Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:01:18 -0800 From: eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net Subject: Eskrima digest, Vol 12 #432 - 6 msgs X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.13.cisto1 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Errors-To: eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net X-BeenThere: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13.cisto1 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Subscribed-Address: fma@martialartsresource.com List-Id: Eskrima-FMA discussion forum, the premier FMA forum on the Internet. List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on plus11.host4u.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: Send Eskrima mailing list submissions to eskrima@martialartsresource.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net You can reach the person managing the list at eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Eskrima digest..." <<---- The Sudlud-Inayan Eskrima/Kali/Arnis/FMA mailing list ---->> Serving the Internet since June 1994. Copyright 1994-2005: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource The Internet's premier discussion forum devoted to Filipino Martial Arts. 2300 members. Provided in memory of Mangisursuro Michael G. Inay (1944-2000). See the Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of the Eskrima/FMA digest at http://MartialArtsResource.com Mabuhay ang eskrima! Today's Topics: 1. Info on Kampilan/Scimitar (Steven Lefebvre) 2. Re: silk (Todd Ellner) 3. Re: Silk and Kevlar (bgdebuque) 4. Re: Tonfa and Wing Tsun (Arndt Mallepree) 5. Steel -v- Steel, etc. (Marc MacYoung) 6. Tonfa - Arndt (Peter Gow) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Steven Lefebvre" To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:04:02 +0000 Subject: [Eskrima] Info on Kampilan/Scimitar Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Hello All, Ray, Great material on the Magellan account! >From the Pigafetta's Magellan death account: " One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide." ---- The Kampilans illustrated in the Resen'a Historica de la Guerra al Sur de Filipinas in 1857 were still markedly different than the Kampilans we see today. These Kampilans are TWICE as wide where the tip widens, some bow out instead of the 'teeth' prongs, or bow in at the tip instead of making the 'v', making it more of an exagerrated curve on the blade shape. The Kampilan at that time looks more like a wider, classical scimitar from the Arabian Nights (for those having trouble visualizing this). A page of it is reproduced on page 213 of 'Muslims in the Philippines' by Majul. Gumagalang Guro Steve Lefebvre www.Bujinkandojo.net --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:32:29 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: "Todd Ellner" To: Subject: [Eskrima] Re: silk Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net >I think the Mongols took the use of silk from the Chinese. Ghengis Khan >was into sacking and destroying anything not Mongolian until one of his >advisers advised him that peking(Beijing) had some intersting war >implements devised by the Chinese. On this information he spared the city >and set up based to investigate these devices. Whilst there he discovered >many facets of Chinese cultute - medicine, written language and knowledge >of many other things. I've been reading a bit about the Mongols and other Asian horse nomads lately. The scholars have a slightly different take on the Mongols than the popular one. They seem to have used terror as a tool of conquest rather than an end in itself. Areas that surrendered quickly didn't get ravaged. Ones that didn't, did, pour encourager lest autres. Mongol administration was efficient and honest if not terribly nice. They wanted the conquered people to make money so that they would have more to give in taxes. Killing the goose that laid the golden eggs was wasteful. getting it to eat and turn out the bullion was good for business. In fact, the Seljuk Turks preempted rebellions by lowering the taxes when they conquered new territory. Fascinating history. Anyhow, back to silk. It turns out the reason they used silk was because of arrows. An arrow had a very good chance of not penetrating the silk undershirt. The shirt could be carefully pulled. The arrow would come out along the same path it went in. The fabric would untwist causing the arrowhead to come out along the (spiral) wound channel doing less damage than if it were just pulled. The problem was that it tended to rot under field conditions. >He incorporated some into the Mongolian way of life >as can be seen in the modern day Korean society - the Chinese characters. >Koreans are supposed to be the decendants of Ghengis Khan. Doesn't wash. Koreans have existed as a distinct ethnic group since before the Mongols. Without any further evidence I'd have to guess it's truth is more legendary than historical. --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:25:00 -0500 From: bgdebuque To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: Re: [Eskrima] Silk and Kevlar Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Just type "kevlar silk body armor thai" in the search field of any search engine and you will get many hits on the subject. I think the experiment of Thais disclosed that 16 layers of silk are enough to stop a 9x19 pistol round. The cost (in Thailand) would be about USD150-USD200 for a Level 1 body armor. The effectiveness of silk against bladed weapons might be worth exploring specially for those who live on the "practical side" of the FMA. > -- __--__-- > > Message: 4 > From: "Peter Gow" > To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:05:57 +0000 > Subject: [Eskrima] Silk and Kevlar > Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > > the item that you mentioned regarding the Thai police using > silk as a substitute for kevlar sounds very interesting. Do you have any > more information on this? As I ampositive that many people in this forum > will be interested. > > Galang, > > Peter Gow > > Australia --__--__-- Message: 4 From: "Arndt Mallepree" To: Subject: Re: [Eskrima] Tonfa and Wing Tsun Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:16:13 +0100 Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net No I didnīt say that. He is teaching Avci Escrima aswell. But he is in charge of the self defense portion of the police forces in my part of the country. He is better known for his Wing Tsun! Arndt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gow" To: Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:09 AM Subject: [Eskrima] Tonfa and Wing Tsun > Arndt, > > Are you saying that Sifu Salih Avci who teaches Wing Tsun teaches the > tonfa as part of his Wing Tsun ? > > Regards, > > Peter Gow > > Australia > _______________________________________________ > Eskrima mailing list, 2300 members > Eskrima@martialartsresource.net > Copyright 1994-2005: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource > Standard disclaimers apply > http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima --__--__-- Message: 5 From: "Marc MacYoung" To: Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:25:43 -0800 Subject: [Eskrima] Steel -v- Steel, etc. Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > From: Ollie Batts > To: > Subject: [Eskrima]> Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > Ollie Bates quoting > Following the recent topic I contacted Master Armourer Christopher Dobson > remember that to avoid serious nicking of edges, > many parries were made on the flat of the blade, and the classic (and > wrong) > idea of warriors cutting edge to edge didn't really happen. AARRRRRRGGGHHH!!!!! Clements! Will that nonsense NEVER die!?!? Fortunately Dobson here speaks of it as "many" instead of Clements position of "never." But this premise first written about in by John Clements in Medieval Swordsmanship is a BS line that has become as embedded in Western swordsmanship as an Alabama tick BECAUSE of both FMA and Japanese swordsmanship. Okay, let's start out that I used to fight live steel, unchoreographed "brawls" at the CA Ren Faire...with a guy who, quite frankly I'm not sure wasn't trying to kill his partners. Quite naturally I returned the favor. So it wasn't tapity tapity, we were seriously trying to zap each other. Armour took most of it, but quite frankly blood frequently flew. Having dealt with a guy who was -- and I'm being polite here, the elevator didn't reach the top floor -- coming at me trying to split my skull, lemme point something out. You do WHATEVER it takes! I can always get another sword, getting another skull, however, involves reincarnation. Parries, counters and deflection were preferred, but you know what? Occasionally when it was coming at you hard and fast a block is exactly what you wanted to do. And you did it with GUSTO! So let's look at the premise that a block is slower, doesn't put you in as strong of a strategic position to riposte. Yeppers, no problem there. Using a block to stop the force (or if you are doing it right, stalling the force long enough for you to beat feet out of the way), is less slick than all the other stuff. Butcha know what? You do what you gotta do to keep from making a big wet spot. If you could parry you parried. If you needed to block edge to edge, you did it without hesitation. The idea was to be around to grind down the nicks later. One of the bigger problems that I have with Clements point is that I have tried to block with the flat of the blade. And guess what? That sword snapped right off in my hand. And if you look at the photo on www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/photogallery.html you'll see where I was standing when it happened. I have also snapped swords in the hands of other people who "blocked" with the flat, rather than edge to edge. A parry IS faster. It creates all kinds of peachy keeno, groovy cool counter physics that make life REALLY complicated for your opponent. (imagine a barrel that is spinning so fast that it looks like it is stationary, now imagine what would happen if you touched it). That's the result of incredibly subtle and fast wrist work of sword fighting. What's more, is with a flick of your wrist a block can become a parry or a primary attack can become a secondary attack. In the former you take his incoming blade, receive the power and then catapult it out of the way. The harder he is pressing, the more likely you are to blow his sword out of the way leaving him open for a counterattack that he is wide open to. In the latter, with a flick of his wrist his primary attack slides around your blade (using your blade and the energy he's feeding you as a pivot point) and you end up with a secondary slicing or gouging attack. This is over and above all the beat (abiniko) issues of sneaking past his guard. This is an attack within an attack. Thing is if you watch tapes of Clements fighting you will quite often see him MEET the incoming blade edge to edge and THEN flick his blade so the flat is facing the -- now -- deflected sword. This is NOT the same as parrying/blocking the incoming blade with the flat. You will also often see him change the range and do a backflipping the sword deflection/stall motion where the flat of his sword will meet flat of the incoming blade. Think about this logically: If the flat of my blade is hitting the flat of your blade then while the major action is being done flat to flat, the blades are edge to edge. (Get a pair of kitchen knives and try it for yourself). There the structure of the blades is strongest. It's a mothering fast move and it sets you up for putting a nasty cut across your opponent's torso. The thing is parries -- where you do not attempt to stop your opponents incoming force, but rather deflect it -- are critical components of all blade fighting strategies. They are also really important if you are dealing with inferior steel scarcity or lighter weapons. The importance of saving your blade through parrying really manifests in the absence of shields, that is to say where your blade must carry the defensive load by itself. (Again, think about it, no blade, no offense or defense) However, ye olde edge to edge block is equally important. This is especially true in light of the fact -- and forgive the gross generalization -- that Eastern arts tend to attack on the draw cut. Whereas Western attacks are most often on the outbound part of the arc. With Japanese swordsmanship, you don't need to stop a hack, you need to stop from being cut. The length of blade that most FMA moves work around is short enough that you can reach his wrist with your live hand. There's all kinds of blocking, checking and countering being done -- on the guy's wrist and hand with your hand, not your blade. Whereas with broadswords you got an ugly combo of a longer weapon and hacking attacks. It is here that the combination of armour, sword, shield and mobility becomes part of the whole offensive/defensive combo. If it's coming in on your sword side, you use your sword -- and in any way possible -- to keep it from landing. If you can parry all the better for you and worse for him. But if you need to block, then you block. Then you do your best to turn it into something else. Clements however, does these edge-to-edge-that-becomes-something-else quite often. And you know what? They work. Furthermore they are pretty well known among Western swordsmen. And that is one of the big problems when you approach this topic. It isn't that Clements is doing it right or wrong. It's about communication. The way that I define what he does is that he is saying "this" and doing "that." That is the source of both his fame and why so many people don't like him in Western swordsmanship circles. Well that and his "cold-fusion's-approach-to-science-and-scientific-protocols" but to the subject of Western swordsmanship. What Clements did -- and you have to admire his marketing savvy for this -- is to take something and state it in such a way that immediately drew attention, not to what he was doing, but to him. There are a lot of people who are just as qualified -- if not more-- than Clements in the field of Western swordsmanship. By making a flat statement that there was no edge-to-edge blocking, Clements basically said everyone else was wrong and that he was right. This immediately caught attention and rocketed him into fame. What is absolutely brilliant about this strategy are three things. #1) He's doing what other people are doing, but calling it something else. This is why it difficult to prove or disprove what he's talking about unless you really know what to look for. #2) If you do it, it works. If you ONLY know his explanation of what is happening, you think you are parrying with the flat. When in fact, any blocks, parries, counters, deflections are complex blending of physics involving the entire sword. #3) An overwhelming source of support, credibility and "references" for Clement's marketing comes from FMA and Japanese swordsmanship. Arts -- which using different blades, different technology, different quality AND quantity of steel, different body mechanics and different fighting strategies -- DON'T meet blades edge to edge that often. People defending Clements assertions are VERY fast to point that FMA and JS don't meet edge-to-edge. So that proves him correct. Realistically, this last point is like asking a podiatrist to comment on outrageous claims of a neurologist. Yeah, they're both doctors, but their area of expertise are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Thing is there are more people who are familiar with FMA and JS -- and who have bigger names -- then there are in Western swordsmanship. Clements made his name in a field where there is not as much competition by drowning out the voices of the competition. He did this using a well known concept in Western swordsmanship but phrasing it in a way that Eastern bladesmen would lend their credibility to by saying "Well, yeah..." In closing I'd like to leave you with a quote from Steve Levitt's and Stephen Dubner's "Freakonomics" "The typical ... expert, like experts in other fields, is prone to sound exceedingly sure of himself. An expert doesn't so much argue the various sides of an issue as plant his flag firmly on one side. That's because an expert whose argument reeks of restraint or nuance often doesn't get much attention. An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemize his homespun theory into conventional wisdom. His best chance of doing so is to engage the public's emotions, for emotion is the enemy of rational argument. Gotta give ol John that, he certainly caused a major flap among sword fighters. He also has attracted a lot of people whose idea of being right is to state it the loudest and most vehemently. Love him or hate him, ol' John did a fine job of marketing. Now you are always running into this version of the explination. M M --__--__-- Message: 6 From: "Peter Gow" To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:34:05 +0000 Subject: [Eskrima] Tonfa - Arndt Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Arndt, The tonfa were originally used against the samurais' sword so a stick is a little bit less dangerous and does not have the same weight as a sword. Therefore to answer your question. 1. Firstly it would depend on the circumstances. 2. The body position of the tonfa person at the time the number one strike. If you were fully aware and within striking distance of the number one then shouldn't the tonfa person just. 1. strike the other person. 2. Cuff the shoulder with the held end of the tonfa  3 Hit the hand with the tonfa. 4. Use a Jut Sao across the other person's hand or forearm depending on where the strike is coming from. 5. Raise the tonfa arm similar to Bil Sao 3. Tan da 4. Move 45 degrees and do whatever. 5. Let the strike go past and then trap. Hey if you use these in your teaching be sure to give the credit to the guys who thought about these movements over 300 years ago - probably some monks.;-) hahahahaha Hope that helps. My question to you is does the other person have anything in their other hand and do you have only one tonfa or two tonfas? As this will make a big difference! Best Regards, Peter Gow Australia --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Eskrima mailing list Eskrima@martialartsresource.net http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima http://eskrima-fma.net Old digest issues @ ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com/pub/eskrima Copyright 1994-2005: Ray Terry, MartialArtsResource.com, Sudlud.com Standard disclaimers apply. Remember September 11. End of Eskrima Digest