Uniting FMA Systems

Discussion in 'General' started by Datu Tim Hartman, May 2, 2010.

  1. I wouldn't trust most Politicians as far as I could throw them but in the Philippines?

    Might not be the best endorsement though we could do with more like Senator Miguel Zubiri....
     
  2. Rich Parsons

    Rich Parsons Member

    You opened the door - I just walked through it

    Good for you.

    It is apparent to me that you do not grasp systems nor the study of large systems.

    You have an opinion and you will stomp your foot and call names and make slight insults until you get your way. Or at least that is how it comes across.

    How is an art from the Phillipines not a FMA? I could say most people understand this but I see not all.

    Modern Arnis is not the REAL FMA.

    Nope

    Nope


    And I teach two of the three above. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in your arguement that there is a pretext that people want to have the REAL FMA, and only the REAL FMA. There are multiple solutions to this question which you have seemed to miss.

    Non sequitur - Your points do not prove your point. I do not understand a best thing to say.

    One could say there are multiple ways to express Filipino MArtial Arts. But it does not mean that there is only one FMA or only one proper way of doing something.


    I did not ask, but I will follow you -

    Personally I wrote already that arts form the Phillipines are FMA.

    Not one source. You have presented no such data.

    I will say this. When I am told to let old timers have their "Stories" to humor them, when everyone else has been told different or all the others alive from that time say differently, but they "Remember" it their way.

    When an arguement depends upon Remembering in a system a story that was told differently from different regions and islands, I see a problem.



    You have not proven that it is all from the same source.


    Not all systems have tweve strikes

    Not all hold the stick nor have the same amount of punyo as others have stated.

    Nope! - Balintawak did not have Sinawali's. Manong Bacon had seen them from his time with the Doces Pares before WWII, but he did not do them nor did he teach them. There are some branches that added them into their technique lists. They might have done it to show what others do or they might have done to keep people busy, or to stop the arguement discussion of why do you not have them?


    Yes - But the basics in the systems are different.

    I disagree. An good experienced teacher will show what others are doing. But a good instructor , can have his students come to him and ask what to do when someone does this. Then they can add it to what to show students. Usually they go back to the fundamentals of the system they are teaching.

    Some systems are only Abaniko. Some do not have it all. Your points are not valid.


    I disagree. Some Japanese systems have linear movements and others have circular motions. Of course as I have stated before if you turn 90 degrees to the circular motion it should look linear from that frame of referrence.

    I personally do not think it is there for JMA's nor for KMA's eithers.

    Why, as I stated, some have more hand then others. Some have throws and others do not. Some have ground and or joint locks while others do not. The basics are different. And the approach to teaching them are very different.


    Why? For your ego? For someone elses?

    I think it has an identity.

    Your premise as I stated was and is wrong, so this is still wrong.

    Your point that FMA is a singular point that can be measured is not something you have shown.

    Ok, as joked about already, I think I am the best authority. Do it my way. I will write it down and then it wil be done my way. I do not want to go back and relearn a different way.

    If someone else does it (* Ok Maybe Steve could do it ;) *) I would be very furstrated with the changes and new requirements and the arguements about how it was counter intuitive to the way I did things.

    So as stated a committee would be convened and given authroity to generate basics. It would be argued about for a long time if there was proper representations.

    Or it would be a group in name and have less influence than the League of Nations did.

    I do not see your point of distinction you are trying to make about Teachers and Instructors.

    One could argue that being an Instructor is better as that term is used with higher education learning.

    Not sure of your point there.



    And yes I expect one of the following responses:

    1) You suck and just do not get because:
    You are not Filipino
    You did not grow up in the Phillipines
    You did not *Insert Reason Here*
    2) You just do not see my point *pout*
    3) no reply at all just go away
    4) make comments about how everyone attacks me
     
  3. I think this thread illustrates the difficulties with "Unity". Like Mike commented, it is people that unify and not systems.

    This is exactly what happens in our group most meetings. Usually having seen something on youtube heh heh....
     
  4. gagimilo

    gagimilo Member

    One has to wonder what would be the true reason for such unification? To me, the standardized curriculum, as mentioned earlier, is not even a reason at all, maybe just a method to achieve the potential uniformity. It is funny how some people here have mentioned various other ethnic martial arts and their governing organizations, but let's see something else - do you even find all math or physics handbooks/curricula uniform at the high-school level in any country?

    Back to the reason...even if there were no any ego-driven motives in hindsight whatsoever (which is arguable), do you really believe a uniform outer look would contribute to greater popularity of FMA? And even if so, to which purpose? Becoming part of the Olympics?

    After all, if the aim is to raise the sport of FMA to a higher level, there is no need to unify the curricula as such. I believe that solid results could be achieved with a Mac-Nap scheme, as presented in the book "Cebuano Eskrima" by Nepangue and Macachor.

    I'd say that once again, Mr. Blackgrave has hit the nail and managed to summarize the whole thing as concisely as possible.
     
  5. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    The Phil. govt. wants to teach a unified or perhaps standardized version in the schools now that arnis is the national sport. Remy Presas had good success with that in the 70s, but it was his vision of the art. One person can do that, but with a committee it's different. I still say that looking at the example of the ZNKR and it's standardized iaido system, and similar standardized versions of Japanese weapons arts, is instructive. It can be done but you lose a lot of flavor and the feeling that you're studying a well-integrated system. Still, I did seitei iaido and really liked it, and it's a good launching-point for studying a true koryu system. This could be done for the FMAs too.
     
  6. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    That part was missing from Datu Tim's post though. He just put forward the question of what do we think of standardizing the styles without further clarification. They are both interesting questions, but they are not identical questions :)
     
  7. arnisador

    arnisador Active Member

    I think that what he is referring to and what I am referring to are similar but not exactly the same unification efforts--I meant what is described in this post, and official effort by the govt., and what he is talking about is an older and more individual effort...but still one based around the Phil. educational system and a desire to standardize for teaching a wider range of people, if I understand it correctly.
     
  8. Carol

    Carol <font color = blue><b>Technical Administrator</b><

    Ah! Makes more sense now :)
     
  9. The Old Way Traveler

    The Old Way Traveler a sponge for knowledge

    i agree with uniting ALL practitioners... mutual respect and admiration, that's the key!
     
  10. AmaraWarrior

    AmaraWarrior New Member

    Do all of you teach the Abecedarios? Abakadas? or ABC's of FMA? Just curious.

    Everything starts with Basic Fundamentals. Just like anything you do in life.

    Advance is just a refinement of Basics. Even GM Gogen Yamaguchi said "Master the Basics"
     
  11. AmaraWarrior

    AmaraWarrior New Member

    Mr. Parsons, Brilliant! I actually don't know where to start with you. lol
    I don't think you suck... everyone is entitled to their opinion. I guess I rushed into making some points that i thought would help make others understand my point. Everyone interprets differently and others read too much into it. Even if you disagree and pick apart my statement line by line, at least i caused feedback.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  12. AmaraWarrior

    AmaraWarrior New Member

    In an Educational level, as in the schools (which Sen. Zubiri is trying to do in the Philippines) there has to be a course or curriculum. You cannot just pick one style to teach in the school (or you will offend other styles), you have to teach Filipinio Martial Arts as a whole. Teachers from various groups will form a Standard of teaching.

    Obviously, it will start with basic fundamentals then progress from that. Explain what the major systems are and teach its underlying principles as it relates to each other. Then the student can have an overall understanding of different styles. When they reach a certain level, it is up to them to specialize in one system or systems and hopefully become experts. At least a students basic foundation consists of an overall knowledge, which can make him a 'Black Belt' of FMA and not a particular style.

    When in college, You take Basic 101 courses, then progress to 102, 103, etc... try different subjects within that field. But after you declare your major, you start to think of what you want to specialize in. Would you rather be a Corporate lawyer over a Prosecutor? Physician or Surgeon? FBI agent or Police officer? Although you specialize in Genetics, you started with a basic foundation of Biology.

    So how do we do the same for FMA?
    Senator Zubiri, is trying to form a Committee to oversee the Educational Curriculum. He fought to make FMA the National Sport of the Philippines. We should all help and contribute to this.
     
  13. AmaraWarrior

    AmaraWarrior New Member

    Yes, it will be a Basic Foundation course. An "Intro" as you said to FMA and the various components. Explain to the student what those different groups are all about and the differences or simiplarity between them. We are all different and prefer different things. Some might like close range fighting, some long range, and some sport over reality combat. Some might not like sticks/swords and want to specialize in Dumog.

    I started training in Amara. When i went to the Philippines, I trained with Master Bambit Dulay and GM Sioc Glaraga. Two very different systems, but because of my good foundation of basics, I was able to follow what they taught and drills they gave me. So basics if very important! Unfortunately, some schools don't focus on that and what to jump into 'Advanced'. Not just in FMA but in other martial arts.
     
  14. AmaraWarrior

    AmaraWarrior New Member

    I believe Senator Zubiri would be the best to answer that questions. Not sure who will be in the committee he forms. I did hear Professor Armando Soteco will be one of the Advisors. Maybe you can ask him, what the plan is.
     
  15. AmaraWarrior

    AmaraWarrior New Member

  16. Datu Tim Hartman

    Datu Tim Hartman FMA Talk Founder Supporting Member

    Personally I think it would be nice to have a 101 martial arts course that all arts should take. Unfortunately we run into several issues:

    ·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]What should be taught?
    ·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Who will train the instructors?
    ·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]How to reach everyone?
    ·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]What do you do with the people whom choose not to participate?

    It has been mentioned multiple times in this thread that not all fma systems have the same basics. They may have similar concepts, but different ways of developing them. I’m certified in 5 different fma systems. Some of the things I’ve been taught contradict what’s taught in others. This poses a challenge for a 101 course.

    So at the risk of sounding like an ass, do you know what you’re talking about? What is your training experience? How many styles, teachers, years, etc? Is your training experience broad or narrow, deep or shallow? I know that these questions can be perceived as an attack, but they aren’t. I think a problem some maybe having is that you’re the new guy here and we don’t know anything about you.
     
  17. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Brit with a stick

    Sorry, but you can have unification without standardisation , we here in the UK have done it with the British Council of Kali Eskrima Arnis Instructors take a look. Yes I think there are inherent problems when you try to standardise an art such as FMA, like has been said, who gets to choose what is done and how it is done, it may well contradict what a particular group does as basics, and of course if you do involve fees, money and standardisation you get disputes as one person sets the so called standards and takes the fees and all the others have to follow suit.

    Put it this way, who am I to tell you how you should do something and just because I do it a different way does not mean your way is wrong, it is just different and the way you prefer to do it. Hence we at the BCKEAI do not tell anyone who they should teach their system/style/group and we dont charge any fees, we have simply united for the promotion and betterment of the FMA as a whole, and yes it does work, we have 99% of the styles/systems in the UK represented by the head instructors of those styles/systems in the UK.

    But they way they are going about it will not work as a whole, but can work if it is part of the education system. For if the FMA is to be taught in schools and universities across the country then of course they will expect a standardised curriculum to work from as you would expect, after all every other subject has a standard curriculum, it is only if you want to specialise ina a certain subject do you then go on to higher education and delve deeper in to the subject, so in a way I can see what they are trying to acheive, maybe the message is being misinterprested and written in such a way that it can easily be misinterpreted. We have to look into the reasons for the suggestion of standardisation and unification of such before thinking it will never work, everything if done the right way can and will work.

    Just my thoughts

    Pat
     
  18. Pat OMalley

    Pat OMalley Brit with a stick

    No offence here although I appreciate what he done for martial arts as a whole, Bruce Lee himself never actually delved deep into any style or learnt them to any great degree to actually be critical of a style and after all he is said to have been constantly studying other styles in order to imrove his own personal style, so really if we look deeper you may well see that even Bruce Lee could see that every style had something to offer and no style was 100% perfect or we would all be doing it would'nt we? What I am trying to say here is you fiirst have to know a system/style inside out before you can really critise it, and let be honest I think most people actually misunderstood what Bruce Lee meant when he was talking about styles, I think he was more critising individuals for getting stuck and blinkered by a style as opposed to actually critisising styles themselves, after all it is not the style that is weak or strong, it is the person performing the style that is.
     
  19. jonhy

    jonhy New Member

    ..unite the people, then maybe the styles..and that's a big maybe.. :)
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2010
  20. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Member

    Seems like this is kinda putting the cart before the horse. I don't see a need to have a standard curriculum for all FMA taught in schools in the Philippines. And I certainly don't see the need for it in places (like the United States) where FMA are not being taught in the school system.

    I don't know why schools wouldn't simply hire an FMA teacher who's recognized as being adept at some recognized form of FMA. AmaraWarrior, you mentioned that you couldn't choose one style over another for fear of offending the other styles. But if there's a teacher position open, people interview, someone gets the job, and that style gets taught. Different styles are going to be taught at different schools. No big deal. It's not like most people doing FMA in their Phys Ed class are going to be saying, "dammit, I wanted Largo Mano!" They're going to learn what's presented to them by that teacher.

    And then, if it sticks as anything more than a phys ed class you were required to do, you're free to seek out further instruction elsewhere. At which time, you're probably going to recognize for yourself the similiarities and differences between different methodologies, styles, teachers, etc.

    I think standardization is the last thing you'd want. Precisely because it's being used in an educational setting. If the value of FMAs extends beyond learning how to hit something with a stick, machete, hand, etc., that value lies in the arts' ability to serve as a window into a culture. And the Pilipino culture isn't homogenous or standardized. The differences in styles reflect the differences in people and places within the overall label "Philippines."

    Standardizing FMA makes it less reflective of its parentage. Not moreso.

    Just my view.


    Stuart
     

Share This Page