Sport Silat not properly representing true Silat?

Discussion in 'Silat' started by pakarilusi, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    To answer your counter-question, I think that the masters of old did essentially what we do now. They used a variety of training methods to sort of "triangulate" reality. They used technical drills, djurus, training equipment, etc. Each different sort of drill addressing shortcomings in the other training approaches. But each training method also having its own inherent limitations.

    To your larger point, my feeling is that even highly experienced practitioners make mistakes. And I'm having a very difficult time accepting that people run classes where one person is earnestly committed to poking his training partner in the eyes and kicking him full force in the crackers, with only the other person's defensive acumen to prevent it. Even if there are no clearly stated rules against it, it's human nature not to go full bore, without any checks, on someone with whom you willingly socialize (as in class).

    To put it another way, even with high-level practitioners, there are always safeguards and compromises put in place. What kind of self-defense system would it be if you were just as likely to lose an eye in training as you were in an actual altercation? You'd constantly be the walking wounded.

  2. taoizt

    taoizt Valued Member

    Interesting, yet old, discussion, and one that has always fascinated me. The main problem is, how to train as realistically as possible.

    Although the majority of people nowadays think that sparring is the final solution in training realistically, I personally changed my mind about that. Now train strictly beladiri and find it in no way limiting. No...we don't fingerjab eachother in the eyes.....sometimes the occasional pointer to show the weak spot :)

    Seen the beladiri training work against several experienced and resisting ringfighters. The trick is always not to let them get comfortable after their initial first attack. Immediately make them unconfortable, looking for balance. It's a small window of opportunity as a defender, but the beauty is, you can regain the initiative as quickly as possible. As opposed to blocking or absorbing combinations of strikes and afterwards launch a counter attack (which is more like competition fighting).

    Sometimes, you see the same tactics in competition fighting, but mostly quite rare.

    I prefer to attack the attacker, so i guess we're not talking about self-defense, but self-offense :)
  3. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    But is it an either/or question?
  4. taoizt

    taoizt Valued Member

    To me? Yes it's training one or the other, not both. With beladiri you train your reaction in a certain way that is often opposite to competition fighting. I do have the greatest respect for competition fighters!
    It's like learning how to drive a car and where the break is. You do it the same way and all the time so that it becomes an instinctive reaction..
  5. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    Fair enough. I'm not looking to pound my view home.
  6. pakarilusi

    pakarilusi Valued Member

    I prefer to spar because it trains both the offensive AND defensive attributes.
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    If you do not spar I see no issue as long as you DRILL things realistically
  8. pakarilusi

    pakarilusi Valued Member

    To me sparring IS a drill.

    Another facet of the whole game, if you may.

    It is just force on force training. Both parties resisting within the accepted rules.

    The aliveness is what's important.

    Certainly fencing, MMA, paintball and scenario based sparring training are different in nature but they all have that aliveness factor.

    Imho so long as you have everything in a relatively safe controlled environment (as you should), all of training is a drill.

    Just like any safety drill.
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2012
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    I agree sparring IS a drill, but a drill is NOT sparring - hence my distinction above! :)
  10. pakarilusi

    pakarilusi Valued Member

    I agree.

    However, I believe that sparring is the most important drill.

    Especially for the experiences of resistance, adrenaline spikes, controlled fear, technical uncertainty, adaptability and broken rhythm.

    But that's just my opinion. :)
  11. Pekir

    Pekir Valued Member

    So we agree on the old masters method of training including te conclusion that every training has it's limitations. Whatever one chooses to do in the end there are limitations.

    To clarify some more on sambut training for high skilled students/guru's. There is a lot of space between 'pulling back' and going for 'the kill'. We try to get as close to the latter one and sometimes it goes the wrong way and we hate it when that happens.

    But why should the eye poke or strike be tested in sambut training. I would say train your strike techniques over and over in all it's variations for yourself and on punching bags, polls et cetera. A counter reaction is never depending on one specific striking technique. I would say that your initial move/reaction is more important and the most efficient counterstrike will present itself.
  12. ap Oweyn

    ap Oweyn Ret. Supporter

    We do, yes.

    There really isn't. By definition, anything short of actually doing something is pulling back. There are certainly degrees of pulling back. But let's take the groin kick as an example of a fighting technique. You could simply not target that area in training. You could have the opponent wear some sort of armoured diaper (the way they do in self-defense classes). You could simulate the target using a focus mitt. But anything short of full-out kicking the other guy in the crackers is pulling back.

    The eye poke likely won't be tested in sparring. (Is that what "sambut" means?) But that's the whole point of Yoda's quote. If I can learn to deliver a good eye jab on various pieces of equipment AND I can learn to land a good, stiff jab in an opponent's face using boxing gloves and appropriate headgear, I have a clearer sense of being able to deliver an effective eye jab on a moving opponent than I would if I'd done the eye jab on equipment alone.

    Does that make sense?
  13. kunderemp

    kunderemp New Member

    I'm sorry to raise old topic.

    'Sambut' means (literally) to greet. In Betawi (Jakarta) styles, however, it means how to counter-attack. So, what Pekir means was sparring and sometimes, it was done very fast and.. ooops.

    I prefer not saying it as sport silat.
    I prefer to say it as 'standardized silat'.

    It means, that the Silat which being standardized so it can be used in competition.

    The problem is not the competition itself but how winning the competition become so important that many schools changed their styles.

    In the traditional schools themselves, we can find sparring either in 'Sambut' training, or even the traditional games from wrestling (benjang) to more scary weapon-based-traditional games like Ujungan or Perang Pandan.

    Ujungan is the traditional games using stick in Jakarta and West Java. The rules are the only attack allowed are attacking from belly and under except the groin. In some regions, it event held in 'rain pray ceremony'.

    Perang Pandan (Perang = war, Pandan = a type of plant) is a battle between two people using thorny pandan leaves as the replacement of sword.
  14. taoizt

    taoizt Valued Member

    Thanks for your valued input Kunderemp. It's good to keep knowledge about traditional silat vs. sport or standardized silat. Silat does not need new forms to make it more effective. It does make silat more well known, which is a good thing.

Share This Page