- May 22, 2016
- Reaction score
This is an interesting discussion. For something like San Miguel Escrima, it seems obvious, but it is honestly hard to answer this question in Pekiti Tirisa, which is the FMA system that I study. There are certain things which seem obvious, the use of triangular footwork, the use of long and short weapon together, etc. However, there are so many differences as well, that it is hard to know just how much influence there really was. Given the variety of FMA systems which exist, and how different the mechanics of striking and footwork can be between them, let alone tactics strategy, pinning something like that down would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Compound that with the regional differences which exist in the PI, and the wide variety of weapon types which are found there, and the problems seem to mount rapidly. Having said all of that, I don't discount some influence, but I suspect it is far more for some systems than others. In addition, while I understand national pride, I don't judge the worth of a given FMA style on where it came from. Others might, but I don't really worry about that sort of thing too much.
I think it also depends on the teacher. My Guro first studied Lacoste-Inosanto Kali under James Keating. Keating is also from whom he learned Spanish sword but Keating's Spanish sword knowledge came from fencers, not Kali. They both integrated it on their own.