more skill, or more knowledge?

Discussion in 'Filipino Martial Arts' started by thekuntawman, Jan 23, 2005.

  1. thekuntawman

    thekuntawman Valued Member

    i forgot, that i did not study every style for 5 years. i was with ARJUKEN for only about 2 years.
     
  2. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    What I think is happening here is that the reason you are being misunderstood is simply because you seem to contradict yourself, e.g. FMA needs no adapting but you are able to adapt your Arnis to fight anyone, now maybe what you need to say is and what I beleive to be true is this, the core to the FMA is having the ability to adapt to each and every opponent using only your Arnis skills and knowledge there is no need to add other styles to it to improve it, maybe this is the point you are trying to get across and if it is I totally agree with you.

    Yes if you use Dumog skills and Pangamut skills after all are they not the FMA version of grappling and boxing?

    I totally agree, but a good Eskrimador will study other arts even if from a distance in order to gain the knowledge of there fighting skills so they can if the need arises adapt their Arnis to beat them, right.

    Maybe they are like yourself, they teach Kung Fu or Ju Jitsu or other arts in order that they do not have to get a job, plus to give their students a wider spectrum of arts from which they can draw their knowledge, maybe one person prefers Ju Jitsu and may be the other prefers Arnis, you will even get some who will combine them because they feel comfortable doing so, it does not mean what they are doing is wrong, it just means that is the best way they see themselves becomming a better Martial Artist, But yes their are certain groups that seem to want to combine many different arts and come up with with their own how shall we call it? hybrid MA training method, and I am pretty sure I know the people your mean, but thankfully they are no longer in the Majority, authentic FMA is fast overtaking them and is recognised for the true warrior art it is.

    I don't think so, I think it is more of a case that when describing what you do and what you beleive to be right you seem to contradict yourself, but I think maybe this may be a case of you not wording your point correctly.

    On another note, Fighting Eskrima, good name, it describes the FMA correctly but do not assum that the majority of FMAers do not fight and that you are one of the rare groups that do, you may find that as a matter of fact the majority of FMAers do fight and spar on a regular basis, it is a requirement of all of my students both with and without armour.

    On a final note, without knowledge there is no skill, you cannot neglect one in favour of the other, the more knowledge you gain, the more skillful you can become. The two at the end of the day go hand in hand, as well as this I know many top Eskrimadors who have or still study various arts and this in no way seems to corrupt their Arnis skills, in fact to a certain degree the knowledge of these other arts enhances those skills.

    Best regards

    Pat
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2005
  3. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    Now The Kuntawman, let me ask you a question, and please give me an honest answer.

    Heres the senario, you have over the years learnt a number of different styles of Martial Arts from different countries around the world let's say they are TKD, Wrestling, Chow Gar, Arnis and Kuntaw. You are walking home at night and you are confronted with an angry group of young trouble makers intent on kicking your butt.

    a. Which art do you call on to stop these young guys from doing you damage?
    and
    b. How do you prevent your other knowledge from the other arts coming out during the fight because you beleive the art you are using is complete, bearing in mind you will be fighting under extreme pressure and your brain wil be working on instinct?

    Honest answer please.

    regards


    Pat
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2005
  4. Matt_Bernius

    Matt_Bernius a student and a teacher

    Pat,

    Thank you for reiterating our points so clearly. I had raised the Pangamut and Dumog issue ealier. I expect that we're arguing symantics here, but the points you raised above, as well as the international influence on the Filipino Martial Arts clearly point to a history of appropriation and adaptation.

    - Matt
     
  5. shootodog

    shootodog restless native

    nice question.
     
  6. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    still waiting for an aswer though;)
     
  7. Simplicity

    Simplicity Valued Member

    I thought they are one of the same, in someways.
     
  8. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    They are, both combined can have but one answer:cool:
     
  9. Nick K

    Nick K Sometimes a Valued Member

    Wouldn't a reasonable view of 'skill' be the actual physical manifestation of knowledge? So knowledge - or even familiarity with a technique - is a prerequisiste of skill, but skill is what enables you to actually fight (presuming skill also encompasses conditioning, attitude and experience). So..skill, not knowledge.
     
  10. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    One does not come without the other and that is the way it will always be I'm affraid, you cannot gain skill without having knowledge in the first place.
     
  11. Diego_Vega

    Diego_Vega Frustrated pacifist


    Hi Pat,

    I know it wasn't addressed to me, but I hope you don't mind if I give an answer to your question. An honest answer at that. Like Kuntawman, I have a background in seemingly diametrically different martial arts systems, from tai chi and pa kua, to jkd, to fma. If I could I'd like to give two answers, both honest. Lets say I was carrying my stick(s) when I came across these young hooligans, then the answer to part (a) above would be arnis. Because it is primarily a weapons art, the other -- non-weapon, styles just would not come out.

    The answer becomes less obvious if I'm not carrying any weapons (in particular sticks). In which case, I would remember that it is not any of my styles that is attacked, but me as a person. In which case, I could not but use all of my being,-- all of my knowledge and all my skill, along with my anger, fear, indignation, and survival instinct (knowledge and skills that one doesn't necessarily have to learn but are instead "hard wired" into the brain stem or "reptillian brain.") to survive, not necessarily win that encounter. (Run-fu would be a good style when going up against a group of thugs.)
     
  12. old timer

    old timer Just well worn !

    I dont know that style, what is it ?
     
  13. shootodog

    shootodog restless native

    look it up. it's a good style to know if you don't want to be carried by six.
     
  14. shootodog

    shootodog restless native

    actually, i see a good question with one true answer.

    mine would be: if it can't carry you through then it won't, regardless of how beautiful or pure it is.

    i'll wait for the answer with you pat.

    don diego: good answer.
     
  15. thekuntawman

    thekuntawman Valued Member

    "a. Which art do you call on to stop these young guys from doing you damage?
    and
    b. How do you prevent your other knowledge from the other arts coming out during the fight because you beleive the art you are using is complete, bearing in mind you will be fighting under extreme pressure and your brain wil be working on instinct?"

    A. my fighting does not identify by "style" or "art". only the attacks and counters i was trained to use. while i do practice other styles of fighting and methods, i use what i am best at, which depends on how i feel if i fight. since i have not been in a real fight in a long time, only competitions, what style i use depends on the type of fight i been in. point fight, i use my point fighting style. san shou (kickboxing) i use san shou techniques. a boxing match, i use my boxing experience. sparring in class, it would be a combination of those things unless i decided to focus on fighting on certain ways.

    B. i dont try to prevent my knowledge of other styles to affect how i fight. when i fight, whatever i do will come out natural because i trained to do it, and the situation or my preference will determine how i fight. when i been in fights before, i boxed my opponents, because thats what i like to do. if i really wanted to hurt someone, i would use my kuntaw.

    i consider my boxing complete because i know how to box against a kicker, a grappler and another boxer. at the same time many people who "borrow" from boxing, is not complete, because they know how to jab, but not with any effectiveness. so in this way, i consider that they borrowed from boxing, but they dont know how to box. the same goes for any other style you might borrow from. how effective is knowing one or two things from the art of boxing, when you really cannot box well? learning to THROW a jab is very different from learning to USE the jab. it will help your fighting better to learn to use the jab instead of just learning to throw it, which you can get from a book, and it wont help your fighting much more.

    again you are trying to say that i am against practicing more than one style, i am not saying that. what i am saying is learning a little of this and a little of that is not more effective than learning those other things all the way through. when i talk about knowledge vs. skill, i am talking about more knowledge and less skill or more skill with less knowledge. for effective fighting, you need more skill, not more knowledge. we are not talking about giving lectures or showing demonstrations, we are talking about fighting, which depends on skill.

    having skill without knowledge is just as bad, like sugar shane mosely, who is fast and athletic, but he has poor accuracy and cannot read his opponents. at the same time, you have george foreman who has poor speed, but he can outsmart his opponents and can time them to land big shots. but then, foreman still has skill to apply his knowledge. but i am talkin about FMA teachers who know lots of drills and defensive techniques, but they do NOT have the skill to apply that knowledge. what good does it do for them?
     
  16. Diego_Vega

    Diego_Vega Frustrated pacifist

    This kind of reminds me of a friend's dad while I was growing up in a lower middle class neighbourhood in Toronto, Canada. We were in highschool at the time and began talking about which university to attend. Mr. "Smith" said we were wasting out times going to university. Instead of being "college boys" we should get a job. His exact workds were "ya young fellas need more earnin' less learnin'."

    kuntawman, pare, ??? We're talking about the guy who beat De la hoya twice, right?
     
  17. thekuntawman

    thekuntawman Valued Member

    well you know how they say, style can make the fight? de la hoya always has a hard time with faster fighters, which intimidates him. de la hoya (and dont worry i dont like him) lit mosely up last time. i am not saying mosely cannot fight, i am saying his accuracy is terrible, and he cannot fight guys with good timing and good mobility.

    pat, you can have skill without knowledge. there are many "natural' guys out there, like mike tyson, who have the strength and speed, but no strategy (knowledge). his trainers lessons did not stay with him, so i consider tyson a skill, but no knowledge fighter. mosely is another one. he has skill, speed, endurance, good form (when he is not pressure). but he is not a good enough technician that he can change his strategy to be more efficient in fighitng different opponents, he fights everybody the same way.

    rahman, is a person i consider to have knowledge without lots of skill. i use to train in the same gym with him, and i remember hearing him give advice to a group of us, he gave lots of good tips in fighting bigger fighters. but in the ring, he is good for maybe 4-5 round before he gets really sloppy. i believe he will make a good trainer, like buddy mcgirt. he's been there done that, and he is smart enough to analyze opponents and his fighters.

    it is possible to have knowledge without skill. for boxing trainers, the knowledge comes from basic stuff, like if you listening to what all the "experts" say, picking up things from other trainers. but most of there important knowledge comes from taking fighters to the ring, and then pick apart what they did there. if eskrima teachers have access to tournaments, then maybe its possible to do the same. the problem is, most eskrima tournaments who cannot fight, talk against sparring. now what does he have to go off when he is teaching the real lessons of eskrima--not number 12 or 18 striking, but the strategies about what happens while you are fighting. this knowledge is best when it comes from you own fighting experience.

    so fighitng experience can be on the street, sparring with friends, or sparring with strangers. if the best teacher is experience, how can you argue that you dont need your own experiences?
     
  18. shootodog

    shootodog restless native

    thekuntawman:

    please address my post:

     
  19. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Valued Member

    Thanks Diego, for your reply to the question It was excellent.

    My answer to the question is quite simple, If put in a situation as mentioned, and I have been in those situations before so I will respond from expeariance.
    I will draw on any knowledge that I have gained over the years that fits the situation regardless of where that knowledge and skill comes from, If it works I use it.

    The Kuntawman, how can you say that Mike Tyson has no knowledge, he was after all trained by several top trainers, if he did not take on board what they had to teach him, he would never have been put in for a world title let alone won them. Some people have a natural talent for fighting, that does not make them skillfull fighters, only gained knowledge of combat techniques can inform you so you can develop your skills to a better degree, and if you look at it, those who have a natural talent for fighting, inveriable gain their skill from the lessons learn't (knowledge) in real fight situations.

    So again I say, you cannot gain skill without first having knowledge of your subject. And no I am not trying to make you look as though you are lying, I asked you a question regarding what skils would you use in a real fight and you obviously answered the same as others which surprised me, as you were the person who stated that you should be able to use only your Arnis against any style, then surely your should be able to only use your Arnis in any real fight, but you did not say that is what you would do.

    Again it is making you look as though you are not practicing what you are trying to preach.

    All of us here feel that the FMA is what we do best and I am sure we all feel for ourselves that it is the most effective art we have so we agree with you in some respect but you again are trying to preach to the converted but you seem to be constantlt contradicting what you say with your answers.

    And please answer Shootodogs point, I would be interested to here your veiws.

    Also please remember if you come on to a discussion forum, don't expect everyone to agree with you, for if we all did, there would be no point in having a discussion forum, and just because we disagree, it does not mean we are wrong or right and it also does not mean we are trying to make you look bad or look as though you are lying, we just do not agree with your side to the discussion, so if you always get angry with the responces you should not participate in the debate should you.

    Best regards

    Pat
     
  20. Gryphon Hall

    Gryphon Hall Feeling Scholler

    Sorry, bro, but I would have to disagree. There are lots of things in jujutsu and kenjusu that helps in arnis, as wing chun helps in jujutsu and in arnis. For instance, I have learned to "stick" to my opponents stick to check it, not in the traditional arnis sense but in the wing chun sense. And it works.

    I don't see why not. Why shouldn't you use the technique that has worked against you against the technique itself? Isn't that unfairly limiting the evolution of the art, by not incorporating the techniques that actually defeats us?

    Bro, you are talking about "games" here with specific rules on how to win the game by scoring points and with specific fouls and penalities. Of course a basketball player cannot run with the ball! But fighting arts are different; they are not games. The only real rules of a fight, game or no, is being able to hit and avoiding getting hit, being able to do damage and avoiding the damage. Yes, we have sports like boxing and fighting "games" with rules, but I really do not see why we cannot "mix it up". Western boxing would not have evolved unless it took in the shuffling step and sidestep from another fighting art; and boxing is a sport with rules. And rules can be changed. If modern boxing was instead based on French boxing, we would be seeing kicks as well and fewer rounds. It would still be boxing.

    So far, with all the posts you've made, this is how I understand you (please correct me if I'm wrong):

    1. One should master all the arts one studies.
    2. When engaged in a fight, one can call on any of the arts but subject to the following restrictions:


    • when one starts using an art, one must only use that art for the fight;
    • suddenly switching to the antagonist's art to defeat the antagonist is unfair to the art one was initially using, thereby diluting it
    3. So, even if you cross-train and/or master other arts, one shouldn't "mix and match" techniques


    I particularly disagree with number three, for all the reasons already posted by Pat and Shootodog. For it is when techniques from other arts are acquired and incorporated into escrima that makes it an even better and stronger art. If your way was followed, it will be preserved, yes. As a fossil.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2005

Share This Page