First off I don't consider myself an authority on ALL Silat styles. As others have posited, Silat can be viewed as a catch all term much like Kung Fu or Karate of which there are hundreds if not thousands of systems. I'm just making a statement based on what I have personally seen and what others have told me. I have seen and been told of dozens of Silat systems from regions as diverse as SE Asia to NW Europe (though considering colonial history those regions do share a long history). Many of these systems have within them dozens of sub systems. Yes I have generalized. Kun Tao influenced Silat is different from Ksatria derived systems which have differences to those of Muslim origin. There are literally hundreds of variances from viallage to village and ofcourse new lineages are starting up all the time. Again I admit I was making generalizations but once more my experiences have shown that even empty hand training makes more sense when one realizes the weapons application. Thus to me, Silat's armed techniques are more sophisticated and advanced than it's unarmed techniques (also why they are often viewed as higher level techniques). As for being inferior to MMA, I'm discoursing within the framework set up by the OP. That is, Silat's unarmed techniques did not make it into the UFC (except that one time in the very early years) because there are better systems for unarmed sports combatives. Training without a weapon in hand does not equate to training an empty hand system. Understand the application and you'll realize just how integral weapons are to Silat. Furthermore, Kali and many FMA systems train knife or stick first just as readily as empty hand. These FMA systems have time and again shown their validity. So the belief that one must train hand before knife is due to your personal choice. You are not an authority on how to best train knife combatives any more than I am an authority on ALL Silat (but hey, few people on Forums actually claim to be an Authority so it doesn't really matter). Also never make the mistake that unarmed moves are directly transferable to all aspects of armed combatives, there are numerous nuances, some more obvious than others whereby armed and unarmed combat differ. As for the basics... well I agree with you on that. I have trained the basic jabs, hooks, straights and upper cuts (both unarmed and armed) more than anything else. On a personal note, I understand why you feel slighted. You are obviously enamored of your system and view my comments as an attack. For that I apologize. Silat, like any other system has it's pros and cons. The reason I have stopped bothering with Silat is the fact that so many schools (at least here in Australia) spend an inordinate amount of time training empty handed without pointing out the weapons application. It's frustrating because it clashes with everything I was taught as I beginner. Knife combatives within the first three months... not anymore there isn't. However, this same focus on unarmed combat no doubt not only fits better with culturally acceptable norms in Australia but also draws in those who want to focus on an empty handed syllabus. All systems evolve and what I may see as cons to Silat's evolution are no doubt seen as pros by other practitioners.