Convince Me That Silat Doesn't Suck Completely

**karma2343** · Posted On: 4/03/2009 3:35pm

The problem with arguing Silat is that there are so many damn styles out there, its a very, very hard art to trace. There are two components to learning Silat: the dance and the martial art itself. Most traditional Silat places will teach you the dance first, which includes inefficient and/or slappy techniques, then they learn the real martial arts behind the dance. The problem with this is that most students still have some of the bad habits they picked up from learning the dance first, which is why my Sifu teaches us the martial arts first (actually, at this point I have no idea if I will learn the dance or not, which I am just fine with).

There is no mysticism in the Silat art I practice. At all. I don't know what type of Silat I practice, but I will ask next time I get the chance. When we drill the person we are practicing with starts slow and compliant, then speeds up as to make the technique more practical. Unfortunately I'm still only a couple months in, so I don't have an intimate knowledge of the techniques, but maybe in a couple months I'll post up some videos trying them on friends who aren't in my class.

As for the idea of street vs sport martial arts... there is a difference in my opinion. But it has nothing to do with ki/chi/qi, it has nothing to do with some special training method that avoids aliveness, it has nothing to do with d3ad1y super moves... it is simply attacking areas not allowed in competition, like the throat of back of the head. A huge difference between the two? No, just areas you can attack; thats my two cents anyway.

**jimmywangyu** · Posted On: 4/03/2009 4:00pm

Here are my 2 cents from watching the videos

Silat has moves the can comprehensibly work (I know some that do work), but some of the moves they do, are a wee bit ridiculous looking (just like any other art)

I gather though, every technique has its place - even BJJ has techniques like the crucifix, or the twister, which are hard to pull off, but there is a time and place

I dont think Silat sucks, I think it works - I dont see why any Silat fighter cant fight professionally though. If they do not want to fight professionally, that is cool also.

**selfcritical** · Posted On: 4/03/2009 7:34pm

Originally Posted by 1point2

I missed this entirely.

So there's a mentality or attitude of secrecy, or shall we say, nonproliferation? Interesting.

It's a combination of muslim culture (which was pretty heavy where silat developed) and the propensity for the indonesian practiioners to be guerilla leaders.

If SE Asian Islam, being a braggart is a very big character flaw- people with fighting skill will go to some length to be self-effacing and say they aren't any good......largely because proclaming your prowess just gets people to want to fight you.

Similarly, Uyl suwanda, pak su-herman and other freedom fightsers weren't real keen on being seen in public a lot.

**1point2** · Posted On: 4/03/2009 9:05pm

Originally Posted by jimmywangyu

Here are my 2 cents from watching the videos

Silat has moves the can comprehensibly work (I know some that do work), but some of the moves they do, are a wee bit ridiculous looking (just like any other art)

I gather though, every technique has its place - even BJJ has techniques like the crucifix, or the twister, which are hard to pull off, but there is a time and place

I dont think Silat sucks, I think it works - I dont see why any Silat fighter cant fight professionally though. If they do not want to fight professionally, that is cool also.

Both the crucifix and the twister are moderate-percentage, perfectly valid techniques that work against fully resisting opponents and cause loads of verifiable pain in grappling and MMA.

The slappy-dappy strikes and spastic Star Wars Kid-style kicks I see in Silat have a lot of ground to cover in order to get into the same realm of usefulness as the crucifix.

**Hesperus** · Posted On: 4/03/2009 9:07pm

Originally Posted by jimmywangyu

even BJJ has techniques like the crucifix, or the twister, which are hard to pull off, but there is a time and place

Difference being that they have been pulled off, many times, against skilled grapplers.

On video. Take note, Silatuers.

**TheMightyMcClaw** · Posted On: 4/04/2009 12:43am

Originally Posted by Hesperus

Difference being that they have been pulled off, many times, against skilled grapplers.

On video. Take note, Silatuers.

I myself caught a guy in a crucifix twice last night.
Conversely, the "pull his head to one side" neck cranks in the above posted demos have yet to be demonstrated working anywhere, on anyone.
For those of you yet unaware, this is a problem.

**grammatoncleric** · Posted On: 4/04/2009 1:49am

Originally Posted by Jim_Jude

Yes, I'm intimately aware.

Funny. In REAL LIFE one can see repeatedly that YOU FIGHT HOW YOU TRAIN. You can Google it yourself. It's a proven fact, it's actually resulted in deaths due to bad training.

Ever hear of cops dying with empty brass in their hands because the department's range management doesn't like having to pick it up? Yeah, it's true, happened at least twice that I know of, word spread like wildfire and it stopped. Sorry kiddo, you can't out-think your training, especially when you're in the ****. You're reduced to the level of your training (or lack their of) every time.

That's not entirely true. I predominantly trained in Muay Thai and Boxing before I got into my first 'street' scuffle and I eye gouged my opponent, that wasn't something I trained to do. I also didn't get him in a clinch and throw knees and low kicks although that was something that I trained to do. I also had a friend who was ex military and had only trained in boxing, in a fight he would headbutt, and had survived multiple opponent situations (not just using punching) on several occassions.

I agree that training does take over in 'the thick of it' but intent will change how a person fights... If my intent is to beat u into a bloody pulp by any means necessary, then any means will be used to do so; my body, an object or smashing u into something (which is the same intent my friend has, and 'street' guys have).

**jimmywangyu** · Posted On: 4/04/2009 5:12am

Originally Posted by 1point2

Both the crucifix and the twister are moderate-percentage, perfectly valid techniques that work against fully resisting opponents and cause loads of verifiable pain in grappling and MMA.

The slappy-dappy strikes and spastic Star Wars Kid-style kicks I see in Silat have a lot of ground to cover in order to get into the same realm of usefulness as the crucifix.

I think silat has good transitioning from striking into takedowns....

& I never learned any of their kicks...my judgement is strictly off of video footage...I only learned their hand strikes into takedowns

**jimmywangyu** · Posted On: 4/04/2009 5:15am

Originally Posted by Hesperus

Difference being that they have been pulled off, many times, against skilled grapplers.

On video. Take note, Silatuers.

be that as it may, BJJ may not have that many silly looking moves, it still does have some silly techniques & tactics. If that were not true, the BJJ'ers would not cross train

I do however agree that Silat can participate in full contact sparring

**TheMightyMcClaw** · Posted On: 4/04/2009 11:30am

Originally Posted by jimmywangyu

I think silat has good transitioning from striking into takedowns....

Would you care to provide footage of these transitions?

Originally Posted by jimmywangyu

be that as it may, BJJ may not have that many silly looking moves, it still does have some silly techniques & tactics. If that were not true, the BJJ'ers would not cross train

I do however agree that Silat can participate in full contact sparring

Incorrect.
BJJ players don't cross train because their tactics are "silly"; we cross train because BJJ is specialized and we want to cover other parts of the fight game.