As said, I'm not trying to say silat sucks. That would be pretty disingenuous, given that I'm the moderator for that forum. On the contrary. I'm intrigued. And questioning what you said bears no reflection on silat. I'm in Guro Dan's lineage myself, in addition to Doce Pares and Modern Arnis. I'm trying to clarify details. Not undermine entire styles. Dig?
I don't think anyone said it sucked - some, myself included, said it was not massively interesting to them at this time, but that's not the same thing at all!
No need to ask, here's the quote: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv4lCiRuUvc"]Dan_Inosanto_Panantukan_part_2.flv - YouTube[/ame]
Right. No mention of silat, unless I missed it. Though it was purely a point of historical clarity. Not technical worthiness. Silat fits nicely into what we're discussing.
Guro Inosanto didn't mention silat but the JKDbyNik's quote was almost verbatim what was said in the video. Silat has always interested me because I see a lot of similarities to the main art I study. The low line attacks especially.
Again my brothers...I am not saying that ANYONE said silat sucks. Based on tons of previous experience on forums I can tell you when people say "it wasn't interesting to me," or "I don't have the time to study that xyz," that some other new reader will dismiss the art based on that. Sounds stupid, but it happens! My approach has always been to encourage people to study other things, even if it just a mere taste. Atleast they have their own experience. Hannibal, you said you didn't have the time. I understand that, and most people here do as well. But someone who might enjoy your posts but doesn't know you personally might look at it and say, "Hannibal is knowledgeable, and if he doesn't have time for XYZ then it must be Laminaria digitata!" SO...to avoid that, (even though I understood you) I gave a reference of information to culminate thought rather than dismissal. Luckily, we have a ton of history buffs here to take our conversation into a different direction! LOL. As per my historical reference, I merely pointed out that it has been taught to people like myself that Western boxing has been influenced by Panatukan Silat. The video above, which I posted and then Please Reality reposted is Guru Dan's Panatukan Silat video in which he makes the reference as well. If you would like, I have other Panatukan Silat videos from Marc Halleck, and Ron Balicki also saying the same thing. Did it actually happen that way...well, I am too young to say!!! 1899 wasn't my era! A few of the people here don't believe so, and have been gracious in providing compelling evidence to support their argument. In return, I posted a source of my information. Again, I am not saying anyone is slamming on Silat! So please don't take it that way.
The confusion on this thread centres around the phrase "Panantukan Silat". The historical anecdotes quoted, the video of Guro posted, and what we are referring to is Panantukan. It's not Silat, and it's not Panantukan Silat, which is a phrase I have never encountered. Take that out of the equation and I think we're all on the same page.
The term may be confusing, but it is not an uncommon term (for me anyways.) The video series from Guru Dan is called..."Inosanto's Panatukan Silat," my instructorship certificates state "Panatukan Silat Combatives," although it is very openly stated in class that Silat is a blanket term referring to martial arts from Indonesia, and Panatukan is the term for Phillipino boxing (and the mother system was Silat)...but as it was taught to me we use the "panatukan" part as entry to the locks, throws, and manipulations of "Silat." So it has always been called Panatukan Silat in our circle.
Also, Panantukan\Panuntukan doesn't seem to have much historical basis in the Phillippines from what I've heard, it would have been known as Pangamut or Pangamot (or simply dirty boxing) and in practical terms would be lot simpler and different in approach to Guro Dan's Panantukan... which could be as a result of his exposure to Silat etc.
Well,if you're going to bring up history it may be debated.That's all. By the by,did I miss it or has no one has mentioned that Guro Inosanto has stated numerous times that FMA is oft referred to as "Silat" in the southern area of the Phillipines. This may help explain his name for his FMA boxing. Another thing I've heard him state on more than one occasion is that the people there took up anything they saw which was practical. As you say,Nik,there's always cultural interchange so the idea that they may have gotten some of the modern "scientific boxing" from westerners is a valid theory,at least by his stated belief. 1899 wasn't my era,either. History's kinda an avocation in my bloodlines,tho'. Students of a teacher simply repeating what their teacher told them doesn't add any weight to a theory so it's irrelevant what they say unless they've corroborated it with their own fact finding. I had teachers whose teachers told them that a dead Taoist Immortal invented T'ai Chi. My teachers' beliefs-(at that time)-in what their teachers had told them didn't add any more credibility to that piece of fiction. Just so you know I'm not slamming anyone I'll add that watching some guy perform Silat on a friend of mine who's one of his students is what turned me on to Silat,at least the general type he was doing.Think his name was Dan something or other....
FMA and Silat are closely related and often taught in synergy. I know that. Some people group FMA and Silat together and say they are the same, I know that too. Those who are passionate advocates of FMA, Silat or any Eastern system have a tendency to promote it's influence on Western culture, the extent of the truth is always open for debate. Guro Inosanto makes the distinction between FMA and Silat, he certifies the arts separately, I know because I'm looking at mine. If it says different on your certs then cool. And the clip you posted is from a DVD entitled The Definitive Inosanto Collection Volume 4: Panantukan. I'm looking at the box right now. I think we'd maybe agree that the thread has started to become a borefest of names, labels and semantics. Sorry for my part in that, let's draw a line under it.
Absolutely! But I will thank everyone for their contribution and knowledege of historical data! Some brilliant minds here!!! Cheers!
