Look at the Pro's and cons of each: WEKAF: Pro: You become faster in your combination strikes, your timming and awareness becomes quicker and you can spar for long periods of time because the armour allows this with lest risk of serious injury, but serious injury still occurs. Con: If you become too reliant on the armour you leave your self open. Padded Stick (head gear and gloves). Pro. Like WEKAF you can spar for longer but you learn to become more accurate with your shots, looking to get the clean shot in this hit and not be hit format. Hurts more than WEKAF so you can spar as long and the risk of serious injury is increased. Con: You become too reliant on the protection and leave yourself open. So called RCSF ala Dog Brothers, Black Eagle Society, Dog Eaters, Call2Arms etc: Pro: Not for the faint hearted in that you receive full on blows that hurt like hell, the risk of serious injury is highly increased so the game becomes more of a long range play looking for the clean shot much in the same way as the padded stick format, but because of the limited rules you have to deal with other sides to fighting other than just the weapon. You learn to take a full on blow and increase your conditioning to being hit. Con: You become too reliant on the protection and leave yourslef open. You cant spar like this on a regular basis or you spend more time recovering and less time training your skills. Real Stick Fighting: Pro. In a 'Real' Stickfight you would be less likely to bash and crash and shoot to the ground as one simple (even flicky shot) to the head can and will take you out of the game and / or set you up for the big killer blow. One shot can kill or maim you. No rules means the highest possible risk of serious injury or even death. Con. At the very least you will do time for Assualt with a Deadly weapon. You cant do this anywhere as near as you can do the so called RCSF formats. You increase your chances of dying. But all the other formats can give you the attributes they are unique at to give you a fighting chance in a 'Real' Stickfight. But no one version can claim to be better for your skills than the others, they are all unique in their own way and they all have their own attributes unique to them that they can give you, but all apart from the last one are not 'Real' by any sense of the word. The first 3 are games we play. Best regards Pat
Oh, I know that mate. Don't worry. And I couldn't agree more. My only point was that "real" is such an imperfect descriptor. It's a moving target. If someone got into a knife fight in a club one night (which seems real), someone else could always come along later and say that it was just alpha-male chest puffing. And that it wasn't real unless, like Guro Leo Giron, you'd used it on the actual battlefield. Live blade. Against enemy combatants... We can argue the definition of "real" ad nauseum. Seems to me a fair few philosophers have done just that (incl. Lawrence Fishburne in The Matrix ). But it sees a lot easier to identify what isn't real, albeit close to real, than it is to flat out define "real." That being the case, "real" is a nice little bit of marketing speak. Because it can neither be definitively confirmed nor denied. Besides, HEOBHWRC (hitting each other bloody hard with rattan cudgels) is a pretty unwieldy acronym when you get down to brass tacks. Stuart
even the military in which killing is the business limit live fire exercises because they don't want to end up with dead soldiers
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Awesome observation. I think the point of the thread being that some people make a claim that what they practice and promote is in some way more REAL than other formats. All have rules and safety equipment making them less than real.
I always give people the benefit of the doubt so when I hear or read real contact, I "know" they meant no harm in saying that, they simply wanna differentiate it from other SF formats, differentiate and not necessarily discriminate against other SF formats. "Extreme" is about too much of a claim, I think. To make it contemporary, I was thinking to call it "Wicked Stickfighting" but it sounds so juvenile so maybe a little negation can project more positive value to it like "Unreal Stickfighting". That sounds cooler, I think. I think somebody also uses that one, I passed some YT clips and saw a banner saying "Extreme Eskrima". I don't know if you give them your permission.
We all want to differentiate from the other SF Formats, but using the term 'REAL' does give the impression that other formats are some what less 'REAL' and therefor inferior in their use. But in 'Reality' they are no more real than bashing each other with a couple of sponges. 'EXTREME' is no less of a claim than 'REAL', but is in fact closer to the truth in that what is being promoted is an extreme form of sport stick fighting but is still not real stick fighting. Unreal Stickfighting is probably more closer to the mark in my opinion but who wants to admit that what they do is 'unreal'? It's like sayng you do 'Functional' [*insert name of the art here*], this implies that there is an un-functional version, but who would admit to doing that? Yeah I got them, I was in fact making a point that we could all pick a term, copyright it and say that this is us for marketing purposes, but the truth of the matter is, there are others who do the very same thing so in retrospect it is not that one group is doing something different or better or more realistic if you like, it is simply that they have marketed better is all. Best regards Pat
This is true, but they do not tell you that what you are doing in a live fire excercise is 'Real Combat'. They tell you that it is simulation as close as possible the realities of combat and yes there is a higher risk of death during these exercises, but it is only when you get in to the actual feild of combat does it then become 'Real'. Hence they call it a 'Live Fire Exercise' and not a 'Real Combat Situation'. Best regards Pat
And this is my point. You claim to make 'Real' contact in any of the SF formats, after all, dont the WEKAF players make 'Real Contact' when they hit some one, dont the padded stick players make 'Real Contact' when they hit some one, in the very same way that the limited armour and limted rules players do too. After all if you where not making 'Real Contact' would'nt you simply be shadow sparring and making no contact at all which is 'Un-real contact' is it not. Just because some one chooses to use a bit more protection all be it with equipment or rules does not mean they are not making 'Real Contact', therefor any contact SF format has the right to say they are RCSF do they not?. Best regards Pat
For me, and I am only speaking from my exp. DBMA and the Black Eagle formats (and others I havent tried such as the Call2arms) are the most "realistic" fights currently going. The term RCSF is, to me just a label. It isnt meant to be-little other formats by way of saying the other formats arent "real". Its just a name given, as is UFC. Is the UFC actually Ulitmate Fighting? No, its just a name. I have fought in MMA, and when I speak to people about it who dont know what it is they say, "oh yeah thats Ultimate fighting!". They know the label and the marketing and assume if you do MMA then you are an Ultimate Fighter lol. (which I most certainly am not). I have had my fair share of fights, personally I havent done WEKAF and I am not likely to. I see the pro's and con's for it but it just isnt my thing. Would I say it isnt real? No, it most certainly is. I love the Arnis Alliance low armour format as it is great for precision, technique and speed. Would I say just because it uses (slightly) padded sticks that it isnt real? No, as I have recieved a broken bone in this format. I would say that DBMA and BE are (for me) the most realistic form of testing skills for real life survival. I.E fights are in different environments, always start with weapons (as do most street / pub brawls, have limited (and sometimes futile) armour, any weapon you can agree to fight with, and all the MMA style kicks, headbuts, punches, locks, takedowns and so on. Limited rules and no winners also makes it more realistic. You dont do it for a trophy, you do it to see if you can survive. Its a personal test and it is that aspect of surviving and not winning that makes it, for me, the most relevant test going. So for me that is what RCSF stands for. Its not the stick that is real, just the way in which we fight.
Now I totally agree with the way you have put it, but I have a pet gripe when people say it is 'Real' this and 'Real' that and I even have a gripe with the term UFC, because it is not. Now when you say it is 'Realistic' that is great, because people can then see it is no 'Real' per say, but as close to reality as one would want to get for training purposes. Even realistic tells us it is not the real thing. But when you say it is 'Real' when it is not and wheather you intend it to happen or not, people will assume that what you do is real, ergo everything else is not. This is real fish, that must be realistic fish or close to fish but not. See what I mean. Best regards Pat
