Cruentus
Grandmaster
I have done some independent research on the Bolo from the Philippines. Professor Presas gave me one in 95. He said it was his family design. Naturally, this caused me to become very interested in the applications of the tool. I got some pieces from Professor, and I have done my own historical research. Now, Master at Arms Bram Frank has an instructional Bolo DVD set out. To date, I have not seen this video. However, I am writing this to collaborate with what has been said so far regarding the differences between the Agricultural Bolo and the Fighting Bolo. What I have found is that both historically speaking and technically speaking, the tools are different. I have also found that Modern Arnis contains martial applications that distinctly fit with applying the Fighting Bolo.
#1. Physical Applications: I was able to piece together what from my knowledge of Modern Arnis, and what I was told, some of the blade applications of the art. I dont claim expertise on the Presas family style, the original bolo fighting style from Remys uncle and grandfather, but I will say that I know enough bits and pieces to have an informed opinion. How informed well, ask me in person then you can decide. Anyways, it sounds like, by description of Brams DVD's alone, and by some of what Bram and others have said online, that the Bolo DVDs will probably be right on par with Modern Arnis/Presas family style applications of the Bolo. When I see it for myself, Ill let you know more.
#2. Historical references: There are clear historical references that also back up what Bram is saying about the Presas Jungle fighting Bolo. Now dont get too caught up in the semantics of Jungle fighting Bolo. This seems to be Brams name for the tool rather then a historical reference. I am almost certain that in the Filipino languages, linguistically the distinction between one bolo to the next is not made. However, there are clear distinctions between the agricultural bolo, or machete that was used to navigate through the jungle, and a bolo that was used for fighting. These distinctions are in design and application, rather then by language.
A Machete, or agricultural Bolo, was used for cutting down foliage. Therefore, the blade was more top heavy and the tip was rounded. It was top heavy so that you could use your momentum to swing the tool, saving your arms from tiring in a days work. The tip was rounded to prevent breakage if you hit a tree, or something with a bit of resilience. You can see in pictures of old Machetes in the Americas, and bolos in the PI, and read about their history to get an idea on their design. A trip to the library will give you some more reliable references, but here is some info online
http://www.vikingsword.com/rila/
This is particularly important, taken from the link above:
The machete as used in the jungles of America is entirely distinct in its method of wielding from the edged weapons of Europe, swords, cutlasses, and sabers, which are held with the whole hand and all the fingers in what may be called the thrusting grip or the hammer grip depending on whether the wrist is dropped or not, so that the line of the weapon is either at right angles or in line with the axis of the lower arm. The machete is, instead, held loosely between the thumb and first finger and allowed to pivot in the hand through a large arc, thus slicing its way through the soft, herbaceous vegetation common in the American tropics and that of the Pacific Islands. Deep in the tropical jungles of the Amazon basin, the machete is the only modern implement found in the camps of otherwise Stone Age Indio cultures.
Compare the machete with the native tools of jungly South East Asia, and the Indonesian archipelago, where the tool-weapons such as the parang, the golok, bolo, and barong are wielded with a full hand-chopping grip which is needed to cut through the woody vegetation of that area. The nortemericano and his European ancestors used axes instead of one-handed tools for heavy cutting.
Now, notice the look of the machete and agricultural Bolos, as they are distinctly different then these Bolos here:
http://pt-go.com/popup.asp?ImagePath=images/Legacy3.jpg
What is the difference? Well, first of all, the fighting bolo has a completely different tip then the agricultural bolo. It comes to a sharp, almost clip, point. This is designed for thrusting, and back-cut applications, recognizable in its most basic sense from Modern Arnis angle 6-7 and 10-11. Another difference is that the fighting bolo is not top-heavy. This is not as well fitted for heavy fieldwork and agricultural chopping, but is very well fitted for fighting and maneuvering against an opponent. Another difference is that the back of the blade (and sides, for that matter) is resilient and hard, designed for absorbing strikes and blocking/deflecting another blade. This is very much unlike the agricultural tools. The last very noticeable difference is the hilt. The agricultural tools do not have a hilt designed for protecting the hand against another blade, while the fighting tools do.
So, it is clear that the agricultural bolo and the fighting bolo are distinctly different, and have distinctly different purposes. You can see in the Modern Arnis pink book pictures of the bolo battalions, and the bolos that they carry, and you can clearly see that their bolos are NOT the agricultural tools, but rather are the tools designed for fighting that you see in the above picture.
For more info on Filipino scouts, check here: http://www.philippine-scouts.org/History/Photos/american_historical.html I linked this page specifically because you can see that many of the men carried the fighting bolos, although it is often hard to see the detail.
Where might the difference between the PI fighting Bolo, and the agricultural bolos come from? Sit back .my theory
Note a picture of the Filipino Fighting Bolos close up:
http://www.gunting-museum.com/CSSD-SC_Weapons/Bolo_Set/bolo_set.html
Now look at the similarities between the Bolo and the Spanish Saber:
http://www.therionarms.com/sold/ttoy424.html
Now look at the similarities between the famed Bowie knife and the Bolo. The theory is that the bowie knife design was based off the saber, but modified for field use. Go half way down this page:
http://users.aristotle.net/~russjohn/bowie.html
The main difference between the Spanish Saber and the Bowie is that the Saber is clearly used for sword dueling, and the bowie is clearly used for field use, but could be used for defense, and saber fighting techniques could apply to the bowie. Now if you look at the similarities between the Bolo and the Saber, one can see that it is not far fetched that the fighting bolo was an agricultural bolo modified for fighting based off the Spanish saber. The main similarity that you can find is with the tip; that clip point designed for thrusting and ripping into the opponent.
A short while ago, a member of my group came by with a Bagwell Bowie knife. He had done some western martial arts and Bowie fighting seminars. The similarities between what he learned from the western methods and what I knew from the Presas Bolo/Modern Arnis methods are too similar to not be tied together somehow. Things such as tip control, defanging the snake, angles of attack, and other applications are very similar, at least conceptually to similar for it to be a mere coincidence, in my professional opinion. If you do Modern Arnis, look here and see if you can find the similarities, and think especially of the traditionals, angle of attacking methods, as well as the #5 and #12 umbrella blocks. Oh and remember to think conceptually:
http://ahfaa.org/saber.htm
Now, to clear the air here, I am certain that the Philippines have their own cultural martial arts that make them unique. Major differences can be seen in Filipino arts from Western Arts. However, so can major similarities, and these similarities are so different that it seems impossible that they would be mere coincidences. I think that to say that the Spanish fighting methods did NOT influence the Filipino methods after hundreds of years of conflict and occupation would be a bit hasty, in my opinion. I believe that both cultures influenced each other. Some evidence to this is in the methods and design of the fighting bolo.
Conclusions
There are many things one can conclude from this short essay. Perhaps the fighting Bolo was influenced from the Spanish Saber. Perhaps, far down the cultural line, Spanish fencing played a role in the development of the Presas Bolo style. Perhaps, these are only theories. However, the one thing that is for sure is that the Agricultural Bolo and the Fighting Bolo clearly are different tools, with different designs, made for different uses. Would it be far fetched to believe that somewhere in Modern Arnis these uses could be found? I think that it would be far fetched to say for sure that they couldnt.
#1. Physical Applications: I was able to piece together what from my knowledge of Modern Arnis, and what I was told, some of the blade applications of the art. I dont claim expertise on the Presas family style, the original bolo fighting style from Remys uncle and grandfather, but I will say that I know enough bits and pieces to have an informed opinion. How informed well, ask me in person then you can decide. Anyways, it sounds like, by description of Brams DVD's alone, and by some of what Bram and others have said online, that the Bolo DVDs will probably be right on par with Modern Arnis/Presas family style applications of the Bolo. When I see it for myself, Ill let you know more.
#2. Historical references: There are clear historical references that also back up what Bram is saying about the Presas Jungle fighting Bolo. Now dont get too caught up in the semantics of Jungle fighting Bolo. This seems to be Brams name for the tool rather then a historical reference. I am almost certain that in the Filipino languages, linguistically the distinction between one bolo to the next is not made. However, there are clear distinctions between the agricultural bolo, or machete that was used to navigate through the jungle, and a bolo that was used for fighting. These distinctions are in design and application, rather then by language.
A Machete, or agricultural Bolo, was used for cutting down foliage. Therefore, the blade was more top heavy and the tip was rounded. It was top heavy so that you could use your momentum to swing the tool, saving your arms from tiring in a days work. The tip was rounded to prevent breakage if you hit a tree, or something with a bit of resilience. You can see in pictures of old Machetes in the Americas, and bolos in the PI, and read about their history to get an idea on their design. A trip to the library will give you some more reliable references, but here is some info online
http://www.vikingsword.com/rila/
This is particularly important, taken from the link above:
The machete as used in the jungles of America is entirely distinct in its method of wielding from the edged weapons of Europe, swords, cutlasses, and sabers, which are held with the whole hand and all the fingers in what may be called the thrusting grip or the hammer grip depending on whether the wrist is dropped or not, so that the line of the weapon is either at right angles or in line with the axis of the lower arm. The machete is, instead, held loosely between the thumb and first finger and allowed to pivot in the hand through a large arc, thus slicing its way through the soft, herbaceous vegetation common in the American tropics and that of the Pacific Islands. Deep in the tropical jungles of the Amazon basin, the machete is the only modern implement found in the camps of otherwise Stone Age Indio cultures.
Compare the machete with the native tools of jungly South East Asia, and the Indonesian archipelago, where the tool-weapons such as the parang, the golok, bolo, and barong are wielded with a full hand-chopping grip which is needed to cut through the woody vegetation of that area. The nortemericano and his European ancestors used axes instead of one-handed tools for heavy cutting.
Now, notice the look of the machete and agricultural Bolos, as they are distinctly different then these Bolos here:
http://pt-go.com/popup.asp?ImagePath=images/Legacy3.jpg
What is the difference? Well, first of all, the fighting bolo has a completely different tip then the agricultural bolo. It comes to a sharp, almost clip, point. This is designed for thrusting, and back-cut applications, recognizable in its most basic sense from Modern Arnis angle 6-7 and 10-11. Another difference is that the fighting bolo is not top-heavy. This is not as well fitted for heavy fieldwork and agricultural chopping, but is very well fitted for fighting and maneuvering against an opponent. Another difference is that the back of the blade (and sides, for that matter) is resilient and hard, designed for absorbing strikes and blocking/deflecting another blade. This is very much unlike the agricultural tools. The last very noticeable difference is the hilt. The agricultural tools do not have a hilt designed for protecting the hand against another blade, while the fighting tools do.
So, it is clear that the agricultural bolo and the fighting bolo are distinctly different, and have distinctly different purposes. You can see in the Modern Arnis pink book pictures of the bolo battalions, and the bolos that they carry, and you can clearly see that their bolos are NOT the agricultural tools, but rather are the tools designed for fighting that you see in the above picture.
For more info on Filipino scouts, check here: http://www.philippine-scouts.org/History/Photos/american_historical.html I linked this page specifically because you can see that many of the men carried the fighting bolos, although it is often hard to see the detail.
Where might the difference between the PI fighting Bolo, and the agricultural bolos come from? Sit back .my theory
Note a picture of the Filipino Fighting Bolos close up:
http://www.gunting-museum.com/CSSD-SC_Weapons/Bolo_Set/bolo_set.html
Now look at the similarities between the Bolo and the Spanish Saber:
http://www.therionarms.com/sold/ttoy424.html
Now look at the similarities between the famed Bowie knife and the Bolo. The theory is that the bowie knife design was based off the saber, but modified for field use. Go half way down this page:
http://users.aristotle.net/~russjohn/bowie.html
The main difference between the Spanish Saber and the Bowie is that the Saber is clearly used for sword dueling, and the bowie is clearly used for field use, but could be used for defense, and saber fighting techniques could apply to the bowie. Now if you look at the similarities between the Bolo and the Saber, one can see that it is not far fetched that the fighting bolo was an agricultural bolo modified for fighting based off the Spanish saber. The main similarity that you can find is with the tip; that clip point designed for thrusting and ripping into the opponent.
A short while ago, a member of my group came by with a Bagwell Bowie knife. He had done some western martial arts and Bowie fighting seminars. The similarities between what he learned from the western methods and what I knew from the Presas Bolo/Modern Arnis methods are too similar to not be tied together somehow. Things such as tip control, defanging the snake, angles of attack, and other applications are very similar, at least conceptually to similar for it to be a mere coincidence, in my professional opinion. If you do Modern Arnis, look here and see if you can find the similarities, and think especially of the traditionals, angle of attacking methods, as well as the #5 and #12 umbrella blocks. Oh and remember to think conceptually:
http://ahfaa.org/saber.htm
Now, to clear the air here, I am certain that the Philippines have their own cultural martial arts that make them unique. Major differences can be seen in Filipino arts from Western Arts. However, so can major similarities, and these similarities are so different that it seems impossible that they would be mere coincidences. I think that to say that the Spanish fighting methods did NOT influence the Filipino methods after hundreds of years of conflict and occupation would be a bit hasty, in my opinion. I believe that both cultures influenced each other. Some evidence to this is in the methods and design of the fighting bolo.
Conclusions
There are many things one can conclude from this short essay. Perhaps the fighting Bolo was influenced from the Spanish Saber. Perhaps, far down the cultural line, Spanish fencing played a role in the development of the Presas Bolo style. Perhaps, these are only theories. However, the one thing that is for sure is that the Agricultural Bolo and the Fighting Bolo clearly are different tools, with different designs, made for different uses. Would it be far fetched to believe that somewhere in Modern Arnis these uses could be found? I think that it would be far fetched to say for sure that they couldnt.
