Kung Fu Epiphany!

[red5angel]

I was reading some post earlier when I had a sudden realization. I have been hammering my thoughts and beliefs out on the anvil that is the KungFu Magazine Forum, on ground fighting and mixed martial arts and finally came to a conclusion....

I have been a huge proponent of traditional martial arts and training. Not a big fan of MMA, not that it doesnt work, I just dont think it is necessary, again, just my opinion but here is why. I feel that if you are going to fight, you should train to make your opponent fight your battle the way you want to fight it. I am not saying that MMA doesnt do that. I am not saying there are special circumstances out there that you just cannot avoid. If a 350 lb ape comes up behind me while I am asleep and blah blah blah, then of course I am going to get creamed. But I will always try to make my opponent fight my fight. I do believe it is possible. The more I train in WC, the bette rI become, the more capable I am at making this happen.
What do you guys think, is it possible?

[Ray Pina]

I think any good fighter has the same aim, to not be drawn into the others game plan.

That's why set up is important.

Knowing tendencies of a style is a big advantage. I read an article awhile ago arguoing tha the person's style is not important, but I think it is. If you know, say Wc, you know there tendencies.

You know they will look to intecept with one hand, leaving the Wu Sau back. When the other arm gets involved, so does that Wu Sau, now, the initial hand can usually strike from where it is -- if you don't get caught up in the Chi Sau game and desire to cling more then needed.

That Wu Sau hand can also be flipped at the elbow, it that initial hand is withdrawn. Set up.

Works on most syles when you know there tendencies.

Patience is important, as well as not getting caught up in unneccessary crap, IE, I must have the top bridge. No way, under is also inside, which is quite powerful when expanding or striking.

[Cody]

redSangel,

This is coming from someone who's on the sidelines, okay. I'm not suggesting anything about MA techniques. It's the mindset I'm getting into, a part of what you address.

Training for and Concentrating on getting opponent to fight your fight makes me uneasy, if I understand you correctly. I translate it to: I fight this way and I'm going to force you to follow me, and go down to boot. Is this a good idea against a seasoned fighter? It might confuse a less experienced or less confident opponent. But someone who reads you, well, then it could come back at you as: I'll play your game and beat you at it.
There's something about structuring things as you describe, which could become restricting both practically and psychologically, in my view. Just sounds like something that could work sometimes, but could prove unreliable and inhibiting. (?)

Cody

[Ray Pina]

Good point.

The most important trait one must have in fighting is the ability to change while maintaining a strong, sound structure.

[apoweyn]

the more comprehensive your game is, the more likely you'll be able to make your opponent play your game. and the less likely your opponent will be able to make you play a game that is exclusively his.

i don't like making generalizations about styles or their practitioners. so let me say this: if you are very comfortable at trapping, then all your efforts are going to be focused on getting him into trapping range and taking advantage of that. two things: 1) you're counting on being able to manipulate him into that range and 2) you're counting on him being uncomfortable in that range (or mode or whatever you want to call it). if he is also into trapping, then you haven't coaxed him to play <i>your</i> game at all. you've coaxed him into playing a collective game, in which you're both viable players.

if you had more strengths, it seems to me that you'd have more potential plays in your playbook. he's good at trapping? fine, because kicking is your game too. and perhaps it's not his. it is his as well? how about grappling? etc.

now, if you do want to talk about styles, think about this. your opponent is savvy enough to recognize wing chun when he sees it. you're attached enough to the style that i imagine you look the part. so if he recognizes wing chun, presumably he'll also draw some assumptions about your strengths. and if he's right about the extent of your strengths, he'll try to avoid them in favour of something else.

obviously, real life will never be this simple. you may well catch an opponent in trapping range. the reality isn't as rigid as working equations on paper. we all know that.

so is crosstraining in every mode a necessity? to the extent that fighting at all, in this day and age, is a necessity? honestly, i don't know. i haven't been in enough completely open situations to say for sure. but i think it's important to keep an open mind. for all of us.


stuart b.

[OdderMensch]

i tend to agree with RA5. If you study proprly your own "game" (in the case of WC "get in close, stay there and beat the bejebus out of the other guy") then you can "force" the other guy into "playing" it. in WCs case this mean getting in close, staying there and beating the bejebus out of the other guy. unless the other guy spends a lot of training time practiceing close in fighting.....well the bejebus thing happens and we go home.

do other people/schools/styles practice close in fighting? yes.
is getting in close difficult and dangerous? yep.

i know theses things and other variables because i train Kung fu, and I will keep training Kung fu so that my skill can somday overcome my foes musscles, speed & tricks.

[red5angel]

Hey Ap, you have some good points, as always, but I would like to say that, and I have said this before, you can spread yourself to thin.
If you are a mixed guy, then you have some pretty good skills all ove rthe place right? But what happens if you are ocnfronting the guy who has been studying ground fighting exclusively for the last 15-20 years? Will he have a much better understanding of ground fighting then you? Probably, everything else being equal. Will he be able to control the fight? Who knows, comes down to the better fighter in my opinion.
I practice Wing Chun because I like what it has to offer, the close up combat. So far I have sparred a little with some TKD guys and gals, and they have a hard time dealing with me being so close. Its gone to the ground a few times and in my WC skills seem to be me more good then thier TKD skills. This tells me that WC has enough on the ground, if applied right, to help me survive.
Last week we talked about training for the ground, and I would never deny that. But I dont think it is necessary to pick up other skills from other arts.
EF, you are right in having to be familiar with your opponent and what he is doing. But if you train in a certain style all your life, and you trian all ranges, would you say you have an edge over someone who has studied many different arts?

[Sam Wiley]

If you want to talk about not playing the game, it should not be where you try and force him to play yours. You shouldn't care whether he plays along or not, because you should be doing something he doesn't expect or like and refusing to play along with his own game.

Most people, when they fight, fight like they are playing chess. They do something, then it's your turn to do something, then their turn, and back and forth. But that's not good timing.

If you must play anything, it should be poker, bluffing your way out of the situation until it becomes clear you cannot get out of it, and then you should show your hand. As soon as he moves, you move, and you strike before he has a chance to. Then, when it's his turn to hit you, you hit him again, ten times. And when it's your turn again, you hit him a hundred times. A bit exaggerated, but the way to go.

Never give a sucker an even break.

[red5angel]

Cody -

I understand your unease, let me see if I can explain better.
If I get into a fight with a TKD person, I am going to force him, if possible, to fight at close range. TKD is longe range, mostly, a lot of long kicks and punches, and I have trained to fight close, so if I fight him at long range, I am going to get squashed. I could learn some TKD, but then thats learning in WC I have missed.
You're correct in saying that I could get beat at my own game, that is why I am saying that you should concentrate on training in your own game. It doesnt mean I shouldnt learn to take my game to the ground or long range, more likely I would learn how to not go to the ground as well, and how to bring an opponent to me.

[red5angel]

Sam, I agree, never give an opponent a break, if you are fighting like you play chess, maybe you should go back to playing chess! :)

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

very well put. you represent your standpoint very convincingly, i have to say.

that said, you've hit on why i think progression shouldn't necessarily focus on excellence in one mode or another, but instead on the ability to recognize and use the common concepts. if i study groundfighting, i'm willing to bet that i'm never going to be the greatest groundfighter. but i will learn what a good groundfighter NEEDS from me to do his thing. and then i can train to avoid it.

i agree with you that you need something that you're good enough at to feel at home. something you 'own', in some sense. something that comes naturally enough that you can apply in different circumstances, that you can 'lead' your opponent into, etc. but i still believe that you need to understand different modes sufficiently well to be able to lead opponents into your game. and to expand your game. and that takes some direct experience.

but when it comes right down to it, we're talking about belief. for every piece of anecdotal evidence i have to suggest that versatility is the key, you have one suggesting that mastery is the key. and we're both right and both wrong, because the truth of this thing probably isn't an overarcing truth. it's just a series of little truths, based on how one given person fared in one given fight on one given day. i'm not sure to what degree that 'truth' can be extended to all others.

i suppose that's why discussions like this are possible. because nobody ever gets an unequivocable answer.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

Exactly that Ap, no wrong answers! Well, most answers arent wrong anyway!

I have a question, when you are talking about modes etc....are you saying that you should crosstrain in arts that specialize in those modes?

[Ray Pina]

Apow, great post.

As for ranges, I believe there are only TWO: The talking $hit range, and the range when someone can hit you.

Now we are getting to another area. One should focus, wprk to get into a situation where you can hit, but not be hit. How? Well, that is a matter of technology and aproach and it can be done.

As for inclose. Most styles I respect use that as a specialty. As a Wing Chun guy, you draw in a S. Mantis plaey close, BE READY. They are very conmfortable in this range and more agressive and viscious in nature than Wing Chun. Bak Mei too. Be careful if you think you can draw these guys in and beat them with some basic trapping. No way.

Which brings me to my other point. My Master always says, "Do not insist." And I know he is right. But I believe he means when defending, do not insist, yield to a stronger position and then go. But when one does go, I do not take no for an answer. When I have the intention to go, I GO.

I view it like this. On the outside one should look like heaven, a beaitiful, calm, yielding, peaceful mass. Maintain this while bledning.

But when it comes time to go, hit that opening, be a visious SOB with He|l in your eyes.

Perhaps that's off topic.

As for MMA. I read some good point on that today, about having more tools. Also, if you train a good style with a good teacher you should have all the tools you need. Up to you. Go fight as often as possible and you'll see what tools are working, which need some refinement. You'll also see how good you are at forcing your will onto others. I tend to be a counter fighter, but when I do go, I strike with the hands to draw a response and then attack with the legs (almost instantly). Give them a lot to deal with -- step on the shin, attack their bridge first, ect.

I guess the answer is simply fighting.

Great analaogy with the chess. I love chess but you're right, fighting can not be you go, then I go,,then you go. That's Bruce Lee's mistake, counter the counter with a counter.

NO! I go. I seek to attack your attack while attacking you. If I can't get in right away I wait that second for them to change, usaully wait for them to try to get ontop of do soemthing with the bridge, I look to maintain that strong shape, and while they chnage I go in further, hit what you can reach. Cut them like a tree, piece by piece, or, if you can, with one fell swoop.

Man, I love fighting. Just like chess. So much contained within a set of principles or rules. Beautiful.

[OdderMensch]

you cant beat a SPM or Bak Mei guy with simple traping, you beat them with your kung fu!

[Merryprankster]

Red5angel-

More or less what Ap said.

I really think you're missing something though. People who crosstrain, who approach it intelligently, start off with a core "something," be it a stand-up striking style or a grappling art, or even BJJ. They then cross train to shore up any weaknesses. Don't give me the garbage about "complete styles have no weaknesses if you train long enough." It's just not true. What a complete style has is various different ways of funneling your opponents attacks into your strengths. In other words, a complete style has a comprehensive fight strategy, not a "technique for every situation." It's up to you to apply that comprehensive fight strategy in your own personal style, and how well you do it is the difference between success and failure.

What if? Is the name of the game. I was rudely awakened this weekend when I sparred with a 6'8" 300 lb monster, who has a wrestling and boxing background, no gi. This guy is built like a reasonably athletic human, just magnified to 6'8". So he's not the typical fat slow 300 lbs guy. He possesses slightly better than average speed, to say nothing of his strength and weight advantage.

Now, if all I had was a stand-up game, there is a good chance I would have gotten murdered, even with his lack of striking experience. Simply put, a 300 lbs person can absorb a lot of punishment, and his wrestling background would have meant an almost certain butt stomping had I attempted to keep my distance and attack with kicks and punches. Tactically "vulnerable points," aside, it is more likely that he weathers the storm, clinches, and removes my head than it is for me to score a disabling blow in the first few seconds on somebody that size.

Strategically, I was able to cover more bases than he was, and this translated into a tactical advantage (on the ground in this case. It doesn't have to be. I'd chose to try and keep it standing vs. a really good submission figther), which allowed me to win. That's what cross training is about--broadening the strategies you can use to win, not about filling specific technique gaps.

[red5angel]

Merry, thats a really good way of saying it, "fighting strategy" I like that.
I would never claim that a style has everything, I dont think any real martial artist would. But I do beleive that any good system has its own set of answers or as you put it so eloquently, Fighting Strategy. For example, I am confident that in if I were to get into a fight with someone who for all intents and purposes was my equal in ground fighting, I could win with Wing chun. Not because I would know how to ground fight necessarily but I would know "how to Wing Chun".

[apoweyn]

thanks evolutionfist. i appreciate it.

red5angel,

that's a good question. and the best answer i have, really, is that i would want to learn a specific mode from someone that was good at it, obviously. but also someone that is sensitive to the central idea of crosstraining. integration.

in other words, i could study taekwondo from a korean champion, eskrima from an accomplished stickfighter, and grappling from a college wrestling champion. but what i'm really looking to do is integrate these things into a cohesive whole. much of that process falls to me, the individual, to reconcile two fairly different methodologies. to decide to what degree my personal practice will focus on long-range kicking, on medium-range weapon defenses, on takedowns, etc. but it's helpful to have teachers with a similar outlook. teachers who are also into making cognitive connections. so when i say, "well, this stance works for collegiate wrestling, but i'm worried about eating a stiff jab to the face", my teacher will be open to saying, "okay, how about this?" and we can hash out a way to integrate initially disparate ideas.

so yes, i would put more faith in specialists, because they'll be able to offer insights that a more casual practitioner may not have. but i want someone who understands the process i'm trying to follow as well. to smooth the gaps between to things, making them one.

in turn, i try to be an authority on something. and then the new ideas or methods that i incorporate are hinged around this central speciality. i understand new things in relation to the original thing. in my case, i look at a piece of grappling footwork and think, "that's a bit like eskrima's inside triangle, but with this difference... " that gives me a starting point for the integrative process.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

Hey Ap, I think it sounds like a good way to go. I would go the same way, but sticking to my wing chun. For instance a wrestling friend of mine (fortunately captain of his college team) and I are getting together this summer to work out some ground fighting from a wing chun point of view. I look forward to seeing what he has to offerm and what he thinks would and owuld not work as well as being able to try different things out for 'real'.

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

okay, so you're going through a very similar process. let me ask you this: IF it appeared that you were unable to make certain things from wing chun work against your wrestler friend, what would you conclude?

i'm definitely NOT looking to hear that you'd ditch wing chun in favour of something else. what i'm wondering is whether you're dead set against modifying or even adding to your wing chun to address any needs that MIGHT come to light through empirical testing.

in other words, would you make changes or would you conclude that you just hadn't done what you do well enough?


stuart b.

[Merryprankster]

Red--

Make sure you train with somebody who has a reasonable amount of submission experience. There are a lot of things that wrestlers do that get them in trouble with submission guys on the ground. I was a wrestler, so I'm not knocking them... I'm just VERY aware of certain things:

Stick their arms out straight alot,
Stick their necks out,
Tend to turn their backs to escape, etc.


A straight wrestler will also be unaware that certain things you might think "seem natural to do" from a disadvantaged position, are in fact, not sound practice.

As an overused, and somewhat ridiculous example, I know people who say that they would "attack the throat, with (insert hand technique here)" if they are mounted. It's a good way to have your arm broken... Not that you would do it, but simply that a straight wrestler might not even know it's a problem.

One thing you WILL want to do is ask him to simply control you while you are on the ground, while you try to get out. Wrestlers have pretty good control for obvious reasons :)

[red5angel]

Thanks for the help MP, I will defnitely make sure we avoid as many pitfalls as possible. Actually him and I had talked about a few of those already!

[Ray Pina]

A victory against a 6'8" 300lbs experinced fighter is a huge accomplishment. Your skill must be quite good -- unless of ocrase you are 7'0" 305lbs. ;) For real. You must have had a good weekend after that.

Anyway, I disagree in that I believe one can get "it all" from one source, however, those sources (complete style + real teacher) are very rare.

What do I mean. OK, no offense to Wing CHun, it is not a 100% complete style, because it was never meant to be. It was meant to train soemone quickly in core competencies: trapping, economical hitting, deflecting, ect. However, if you have a good teacher, who's been around the block, you should be able to go to him and say, "Look, I fought this wrestler and he did this, what can I do?" If he's a real teacher, who fought the foughts he should have fought before becoming a sifu, he should have the answer. Many don't. Many train for a while, get the forms, do some sparring with classmates and then want to teach. You'll never get it all from these types.

Now, I beleive a style like Hung Gar has a lot in it. You can learn a lot from them. Most any traditional style. Now by traditional I do mean silk uniform and forms. I mean a style based off of its roots, which, at the time of its develoment was focused on survival. You should be able to handle a confrontation if you have a good teacher.

I think its better to spend 2 years floating around looking for the real deal instead of training for 5 with a so so guy ... or gal. Not only should your sifu be able to teach you hand to hand, but weapons as well. That's not asking for a lot if wanting to learn a martial art -- its asking for what is expected. Just so very few view it this way from the start, so they pursue an unrealistic ideal, and when they are "complete" in their minds, what do they have? Many have very little.

Once you go out and start fighting with other's you'll here about this guy and that guy. Fight them. See how you match up. Maybe they are just better, more experienced. Maybe there technique is just better. If that is the case, then comes the hard question: Do you stick with what you have because you're already invested, or do you say, that is simply a better way?

I know that is not popular, but I am 100% convinced that there are better ways then others of handling a situation. Its not politically correct to say, but it is true.

Maybe you are happy where you are. Great. Maybe not, but there isn't much else around. That's an unfortunate situation. But I think it unrealistic to start off by assuming all things are equal when they are not. This isn't the Cosby Show.

[red5angel]

Good question Ap. After thinking about it some, I have come to one conclusion. In general if I came across a situation and absolutely could not find an answer in the Wing Chun I have been taught or extrapolated from the forms, then I would have to work within the WC principles to come to a conclusion of my own. You might think I am absolutely hell bent on staying with WC, and pretty much, you would be right! :) I am content enough with WC to feel that it can help me to get out of any situation on the street I run into. If I were competition fighting, that may be different, I may have to go and mix some other stuff in as well. In my heart I believe WC, as well as most other styles to have what a martial artist will need. Will I study other arts? Probably, I am interested in mantis and eagle claw. Maybe an internal style, but I will study none of these as a stop gap, my fighting art will always be wing chun.
Call me crazy but I know I cant win every situation and I refuse to make the same mistake I believe Bruce Lee made. If loose a fight it is probably more my fault then the fault of my style.

[Black Jack]

How was Bruce Lees personal decision a mistake???

[Ray Pina]

red 5, you bring up a great point. Your Wing Chun should be more than enough to handle a street confrontation. Train hard and you should be OK. Also, you're right, the principles are there, the answers are there too. Find a friend and exam the situatin, any situation, and study it realisticly and with an open mind. Where there's a will there's a way.

[red5angel]

Right on brother, I am not lookin to compete in the ring, just take care of myself and my loved ones in the jungle that is civilization!

Black Jack, it is of my opinion, that Mr Lee lost his fight to Wong Jack Man, hence the sudden shift in his martial beliefs. The problem was that he was not up to par in his martial arts training to make that decision. He was obviously a good fighter, and he had a lot of talent, but his fight with WJM showed he was unable to apply his martial skills effectively against someone of greater skill, his natural talent could not make up for it. It is my view that he chose to tread his own path before having all the 'facts'.

[red5angel]

You have brought up a good point as well, for some of us, our opinion of what is good or bad is directly related to our goals.
For instance I believe that to compete effectively in sport fighting, especially open tourneys, you need to cross train and mix your styles. But for someone like me, I enjoy a good sparring match, and I push myself beyond what your average martial artist does in my art, but I do not push as hard as competitors who regularly fight for a living. I am confident in my ability to take most of the people I may end up in a confrontation with, the rest I will allow my feet ;) to take care of!

[Merryprankster]

E-fist--it was quite the weekend actually. And I'm not bad. If we had been limited to standing, I probably would have gotten murdered though. As for stats, I'm 6'0, 185.

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

while i admire your devotion, i do think you run the risk of tunnel vision. this isn't a foregone conclusion, mind you. but if someone believes something strongly enough, there's always the chance that they'll unconsciously do things to preserve that belief. (come to think of it, i think that's actually the psychological term. belief preservation.) in other words, people will tend to dismiss results unfavourable to their belief or avoid circumstances that challenge it.

sorry. i don't mean to get overly analytical about this. and i'm not really espousing one method over another. it's more that i'm espousing a mindful approach to this stuff. does that make sense?


stuart b.

[Ray Pina]

Good. Glad to see people banging around out there.

Red, as for me, I have two personal goals right now. One, finish this book and get it published.

Two, keep training and compete, show that one can go up against ANYONE without mixing. I have studied a few styles in the past, but that was just background. The E-chuan I am learning now I believe is more than enough to handle anyone anywhere under any situation. This is my honest opinion. It has taken me 27 years but I have found a true master. Never though this caliber existed, someone soooo much ahead of everything I have ever seen. I'm thinking two more years training with this man and I can fight anyone. I'll be with him until I die, I want to learn the sword which he is known for as well as the pole which he is also known for (I could post a good article by Robert Chu on this).

It can be done. A good style was inveneted for Combat. My master inherited the Imperial Palace Ba GUa -- the true Ba Gua to guard the emperor. Would the kind, emperor, president, have some phony ballony, useless technology protect his life -- ina time without guns? No way. I agree. Most "traditional" martial arts $uck, but that is because they are not traditional. They have the uniforms, the speach, the fale wushu weapons, but nothing traditional in the sense they can't use it -- unless sparring among themsleves and then it become kick boxing.

But there are some good people out there working, under the rador. My goal is to bring it out. I wan to. I'm willing. Now its just a matter if I can become good enough with it. I'm leanring. We'll see how it goes I guess. I have to try, or I'll regret it.

Best to everyone.
Peace
Ray

[red5angel]

Ap, thanks for the concern but honestly I dont see it as tunnel vision. I see what your point is. This is the way I look at it. When I really begin to spar, or if I get into a confrontation, and something goes wrong, my first assumption is, "I did it wrong" probably about 90% of the time this is true. If this is not, my second step would be to study my Wing Chun to see if there is an answer. My forms, this forum, all places to help me find those answers. If an answer isnt available, I see if I can create an answer with the principles of wing chun in mind. If this fails, then I have one of two courses, I can become concerned that the same situation will come up again, and have to find another answer for it, or I can not worry about it, some things you just cannot control no matter how good you are.
I have a love affair with wing chun that is pretty strong but not foolishly so, every art has its holes, and there isnt an art out there that has the answers.
I gues sI just hold the belief that to study a traditional art is to have faith in its design and its growth. Wing chun is "incomplete" oin only one way that I can see it, the same way that all arts are incomplete and will always grow. Too many people are quick to add things without thinking about what they are doing first. Everything that I add to my WC will be molded to fit its theories and its practices. I believe that it can be done. To master Wing Chun, not for money, or status, or the glory that goes with being called master, but to fully understand it as well as any human being can, is what I want.
I wont ever say that mma is a bad way to go, or an ineffectual way, its just not my way, thats all.

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

that sounds like a perfectly reasonable response to me. and the more we talk, the more similar our views sound. you say you'll synthesize solutions based on the principles of wing chun. and that's precisely what many MMA would say. me? i'm not MMA in the competitive sense. but when i look for a new idea, i filter it through the principles of eskrima. i'm not looking to shoehorn grappling into eskrima terms, mind you. but it's only natural that a person sees new things in terms of known things. and to decide to mindfully do that, to make sure that new information gels with what you know, is a smart way to go.

likewise, i think it's smart, when faced with a failing of some sort, not to immediately go off and look for a new solution, but to analyze the existing one. i wholeheartedly believe that progress is made this way.

in short, some of what i said was a caution more than a suspicion. and not specifically directed at you either. just at the idea as a whole. personally, i think you've got a good take on the whole thing. as we've said throughout, it's not precisely my take, but it's a good one all the same.

regards,


stuart b.

[red5angel]

What is it that you study Apoweyn? Escrima?
Some of the mixed ma guys here locally just sort of practice a hodge podge, a little wrestling here, a little karate there. There are supposed to be a few good schools here in the minneapolis area but in general I have been unimpressed with the mma showing locally. Thats not a judgement on mma by any means, our local WC isnt all that good either, I just got lucky finding the guys I did!
I think all martial arts must grow. For instance WC probably has a lot of difference in its modern form then it did a century ago, or near its beginnings, but through testing and refinement it has evolved. As an effective martial art astyle I am sold. Now my goal should be the learning, the growing and the evolution of the art, some of it for myself personally, but we all wish to make a lasting and useful impact.
Ultimately, I get asked a lot about what a person should get into for martial arts. I always tel them that they should first decide what their goal is, fitness? self defense? competition? Then do some research, first on styles that would most suit you, go to some schools, feel them out, do some looking into the instructors past. Eventually something will speak to you.

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

yeah, that's right, in my opinion. something speaks to you. and if you're smart, you listen. good call.

what speaks to a person isn't always the same either. that's what makes this stuff endlessly interesting to me. you know what i mean?

yep, i consider eskrima my 'base' style, in that the principles of it make sense to me. it's what i use as my 'anchor' for absorbing ideas. i studied taekwondo before that and kickboxing/JKD afterward. obviously, i'm a product of all of those things. but eskrima has had the strongest influence. i don't generally think of myself as an eskrimador anymore, though. not purely. but the principles found in eskrima constitute my frame of reference. they provide my overall strategy, to use the terminology that merryprankster suggested.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

can you tell me a little about eskrima? What IS the overall strategy?

[apoweyn]

hmm... eskrima is a somewhat generic term, in the same way that 'gung fu' or 'karate' are generic terms. it refers to filipino martial arts (often called 'kali' and 'arnis de mano' as well). so the overall strategy rather depends on the specific style of eskrima.

largo mano (long hand), for example, is a long-range style. so its tactics are somewhat different from a style like serrada, which is a close-range style. but i'll try to hit some of the common themes.

filipino martial arts (FMA) generally teach weapons first and empty hand later. single stick, double stick, dagger, stick and dagger, and empty hand (in some variation of that order). some styles emphasize stick over blade (swords). others favour the blade. some focus on knifefighting. etc. but in general, FMA teach these areas.

FMA tends to use a couple of consistent teaching concepts as well. the first is the idea of angles. usually, a system teaches 12 angles, but i've heard of numbering systems of 5 and 9 as well. the angles refer to the angle in which any attack is delivered. so in FMA theory, there isn't much difference between a forehand strike with a stick or machete and a ridgehand strike from karate. the angle of delivery is the same, meaning that certain principles of defense are also the same. same with, say, a backhand strike and a backfist or hook kick. obviously, some variables are affected by the particular weapon (e.g., blade vs. blunt will affect what blocks are viable). but in general terms, much of it comes down to the angle.

the second is FMA's footwork. i hate reading that such-and-such has unique footwork or mystylechuan is very powerful, etc. that sort of thing comes down to the individual practitioner, in my opinion. that said, FMA was where i first became aware of footwork as a real tool. now, i'm convinced that it's one of the most fundamental skills you can have. good footwork can almost render other skills obsolete (if i'm in the right place at the right time, my block doesn't need to be stellar because i've put myself in a place where the attack was never meant to find me).

FMA footwork usually follows an X or triangle pattern. (the triangle is a subset of the X if you look closely. an X is no more than several triangles set point to point.) that pattern allows you to move into an angle, snuffing it before it builds momentum, or move out of an angle, so the force dissipates before reaching you. we refer to this as 'zoning.' put your body in a 'zone' where the attack can do minimal effect.

another principle is attacking the weapon or 'defanging the snake', so that when an attack is blocked, an attempt is made to damage the attacking limb (e.g., striking the knuckles with our stick, punching the bicep or tricep to create a charlie horse, etc.).

FMA holds that many of the principles of one weapon (incl. empty hand) translates to other weapons. some practitioners hold to that idea more than others. personally, i buy it to a degree. as i've said, there are obvious differences between blunt and bladed, armed and unarmed, etc. but there are similarities as well. if i'm fighting with a knife, i might try to cut the attacker's bicep. without a knife, i might punch it. physiologically, the effect is different. but both serve to lessen the effectiveness of that attacker's weapon. see what i mean?

that's a very basic overview, anyway.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

How old are the eskrima styles, how and where did they originate?
Sounds kinda cool to me. So Arnis is a form of Eskrima? We have a former JKD guy who also studied Arnis, I should talk to him more about it.

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

good questions. hard to say really. i doubt there's really a 'start' date for these things. there's a need to fight. then there's a need to teach others to fight. and gradually that process becomes codified.

but to put it in some sort of context, lapulapu is considered a hero in filipino culture, reknowned for his fighting prowess. he was responsible for the death of ferdinand magellan, as the story goes. either it was an epic and cinematic sword duel on the beach or his tribe rather unceremoniously speared magellan's boys to death as they waded ashore, depending on who you ask.

that's a sort of historical marker for eskrima. but really, all it shows decisively is that weapons were being used. presumably in a systematic manner. rather depends on how you define martial art, i suppose.

here's a very brief history of FMA from the WEKAF website (world eskrima kali arnis federation): href="http://www.wekaf.com/fma/history.htm

arnis and eskrima are words that describe the same thing, yes. different areas in the philippines tend to favour different terms. 'arnis de mano' (spanish for 'harness [armour] of the hand') and eskrima (spanish for 'skirmish', the term spanish uses for fencing) both reflect the influence of the spanish occupation on the filipino arts. and it's true, in my opinion, that some fencing theory is still obvious in FMA. those terms tend to be used in the northern and central parts of the islands. kali tends to be used more in the south, if i'm not mistaken. reflects more of the muslim (moro) influence, i believe. they tend to emphasize the blade a little more too, i'm told.

chris mckinley, knifefighter, and blackjack all come from strong FMA backgrounds themselves, so i'm sure they'll be able to provide information as well.

other terms that refer to various aspects of FMA include 'pangolisi' (stickfighting), 'pangamot' (hand2hand), 'pananjakman or sikaran (kicking), 'panantukan' (boxing), 'dumog' (grappling), etc.

how did they originate? mostly tribal wars in the philippines. during the spanish occupation, much of it was practiced in secret (at night, hidden in dances, etc.) weapons were confiscated, so sticks were used rather than swords, etc. knives were carried for work and became very viable methods of defense. that sort of thing.

JKD practitioners very often have an FMA connection because dan inosanto (bruce lee's best friend and 'heir' to JKD) was one of the leading voices in FMA in the united states. in fact, he's the reason i chose FMA myself. in my starry-eyed fascination with bruce, i came across guro inosanto. and the rest is personal history. anyway, FMA has heavily influenced certain branches of JKD ever since. lee expressed to inosanto, as the story goes, that he didn't want JKD schools, per say. so inosanto and richard bustillo founded a school of FMA that also served to preserve JKD. the two were pretty intrinsically linked for a while. at least, inosanto's branch of JKD (often referred to as JKD concepts) was.


stuart b.

[Black Jack]

For blade work its harder to find anything close.

You should picture the systems of the Philippines as you would those of the systems of China, there are hundreds of different styles, personal methodologies, lineages.

Kali being the older term, the newer words being arnis and eskrima-the term eskrima being derived from the Spanish word "esgrimas"-which means fencing, the terms change from different districts, among the tagalogs it is known as Pananadata.

The systems are centuries old, full of fighting lore, the Moro-Moro warriors in WWII were fierce, the methods are practical, simple and very effective to use and retain, its even traceable when you go back to Lapulapu and his historic battle with Ferdinand Magellan in 1552 on Mctan Island.

Some of the many different systems include, Balinawak, Pananadata, Serrada, Sayoc Kali, Pekiti-Tirisa, Doce Pares, Inayan, Moro-Moro, Willow System/Largo Mano, Modern Arnis, Illustrismo, Black-Eagle Kali, Lameco, Kali-Silat, Kuntaw, Panatuken, Dumog, Panajackman, Kino Mutai, and so on and so on.

Some work more blade than stick, some are just hand to hand, some are more duelling based, others close quater, the family system of Sayoc Kali is ALL blades, there students carry numerous knifes on them at all times, I think like up to 12 in a belt, HARD CORE blade system, I believe there system even influenced Pekiti-Tirisa.

Others like Dumog are FMA grappling methods, Panajackman/Sikiran are low-line kicking methods, Panatuken is a fistic/boxing system based on movements of the blade, Kino Mutai is biting, eye gouging, pinching when on the ground, Balinawak works with longer bastons, there is also of course machette, balisong, yo-yo, and other weapon work in there as well, depending on the teacher/system.

They are complete fighting systems onto themselves but the excel in weapon work, each one having its own flavor, hope that helped.

[apoweyn]

for the record, most of my experience is with the doce pares style, though my current teacher is from dan inosanto's lineage.


stuart b.

[Black Jack]

Apoweyn,

You got that last post in right before me!:D

Have you or your teacher ever had a chance to train or meet with any of the Sayoc kali guys on the east coast?

[apoweyn]

blackjack,

yeah, but you added some valuable stuff. i knew you would.

i've met them socially a couple of times, though it was years ago now. chris sayoc, i remember particularly. it's a little unsettling how quick that dude is for a man his size. for a man anyone's size, actually.

i've never trained with them though. they're in... new jersey or new york, yeah?


stuart b.

[Black Jack]

I think in New York, I have a friend that went to one of his seminars and I have heard a lot of good things about them.

If I am ever over there I would love to get my hands on one of Sayoc Kali seminars, another group I have heard some good things about is AMOK!, the tribal art of the blade.

Peace

[apoweyn]

yeah, i've heard that too. my first school didn't emphasize the knife as much as it could've. more stickwork.

what about you? what's your background like?


stuart b.

[red5angel]

Thanks for the info guys! I may have to check it out sometime in the future!

[apoweyn]

no worries red5angel.


stuart b.

[Black Jack]

From the FMA side lets just say I'eve been through hybrid flavour country:D

Most of it being JKD/Inosanto blend, but there has been some other stuff, Vee-Arnis, Modern Arnis, and some of the Willow/Largo Mano system.

Though as you stated a solid portion of that is more stick focused than blade focused, intell I made a direct focus on the blade methodology/science, the knife is a kinda passion of mine, so that is where I look.

From a blade perspective there are two schools of thought, one is the "Duelling School" the other is for lack of a better term the "Assasination School".

Since the Philippines are a different blade culture you will find some of their blade training to be duelling based, almost like knifeboxing, though not all by ANY means, as a lot of it has to do with who is teaching, their background and of course what system, the problem with a duelling based mindset can IMHO be a serious one when brought into the modern western blade culture, a culture which is based on a different way of dealing with the blade.

A blade culture of using deceptions, shankings, slight of hand, ambushes, ballistic attacks and so forth. That is what the assasination based school of thought is about.

For the blade a prefer the last, because on a percentage scale that is how things are going to go down, it is very rare that both you and your attacker are going to both have drawn blades and be squared off, though of course it does and can happen, more often though it is based on either you or your attacker having a drawn blade, and more than not if the bad guy has it and he is worth his salt, you are not going to see it anyway intell he is right up on you, if at all.

So in that context my current blade methods are very western with a FMA base, not fancy at all, very simple, very ballistic, the stuff you see with Fairbairn/Applegate. From a duelling prespective it will become more FMA with a few tweaks from the Styers material which is based on the old western fencing methods.

I am ALWAYS looking for different things, perspectives, I am looking to add some Spanish Navaja/Knifefighting and Sicilian stuff into there soon, try it out in duelling & situational practice, some other real good stuff is the material by Hock/Keating.

Oh, and don't get me started on my newer Tomahawk fetish ;)

Do you carry??? If so how many?? :D

[apoweyn]

blackjack,

excellent. the 'knifeboxing' description of duelling is brilliant. and its contrast to assassination. very nice.

i used to carry a knife. spyderco folder. nothing terribly fancy. that was when i was working in downtown baltimore. going back to my car late at night. i stopped carrying one 1) because i wasn't working in a city anymore (not a brilliant reason to stop, in and of itself) and 2) i honestly don't know that i've got it in me to use a knife on someone. and once you've introduced the knife to the scenario, that's not the time to be soul searching.

i concentrate more on empty hand, these days. eskrima provides some really nice options for that, as you well know. i also like the idea of being able to control the level of damage done with an impact weapon.

that said, i hold with the theory that the best way to know what to expect from a weapon is to know what to do with it. so i'm all for training with the knife regardless. my reluctance to carry one on me is strictly a reflection of my own... capacities?

james keating certainly looks to know what he's doing. i haven't seen much about him lately. i do remember him pretty clearly from that brief period when the magazine 'full contact' was being published. (worked in a newsstand at the time)


stuart b.

p.s. tomahawks: thumbs up

[Black Jack]

If you don't feel comfortable with a knife yet as a self defense tool you still might want to carry one just as a tool, i.e. if your seatbelt got jammed in a car accident and you had to cut yourself out or a loved one, even something like a Swiss Army knife of Buck 110.

Another thing you might want to take a peek at for a daily carry if a knife makes you feel a bit at unease is a koppo stick.

I carry a steel koppo and a folder, it gives real good options on both counts, the koppo is better than a kubotan or a yawara as it has a loop where your fingers go into and it will provide you with better weapon retention and some other tricks the kubotan can not do.

Just thoughts as I am a weapon freak.:D

[Sam Wiley]

Just out of curiosity...does anyone here still carry brass knuckles, ahem, I mean "paperweights"?;)

[Black Jack]

Does a roll of quaters count:D

On a serious note I think more people should check into fist loads like the koppo and kubotan. You can take them anywhere, or at least almost, they are easy to carry, hide and can pack a freighting blow to the vitals or **** near anywhere else for that matter, not to mention they can assist in the use of non-lethal force, pressure points, locks, takedowns.

[apoweyn]

blackjack,

actually, yes. i still carry the folder in my everpresent backpack/briefcase (whichever i'm using at the time). like you said, they're useful tools to have around. besides, if the chips are far enough down, i may well change my mind about my capabilities. know what i mean?

i've thought about getting an ASP baton before now. but that's all i've done so far.


stuart b.

[Sam Wiley]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Does a roll of quaters count:D

On a serious note I think more people should check into fist loads like the koppo and kubotan. You can take them anywhere, or at least almost, they are easy to carry, hide and can pack a freighting blow to the vitals or **** near anywhere else for that matter, not to mention they can assist in the use of non-lethal force, pressure points, locks, takedowns.

Yeah, I guess quarters can count, but if you're going to use rolled money, I'd recommend a roll of pennies. If you have to bust it and get rid of evidence it's $.50 vs. $10.00, you know?

What exactly does a koppo look like? I've seen kubotans before, they're all over the place, but I haven't seen a koppo that I know of. Got a link?

[Black Jack]

Sam,

Here is where I got mine.

www.bladerigger.com/koppo.html

If that does not float your boat here is a line of there other titanium sitcks.

www.bladerigger.com/scpsticks.html