Talk:Modern Arnis/Archive 2

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Modern Arnis/Archive03. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --Bob Hubbard 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Recent Link removals: The removal and readdition of the FMATalk Filipino Martial Arts forum link, and the removal of the AMMA link. Rather than get into link-wars, could we discuss the criteria for link inclusion/exclusion here? I think if we are to include a link to FMATalk (which has a small Modern Arnis section), then we should consider links to other sites that also have Modern Arnis sections. Those would be MartialTalk.com (with over 900 modern arnis threads) as well as several other smaller ones. --Bob Hubbard 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the removal of the AMMA link as "not a major org", what defines a major organization, and what criteria should it meet to fit here.--Bob Hubbard 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

JJL 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) It's not mainstream Modern Arnis like the IMAFs, WMAA, DAV, etc., whcih all seek to carry on Modern Arnis per se. As the site itself says, it's a hybrid. This isn't the place for it. It shouldn't be listed alongside those carrying on the art as it was taught to them. As an aside, this talk page is too unorganized and hard to follow.

Archive older stuff?--Bob Hubbard 15:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I resubmitted the link to Tom Bolden's AMAA website for the following reasons:

1. In his discussion contribution, Sifu Bolden clearly indicated that Modern Arnis was the primary influence in structure, philosophy and pedagogy even though it is one of many arts that influence the curriculum.

2. It is not misleading IMO to have this link listed with the rest given that the WMAA curriculum, for example, uses 'non traditional' terms, technical applications, and a modified 10 strike system (changed from the original 12 strike pattern). Since such modifications from the original material as taught by RP are in place in these well known organizations, I don't see Tom Bolden's organization as that different if it:

'''embraces all principles and training elements of Modern Arnis except for the empty hand Anyos, which have been replaced by four (4) Sayaws (dances) originated by PG Bolden. The AMAA has also adapted training methods and elements from other martial art systems via the flow.''' From Tom Bolden's discussion contribution above.

Which is part of the 'make it your own' philosophy that GM RP himself promoted. --Paul14227 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Valid points. Datu Worden's program is influenced by non-modern arnis systems, Datu Knuettel has from what I've heard a fair blending with Kombatan, and the WMAA program has integrated some balintawak flavor as well as a more formalized structure than was normal while Remy was alive. There is also the question of Dan Anderson's MA80 program which is in his own words about 90% MA/10% other with a heavy Karate flavor. (The structure for which is very close to older WMAA structure) In fact, other than the 2 IMAF factions, it's hard to not find a MA group in the US that hasn't drifted/moved from a "pure" modern arnis snapshot. So, what % of drift/blending is "too far"?--Bob Hubbard 01:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Such terms as "pure, orginal, traditional" in reference to Modern Arnis are oxymoronic IMO. Modern Arnis in its earliest evolution was modified Balitawak with some Ocho Ocho and Shotokan thrown into the mix. As GM Presas was always evolving and changing the art because of personal exposure to other arts and individualizing the art to fit the needs of students with various skill, artistic, professional/cultural needs; the art changed.

The other thing to remember is that "Modern Arnis" was never intended to be a preservation system or 'traditional' system because the traditional PI systems in PI were associated with brutallity, gang type violence, and crime in the eyes of the mainstream PI culture of the time. "Modern Arnis" was GM Presas' blending of many arts and 'modernization' of training practices to institute PI arts in public education and improve PI pride in this aspect of PI culture. So, using the term "Modern" and purposely blending arts to show how the concepts behind the arts were more important than the differences in techniques/systems, was GM Presas' attempt to use martial arts to teach cooperation, cultural pride, and elevate the 'thug' reputation of PI martial arts relative to other martial arts in PI at the time. "Pure" was never part of that philosophy because that type of mentallity is what was causing the factionalism and violence in PI culture, and PI martial arts as a sub culture. Today, we use terms like "multi-culturalism" or respect for diversity to describe the way that GM Presas was using Modern Arnis in his time.

What is 'original' or 'pure' to those in the states may be 'modified' to those in PI or Europe or Canada. Even in the US what was taught from region to region, year to year, seminar to seminar was different at times. So, PI Modern Arnisadors may look more 'Balintawakish' than those at the other end of the Chronological spectrum of Modern Arnis.

The 'core curriculum' that makes any Modern Arnis Art/system/organization truly Modern Arnis has yet to be defined clearly. I do think that there is a basic set of drills, skills and patterns that make up the spin and should be part of any valid MA based system, though.

The art was/is a conceptual art, that point is at least something that MA'ers can agree on. As a conceptual art, once the 'core curriculum' (how ever you choose to outline it) is mastered at a technical level, focusing on the conceptual level of understanding should be the objective.

If instructors are using 'comparison/contrast' models to show how these concepts can be applied to techniques and practices from other systems - and therefore absorb those things into their teaching, that is fine with me. As long as a clear rationale that links the concept to the movement can be articulated and supported, it is good 'Modern Arnis.' If done with thought and educationally sound rationale, incorporating other systems, applications and such is really just continuing the 'tradition' of innovation established by GM Presas.

Modern Arnis shares this kind of trait with such arts as Kenpo and JKD in that sense. --Paul14227 15:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the difference between Modern Arnis, JKD and any MMA system that cherry picks other arts for "the good stuff" and brings it home? Not discounting 40 years of development time, but it sounds like Filipino JKD.--Bob Hubbard 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

JLL,

You wrote the following, herein quoted in total:

>JJL 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) It's not mainstream Modern Arnis >like the IMAFs, WMAA, DAV, etc., whcih all seek to carry on Modern Arnis per se. >As the site itself says, it's a hybrid. This isn't the place for it. It shouldn't >be listed alongside those carrying on the art as it was taught to them. As an >aside, this talk page is too unorganized and hard to follow.

My reply is as follows:

Who presented you with the authority, wisdom, knowledge and insights to make all this pronouncements about what is or is not the correct and orthodox within Modern Arnis?

At best you are a 4th degree black belt who has trained essentially under one person, your friend, who also happens to be the wmaa founder/president. You have trained in one branch of the Modern Arnis system, namely the IMAF under one instructor, your friend and the wmaa founder… In effect and as best as I can tell you have an extremely limited perspective on the martial arts in general and Modern Arnis in particular. You are playing up and using your friend’s method of doing things as the standard by which you judge others, then whenever information is presented which shows your friend’s accomplishments to be inferior to that which some other person has achieved, the “standard” is dropped from discussion.

For someone who is so opinionated and dogmatic in his presentations, I have to say that I have NEVER known you to lead or host a Modern Arnis seminar/camp. I can only recall you attending seminars/camps conducted by the late Professor Presas and your friend, Tim Hartman (wmaa founder). I can not remember seeing you at any other martial arts events that I attended in Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Kansas City, Anaheim, San Francisco, Boston, NYC, Poughkeepsie or Rochester. So I am totally baffled and bemused by your sudden expertise on Modern Arnis.

Perhaps if you would be so kind as to step up and demonstrate your knowledge, skill and teaching abilities in Modern Arnis, I would be inclined to take your bantering seriously. But given the fact that you have steadfastly declined to answer some very specific questions, including whether or not you are going to accept my invitation to participate in a side by side seminar on Modern Arnis, your statements are essentially meaningless and highly self-serving! Are you going to accept my invitation to do a joint seminar in Buffalo? Yes or NO?

You have not, to the best of my knowledge, published a single article or book on Modern Arnis. You have not authored a single VHS tape or DVD on Modern Arnis. You have not participated as a featured instructor of Modern Arnis at any seminar or camp; therefore I am wondering how, when and where did you develop the expertise that you are flaunting on Wikipedia regarding major and minor organizations or instructors? In my travels and conversations, your name has never come up in any manner or for any reason. How can such an important expert evaluator of Modern Arnis “correctness” be so decidedly invisible?

Jerome Barber, Ed.D. Professor of Sociology Adjunct Professor of PE (Kenpo & Modern Arnis Program) Erie Community College, Orchard Park, NY 5 January 2006

JJL 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I say again...this is not the place for this type of personal discussion, and I won't engage in it here. I remind you that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so credentials are not an issue; verifiability, for example is. I don't believe that there is any substantial disagreement about what are the major Modern Arnis orgs., and in my opinion Mr. Bolden's is not among them.

I have re-added the link to the FMATalk forum, as well as the MartialTalk.com Modern Arnis forum. Additionally, I have repaired the link to the AMAA site removed by JJL and re-added by Paul14227. I have re-added the WMAA link removed by Tim Kashino. The argument over who should and should not be included is a good one. Depending on how you define things, anyone can be excluded or included. As there is no "standardized" version of Modern Arnis, as indicated by Paul in his comments (removed by him a few edits back), to say that any 1 group has the "real deal" is a hard sell. I think we can also look at size of the organization as an indication of "major/minor" status. I just completed a survey of each of the groups listed.

If we look at # of schools listed, this is how it plays out, highest to lowest. Note, I counted listed schools on each site. 2 do not list schools, however 1 does list associates.: DAV - 46 WMAA - 42 IMAF - Schea - 37 IMAF - Delaney - 22 WMAC - 19* (No schools listed, but 18 WMAC Brothers listed, + KW) MARPPIO - 17 IMAFP - 7? (No listing on organization site.) AMAA - 2*? (No listing on organization site.)

If we set the bar for "major" at 30+ locations, clearly, the DAV and WMAA are "major" modern Arnis organizations, at 40+ schools each. IMAF-Schea is pretty close at 37 schools. I would classify these 3 as "Major". Minor organizations would be IMAF-Delaney, WMAC and MARPPIO under this level. There is no school listing on the AMAA site. I guessed at 2 as I know Dr. Barber has an affiliation, and we must count Master Bolden as well. There is also some cross pollination between groups as some schools do belong to multiple organizations. Datu Worden for example is listed on the MARPPIO site. There is no easily found schools listing on the IMAFP site. My best guess, is 7 based on the listing on the international page.

My conclusion is, if we cannot go from a "deviation from base" guideline, then we must go from size of organization. By that, DAV, WMAA and IMAF-Schea are easily includable. IMAF-Delaney, Datu Wordens coalition and the family organization MARPPIO also are includable based on history, overlap and lineage. Both the IMAFP and AMAA may not qualify under the size argument, but there is then the question of completeness of art, cultural and other related factors to consider.--Bob Hubbard 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the point in this entry is 'major/minor' so much as 'exposure for the art' if I am not mistaken The title of the editted secition is just "MODERN ARNIS ORGANIZATIONS" and not "Major/Minor" organizations. Doing that would be more subjectivity on top of already existing subjectivity. So, listing them according to purity, size of organization or any other criteria doesn't make sense to me.

Letting people that visit list what they think are valid entries based on the quality of the art is the only thing that should matter. So, first establishing some kind of 'core curriculum' should be the goal. The point should be understanding what makes "Modern Arnis" what it is at a fundamental level so that those programs, regardless of size, that are keeping the art going can be represented. GM PResas would teach anyone, anywhere. He ran classes between major seminars for small groups just because he wanted to.

He would share the art with who ever was willing to learn, so focusing on 'major/minor' instead of content, quality, and concept isn't the point IMO. Consider, too, that GM RP is creditted for making statement about 'quality over quantity' about the art itself. That philosophy should make sense when reflecting on the organizations as well.

--Paul14227 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

True, however some criteria should be set, otherwise this simply becomes a dumping ground for links from anyone who wants to claim "Modern Arnis". Since there isn't a "pure" definition, then it's hard to say what the "quality" standard should be, IMO. There is a small number of people who continually take exception to Tim Hartmans inclusion in this list, yet he has the 2nd largest Modern Arnis organization in the world, is actively spreading the art world wide, actively researching the roots of the art, and in GM Presas's own words (as witnessed by aprox. 80 people) in 2000 became the highest tested black belt in over 17 years. He also has one of the highest black belt production rates, ranked by GM Presas when he was alive. If we are talking quality, it would seem that he meets that criteria, yet there are still some who would exclude him for personal and petty reasons. There are those, myself included, who take exception to some of the actions of Jeff Delaney since GM Presas' passing in 2001. Yet, he continues to put out videos, teach seminars, run camps, and teach. We can argue the inclusion of the AMAA, who have changed the system by replacing the forms with their own versions. One can argue that it's an improvement. It may be, it may not be. If we are talking "pure" or "core" modern arnis, then that would be a major deviation from the norm, since the other organizations use the same forms. Kelly Worden may do Anyo Isa with a soft feel, while Tim Hartman does it with a hard feel, but, it's still the same form. Beethoven's 5th on guitar and on piano sound different, but the notes are still the same. Not true if you replace the 4th stanza with one from Mozart.

SO, what defines a Modern Arnis Organization? I'd say, it's a group of schools (more than 2), that are 90+% in sync with what Remy was doing the last 5 years of his life, who were attending his seminars to keep up with latest modifications. That includes the IMAFs, WMAC (which didn't exist prior to his passing, but whose members and founder did maintain a close relationship with Remy), the WMAA (which was the Can-Am chapter of the IMAF, formed with Remy's blessing). MARPPIO would also have to be included as they are family. I don't know enough about IMAFP to comment. The AMAA is according to it's founder 95% Modern Arnis, with the forms changed to something thought to better fit. I can't argue as the forms feel "foriegn" to me compared to the rest of the system. But, it is a major diviation from the "norm" which can be defined ad "what everyone else does in common". Additionally, some other individuals may be of note, however don't qualify as an "organization" as they don't have more than 1 location. Dan Andersons MA80 would fall into this group, though I vaguly recall Dan saying it was s system, not an organization. --Bob Hubbard 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My comments to JLL, based on whate you wrote:

>JJL 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I say again...this is not the >place for this type of personal discussion, and I won't engage in it here. >I remind you that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so credentials are not an issue; >verifiability, for example is. I don't believe that there is any substantial >disagreement about what are the major Modern Arnis orgs., and in my opinion Mr. >Bolden's is not among them.

So it comes down to your opinion and the fact "that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so credentials are not an issue;". I disagree on the credential matter when someone is continually making a case for exclusions as you have for several weeks. You have gone well beyond opinion statements and intentional or not, you have implied that you are an authority on the subject, so I wanted to know if you had any sort of credentials and you have just admitted, indirectly of course, that you don't!

Please tell exactly what are we seeking to verify? If one were to view the video clips at: http://forum.aspoonful.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/634103049/m/690104759

for instance, there would be no doubt as to the credibility and validity of PG Bolden's skills in the art of Modern Arnis. It would also be verifiable that he studied with the late GM Remy Presas. Furthermore since some of the video clips contain direct references to subject taught by the late GM, there can not be any doubt that he is doing Modern Arnis. In fact the real pity is that so few people do the art as well as PG Tom Bolden.

BTW, I have arranged for your invitation to join the Escrima_Arnis List at Topica.com, maybe you'll answer the "personal questions" there? Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

Dr. Barber, We are all entitled to our opinions. They however are most often not considered credible or [verifiable] by the terms this site operates under. Also, our personal differences don't belong here. That's the policy of this site. In your example, the video is nice, however it is not credible without something to compare it with. To the uninformed reader, it (and most FMA videos I've seen) look to be little more than someone shaking a stick around. In the eyes of those with real experience, however, they can pull out the movements and determine the skill level. If we are going to argue the credibility, we must look to a mainstream publication. Now, I believe there were some articles published concerning PG Bolden and the AMAA, am I correct? Can you cite them? (I think you did elsewhere, but I'm not certain). From what I've seen (and this is based in part on those videos, and my discussions with you), while the AMAA is a small organization, it's my opinion that is still qualifys for inclusion here based on lineage, concepts and quality. --Bob Hubbard 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob,

Again, you are defining a "MODERN ARNIS" organization without establishing what "MODERN ARNIS" really is by definition. It is illogical to correlate size of an organization with validity of an organization's claim to use a term as an identifier IMO.

For example, tHe "Young Marines" program has no official connection to the USMC, yet carries "Marine" in the title because it is an organization that takes its organization and goal of character/citizen/leadership building from the USMC model. It uses USMC rank structure and members are called "Marine" all the time. It is, by definition a large organization, but its size does not validate its members as USMC "Marines."

You are working from the perspective that there can be no definition created. IF that is the case, ANY one use "Modern Arnis" is invalid. I do think that a core curriculum can be outlined, though. There has to be a common set of skills and drills that GM RP taught regardless of geography or time. If those fundamentals can be listed, we have a core curriculum. Even if it is a list of terms like "Rice Planter/Single Siniwali Largo/Stick Drop" with a brief explanation next to that group of terms that clarifies the movement/techinque that those terms refer to, it is better than simply giving up and trying to say that no definition can be found and population is a form of validation.

If we can get more folks to participate I think that a core curriculum can be created, and that can act as a definition of sorts for what makes a "Modern Arnis" organization valid as an addition to the list.

Let me start a list of items that should be in the 'core curriculum' IMO: 1. 12 angles of attacks. 2. Siniwalis (double and single stick, empty hand, weak and strong side), with applications and counters to applications. 3. Trapping hands (concept and applications)

There are more, but I want to leave room for others to add too.

--Paul14227 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bob,

I am not working from opinion. I am working from hands-on experience and training. AMAA does belong under the Modern Arnis umbrella. PG Tom Bolden is not involved in a direct copyist mode of operation with regard to GM Remy Presas as are some other people who trained in seminars and camps under the late GM. However, PG Bolden has taken the movement principles and conceptual connections established by the late GM, broadened them, modified them and added to them as they fit his own previous training in the Filipino Martial Arts and Hawaiian Kenpo. He does teach the 12 angles of attack - both the standard Modern Arnis version as presented by Professor in his three books and two video tape series - along side what Professor often refered to as the "traditional 12 strikes" in which strikes 6, 7, 10 & 11 are reveversed. I was taught the "traditional 12" by Professor along with my classmates at the Fighting Back Institute, Buffalo, NY, in 1982. Professor subsequently taught that same system on various occassion at seminars and camps through 1994, when I stoped training with him. If he continued to teach the traditional 12 system through 2000, I don't know. I aam only relating my actual training experiences with Professor.

PG Bolden also teaches the 3 sinawali systems, redonda, up & down, figure 8, banda y banda, trapping hands, 12 disarms with single stick, double stick and empty hands. That clearly indicates that he is teaching the core system of Modern Arnis as taught by Professor. My reference to the video clips is actually quite relavent because it does go to the matter of credibility and verifiability. Through those video clips anyone can see that the core elements of Modern Arnis are present in PG Bolden's system. Thus if the curriculum items are present, the training with Professor can be verified and the video clips actions/movements are generally consistant with what the late Professor taught, then there is no doubt as to whether or not to include the AMAA program under the REmy Presas Modern Arnis umbrella.

My comments to JLL are consistant with my belief that there is a wide range of martial artists who can be included under the Modern Arnis umbrella, if one closely examines what these individual people are teaching. Since the art was originally taught by Professor as "the art within your art" and Professor himself consistantly told us (at seminars and camps as well as in private converstaions) to "Make it (the art) for yourself!", variations are to be expected. If Professor could and did accept variations in the way individuals performed the anyos (forms) and he, as founder and grand master, DID NOT insist on a strict orthodox method of movement, then there is no reason to deny acceptence to others who do not follow a particular interpretation of what Modern Arnis can or should be. JLL is the person espousing opinion, not supported by documentable facts.

The bottom line regarding Modern Arnis as developed and taught by the late founder/gm is that he NEVER established a single headquarters or curriculum for Modern Arnis, in the USA. In the absence of these two very vital elements, the "correct" interpretation of what is or is not Modern Arnis has to be left up to each individual. Therein lies both the beauty and the bain of the system. That is where all of this arguementation stems from throughout this discussion. We are trying to fit various definations into the system after the founder has passed on and can not help us. While JLL is trying to present everything from the wmaa perspective and therby creating an impression that his friend has all of the "correct" answers, others, myself included, are saying that Modern Arnis is living system that is broad enough to accept several variations.

Jerome Barber, Ed.D.

The question is, Should this page list every Modern Arnis org., or just the major ones? My opinion is that the job of an encyclopedia is to provide an introduction to a subject, not to be an exhaustive resource on it. The orgs. listed, apart from the AMMA, are both large and Modern Arnis. I am aware of single-school splinter groups.It sounds as though Mr. Bolden's group is nearer to that end of the spectrum than to the IMAF's end, size-wise, and that he also has modified the art. The Prof. encouraged people to make it their own...but the Modern Arnis entry here should be a jumping-off point for those interested in that subject, not a comprehensive list of all related systems. This is yet another case of using the site as an advertising medium rather than making it an information resource. Listing the site of a small group that was influenced by Modern Arnis alongside the major groups formed by those who continued to train with the Prof. until his death and believe that they are carrying on his art is simply an attempt to ride on those groups' coattails. Bob, do you know of a WP policy statement that would guide us here? JJL 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to look at "core" components to define Modern Arnis (A discussion that I don't think is suited for this venue, IMO) then I would say that what was publishes by GM Presas would be a good foundation. I would also say that the Anyos, as taught by GM Presas, and common to almost all Modern Arnis organizations would also be part of that canon. Since the argument also lies in "Making it your own", that would imply a suggestion to continue to adapt and modify they system. Some have softened it, some hardened it, some blended a little more here and there with other arts (who already had pieces integrated). An argument surrounds the angles. As indicated by Dr. Barber, there were 2 variants of the 12 angle system at least. The WMMA uses a modified 10 angle system (combining 6,10 & 7,11). There is also a 5/10 angle system I saw once, a 3 (forehand, backhand, thrust) strike system, and a few others out there. One can also argue that the 12 is a 24 strike as the reverse angles are also in there.

Modern Arnis is a modern hybrid-system that blends concepts from several arts, is steeped in the Filipino culture, and at it's core a combination stick/knife/open hand system. Just as there are at least 4 versions of Ed Parker's Kenpo system one can make an argument that there are several "editions" of Modern Arnis. There is the Filipino system (which is what was developed while Remy lived in the PI), his early US days, his later US days, and the last 5-10 years of his life where he'd started grooming the next generation and bringing his ideas to the forefront as his students had finally gotten to the point of being able to grasp it. The argument over just what "Tapi-Tapi" is is a good example. It is the whole of the system, or a counter-counter stick drill, or both? Remy changed things as he went, therefore to pin down an "official" version, is impossible. There is just what he showed you, and from all reports, that could often be the same thing under a different name, depending on where you were. Parker left written manuals, a ton of footage, and an established organization...and EPAK's still arguing over what is and isn't kenpo. I don't think a couple of good 'olboys from WNY stand a chance arguing over what is and isn't Arnis. LOL! Bottom line, if you're going to complain about the WMAA making a minor simplification to the angles as heresy, then it's just as fair to complain about someone else replacing the forms (which the other orgs do keep), or grafting in some karate or kenpo or wingchun. In any event, the folks with the most coverage tend to define things, and that would put the definition power in the hands of the DAV, the WMAA and the IMAF under Dr. Schea. I would even place Delaney's group in that mix as well, since if the IMAF hadn't split apart shortly after Remy died, that combination WMAA-IMAF/S-IMAF/D would be the largest Modern Arnis organization in the world (even adjusting for dual memberships). That would set the standard (Remember, VHS became the standard due to market share, even though Beta was seen as 'better') as those 3 groups were the ones who were with Remy the most in his last years and have a better idea on where he was looking to go, IMO. No, I don't subscribe to the "WMAA is the only way" view point as I think everyone who gained teaching authority under Remy is probably pretty well qualified to teach, however I don't see their modifications as either "wrong" or "not modern arnis".

I'm not aware of any specific policy outside those I've previously mentioned. I do know that the Wiki is not an advertisement place however, as the goal of the Wiki is "neutrality", a position that none of us arguing here can have on our own. Paul, Tim and Dr. Barber are aligned with the AMAA, JJL and I with the WMAA. My reasoning on including who I did was based on the information I've presented. Arguments can be made both for and against all organizations for inclusion. A line must be drawn somewhere. A "standards" test isn't possible, a "quality" test is also not possible (as it's not verifiable, or comparable by the layman). I've based my suggestions on size of organization, who was most recently with GM Presas and therefore more up to date on what his art was when he died, as well as verifiable ranks issued by him. I've made exceptions to allow for a more complete list for those who separated years prior to his passing, or who resumed practicing after his passing. That is why my list is the DAV, WMAA, IMAF-s, IMAF-d, IMAFP, MARPPIO and Amara. It's a reasonable list, though incomplete. It's not possible, nor is it suggestible to try and list every notable practitioner. One has to hope that those interested will use this as a starting point, and do additional research on their own to locate quality instructors in their area. --Bob Hubbard 19:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob,

I thought the question was how to establish a clear guideline for inclusion. Hyperbolic responses about letting 'everyone into the club' are not the point. Tom Bolden's link is there, we all agree that it should be left there, if I am correct. So, this discussion is clearly about establishing some kind of criteria to base future 'inclusion' decisions.

It is not anyone's place to ESTABLISH standards here concerning 'which organization is better' or 'Joe WMAA is only a green belt by IMAFP standards' type of decisions. The mention of standards, quality, and core curriculum are about reaching an agreement about WHAT IS COMMON so that IT becomes the standard/criteria based on common practice. It isn't great, but it is more credible than size/population IMO.

What is the commonly accepted set of fundamentals?

What is the commonly accepted requirements for certain key ranks (Green, Brown, Black for instance)?

What is the commonly accepted list of 'concepts' that are taught as set piece drills and applications but evolve into creativity, adaptability and 'making it your own?'

What is the commonly accepted RATIONALE behind inclusion of 'outside' skills, drills, applications when people modify the art from 'Remy Modern Arnis' (at least as they new it).

As I said, we need to get more voices with a variety of backgrounds invovled. I think this is the PERFECT place to have such a discussion. Why? Because this is 'neutral' ground where no one has control of the banning/suspending process. Here all voices can contribute on equal footing.

We need more of them. I have taken the initiative to announce Kelly Worden's entry to Wikipedia on the Uechi Ryu discussion page, with the hopes that people will join in here and add their knowledge. I think we need to keep inviting others so that the common ground can really be established. Making a decision that affects the impression of the whole community without considering the community is unfair and could be considered self serving, so I say keep the discussion alive.

--Paul14227 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think common fundamentals, etc are a good way to see things, though I doubt you'll find a consensus on what's 'right' at a certain belt level. One group may teach knife from day one, another may hold off on those techniques until later in the training, yet still have the same approximate level at black. Otherwise, we're pretty much in agreement here I think. --Bob Hubbard 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob,

I have been pretty clear that I am not interested in dictating right or wrong. Since there was no one ruling body endorsed by GM RP and there are many organizations that are making it their own, the best we can hope to do is establish what is core and commonly practiced.

That way there is a positive focus on the elements of the art that unify people claiming Modern Arnis instead of trying to establish a pecking order of who is 'rightests.' This type of approach is more scientific, more objective, and lets those group leaders willing to come together recognize a touchstone of fundamentals that GM RP left to all without all of the 'Daddy loved ME best so he gave me THE WAY to do it' trash that can run as undercurrent in other places.

I am interested in taking the time to outline what is common, even at at certain belt levels. That does not mean that because "Independent XYZ" is the only group that has all the disarms at the green belt level that they are wrong or bad. It only means that it is not the common practice. That alone should not invalidate them for inclusion on the organizations link IMO. Part of the 'make it your own' philosophy is also in the curriculum development. If your teaching philosophy is different, your goals are different, then your curriculum will be different. Invariably, with all of those differences, though, there will still be a common thread.

By recognizing that thread, we can establish a 'core curriculum.' That core curriculum can also be interpretted as the real and true 'inheritance' that anyone should be worried about regardless of when or where people 'touched the master' if ever.

I never understood the 'Daddy loved me best' arguments since the thing that makes Modern Arnis is the material NOT THE MAN. Basing validity on contact hours with GM RP alone makes the criteria political. By exploring the content, the popularity game is put aside and the focus is on the ART.

There are many a very talented, skilled and dedicated artists that never met the founder of an art. This could be because of time (the guy was dead) or geography but the ART is the point. The top dog, title hunting, most decorated, blah blah blah is just noise in the end. If GM RP never established a core curriculum consciously, we can still take the time to discern one if we get a little 'CSI' and examine the art to find it for ourselves. Since GM RP always described his art as a concept art, getting scholarly and examining the core curriculum should reveal the core concepts of the art as well. --Paul14227 15:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

But, playing devil's advocate of sorts here, wouldn't that "core" be found by looking at the materials that were published, by GM Presas? The 3+ books, and 2+ video series that he put out? There is also the question of the qualifications of those seeking to "define" the art, when many of those doing the seeking, were not around him during the last years of his life. I'm also not convinced this is the place to discuss things, given that this is not the purpose of the site, nor is this particular "talk" feature really designed for such things, IMO. Please don't misunderstand me here, I'm in quite a bit of agreement with you on what you just posted. I just don't think that this is the place, especially since there is little obvious representation from the leaders here, as I'm sure they feel that defining it has already been done, and they are doing it.--Bob Hubbard 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious guys. Where would you number crunchers classify IMAFP, major or minor? While their site lists only seven locations, there are far more than that in the PI. There is an IMAFP chapter in many of the major cities and many chapters often include several schools or groups. Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it isn't there. I think we might be relying a little too heavily on what is floating around on the internet here.

I think I like where the "core" discussion is going. It would seem to me that on order to get to the core of the system you would have to see what the most recurring concepts in the published material as well as at training sessions throughout the Professor's career. IMO Dan Anderson's publications do a pretty good job trimming the fat of summing up the core of the art in an easy to foll ow and articulate manner.

I agree with Bob though; trying to define or quantify the Modern Arnis in this medium with only 3-4 participants is kind of pointless. Everyone seems to have their own idea of what the art is, and all too often they refuse to recognize the validity of someone else's definition or approach. My last trip to the PI helped me realize how silly that mindset really is. Tim Kashino

Where else do you propose they be discussed Bob? T. Gerace

The publications are a valid reference, I agree. I have mentioned repeatedly that in order to make this discussion worthwhile AND to increase the 'exposure' mission, invitations and/or announcements to bring awareness to Modern Arnis on Wiki is necessary to get more notables involved to really make the discussion worthwhile, the outcomes objective, and the results as valid as possible.

Why not here? We are seeking to define a term, create a credible explanation of what is Modern Arnis and who are really doing Modern Arnis. Where better to do that than in an encyclopedia? Let's use the resource to accomplish the 'neutrallity' that doesn't seem possible anywhere else.

--Paul14227 13:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion format here is not an easy one to follow, especially considering that half the comments are unsigned, and tend to blend together so it's hard to tell where one persons comments end, and anothers begin. Unless one sifts through the historys to see who added what, it gets confusing, fast. There is also the question of why. Obviously, each of the organizations believe they are doing Modern Arnis. Unless you can get them to outline their curiculums, find a common definition for each term, cross reference each technique, then compare to the books and videos Remy did, then compare to what he was doing the last 5 years of his life, trying to define it, is IMO, impossible. I don't believe this is the place to try and define an entire art, and highly doubt any web-medium is the right one. This would require a face-to-face summit, with ALL organizations participating. A task, I don't envy. ''What is Modern Arnis? Modern Arnis is a hybrid Filipino Martial Art developed, evolved and refined over 40+ years by Remy Presas. It incorporates concepts and techniques from several other systems, with a foundation in the deadly arts of his homeland. It is documented in several books and videos by Professor Presas, and several of his leading students. It's evolution is now continued by his students.'' I think that's about the best you'll get I think, though I wish you luck. --Bob Hubbard 02:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So are you bowing out of a project that was started by you and yours? All we have to do is let people know (exposure) that the art is listed and that the goal is to establish baseline of information. Once that is done, it is up to the people to participate at will.

If your standing on the sidelines predicting doom instead of helping those trying to accomplish something, your contributing to the failure. If people choose to do that, fine. But then, the failure isn't on the part of those that tried, but the part of those that didn't even step into the arena.

Anything worth doing takes work. Anything worth doing well takes a lot of work. GM RP spent a LONG time creating, evolving and teaching this art. I think taking a bit of extra time here and there to outline what that was is worth it in honor of the Old Man.

--Paul14227 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I have already outlined what I see as Modern Arnis. I have voiced my disagreement that this is the venue to define it, based on technical as well as policy issues. I am unaware of -any- other art here that has extensive curiculums outlined as part of their entry. Anyone who wants to know what Modern Arnis is, can visit the websites of those organizations listed, find a school near them, and stop in to see it for themselves. They can visit a bookstore and look through or even buy Prof. Presas's books on the art, and they can order the dozen plus videos of GM Presas, Datus Worden, Hartman and Knuettel, etc. It's not a matter of not honoring him, as I do maintain one of several memorial sites to his memory. It's a matter of the 'right place', which I feel this is not. If it must be done online, then I would suggest MartialTalk is the best, as it has members from both IMAF's, the WMAA, the DAV, MARPPIO, WMAC and IMAFP on it. FMATalk would be another option. There are also the forums run by the WMAC, Bram Frank, etc. All allow easy tracking of who said what, image and video integration, etc. Wiki isn't a discussion board. Now, if your idea is something like the jkd entry here, that I can see, but a full definition I don't feel is possible, any more than one can find a common definition for Parkers Kenpo. I'll pop in if I see something I can add too, but, other than what I already covered, don't see much more I can offer to the idea of defining it.--Bob Hubbard 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have said many times, I don't care what other martial arts or any other entried do. I have taken the time to improve my citation clarity and it wasn't that hard. We make this discussion forum what we want it to be based on goal.

Those sites all have a clear and purposeful bias and can not match Wiki's philosophy in the neutrality issue.

1. As has been mentioned by you and others, there is clear factioning in Modern Arnis, so I don't think that you would even get the membership to represent widest spectrum.

2. Those that hold the keys tend to be partial to their point of view and therefore, consciously or subconsciously, allow their bias to influence the implimentation of adminstrative rules.

3. Wiki is NOT a martial arts based location to discuss topics. It is a TOPIC location where martial arts can be discussued in a scholarly, objective way by any willing to join in. No one group has 'home court advanatage' so to speak. This is a positive place IMO.

I've already mentioned wiki on UechiRyu/Wordern's forum, and will continue to spread the word to others. The more people that contribute, the closer to a central core idea we will get.

No one hear can make anyone else do anything. All we can do is let people know that there is a chance to get to the technical/instructional/artistic/philosophical goals of Modern Arnis by examining the details of what is at the root technically and conceptually. I would think a scholarly based website would be the perfect location. YOu can't make a concise, accurate, and focused statement of what Modern Arnis is without that. Encyclopedia entries are summaries of volumous research, so without the research, the summary could be invalid.

Let's do the research, or at least let people know that it can be done and that they are welcome to add. The sources are great, but they don't mean anything if people don't examine them, discuss them, and USE them to get to the root of the thing.

If the point is to help with exposure, then this would be THE place to have a discussion that discovers the artistic and philosophical bonds that connect MArnisadors and move away from the factional scrapping that has occured because people were focusing on the differences and who was the old man's chosen one battles.

--Paul14227 15:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please leave the following out of Wikipedia:

From What Wikipedia is not
 * 1) Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
 * 2) Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.
 * 3) Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction.
 * 4) Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
 * 5) Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Also see Wikipedia is not a blog.
 * 6) Discussion forums (or Everything2 nodes). Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.

Based on that, this isn't the place to define it. Define it elsewhere, have it referenced and then cite it accordingly. The other side of this is, that all those places I mentioned exist for the discussion of the arts. This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Yes, they are biased, as are we all. That doesn't negate their ability to function. If you don't like the ones I mentioned, maybe try Escrima Digest. It's better suited than Wiki for topic discussion, and if a consensus is reached there, may be a citeable source to use here. The Wiki policy seems pretty clear to me that this is not the place to define something.--Bob Hubbard 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

please do not take discussion into articles

So, if we get people to say that the definition of MA should include XYZ elements here in the discussion, which leads to editting the article entry, that is outside of Wiki guidelines? All of those "not Wiki" points you cited seem to be about submissions as articles, not discussion pages. Discussion pages seem to be for clarifying and reaching 'neutral' ground.

My point is that there are all these little pockets of Modern Arnisadors that won't even set internet foot into Martial Talk or FMA Talk or Escrima Digest or Uechi Ryu because of the feuds and territorialism. Using the discussion section to get feedback/imput/discussion about the article seems valid to me.

I am glad that your interested in adhering to the letter of the law here, but the spirit of the law is that discussion about the article goes in the discussion section, but the article section should not be some blog. I think it is valid to use the discussion section to create a valid and concise encyclopedia entry as long as we don't take the discussion into the article.

Anyway, your opinion and participation has been noted. I intend to let people know about the positive effort on this article and point them toward it so that we can get more notable Modern Arnis figures as participants and contributors.

--Paul14227 15:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the key points is that "Original Research" point. We (meaning us talking here) shouldn't be using this spot to determine if a Hubad drill is part of Modern Arnis or not, for example. If it is, it should be cited somewhere else, that we can then point at as proof. Your opinion and my opinion on that matter, doesn't matter. It must be verifiable outside the realm of our opinions, in order to justify inclusion in the article entry. My understanding of the 'talk' pages is that they aren't meant to be the place to do the research, but to reference research done elsewhere. In any event, good hunting. :) --Bob Hubbard 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

True about the original research point. But, it isn't original research if someone is citing their curriculum things they teach as 'core' to modern arnis.

Still spreading the word, my hope is that people can lay aside the political concerns of 'who's got THE real claim' garbage to really discuss the art from a position of content, quality and concept.

This is the article on "Modern Arnis" so it would be right to leave all the Remy worship/fight for successorship issues out of this. If people just cite their curriculum, focus on training material, and leave politics at the door, this should be productive.

If it falls flat it won't be because I sat back and let it. --Paul14227 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)