Practical

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Mormegil
I've since studies at a few other places, and everywhere else, we learned empty hand, hand in hand (pun intended) with weapons. We would do the stick or blade, then immediately do it empty hand. In this case, I felt that a person could be more proficient with defending themselves both empty hand and armed more proficiently.

So if your looking at FMA, I think a simultaenous approach to learning is more practical than a traditional sticks first, and stick only training (if this is indeed traditional, as I had learned).

This has been my experience here in the States, too. All the FMA instructors I know and, I think, all the FMA instructors I've met teach weapons and empty hands simultaneously from the outset.

Some stress the relationship between the empty hands and weapons earlier in the training than others, but the weapons and empty hands are trained pretty much right out of the gate.

And, personally, I think this is a good idea and it's how I teach. And I personally am big on bringing out the connection between weapons and empty hands early and reinforcing it often.

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
it didn't seem like he was saying that you shouldn't train in weapons... he said if you're going to carry one, then weapons training is important.

He did say, however, that empty hand was just as important, because you're not always going to be able to get to your weapon, or you may be in a situation where you can reach it but can't use it (you're attacked by a friend who's high on something or having some kind of breakdown and you don't want to use a weapon or something like that).

What it seems like to me is that in a situation, you are more likely to need empty hand training than you will martial arts weapons training. Firearms are a matter that I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about, so I'm not going there.

Nightingale,

I understand your comments, yet I cannot find where the post I replied to discussed empty hand versus weapon. Only Empty Hand Training. And to most people this is just Empty hand to empty hand. My point was that in weapons training you can learn the impact weapon and the bladed / cutting weapon and then also the applications of the empty hand not only for your attacks yet also for your defense. Now I admit, sweeper might have meant empty hand versus weapon, but it was not 100% clear to me. Since I know a lot of people who think Empty hand is just that empty hand versus empty hand.

So, I apologize if I have offended you or Sweeper, yet, I was trying to make a point that many people out think mutually exclusive in their training for weapons and empty hands. From your response I would assume that you were not one of them. I am not looking to be disagreeable with everyone, just trying to make sure that people realize that weapon training also includes empty hand versus weapon and that in my opinion empty hand training should include training against a weapon.

Best Regards
:asian:

 

[sweeper]

ok I wans't clear enough in my post, when I was posting I was speaking from the perspective of the practitioner only, that is to say when I wrote out "empty hand" I was talking about having no weapon in hand, not tlaking about not training in weapons.

yes I think it's always important to train weapons unless you can say you will never face a weapon.

I would also agree that genneral skill in weapons changes your perspective of fighting and as such changes your tactics/strategies.

my point in the other post was just that if you train with a weapon in hand all the time you arne't training for empty hand conflict, if your art teaches emtpy hand and weapons than my post wouldn't apply to that style of teaching, but if you arne't learning empty hands at all I think you should.. some skill might cross apply from weapon training but if you don't train with out the weapons than you don't know how to fight without them.

And as to the knife thing.. If someone knows how to use a knife I would bet that I would end up dead trying to take it away if I didn't have some sort of an equaliser in my hands.

Actualy I do have a question for anyone with the experience.. when using one system of fighting are you ever suprised by another systems methods in sparring? For example, say you train in some sort of FMA, you have done a fair amount of knife training, than one day a guy that has done a bunch of european MA training with a knife comes into your school and you spar, is there a great deal of diffrence? Or perhaps another situation posably more common, FMA going up against a japanese MA (with whatever wepaon). The reason I ask is training with weapons tends to be much or complicated (in as much as there are more variables) than empty hand, so I wonder if you were to never train against a specific style would that pose a problem.

Oh yeah, and of course I took no offence to your statement

 

[Rich Parsons]

Sweeper,

I agree with your comments, and would like to restate, that if you do not train with a weapon against a weapon, or empty hand versus a weapon, you are short changing yourself. As well as empty hand versus empty hand.



As for the meeting people of another art, this is a good question.

When fencing, it takes time to learn the legal moves and postitions. Yet, when it is done the FMA helps, or at least it did for me. Mind you I did not stick with it for very long, so maybe I should qualify that. As for a stick against the Japanese Katana, this would be interesting. Kaith, and I have plans to check this out in Buffalo the next time I am out that way in May. I'll let you know. As for picking up a Katana of Bokien and working it against the same type of weapon I think my training has done me good.

Now this does not mean that some one from either style could not beat me, for I am sure there are people out there who could. I just state that I believe that my training has helped me in understanding and working the different types.

Looking forward to more comments.

:asian:

 

[Brother John]

Now if we just focus on martial arts (excluding guns and sprays), for self defense. Which is more practical? Well we might as well argue which is the better religion. I don't think we can come to any conclusion over which is better, much less convince anybody. I will admit, I think that Kali is more practical for me

I've heard this discussion before: Here's my thoughts.

Martial arts to fight, martial artists do. A martial art prepares us with certain actions/reactions and teaches us to reach down deep into our inner resevioure of strength, focus and determination. THESE are what win fights, the techniques aren't nearly as important.
GRIT wins everytime... regardless of the art.
Some arts make your better prepared for a realistic assault, but in the end it's the amount of MEAN you can pull out and dish out that counts.

Your Brother
John

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Brother John
I've heard this discussion before: Here's my thoughts.

Martial arts to fight, martial artists do. A martial art prepares us with certain actions/reactions and teaches us to reach down deep into our inner resevioure of strength, focus and determination. THESE are what win fights, the techniques aren't nearly as important.
GRIT wins everytime... regardless of the art.
Some arts make your better prepared for a realistic assault, but in the end it's the amount of MEAN you can pull out and dish out that counts.

Your Brother
John

I would add to that, Brother John, and say that it's a combination of attitude and aptitude. The better you understand and can use your tools (regardless of what they are or where you got them), the better your odds of coming out of a situation intact. The more "MEAN" you have, the better your odds of coming out of the situation intact, but bloody (with the other guy's blood, not yours)

So, for me, it's a combination of the two. One or the other is good. Both is ideal.

Still guarantees nothing. There are no guarantees in a fight. A fight is a physical embodiment of chaos and anything can happen in that medium, even the impossible.

Mike

 

[Mormegil]

Originally posted by sweeper


Actualy I do have a question for anyone with the experience.. when using one system of fighting are you ever suprised by another systems methods in sparring? For example, say you train in some sort of FMA, you have done a fair amount of knife training, than one day a guy that has done a bunch of european MA training with a knife comes into your school and you spar, is there a great deal of diffrence? Or perhaps another situation posably more common, FMA going up against a japanese MA (with whatever wepaon). The reason I ask is training with weapons tends to be much or complicated (in as much as there are more variables) than empty hand, so I wonder if you were to never train against a specific style would that pose a problem.

Well, for an interesting look at that, you should try to get a hold of the Dog Brother's tape #6 of the Real Contact Stick Fighting series: http://dogbrothers.com/Merchant2/me...oduct_Code=RCS06-VHS&Category_Code=DBSERIES01

There's a video clip.

It's quite an eye opener, they have Stick vs. Bokken, whip, nunchaku, tonfa... I think it may be a little skewed, as most of these guys are primarily FMA, so their "other" art may not be as developed. But still interesting.

A while back, I did get to mess around a little bit with a "Kendo" practitioner (Korean guy claiming that Kendo was actually invented by Koreans). I don't think he was very good. He only came straight down (#7 angle). I think he was trying to come down with a tripple hit. Everytime he would come down, I would roof block, and grab his hand, then simulate strikes to his head. He wasn't convinced it would work though (I'm not sure why, as it seemed to be working for me). I dont' know how I would fair against Kenjitsu, or a more experienced practitioner. The guy int eh Dog brother's tape got some ribs cracked in his attempt.

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Mormegil
A while back, I did get to mess around a little bit with a "Kendo" practitioner (Korean guy claiming that Kendo was actually invented by Koreans). I don't think he was very good. He only came straight down (#7 angle). I think he was trying to come down with a tripple hit. Everytime he would come down, I would roof block, and grab his hand, then simulate strikes to his head. He wasn't convinced it would work though (I'm not sure why, as it seemed to be working for me). I dont' know how I would fair against Kenjitsu, or a more experienced practitioner. The guy int eh Dog brother's tape got some ribs cracked in his attempt.

I had a similar experience with a Kendo guy. He got his Shodan in Japan and was good. He wanted to do "Kendo vs. Kali" (or, at least, that's what he claimed - more explanation of that to follow).

A buddy of mine cut some shinai down to the length of our Eskrima sticks. Then we played. The Kendo guy, I'll call him John (not his real name), and I squared off. He took his stance and had his shinai leveled at about my midsection, then advanced on me (not attacking yet, just closing the range). I used what we call a middle wing (tip down sweep) to knock his shinai off line, then I moved in. I tapped the "back" of his shinai with my left hand, then moved up to control his hand while I hit him in the head.

He complained. "You can't touch my blade. You just lost fingers." Rather than argue that I was on the back of the "blade", I went and got a second short shinai because I knew I couldn't keep my left hand from checking his blade.

We squared off again. This time he advanced rapidly, and brought his shinai up and down quickly in what I would call an angle 1 attack (going toward my left collar bone). I used my left shinai to jam his shinai, then I drew my right shinai across the side of his neck (a jugular cut). I stepped back ... and promptly took a solid shot to the top of my head. I thought, "Huh ... if touching the back of his 'blade' should cut my fingers, then the front of my 'blade' should have cut halfway through his neck." But all I said was, "Good shot." Partially because it wasn't worth arguing and partially because I realized that even a fatal wound like I gave him wouldn't kill him instantly, he'd have a couple of seconds to keep fighting. I should have maintained the control on his weapon for a couple of seconds.

Then my friend (who had cut the shinai down) got in and sparred with the Kendo guy. While they sparred, I realized that the Kendo guy was only acknowledging specific attacks. Namely, the head, ribs, and hand. These are what Kendo considers "valid" attacks. And that's why he didn't count my neck shot.

When I got back in there, I tagged his thumb. He swore. I tagged it again.
He swore, then said, "Stop that."
I said, "Isn't the hand a valid target?"
He said, "That's my thumb, not my hand!"

Last time I checked, the thumb was, indeed, considered part of the hand. But I just shrugged and let it slide. After that, I got a few more good shots, specifically another one where I jammed up his shinai and came crashing down on the crown of his head with my right hand shinai. But, overall, he pretty soundly thrashed me once I started trying to play by Kendo rules.

Kendo is a long range game. Playing by Kendo rules with Eskrima stick length weapons, the Kendo guy has a distinct advantage. When I played by Eskrima rules (or, more specifically, lack of rules), I had the advantage because my weapons were more agile and I was able to make better use of them. Also, by playing by Kendo rules when I was using none, he was putting himself at a disadvantage.

Had the Kendo guy not been trying to follow rules, I think I still would have had the upper hand simply because I think I'd spent a lot more time training with weapons than he had (I'd been doing Kali for 5 or 6 years at that point, he'd been doing Kendo for about 3 years). Against someone with equal training, I think the environment would play a larger factor. In an environment where I didn't have lateral room to evade, he'd have had more of an advantage. In a smaller space where he wouldn't have had as much room to use his longer weapon, I'd have had the advantage.

It's never about the art people study when it comes to fighting. It's about how well they can apply the tools they have at that specific moment (everyone has bad days) in that specific environment.

Mike

 

[MartialArtist]

I think practical is a combination of simple techniques that work, hard training and effort, sweat, blood, a good teacher, and good people to train with.

Every art has every one of those elements above... Except for that Yellow Bamboo thing.