Modern Arnis: The Next Generation Goals

[Dan Anderson]

What Modern Arnis' needs is a MA historian(s) someone/persons who has been or knows the entire progression for Modern Arnis from its inception in the Philippines, I believe there are only a handful of people I believe who are qualified to this (non-american), the most qualified person who comes to mind is Roland Dantes. Another approach is to have different people be historians/experts for different time periods in particular. I beleive this is what Prof. Vee had in mind when he had diffrent succesors for Vee Arnis , Vee Jitsu (75) , and Vee Arnis Jitsu (not really sure of the real names here). Modern Arnis already has this to a certain extend, with the Masters of Tapi-Tapi, as their main focus seems to teach the art as Prof taught starting aroung 96-97 till the time of his death where a large focus seemed to be Tapi Tapi.

What I believe is import here is for these historians not to alter or introduce any personal inovations, or at least clearly define "as was taught to me by Prof Presas" vs. ones own 'style'/'interpretation' of modern arnis . I know this would become very frustrating for ones own personal groth as a martial artist

Regards,
Vince
aka Black Grass

Hmmmm, now that's an interesting idea. Not bad.

Yours,
Dan Anderson

 

[Mark Lynn]

This will be my third attempt to address this subject matter since my first two posts got lost, I guess I got logged out?

my thoughts,

1. I agree with Dan Anderson, I would say no. The Prof. wanted to spread the art AND make a living, He acheived both.

2. I believe that Profs legacy is best kept by continuing t ospread the art and preserving the art. This should be done in exclusivity of each other. Again I agree with Dan Anderson that spreading the art at this point seems to be non-issue, Prof has made it the widest practiced FMA in the world and the art continues to spread even thoguh there is lack of central leadership.

However, some work needs to be done preserving the Art. The difficulty here is that Modern Arnis was an ever changing system.

If one want to preserve Modern Arnis a way is to encapsulate it in periods. For those of you who have attended a Dan Inosanto seminar, when he talks or shows a technique about the Art of Bruce Lee he sometimes qualifies it as coming from the time of the Oakland school, the Los Angles school, Chinese gung Fu or Jun Fan etc... What Modern Arnis' needs is a MA historian(s) someone/persons who has been or knows the entire progression for Modern Arnis from its inception in the Philippines, I believe there are only a handful of people I believe who are qualified to this (non-american), the most qualified person who comes to mind is Roland Dantes. Another approach is to have different people be historians/experts for different time periods in particular. I beleive this is what Prof. Vee had in mind when he had diffrent succesors for Vee Arnis , Vee Jitsu (75) , and Vee Arnis Jitsu (not really sure of the real names here). Modern Arnis already has this to a certain extend, with the Masters of Tapi-Tapi, as their main focus seems to teach the art as Prof taught starting aroung 96-97 till the time of his death where a large focus seemed to be Tapi Tapi. What I believe is import here is for these historians not to alter or introduce any personal inovations, or at least clearly define "as was taught to me by Prof Presas" vs. ones own 'style'/'interpretation' of modern arnis . I know this would become very frustrating for ones own personal groth as a martial artist

Regards,
Vince
aka Black Grass

Vince
I agree with your post here, but I'll quote you and address something specifically.

"However, some work needs to be done preserving the Art. The difficulty here is that Modern Arnis was an ever changing system.

If one want to preserve Modern Arnis a way is to encapsulate it in periods. For those of you who have attended a Dan Inosanto seminar, when he talks or shows a technique about the Art of Bruce Lee he sometimes qualifies it as coming from the time of the Oakland school, the Los Angles school, Chinese gung Fu or Jun Fan etc... "

I totally agree here, in fact it was Dan Inosanto's influence (by hearing and seeing him do exactly like you are talking about) that first got me started taking notes back in 85. So in my own limited way I tried to preserve his teachings, not really for a historical sense but that I could accurately represent his art if I decided to teach it.

"What Modern Arnis' needs is a MA historian(s) someone/persons who has been or knows the entire progression for Modern Arnis from its inception in the Philippines, I believe there are only a handful of people I believe who are qualified to this (non-american), the most qualified person who comes to mind is Roland Dantes. Another approach is to have different people be historians/experts for different time periods in particular."

No slight to Roland Dantes intended here but I think no one person has the whole system. I believe it would have to be a collective effort since I think his art evolved over a pretty long time, much longer than Bruce Lee's JKD (while Bruce was alive that is).

"What I believe is import here is for these historians not to alter or introduce any personal inovations, or at least clearly define "as was taught to me by Prof Presas" vs. ones own 'style'/'interpretation' of modern arnis ."

This leads into the thrust of my first non post and that is what making the art your own and at what point do you go beyond teaching MA and teaching Mark's Arnis or Billbo's Arnis etc. etc.

I'll address this aspect in another post(s)

With respect
Mark

 

[Mark Lynn]

Arnisador and Blackgrass both brought up JKD and in Arnisadors post the splitting of JKD and Blackgrass the documenting of JKD and the need for it in MA. To me this is an interesting and yet important points that need to be brought out and discussed.

In JKD there are really two camps the Preservationists and the JKD Concepts camp with then sub groups of followers who take instruction from instructors who basically fall into these one of these camps.

The Preservationists follow Bruce Lee's curricculmn from what he taught during a given time, as he evolved in his method then depending upon what period of time the teacher was taught than that is what the students are taught.

The Concepts camp follow what they thought Bruce Lee meant by his teachings etc. etc. and they have gone beyond the physical techniques to make the art their own and therefore have added many things that Bruce Lee never taught.

And both camps claim to be teaching what Bruce taught and I believe both are right, and yet they don't get along. (This is based on my research and dealing with JKD several years back so if it has changed, then I mean no offense or anything.)

So in Modern Arnis I see basically the same thing. The "Preservationists" who want to be taught what Remy taught (the drills and techniques") and the "Make it your Own Art group". And I believe there is a little animosity, misunderstanding, bad blood, between members of the two camps or members of the same camps and we (MA students and instructors) tend to get upset with other behind the key boards of our computers because we haven't addressed (either we ourselves or with others maybe) which camp we are in.

There is nothing wrong with either camp, both I think teach what Remy taught whether it be through concepts/principles or drills and techniques. SM Dan Anderson had a good post/thread a while back talking about being members of the same family.

Well my wife tells me I must get ready for work, I try and finish my thoughts on this later.

Mark

 

[Dan Anderson]

So in Modern Arnis I see basically the same thing. The "Preservationists" who want to be taught what Remy taught (the drills and techniques") and the "Make it your Own Art group".

There is nothing wrong with either camp, both I think teach what Remy taught whether it be through concepts/principles or drills and techniques. Mark

Regarding the above, I remember a private conversation in which someone was blasting the "Remy clones." They only taught what "Remy did." I had a funny thought in that if you only teach what Prof. Remy taught, you are doing "what Remy did." If you are expanding on the art and making it grow, you are doing "what Remy did." Hey! We, in one way or another "Remy clones."

Yours,
Dan Anderson

 

[Dan Anderson]

This leads into the thrust of my first non post and that is what making the art your own and at what point do you go beyond teaching MA and teaching Mark's Arnis or Billbo's Arnis etc. etc.

With respect
Mark

I suppose it's when you actually declare it to be so (and take the heat from other members of the family) or when you change it to another art based curriculum (eg. "adding sticks" to your taekwondo).

Yours,
Dan Anderson

 

[arnisador]

Regarding the above, I remember a private conversation in which someone was blasting the "Remy clones." They only taught what "Remy did." I had a funny thought in that if you only teach what Prof. Remy taught, you are doing "what Remy did." If you are expanding on the art and making it grow, you are doing "what Remy did." Hey! We, in one way or another "Remy clones."

I'd like to take this a step further. The Prof. encouraged everyone to teach and share the art and help it grow and spread. I am confident that if he was asked who the future leaders of the art were, he'd sweep his arm out at the group of students in front of him, beginners to seniors, and say "All of them." He really wanted the art to spread, and he really hoped everyone would help to see that happen.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I am confident that if he was asked who the future leaders of the art were, he'd sweep his arm out at the group of students in front of him, beginners to seniors, and say "All of them."

That may be the truest statement I have head in a long time

from all I have ever heard of the man he invissiond all his students passing on th art

 

[dearnis.com]

yup.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Arnisador posted
"I'd like to take this a step further. The Prof. encouraged everyone to teach and share the art and help it grow and spread. I am confident that if he was asked who the future leaders of the art were, he'd sweep his arm out at the group of students in front of him, beginners to seniors, and say "All of them." He really wanted the art to spread, and he really hoped everyone would help to see that happen."

Couldn't agree more

Mark

 

[DrBarber]

Regarding the above, I remember a private conversation in which someone was blasting the "Remy clones." They only taught what "Remy did." I had a funny thought in that if you only teach what Prof. Remy taught, you are doing "what Remy did." If you are expanding on the art and making it grow, you are doing "what Remy did." Hey! We, in one way or another "Remy clones."

Yours,
Dan Anderson

Hey Dan,

"If you are expanding on the art and making it grow, you are doing "what Remy did." I fully agree with the intent of that statement, but in actual fact the person would not be a "clone" IF he were adding their own ideas and taking from arts that Remy did not introduce into Modern Arnis. Cloining is to reproduce an exact replica of the orginial.

For instance, is MA-80 an exact replication of Modern Arnis as Remy taught it to you? I don't think so based on a couple things that you have posted in the past about your system. Therefore I would say that you have not gone the way of the "Remy Clones". As I have read and understood your books, I see differences between you and what I know that Remy taught when I was attending seminars and camps. However, if you choose to see yourself as a "Remy Clone", I certinly would not argue with you or try to alter your perspective on the matter.

Respectfully,

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[Dan Anderson]

Nahhh, I'm not anybody's clone. I was making light of a particular statement which was meant as denigration. In one way, yes, a clone as I am doing the same thing he did which is, as you say,

IF they were adding their own ideas and taking from arts that Remy did not introduce into Modern Arnis

. RP did that with his family art and then later balintawak along with other influences. In that way, hey, a clone. Otherwise it's Dan doing the same as he did with karate.

Yours,
Dan

 

[DrBarber]

Arnisador posted
"I'd like to take this a step further. The Prof. encouraged everyone to teach and share the art and help it grow and spread. I am confident that if he was asked who the future leaders of the art were, he'd sweep his arm out at the group of students in front of him, beginners to seniors, and say "All of them." He really wanted the art to spread, and he really hoped everyone would help to see that happen."

Couldn't agree more

Mark

A general comment, not specificly directed to Mark. If the above statements are true, then why all the concern about who is or is not doing Modern Arnis, Remy Presas Arnis or Traditional Modern Arnis. If the above statements are true and people are in general agreement then EVERYONE is a leader in Modern Arnis and EVERY ORGANIZATION is carrying on the ideas, concepts, theories and techniques of Modern Arnis and there should be very few arguements about what someone else is doing! Basicly, people need to tend to their own business and encourage everyone else who is attempting to keep the late Professor's art alive, viable and expanding.

However, that cooperative effort is not happening is it?
Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[arnisador]

then why all the concern about who is or is not doing Modern Arnis, Remy Presas Arnis or Traditional Modern Arnis.

It's certainly of no concern to me. The Professor encouraged people to make the art their own, or to make it the art within their (other) art...I have no problem with what's being done by (for example) MARPPIO, IMAF-Schea, DAV, etc. I'm not concerned about it. My only concern is that the Professor's art not die out.

Basicly, people need to tend to their own business

Yes, this seems like good advice.

 

[DrBarber]

It's certainly of no concern to me. The Professor encouraged people to make the art their own, or to make it the art within their (other) art...I have no problem with what's being done by (for example) MARPPIO, IMAF-Schea, DAV, etc. I'm not concerned about it. My only concern is that the Professor's art not die out.

Yes, this seems like good advice.

Jeff,

It seems to me that if one is engaged in naming some people as leaders, as you have done in a post on FMA-Talk (Modern Arnis Forum) and omitting others who have been active and prominent in recent years, that you are in fact concerned about who is
doing what in the name of Modern Arnis.

Professor's art is going to die out in one sense. Modern Arnis was his personal expression, his personal vision of how the art can
be done. His encourgement for others to make the art for themselves is often repeated by many, yet a number of people jump all over others attempting to follow Professor's dictum. Therefore, to the extent that some people are working to make the art fit their own perspectives, Professor's art will die out and there little to nothing that can be done to stop the process.

There has been a very definate shift in who is accpetable as a Modern Arnis System leader and who isn't as expressed by a number of posters on this forum over the last 5 years. There was definately a time when Delaney, Worden, Schea and the MoTTs were considered inferior players to some other person and association. Now these people are being openly listed and accepted as leaders. It is very interesting to me that this paradigm shift has occurred.

It is also worth noting that at least one person mentioned in the O'Grady article which was the source document for this thread, has been seriously attacked several times in the past on this forum. He is no longer being mentioned as a Modern Arnis leader. How and why has that happened?

Please note that I am not saying or inferering that you have had anything to do with attacking anyone. I am simply observing
that you have posted elsewhere a leadership list. That action would be indicative of you having some concerns about what
others are saying and doing in the possible promolgation of the late Professor's Modern Arnis System, style or art. In addition, you have joined the group of people who seem to believe that it is too early to identify the next generation of leaders in Modern Arnis. I disagree the idea that it is too early to look at who might be ready to join the list of new leaders in the post-Remy era of Modern Arnis because I have former students who are already teaching the third generation.

I also believe that it would better to work toward a common consesus as to what the "core curriculum" of Modern Arnis might be, then stand aside, let people do their thing. Remy's art will survive in an altered form. It will be different from what it was when he was alive, active and touring. But isn't that consistannt with life's reality? Change is a natural, on-going part of life.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[arnisador]

I think you're referring to this post. I was trying to be very inclusive by listing the heads of the major organizations. I may have missed a large org. or major player--in retrospect, I forgot Mr. Inocalla, for example--and I did have to draw the line somewhere as there are certainly small orgs. out there too. But I did try to be inclusive so as to avoid drawing conclusions about who is and isn't doing "true" Modern Arnis. As I stated, I have no opinions on that. I really don't; he encouraged people to make the art their own, so it would be silly now to judge people negatively for having done so.

I have to agree that in the sense you indicate the art must die out. But, that's a very narrow sense. Still, I can't help but worry about the future of the art. I want both to preserve it as is for future generations ("primary sources"), and to see innovations that will keep it fresh and growing. Change is indeed inevitable, and I think that will have to be what happens--change and growth.

As to someone who has been attacked, I don't know to whom you are referring. If it's Mr. Anderson, I consider him a great ambassador for the art, but his org. is too small for me to consider him a leader in the way that I take the word. I don't mean that as any sort of slight; my position is that if people aren't following your curriculum, while you may be having an influence on them, you're not the leader of a significant-size group. As for me, I know and respect Messrs. Anderson and Hartman and Ms. Spiro. I met Mr. Donovan only briefly on two occasions, and do not know Messrs. Alexander and Ward.

There has been a very definate shift in who is accpetable as a Modern Arnis System leader and who isn't as expressed by a number of posters on this forum over the last 5 years.

Well, this is only an Internet forum, and it's hardly a representative sample of the Professor's students. Several major groups are either not represented here or at the least rarely visit. I don't read too much into what's posted here. Those who enjoy these sorts of discussions post their thoughts. I think the real test of who is acceptable as a Modern Arnis leader is the ability to attract a large number of Modern Arnis students to your teachings. Those are the people I tried to list in my post on FMATalk.com. There are some great practitioners with some great ideas who are not on that list. Leadership is different from skill alone.

(An aside to those reading: Dr. Barber and I get along well in person. Don't take our areas of disagreement to be anything more than what they are--points on which we disagree.)

 

[RickRed]

There are some great practitioners with some great ideas who are not on that list. Leadership is different from skill alone.

.)

Since most of the people that are martial arts 'leaders' today are nothing mroe than instructors, what really is the difference between a martial arts 'leader' and a skilled martial artists/instructor of the arts?

Leaders stand for something, lead others towards something, and clearly understand what that something is.

I see 'market leaders' that are more popular, have better name recognition within MA, and my have a larger student base but that does not make them 'leaders' in any incredible sense of the word.

THere is no agreed 'core curriculum' of Modern Arnis and there seems to be no clear agreement on what a "leader" in martial arts/Modern Arnis is as well.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Jeff,

1) Professor's art is going to die out in one sense. Modern Arnis was his personal expression, his personal vision of how the art can
be done. His encourgement for others to make the art for themselves is often repeated by many, yet a number of people jump all over others attempting to follow Professor's dictum. Therefore, to the extent that some people are working to make the art fit their own perspectives, Professor's art will die out and there little to nothing that can be done to stop the process.

2) I also believe that it would better to work toward a common consesus as to what the "core curriculum" of Modern Arnis might be, then stand aside, let people do their thing. Remy's art will survive in an altered form. It will be different from what it was when he was alive, active and touring. But isn't that consistannt with life's reality? Change is a natural, on-going part of life.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

Dr. Barber

I edited yor post and added numbers to address it.

1) I agree that Modern Arnis as Remy's expression died with him at his passing. But I think that Modern Anris as a martial art system can and should remain intact and be taught as such. There are plenty of martial art systems and styles that have remained intact with little or some change to them over the years after their founder has passed away. Some teachers stress other areas, principles of the art where they excell in and pass these along to their students and change does occur. But the core of the art is still there.

Akido is still based on Usheiba sensei's teaching but there are different vairants of it. Tomiki ryu is Proffessor Tomiki's expression of the art taught to him by Usheiba. But there are other systems that teach and mold themselves after Usheiba's teachings and they gave themselve's over to teach the art as he taught it.

Shotokan is Funokoshi sensei expression of the karate systems that he was taught. But shotokan as taught by the JKA is how that organization teaches it. However Wado is the expression of Otshuka sensei blending of Shotokan and jujitsu. It is a seperate system and no longer Shotokan.

And of course there is JKD. You have the Preservationists and the Concepts people. The Preservationsits only teach what Bruce Lee taught at a certian time (when the instructor was taught) and the Concepts people have expanded the system to include other arts as well.

With Modern Arnis I see no problem with either being a Preservationist and trying to teach as Remy taught it, nor as expanding the art and trying to do your own thing. The big question then becomes when are you doing Modern arnis and when are you doing your own thing.

There is enough instructors, videos, books, out there in the world to basically agree on a core curriculmn for Modern Anris. To keep it identifible as an martial system. I think there is enough variance in the instructors to keep the art alive and interesting and growing for years to come.

2) I agree with this part of the post. It will be different because it won't be Remy's expression since he has passed away. But it still and should contain his teachings and his techniques, his progressions to teach those principles and techniques. His forms, his stories that can be passed down etc. etc.

Maybe what should be addressed with the "Art within your Art", "Make it your Own" and such expressions are what GM Remy meant by those. Did Remy want us all doing are own thing, or following his teachings? Were the books and videos just meant to spread the art, generate interest in it so that people would come to the seminars, or to generate income for him, or were they meant to pass along his art and give us something to go by?

Maybe this should be another thread?

Mark

 

[Rich Parsons]

Since most of the people that are martial arts 'leaders' today are nothing mroe than instructors, what really is the difference between a martial arts 'leader' and a skilled martial artists/instructor of the arts?

Leaders stand for something, lead others towards something, and clearly understand what that something is.

I see 'market leaders' that are more popular, have better name recognition within MA, and my have a larger student base but that does not make them 'leaders' in any incredible sense of the word.

THere is no agreed 'core curriculum' of Modern Arnis and there seems to be no clear agreement on what a "leader" in martial arts/Modern Arnis is as well.

Well I have been told I have some skill.

I teach at camps and seminars, and enjoy the priviledge.

I teach and train in a Semi-private club, that is there just to train not to make money. All of the instructors make money some other way. No disrepesct to full time instructors, it is hard work to make a business go.

I do not lead an organization.

I do not have a Title in Modern Arnis.

I recognize that there may be others out there like myself, so I am rsponding for only myself, as an example, of a skilled practitioner or instructor who may not be the leader of an organization.

 

[James Miller]

Since most of the people that are martial arts 'leaders' today are nothing mroe than instructors, what really is the difference between a martial arts 'leader' and a skilled martial artists/instructor of the arts?

Leaders stand for something, lead others towards something, and clearly understand what that something is.

I see 'market leaders' that are more popular, have better name recognition within MA, and my have a larger student base but that does not make them 'leaders' in any incredible sense of the word.

THere is no agreed 'core curriculum' of Modern Arnis and there seems to be no clear agreement on what a "leader" in martial arts/Modern Arnis is as well.

I think one must define what one perceives as a leader. Yes a local instructor is a leader in their school, but if you’re talking about someone being a leader in the Modern Arnis community I feel that we must a higher standard. Maybe Jerome and Rick should define their perception of what an “Up and Coming Modern Arnis Player” is otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[RickRed]

I think one must define what one perceives as a leader. Yes a local instructor is a leader in their school, but if you’re talking about someone being a leader in the Modern Arnis community I feel that we must a higher standard. Maybe Jerome and Rick should define their perception of what an “Up and Coming Modern Arnis Player” is otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges.

This has been asked numerous times of the posters in general by me and others to get clarification. I am not using the term 'leader' but others have been using it.

I would also like to know how one defines 'leader' as different from skilled MA player. I imagine that the WMAA has some kind of 'Blackbelt Creed' or something along those lines that would establish the character traits of a leader very well - along with a sampe of curriculum as an example of what WMAA players see as 'core' to MA instruction.

RParsons already established his own standard of skille practitioner and not 'leader.' That is a start IMO.

I don't remember mentioning a list of 'up and comers' in my posts, so I don't know what that is about.