what is the simularities and differences between the two..? which is the better most realistic system...?
That will depend on the style of Silat you choose. You might as well ask the difference between kung fu and aikido.
Very little similarities. I took a few WC classes when my work was offering them free, after the 2nd one I never went back. MY EXPERIENCE WITH IT: Its too rigid. Upright, Hands locked in front, feet held at a stupidly awkward and unbalanced posture (turned in at the toes, and just under shoulder width apart) The centre-line theory is fundamentally flawed imo, as when I trained with guys who had small arms they had no chance of deflecting my forearm strikes as mine were denser. The Speed punch drills are good for show only. The teacher tried to tell us it was better to hit 20 weak blows on target than 2 powerful ones. I disagree, Im going for less + power is better than a lot with no power. In my opinion, and not to disrespect WC'ers Silat is a much more realistic system as its fluid, fast, utilises weaknesses of the opponent (flanking) rather than butting heads with them in a contest of strength and will power. I'm not entering a peeing contest in a fight, I'm finishing it fast, causing as much damage in as little a time frame as possible.
silat i heard silat has a true warrior spiritual and mystical side which is never written about... is this true... i also hear that scince some styles have become a sport the system has bee a bit watered down.. also, whats sital like against say boxing muay thai or bjj as there quite lethal conditioned arts....
choosing silat style.. pete i want to start learning silat in north london... whats the different between silat styles... i want something which has ground weapon and standing fighting methods.. something which is quick with there hands to test boxers.. i know which chun is good at as i studyed it for a year and half.. most importantly an art which teaches realistic applications and does free fighting... also whats this king of game like wing chun chi sau that silat does??
I'm no expert on the many different silat systems. The main one I practise is called Silat Lian Padukan and has had both wing chun and muay thai influences in its evolution. It's a very direct, aggressive system and quite different in look and feel to much of the Silat practised in this country in my experience, but is definitely very realistic both in its training and application. The best website for info on the system is http://lianpadukan.tripod.com/ Currently there are only a handful of Lian Padukan practitioners in the UK, and only one of them is running public classes - in Exeter. There will, however, be introductory seminars run next year at various places around the country, starting in January in the East Midlands, and hopefully more classes opening soon. Other people on here are probably better qualified than me to tell you about the other styles of silat found in the UK at the moment.
a true warrior spiritual side exists in Silat, yes. We study the 9 gates of power, along with other internal aspects, meditation, inner conditions and such. The reason it is not often written about is that it is difficult to put in writing something that is felt and shown. The style I study, 'Pukulan Cimande Pusaka' utilises a lot of weapon training, standup and groundwork, and often combines them, ie weapons defence from the ground. There is sparring involved in some classes at the discretion of the instructor, though injuries can be sometimes more common during sparring due to the training specifics (we dont block a punch, we break it). At present for example I am only back to training after 4 months out injured. We at present have toned our sparring down to minimise the injury risk. Silat vs boxer, I'd back the Silat player, as we close range and engage from the inside, thus making it more difficult to get off a good solid punch. A MT'er would pose some difficulty, and would be closer matched, this fight would depend on the level of individual skill of those involved. A BJJ'er would be inbetween, I'd still back the Silat player, but not with as much margin as the boxer. We cover enough groundwork to be on at least equal footing, but I honestly believe we would have the edge on the internal training that would carry us over. The sport aspect of silat is very watered down compared to the combat applications. For example I recently compared the rules for ufc with my current training regime, and over 95% of what I learn would be deemed illegal by those rules. Sport Silat is heavily regulated and through this has become a sport, not a combat art. I suggest you pay Gavin a visit if possible, and he will show you our art in action, i was hooked on my first viewing.
Hi Alex Gavin teaches a Pukulan Cimande Silat Class in London every Tuesday and Wednesday and if you email me guruliam@hotmail.com I will give you his contact number. The classes are in Central London. We dont teach the sporting side of silat as I agree with earlier statements that the sport side has dilute alot of the combat aspects. The system we teach is design for pure combat on a Physical, Internal and Spirtitual level (not religion which is another matter). Gavin is a good honest teacher, who teaches from his heart and soul. So if you want to learn a style of Combat that developes you on the path on becoming a warrior give him a call its worth a go. There more info on our website www.silateurope.com Hope this helps feel free to contact me anytime. Liam
Wow...well isn't that good stereotyping for ya... You shouldn't let one bad experience phase you...most CMA are very foreign to the body in the beginning...but and experience practitioner in the style will find it more effective than the other styles...so yeah...be humble...
I wasnt stereotyping, I was describing my experience, and thats all. Im not saying they all crap or all WC'ers cant fight, I was saying its not for me. And Silat is for me, with a little more information to validate my impressions
"Just under shoulder width" That's wrong for a start, I'm amazed anyone could teach you LESS than shoulder width. Most people teach shoulder width, I use it wider than that. I don't understand why you think the centerline theory is "fundamentally flawed", your argument about density doesn't make much sense. Please elaborate. I agree with you on the punching stuff. I've never bought chain punching at all. Before my current sifu I never thought there was any power in wing chun, now I focus on it a hell of a lot more than chain punching. "Fluid" - you can't say Wing Chun is not fluid, that's bizarre "Fast" - strange again "utilises weaknesses of the opponent (flanking) rather than butting heads with them in a contest of strength and will power" - this suggests to me that you picked up nothing in wing chun I can only imagine that you don't know where the centerline is or what it's about, and that you were taught to always be frontal with the opponent. Did they even show you the turn/shift (juen ma)? You can interpret WC in many ways, but staying frontal will only work if you're very good or very big and strong. "I'm finishing it fast, causing as much damage in as little a time frame as possible." - again, this is strange. Did you really attend a wing chun class?
The fundamental premise of this thread is flawed. You can not compare one art relative to a whole country's collective arts, it is simply too broad a topic. You are merely looking for an excuse to complain about a martial art you happen to have a superficial knowledge of. I have studied wing chun and I have been on the recieving end of Sifu francis Fong, a wing chun master; perhaps you should go to him for an evaluation of the art. I will hasten to add that I prefer Pentjak Silat Serak.
Here's some more fuel for your discussion on silat vs. wing chun http://www.garylamwingchun.com/movies/SifuLamDemonew_medium.mov
