Convince Me That Silat Doesn't Suck Completely

**grammatoncleric** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 7:10am

Originally Posted by jimmywangyu

and to add to the "deadly techniques" argument, if someone has never brought it up (I am new so I dont know if I am beating a dead horse), but you dont need to execute a technique for real to know that its deadly.

Do you really need to get kicked in the jewels to know that its deadly?
Do you need to shoot someone in the head, to know that a gun can kill someone?

The 'deadly' technique thing is marketing BS sometimes or simply ignorance. I've personally gouged eyes in 2 street encounters, according to most TMA and RBSD guys they should have been blinded and incapacitated, they weren't, however it did take the 'fight' out of them. I wouldn't do it now if I got in an encounter because I didn't like the effects, afterwards I saw the blood streaming from their tear ducts and felt like a monster.

I'm not saying that it cannot lead to serious injury, but I think the potency has been over hyped and that's dangerous if someone is into self defense. I know playing Rugby in school days that if I got a finger in the eye I would close one eye and carry on playing, and from what I've read of grappling tournaments a dirty trick is to poke the eyes, I've seen a guy in a video get it done to him, he carried on and didn't call for a DQ and won. (is that common grapplers).

Check Richard Grannon debunking that a chop to the throat is uber deadly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlu2_1ECNBs

**1point2** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 7:31am

Originally Posted by grammatoncleric

Check Richard Grannon debunking that a chop to the throat is uber deadly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlu2_1ECNBs

Not a bad vid.

One of my judo matches, I accidentally jabbed my opponent in the eye while going for a grip. Without stopping, I apologized, he got a grip, I got a grip, and the match went on.

**Chili Pepper** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 8:31am

Originally Posted by theotherserge

Not a well laid-out website, but the drawings/watercolors by Bill deThouras look like the work of an Arkham Asylum inhabitant. Creepy really when you consider that the "artist" is a lethal knife-expert.

I did a seminar with Bill deThouars, and I have to say it was one of the worst seminars I've ever taken - just a complete mish-mash of whatever happened to cross his mind at that moment. Thanks for the trip down memory lane, but it wasn't worth the price of admission.

In contrast, the brief rolling I did apres-seminar with his student Randall Goodwin was a definite learning experience, and I wish I could've spent the day training with him instead.

**TheMightyMcClaw** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 9:28am

Originally Posted by jimmywangyu

I think like any other martial art, it depends on the teacher and the method, and the outcome

and anyways, no matter the martial art, self defense demos all have the same feel - whether its BJJ or kung fu. Its always slow motion, not completely live.

and to add to the "deadly techniques" argument, if someone has never brought it up (I am new so I dont know if I am beating a dead horse), but you dont need to execute a technique for real to know that its deadly.

Do you really need to get kicked in the jewels to know that its deadly?
Do you need to shoot someone in the head, to know that a gun can kill someone?

Its rather silly, when I hear the other end of the spectrum about - "if its so deadly, how come they don't use it - I need footage for proof". I don't need to fully execute a BJJ arm bar to know it can break someone's arm, because you are bending it the wrong way...

Anyways, I dont know that much Silat, I learned a couple techniques before, and they were all takedowns, which ended in a submission lock or a stomp or punch to the person on the ground. Its a pretty good martial art, and takes hard work, like any other martial art, to get any effectiveness.

LOL...the real question is why I typed seriously in the Comedy section (YMAS):jihad1:

BJJ and Silat both produce crappy self defense demos that demonstrate the effectiveness of standing armlocks on people who are willing to be armlocked as part of a demo.
The difference is, BJJ also produces individuals who are successful in combat with noncompliant opponents while clearly using a skillset learned from BJJ, and there video documentation of this.
Silat, conversely, does not produce the latter phenomenon. Furthermore, it produces a bunch of creepy ass cults - we've now had three individuals were part of Silat cults.
I know that getting kicked in the groin hurts because I've been kicked in the groin and witnessed others being kicked in the groin.
Conversely, I've yet to see Silat do anything more than mandancing and pointfighting.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 9:31am

Originally Posted by grammatoncleric

The 'deadly' technique thing is marketing BS sometimes or simply ignorance. I've personally gouged eyes in 2 street encounters, according to most TMA and RBSD guys they should have been blinded and incapacitated, they weren't, however it did take the 'fight' out of them.

Bas got gouged 3 times is a brawl with several bouncers in Sweden and kept going. Yuki kept going and won; Andy Anderson kept going and won.

If the person can be stopped with an eye gouge, they can probably be stopped with a normal strike or a throw.

**Lindz** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 10:34am

Originally Posted by Jim_Jude

Uh... yeah... there are some strong historical connections between the deThouars family Silat and my style, all info available by way of Google. Steve Gartin is admittedly quite a character, I think the jury's still out on that one (for all parties involved)

The guys that I train with all put Willem above the rest, even though in the deThouars family hierarchy he's at the bottom, with Paul at the top & Vic somewhere in the middle. As far as the Christian bit goes, what kind of Christian practices decidedly lethal blade arts? I don't know...

Knights Templar

**jimmywangyu** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 12:25pm

Originally Posted by TheMightyMcClaw

BJJ and Silat both produce crappy self defense demos that demonstrate the effectiveness of standing armlocks on people who are willing to be armlocked as part of a demo.
The difference is, BJJ also produces individuals who are successful in combat with noncompliant opponents while clearly using a skillset learned from BJJ, and there video documentation of this.
Silat, conversely, does not produce the latter phenomenon. Furthermore, it produces a bunch of creepy ass cults - we've now had three individuals were part of Silat cults.
I know that getting kicked in the groin hurts because I've been kicked in the groin and witnessed others being kicked in the groin.
Conversely, I've yet to see Silat do anything more than mandancing and pointfighting.

I personally have not witnessed any cult followings of Silat or anything for that matter (well I am North American). Also it can be mistaken, that a different culture may seem cultish - both seem to stem from the same latin word, and when it is different from what you see, it will seem rather silly

I will however say, that Silat is useful, and works, and its a probability that it just has never been filmed in real combat or sports combat situation. Another probability is it was being used in the cage, and not noticed at all. Are you really going to be able to tell the difference between a kyokushin roundhouse to a muay thai roundhouse?

For example - Sinking Python from Human Weapon - if applied at full speed, looks like the average jiu jitsu technique, and is actually a Silat technique

**jimmywangyu** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 12:29pm

Originally Posted by grammatoncleric

The 'deadly' technique thing is marketing BS sometimes or simply ignorance. I've personally gouged eyes in 2 street encounters, according to most TMA and RBSD guys they should have been blinded and incapacitated, they weren't, however it did take the 'fight' out of them. I wouldn't do it now if I got in an encounter because I didn't like the effects, afterwards I saw the blood streaming from their tear ducts and felt like a monster.

I'm not saying that it cannot lead to serious injury, but I think the potency has been over hyped and that's dangerous if someone is into self defense. I know playing Rugby in school days that if I got a finger in the eye I would close one eye and carry on playing, and from what I've read of grappling tournaments a dirty trick is to poke the eyes, I've seen a guy in a video get it done to him, he carried on and didn't call for a DQ and won. (is that common grapplers).

Check Richard Grannon debunking that a chop to the throat is uber deadly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlu2_1ECNBs

At the same time, there are people that have survived gun shot wounds, but it does not make it less deadly...

**1point2** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 1:01pm

Originally Posted by jimmywangyu

At the same time, there are people that have survived gun shot wounds, but it does not make it less deadly...

When's the last time you saw someone willingly take a gunshot wound in order to prove they don't hurt? When's the last time that experiment worked?

<PSA>
HUMAN EYEBALLS ARE NOT JELL-O, THEY OFTEN SURVIVE MINOR STRIKES. THE TESTICLES OF MALE HOMO SAPIENS ARE NOT OFF-SWITCHES FOR THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. BULLETS PROPELLED BY HANDGUNS OR RIFLES ARE SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE POWERFUL AND DAMAGING THAN KICKS AND FINGER GOUGES.
</PSA>

**jimmywangyu** · Posted On: 3/31/2009 1:09pm

Originally Posted by 1point2

When's the last time you saw someone willingly take a gunshot wound in order to prove they don't hurt? When's the last time that experiment worked?

<PSA>
HUMAN EYEBALLS ARE NOT JELL-O, THEY OFTEN SURVIVE MINOR STRIKES. THE TESTICLES OF MALE HOMO SAPIENS ARE NOT OFF-SWITCHES FOR THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. BULLETS PROPELLED BY HANDGUNS OR RIFLES ARE SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE POWERFUL AND DAMAGING THAN KICKS AND FINGER GOUGES.
</PSA>

My point was that just because someone powered thru it, it doesnt make it less deadly, but I digress