Modern Arnis: The Next Generation Goals

[DrBarber]

Since most of the people that are martial arts 'leaders' today are nothing mroe than instructors, what really is the difference between a martial arts 'leader' and a skilled martial artists/instructor of the arts?

Leaders stand for something, lead others towards something, and clearly understand what that something is.

I see 'market leaders' that are more popular, have better name recognition within MA, and my have a larger student base but that does not make them 'leaders' in any incredible sense of the word.

THere is no agreed 'core curriculum' of Modern Arnis and there seems to be no clear agreement on what a "leader" in martial arts/Modern Arnis is as well.

The really isn't any clear defination of leadership in martial arts in general and Modern Arnis is no exception. Your idea that leaders stand for something is true, however leadership is qualitative and stylistic. These are the things that need to be defined and discussed. The 'core curriculum' is a seperate matter and there is already a thread going about that.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[DrBarber]

I think one must define what one perceives as a leader. Yes a local instructor is a leader in their school, but if you’re talking about someone being a leader in the Modern Arnis community I feel that we must a higher standard. Maybe Jerome and Rick should define their perception of what an “Up and Coming Modern Arnis Player” is otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges.

Same post, different thread! A duplicate post. I answered on the "Up and Coming" thread.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[DrBarber]

Well I have been told I have some skill.

I teach at camps and seminars, and enjoy the priviledge.

I teach and train in a Semi-private club, that is there just to train not to make money. All of the instructors make money some other way. No disrepesct to full time instructors, it is hard work to make a business go.

I do not lead an organization.

I do not have a Title in Modern Arnis.

I recognize that there may be others out there like myself, so I am rsponding for only myself, as an example, of a skilled practitioner or instructor who may not be the leader of an organization.

Rich,

Please help me out because I am unsure what the significance of your post is. No offense intended. This thread is about "Modern Arnis: The Next Generation Goals". I am paraphrasing: 'You teach at camps and seminars, you have some skill, you do not lead an organization and you do not have a modern arnis title'. Where are you going with this post, what is your intention? I am very sorry to report that I am baffled and confused by what you wrote. Please clarify.

Respectfully requested,

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[DrBarber]

Dr. Barber

I edited yor post and added numbers to address it.

1) I agree that Modern Arnis as Remy's expression died with him at his passing. But I think that Modern Anris as a martial art system can and should remain intact and be taught as such. There are plenty of martial art systems and styles that have remained intact with little or some change to them over the years after their founder has passed away. Some teachers stress other areas, principles of the art where they excell in and pass these along to their students and change does occur. But the core of the art is still there.

Akido is still based on Usheiba sensei's teaching but there are different vairants of it. Tomiki ryu is Proffessor Tomiki's expression of the art taught to him by Usheiba. But there are other systems that teach and mold themselves after Usheiba's teachings and they gave themselve's over to teach the art as he taught it.

Shotokan is Funokoshi sensei expression of the karate systems that he was taught. But shotokan as taught by the JKA is how that organization teaches it. However Wado is the expression of Otshuka sensei blending of Shotokan and jujitsu. It is a seperate system and no longer Shotokan.

And of course there is JKD. You have the Preservationists and the Concepts people. The Preservationsits only teach what Bruce Lee taught at a certian time (when the instructor was taught) and the Concepts people have expanded the system to include other arts as well.

With Modern Arnis I see no problem with either being a Preservationist and trying to teach as Remy taught it, nor as expanding the art and trying to do your own thing. The big question then becomes when are you doing Modern arnis and when are you doing your own thing.

There is enough instructors, videos, books, out there in the world to basically agree on a core curriculmn for Modern Anris. To keep it identifible as an martial system. I think there is enough variance in the instructors to keep the art alive and interesting and growing for years to come.

2) I agree with this part of the post. It will be different because it won't be Remy's expression since he has passed away. But it still and should contain his teachings and his techniques, his progressions to teach those principles and techniques. His forms, his stories that can be passed down etc. etc.

Maybe what should be addressed with the "Art within your Art", "Make it your Own" and such expressions are what GM Remy meant by those. Did Remy want us all doing are own thing, or following his teachings? Were the books and videos just meant to spread the art, generate interest in it so that people would come to the seminars, or to generate income for him, or were they meant to pass along his art and give us something to go by?

Maybe this should be another thread?

Mark

Mark,

There really isn't anything that I would be in disagreement with in your post. I believe that the "Art within your art" idea is very easy to understand. When Professor first began teaching Modern Arnis in the USA, Canada and Europe, he was working with established martial artists and he was teach them how to find and utilize Modern Arnis within their existing martial arts styles.

He also used to say "It is all the same." Translation being, the movements within all arts are very similar and a lock is a lock, a punch is a punch, a throw is a throw. If you can do something from one perspective then you should be able to translate that same thing to another perspactive, add a piece here, delete a piece there and get a very similar result.

"Make if for yourself" is very simply the idea that everyone of us is different in terms of strenghts, heights, weights, balance points, knowledge base, skill development and experiences therefore we will approach martial problems from slightly to vastly different points of view. Therefore we need to make the art fit ourselves rather than being fitted into the art. If the art is fitted to you, "tailored" in some kenpo systems, then you will move comfortably, quickly, effortlessly without thinking. That makes the art more effective and efficent for you to utilze. We were not told by Professor 'to do it as I do it'!! Hence "make it for yourself" is quite self evident.

There may well be people who disagree with my understandings of the art and what Professor meant. I respect their point of view, however, what I have stated above is what I believe he was teaching us along with the actual techniques. Please keep in mind that there are a number of different ways of doing the anyoes. If Professor had wanted a single, orthodox and correct way of doing Modern Arnis, the anyoes would have been the best place to establish a fixed and immutable methodology. He didn't do it there, so from my understanding of what he was saying, Modern Arnis is an open and living art that is meant to be flexible and adaptable.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich,

Please help me out because I am unsure what the significance of your post is. No offense intended. This thread is about "Modern Arnis: The Next Generation Goals". I am paraphrasing: 'You teach at camps and seminars, you have some skill, you do not lead an organization and you do not have a modern arnis title'. Where are you going with this post, what is your intention? I am very sorry to report that I am baffled and confused by what you wrote. Please clarify.

Respectfully requested,

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

Jerome and Rick,

Leadership can be defined by different people differently. As stated here and other places as well.

By one definition I am not a leader as I do not run an organization. As the thread digressed into the Leaders or Leadership.

In another sense I am a leader, as I do teach and I do provide a service to students of my own school.

Just adding in a data point that could be argued either way, and until a common understanding, or approached if understood, then there will be differences. And I for one am not bothered by, someone not considering me to be a leader.

 

[arnisador]

In another sense I am a leader, as I do teach and I do provide a service to students of my own school.

And beyond, certainly. We've thought your presence valuable at the WMAA camps. You're knowledgeable, have excellent ideas, and are a good example of someone with skill who still works hard on the floor and shows respect to people of all ranks. Plus, you're doing seminars, which helps spread the art.

Is that a leader? It doesn't matter to me. I use the word in a more restricted sense, but other definitions cited are surely defensible.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Mark,

1) There really isn't anything that I would be in disagreement with in your post. I believe that the "Art within your art" idea is very easy to understand. When Professor first began teaching Modern Arnis in the USA, Canada and Europe, he was working with established martial artists and he was teach them how to find and utilize Modern Arnis within their existing martial arts styles.

He also used to say "It is all the same." Translation being, the movements within all arts are very similar and a lock is a lock, a punch is a punch, a throw is a throw. If you can do something from one perspective then you should be able to translate that same thing to another perspactive, add a piece here, delete a piece there and get a very similar result.

2) "Make if for yourself" is very simply the idea that everyone of us is different in terms of strenghts, heights, weights, balance points, knowledge base, skill development and experiences therefore we will approach martial problems from slightly to vastly different points of view. Therefore we need to make the art fit ourselves rather than being fitted into the art. If the art is fitted to you, "tailored" in some kenpo systems, then you will move comfortably, quickly, effortlessly without thinking. That makes the art more effective and efficent for you to utilze. We were not told by Professor 'to do it as I do it'!! Hence "make it for yourself" is quite self evident.

3) There may well be people who disagree with my understandings of the art and what Professor meant. I respect their point of view, however, what I have stated above is what I believe he was teaching us along with the actual techniques. Please keep in mind that there are a number of different ways of doing the anyoes. If Professor had wanted a single, orthodox and correct way of doing Modern Arnis, the anyoes would have been the best place to establish a fixed and immutable methodology. He didn't do it there, so from my understanding of what he was saying, Modern Arnis is an open and living art that is meant to be flexible and adaptable.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

Dr Barber

Thank you for your post I added numbers to it to address your points.

1) I agree with you here, as this is my understanding as well.

2) Here to I agree with you.

3) I see your point here, as I believe that anyos (like katas) can have several different applications and techniques to come out of the different moves.

However I do believe there is a standard way of doing the anyos. Maybe with different timing, intent, application etc. etc. but the anyo should look pretty close to the same. I had a discussion once about 4 yrs ago with Dr. Schea on the anyos. I was under the impression that the anyos didn't mean that much to Remy since he always left it to the other instructors to teach and he would often take a break. Coming from a TKD background I was disheartened to see the variances in the way the anyos were taught, and I basically wrote them off so to speak. But Dr. Schea corrected me on this and told me that the anyos were an important part of the system and that Remy use to back in the 80's, put more of an emphasis on them.

So while I believe that the Proffessor was more lax in the way anyos were performed and taught at the camps that I attended 95-2001 there was still a way they should be taught.

At my first camp there was a instructor who did anyo 1 and 2 in a Preying Mantis method. While the basic form and direction of the anyo remained the same the anyo looked nothing really like the other Modern Arnis practionars. The strikes were all different etc. etc. And I guess this is where I think "making it your own" or the "art within your art" was going outside of Modern Arnis. (This was an instructor in a Preying Mantis system and it was his first MA camp.)

But here are some other examples of what I mean.

• I went to one seminar and we were working on empty hand trapping and I swear the progression we did was based on more of Dan Inosanto's instead of Remy's. Now you could take the Sinawali Boxing Drills and apply these techniques/progression to the Sinawali boxing but like I said I never saw Remy in all of the tapes, seminars camps etc. etc. teach it like this. (I forget if the instructor made the distinction that he was teaching JKD instead of MA, I'm not sure.)
• At the Symposium Guro Peter Vargas taught his empty hand series on GM Toboada's Balintawak. Again these drills I believe could be adapted to the Sinawali Boxing drills with some modification.

While both of these drills or examples could be applied to the Modern Arnis Sinawali Boxing progression should they? From the Preservationists view we have the drill progression that Remy left us so why add to it. From the "Make it your Own" view why not? It could improve my system or my skill.

Where is the line drawn on what is Modern Arnis and what isn't but an add on?

In closing I'm not knocking either one of these instructors or what they taught (they were both very skilled and taught the material well), I'm just curious (hypothetically) if they (the skill drills, techniques, etc. etc.) should or could be added to the MA curriculmn and still have it be MA.

Mark

 

[DrBarber]

Jerome and Rick,

Leadership can be defined by different people differently. As stated here and other places as well.

By one definition I am not a leader as I do not run an organization. As the thread digressed into the Leaders or Leadership.

In another sense I am a leader, as I do teach and I do provide a service to students of my own school.

Just adding in a data point that could be argued either way, and until a common understanding, or approached if understood, then there will be differences. And I for one am not bothered by, someone not considering me to be a leader.

Thanks for the clarifications, Rich.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

 

[RickRed]

Jerome and Rick,

Leadership can be defined by different people differently. As stated here and other places as well.

By one definition I am not a leader as I do not run an organization. As the thread digressed into the Leaders or Leadership.

In another sense I am a leader, as I do teach and I do provide a service to students of my own school.

Just adding in a data point that could be argued either way, and until a common understanding, or approached if understood, then there will be differences. And I for one am not bothered by, someone not considering me to be a leader.

Thanks Rich, this is a good example of how a 'skilled student' would respond vs. a 'leader.'