Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis

[loki09789]

The man makes the art through commitment and training with a clear purpose. MA is a good empty hand art, if you understand and train Translation constantly. Know what you are preparing yourself for and get good at the skills that you need, simple enough.

There are things that you learn through training and things that you bring to your training like your will, character, toughness... Unfortunately, most of what I see - myself included sometimes - is a focus on the technical aspects over the situational aspects of a real down and dirty fight for your life.

Situational training or training exercise models similar to LEO/Military training I think is still the best way to prepare people for 'real' situations. Training technique on the floor in work out clothes with multiple repetitions or controlled power random striking is good for aspects of fight-ability, but it is not enough. When you have people role playing a mugger/rapist/attacker who will not quit and swears and grabs and does all those things that a real attacker will do (as closely as possible without sacrificing safety entirely) is the only way to help students tap into their internal strengths, or recognize the weaknesses that they have to overcome?

If a student has to go through a complete situation from zero to writing out a police report they are applying a complete package of physical/mental skills that cannot be 'trained' as much as experienced and then reviewed like a post game report or mililtary After Action Report.

Paul Martin

 

[Tgace]

The "problem" of talking self-defense with martial artists is that the answer to the problem is almost always a "technique". Its like the old cliche "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

There was another thread on martial talk called "how do you handle someone bigger than you?" All replies revolved around fighting technique. Nobody said run, use a weapon of some type, OC spray etc. Every solution to a self-defense situation seems to be a fight. Hand to hand fighting is only one tool to solve violent encounters. Notice that the caveman figured that out pretty quick when he clobbered the other guy with a rock.

Even within the realm of martial arts training for self defense, very few I have come across teach the use of environmental weapons. There is almost always something on hand to use, but how many of us train to grab something like a pen, chair, key-ring etc. The beauty of FMA is the "concept" approach. Put anything in your hands (pretty much) and have at it.

 

[Cruentus]

Modern Arnis Empty Hand Defense: Spray with OC spray, shoot em', or run like hell??

Paul M. and Tom; you make good points regarding defensive tactics, but I think the thread might be getting steered a little. I think that our "Modern Arnis Empty Hand" does refer to the techniques (and the timing, spacial relationship, etc. of those techniques) rather then the tactics. The tactics are important, but yet, they are a different animal. Example: if someone asked you, Tom, how you would handle a grappler from a tactical perspective, your answer as a police officer would involve how you would legally restrain him, cuff him, etc.. Sure this could involve pulling your gun and telling him to get on the ground, or spraying him with OC, or whatever. However, if someone asked you from a technical Modern Arnis perspective how you would handle a grappler, your answer might involve types of strikes, rips and gouges, mobility throws, small joint manipulation, etc.

There is a difference between the tactical and technical perspectives of defense. And yes, the tactics are important because the technical is within the context of of the tactical. Yet, they are not the same.

So, when someone asks in a thread like this about the effectiveness of Modern Arnis Empty Hand techniques, I believe they are refering to the technical.

:asian:

 

[loki09789]

The original thread author was asking about Arnis empty hand and I am not clear on whether he/she intended MA or just Arnis as the blanket term for PI arts/empty hand. If the original intent was to talk technique, tactical 'techniques' as conceptual applications are fitting in my mind because they help round out the entire scope of techniques that effect a scenario.

Based on my view of Arnis training (conceptual/tactical/technical) anything that will help me be effective to control as best I can the what, when and how I might have to apply empty hand techniques.

You, Paul, yourself mentioned in the clinching on the street thread that you would never clinch because that would limit your environmental awareness. I would think that to be a tactical consideration that influences technique. When does a fight really start? At what point in a fight do you start applying the concepts that manifest as techniques empty hand or otherwise?

To me, the physical techniques are just another expression of the concepts, as the 'tactical' elements are just an expression of the concepts. To me, there is no separation because they are all based on the same concepts. I don't want to get lost in the parts and miss out on the whole.

Paul Martin

 

[Tgace]

Originally posted by PAUL
However, if someone asked you from a technical Modern Arnis perspective how you would handle a grappler, your answer might involve types of strikes, rips and gouges, mobility throws, small joint manipulation, etc.

There is a difference between the tactical and technical perspectives of defense. And yes, the tactics are important because the technical is within the context of of the tactical. Yet, they are not the same.

I understand what youre saying, folks want to discuss the empty hand details, but it kinda reinforces my point...If the "best" way to handle a grappler is to OC him, Its the best way regardles of the fact that youre a cop or a FMA. The value of pedantic discussions about technique vs. technique is an issue of "mission". Are we talking self-defense effectiveness or "art" comparisons? IMHO forum situations such as this are better suited to the "philosophical" issues than the technical. Technique is better shown than discussed.

And I was always taught that "tactics determine technique"...a quote from "The Tactical Edge", Charles Remsberg, Calibre Press 1999

"Tactical Thinking that works involves a simple formula: you match options for defense and control to the type of threat you're facing. Obviously, that's easier said than done. But it is easier done than a lot of officers imagine. The key is the way you think.... Good tactical thinking begins with assessing your potential dangers. And that begins with your recognizing that despite their infinite variety of detail, high-risk situations share some uniersal characteristics. People and places can present threats to you in only certain ways."

 

[Cruentus]

In regards to the thread starter, since he put his questions in the Modern Arnis Forum instead of the Filipino arts forum, I am going to assume that he is refering to specifically the art of Modern Arnis, at least until he says differently.

Having said that, I think some of the differences in our opinion exist due to how we view the art of Modern Arnis differently. I noticed that yourself, and some of your peers with a similar learning background (such as Tim Kashino and Tgace on this forum) gear more towards the broader conceptual aspects of Modern Arnis. For you guys, Modern Arnis is mainly a broad concept driven art. It seems that you take any concept or Modern Arnis idea and apply it over many different mediums, and consider it "Modern Arnis." For instance, a guy pulls a knife, so you throw a chair into his head. You applied the "countering" and "flow" concept of Modern Arnis, therefore you throwig a chair into the attackers head was, in a sense, Modern Arnis. With this mindset, any art, technique, or method could potentially fit into the umbrella of Modern Arnis.

My approach, and according to the way I was taught by Remy, is a bit different. I agree that Modern Arnis is concept driven, yet probably not as broadly as you define it. I also believe that there are core technical movements, and technical concepts that make Modern Arnis Unique among other Martial Arts, or Filipino systems. Now, there are tactical considerations that Modern Arnis concepts fit into broadly, but these tactical considerations aren't nessicarily the art to me. Oftentimes, the tactical considerations are more common sense to me then anything else.

But, in regards to the technical and conceptual, the concepts were taught THROUGH the technique, not the other way around. Take the concept of "countering the counter" for instance. Professor didn't get into a long disertation about countering the counter. We just learned....12 angles of attack, block check counter, decadena, tapi-tapi presets, disarms, counter disarms, then later, tapi-tapi sparring, etc., etc.. All the while repeating the mantra, "It is important to counter the counter"...."You must know how to counter the counter"...."IF you can counter the counter you will not be beaten..." etc, etc etc. No long disertation as to what countering the counter actually was; nope, not for us. We just did the techniques while he repeated the concept over and over and over. Then eventaually, the two came together and the lightbulb went on for the student. This way, his students became "doers" rather then just "talkers." In fact, many of his concepts that were expressed through movement he never defined with words.

So, to me, both the techniques and the concepts made the art...yet the techniques came first, and without them Modern Arnis would not be what it is. Without the techniques and movements, in my opinion, you are left with a philosophy rather then a martial system. Without the techniques, you have Soyac Kali, or Kenpo, or police combatives, or whatever system you study with a modern arnis philosophy behind it. To me, kenpo with Modern Arnis concepts (for example) is not really Modern Arnis to me.

Now that I have illustrated my perspective on the relationship between Technical and conceptual Modern Arnis, Lets see how tactics and tactics training fit in. In my opinion, every technique and concept (every martial art) must be put in a tactical perspective for it to be effective for the practitioner. So, I agree that tactics are important. Yet, I view tactics seperately from the art because of how Professor taught. To give an analogy, Modern Arnis is like all the tools in the toolbox, as well as how all these tools are used (hammer does this, screwdriver does that, etc.). Yet, my plans to build the shelving unit for my closet, as well as how these tools will apply to my building of the unit would be the tactics. So, I believe Modern Arnis is the techniques and concepts that drive the art, not general combative tactics. How a police officer would use Modern Arnis against a perp, or how a civilian would use Modern Arnis against the mugger for example is tactics, but not the art by itself.

So to me, tactics are a seperate study. Usually Tactics are common sense, and just need to be pre-resolved before the confusion of combat to be effective. Other aspects of tactics have been studied more scholarly with FBI stats and studies taken into account. Some of these tactics do need to be practiced in order to raise the awareness of the martial art student. However, any civilian has access to experts on the subject for tactics training, and can learn these fairly quickly. Yet, these are not the art itself.

Tactics are very important. I work through scenarios and tactic training with my students, and I always encourage others to think about the context of when and where their technique will be effective. Yet, I understand that although these tactics are applying Modern Arnis, and not Modern Arnis in itself. They don't replace the fundamental movements and concepts of the art. And...how do I know this? Remy Presas didn't have us do drills where, for example, one person gets in a circle of people, shuts there eyes and gets turned around, so when he opens his eyes the members of the circle all yell and scream, and a few throw controlled techniqes that he has to defend; all to train how to deal with the disorientation of combat. This may be a fine drill to train tactics, but it isn't Modern Arnis in my opinion. Remy Presas didn't have us do these tactics drills. He had us work on techniques, movements, and concepts specific to his art.

So, in a nutshell, we just see the art differently, probably based on how we were taught. You and some of your peers see the art more conceptually, so that the art can encompass tactics and other techniques that may be non specific to what Remy Presas taught, yet fit into the umbrella of the broad concepts. I see the art on a more technical and conceptual level, while looking at the tactics seperately and according to the need of the practitioner of the art. As you said, "I don't want to get lost in the parts and miss out on the whole." For me, I like parts; and I like to seperate and analyze the parts to better understand the whole (just ask my fiancee; anyway, that's my excuse when I choose to focus mostly on her boobs while she is talking about lord knows what... :rofl: ). Plus, we were probably taught differently. Part of the beauty of Modern Arnis is that we can look at the art differently if we want to.

btw...

on a side note, I talked to Datu Hartman recently about something completely unrelated, but this subject came up. He made a good point that I have to agree with. Most people who teach Modern Arnis aren't really qualified to comment on how effective "Modern Arnis Empty Hand" is or isn't. The reason is because most people who study and teach the art came from another system. So, a point fighter fights more like a point fighter with Modern Arnis influence, a grappler fights like a grappler with Modern Arnis influence, etc. etc. Most haven't spent enough time trying to seperate what technical and stylestic aspects are Modern Arnis, and what has been influenced from their base styles. So their opinions regarding the effectiveness of the Modern Arnis empty hand system is skewed; what they are really commenting on is their opinions of their own personal style rather then Modern Arnis as its own art. I personally have noticed this problem with many long time practitioners in the art. This is an interesting point to think about. For me, this is how the WMAA brings benefit to my teaching and progression in a major way. As a martial artist, my personal fighting style is not strictly Modern Arnis, and is clearly influenced by outside arts. Same is true with my teaching. Yet, we have the Modern Arnis white to black curriculum as a guide to seperate what is strictly Modern Arnis and what isn't. THis way, no matter what direction I move, I'll still be able to give my students the same Modern Arnis base that I had the benefit of getting while Remy was alive.

This is an interesting point, and something to think about. For myself, having been in Modern Arnis actively seeing Remy Presas and training with qualified instructors in the art for about 14 years, I feel that I am able to seperate what Modern Arnis is and what is not. However, how many others from other base styles are able to do this? An intersting thought.

Anyways, I hope my long post makes sense so you can all see my perspective on things.

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

I understand your points, and I agree with your quote, among other things.

Yet, the fundamental question we come to is this: What exactly are we talking about here? If we are talking about the art (in this case Modern Arnis) my response will be in more of an art specific, technical nature. If we are talking about "self defense" or "combat," my response will be in more of a tactical nature, and not art specific per say.

I believe that we were talking about Modern Arnis, and more art specific topics rather then defensive or combative tactics, at least on this thread, anyway.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by PAUL
In regards to the thread starter, since he put his questions in the Modern Arnis Forum instead of the Filipino arts forum, I am going to assume that he is refering to specifically the art of Modern Arnis, at least until he says differently.

I was thinking about arnis when I started this thread. My instructor traces his liniage through Maestro Rick Miyahara and through him to Angel Cabales (I believe). Yet, I think that discussing the umbrella systems of Kali, could be helpfull. If I know anything, FMA is varied. There are as many systems as there are kinds of bread. All of them are good to eat.

Also, from my limited experience, kicking seems to be a weakness in the system. This can be countered by experience, for instance I have had my butt handed to me by veteran arnis players with more MA experience then I have. Still, against someone with equal or lesser experience in MS, empty handed, I have usually come out on top. (Yes, I know, with sparring its not a really good measure, but still...)

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
I was thinking about arnis when I started this thread. My instructor traces his liniage through Maestro Rick Miyahara and through him to Angel Cabales (I believe). Yet, I think that discussing the umbrella systems of Kali, could be helpfull. If I know anything, FMA is varied. There are as many systems as there are kinds of bread. All of them are good to eat.

Hmmm....

In that case perhaps you'd get better answers in the FMA forum.

The word "arnis" is about as general as the word "Karate".

"Modern Arnis" which is what this forum is dedicated too, refers to a style of "Arnis" that was founded by GrandMaster Remy Presas. It sounds like you learned a different style then Modern Arnis.

We can still answer some questions here, but it would be more helpful to answer them more generally, as opposed to art specific. We can still help, but the style you learned and Modern Arnis are not exactly the same.

 

[sercuerdasfigther]

in response to angel cabales' art the empty hands are very good, but from the limit time you have in the system your skills won't appear yet. most of the empty hand skills come at the advanced stage of training after the foundation is learned. advanced skills of reverse reversing , picking,and sticky stick all bring the empty hand skills out. there were two types of empty hands taught,one was cadena de mano(chain of hands) which was mostly taught by max sarmiento . angel hand his own empty hand call kamay kamay(sticky hands). cadena de mano is very good, similar to wing chun in some respects(i.e. sticking ability , chain punching,deflect and hit, etc.).

 

[Mickey]

Originally posted by Tgace
I understand what youre saying, folks want to discuss the empty hand details, but it kinda reinforces my point...If the "best" way to handle a grappler is to OC him, Its the best way regardles of the fact that youre a cop or a FMA. The value of pedantic discussions about technique vs. technique is an issue of "mission". Are we talking self-defense effectiveness or "art" comparisons? IMHO forum situations such as this are better suited to the "philosophical" issues than the technical. Technique is better shown than discussed.

And I was always taught that "tactics determine technique"...a quote from "The Tactical Edge", Charles Remsberg, Calibre Press 1999

"Tactical Thinking that works involves a simple formula: you match options for defense and control to the type of threat you're facing. Obviously, that's easier said than done. But it is easier done than a lot of officers imagine. The key is the way you think.... Good tactical thinking begins with assessing your potential dangers. And that begins with your recognizing that despite their infinite variety of detail, high-risk situations share some uniersal characteristics. People and places can present threats to you in only certain ways."

Tgace,

No disrespect, just curious.

In 1983 the movie War Games had the computer play Tic-Tac-Toe to learn that there was no winning move.

If OC (Not sure what it is?) is used against a person is the best. Then not being in range is better. Then maybe not being on that street is better yet. So I should drive around bad sections of town. Yet, most accidents occur within 25 mile radius of your home, so know you should leave home and not come back to avoid this also? Yet, if I do not leave home then I cannot get into an accident.

So either I have to leave home and always wonder to be safe, or stay home and never let anyone in nor go out.

So, the only way is not to play at all. So, if you are not alive then you are ok? Yes, this might be takng your point or arguement to the extreme, yet that is a test.

I know you are talking tactics, and I thought I read before that you wanted a forum on this. Yet, the Mods asked that those interested to start posting on this subject and to show the interest. Yet, in browsing, I see you take subject off to this Tactics sense, or like only the Military can teach you the proper tactics. Maybe if you were to start some threads and, discuss these issues you might get some responses.

I see it that if you take this tactic only discussion, all discusson will cease to exists. Since you will either not play or destroy the opponent before they can move. I know I could be wrong, and hance asked for the other threads to discuss these types of topics.

Mick
:asian:

 

[loki09789]

Well, now that we know what the author's intent was:

Arnis (FMA in general) is a very effective empty hand pool of systems as far as I am concerned. The ONE element that I thing makes FMA's distinct is it's flexibility and adaptability. Most of the FMA arts that I have any exposure to push application - thus forcing the student to think about the how and when (tactical) right away. I think that FMAer's can be more effective as self defense/fight performers than students with the same amount of training from other systems.

This is ultimately my point about tactical skills within FMA systems, whether MA or any other.... all force you to work on staying focused and aware from the beginning. Translated to a larger scale (tactics/strategy) that considers the situation that a fight could take place in, the conceptual training is the next evolution from FMA technical training. I think that it is the major advantage of FMA over other arts.

Focusing on technique is important for instruction and systemization as well as building a personal foundation, but as an individual practitioner, getting to the higher understandings of tactics and strategy help to make sense of the how, when and why of an art.

Euro fencing has been called chess at mock two. I am pretty sure that could translate to FMA and other arts as well. It takes more than just knowing how to move a pawn or knight to win at chess.

It takes masters of fencing and chess years of thought and practice to see that bigger picture. I doubt that tactical and strategic understanding that could save your life can be picked up and learned quickly.

Paul Martin

 

[DoxN4cer]

Technical proficency and tactical proficiency are interconnected. They are part of the same whole that is know as effectiveness or perhaps even competence. You apply technique within tactical context. Technical proficiency without tactical proficiency equates to having useless (empty) knowledge.

Techniques and Tactics are inseperable, like two sides of the same coin. One without the other is incomplete. In order to be truly effective you must have proficiency in both.

Tim Hartman's comment to Paul Janulis is correct. Most people who teach Modern Arnis aren't really qualified to comment on how effective "Modern Arnis Empty Hand" is or isn't. However, I agree for a different reason. Is MA empty had effective? Yes, but few have had the opportunity (or necessity) to apply it in the real world under the stress of hostile situations. Many haven't "been there or done that", and they have no credibility with regards to what works and what doesn't; regardless of their "technical skill", time in studying the art, what title they hold (or have given themselves) and/or whom they studied the art with.

Many people who teach Modern Arnis are still riding on the late Professor's name and shirt-tails. We often hear "Remy taught me this" or "Remy told me that" as though using this reference or chanting his name gives them credibilty as an authority on what works and what doesn't. Few have actually earned that credibility through their own endeavors and actions. Regardless of that, there are some very good "technical instructors" teaching the art.

Respectfully,

Tim Kashino

 

[Tgace]

I think Paul has said it more concisely than I. The only reason I bring up the tactical issue here is because I believe that FMA (IMHO) is the art bet suited to incorporating some of the more modern tactical developments. This can be seen in some of Sayoc's teachings. Police/military trainers like Jim Wagner outright say that FMA is a must have when developing combative techniques. As to police/military being the only sources, I dont believe I ever stated that or do I believe that. The sources of most Tactical/Combative developments and equipment has come from the civillian sector.

 

[Tgace]

Sorry....double tap.

 

[loki09789]

Tim K as eloquent and oozing of courtly grace as ever!

Paul Martin

 

[Cruentus]

I doubt that tactical and strategic understanding that could save your life can be picked up and learned quickly.

I disagree, but probably because our definition of "tactics" and "Concepts" differ (maybe).

The dictonary definition of "tactics" is: "a method of employing forces in combat." I view this seperate from the technique itself. What tactics really are for most civilians is basic "common sense" self defense. "Avoid groundfighting on the street because he may have friends or a weapon," or "make sure your aware in 'fringe' or transitional environments such as parking garages, deserted streets or alleys, or elevators, because these are where a lot of assults occur," "It's best to pick up a weapon of opportunity when your attacker has a knife" are examples of tactics. Most tactics are very easy to learn. Most people can do a fair amount of research and reading to get the tactics that they will need for a lifetime. For some of the more complex tactics, some scenario training helps to get a feel for it. With LEO or Military, Tactics are much more important to their jobs, so much more time should be spent on them, yet, this doesn't make them more difficult to learn, in my opinion. Now if you take the definition of "tactics" to be as broad as mission planning for the military, or something like that, then yes, tactics can be much more involved. Yet, for most of us civilians, LEO, and Military, tactics are fairly easy to learn.

"Concepts" on the other hand are much more difficult to learn, because they are very abstract. The dictionary definition of Concepts is: "1. Something Concieved in the mind: THought or Notion. 2. an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances." This definition is much more abstract, and thus, much more difficult to learn. "The Flow" is much more difficult to explain and learn then "Avoid groundfighting in a streetfight." Concepts are more abstract, and therefore can only be fully expressed by "Doing" rather then explaining and philosophising. This is how the movements in our arts are crucial in understanding concepts, because they are the only true expression of the concepts; words are only abstracts of these concepts.

So, I believe that tactics are easy to verbalize, and easy to learn, especially in a short amount of time. In fact, most tactics are easy, simple-stupid to learn by design....because that makes them more effective and efficient in the end. Concepts, on the other hand, are abstract, and not easy to learn also by design; and we will spend a lifetime deepening our understanding of concepts. The two are not the same.

 

[loki09789]

Okay, I am going to double post, so groan away now and get it out of your systems (or is it an art?... bad joke)

FMA empty hand vs other empty hand arts cannot be discussed strictly on a technique versus technique level, IMO. It has to be a comparison of how the systems train the student to think, move and act and that is the HOW of technical application, or ... here it comes... that dirty word... TACTICS and STRATEGY (audible groan).

I have already explained why I think FMA/arnis is an effective empty hand art so I won't do it again - this time. But because of the conceptual/thinking approach of FMA/arnis arts, I think the whole of FMA can be more effective.

I have trained students and had them on the floor working with and sparring students of equal rank from other systems and schools, sometimes with more training time than my people and my students consistently smoked the other person on adaptability, intensity, skill.... This isn't a 'I am the greatest teacher testimony' but a 'FMA makes students fight effective earlier testimony.

Paul martin

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by DoxN4cer
Technical proficency and tactical proficiency are interconnected. They are part of the same whole that is know as effectiveness or perhaps even competence. You apply technique within tactical context. Technical proficiency without tactical proficiency equates to having useless (empty) knowledge.

Techniques and Tactics are inseperable, like two sides of the same coin. One without the other is incomplete. In order to be truly effective you must have proficiency in both.

I am in agreement on this. I do agree that if you don't know the context in which the techniques can be used, then your techniques are "empty". In other words, Tactics are important to know to make your art (your technique) effective. My thing is, tactics aren't the art itself, even if abstract concepts from the art fit.

Tim Hartman's comment to Paul Janulis is correct. Most people who teach Modern Arnis aren't really qualified to comment on how effective "Modern Arnis Empty Hand" is or isn't. However, I agree for a different reason. Is MA empty had effective? Yes, but few have had the opportunity (or necessity) to apply it in the real world under the stress of hostile situations. Many haven't "been there or done that", and they have no credibility with regards to what works and what doesn't; regardless of their "technical skill", time in studying the art, what title they hold (or have given themselves) and/or whom they studied the art with.

Many people who teach Modern Arnis are still riding on the late Professor's name and shirt-tails. We often hear "Remy taught me this" or "Remy told me that" as though using this reference or chanting his name gives them credibilty as an authority on what works and what doesn't. Few have actually earned that credibility through their own endeavors and actions. Regardless of that, there are some very good "technical instructors" teaching the art.

Respectfully,

Tim Kashino

I don't know if I fully agree with the rest. What it sounds like your basically saying is that you need to get into fights to see if your art is effective. I don't think this is nessicary, or an exacting determination of anything. I could have been in many fights, but what if all the people I fought with weren't good fighters? How would I know the difference? I could have not been in one fight, but if I learned some of the most effective combative arts in the world, wouldn't it be safe to say that in a "fight" I could probably handle myself? There are other indicators that your art will be effective. One indicator is has your art been effective for other people? Remy Presas road tested his art in real fights, and was successful. Remy's teachers did the same. His dad taught soldiers and fought in WWII. Outside of Professor, there are many people who have used Modern Arnis in real life situations and have been successful. This is not an exacting indicator, but the "road tested" factor is good evidence that the art you are learning is effective in combat. A second way you could tell is during "live training." Basically, trying your techniques on resisting opponents in a controlled environment (dojo) to find out what works and what doesn't. You find out more this way much like scientests find out more through experiments under controlled conditions over trying to observe isolated events.

I just think that the notion that you have to take your art out and "fight" with it on the "street" to know if it is effective is a falicy.

However, I do understand what you are saying about people riding on Professors coatails. On the one hand, he is an authority; he has road tested his techniques AND it is his art. Yet, it does get annoying when people pull the "Remy showed me this way" card, especially considering that their interpretation of what "Ramy showed them" is oftentimes wrong.

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Tgace
I think Paul has said it more concisely than I. The only reason I bring up the tactical issue here is because I believe that FMA (IMHO) is the art bet suited to incorporating some of the more modern tactical developments. This can be seen in some of Sayoc's teachings. Police/military trainers like Jim Wagner outright say that FMA is a must have when developing combative techniques. As to police/military being the only sources, I dont believe I ever stated that or do I believe that. The sources of most Tactical/Combative developments and equipment has come from the civillian sector.

Agreed! I think that conceptually FMA is great for developing modern tactical developments!! :cheers: