If you understand this, then the empty hand moves makes sense. And this is why it is NOT well suited for the UFC.
As I've recently used my allotted "cool story bro" pic for the month, I'll just say that pretty much every military ever to use close contact fighting techniques for fighting rather than to instill aggression primarily relied on sportive grappling and mixfighting a'la UFC and Vale Tudo. Look it up. Show me specifically why Silat is not appropriate for MMA but the styles of the Soviet Union, Japanese Police, US Military, Brazilian and Russian bareknuckle fighting, Greek, European and Roman wrestling do just fine.
Because most of those systems don't use weapons at all? also "weapons" does not mean "military". Incidentally my impression of silat is that it's more weapons aware than weapons based
pakarilusi, was this an idea split from another thread? Or did you just need to tell us this suddenly? If the latter then.. cake is more of a dessert food, than a breakfast food. Thats why we dont see it on breakfast menus.
Silat is a generic term like Karate or Kung Fu. There are lots of different systems that stretch across the borders of several counties. Yes, there are weapons oriented (with some of the more awesome weapons in an Asian fighting art) but the op is too much of a generalization.
For those of us with an interest in Silat, yet have minimal / no exposure, would you like to expand on that? Are you talking about fine vs gross motor skills or something - With your comparison to the UFC? Something like, perhaps more intricate movements, That we might not see say in.. Dog Brothers all out action or something? With such a general statement, as an opening to a thread, I am left with the impression that there could be a gap in understanding of stationary drilling of technique etc vs live movement and application. I do not mean to be offensive in any way saying that, and would be happy to learn more from your experiences with Silat in relation to your opening statement, as my only experience with a weapon based art is a Doce Pares seminar many years ago
Actually, I think you'll find that they all were developed and applied in the context of weaponned fighting and that most do involve a healthy amount of weapons practice either directly or in practice alongside the specific empty hand technique. The fact is, when the goal is application the most commonly trained supplement in history to weaponned training is wrestling, and it's for a damn good reason. Why are all these styles, developed, tested and used for hundreds of years in real weaponned combat, unhindered and even excellent in MMA competition while Silat is not, according to this dude? Is Silat's focus so narrow and cumbersome that its practicioners simply can't cope with a lack of a weapon? (note, this isn't actually a criticism of silat. I don't know anything about it, just questioning tired logic of the OP.)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFPO1zdZb08"]httphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFPO1zdZb08[/ame]
I see that I have shaken the hornet's nest. I meant to. Without being too cryptic, The Dogbrothers have it right and that is why they're not in the UFC doing their stuff. I'm sure you could adapt it to suit the UFC, but then it ceases to be what it is. However, being a Malay (in Malaysia) who has practiced three different Silat styles, one of which is my family style, I am privy to the "Malay mindset"... So, I will tell you that Silat would not wish to have its image be that of the "UFC". Not that there is anything wrong with the UFC (I love it!) but Silat is a "polite gentleman's art". Imho, modern fencing and kendo are much better representation of what Silat should evolve into rather than the UFC. (I am working towards this btw... ) To add, a lot of misunderstandings about the effectiveness of Silat stems from the fact that it is judged as an unarmed Art, thus dissolving its perceived effectiveness. The highly secretive nature of Silat teachers especially regarding Silat's weapon practices does not help to alter this perception. Imho of course... And yes, I love those stuff at breakfast too... But my thing is... Pancakes... Or NASI GORENG (fried rice)... Mmmmmm...
i agree. traditional schools of Silat have codes of conduct that require their techniques be kept secret and only used in life or death situations. It's a double-edged sword because if the fighting applications cannot be demonstrated and taught openly, then it's hard to propagate.
Wrestling a knife wielding individual intent on doing you harm isn't a particularly sensible idea. It's worth checking out the Dog Brothers "Die Less Often" series with Mark Denny and Gabe Suarez, good for those with or without a background in a good weapon orientated MA e.g. Eskrima/Arnis/Kali.
ok. show me. i don't know anything about silat, but i do know it is a weapons art first and foremost, so the empty hand moves should make sense to me. so show me the empty hand moves and how much sense they make um ok. what is your point? you must really think a lot of the ufc if you are measuring your using it as the yardstick by which to measure your art.
That whole video was about how the dog brothers work stuff for MMA, and many dog brothers guys fight MMA :dunno: :dunno: :dunno: As for the rest of it, very hard to empiracally prove one way or the other the effectiveness of a weapon art, and there is a vast array of Silat hand to hand techniques, which must be judged as hand to hand techniques. Again though, as I have stated in countless other threads, LARP training methods leading to fanciful applications thought up by people who've never been in a fight are the issue. If you train like in the Dog Brothers video, your art will probably be effective.
i would posit that they aren't in the ufc doing their stuff for the following reasons; they don't use weapons in the ufc the dog brothers train with weapons makes sense to me edit; i'm arguing against a straw man here if sifu_ben is right, and their members fight in mma competitions, which i think is entirely feasible. I'm going to accept his claim as true. what? why do you keep comparing a martial art to a single fight promotion? it's like comparing the blues style of guitar playing to a large rock concert. it's like comparing ginger to mangos. You must really love the ufc to keep using it as the yardstick to measure your art by. ok so you would rather your art host small amateur competitions among small niche groups then host international televised professional competitions among professionals who represent huge bodies of talent and training resources? i can understand that, though i don't really understand it. you just wrote a whole paragraph and said nothing. silat is a weapon art. it is known. you are arguing against a straw man. no one thinks it is an unarmed art.
Oh I agree that the ideal is to have and use your own weapon, but otherwise, what are you gonna do? Try and knock him out before he shanks you? And yeah, the DBMA setup is basically MMA with weapons. I don't see how mentioning them is supposed to put a gulf between MMA and what Silat guys do. Fighting, especiallly with weapons, is neither polite nor gentlemanly. You have to understand exactly how ridiculous it sounds to say "I specialize in cutting people up, but I'm far too polite to be seen as one of those guys." I mean there is a bit of an image associated with that particular promotion, but I think it's pretty clear you're using UFC erroneously to mean MMA as a whole, and they're not the same thing. If viewing Silat without weapons makes it ineffective compared to the other arts involved in MMA, why not just practice those for your empty hand component? You're making it sound like Silat is better as a part of a whole training program rather than an art in and of itself.
Whoa... Too many questions to answer really. Forgive me if I miss any... To the question "Show me...", I hope we can train together some day. No bad blood, as I respect your query to my statement bro, I really do. Why the UFC reference? Firstly, I do love watching the UFC and hold MMA fighters in high regard. Real tough guys... I train in BJJ myself, but I am just a beginner though, still a white belt. The reason I use the UFC as a yardstick however is because others I've spoken too have used it as such. That "If your Silat moves are so good why don't I see Silat guys winning in the UFC?" thingy... That's all really... As to the "polite gentleman's art" I did not mean to be callous or insensitive to the fact that killing is killing, sad and gruesome any way you look at it really... What I meant was that the older Silat practitioner's tend not to want to promote Silat as "the world's most lethal hardcore killing" Art. Just like in modern fencing (also a killing art at one time), you tone the "blood lust" image down. Certainly you CAN kill with any weapon Art, you just don't glorify that ability. Btw, I do only want a niche audience. An audience that understands this... An Art can be effective while not needing to lose its "civility". I am NOT saying that MMA practitioners aren't civil, it's just that the sport has taken it's Marketing lead from Pro Boxing it seems... Thus the Marketing is geared towards machismo, at least imo... On the contrary, you don't see this with modern fencing, even less with Kendo, even though they're also sports and they can be lethal for sure. I know, some will just say it is all just hype and marketing but I personally feel that MMA and the UFC (I lump them together I know...) have lost that "Martial Spirit", if just a little bit. As to the straw man argument, I am a bit relieved actually... I get a lot of people thinking that Silat is primarily an unarmed Art but that's just the people I meet. It must be different in the West... Again, if you want to understand Silat properly as a fighting Art, imho, you have to learn its weapons applications to do so.
