Principles of Arnis

[AldonAsher]

but these seem more like "aspects" to me rather than principles.

I call them principles because they are important in whatever style you study. They aren't limited to just the FMAs.

"zoning" is too broad to be a principle.

Principles, IMHO, are supposed to broad.

"face the point of contact" and "chase the outside" or "reposition to dominate centerline".

I would call these concepts because they are some of the specific ideas relating to the principle of zoning.

This might be splitting hairs

Not at all. I welcome your perspective. I think we are talking about similar things, just expressing them in different ways.

 

[bart]

Same point, different angle.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Good thread

I'd like to pose a couple of questions.

1) How many people where taught technique first principle second.
2) And how many where taught principle first technique second.

And in what format or setting? Seminar format from the head/senior instructor, or from the head/senior instructor in a class/semi private instruction.

The reason for asking this question was this thread got me thinking about how the instructors I've seen teach this stuff, and how I in turn teach it to the people I teach or workout with.

Dan Inosanto largely taught (in my experience with seminars with him) in a concept format, with the conept/principles taught and explained.

GM Remy, GM Ernesto Presas and other FMA instructors that I've seen in seminars teach more technique and the students extract the principles on their own. (Again from my view point).

As an example several years back at a camp with GM Remy we were practicing a thrust defense and strip. Remy demonstrated the technique (he didn't go into any explanation of the mechanics behind it, he just did it and we copied). Anyway I applied a principle that I got from somewhere and showed GM Remy. Remy said "That's good, that's for real. You keep that for yourself" Being brain dead I looked perplexed so he clarifies it for me by saying "Keep that for yourself don't show the students"

Now at the time I thought this was the concept of protecting the rice bowl (so to speak), in that these were things the masters kept to themselves so they were masters and we were underlings. Something the masters always kept form their students to make sure they always had students. (I KNOW THERE WERE PLENTY OF OTHER THINGS THAT SET THEM APART FROM THEIR STUDENTS AS WELL).

So for those who have trained in Modern Arnis under GM Remy for a long time did Remy teach you these things in private or did you get the idea and apply it to his system? And for the others who've trained with Filipino instructors did they pass on the concepts/principles as well?

Professor Dan Anderson put forth a thread on his time with Ted Buot and the concept/principle that he learned during his lesson, Dan if you don't mind me asking where those his terms for the concept or yours for descibing a technique he showed you?

Sorry for the long post.
Mark

 

[arnisandyz]

Mark,

Some teachers show “do it like this”, without any explanation, others present the material in such a way that you are taught not only how to do a technique, but why or when you would do that technique. I think most of the good teachers that teach technique based do themselves know the principles behind the technique. They prefer instead of teaching concepts to teach the movement and let the student find it for themselves. (Could this be a reason why the Professor said “don’t show your students, or keep it for yourself?)
Kind of like finding the “hidden movement” in Karate Kata. Or Danielsans enlightenment when Mr Miagi showed him what paint the fence is all about.
Once the light comes on and you “get it” it becomes easier to see the concepts behind all techniques even across other arts outside of FMA,
then you realize, its all the same thing, just an emphasis on certain principles over another!

The teachers that teach concept based, have already gone through this process of learning and try to pass the knowledge they discovered to their students. I think it is a more educational or scholarly way of teaching, but not everybody can handle it. I think they are trying to turn the light on or help the student turn it on, planting the seed of WHY? Rather than just accepting “YOU HIT THIS WAY” the students asks themself “Why do I hit that way”. I have a 3 year old daughter and she is going through this stage with everything in life. WHY brush my teeth, WHY take a bath, WHY go to sleep now. Her brain is telling her she wants more meaning besides just saying OK and doing it.

I don’t think one way is better than the other. They need to coexist. Some of the best teachers know how and when to use both. Just as my daughter would not have understood if I explained why she needs to take a bath when she was 2 (she wasn't ready to hear it), some people may not be ready for conceptual based training.



By they way, could you consider “Attributes” like timing, rhythm, coordination as “Concepts” as well?

 

[Mark Lynn]

Originally posted by arnisandyz
Mark,

Some teachers show “do it like this”, without any explanation, others present the material in such a way that you are taught not only how to do a technique, but why or when you would do that technique. I think most of the good teachers that teach technique based do themselves know the principles behind the technique. They prefer instead of teaching concepts to teach the movement and let the student find it for themselves. (Could this be a reason why the Professor said “don’t show your students, or keep it for yourself?)

-Deleted paragraphs -

By they way, could you consider “Attributes” like timing, rhythm, coordination as “Concepts” as well?

arnisandyz

I agree with your post. What I was wanting in a sense to see was that if it was common to teach the technique in a seminar as a general thing, and then in private with much more explanation. Or was it that some people figure out the concepts/principles behind a technique for themselves and then pass that on to their students. Among the head instructors especially of the FMA arts.

Professor Anderson stated in his post on the 1st page about how GM Remy taught a base technique and then a multitude of techniques afterward off of the base technique to teach the principle of which many techniques can be worked. Maybe I've misunderstood the post but I always took it as a progression of techniques and showing the conectivity of them ("the connection") however GM Remy never (that I remember) taught it as a principle as in "this is the principle do this, do that...". And I was wondering had I just missed the boat totally.

I have heard in the past about the head instructors (not only in FMA but in Martial Arts in general) keeping things for the family to keep them in the position of teacher. I was wondering if that was what Remy meant ("don't show your students") considering his background and the culture he came from. Why give out his serects to a bunch of people instead he shows the technique and people get what they pay for.

Since I don't live in the same kind of culture, I teach technique and if the student has the base technique down then I'll help them fine tune it by showing principles/concepts to make it work better. Like what I showed GM Remy. I don't really hold it back.

Another question this kind of brings up is that does the head instructor really know the principle and can they explain it as such, or is it they just know from years and years of training that this works best and they just do it. To them it's all one and the same, it works. I once asked GM Remy if he could show me a lock (his over the shoulder two finger lock throw/TD), since I was having a problem keeping the lock on and making it work. He grabbed my fingers (nicely, in that he didn't rip them off) bent them back till they about came through my palm quickly brought them over my shoulder and down to the floor.(WHAM). He didn't explain any principles as to bringing the fingers over the shoulder to cause me to go off balance etc. etc he just did it. And asked if I understood. Heck yeah my fingers were numb for 10 minutes after that.

I guess this is what I was really wondering about. This seemed to me the way he taught at least everytime I asked for help on anything. I just wondered if in private it was any different.

On the attributes /concepts I'm not sure I would say they are the same thing but similar. I think it can cross all sorts of lines. Timing is an atttribute yes, but if I'm teach a technique that involves dodging a baseball bat swing (timing) and closing the distance to charge/crash in then I would think it is in the concept of a counter to that type of an attack.

Mark