Theory and law
I have this problem, in class, I like things to make sense. I am always looking for ‘the golden rule’. I ask our instructor, “So do I do it like this, in every situation?” And the answer is always (a qualified) no. But I obsessively look for the ‘constants’. When doing an elbow strike, should my palm always be palm down parallel to the floor? Part of my problem with martial arts is that I am, at heart, a scientist. I’m always trying to see the ‘basic laws of nature’ in what we’re doing, to make it make sense to me. In other words, to help me expand beyond the ‘copy this movement, exactly this way’ into ‘when something like this happens, do something like this’. Because when I do that [adapt] now it is often wrong.
This sorta brings me to the point of this post. I don’t know how many people are actually going to respond, but pretending there are tens and tens, a veritable legion of readers, what do you see the goal of martial arts as? By martial arts, in this situation, I’m talking about the innovation and ‘technology’ of martial arts. (Someone said “martial arts are a tool to help the little guy protect himself from the big guy.” Tools==technology.)
Is it better to develop 10 moves, that work 80% of the time, or 800 moves that work 100% of the time? Escrima/Arnis/Kali is supposed to be based on ‘quick and dirty training’. Or ‘what can you teach the villagers in 30 days to fight off the Japanese/Americans/next village over’. Is it inconsistent with this philosophy then, to teach your students simple techniques, “a few basic principles”, even if you know that “The Butterfly Dragon Kick” doesn’t work if the opponent squats down and attacks from the right? In other words, it only works in 80% of situations? Or is it better/more in keeping with your/the philosophy of martial arts to teach them two (or 12) separate kicks, even though if they get in a fight in 30 days, they probably won’t be able to do any of them successfully?
I don’t ask this to criticize anyone, there’s no hidden agenda or wrong answer, as far as I know. I’m relatively new to martial arts and so, the other students in class tease me about ‘thinking too much’, sometimes. Am I? Should I ‘absorb’ rather than ‘understand’? Should I do both? What do you think the best approach is?
Respectfully,
Joel
I think that you should know as many techniques as possible. However, in reality we fall in love with moves that have gotten us results. As a security officer, I have had to make my share of arrests. The first time I made an arrest, I some how found myself taking the guy down with an arm bar (unconsciously thinking). The next time I found myself in a similar situations, I consciously sought out the arm bar since it has never failed me. I do always keep this in mind but I do question myself if I have degressed in skills since I went from reaction to concious thought. Regardless, to answer your question, I think it is best to just be able to react to any situation, but if you know your technique works, use it! We train our bodies to simply react in a situation, but when we are faced in the same situations over and over again, the adrenaline and excitement is not nearly as much as it was my first time. I’m now calmer in these situations knowing that I can get these guys down at will. It has made me realize that you can really apply any technique when you “know how to do,” and slow things down. Kinda like being in the zone.
Thank you very much, for your input, sir. I appreciate it. I’ve always said the best learning environment is a discussion.
Respectfully,
Joel
I think that at the critical moment when you must defend yourself, you will certainly go for whatever is available for you at that time. As for myself, I’ve had stock techniques that I will use in response to an attack and have noticed this and known about my own natural response for a very long time. Originally, I came from Kuk Sool Won, a Korean martial art and so a very basic response for me will be some kind of a wrist lock into a throw or a low-kick to keep the guy away or to break something — this is instinctive and natural for someone who has learned how to do Korean martial arts. Where I lacked in skills, was defense against an impact or edged weapon delivered at very close range. Only the FMA will give you the best responses to these type of attacks and is the reason why experienced martial artists with high ranks from other systems eventually gravitate towards it. Now, the responses are set and from what I can tell I personally have only stock 3 or 4 responses to things based on where the strike is coming from. The variation comes after the initial engagement and then you can flow into other techniques. This is based on what level of engagement and submission you are trying to do and usually whether or not the techniques you are using at that time work.
During engagement, there is no time to think. You just do it because you don’t want to get hurt. When you are in the studio and an instructor is before you, that is the time you can refine technique. In the real world, and in real-time, you don’t have that luxury.
It’s fine to look at the material before you and take apart. I think that’s great. At the end of all this, though, is the ability to retain what you need so you do have something in case of self-defense situations.
In San Pablo, we go over MANY, MANY techniques. At a certain point, we went through so many that it was tough to keep all of these in your head. Later on and currently, we are in the process of slowly looking at technique and are actively refining them so that eventually the technique will work using the least amount of movement and minimal energy. It’s not uncommon for us to see the same technique but with Dr. Presas’ refinements. There are some techniques were doing now that oddly feel like there is no energy being exerted at all. This is a tough thing to come to terms with because the amount of pain the attacker receives is way more than the energy you are putting into it.
Hello,
regarding to arnis/escrima/kali it is a relative simple system, that can be teached in a short amount of time. You have some strikes, parries, some takedowns, and that’s it. Some masters incorporated lots of techniques, according to their preference, but watch any old master on youtube, who had to fight for his life. They teach really simple, aggressive solutions, and the most important, they develop SKILLS using special exercises AND sparring! Why? Because that works! They have footwork (dances), timing (dances, music), aggression (if you are living in a tribe, you will get used to that quickly), the use of the tool, weapon (they use their knifes/bolos every day to chop wood, etc.)
Add some techniques, regular sparring, and you will get a really nasty fighter.
Thank you for your response. I guess the words I didn’t have before, that I understand better now are: The difference between ‘a set of tricks’ and a ’system’ whether in casino gambling, martial arts, large scale battles, or chess/checkers is that in a system, principles can be extrapolated from generalities, and then applied to new situations. Whereas, in the other way, once you run out of tricks, you’re done.
So part of the point of my question is…is it better for the student to be competent 80% of the time in 30 days, or competent (a mythical) 100% of the time, if it takes 3 years, or 3 months, or 30 years or whatever. And, is there a way to have both?
I see what you’re saying about it being a simple system. But…is it really? It seems to me that the basics and foundations are simple. Like a lot of games of strategy. Tetris, even. But that very simplicity allows for some very subtle and complex relationships. Does that really make it simple? As an example, if I discover that this basic armlock #1 is also a takeaway, also a throw, and can be used to set up a finishing kick. A simple move now has a very complex relationship to my tactical options, my opponent’s position, and the decisions I’ll make in a fight.
You make another good point about the every day tool use. That definitely improves the quality of the fighter. When you use your weapon every day, you learn the range and weight and endurance-pacing necessary for the fight and a much more subtle understanding of how it will behave when used.
Anyway, I think every student learns differently. And a lot of those old masters were athletes. Very high scores on physical intelligence. They could see a move and instantly perform it and integrate it with their understanding. Other people might learn it better by reading about it, or drawing how it works, or whatever.
The problem with the ‘quick and dirty introduction to combat’ method is…you get really good fighters, because those who aren’t good die, don’t you think? Thank you again for your input.
Respectfully,
Joel
Joel,
can we continue via email? It’s getting a really interesting talk
Just some ideas, jumping around in my head.
Any fighting method that was designed to hurt, and kill is not hard to learn on a usage level. A military close combat training requires all around a world not more than some weeks, maximum 2 months. During this time you will learn a toolset to win a battle. In the case of escrima, if we talk about the escrima styles they were tribal systems, it can be the same. You learn it as a kid, and you sharpen yourself during regular trainings, sparring, and battle against the other tribes. If you survive the first battles, you will know everything you have to. And you will be a very good fighter. That’s okay.
The honest question is: do I have to use this stuff where we live in our every-day life?
We are living in a socialized society, we don’t have to kill people regularly. We can learn the system, and use it for our improvement, so for us, it will become an art, where we can get deep inside, understand the human anatomy, motion, behaviour, the physics, theory, techniques, etc. And yes, we will be better fighters.
But never underestimate someone who had to fight for his own life regularly. That is a completely different story…
Just some ideas…
My email is joel.priest @ here. Please feel free to email me any time.
It’s interesting you bring up the military basic training idea. My experience with escrima is that it’s no longer taught that way. There’s no 30-day crash course to make you a competent fighter. It is taught like a martial art nowadays.
I definitely agree with you that someone who has to fight, or even someone who has to struggle for survival every day, will be a lot tougher. Pitting yourself against nature,even, realizing the that universe is a cold cruel place and it doesn’t take credit cards toughens one.
Respectfully,
Joel
Hello,
Great discussion on this thread. I would like to chime in on this with the following links:
http://www.history.com/content/humanweapon/martial-art-disciplines/marine-corps-martial-arts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Martial_Arts_Program
These are entries on the Marine Corp Martial Arts Program and is a required course for all boots in the Marine Corp. This is a fairly new program (established in 2000)and is meant to be the definitive self-defense course that replaces many different types of martial arts training offered previously.
The reason why I put up these links is that the US Marine is expected to acquire basic self-defense technique via this course as a way to protect oneself without the use of a firearm.
This course could also be thought of as a basic survival skill that absolutely is the only thing the Marine can fall back on in combat. Realize that Marine Corp basic training (boot camp) is only 13 weeks long from first day entry into the program until graduation when they are no longer recruits and are officially Marines. This hardly qualifies any Marine who passes the basic course (only 27.5 hrs supervised training) to become an expert nor do they become ‘great fighters’. However, the intent of the MCMAP on a purely rudimentary level is not to create outstanding martial artists, rather it is to give any Marine a viable skill with which to defend themselves.
The MCMAP is based on a very specific set of techniques and skills that are derived from various martial arts and which fit into the US Marines idea of basic self-defense. A lot of the techniques are lethal and are of the quick take down, quick kill variety. All it takes is 27.5 hours of supervised training to acquire basic MCMAP style self-defense.
The MCMAP is recognized as a highly effective program to teach basic self-defense and in the context of this thread, falls into the minimum skill set to be a competent ‘fighter’ in the most basic sense of that term. Apparently MCMAP has now created a ranking system that is similar to conventional martial art belts. You can achieve a black belt by getting 62.5 hours of supervised training. Higher level MCMAP rankings can be achieved but only in addition to continuously higher military ranking (i.e. 2nd Degree MCMAP black belt is reserved for Sgt. or above).