“Curriculum Based” Drills No.1-101

J

John J

Joined
Nov 18, 1999
Messages
74
The training methods in the Filipino Martial Arts rely heavily on drills. Although many are essential in developing certain attributes, we have seen a surge of “curriculum based” drills that seem to be nothing more than a tool used to misguide and isolate one’s progression.

A drill should target specific areas of required development such as defense, counter / re-counter or energy, to name a few. Once a student understands the basis of a particular drill, he should not dwell on variations. A student will NOT improve any further from variations. If anything he will only get accustomed to memorizing preset movements and dead patterns. Furthermore, the practitioner gains a false sense of confidence in his skill and/or the technique. Why?, because such exercises are “fully assisted”.

The only sure way to hone your skills and develop reflexive responses is through constant sparring, isolated or scenario based drills. Although a drill can have a base to work off of, it should eventually “free flow” unrehearsed and not choreographed. They should be “alive” with REAL energy, intensity, aggression, resistance, etc.etc.etc…

If the drills you do aren’t “alive” then your wasting your time. The only variation that should come into play is through your own personal touch. The next time you work such a drill, break from the norm…you may get a few surprises.

John
BAKBAKAN International
 
when you fight there are three ways to throw your hits. first you can just tap the opponent in the right places or to safe places (like the shoulder instead of the head, the thight instead of the shin). second way, you can hit to sting, so you aim at meaty parts of the body, and there is more power, even full power, but you are not hitting the head or any bones like the forearm or knees. the last one is full power to everything, no matter if you are hitting with a cushion stick or a cushioned body.

the reason i bring up these kinds of hits, is, that you have to understand the kinds of hits, not how much power you use, but what kind of strikings are you using. a full power hit, which some people might call a slash or cut, hits the target and goes through the same path. the hit to sting, will focus some strong power to the opponent, but it stays a little longer on the target because we are not trying to crush him, only to sting him. the last one will snap back, which some people will call a flick or tap. each one of these hittings, will have a different kind of skill attached to it, and you will have to practice them separately AS that kind of HIT!

in your drills, you will have to decide if your strikings fit into one of these category. are you striking with power to the opponent and pause for a second? this is the kind of hit you will use when you do the sinawali two-stick drill with power. are you trying to break a rattan with your hit? if you are you will be practicing the power hit, or cut. your stick will not stop at the target. are you trying to speed up your drill, or strike the opponent before he can block, or are you trying to draw him into a certain movement so you can strike from another direction?

so this is my point. how most people practice, and even so-call experts" do it too, is they dont think of what purpose they are striking, but just that it has to be #2 then #5 then #2. they go only 50 percent power, there is no real target except the opponent stick for your hit, and there is no danger of getting hit yourself. he does not have to correct his timing, because the worst thing will happen is, he will miss his opponent stick, mess up the "flow", or get hit on his hand or head.

if you are training for fighting, then you will have to train your hits the same way you plan to hit in the fight. you will have to get away from the "basic" 6, 8, 12, 21, 64 etc. your opponent might duck, he might shield his head with his hand, you might want to hit while he is falling, or whatever. when your practice is "dead" and very strict and perfect lines, etc, you will not be ready for surprises, because you can only react to the patterns of improvising we find in your drills. fighting is an unpredictable thing, and when you do hit patterns only (drill), your timing and speed and reflex wont just pop out like magic just because your developing "attributes". you will have to spar for those unpredictable things like john is talking about. "tmb", which is what a boxer will say about sharp looking fighters who cant fight, too much bag training, not enough fighting.

i will say this like i said it one million times, the drill is a new thing, which is made to entertain foreign students, who will get bored just executing strikes for 2 hours. the sad thing is now, world famous pilipinos specialize in them, and the traditional fight-based teachers are the ones who look like we dont know what is "real Arnis".
 
i read before that some arnis teachers wanted to make arnis training "safe" so more people will want to do it. what this did is make people afraid of the weapon and a little bit of pain. so now we have arnisador who knows more forms than fighting strategy. so now arnis is just like karate with weapons, or even worse, kung fu with weapons!

this is what makes arnis and eskrima very special, that the people who do it, spend all there time practicing fighting. in other martial art styles, they put fighting as secondly important, so they will only spend 10% of the time fighting. so what do they spent most of the time doing? drills, theory collecting new ways to do the same thing.

there is a saying that a good arnis fighter should be able to beat his opponent with only two hits (number/angels of attack, etc). can you do that? the sparring match is a very fast actioned thing, that most people never really see what he himself is doing. the attacks are blurry, and when he finished the fight, he cant even remember what he did in the fight. this is because his eyes are to slow, even too slow for his own hands. and in a fight this is dangerous, because if the oppoent brings out a blade, you might get cut before you even SEE the knife! and if you ask any old fighters, notice i said "fighter" not "teacher", how to increase the speed in your eyes, he will tell you "fight". drills are to slow, and people become good at doing drills, and think they know to fight. since he can catch you if you "change it up" on him. take the best driller, and the worst driller, but teach them to fight at the same time, the skill level will be the same.

by the way i am a terrible driller, but its going to be hard to hit me in fighting.

and i know that i am not alone. one of my friends, who is a student of cacoy canete, who's name is guy kinanahan, never does any kind of drill, but i challenge 90% of the people around to try and take his stick, i bet they cant do it. look to the old men in our community who use to be fighters, but they dont teach in seminars, what will they teach you? fighting tactics, then they will want to see if you can do it in a fight.

another friend of mine, named kenny willis, he calls drills "seminar fillers". they take up time, and they are fun, then when you show somebody who cant do them, they say "WOW, awesome stuff!", like you kick his ass or something. they are entertainment tools. if you want to train fighters, you will have to forget about making most average people interested in your style. teach them to fight, and let the showman do the entertaining. fighting is not for everybody.
 
I have rather mixed opinions about drills. On one hand, they can have something to offer to practitioners of all levels and on the other, they can be a smidge tedious and divorced from reality.
In the end, I have to say that they are usefull, but they have to be appreciated for their intent and done with reality in mind. For example, one can work block, check counter off of all their strikes and get nothing more than dented cane. On the other hand, their partner can choose to strike for the body and one can defend, forced to zone properly, work their footwork and proper hand tehnique.
Not all drills can be pure combat. SOme are usefull simply because they aid people in working some essential rudiments. After all, burning the movements of gunting into one's muscles is easier in a simple training drill, without having to worry about real-time retaliation. Once those rudiments are in place, real-time drills will mean a great deal more.
I have had the good fortune of having a teacher who brings a bit of battle into even the simplest of drills. This has led me to believe that it is only a lack of intent and creativity that make a drill useless.
 
i think the best drills can be used for two purposes. first to do one movement or combo movement for repitition and coordination, speed and power. the second for fighting skill. if you want fighting skill you will need three things
1. no control or knowledge of the opponents movement.
2. your opponent doesnt have control of your movement.
3. you are able to speed up and add power later.

in number one, i mean that maybe i know what technique or techniques my opponent will throw, but i dont know which one, how much power or speed, where he will hit, and when hes going to throw it.

in number two your opponent cant know the same about you.

in number three you will have to move your match to full speed and at least medium power.

i call sinawali and those kind of give and take useless because they dont have any of these three. another reason i say that is because the kind of hit you do in a give and take drill is not the kind of hit you use in fighting, even light contact sparring. the drills people say that have "attributes" and all that garbage, they are stick to stick, meaning you are aiming to meet your stick with the partner stick, not trying to hit him. this is not good practice for fighting. there is another better way to get speed timing distance and power for your technique, not always bashing the opponent head.

and then drills with no fighting practice (two minutes for every minute of drill at least) will give you so many bad habits.
 
"Not all drills can be pure combat"

True, all drills aren't meant to enhance your fighting skills. They serve various purposes. However, the MINDSET when dealing with weapons or even empty-hands should always be from a combat perspective. The MINDSET should be consistent throughout your training as well. Remember, "You FIGHT how you TRAIN".

"i call sinawali and those kind of give and take useless"

I somewhat disagree. I believe the drills you are referring to are the most basic and common of all...stick tapping. They are fine as an introduction to the movement, angles of attack, hand and body positioning and even footwork. Although, you are correct to say that "this is not good practice for fighting". In fact, what many neglect to realize is that many Sinawali techniques are used for both offensive and defensive. There are subtle parries and hidden applications that should be practiced on it's own, not through stick tapping.
 
Although I believe wholeheartedly in freeflowing - the way to establish correct response is to introduce variations in a structured manner. For instance in Sayoc Kali we do transition drill s- each drill is a variation because they work different areas to make a complete fighter.

I do agree that to make redundant drills is silly and does promote memorization. The drills should also progress in terms of what you could work on. You can freeflow from a set parameter (as in use only angles from a particular drill but randomly) to focus on getting the correct response.

There's so many variables in a knife situation that I don't feel one drill is enough. You have to cover so many ranges, binds and grappling situations.

--Rafael--
------
-------
-------
 
in my school we use the old mans approach to teaching. which is almost like how training is done in the boxing gym. i teach the strikes (first the 1-6, then 7-11, etc). then we give footwork and body movement. then hitting with advancing (triangle and box step). then hit by combinations. then hits with the interruption of the empty hand. then the counter attackings. then sparring. after a couple levels of this kind of stick against stick, we do the same thing for stick against the empty hands. they learn both sides, fight empty hand against the stick, and then fighting stick against the empty handed opponent.

most of the time for the beginner in the first two years, he is doing many reps of the basic hits. when he is finished our 24 hits, he has a good strong and fast hit. then we can move to the hardwood and blades for the intermediate. we never have a problem with coordination except the beginning people.

if you have trained with a old man, he will probably bore you to death because he will make you hit branches for 1 hour before he gives you any strategies or counterattackings. but he does it to give you a strong basic attack. in my opinion, arnis schools today spent too much time on intermediate and advance technique, and ignore building of the basics. today i can tell by looking who learned slow, and who learned in the seminar, even with filipinos. drills based students hit one way, and fighters hit differently.
 
>the way to establish correct response is to introduce variations in a structured manner.

Do you mean “correct technique” such as a parry vs. block or “reflexive response” an action based on reflex?

There is no such thing as a “correct response”. In a real life violent engagement, what one man WILL do will differ from the next. What one man CAN do another may not. It is literally impossible to duplicate the realities of the street. To dictate a students response is counter productive and puts him/her at risk.

>we do transition drills-they work different areas to make a complete fighter.

I've seen the drills you are referring to and the various elements added. From basic parrying to checking, checking the blade draw, locking, body manipulation, variety of blade use, energy, striking, grabbing, counter & re-counter, knees etc…

However, my concerns lead to skepticism. How effective are the drills when engaged with greater intensity? Consider my criticism nothing more than ignorance.

>In my opinion, arnis schools today spent too much time on intermediate and advance technique, and ignore building of the basics.

I don’t believe there are intermediate & advanced techniques in weapons training. Those terms seem best suited for defining ones skill level. When a practitioner is able to execute the basics effectively and proficiently under vigorous conditions, it could then be considered an “advanced” technique.

John
BAKBAKAN International
 
"I don’t believe there are intermediate & advanced techniques in weapons training. Those terms seem best suited for defining ones skill level. When a practitioner is able to execute the basics effectively and proficiently under vigorous conditions, it could then be considered an “advanced” technique. "

i agree with you about there is no intermediate and aadvance technique, when you look at what most of the people out here are showing to be advance and intermediate. but i have a simple use for "intermediate" and "advanced"
my "beginner" techniques: all the hits with the stick, how to strike at the different distances. (long distance requires a different kind of hit than a short distance/close quarters), and ways to attack

my intermediate" techniques: counter attacking techniques, and what we call the abaniko or pikiti tirsia style, or close range fighting. all of the parry, trappings, and use of the butt of the stick. how to fight unarmed man with your weapon.

my "advance" techniques: use of the empty hand against the different weapons, and use of the circular footwork in your close range fighting, and the long weapons.

of course, during the practice at the higher level, we still spend a lot of time doing our basic stroking practice, because advance level and advace idea without advance skills is just a confused beginner, which is what i see in most of todays "guro". people do think you become advance by having more complicated stuff to do. but i teach slow, and most of the training should be very high number of the same basic skills practice, which is something seminar people dont want to do. i believed that this is why we have so many drills and "variation" so that the seminar teachers can have something new to teach every seminar instead of training his student in the basics.
 
>>the way to establish correct response is to introduce variations in a structured manner.>>
-------------
Do you mean ³correct technique² such as a parry vs. block or ³reflexive response² an action based on reflex?
---------
Correct Response is different from Reflexive response. When Sayoc Kali refers to Reflexive response it is what someone will do regardless of prior training. It is a logical movement. There are four reactions to a stabbing for instance- all are reflexive responses. If you look at any video from prison surveillance or if you know any correctional officers- they will be able to note what those four reactions are when you mention them. They'll go- "yes, that happens all the time when the shiv is used here and there" etc. That is Reflexive response.

Conditioned Response is what a trained knife person would do- for instance the gunting movement is a conditioned response.

Correct response is the next logical stage of an attack. Correct technique is the drill and correct techniques look good on paper but are not Correct Responses the way we approach them. Correct response is the ingrained reaction that is closest to responding or moving on a person that will least likely get you killed.

<<There is no such thing as a ³correct response². In a real life violent engagement, what one man WILL do will differ from the next. What one man CAN do another may not. It is literally impossible to duplicate the realities of the street. To dictate a students response is counter productive and puts him/her at risk. >>

Not necessarily- when you teach a student not to respond with their arteries facing front on their grabs or binds that is teaching them correct technique. However, when you teach them correct response they know that the cross body knife tap parry most all FMAs do is open to killshots. So you freeflow and show them where the passable areas are. They now have it beyond mere technique or theory. They now are aware of the correct response and can train so they do not expose that. yet it isn't a reflexive response since the natural newbie way to move would only get one killed.

When you teach them that a man who has a raised arm automatically shields their subclavian arteries naturally, you know that if you thrust or are being thrusted into that area- what the correct responses are. Not only are they now reflexive and natural movements but the student knows 'why' they are.

>we do transition drills-they work different areas to make a complete fighter.
-------
<<I've seen the drills you are referring to and the various elements added. From basic parrying to checking, checking the blade draw, locking, body manipulation, variety of blade use, energy, striking, grabbing, counter & re-counter, knees etcŠ

However, my concerns lead to skepticism. How effective are the drills when engaged with greater intensity? Consider my criticism nothing more than ignorance. >>

No offense taken. Since I'm not sure which drill s you have seen- I'll have to say that anying we do in the drill we apply at force or go very hard. We also free flow and do scenario drills where people get bruised up but apply the drills into reality.

Effectiveness has to be based on your students. Since many of our students are law enforcement, military or hardcore martial artists in their own right - from JJ to boxing to just about any style or system... they want to feel for themselves what the drills teach them when placed in a situation.

A simple observation- in a JJ guard there are ways to deploy the blade when you are in the guard or the one doing the mount. Consider where the targets are most susceptible. The guy in the guard thinks he can stay alive if the knife guy is not attacking his throat and chest cavity- never considering that in a guard the femoral arteries are the major lethal targets.

I'll have to say that even something simple like checking a blade draw has saved my life in reality. I got to someone's knife before they did and that changed his "sneak" attack 180 degrees.

Naturally each person has their own attributes and bias to their favored move- stuff that works for them all the time. Hence the phrase 'Transition" drills- use the material in the transition drills to find what works best for your fighting skills. Some grapplers that we have that weigh over 250 lbs and can benchpress a truck will love movements that cater to their body type, while a person that weighs a hundred pounds less and are more hit and run types will gravitate to moves in the transition drills that work for them.

What most outsiders see is this plethora of movement- and wonder if the student has to apply all these moves just like in the drill... not the case- if the person studying has three/five moves that they KNOW works for them in just about every transition drill movement then they can be confident that they have the correct response to any linear or non linear etc. attack.

Granted no one is invincible but outside of just freeflow training - there has to be a rhyme and reason for everything you do. Freeflow just to freeflow or sparring just to spar will not focus the student enough. One has to have an answer to any situation to make them as close to ready as possible. To study the blade efficiently, each target you work on does contain natural reaction(s).

Respectfully,
--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali
-------
------
------
 
To add to the above post- the paste/copy of one of one of the quotes did not show on the post- When I refer "Not necessarily..." it was refering to the quote,
"There is no such thing as correct response..."

Salamat.
--Rafael--
----------
------
--------
 
Rafael, I guess it would be easier to just say, "we do what we do and they do what they do". I still don't believe in "correct response" because my approach is to build the defense as a reflexive response. We are entitled to our opinions right, so let's move on.

>No offense taken. Since I'm not sure which drill s you have seen-

I saw transition drills 1-5 on Nick’s (Sacoulas) website. Assuming this is your orientation to blade defense, here are some of my concerns:

1) In some points it seems as though the “knifee” is dictating the “knifers” movement.
2) The slashes seem to glide rather than pull.
3) The thrusts are not committed.
4) There is an overabundance of unnecessary parries.
5) The participant’s bodies often square throughout the drill allowing the most vital areas to be exposed.
6) ***NO REAL energy, aggression or resistance***

>Effectiveness has to be based on your students.

Are you making a distinction between what is effective vs. more effective? No matter whom you teach, the bottom-line is results. It’s either effective or not. Is it practical & applicable under REAL conditions in today’s Society? Although true that different body types have limitations, are you stating that the defenses were developed based on physical attributes? Furthermore, teaching LEO & Military personnel is just geared to specific aspects of their job environment. .

>I'll have to say that even something simple like checking a blade draw has saved my life in reality.

Very true, concealment & draw tactics are essential.

John
 
Originally posted by Sun Helmet
However, when you teach them correct response they know that the cross body knife tap parry most all FMAs do is open to killshots.
Click to expand...

SunHelmet,

Can you please elaborate? BTW, great thread. Thank you.


Lcf2727
 
Usually when I copy and paste the text seem to drop out so if it does here. the answers are to John's 1-6 questions on the clips from the Sacoulas site.

1) In some points it seems as though the ³knifee² is dictating the ³knifers² movement.

answer:
1.) Sayoc Kali is a Feeder based system.. WE have the knife. Defender is a victim's word.

2) The slashes seem to glide rather than pull.

answer:
2. Maybe the actual clip reduction etc. but the slashes come in all variety and intention all meaning to hurt.

3) The thrusts are not committed.

answer:
3. Well each transition drill move is supposed to touch and 'move' the intended vital target. Also, depends what you mean by commitment. I can cut a carotid artery with aflcik of a blade. We don't hack we cut and one can cut ten times to vital areas faster than one can hack at limbs and bony areas. We drain the bucket. Blade arts are based on allowing the blade to hurt the target. They are not trying to cut a tree down. One hack can lead to thirty little holes in the heart.

4) There is an overabundance of unnecessary parries.

answer:
4. If one is alive then it isn't unneccesary. Any parries you see is necessary - it is there because it counters something you are not seeing yet.

5) The participant¹s bodies often square throughout the drill allowing the most vital areas to be exposed.

answer:
5. Each transition drill has a purpose. Ones vital areas are always exposed front, back or sideways. Name a posture and one can cut a vital sooner or later.
Transition drills cover these and after that there are other drills that work on other areas.

6) ***NO REAL energy, aggression or resistance***

answer:
6. Don't let the internet fool you. You're probably the first person whose ever said we train too light...heh. Ask around. You're looking at two Dog Brothers on that clip- do you think they would be doing this if it were too light?

best,
--Rafael--
--Sayoc Kali--
-----
-----
---
 
<<Are you making a distinction between what is effective vs. more effective? No matter whom you teach, the bottom-line is results. It¹s either effective or not. Is it practical & applicable under REAL conditions in today¹s Society? Although true that different body types have limitations, are you stating that the defenses were developed based on physical attributes? Furthermore, teaching LEO & Military personnel is just geared to specific aspects of their job environment. . >>

I think this is a semantic thing.. I believe we agree here.
I meant effective -as in it doesn't unless it works for your students.

We don't do defenses.

On the LEO thing- it still has to be effective or they die. You might have to elaborate further on this if I don't understand what you are refering to.

--Rafael--
---
 
in my opinion, the thing that is important in deciding what is good and what is not good, is, do you have the speed, timing, reflex and the "eyes" (can your eyes catch the opponents movement fast enough) to make this technique work.

some techniques need more speed and timing to work, and some need fast reflexes. depending to the bravery of the fighter using the technique, some people need to see the technique fast enough to react to it. and then, some people just need courage and no fear of getting hurt.

it is easy to come up with a reason a certain technique is not going to work, for the beginner, he is easy to discourage from using a technique, or easy to convince a technique is good. how many times did you hear a guy say, if you did that, i will do this. its like inexperienced grapplers who think they can take one punch to get to your legs, they didnt think about who is punching, and can you take anybody punch. or jeet kune do people who think trapping worked for bruce lee, so its going to work for me. there is more to fighting techniques, than does this work or does that work. the fighter needs certain qualities, like true speed and power, quick eyes that stay open in an attack, reflexes, ability to read what the opponent wants to do, courage, and most important, pain tolerance. when you have this, the fighter can make even wu shu work in a street fight.

so, to answer one question that i read on another topic (what is an advance arnis/eskrima technique?), the answer is developing the qualities and mental of a true fighter. and the next highest level to that is, learning how to develop it in somebody else.
 
Good points all around, kuntawman.

There's many times when one student can tap a knife away that another student might need both arms to acheive the same thing. It all depends on who is attacking whom. So I wholeheartedly agree, furthermore I'd add an idea of sensitivity or body placement/awareness. Where they are, what their body can and cannot do etc... is all part of sensitivity.

John, I think I'm seeing where the 'correct response' and 'reflexive response' terms are confusing. We use these terms in Sayoc Kali because many students have reflexive and conditioned responses already depending on their experience. To avoid confusion in a teaching environment - we know that when we speak of correect response it is not what they were doing before- it is what they need to work on now. The training shows that what they were doing before was either the way to get oneself killed fast or leads to an incomplete movement. Most new students will say " I have relexes" - yes they do but it may be the wrong response even though they do it very fast. Or they may say " I have a conditioned response to this ______ move" and again it is a conditioned response that is not the best way to get to the same place. I checked out the Defendu site and in there is an article on practice that speaks of similar concepts as correct response- just different terminology.
Well, enough on that.

Back on the transition drills question, I just read the part that said, " Assuming this is your orientation to blade defense". Well it is part of the orientation to the blade but it is not the whole training process. So many of the concerns you have are answered once you try the drills and learn where they fit in the grand scheme of the curriculum.

Btw, correction on the spelling:'BaKbakan' in my prior postings.

best,

--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali
-------
-------
--------
 
hi i did forget one thing i would like to add.

there is always a counter for every attack, and there is a counter for every counter attack. so, because of this there is no such thing as a superior technique, they can all be countered. but some people will say, there is a better way to do something, like a faster way, or a more powerful way, and a more damaging method to counter or to attack. since we have all these "superior" methods, which one is "best"? the answer is, none of them is the BEST way to do something. each opponent is weak to something, and we all have a different strength. we have to know our own strengths, what we are able to do the quickest, what is our strongest technique, which of our technqiues is the hardest to see, etc., and match that to what the opponent will fall for. or what we think we can use to do the most damage to the opponent. or what will intimidate him the most.

there are so many things we have to consider when trying to beat the opponent, and the superior fighter is the one who can identify the most mental types of opponent, his fighting habits, and his intentions, and then make up the decision how he will beat the opponent-either crush him faster than he can stop you, or take away his heart and then beat him, counter his attack and beat him, etc. the superior fighter is the one who can decide all of this and put his plan into action and beat the opponent most efficiently. (wheew)

if i succeeded to confuse anyone, let me know and i will try to explain it better. my point about beating the opponent, is you have to train all your skills and characteristics, and study the opponents methods of attack, study the countering methods, and then get enough time building up your ability to beat the different kinds of opponents. we can discuss all day which method is best, but at some point you going to have to proved that it works, and then even then, it only proved that it worked against one man. i think we should spend our time developing our ability to destroy opponents with the skills that we have and the knowledge that we know. the more things you learn, the longer it will take you to master all of them.
 
Hey Rafael,

Thanks for your continued replies. So in short, you do cover blade defense in conjunction with introducing the vital templates. I understand and can appreciate it.

You said:> We don't hack we cut and one can cut ten times to vital areas faster than one can hack at limbs and bony areas. Blade arts are based on allowing the blade to hurt the target. They are not trying to cut a tree down. One hack can lead to thirty little holes in the heart.

My point was on thrusts not hacks, cuts or slashes. Besides the average carry blade doesn’t have the weight or size to effectively hack. No need to address any further.

>I can cut a carotid artery with a flick of a blade

Impressive as that may seem, I will not even comment.

>Ones vital areas are always exposed front, back or sideways.

True, vital areas are not limited to the front but they are also not always fully exposed to easily inflict the damage.

>Don't let the internet fool you. You're probably the first person whose ever said we train too light...heh. Ask around. You're looking at two Dog Brothers on that clip- do you think they would be doing this if it were too light?

With all due respect, the clarity was clear enough for me to view some legitimate points of concerns. It could not have smeared my overall perception. I also doubt I am the first person or only person to share such views. However, I may be the first person to express them openly but as nothing more than constructive criticism. I have no interest in debates. The fact that Nick and Rodney are affiliated with the infamous DB Clan means nothing nor validates training methods in general.

Let's be clear that my remarks are of self opinion only and not bias to Bakbakans training methods. I too have deviated from some areas of common practice.

With Respect from One Filipino Martial Artist to Another,

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top