Symposium DVD reviews

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by DoxN4cer
That in itself is truly remarkable and rare. You don't see that every day.



Tim Kashino

No You do not see this every day.

Buy the tapes or DVD's and see who did make it, and the instruction they gave.

:asian:

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

I recently saw the symposium video. I would like to give my opinions on the video and the event. First of all I think that the overall quality of the video was good.

There are on two major problems I saw:

1. On a couple of scenes the images were too dark to make out. This was due to the fact that the light source was coming from behind the instructors and not from behind the camera.

2. The other problem is that on several occasions the cameras man was shooting the backside of the instructors and didn’t get a clear view of the action.

The majority of the video was shot well and overall I would recommend the video to be added to your collection.

As for the symposium it’s self, I feel that the event fell short of its goal. Here are my reasons:

1. No meal breaks were scheduled. This made it very hard to attend all of the sessions. If this was Jerome’s first camp I could understand the oversight, unfortunately this was not the case.

2. A fare amount of the instructors didn’t show. I have had personal contact with several of the instructors and I know of at least one of the instructors gave Jerome advance notice that they would not be attending the event, yet there was no information related to the potential clients. This could be considered false advertising.

3. There were 5 substitute instructors put in at the last minute. The people that filled in were not advertised on the bill. There wasn’t a need to ad anyone. Each of the instructors could have been given longer sessions. The participants were not given substitute instructors of the same caliber of the originally advertised instructors.

4. With the given schedule there was no way to see all of the instructors. There was no reason to have three sessions ruling simultaneously. Each instructor could have taught one session for everyone at the same time. With the time that was available and the amount of participants there was no reason to split the sessions.

5. Was this a Modern Arnis event? No. Was this a FMA event where Modern Arnis was present? Yes. I will site a couple examples. Rich Curren taught a Sayoc knife drill. Daud Muhammad taught Sayoc knife techniques. I’m not sure what Paul Martin was teaching during one of his sessions, but it wasn’t MA. Tim Kashino seemed to be military baton and/or rifle techniques. A lot of material, but not a lot of Modern Arnis. I’m not saying that the material was bad. What I am saying is that for a Modern Arnis seminar you would think that there would have been more Modern Arnis taught.

6. Finally it turns out that some of the instructors are not even black belts in Modern Arnis. You would think that if this was a Modern Arnis event that the instructors would have status in Modern Arnis. Now before anyone says anything about my events I’ll explain something. When I have a guest instructor he or she is listed as such. They are not sold off as Modern Arnis players.

There are other problems, but I feel that I have covered enough. This is just what I saw and how I feel. I’m not saying that some people didn’t enjoy themselves. What I am saying that is this is how I feel and why.

 

[Cruentus]

%think%

I'll have more to say later, as I would like to see more of the DVD. I had a chance to see some of it, but not enough to give each instructor an accurate, unbiased review.

I will say that if you attended the event, the DVD's would be a good buy if you wanted to retain the material better, or if you just want the memories on tape. I thought that George Denson did a wonderful job of capturing the positive aspects of the event.
If you want to see what you missed, it would also be something worth picking up.

However, if your looking for a diverse instructional tape covering Modern Arnis material from around the globe and from different era's, don't get it. My reason for this can be related to Renegades above post. I believe he hit the nail on the head in that it was more of a FMA event, rather then a Modern Arnis event. Plus, what Renegade said above about the production quality is also very accurate, unfortunatily. And because the material was so diverse, this wouldn't be a good thing for a beginner to get as an instructional tape because none of it would connect.

So, I think that the Symposium DVDs could be a good buy, depending on what your looking for.

I will give my objective opinion on each instructor when I get the chance to view more of the DVD's.

Thanks,

PAUL

 

[Dan Anderson]

This is to Renegade's post:
Most all of this has been gone over already. Yes, it wasn't a pure Modern Arnis event. That is unfortunate. One of the things, however, was that it was also promoted as a showing of some of the different directions that some Modern Arnis players have taken. A showing of diversity, I suppose.

Most all of the instructors do have Modern Arnis backgrounds, whether they were under Remy Presas or under ranked one of his black belts. The only one I personally don't know if he has Modern Arnis background is Peter Vargas and that's only because I don't know him personally.

The teaching was varied and some strayed quite a bit from what RP taught and some hewed relatively close. Okay. Heck, you did some balintawak concepts one of your slots.

Yes, we could've used a lunch break. Rich wasn't the only one hungry.

As to some of the instructors now showing, that's mostly inside political crap and that was unfortunate. Substitute instructors could've had less teaching time - hey - I could've taught more too. That would have been fun.

As to the Symposium's goal, well, it was a first event and we Modern Arnis players seem to be as hard to get together as the various shotokan groups. Oh well. With all the hoopla and firing on it got prior to the event, I'm not surprised. American Kenpo didn't chill out for some time after Ed Parker died either. Modern Arnis will probably follow in the same footsteps.

Yours,
Dan Anderson

 

[DoctorB]

Originally posted by Dan Anderson
This is to Renegade's post:
Most all of this has been gone over already. Yes, it wasn't a pure Modern Arnis event. That is unfortunate. One of the things, however, was that it was also promoted as a showing of some of the different directions that some Modern Arnis players have taken. A showing of diversity, I suppose.

Most all of the instructors do have Modern Arnis backgrounds, whether they were under Remy Presas or under ranked one of his black belts. The only one I personally don't know if he has Modern Arnis background is Peter Vargas and that's only because I don't know him personally.

The teaching was varied and some strayed quite a bit from what RP taught and some hewed relatively close. Okay. Heck, you did some balintawak concepts one of your slots.

Yes, we could've used a lunch break. Rich wasn't the only one hungry.

As to some of the instructors now showing, that's mostly inside political crap and that was unfortunate. Substitute instructors could've had less teaching time - hey - I could've taught more too. That would have been fun.

As to the Symposium's goal, well, it was a first event and we Modern Arnis players seem to be as hard to get together as the various shotokan groups. Oh well. With all the hoopla and firing on it got prior to the event, I'm not surprised. American Kenpo didn't chill out for some time after Ed Parker died either. Modern Arnis will probably follow in the same footsteps.

Yours,
Dan Anderson

A question for you, Dan, along with Hartman, Parsons and Hubbard, what is "pure modern arnis"? Guys, you have several threads going on right now, trying to deal with that definition. Please be specific.

Ahhh... yes, Dan, the run up to the Symposium did include very clear statements about working toward the "diversity" that does exist among those who are teaching/training in modern arnis. Given that the late professor Presas taught over a 25 year span in the US, Canada and Europe, there are some very diffent points of emphasis that people can relate to and discuss. Those of us who went out to dinner and those who met for breakfast had ample opportunities to discuss those differences. However it often turned out that the differences were not as great as one first imagined. There were transition points that became identifable for some people.

You are correct, Dan, only Peter Vargas did not train under nor was he ranked by Professor. He trained under PG Tom Bolden in American Modern Arnis. I put him on the program specificly to show others how the ideas of Professor could be melded with ideas from several other sources and still produce a recognizable set of actions compatable with the teaching ideas of Professor. It worked out well and most of the people who did some training under Sifu Vargas were quite pleased with his presentations.

The teaching covered just about every era that Professor taught through from 1975 to 2000. All one has to do is check out the 1985-86 video series against the Black belt Series of 1998 and one can see some very clear differnces in approach by Professor himself! The man was not a mental or artistic robot! He evolved and changed. He added things, dropped things and modified others. He was not mired in consistancy, he was flexible, innovative and creative in his approach to the art. A number of his former students were equally adaptive. They were able to move out from beneath Professor's shadow as the strove to make their own discoveries within the art... remember the concept of the "art within your art"? Some simply have done it and are doing it better than others.

Lunch was never mentioned in the pre-Symposium schedule. Why was that a surprise to anyone? We had too many people to get time slots for so there was a need to make choices.

Some instructors not showing up is nothing that I had any control over. A couple of people wanted to remain on the schedule because they had every intention of participating, however, medical and family matters took precedent. Others withdrew for personal reasons.

If anyone should be upset, it should be me. I had to make the explainations and I had to do the last minute scheduling adjustments. But, what the hell, that is all part of being the host, isn't it? If the opportunity arises, I would schedule every one of the people who had to drop out for what ever reason. Things happen, therefore my job was to flow and adjust, keeping the program on schedule.

There were some other instructors who did not want to be part of the Symposium. They had their reasons and discussing those reasons here would serve no constructive purpose and in some cases violate promises of confidentiality. I can say this without getting anyone into trouble, the ideas batted around right after the Symposium about the timing being too soon or the wrong person being the coordinator were not the reasons that several people gave me for not wanting to participate. Just look back at the pre-Symposium threads. Read all of the bickering and bad-mouthing that was going on. Read through all of the post-Symposium thread, setting aside all of the comments about "Norshadow", and some of the real reasons behind a number of people staying away becomes obvious. I am not casting out any blame to any single person, because it goes beyond that. "Inside politics" or outside politics, really does not make a difference, it was and still is at the core, politics. Periodically through the pre-Symposium posts you will find statements addressed to me thanking for taking on a "thankless task". I got many more of those privately and after the Symposium.

The bottom line on the Symposium is that it was held in spite of a lot of yelling and screaming. The Symposium was a major event in Modern Arnis and it was the first time that so many instructors who trained under the late Professor Presas came together at the same event to train, share ideas, techniques and tactics. The Symposium was recorded for history because it was hstory. Either you were there or you were not. It really does not matter whether someone liked the idea or not. The event happened and it is still being talked about four months later. That alone makes it a major event! How many camps and seminars have that kind of longivity in this cyber-world of immediate response and gratification? It worked, people! Not as well as I had hoped! Not without some flaws! But it happened! It went well for most of the people who attended and that is what really matters most... most of the people were happy with the results!

Now it is time for me to move on to some other projects and finish up on those already in the works. I've done the FIRST Symposium, now it is up to someone else to try to do the SECOND one, if they have the nerve and heart. Good luck and I will be happy to be a presenter... just show up, take the floor, teach and then simply go back home .

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[Dan Anderson]

question for you, Dan, along with Hartman, Parsons and Hubbard, what is "pure modern arnis"? Guys, you have several threads going on right now, trying to deal with that definition. Please be specific.

For me it was Remy Presas.

Lunch was never mentioned in the pre-Symposium schedule. Why was that a surprise to anyone?

I think it was just assumed.

The bottom line on the Symposium is that it was held in spite of a lot of yelling and screaming. The Symposium was a major event in Modern Arnis and it was the first time that so many instructors who trained under the late Professor Presas came together at the same event to train, share ideas, techniques and tactics. The Symposium was recorded for history because it was history.

Absolutely and I am glad I made the trip.

...now it is up to someone else to try to do the SECOND one, if they have the nerve and heart.

I haven't decided yet but I might take a whack at it. All for now.

Yours,
Dan Anderson

 

[loki09789]

Tim H. wrote:

"I’m not sure what Paul Martin was teaching during one of his sessions, but it wasn’t MA. "

No it wasn't MA in the sense of technique or drill. As many have gotten sick of hearing me say in the past, I try to take the self defense focus on FMA/MA training. What I was teaching was a tactical level of flow concept. Yes, it was packaged as a "pickle in the middle" drill, but it is an exercise that forces a player to do technique in a scenario that simulated a situation that they may really face: getting ambushed, defending themselves under very stressful conditions, and escaping effectively to a safe place.

Basically, if you haven't watched the DVD, pickle is a person standing in the middle of a circle of fellow students w/ eyes closed (very disconcerting). While the circle makes a lot of noise to cover the approach, someone approaches and applies a grab or attack and the 'pickle' has to open his/her eyes and respond either by touch from a grab or the command 'open' if it is a strike. They respond with a self defense technique and then escape through the door or get in the car (in reality, they run to the sign marked door and touch it or run behind the person holding the car sign and shout "lock").

To me, this is tactical 'flow' because it challenges the player's ability to maintain control and focus and be responsive/flexible under pressure. These are the same goals as any MA technical drill, but this was set up as a scenario where a player would have to apply the concept on a tactical level because they have to identify the threat, decide/or just flow with the technique they find themselve doing and then find the best avenue of escape.

MA technical training is about mechanical perfection, reflexive responses while in fighting mode and other very good purposes, but this drill was about the dirty reality of technical degrade under realistic conditions and being able to just go with it and bulling through to survive - even if the technique is far from perfect.

MA as a technical art has goals that RP and any instructor wants students to achieve. MA as a conceptual art has the same goals at every level of self defense theory/application: Flexibility, adaptability, flow... we all know the terms. I was just applying them to a different type of training. Sometimes just acting crazy and pucking on the guys shoes can be considered 'adaptablity' in a real life scenario.

Paul Martin

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Originally posted by Dan Anderson

The teaching was varied and some strayed quite a bit from what RP taught and some hewed relatively close. Okay. Heck, you did some balintawak concepts one of your slots.

You're right. I taught a session on concepts of Bacon's Balintawak found in Remy's Modern Arnis. With the Sayoc material there is no connection between systems being taught, just how to do the 3 of 9 template. If connections where given that would have been one thing, but that was not the case.

 

[Cruentus]

A question for you, Dan, along with Hartman, Parsons and Hubbard, what is "pure modern arnis"?

I am going to answer this, even though you didn't ask me. I know that your ignoring me because your mad at me because you think I was being a racist in a previous post. btw...I wasn't, you just chose to take it that way. Your problem, not mine.

Anyways, considering that this is a public forum, I'll answer the question using my thoughts on a seperate thread:

If there is no pure Modern Arnis, then where do we make the cut off. When is an art considered not Modern Arnis?

I have a simple formula that I follow:

What IS Modern Arnis

1. "Pure" Modern Arnis: The closest thing to Pure Modern Arnis that we have is anything that Professor taught as his art while he was alive. I am not talking about broad concepts, like "the flow," which in concept can be found in every art. I am talking about nuts and bolts movement and technique. Block-check-counter, the tapi-tapi presets, Anyos, 1-12 disarms, etc., etc. etc. Sure, the art remained progressive, but there were certian things that remained the same once Professor instituted it, regardless of where the progression went. These things that Professor had taught while he was alive do need to be preserved, in my opinion. This doesn't mean we can't expand upon these drills and moves, but we need to keep these in tact the basic "meat and potatoes" of our art.This, to me, is the closest thing we have to pure Modern Arnis.

I think that 98% of the WMAA cirriculum from white belt to black contains material that was taught by Professor while he was alive. Now I am sure there are others who preserve the art well, but I can't attest for all the other orgs. and schools out there.

2. "Hybrid" Modern Arnis: I believe that both during and after Professors life, instructors had gone outside what could be considered "pure" Modern Arnis to learn other things, and have incorporated what they have learned into their modern arnis. For example, I know that my Balintawak training has vastly changed the way I do Modern Arnis. I have integrated concepts, style, and techniques from Balintawak into my Modern Arnis. There is nothing wrong with this, however, this isn't "pure" Modern Arnis. Because I have added stylistic flairs from other systems, I would consider this more of a hybrid. However, Hybrid that it may be, since I still preserve what was originally taught to me, it still remains to be Modern Arnis.

3. "Progressed" Modern Arnis: This is where a student expands upon their "pure" Modern Arnis. It isn't exactly the same as what Professor taught them, but it has been evolved from what Professor has taught them. A good example of this would be Bram Franks knife system. Bram Franks roots are clearly Modern Arnis. When I did a few sessions of his knife work, it was clear to me that we both do the same art; Modern Arnis. However, he has progressed his art and redefined it to fit his needs, and the needs of those who he trains. This is not "pure" Remy Presas, but it is Modern Arnis just the same. It has been progressed from what was originally taught. And, the basic concepts and movements have been preserved as well.

So...What can be considered Modern Arnis? I believe that every school that can truely say they teach Modern Arnis keeps up with #1. If you can't maintain what you were originally taught by Professor, then your not doing the art, in my opinion. Most Orgs. and schools also have elements of #2 and #3, which is O.K., because to me they are still doing Modern Arnis. They are doing what Professor wanted by making it their own, and taking it into the direction that they wish to go.

What ISN"T Modern Arnis?

What isn't the art? I would say that if the students aren't at the very least preserving what they learned originally while Professor was alive, then they are not doing the art. So I believe that the explaination is simple. However, I think that there are a few additional things that are worth mentioning.

#1 If someone does another art, like Toaboda's Balintawak, or karate, or whatever, and they learn some Modern Arnis, and integrate it into their art, then to me they are not teaching Modern Arnis. They are teaching Toabodas Balintawak with Modern arnis mixed in, maybe, but this is not the same as teaching Modern Arnis.

Now, there is nothing wrong with doing this. Professor taught with the "art within your art" concept that you could use Modern Arnis to complement your other arts. It is O.K. to teach your art, TKD lets say, and integrate Modern Arnis into it. However, it is not O.K. in my opinion to claim to be teaching Modern Arnis, when it really is TKD with a few Modern Arnis drills mixed in. For you to be teaching the art, I think that the root of what you are teaching needs to be in the art itself.

So, if the base of what you teach at your school is Kenpo, but you have added some Modern Arnis Drills and concepts, then guess what? Your still teaching Kenpo. You can say, "We teach Kenpo, with some Modern Arnis integrated into our curriculum." You shouldn't say, "Sure...we teach Modern Arnis!" because this would be misleading.

#2 If you've evolved, or changed your Modern Arnis without at least preserving the original movements that were taught by Professor, then you are teaching something other then Modern Arnis.

And....So what if Professor evolved; he still kept certian things the same. Also, he was the Founder his art, so he could change it anytime he wanted too, and it was still the art. I think people lose sight of this, and instructors too often think that they have this same power. They don't. If you want this power, start your own art. If you want to teach Modern Arnis, however, then at the very least, you must maintain what you were taught by the man.

So, if your "Modern Arnis" bares little resemblence to what Professor was teaching at the time, then your Modern Arnis probably isn't REALLY Modern Arnis at all.

Sooooo.........

All and all, that is how I categorize things. Other opinions or suggestions are welcome!

More opinions on the subject can be found in this thread here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11175

That thread sort of died, but I think your question is a good one, so perhaps it should be revived. So, that covers how I make the distinction between what is Modern Arnis and what isn't.

I'll address more in a seperate post.

Thank you,

Paul Janulis

 

[Cruentus]

You are correct, Dan, only Peter Vargas did not train under nor was he ranked by Professor. He trained under PG Tom Bolden in American Modern Arnis. I put him on the program specificly to show others how the ideas of Professor could be melded with ideas from several other sources and still produce a recognizable set of actions compatable with the teaching ideas of Professor. It worked out well and most of the people who did some training under Sifu Vargas were quite pleased with his presentations.

First off, your reasoning for putting Peter Vargas in the program is blatently not true. You put Vargas in the program for the same reason you put half the other instructors on the bill. Others backed out, and you needed a back up. Hey, Vargas did a good job, and was a good back up, but seriously....lets call it like it is here.

Secondly, going by my definitions of what Modern Arnis is and what it isn't, I would say that what Vargas was teaching fits more into the category of "not Modern Arnis." Don't get me wrong, I am not saying anything against him or his material, for I know that many people enjoyed his sessions. I myself thought that he was a good guy. But that doesn't make what he was teaching Modern Arnis, specifically.

The teaching covered just about every era that Professor taught through from 1975 to 2000. All one has to do is check out the 1985-86 video series against the Black belt Series of 1998 and one can see some very clear differnces in approach by Professor himself!

O.K...this is arguable. Not that we didn't have people going as far back as 1975 in there own personal training, because that is true. Sure, the instructors covered time periods that Remy taught through, but not exactly the material that he taught. The vast majority of what was taught was not "Pure Modern Arnis" by my above definition. The only instructors I saw doing pure Modern Arnis was Dieter, Dan Anderson, and Tim Hartman, although all 3 had taught a mixture of "pure," "Progressed," and "hybrid" Modern Arnis. Others, including myself, did not teach "pure Modern Arnis," but they taught a "hybrid" or a "progressed" version where it was quite clear that it was still Modern Arnis. A large amount of what was being taught, however, did not fall into the "Modern Arnis" category at all. This would include the instruction by Paul Martin, Tim Kashino, Richard Curren, Dawud Muhammed, Peter Vargas, and John Ralston. This is half the instructors. I am not including Tom Bolden in the "not Modern Arnis" category, but many would argue that what he taught was so far removed from professors material that it wasn't. Now remember, I am not saying that these instructors weren't teaching good material, but they weren't teaching Modern Arnis.

So, I don't think anyone is criticising the abilities of the individual instructors who taught at the event. I think the criticism here is that the event clearly turned into a Filipino Arts gathering despite your intentions, yet you continue to hold on to this idea that this event was a Modern Arnis gathering. It is clear that it wasn't. Now as for this being "a major historical event in Modern Arnis history," then O.K., I'll buy that. We did have Tim Hartman, Dan Anderson, Dieter Knuittel, and Bram Frank all in the same room teaching, which is quite the accomplishement. If it starts a trend of Future Modern Arnis symposiums, then sure, you are accredited for doing the 1st one. However, that doesn't change what this 1st event turned out to be: a Filipino martial arts gathering rather then a Modern Arnis gathering.

Paul Janulis

 

[Cruentus]

I didn't like the balance of time each instructor got. Some instructors got way more time then others, which seemed odd to me. According to Dan A's breakdown of the instruction time, Dawud Muhommad got an 1 hour and 34 minutes of instruction time on the DVD's, where Bram Frank only got 7.86 minutes, and Bolden got only 13.64 minutes. This seemed extremely unbalanced and unfair to me; not just to the instructors but to the purchasers of the DVD's. I would think that the purchasers would want more of a fair representation of what was being taught by each instructor.

So, I think that the instructors should have close to equal time on the DVD's. I am not sure why or how it happened this way; I am sure nothing malicious was intended. I just would have liked to have seen more of a balanced representation.

:asian:

 

[Emptyglass]

Hi Tim:

I'm believe you're talking about the knife drill I showed on Friday night here.

I would think the connections would be obvious considering the caliber of students I was teaching, many of whom were much more highly ranked/experienced than myself. I would think the places where you could fit disarms, flow techniques and so forth that Professor Presas taught were self evident. Most of the people there problably did not need me to go over six-count drill or free-flow sumbrada with them (which is the closest analog that I can think of that I was taught in Modern Arnis).

That being said, no one complained to me (before now), everyone seemed to enjoy the material and from what I understand my marks on the grading sheets submitted by the participants were pretty good as well. Since I didn't see them, I would think and hope that no one would worry about hurting my feelings if they didn't like what was there.

For me, one of the things, the Symposium was about was sharing the art and learning new things, I've gone in a different direction than some with the training I started with in Modern Arnis, but the core concepts of Modern Arnis: Economy of Motion, Linear vs. Circular, Flow, Footwork, Body Positioning etc... are things I still use daily and things which are evident in all Filipino Martial Arts in my opinion. They were also things that were used in that drill. Try the drill with a stick or empty hand, or two knives, or pakal instead of sak-sak grip and see if you can find some connections back to your Modern Arnis. I'll bet you'll find quite a few. I probably didn't get that across very well on the floor and that's a fine thing to knock me on.

One of the instructors there who I had never met before and respect greatly, came up to me out of the blue told me after we were done something to the effect of - "You know, I've done that drill before but I could never see where the connections were, it was just cutting."

Regardless of what anyone says, if I get a comment like that, I think that it was worth it and it still gives me a warm glow to this day.

The Modern Arnis Symposium was a gathering, for seeing the branches and connections that students of the late Professor Remy Presas have taken and made. It wasn't just to review the Professor's material that he taught in seminars, privately or in camps. It wasn't just to show new innovations or conceptual ideas. It was about people and the art they have taken into their heart. For me Modern Arnis at its core was about innovation, willingness to try different things, finding what works for you and adapting classically proven techniques and concepts to a modern world with the purpose of defending yourself. It was never static and never without motion. The Professor was always learning and always innovating. Modern Arnis was an idea more so than it was a martial arts style.

If you discount that and only concentrate on one facet of that idea (IE: the physical techniques as taught by Professor Presas between such and such a period), I think you're missing a trick and honestly, considering the position and rank you you were awarded by Professor Presas, you should know better by now.

Gumagalang at Salamat,

Rich Curren

Originally posted by Renegade
You're right. I taught a session on concepts of Bacon's Balintawak found in Remy's Modern Arnis. With the Sayoc material there is no connection between systems being taught, just how to do the 3 of 9 template. If connections where given that would have been one thing, but that was not the case.

 

[Mickey]

Originally posted by DoctorB

Lunch was never mentioned in the pre-Symposium schedule. Why was that a surprise to anyone? We had too many people to get time slots for so there was a need to make choices.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.,

Well given your claim to be a great host, it might have been assumed, that a lunch break might be in order.

There was a need to make choices. Your comment. And yet you berate others for making the choice to not go or not support it.


BTW: I would have thought that the follow two items might have been an issue for having a lunch break.

Search on Gilbert's Syndrome

And Diabetes.com which redirects to WebMD.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by DoctorB
A question for you, Dan, along with Hartman, Parsons and Hubbard, what is "pure modern arnis"? Guys, you have several threads going on right now, trying to deal with that definition. Please be specific.

Barber, (* I know you used my last name to avoid confusion *)

Please show me where I have said "Pure Modern Arnis"?

I do not appriciate you putting words into my mouth.

I do not like taking things to Private message after people have had their say in public, and expect me to drop it.

I do not wish to track you down to let discuss issues with me.
If you wish to contact me you can do so.

Heck here is my Phone 248-467-9454. You Call me, if it is so important. I have been real busy, with work and life, no time to just call people to find out why I need to call them?

I do not like the implications that this board is impartial to you or others. I do not like the implications that I have bashed you. I stated the facts and my opinion only after people painted a much more rose colored picture. So, I presented the facts as the way I saw it.

I do not like the implications, that this board is WMAA.

Kaith Rustaz (Admin) - Modern Arnis et al
Arnisador (Admin) - Many Arts including Modern Arnis
Cthulhu (Admin) - FMA, NOT Modern Arnis per se

Jay Bell (Mod) - Systema et al
Master of Blades (Mod) - FMA - NOT Modern Arnis
tshadowchaser (Mod) - FMA and others, NOT Modern Arnis
pesilat (Mod) - FMA NOT Modern Arnis
KenpoTess (Mod) - Kenpo
Michael Billings (Mod) - Kenpo
Seig (Mod) - Kenpo
Nightingale (Mod) - Kenpo
and My Self - Rich Parsons (Mod) - Balintawak and Modern Arnis and NOT WMAA.

Tim Hartman (Advisor) (* No special powers on this board *) - Modern Arnis (WMAA) and Balintawak

I count two out of twelve of the Admins and Moderators that have WMAA membership and add in the Advisory makes three out of thirteen.

Please, refrain from making statments like this, as I take offense at it, and I reply, which only furthers the disagreements.


(* My Apologies - I corrected my phone number from 249-467-9454 (Incorrect) to 248-467-9454 (Correct). :asian: *)

 

[Cruentus]

I don't think that the critique was on what you taught. The Soyac guys might have an objection to you teaching Soyac w/o certification, but I have no problems with it.

But, at the end of the day and anyway you cut it (no pun intended) it's Soyac, and not Modern Arnis.

 

[DoxN4cer]

Thanks for the honest input, Tim.

Originally posted by Renegade
I recently saw the symposium video. I would like to give my opinions on the video and the event. First of all I think that the overall quality of the video was good...

As for the symposium it’s self, I feel that the event fell short of its goal. Here are my reasons...

5. Was this a Modern Arnis event? No. Was this a FMA event where Modern Arnis was present? Yes. I will site a couple examples. Rich Curren taught a Sayoc knife drill. Daud Muhammad taught Sayoc knife techniques. I’m not sure what Paul Martin was teaching during one of his sessions, but it wasn’t MA. Tim Kashino seemed to be military baton and/or rifle techniques. A lot of material, but not a lot of Modern Arnis. I’m not saying that the material was bad. What I am saying is that for a Modern Arnis seminar you would think that there would have been more Modern Arnis taught.

FYI, if you take a closer look at my presentations you will see Legwat, Tulok, Korto Abaniko, Palis-Palis and Gunting disarming concepts in the "two hand - one stick format". I don't think that slipped you observation, but I think your blurb on content didn't capture the overall theme of my presentations and that of other instructors. I think that had you come out to play with us (me) you would have a better felling for what I was doing on the floor. It was all Modern Arnis in a different configuration and orientation.

Respectfully,

Tim Kashino

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by PAUL
Cool...I'll watch it then too, and I'll offer my review.

:asian:

I finally had a chance to watch all the tapes, so as promised, I would like to offer my review of the tapes in general. I am just going to give my overall review; I am not going to individually review each instructor.

1. On a couple of scenes the images were too dark to make out. This was due to the fact that the light source was coming from behind the instructors and not from behind the camera.

It's only fair for me to correct this statement. It was made by Renegade, and I agreed, because on the VCR we watched a couple of the tapes on (I got to Rich's later, so I only say a couple of tapes at the time), some of the scenes were really dark. However, on my VCR, when I had a chance to review all of the tapes, this was not the case. I am thinking that this was a VCR problem rather then a video production problem.

2. The other problem is that on several occasions the cameras man was shooting the backside of the instructors and didn’t get a clear view of the action.

This part still held true, however. On more then one occasion, peoples backsides were in the way.

I didn't like the balance of time each instructor got. Some instructors got way more time then others, which seemed odd to me. According to Dan A's breakdown of the instruction time, Dawud Muhommad got an 1 hour and 34 minutes of instruction time on the DVD's, where Bram Frank only got 7.86 minutes, and Bolden got only 13.64 minutes. This seemed extremely unbalanced and unfair to me; not just to the instructors but to the purchasers of the DVD's. I would think that the purchasers would want more of a fair representation of what was being taught by each instructor.

So, I think that the instructors should have close to equal time on the DVD's. I am not sure why or how it happened this way; I am sure nothing malicious was intended. I just would have liked to have seen more of a balanced representation.

I need to correct myself here. If I am wrong when I say something, I'll be the first to admit it. In this case, I was wrong.

After reviewing all the DVD's, Bram Frank and Tom Bolden got a lot more time then what I mentioned. I was going based off of Dan Andersons post on this thread where he breaks down instructor time. It looked to me like Dan had put only 13.64 minutes for Mr. Bolden, and only 7.34 minutes from Bram; this must have been my mistake in interpretation because they definatily got more video time then that.

Furthermore, even though the times weren't exactly the same for each instructor, the symposium videos seemed to convey what everyone was teaching in a balanced fashion.

Overall: Now that I have clarified a few things, I'd say that overall the DVDs did a good job of conveying the enthusiasm of the students, and the positive attitudes that were on the training floor, which was one of the positives in the event.

I would say that if you attended, or if you want to see what was being taught at this particular event, the videos did a good job of conveying what was taught.

I still maintain, though, that this was more of a FMA event, and the videos contain many other elements outside of the Modern Arnis template, even though certian concepts exist among all styles. I would also say that due to the fact that these are only bits and pieces of what each instructor had to offer, I wouldn't buy these if one is looking for instructional videos.

So...are they a good buy? I say it depends on what your looking for. I wouldn't buy them if you are looking for instructional tapes. However, if you want to capture the positive aspects of the event, see what was being taught, or capture the memories if you attended the event, then I'd say these are a good buy.

:asian:

 

[Dan Anderson]

To clarify, I logged the times in a one morning, high speed effort prior to going to work. Any error in the times I logged are strictly mine.

Yours,
Dan Anderson