So, as some background, I have roughly two years of Pekiti Tirsia under my belt, and am a reaonable student, with no incredible well of prodigy-ish skills or the like. Last year, for about 6ish months, I was able to train Sayoc Kali with a local group leader in Austin on and off. Originally, this was mostly a dabbling thing. Aaron held his practices on nights which I had no Pekiti classes to go to, and I had an aching to do as much FMA as I could. I decided to join up because a) it was free and b) I figured as long as the different material didn't make me actively worse at pekiti, it would probably be a win-win situation for me. The worse that could happen would be that the assumptions would be different, and I would politely say goodbye as I did when I had the oppurtunity to try out inosanto kali for some time. What I found when I had train Inosanto Kali was that so many things I had learned where basic skills were simply skipped over or downplayed in their curriculum, and in many ways the systems felt distantly related except for the lameco material. By contrast, when I started Sayoc Kali, my motions were immediately right for the drills. My introduction was primarily just tapping freely, doing the drills related to the 3 of 9 vital template, Transition Drill 1, shock entries, and some other material. The rest of the group excepting Aaron himself had no FMA background prior to sayoc, and I found this evident pretty quickly. Apparently the fact that I was able to do the (compliant, knife vs empty hand) version of 3 of 9 my first night out was highly unusual. While the training was of course different, the way I was expected to move, in terms of body mechanics, foot placement, zoning and so on was always in line with my pekiti training. For example, the basic knife tapping during 3 of 9 with the sayoc guys involved using the sidestep(although much "shrunk" from how i would normally do it), something I never once did while praticing with the I/L guys. In many other ways, the demands that the sayoc methodolgy was putting on my movement was congruent with what I was learning with pekiti. My understanding is that a number of people experience with sayoc kali have also praticed pekiti at some point. So my question, for those with some experience with both- how would you characterize the relation between how they are taught or praticed right now,in terms of methods, mechanics, strategy, etc. Keep in mind, this is not a question relating to the lineage of said arts, which I could frankly care less about. Simply noting that both BJJ and Sambo come from Judo, for example, tells us next to nothing about the method of instruction and concepts, which are quite different.(BJJ tends to instruct by teaching positions first, and Sambo teaches gross physical movmeents, and then begins to derive technique from those), while things with no historical connection can be quite closely connected in their solutions(German Ringen and Japanese Jujitsu are eerily similar). My first observation would be that much of the same material in Pekiti is generally taught by isolating the root motion or gross motor movement, and refining that before individual technique is derived. Footwork and sport-speficic movements that appear over and over are drill and perfected, and then applied. By contrast, my sayoc training started, as I would put it in media res. They would have you performing the application over and over, with the hopes that the feedback from the live drill would gradualy teach you through trial and error where your feet needed to be and how you must move. To reiterate once again. I simply dont' care about the related lineage here, and I dont' think it actually does anything to answer my question to talk about it.