Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis

[loki09789]

I think the definition you found for tactic is slightly limited for this discussion.

The word tact basically means doing the right thing at the right time. If you are tactful, you always seem to say/do the right thing. You seem relaxed, at ease and 'on' - not a bad goal for a martial artis I would think. If you are tactless, then you say/do things that seem odd or inappropriate or at least don't accomplish the goal. This is more than a laundry list of catch phrases for the civilian/military/leo it is a thought process.

A tactical view of martial arts sees technique as a foundation. Using tactics takes time to train so that the right thing at the right time happens more often, it is far from quick and easy to learn because it is a mentallity and an understanding of when and why you are employing the How of techniques. Good technique makes for more fluid, fast and effective accomplishment of a goal but techniques are only the beginning for smart fighters.

Watch boxing and you will see many an 'unskilled' or 'unconconvential' boxer beat a 'technically superior' fighter because he fights smart. I think FMA is better at making smart fighters at an earlier stage of development. Ali was a master of boxing tact even when his technique didn't look as sharp or right compared to other fighters.

Paul Martin

 

[Tgace]

OK Paul you started it so ill repost something too..

"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."

Tactics is working out general soultions to problems. If the problem is street attack than you will work out different solutions than you would if the problem is home invasion/hijackings etc.

That is what I think is key. Each practicioner has to determine why it is hes spending time practicing. If its "self-defense" then theres many more issues than just hand to hand to consider. If its for fun, art, hobby (and those are absolutely valid reasons too) than by all means work out every possible defense/counter/etc. that you can. Its a matter of evaluation.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by loki09789
Watch boxing and you will see many an 'unskilled' or 'unconconvential' boxer beat a 'technically superior' fighter because he fights smart. I think FMA is better at making smart fighters at an earlier stage of development. Ali was a master of boxing tact even when his technique didn't look as sharp or right compared to other fighters.

Paul Martin

It sounds like some of what you are talking about is crossing over from tactics to the technical aspect of the martial art. Keep in mind that the technical portion of a martial art doesn't just involve "technique"; it involves the whole enchalada - timing, angling, distancing, footwork, etc. "Doing the right thing at the right moment" to me refers to good timing rather then "tactics". How your timing, footwork, technique, etc., is effected by an Icy sidewalk would be an idea of "tactics".

Your boxing example has little to do with "tactics" to me. The unconventional fighter wins fights because of the proper timing and angling of his techniques, as well as other factors. To me, this is all part of the technical aspects of his boxing. The tactics would refer to what kind of shoes he wears, how far he pulls his pants up, etc. - and notice that because of the rules, the "tactical" portion of boxing isn't real deep.

Your definition of "tactics" seems to include what I would consider technical aspects of the art. I guess thats just what makes us different.

Definition of Tactics: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Tactic&x=15&y=15

Definition of "Tact": http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Tact&x=21&y=15

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Tgace
OK Paul you started it so ill repost something too..

"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."

Tactics is working out general soultions to problems. If the problem is street attack than you will work out different solutions than you would if the problem is home invasion/hijackings etc.

That is what I think is key. Each practicioner has to determine why it is hes spending time practicing. If its "self-defense" then theres many more issues than just hand to hand to consider. If its for fun, art, hobby (and those are absolutely valid reasons too) than by all means work out every possible defense/counter/etc. that you can. Its a matter of evaluation.

I totally agree with what you are saying. People do need to evaluate what their techniques/art is FOR. Remember, I never viewed tactics as being unimportant; I just view tactics as seperate from the art. Tactics to me runs along the lines of "Good common sense" and "Good self defense".

Its a matter of being prepared. Prepared Families have a preplanned escape from their homes in case of a fire. A prepared martial artist has gone through the different possible scenarios both in their head and training when needed to prepare to use what they know in real life.

I still maintain, though, that a "tactic" such as "lower your center of gravity if you are on slippery terrain" is much easier to learn, verbalize, and understand then learning a concept like the "Flow" through our Modern Arnis Movements.

Most practical tactical knowledge, I believe, you can gain from a little research and forethought. If the tactic is too complicated to learn fairly quickly, I often find that it isn't appliable at all.

 

[Cruentus]

Here is a definition of "technique"; I think Definition #2 applies more to what we are talking about here: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Technique&x=19&y=16

Also, here is a definition of "Concept": http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Concept&x=12&y=10

 

[Tgace]

Heres an interesting definition from a non-military/LEO source. A Soccer coaching article states...

1. Technical Proficiency is:
- The ability to perform the underlying techniques accurately, consistently and at match tempo.

2. Tactical Prowess
Different definitions of Tactical Prowess apply to different modes of play.

When in Attack Tactical Prowess is:
- The ability to weigh up match situations, and decide on what option to take and when to take it in order to maximise scoring opportunities.

When in Defence Tactical Prowess is:
- Knowing what option to take and when to take it in order to minimise the amount of clean possession, time and space available to opponents to make clear use of the ball.

Make whatever necessary translation you wish..this shows the hand in hand relationship.

And this Krav Maga site has a pretty good explination of what Im trying to say...

http://www.sdtactics.com.au/html/methods/tactical_approachp2.htm

Please take a look, its very good, states my view better than Ive been able to so far....and Id like to see FMA give Krav a run for its money in the Tactical Combatives niche its built for itself....

 

[Mickey]

loki09789, Tgace & Paul,

I have no problem with someone making a connection with tactics and or strategy at all. Thank you to those who did.

What gets me is well that is not right, since you have no tactics. Or That is not valid without tactics.

These statements mean nothing to me. What means something is when people tie it together, give examples, and make meaningful discussions.

Once again thank you for those that did give teh connections.

Mick
:asian:

 

[DoxN4cer]

Originally posted by loki09789
Tim K as eloquent and oozing of courtly grace as ever!

Paul Martin

Oh, behave.

 

[DoxN4cer]

Originally posted by PAUL
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 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...


:asian:

You interpretation of my statement is askew. You must really consider me to be a ruffian. I'm more like Uncle Sugar's hired muscle... not completely a ruffian, but I am one of those rough men that stand ready to do harm on your behalf. Sleep well do ya?

That's not exactly what I'm eluding to. What I'm getting at is that regardless of the "faith" someone has in their chosen system/art/whatever, you have a better appreciation of its effectiveness if you have tested it "under fire". And thus, afterwards one has a better understanding of what works, what doesn't and why.

To go out in search of a street fight in order to test one's martial prowess is brutish, archaic and the act of an insecure fool. There is enough violence in the world without people doing that.

Tim Kashino

 

[MJS]

I agree. Going out to look for a fight is not the answer to seeing if what you know is gonna work. If you have some good training partners, who can provide you with a realistic attack, some resistance and some aliveness, then you should be able to find out what works right in your own training area. Granted, your partner is not really trying to take your life, but he can put you into a realistic setting.

An example of this is Peyton Quinn. At his school, he works on adrenal stress conditioning. He'll put a guy in a red man suit, and he'll act like a total nut, thereby giving the defender a realistic feeling of an attack, causing them to get that adrenalin rush. The defender can go all out w/o the attacker getting hurt.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Focusing on technical development really makes 'art' over 'martial' because you are ignoring how important the thinking, problem solving and planning elements of self defense are. The canvas that we demonstrate our artistry on requires more creativity and composure than the perfect side kick or #1 strike.

We believe now a days that 'old school' martial arts training is to beat and get beat on for a time and have your instructor 'hint', or straight out tell you what is important and along the way you get these 'flashes of enlightnment' that are exciting and mark your progress. That may be fine for movies and philosophical/personal development goals but not for reality preparation.

I say it is possible to work hard AND smart at this. I would rather have TGace or a street smart bouncer at my back in the real deal than the most technically perfect black belt.

What are you (plural 'you') focusing on? Training or Application?

When you are working out are you motivated more by looking good for the next summer camp/tournament/promotion than you are motivated by the desire to survive another day if the fit hits the shan?

I don't claim to be the 'tactical guro' or be more right or anything but I am clear about what I am out to do and how skilled I am. I think that we have to be clear about what we are doing and really getting from it.

I USE training to PREPARE for application/self defense/effective survival. I don't ignore the fact that I get alot of other cudos (fitness,self confidence, promotion....) from training, but those are benefits, not the goal.

As far as I am concerned, that is why FMA is a very effective training pool of arts. The techniques and concepts allow for translation and adaptability. Creativity under pressure is tough and needs nurturing and development. Tactics/strategy/doctrine... are terms and ideas that are intrinsic parts of FMA training that exist within FMA training. Seeing parallels or other ideas that are liken to it in strategic theory isn't outside the art, it is recognizing that FMA/Arnis is still the art within any martial art.

Paul Martin

 

[Cruentus]

DoxN4cer: How's the weather and the food out there in sicily?

Is my interpretation of what your saying askew? Maybe, maybe not. I am not sure yet.

Riddle me this: Is it possible for a person with a lot of training who, lets say, has never had to defend themselves to have a better understanding of the application of their art then someone who has had to defend themselves?

Hmmmm....? :ubercool:

 

[Cruentus]

I think we both agree that Tactical considerations are a must when figuring out how to apply your art to real life self defense.

The difference in our opinions is in how our interpretation of how tactics, concepts, and technique relate.

My belief is that Your technique and your concepts behind the technique are like your car. All kinds of work and years of experience went onto making your car. The Engineering would be the concepts behind the car, and the moving parts that make up of the car would be the actual "technique." Tactics would be after the car is made, you go out and road test the car. Under controlled experimental conditions, you test all the possabilites of how the car could be used to test its effectiveness. This is "tactics training." Tactics is how the car is used in real life. The difference in how the car drives in slippery conditions vs. nonslippery conditions is a tactical consideration. Now, under these experiments, you may find way of improving the engineering and "technique" or moving parts of the car. Hell, it wouldn't be safe to sell a car unless they went through these "experiments," correct? The tactical considerations are very important. However, the one thing to remember is that these experiments and enviromental considerations ARE NOT THE CAR ITSELF.

Furthermore, it is much more difficult to design, engineer, and build a car then it is to experiment on how the car works in its environment.

The tactics are important to consider, but are not the art itself. Your tactics are useless unless you know how to punch, parry, stab, shoot, or what have you. Working on Tactics without good technique or conceptual understanding of your technique is like trying to road test a poorly engineered car. If the car has a crappy engine, bad breaks, crappy tires, etc., you will only be able to move so fast, break, and turn so well, and it won't be very good. Spend the time and energy on engineering and building the best car for the job, and your "tactics" will fall into place beautifully.

This is why (and I hate to pull the Remy card) when Professor was alive our seminars were technique oriented. You learned the technique to get to the concepts behind the technique. And, that was the art. Professor was trying to build us a nice Ferrari to go road test.

It seems that you consider the road testing as a part of the car when you consider the tactics a part of the art. Furthermore, this can be detramental if your primary concern is building tactics rather then solid technique and concepts; I fear that your martial ability could end up being the equivelent of trying to creatively road test your ford pinto with bald tires and no breaks. No matter how creative your experiments are, and no matter how good and powerful you feel from developing cool enviromental experiments, your pinto just doesn't work as well as the ferrari.

 

[Cruentus]

One more thing here; you should know how to drive with whatever car you got TODAY, even though your Ferarri is in developement.

In other words, try to consider every technique you learn from a tactical perspective. In may not be "the art" per say, but I always encourage my students to think about how you would use what I am teaching if you were attacked in REAL LIFE, and I give them some examples and considerations to think about. I want them to be able to fight with whatever they have TODAY...even while they are building that ferarri.

Military and LEO have to be able to use whatever they have TODAY for their jobs, even if some of them never take their technique beyond the equivelent of driving a pinto with no tires. That is why what they train in is tactics oriented. We of course hope that they at least slap some new tires, or a new paint job on that POS at some point!

 

[loki09789]

Paul J.,

You keep referring to 'tactics' as a list of techniques, when it is really a thought process - I don't know if you are getting the point.

I think comparison to other physical performance arenas would be more appropriate than cars and cabinets. People think and grow and cars/cabinets don't.

Hockey is hockey. The techniques and skills that a novice (oh me for instance - I suck ) uses are the same ones that an NHL player uses, obviously at very different levels of form, power, focus and speed.

At any level of skill though, it is the player's tactical ability read and react to situations that make them game effective. The tactical part of the game is far more important when the game is played, coaches don't care how beautiful the shot is if you don't time it write. Look at Jagr, great player, but without his head in the game, he sucks. Ugly or not a goal is a goal.

There are guys who I can outskate or out puckhandle, but because they have 'been there done that' from childhood, and are starting up again later in life, they are better during a game than I am. They 'see the ice', or are better at the tactical thinking of the game than I am - even though I am more technically proficient than they are.

In FMA or hockey or whatever athletic performance... the artistry and master is expressed in how well you do in the real thing, not how great you look during practice.

Paul Martin

 

[Cruentus]

I don't look at tactics as a list of techniques, but as strategies. Yes, there is definatily a thought process there. In fact, I believe that it is mostly a thought process rather then a physical process. This has been part of my point.

And when I refer to "Techniques" or good technique, I am not refering to what looks pretty. With good technique, the mechanics of movement, the timing, the distancing, angling, and positioning are as such where the desired end result is achieved. It doesn't matter what it looks like.

Ah well.

I have to go to a meeting, so I am out of time....perhaps I'll post more later. Or, perhaps someone who thinks they know what I am saying can reiterate.

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

I dont think anybody here has said "Ignore technique and focus on tactics." Or if you think tactics than you can survive with $&!%^ technique. Technical skill is is what you get from repetitive practice. Thats hopefully what you get from your class. Tactics is "the game" in whole. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

We talk a lot about tactics is because we believe that self-defense oriented students may be getting only 1/2 the skills they need to survive on the "street" by believing that the training they get in a dojo is all they need.

 

[Tgace]

Originally posted by PAUL
The tactics are important to consider, but are not the art itself. Your tactics are useless unless you know how to punch, parry, stab, shoot, or what have you. Working on Tactics without good technique or conceptual understanding of your technique is like trying to road test a poorly engineered car. If the car has a crappy engine, bad breaks, crappy tires, etc., you will only be able to move so fast, break, and turn so well, and it won't be very good. Spend the time and energy on engineering and building the best car for the job, and your "tactics" will fall into place beautifully.

With all due respect, I dont know where the belief that we are saying tactical training means you forget about technique is coming from. Like in Pauls hockey analogy... the game is much more than skating, puck handling and shooting, but players spend a lot of time honing those skills. Just like military combat is more than individual soldier skills (shooting, land nav. H2H et.) soldiers train regulary and to standards.

Like the author of that Krav article stated...

http://www.sdtactics.com.au/html/methods/tactical_approachp2.htm

"An approach I choose to term the "tactical approach" is a different way of addressing self defence training. I didn't invent it; you just have to look outside the martial arts' square we have been conditioned to think within. But I am defining it. It isn't style related, it can be applied to all existing styles or systems intended for self defence but not without changes to those systems. It's a framework that sits over the top and is not prescriptive about which technique to use (hence independence of style).

The concept is straightforward, but the full description would fill a book (this series of articles are in fact extracts from the draft form of a book on this subject). It states that street confrontations should not be viewed as a contest of skill - a typically martial arts perspective. These are situations to be 'survived' by all means available, internal (physical and psychological) and external (environment), technical and tactical. It is about outthinking as well as outfighting your opponent(s) - using what you have to best advantage. Consequently the training required is broader and higher level than is typically found in martial arts' curriculum."

Like I said before, these issues are only issues if you are teaching "self-defense". If that isnt the primary focus, that isnt a BAD thing. People study for various reasons. And a technically competent student will "snap into" the "tactical mode" much more efficiently down the road as its a "mindset" shift not a physical retraining. If you are teaching self-defense, than sending students out on the street believing that they have learned "all they need to know" in the "classical"/family dojo to survive, you MAY be sending them out unprepared. I make no claims of expertise here, I dont teach, and I dont know what anybody else teaches. This is just an interest of mine and I would like to see more FMA taking a leading role in it.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

I think you guys have WAY too much time on your hands!

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Renegade
I think you guys have WAY too much time on your hands!

Yes...we do!