more skill, or more knowledge?

sorry, another thread.

so what is more important for the martial artist, more skill or more knowledge?

american and modern FMA people are so concern with learning more techniques and styles than they are with developing strong fighting skill. one good example. the canete family made a name many years ago by challenging other masters and beating them with their doce pares. i read somewhere that one of the canetes lost to another eskrimador, and years later he challenge him again. i am sure, he went back to the gym to train harder and find out where he went wrong. now, the modern/western (no offense americans, i am one myself) way, is to learn what that other guy has, as if you could ever beat him at his own game by learning his art part time. look at the seminar industry in america. nobody does one style any more. they say, what if you face a grappler, he will take you down! what if you face a kickboxer? you need kickboxing! what happens to using arnis to beat a grappler, and using arnis to beat shotokan, and using arnis to beat muay thai? if you cannot do that, you cannot call yourself "arnis expert". expert is one who can fight with his style against anybody else.

so you know my position, as a fighter, i say more skill (and skilled knowledge) is better than knowing more styles techniques and variations.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

some styles, no matter how hard you train, simply cannot beat others. I have no doubt that even if I trained as hard as possible in muay thai I would never beat royce gracie because he would use a style of fighting totally different to mine, except it is designed to work against my style of fighting, whereas mine isnt.

 

Personal Attacks aren't Big or Clever

 

its sad that you feel this way. there is no art you can study that will make you beat everyone, it sounds like this is what your saying, that gracie style is designed to beat other arts. you see, the brazilian jujistu people studied the weakness in stand up fighting, so they know how to to use their art against stand up fighters. if you ever want to beat a grappler, you study the weakness, and you develop your skill to take advantage of that weakness. that is the advance level of martial art, to adapt your art to fight against other arts.

some people say, take some seminars in bjj, so if you get took down, you will be abel to save your ass. but if a wrestler got you on the ground, will your little bit of grappling help you? hell no. but how about this. you develop your footwork and punching power so that no one can take you down (yes, that is possible), the grappler will need his standup fighting to deal with you.

the weak martial artist of today is so quick to admit that his art is no good. here is a saying, if you think you can beat me, you are probably right, probably wrong. if you think you cannot beat me, you are definitely right.

 

I think it was Takuan who wrote (although I could be wrong)

"Dont fear the Martial Artist who has practiced 1000 techniques a few times, fear the Martial Artist who has practiced a few techniques a thousand times."

may be slightly misquoted but the sentiment is there

 

its called being a realist. I didnt say it was designed to beat everything, but i am in no way deluded enough to think that I can roll with a gracie with no grappling experience. we already saw what happened in the early UFC's when people tried that.

yeah and sometimes you have to swallow your pride and learn how to fight on their terms. im not trying to fight for the honour of muay thai, thats stupid. I am trying to be the best fighter I can, and that won't happen by limiting my ability to only the clinch and stand up.

no but you might know enough to keep it standing. look at cro cop and wanderlei. they are hardly 1st class grapplers but they know enough that they can escape back to their feet.

Man you realise that there are guys in pride and UFC who would pay you top dollar to learn how to do this? do you ever go outside your nice ivory tower and see what is actually happening in fights?

theres a difference between confidence and arrogance. I am confident that my art will enable me to beat ass very well while standing up. and I am confident my judo will enable me to lay the smack down when it goes to the ground. real martial artists today are ready to accept the limitations of their systems, which is why you see BJJ guys in the boxing hall and muay thai fighters rolling around on the mats. because they figured out something that has obviously eluded you.

 

I think what Kuntawdude was trying to say was that if you trained hard enough and long enough solely to keep a grappler on his feet, you could. Otherwise all of us muppets learning stand up arts are wasting our time and should run down to our local Judo dojo.

I know from experience that stand up martial artists die a thousand deaths once they are on the floor, I'm quite often the one dumping them on it, but I also know that I have to get inside before I can take them down, which mean getting in range of their arms and legs, either one of which could end the fight in an instant.

 

cro cop when he first went into pride couldnt keep even the crappiest grappler from taking him down using strikes. obviously the grapplers in pride are more skilled than your average bjjer, but then i doubt you even come close to cro cops level of striking ability.

 

If I trained solely to keep grapplers on their feet, I daresay I would eventually become pretty good at it.

 

The problem with your summary is two fold. One you're attempting to occupy an extreme that I'm going to disprove. And secondly, your example involves to similiar arts fighting each other. Observe:

So what we're talking about is two FMA's against each other. Let's face it, while there are difference between the two systems, there are far more similarities than say between Arnis and BJJ. So chances are that the second escimado wasn't using a significantly different fighting techology. However, as you stated it Canete went back to traing to figure out where his game was weak. And he trained the weakness. Isn't that done, in part, by the addition of new knowledge? This is exactly how arts grow. So already we hit a point where not only is someone increasing their skill, but also increasing knowledge.

What do you define as Arnis? Or a system? Martial systems have been growing since the dawn of time based on surrounding technology. The desire to keep systems pure is a recent advent. Traditional warriors were not concerned about this, becuase it often reduced life span. Pragmatics my friend, pragmatics. The most important part of an art is it's doctrine, the underlying principles it follows. Then comes is strategies, the tactics that it uses. Least fixed are the techniques. If an arnis man had to fight a grappler without weapons, then he's going to need to work on his grappling game. And that may require adding knowledge of new skills which he will practice and encorporate into his Arnis.

Skills important. But knowledge of the right techniques is equally important. You can't separate one from the other. And if you've got a hole in your armor, you need to fix it. And going out and "borrowing" techniques is the way to do it. Its what Martial Artists have done for centuries.

The important thing is not to become to fixated on the techniques and lose site of the more important aspects of the art.

- Matt

 

Speaking as a fighter, as that is what I see myself as, Knowldge is power, the more knowledge you aquire the better you can hone your skills.

I have knowldge of grappling, Muay Thai, JKD, Boxing and a few others besides but I consider myself to be an Arnisador first and foremost, but the knowledge of these other arts gives me an understanding of how other arts work which in turn help me to counter them should the need arise, this at the end of the day is how most fighters train.

Surely you must have heard the term, know your enemy. If you do not have knowledge of how your enemy fights, then you have less chance of beating them.

You also have to take into account that without knowledge you cannot have skill, the two go hand in hand.

You go on about the seminar Arnis, and I can see what you are getting at, It is more common today for some schools to adopt some portion of the FMA into their curriculam simply because it is the in thing to do, but is this a bad thing, I don't think so. Even if a school, style or organisation only practices a small portion of the FMA to enhance co-ordination in the long term this can only benefit the FMA as a whole.

FMA especially in the UK can be considered to be more main stream because of these part time FMAers and yest the students are only getting a small portion of what the FMA is all about, but every student at some stage will have an oppertunity to see someone teaching the FMA in it's entirity and they will eventually see the full picture, whether they choose to seek out the real FMA instructor will be up to them at the end of the day, they may well be happy only playing with the art and it may suit their needs but some of them will seek out the whole art having sampled just a small portion, that is human nature.

How we would all dearly love everyone to realise just what the FMA has to offer and just how vast it really is, is I think a pipe dream, we can only show those who really want to learn the whole art, others will be happy in their enclosed environment learning only a small portion of the art and it will be their loss at the end of the day, but it will also be our gain because more and more people over the years will come to know that the FMA exists and more and more will seek out the real FMA, and in time we will be as popular as Karate, TKD etc etc, and like all arts we will have our good instructors and our bad instructors and the cowboy instructors, some will make a living from it and others wont, again that is life and we have to accept that fact for we do not live in an ideal world, but remember the more popular the FMA becomes the more benefit the real FMA instructors will receive.

A good fighter regardless of art will train and learn to try to defeat all other arts and opponents, that is at the end of the day their purpose but in reality it will not be the art that beats the opponent it will be the individual, for not everyone can beat everyone regardless of skill. Even the Gracie'sand Canete's lost at some stage. I have lost to the better person on the day who would be what you could call a part time FMAer, and come back to defeat them at a later stage, I have also been one of the few people to have beaten a Canete But at the same time I value The Canete's knowledge, skill and expeariance over most others (I was having one of my good days that day and it was only a tournament after all), does that make me good or bad as an FMA practioner and instructor, it's all a matter of perspective is it not.

As the FMA grows in popularity we as practitioners have a duty to inform the public that what we have is far more vast than was first beleived, and if this means we have to tell them that Kali is not the Mother Art of the FMA and if it means that certain groups will be upset about it then so be it. But informed they shall be, whether they beleive us or not is another matter, but I think my freind you are trying to preach to the already converted, many of which have been working hard for many years trying to get the message across, with some degree of success and a few failings along the way.

There is no point getting angry when you see someone playing with the art, what you need to do is to kindly show them that there is more to the FMA than they realised and with that you may well be on your way to acheiving what all true Eskrimadors / Arnissadors / Kalistas want, the FMA shown in a true light for what it really is, the art of the Warrior.

regards

Pat

 

Nice reply Pat.

- Matt

 

The only member of the Canete family with whom I've spoken directly is GM Cacoy. And his martial arts background includes judo, karate, and boxing, in addition to his native arnis. In fact, the latest step in his evolution is the fusion of judo and arnis. Eskrido he calls it. So how does that fit into the discussion?

Part of beating him is very often at least understanding his game. It works. Verifiable NHB matches have shown it repeatedly. The kickboxers were getting schooled until they learned a little about grappling. Take Maurice Smith for example. He's still not a full-time grappler. But he learned enough not to get taken down easily. He learned enough that when he did get taken down, he could survive long enough to get back up. And he learned enough about how the grapplers were going to operate that he could better time his own striking game and knock them out.

But that's NHB right? How is that any different from the matches the Canetes fought in? GM Cacoy described them to me. They took place in a ring. With a referee. They were pretty permissive. But they still weren't "street fights."

First of all, seminars have sod all to do with this. I don't view seminars as training so much as exposure to new ideas. When someone goes to a two-day Inosanto seminar, I doubt any of them actually expect to learn jun fan, submission wrestling, silat, and kali. They go to be exposed to it.

But personally, I see a lot of sense in learning to "box a boxer." People say you shouldn't. That you should play to your strengths, not his. But you don't always get to make that call. Sometimes, he's going to get to play his game. And you'd better know enough to keep up.

An expert in a style, perhaps. An expert in fighting is probably not going to be as concerned with doing it "the arnis way." He might view his style of choice as a launching point. A filter through which new skills (regardless of where they came from) can be passed and integrated.

Personally, I consider myself an arnisador primarily. But I can incorporate boxing into that quite nicely. The triangle footwork, for example, is great for boxing. And how could an arnisador not benefit from the practice in generating powerful punches in combination? How could he not benefit from incorporating a powerful round kick as seen in muay thai? (That fits very nicely with the footwork too, by the way.)

It's not about techniques and variations. It's about being a good consumer. You don't go out and buy something just because it's on sale. You buy it because you need it and it's a good product.

I agree with you that people who set out to "rack up" a knowledge of boxing, muay thai, blah, blah, blah are probably not developing an applicable skill. But that's just an example of poor crosstraining. Not evidence that crosstraining itself is flawed.


Stuart

 

guys the insulting is not necessary. i think when you insult on the computer it makes you look worse because you wonder if these same people would do it in person. (i would).

"I agree with you that people who set out to "rack up" a knowledge of boxing, muay thai, blah, blah, blah are probably not developing an applicable skill. But that's just an example of poor crosstraining. Not evidence that crosstraining itself is flawed.


Stuart"

this is my point, exactly. i did not say that i am against cross training. i practice kuntaw and arnis, i also box, i practice kung fu, and i practice jujitsu. but i did each one because i like them, and i did each one for more than 5 years. and in each one i spar a lot in my training, not just sitting around learning "drills". for my students, some of them belong to other school or classes, but they all participate in "cross sparring", which gives them the "exposure" you guys talk about. so back to my question, what is more important, time learning the other guys style, or time learning to fight against him? anybody ever fight olympic style tae kwon do fighters? they are not as easy as you think, but you dont have to learn olympic style tkd to learn to fight it. what about kenpo? what about the average man on the street? learn everybody else's style?

learning another way of fighting is good, but LEARN it, not just pick up some moves, that wont help you. but at the same time, learning wing chun will not help your jujitsu get stronger, just like jujitsu will not help your arnis. arnis skill that you can only do it against another arnisador is incomplete. arnis skill which you can use against boxers grapplers etc, is complete. arnis skill that cannot be used against jujitsu, but you learned "some" jujitsu is still incomplete arnis, and now it is also incomplete jujitsu too.


now, for the mixed martial arts people who are "jujitsu in the boxing gym", if they become good boxers, then great. the problem i am talking about is when they go the gym, just learn the punches and some basics, and never get good at boxing and then say they cross trained. no, that is cross learning. the gracies are good grapplers, but one gracie i can think of is a lousy boxer. but because his jujitsu is good enough to use against the stand up fighters, so i call his style "compelete". now the other side, karate/stand up men, who know a "little" jujitsu (actually they know techniques but they suck). incomplete, and this is what i am talking about. when i talk about people with one style, i am talking about being able to fight with one style. it is possible, grapplers do it all the time, they take there style serious enough to adapt it to fight everyone. but the stand up martial artist, he is very quick to convince himself that he cannot do it, and that is why i say martial artist today are weak. do you think that this is the first time grapplers have ever fought karate men?

knowledge (any amount) with poor skill is just knowledge, and this represents most of the "cross trainings". knowledge with good skill is really knowledge, and it is skill. now if your just a fighter, then that is your problem. if you are a teacher, that goes back to my reason for this thread. just because you learned some other styles next to your own it has not helped you. you have to be good at it. every style has a little of something else in it. but unless you become good enough at it that you can fight and rely on just that skill, it is worthless to you, better to stick to your first style.

 

Depends, if you want to be an athlete, you want skill. If you want to be a coach or teacher, then its knowledge you seek. Me? I think I'd go for the skill.

 

Why is it that when people disagree one person always seems to think insults are being passed over???
The responce I have seen hear is people given reasonable responces with their opinion based on their own expeariance, not insults.

I see no reason for assuming others are insulting you just because they disagree, If I chose to insult you trust me you would know and I am sure the same would go for others, and if I do it on the nest you can rest assured I would have no fear in doing it in person.

Who's to say what you are doing is right or wrong better to say what you are doing is right in your opinion, it is at the end of the day your way of doing things and even if you disagree which is OK too everything is all a matter of perspective on an individual basis. I may feel that your approach is wrong and could try to prove that fact by basing my opinions on expeariance, after all that is what people base their opinions on.

As I said before, don't get angry because someone does it differntly to you, after all many Arnis / Eskrima instructors have been doing it differently to each others for hundreds of years and that is why the FMA is so diverse.

My Arnis works for me in real life, it is tried and tested in many an encounter, but my Arnis skills are also based by my expeariance of other skills, once you learn a skill you cannot forget it and if you train it enough times it becomes second nature.

An old Arnis GM once said to me who also said his style was known as "The I Kill You Style" "If it works it's Arnis, if it dose'nt it's Karate" (no offence meant to the Karate guys by the way), his Arnis was based on many martial arts from various countries but he considered himself to be an Arnisador first and last.

Why empty the cup when you can just fill up a bigger cup with more knowledge, knowledge leads to skill which in turn leads you to seek out more knowledge which in turn leads to more skill, you cant have one without the other.

Best regards

Pat

 

I don't really understand your stance. You crosstrain. Your students crosstrain. So is this about learning to use arnis against boxing, taekwondo, etc.? Or is it about properly crosstraining? Because they seem like two different objections to me. Collecting drills is bad crosstraining. You're not internalizing anything that way. And you're not learning to seamlessly integrate those other influences into your arnis (or whatever your style happens to be).

If I saw value in an Olympic taekwondoka's 45-degree kick, then I could learn it and incorporate it into what I'm already doing. I wouldn't then claim to be an Olympic taekwondoka. But it would give me another tool. And more insight into how their game works. The crux of it, though, is that I have a strong enough technical background to make informed decisions about what I do and don't need to incorporate and to train it accordingly.

You're talking about styles. I'm talking about people. Learning a muay thai roundkick isn't going to help my taekwondo. But it's most assuredly going to help ME. Does it make me a muay thai kickboxer? Obviously not. But that doesn't prevent it from being a viable technique for me.

Most of the grapplers in NHB have taken the time to learn some boxing or kicking. Not to become boxers or kickboxers. But to better understand how it works. Take Frank Shamrock for instance. A submission wrestler predominantly. But then he starts to see kicks become a viable tool in MMA. And he gets Mo Smith to teach him about it. Next time he comes back in, he's effectively using round kicks. Not like a pro. He's not landing them like Smith would have. But they're a viable tool.

It sounds to me like the real point here is that we shouldn't be half arsed and we should be honest about what we do. Both of those points I can get behind 100 percent. I just don't see what this has to do with using arnis to beat boxing or arnis to beat taekwondo.

There's a distinction between crosstrainers and style hoppers. I think you're railing against the latter. Not the former. Yeah?

You also seem to be railing against people's claims. That they claim proficiency in various things despite not having a thorough grounding in them. I agree with you. But that's different from intelligently drawing from various sources to fill deficiencies in your game. Sometimes they might be from their base style. Sometimes from others. That's fine.


Stuart

 

yes, i cross train. i do not encourage the students until they get a good foundation in my art, because i dont want them to be "style hoppers" and i want them to put in there mind they can use the style i teach them against anyone because it makes them take the art more seriously than just "learning a few moves". this will make them better fighters because instead of just collecting techniques they will learn to use the few things they know against anything that come at them. when we have "fight night" they are not studying another style, they are fighting against it, then we study how to beat them. this is my opinion of the best way to "cross train".

i box because i like the sport. i grapple because i was curious a few years ago, and now i want to learn to fight that way. i even competed in olympic tkd. but when i fight, i can fight with just my kuntaw, just my tkd, just my boxing or just my jujitsu. but i do not feel that i needed to do all of that to become a complete fighter. my original style is the way it is, because i spar against the other people, BEFORE i learned my style. and you know what, i dont teach everything because i am not qualified to teach those things. i am a boxer, but not a boxing expert. my gripe is to the people who dont know much about FMA but they teach it. so here you have some guy who teaches "muay thai", but he cant fight mt. we have people teaching bjj, but they cant fight that way. i want people to understand that arnis/eskrima IS complete. learn to knife fight, nobody can mess with you. if you want to learn to roll or box? fine. but filipino martial arts doesnt need them.

now, picking up a few technique to make it into your own fighting style or add to your art, that is good, and who doesnt? i am not speaking against it. but my opinion is, it is better to learn to fight against that technique you see than to take it for yourself if you want to take your art to a higher level. because this is evolving your art (adapting) and improved.

 

Fair enough. I don't share your objection to the idea. But that's your call.

I don't really understand this emphasis on styles and keeping them separate. Again, that's entirely your call. I just personally don't get what drives someone to thoroughly study three or four different things but desperately not want them to mix.

Again, there's this ardent emphasis on style. Personally, if I think that I can benefit from the counsel of a good boxing coach, or kicker, or whatever, then I'm going to consult them. It wouldn't really occur to me as suggesting that arnis is deficient in some way. I've learned a round kick as part of taekwondo, sikaran, and muay thai. I happen to think the muay thai-type round kick is bootylicious. So I'm going to incorporate it.

Did sikaran need a bootylicious muay thai round kick? No. Sikaran is a nonentity. It doesn't need anything. Maybe even I didn't need the muay thai round kick. But I saw validity and worth in it. So I used it. Again, it doesn't make me a kickboxer.

I'm genuinely trying to spot the controversy here. And I know it must be frustrating to you that I keep missing it. My apologies. I just don't really see the issue.


Stuart