Knife-centric FMA

**Dr._Tzun_Tzu** · Posted On: 8/31/2007 10:44am

your misunderstanding me. The poster that started this said he was from a stick centric art and wanted more knife work. Why doesn't he already have it? I fully agree with you. I am concerned as to why he is learning a stick FMA that hasn't covered the knife crossover.

I also fully value the notion that FMA has a stick centric system as one of its specialtys. Its famous for it.

its just I have seen alot of people in my life that don't get it, that its bigger then just stick.

but maybe you like the padded armor suits and the rapid tapping with the side of the stick for points?....even if it is so de-evolved as to not translate into any form or realistic combat (sarc).

**selfcritical** · Posted On: 8/31/2007 1:00pm

I think there is a point that there's something missing when the stick as short blade or training knife is omitted entirely. Each weapon trains different attributes(that of course will translate to all weapons, but are easier to bring out with some). There are some core skills of angulation, striking mechanic, and evasion that as far as i've seen are simply easier to develop in the context of a bolo or machete. Also, not every stick-oriented art is Dog Brothers, and not every blade art is a rapier-based system like illulstrisimo or san miguel. Most of the rapid witiking i've seen as far as texas FMA groups so far has been from stick-based people(Inosanto-Lacoste and modern arnis people), and the most emphasis i've seen on power striking has been from blade advocates(pekiti and bahala'na).

**Epa** · Posted On: 8/31/2007 1:11pm

DTT, it sounds like you're trying to lump all Filipino Martial Arts into one neat group. You say that all FMA is weapon based and all FMA focuses on using a variety of weapons. That is not true. There are empty hand arts, especially in the south such as Kuntao. There are modern FMA such as yaw-yan and sagasa that are empty hand arts that focus a lot of time on sport fighting as well as self defense.

There are also FMA systems that do specialize with certain weapons or ranges. For example, the Doce Pares system you referenced earlier is the multi-style system created by Diony Canete based on his training with many of the original Doce Pares members. These individual members often had much more specialized systems. If you go to the multi style website, you'll see them list the original styles and their founders. They are often specialized in a range or a weapon. Here is the link:

http://www.doceparesinternational.com/link5a.htm

There are plenty of styles that do what you're talking about by training several weapons and ranges and using all of these skills to build a more complete fighter. Personally, I like that approach the most because I think it rounds out the fighter well, but just because a style doesn't follow that philosophy doesn't mean they're not FMA. FMA is not a neat category like that.

**Red Elvis** · Posted On: 8/31/2007 3:22pm

Good comments guys!

I'll also add a quick comment that many people (at least around here) don't train exclusively in one style. That may be more a product of location but all the guys I know who participate in or are affiliated with DMBA also train in other FMA systems in addition to other non weapon based arts. Some guys are under Inosanto, some are under PTK... etc. For example, the group I primarily train with (although I haven’t in months) is PTK under an member of the Texas Kali Association. There I get all the blade work and more “classical” FMA that I could ever want and more. I also get to participate in hell, er… I mean training, when Grand Tuhon Leo T. Gaje comes to pay us a visit for training and ketchup.

**Dr._Tzun_Tzu** · Posted On: 9/01/2007 12:59am

I will admit that I am putting all FMA into one box and alot of it just doesn't fit. but thats what I do.

The general history I have read from Wiley is that people practiced and created stuff on their own then ,went around and fought and cross trained with eachother. Some started from scratch and some carried on long historys of training. It is not a unique approach to weapons from before gunpowder, but it is one of the few places this cultural survived.

We now are the links that preserve this.

Specialization is death. You specialize at the expense of everything else. Everything is special. You may specialize, but you must do it in many things. MMA is trying to do this. JKD tried to do this. _ing _un was once this. Even western boxing may have been an unarmed method to practice weapons fighting once.

the problem is that once developed from its many sources, a style begins to decay because people continue to practice the RESULT, and not the steps that produced it. JKD is a fine example and modern MMA is well on the road.

I do not want to see FMA go this way.

more: if you didn't get my point here is an example. In the mythogogy of Bruce Lee, it is said that he mastered whole styles and then took what was usefull. He taught his students from that knowledge base. What his students did is took what they where taught and made it into a style. Some Guru's like Sifu Inasanto actually mastered many styles themselves, continueing the tradition. Others perfected only the RESULTS into a specialized style.

MMA is a mixed thing. Its value is in the mixing. We now have schools that teach the evolved results, no seperate styles to mix. MMA risks becoming just a style name and not a concept of cross training.

FMA is a concept. It has to many seperate systems to be put into a box. The concept of FMA cross training can be narrowed down. Thats all I am saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCV0n9tIvf4

**ignatzami** · Posted On: 9/01/2007 1:18pm

wow, just wow. I'm in the middle of a move so I haven't read everything posted yet but still... wow. I'll get back here Tuesday night after the "Beginners" class at NEMA. Not quite sure what that entails but it should be fun. I'll brew a fresh pot of coffee and try to digest all the responses tonight.

Thanks all