Silat is a weapons art first...

Discussion in 'Silat' started by pakarilusi, Aug 3, 2011.

  1. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    What exactly is the point of the initial and subsequent arguments of Silat being an armed and battlefield art, so it's unarmed effectiveness is not readily apparent?
    What exactly are you saying?
    That Silat is an anachronism and it's study is more about the maintenence of an Indo-Malay warrior culture through LARP? That Silat teachers teaching hand to hand combat are either deluded or fraudulent?
    It's an argument that lacks internal consistency. If it's the former, you don't see Iaido practitioners getting defensive about it's modern effectiveness. If it's the latter then everyone else is right. It's not a meaningful explanation for the general experience.
  2. Yohan

    Yohan In the Spirit of Yohan Supporter

    don't flatter yourself. you haven't hurt anyone's feelings and you aren't going to.

    i'm not attacking you by any stretch of the imagination. all i did is point out the inconsistencies in your argument, and where you lied.

    ok first you lied and it didn't gain you any ground, now you are trying to attack me instead of addressing my arguments. my judgement has not been compromised at any level. i'm not fighting angry. this is my normal level of intensity during a debate. if you can't deal with it - don't take me on. if you can - counter my points. debate instead of backtracking and lying.

    my opinions will be the same in a few months. your arguments will still be inconsistent, without merit, and unsupported by evidence.

    ok, so fight organizations glorify and sell fighting and violence.

    gyms train a lot of people, including hard working, highly motivated amateur and professional athletes.

    the only connection you have established is that some of those athletes go on to fight in the fight orgs you are so opposed to.

    so where is the connection? why are you trying to put the responsibility of glorification of violence back on mma practitioners who are not involved with the actual glorification of violence at all?

    get off your high horse. if you are so worried about selling violence why don't you go start a thread about violent martial arts movies, violent video games, and the endless wars in the middle east? If you were so concerned about selling violence you'd be complaining about something more important.

    Thing is, I don't think you have a problem with violence. I think you have a problem with people who are motivated enough to train hard and get in shape and compete at a very high level. I think you are jealous because no matter how long you train, you will never get to the same level as those athletes. you have to come up with some way to put them down below you, because you don't have the motivation or drive to rise above them.

    well considering the fact that you've been lying and slandering other peoples chosen arts since you started posting in this thread, i'd say that respect and etiquette were never part of your equation. I am happy to pay respect to hard working martial artists who follow any banner, silat included. i just won't pay respect to people who lie and slander other arts, just to patch up their own insecurities.

    i can't respectfully respond to this

    thanks. later.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2011
  3. Bambi

    Bambi Valued Member

    Modern soldiers might train in TKD now, that's very different from saying tkd is being trained for the battlefield. Show me from reputable sources that a conscript or standing army from before the use of muskets were being trained to wrestle or box in order to wage war. I'm open to persuasion

    Yes weapons broke all the time, thats why people carried side arms, that why they picked up weapons, that why they broke and ran, the odds of two combatants meeting each other unarmed in a battle? Very low imo. The odds of them surviving if they went at it unarmed? Lower still.

    Oddly enough, you're assuming that my reference to judo's precusors was jujutsu. Take a look at the koryu that existed back when war was a way of life in Japan. They are very different creatures to judo.

    That is the whole point, they are modern sports, they are not their precursors (and I'm of the opinion that their precursors were not useful for military engagements). Being modern full contact sports is what makes them so useful in MMA and by extension less useful in an environment where weapons are the order of the day.

    About their unarmed curriculum, kali tudo. Clue's in the name. :hat:

    When people claim that the dog brothers is "mma with weapons" they tend to point out that the development is, in fact, in the opposite direction.
  4. Rebo Paing

    Rebo Paing Pigs and fishes ...

    People often mis-communicate and sometimes contradict themsleves.

    If I were to level an accusation I would offer that there is a contradiction and maybe suggest that a re-wording would be beneficial.

    Under these circumstances I think to publicly accuse a person of lying smacks of slander and lacks character.
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter
  6. Yohan

    Yohan In the Spirit of Yohan Supporter

    In opposition to your statement I would posit that any decent person has the right to defend themselves and others from bullies who seek to insult and slander their peers. In defense of themselves and others, pointing out the lies and inconsistencies in said bullies statements is not only acceptable, but commendable.

    Additionally, your own attempted insults of my character are noted and illuminated to the other readers of the thread. I will not respond to your belittling, as you are merely a supporter of those who wish to utilize this forum to bully and slander others.

    I appreciate your conscience, but your application thereof is misguided. I will continue to exercise my right to debate any matter brought up on this forum. I will continue to do so within the rules prescribed by this forum. Any person who wishes to the same, may, and I will be happy to take them on.

    Good day.
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Just in case you missed it the first time around
  8. nasigoreng

    nasigoreng Valued Member

    Steve Gartin asserts something similar: "there is no silat without the knife" from his "secrets of silat" video. I honestly don't remember much about that video except that he showed empty-hand vs. knife and then knife vs. knife.
    His expression of silat is very much influenced by kuntau which helps to show just how diverse the silat world is.

    It's interesting though the Filipino MA start with stick and knife right away and Silat tends to start out with empty-hands. Whatever, different strokes....
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2011
  9. Yohan

    Yohan In the Spirit of Yohan Supporter

    in Filipino Martial Arts, the stick trains the hands.
  10. Yohan

    Yohan In the Spirit of Yohan Supporter

    so i don't understand - in silat, at your first lesson, do they hand you a stick or a knife, or do you start learning empty hand?
  11. fire cobra

    fire cobra Valued Member

    The concept I learnt in Silat was if you have a weapon(or2 or 3 :)) great if you dont still great ,
    put another way dont rely on the weapon in case you drop it or it breaks or gets taken of you etc etc:) .

    The hand is the knfie the knife is the hand maybe:)
  12. nasigoreng

    nasigoreng Valued Member

    based on my experiences training in Indonesia, it's traditionally empty-hand at the beginning and weapons techniques are revealed at the more advanced stages of training.
  13. Yohan

    Yohan In the Spirit of Yohan Supporter

    wouldn't that directly contradict the original poster's original statement? Not to be splitting hairs, but if what you say is true, chronologically, silat is an empty handed art first.
  14. Ular Sawa

    Ular Sawa Valued Member

    That's the way I've been learning it, yep.
  15. Yohan

    Yohan In the Spirit of Yohan Supporter

    Ouch. You mean the entire premise of the original posters misguided argument may be false? Who knew??
  16. nasigoreng

    nasigoreng Valued Member

    i wouldn't go that far. even training silat empty-hand, i can see the weapons applications. the way I see it, the weapons techniques were introduced last to guarantee that only those loyal students with the best character would get "the big picture."
  17. LCC

    LCC Valued Member

    Looking back at the original OPs statement I have to say I agree with the generals of the statement. Silat is concerned with instilling skills that are primarily applicable to the combative field that its SE Asian practitioners will find themselves in. Namely, everyone carrying some kind of small to medium size, bladed weapon. So yes, it's a weapons' based and weapons' focused martial arts. Thus having it be the core of an unarmed MMA syllabus is going to be highly problematic. The ideological transition, not to mention the lack of teachers who could effectively or willingly formulate such a syllabus, creates a very difficult hurdle to surmount.
  18. Ben Gash CLF

    Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

    Which takes us right back to post 41.......
  19. LCC

    LCC Valued Member

    I didn't read post 41, as the moment an argument labels a system as LARP, is the moment I place it in the Trolling bin. In light of your other more intelligent posts, I'll pass post 41 off as you being frustrated and try to explain a few points.

    1) Weapons based does not necessarily equate to Battlefield training: Silat being a weapons focused system does not mean it is a modern battlefield system (a system that trains with the equipment and tactics most likely to be utilized in modern, firearms based warfare). Although certain Indonesian and possibly Malaysian military groups may practice it, I doubt it forms the crux of their military combatives anymore then wrestling takes precedence over firearms training in American military combatives. Weapons focused does not necessarily equal modern battlefield training. Knightly jousting continued into the 17th century, long past it's actual use as an efficient battlefield art. Silat's practitioners are training to defend themselves against the threats which are most likely to present themselves to a civilian living in countries with strict gun laws but where it's also very easy to access bladed weapons. They are not training for modern mass warfare.

    2) Weapons focused does not mean there is no empty hand training: Silat being a weapons focused system does not mean it has no empty hand syllabus. It does, but as a secondary (or fall back) syllabus, the unarmed component of Silat is inferior to its armed training. Inferior in technical development, sophistication and I daresay prestige. Silat's unarmed training seems to predominate more in those regions where it's culturally inappropriate to train weapons based combat. However, even in those areas, weapons training remains important and is often focused on in higher level/belt classes.

    3) Silat's inferior empty hand techniques are a poor base for MMA: Silat's unarmed syllabus is not only inferior to it's own armed syllabus but also inferior to the unarmed skills of those systems which focus on the empty hand. Which means that if you wish to compete in an unarmed sport such as MMA, you are better served with focusing on true empty hand systems than on Silat's limited unarmed syllabus. All systems have a priority and other aspects of combat thus take a back seat.

    4) Silat's cultural dance training is not the same as training it's combat techniques: Silat has cultural dance aspects. This is pretty obvious. However to confuse these with the actual martial arts is akin to confusing Wai Kru Ram Muay dance training with Muay Thai combat training. There may be some similar body dynamics and even aping of combat moves, but the two are not one and the same.
  20. taoizt

    taoizt Valued Member

    1) I agree

    2) I call B.S. since when are you the authority on ALL silat systems throughout SEA to make such a general and bold statement? How many silat styles have you seen, and also in what country?

    3) Again what gives you the authority to claim that unarmed skills of ALL silat is inferior. I do agree that when you are talking about 'unarmed sport' than MMA is probably much better to work with. Let me guess: unarmed silat is inferior since you see no silat-fighters in the UFC....YAWN.

    4) I agree that dancing is not the same as combat. There probably is more to it than mere mimicking body moves but no...not combat

    To make it clearer, yes I train silat (or pukulan) and yes 90% of my training is unarmed. The principles you learn unarmed also work when you hold a knife.. I think it is silly to start training with a knife from day one since most people don't even have control over their body to hit with the proper body mechanics.

    First start with the basics, then on to the more advanced stuff. The further you come in your training, the more you realise how important the basics is. And most people just briefly look at the basics (a year or 2 max.) and then move on to the advanced stuff.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2011

Share This Page