kept, and wht he dropped what he dropped. MA didn't just "be", it was evolved over decades.

Progress is also important. Remy to my knowledge never stopped looking for ways to improve. I look at some of the 'known' influences (SCJJ, kenpo, karate, etc) and see where he took some things that worked, and made them "his" for his system.

THe WMAA removed 2 angles that, when done with a stick were a tad awkward and seemingly redundant. I assume there was a long period of discussion as I recall asking Tim about them (the angles) seeming to be the same when I first met him and the answer being something along the lines of 'alot of people say that'. (I met Tim in 01, to give a time frame here). I've also tried those angles open-hand, knive and sword. Some are more condusive to 'working' than others at least to me and my 'golum gate' style of non-movement.

When looking at 'systems' one has to also look at the "difficulty level" of the system. A system such as EPAK has a high level due to it's encycopedia of techniques, it's 'language', and it's concepts. Modern Arnis is more a dictionary in comparison. What people often forget, is that there is still an alphabet at a simplier level.

Kenpo has 360' of attack. Modern Arnis has 12. WMAA dropped that to 10. Tim's taught it as low as 3 (to absolute newbies). I see it as making good sence. Start simple, then expand the mind. For me, 6/7 and 10/11 were the same, just a slightly awkward hand positions difference. To someone at a higher level, they can not only "get it" but make "it" work as well.

Hope that made sence...I haven't had my caffine yet.