When I mentioned earlier in this thread that in W de Thouars book 'Journey through Time' he states most of the west Javanese Silat systems come from Kuntao styles (Cimande - Bagua, Serak - Hsing I etc)... The notion was A) denied forcefully B) W de Thouars was slagged off...He only possessing about 60 plus years of training... Muay Thai is definitely NOT Silat. Not in a million years. There are technical and conceptual crossovers between Indo/Malay Arts and Thai Arts...But the Key Core Principles are completely different. Even within the older systems such as Muay Chiaya, Muay Korat etc. There's very little of the Maximum Efficiency/ Adhesion Principle in Thai Martial Arts. Mostly they're not bothered about whacking somebody 15 feet then chasing after them. Whereas that's an absolute no-no from a 'Silat pov'. All the Silat encountered thus far by me (please note those words) has made a point of this 'sticking to/ adhesion'. As in collapsing your opponent's structure as close to you as possible - As a general rule. And of efficiency. Thai Martials aren't that bothered by efficiency. Even Muay Chiaya with it's 'durian' structure isn't bothered too much about it. Ah the stupid westerners - They don't get the 'it' - Of course I see the light now...I'm pretty sure they're smart enough to get that there's loads of different styles. Just like 'Kung Fu'. What I'm saying is pretty simple - So far - All the systems of 'Silat' experienced by me - have contained the same identifiable Principles. Together as a conceptual whole. This of course is subject to change :hat: And I look forward to continuing to experience more Silat. As at their heart they are highly-sophisticated principle-based systems. It's just a pity the training methods are so weak
I hope you do continue it b/c there are few people in your position-- people who have the inclination and resources (background in MT, sparring partners, gear) to test the material with a resisting opponent. I would love to see some video of that. what it comes down to is that some have a higher standard of proof when it comes to determining if a fighting technique works or not-- i consider myself to be one of these people (probably b/c I started studying kali/silat after a few years of kickboxing and BJJ). Others are willing to take a leap of faith that the techniques work b/c the founder of a particular system was supposedly some kind of superman 200 years ago or b/c they are being taught by their father, uncle, religious guide, etc...
I agree, there is a definite chinese influence in a lot of silat. Part of the problem in pinning this down is that very little of silat (none) is documented in a non-verbal tradition. So links to the past can become obscured. Actually, if you've been following the discussion thus far you would understand that it would be acceptable that Muay Thai falls under the umbrella term silat as well. My relatives in Thailand would also agree. There are technical and conceptual crossovers between most martial arts ... and people who talk as if there's a unified 'Indo' art show their complete and utter ignorance. I accept that you've been taught something along these lines ... or you've read about them in Kung Fu magazine or something ... but its generalising. You aren't actually saying anything meaningful. A silat P.O.V? You haven't understood anything said thus far if you can parrot on about a singular silat p.o.v!! There is NONE. It also highly unlikely to be the p.o.v. of the 40 styles of silat you've dubiously claimed to have studied (I call garbage!). :cry: Do you understand that you've just contradicted yourself? You've amply illustrated via your tortuous replies that you DON'T get it. There are stupid people of every race, creed and culture. Bollshoi ... how old are you? If you only devoted 2 years a-piece to studying each of the 40 or so you claim to have studied ... you'd be well past your 90's @ a guess. If you've spent less than 2 years a piece in any of the 40 systems you've claimed to have studied you have no experience to speak of. /sarcarsm_ON :google: makes a person a flippin' expert ... and so does YouTube. /sarcasm_OFF
Sokklab the link you (or actually Willem de thouars) talk about serak and Xingyiquan is a pretty vague (if not to say a bogus) one, no matter if it comes from someone with 60 years of experience. Same goes for cimande and Baguazhang. The fact that pak Willem combines them in his forms is fine but I have big doubts about these claims. Shallow influences? Perhaps. But being based on? NO way. Different footwork, different power generation, different tactics.
even if there was a 100% definitive link between Bagua and Cimande, what does that mean? it's trivial... it contributes nothing to the efficacy of the techniques and does nothing to help learners apply the technique (esp. against someone fighting back). Although it might be mentally stimulating to look at the history, I would rather than look to the future. Most of the pencak silat players i know in the USA cross train in everything from Kali/Arnis/Escriima to Judo,Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Ninjitsu, Muay Thai, Systema, and MMA/JKD and it's natural for martial arts knowledge to cross the artificial boundaries of "style" like this. now that we have some "mad scientists" playing with silat in the "laboratory" (i.e. sparring), we are gonna have some fun.
I very much doubt that Baguazhang had any major influence on the formation of Cimande for the simple reason that it's younger. Baguazhang came into being in 1864 and wouldn't have been taught outside Beijing for a good while after that.
I would take the time to answer you. But you're coming across as a bit of an 'Internet Tough Guy'/ Keyboard warrior. I'd ask you to moderate your tone when you speak to me. As if you were speaking directly to my face -whilst looking me in the eye. Okay? Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Because I called your fib? Hint ... moderate your claims a little ... don't be greedy. Indubitably ... old chap.
I am from Malaysia, still here. Silat is misunderstood surely, especially if you're comparing it to MMA. I have the utmost respect for MMA and I am all for resistance/force on force training but comparing it to MMA is the wrong platform imho... Compare it to the Dogbrothers training, that makes more sense. Some of them have and still do incorporate Silat into their arsenal. Silat grew from a time where it was a bladed culture, still is in some parts. If your Silat style isn't, then it must be a very modern incarnation. Silat is a weapons art, there is no going around that. I'll give you another perspective... It's like trying to compare a Samurai Aikijitsu practitioner to MMA.
What do you mean with 'bladed culture'? You mean you start training with weapons right from the start, or you mean that the unarmed techniques you train can be transferred almost directly into weapons based techniques?
Ah yes, to that i agree as well! What i see a lot is that from lesson 2 people start training with blades immediately and also the defense against the blade. In my book you need a solid base in unarmed combat first before you can switch over to training with the blades.
Wasn't the 5 page thread that you started on this idea 2 years ago enough for you? http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103527
Anyway, Kali is most definitely a weapons art first, and the first thing I learned in Kali empty hands was jab-cross-hook.
