DBMA Martial Arts Forum > Martial Arts Topics
Filipino Martial Arts and Boxing
Crafty_Dog:
Woof Spad et al:
Thanks for the rejoinder and fleshing out the English structure.
That said, I'd like to contribute a few points for consideration:
As a preliminary matter, I note that this article is several years old. Not only is Lucky Lucay dead, so is his son Ted far too soon. Ted was the first man to become Full Instructor under Guro Inosanto (I may not be stating this exactly right, anyone who can clean it up please feel free to do so)
I trained occasionally in Ted's class in the 1980s at the Inosanto Academy at Glencoe Avenue and in that context occasionally met his father Lucky, (who was one of the higher people in Villabrille Kali system BTW) who at that point was already substantially debilitated from the diabetes that would eventually take his life. With that said, occasionally he would sometimes briefly demonstrate ideas and movement and his boxing movement was of a different nature. Quite impressive nevertheless! No doubt there are some treasured home videos somewhere of it, but his son Ted also had this movement. I know he did at least one video for Unique on "stick boxing" where this idiom of movement is recorded (no dig at Guro Ted, but the vid is a bit of a snorer as a video I must confess-- he like to explain things thoroughly.)
My impression of the article was that the bit about Ali may have been a stretch, possibly for what the editor might have seen as a catchy hook for the cover of the magazine (Did Ali get his footwork from FMA? Buy this issue and find out! blah blah) but the rest of the article's premise strikes me as probably pretty sound.
I understand your point that the article may, as many do, have underappreciated English boxing, but I read the point about "no blocking" a bit differently than you. I understood it to me that the mentality of a weapons fighter, a knife fighter, is much more exchange averse than someone who approaches things only from an empty hand perspective and that the nature of the movement that descends from it has a different quality. I think this point IS valid and the Lucays manifested it.
Yes, Lucky said "no blocking" in the English boxing but please consider that a) his English wasn't very good and b) his statement is in the context of training method-- but this is all really a tangent from the larger point, yes?
As I often so ably demonstrate, historian is not my forte, so I proffer for you, or anyone, to answer: How, when, where, and why did boxing shift from the Sullivan structure? Is it enough to simply say "boxing gloves"?
Why to this day do Euro fighters tend to lack head movement compared to North and South American fighters? Less rythmic music? :lol:
Apart from my years with Guro I, whose Panantukan still blows me away, I have trained with a manong in Negros who had wonderful panantukan, I have met Cebuanos with superb boxing mechanics (as a result of their trainin interplay with sticks and knives) I have seen footage from the interior of the Philippines (I will see if I can get Krishna Godhania to comment on his experiences in the Philippines in this regard). What I have seen leads me to feel that the hypothesis that interaction with the Philippines and Filipinos led to the changes from the Sullivan structure to the modern structure, either through the crossroads of Hawaii and/or the US soldiers coming back from the Philippines at turn of the century after introducing boxing gloves there and having some hard lessons in matches in the Filipinos, seems to me to be the most plausible.
If it helps, we can compare this the influence of the Brazilians (Gracie-Machado et al) on grappling. Yes there was good grappling before, but somehow it is different now.
Woof,
Crafty Dog
Spadaccino:
Woof Guro Crafty,
--- Quote from: Crafty_Dog ---
Thanks for the rejoinder and fleshing out the English structure.
--- End quote ---
Anytime. I do the best I can, with what knowledge I have.
--- Quote ---That said, I'd like to contribute a few points for consideration:
--- End quote ---
Fire away! :)
--- Quote ---As a preliminary matter, I note that this article is several years old. Not only is Lucky Lucay dead, so is his son Ted far too soon.
--- End quote ---
Yes--this is most unfortunate. I also have been informed that the author of the article (Dan Inosanto's sister) is also deceased. :(
--- Quote ---Ted was the first man to become Full Instructor under Guro Inosanto (I may not be stating this exactly right, anyone who can clean it up please feel free to do so)
I trained occasionally in Ted's class in the 1980s at the Inosanto Academy at Glencoe Avenue and in that context occasionally met his father Lucky, (who was one of the higher people in Villabrille Kali system BTW) who at that point was already substantially debilitated from the diabetes that would eventually take his life. With that said, occasionally he would sometimes briefly demonstrate ideas and movement and his boxing movement was of a different nature. Quite impressive nevertheless! No doubt there are some treasured home videos somewhere of it, but his son Ted also had this movement. I know he did at least one video for Unique on "stick boxing" where this idiom of movement is recorded (no dig at Guro Ted, but the vid is a bit of a snorer as a video I must confess-- he like to explain things thoroughly.)
My impression of the article was that the bit about Ali may have been a stretch, possibly for what the editor might have seen as a catchy hook for the cover of the magazine (Did Ali get his footwork from FMA? Buy this issue and find out! blah blah) but the rest of the article's premise strikes me as probably pretty sound.
I understand your point that the article may, as many do, have underappreciated English boxing, but I read the point about "no blocking" a bit differently than you. I understood it to me that the mentality of a weapons fighter, a knife fighter, is much more exchange averse than someone who approaches things only from an empty hand perspective and that the nature of the movement that descends from it has a different quality. I think this point IS valid and the Lucays manifested it.
--- End quote ---
Someone coming from a weapons-use background will often understandably have a different take on things, and what you suggest has been seen in Western fighting disciplines too. For example, in Ancient Greece and Macedon, pankration often came under criticism in the military context for two main reasons:
1. The emphasis on ground wrestling (as opposed to standing throws), which generally wasn't as applicable to battlefield conditions.
2. The fact that it was an unarmed art meant that people were taking shots; if such a thing was done in an armed encounter, the person would be killed (ie., a fighter can take a punch, but a sword will drop him). This was a comment made by Alexander the Great himself, who had a comparatively low opinion of pankration.
This is something that you noted in modern MA training too, in that one DB video where you (or Eric Knauss) stated that the Dog Brothers don't work too much with espada y daga, since the fighters tend to pay too much attention to the stick in sparring, when in actuality it would be the dagger that would do the most damage, in a real fight.
--- Quote ---Yes, Lucky said "no blocking" in the English boxing but please consider that a) his English wasn't very good and b) his statement is in the context of training method-- but this is all really a tangent from the larger point, yes?
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure.
--- Quote ---As I often so ably demonstrate, historian is not my forte, so I proffer for you, or anyone, to answer: How, when, where, and why did boxing shift from the Sullivan structure? Is it enough to simply say "boxing gloves"?
Why to this day do Euro fighters tend to lack head movement compared to North and South American fighters? Less rythmic music? :lol:
--- End quote ---
Again, it was not a matter of boxing shifting "from the Sullivan structure". There were plenty of technical fighters long before Sullivan's time--the famous Spanish-English Jew, Daniel Mendoza; the "Swaffham Gypsy", Jem Mace; etc.
Much of it had to do with rule changes. There was no wrestling allowed in Queensbury rules, and that obviously changes the focus and dynamics of a fight (eg., Don Frye has had a pretty good MMA career, but his K-1 pursuits have not been quite so impressive).
You also have to keep in mind that, while Sullivan was never a technician to begin with, he was 34 years old and way out of shape for his bout with Corbett. These certainly contributed to his demise that day.
Again, you still see fighters using major elements of bare-knuckle pugilism well into the Glove Era--Jack Dempsey described the vertical fist punch in minute detail in his Championship Fighting book (Bruce Lee was a fan, as I'm sure you know). Dempsey describes such peculiarities as the "falling step" and the so-called "power line" (the latter being recognizable to WC fighters). It is a much different manner of punching than in "modern" boxing.
Dempsey also described the various stances that existed in his day:
1) THE UPRIGHT STANCE: In that position, used by many british boxers, the body is practically "straight up and down", with the weight either evenly distributed on both feet or resting largely upon the "right" foot. It is an excellent "defensive" stance because it permits freedom of the feet for fast foot-work, and because it provides freedom for blocking and parrying. It has at least one defensive weakness, however. The user can be knocked off balance or floored much more easily than if the weight is forward. "Offensively", the position doe not stimulate explosive punching, since the weight is not forward.
2) THE SEMI-CROUCH: That's the stance you've been using for throwing straight explosive punches. I'll explain shortly why it's the perfect stance for fist-fighting. (Note: this stance as illustrated in the book sort of resembles the Muay Thai kick boxing stance except there is slightly more flexion (bending) of the waist and knees)
3) THE FULL CROUCH, OR LOW CROUCH: That stance is used at close quarters by practically all "bobbers and weavers" - chaps who come in bobbing low and weaving from side to side. It is used by those who specialize in hooking attacks rather than straight punching. The bobbers and weavers prefers to fight at close quarters, for all hooks and uppercuts are most explosive at short range. It is an "excellent defensive stance" after the user has mastered the "art" of bobbing and weaving. That takes considerable time. Your bobbing-weaving head is and elusive target. Moverover, you are bent forward so far that your opponent has great difficulty getting at your body. It was my favorite stance. I found it invaluable in fighting bigger men.
It has these disadvantages:
1) Your weight is too far forward to permit proper "fall" in straight jolts.
2) And your weight is too far forward to permit fast retreating footwork - if you want to retreat.
"If a fellow is a southpaw - lefthanded - he can use any of the three stances; but his "right" foot and "right" hand will be "forward" and his "left" foot and "left" hand to the "rear". It is much easier for a left-handed chap to fight in the southpaw style. However, most trainers prefer to convert southpaws - to turn them round - and have them take a right-handed stance."
"The SEMI-COUCH, which you have been using, is the best for fist-fighting for the following reasons:
(a) Your weight is forward just enough to stimulate explosive straight punching.
(b) It (your weight) is forward enough to prevent you being knocked off balance or floored easily.
(c) The weight is not forward so far as to interfere with your footwork - and footwork is important in keeping you at long range in a fist fight.
(d) You are at all times in a comfortable balance position from which you can attack, counter, or defend WITHOUT PRELIMINARY MOVEMENT.[/i]
So basically, Dempsey noted the various styles in existence at his time. It is interesting to note that he felt that the semi-crouch was the best overall stance, even though he personally preferred the full crouch.
It is even more interesting to note that Filipino prowess in the ring probably had to do with what they perfected--I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that, since they were comparatively small, they preferred infighting (much like Dempsey)--and so that's what they concentrated on.
--- Quote ---Apart from my years with Guro I, whose Panantukan still blows me away, I have trained with a manong in Negros who had wonderful panantukan, I have met Cebuanos with superb boxing mechanics (as a result of their trainin interplay with sticks and knives) I have seen footage from the interior of the Philippines (I will see if I can get Krishna Godhania to comment on his experiences in the Philippines in this regard). What I have seen leads me to feel that the hypothesis that interaction with the Philippines and Filipinos led to the changes from the Sullivan structure to the modern structure, either through the crossroads of Hawaii and/or the US soldiers coming back from the Philippines at turn of the century after introducing boxing gloves there and having some hard lessons in matches in the Filipinos, seems to me to be the most plausible.
--- End quote ---
I still must disagree here. All the dynamics of boxing were present in that sport before the Americans went to the Philippines. In addition, Martin Burke (the resident boxing historian at MMA.tv) told me that the full crouch that Dempsey liked so much was seen as early as 1882, when it was employed by Frank Slavin. This likewise predates any supposed Filipino influence.
It is also frustrating that this supposedly massive Filipino influence is never mentioned anywhere else.
Dempsey gives credit to the old bare-knuckle boys for the manner of punching he was taught.
He pointed out that the upright stance was particularly preferred by English boxers.
French savateurs acknowledge that their punching likewise comes from English pugilism (Boxe Anglaise).
But no one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever mentioned this Filipino influence, aside from the Lucaylucays, in the article in question.
--- Quote ---If it helps, we can compare this the influence of the Brazilians (Gracie-Machado et al) on grappling. Yes there was good grappling before, but somehow it is different now.
--- End quote ---
I'm not so sure about that either. A really good book that everyone should get is the new Mastering Jujutsu text by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher. Danaher goes into the history of BJJ in detail, and it seems pretty clear that the BJJ syllabus comes straight from old-style judo (with some CACC thrown in here and there). The reason BJJ seemed so revolutionary when it finally came under the public spotlight was due to the fact that the focus of judo had long ago switched from ne-waza to standing throws. Danaher points out how Kano naturally had big Olympic plans for judo--and the ne-waza groundwork (which, incidently, was ultimately derived from a classical jujutsu school--the Fusen-ryu) was thought to look boring to spectators. Because of this, Kano implemented rule changes, to shift the emphasis to standing throws.
So, I don't know how "different" the grappling is now--I think that the emphasis has simply shifted back to the groundwork, just as it was in the early 20th century, when judo/jujutsu exponents like Yukio Tani and Mitsuyo Maeda went over to England and used their own very formidable ne-waza skills against all comers--boxers, catch wrestlers, etc.
Peace,
Dave/Spad/TFS
Crafty_Dog:
Woof David/Spad/TFS et al:
With the Gathering coming up in a few days I have no time for a proper reply at this point.
Krishna Godhania emailed me to say that he found the thread interesting but family matters and his upcoming hosting of Tuhon Chris Sayoc distract him at present from replying but that he will do so when the dust settles. I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
Crafty
Spadaccino:
--- Quote from: Crafty_Dog ---Woof David/Spad/TFS et al:
With the Gathering coming up in a few days I have no time for a proper reply at this point.
Krishna Godhania emailed me to say that he found the thread interesting but family matters and his upcoming hosting of Tuhon Chris Sayoc distract him at present from replying but that he will do so when the dust settles. I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
Crafty
--- End quote ---
Woof Guro Crafty,
Hey, it's all good--I hope the Gathering goes well!
As for Krishna--I, too, look foward to his commentary.
Peace,
David
Rafael Kayanan:
"So Flash would sit and talk with our father and serve him wine then he'd start teasing him. Our father would get up and defend himself and come at Flash using his escrima, and Flash noticed his intricate footwork, the way he'd angle his body' how he'd seem to just float gently, then explode with power. "
I met the great Flash Elorde when I was a kid. My uncle and he were childhood friends. It was the first time I ever met a 'celebrity' and it made avery big impression on me to see his Japanese style home and the room full of trophies and medals etc.
I remember about ten or so years ago I was in Florida and working out some stick and blade work in the backyard. My uncle was visiting and said out of the blue, (paraphrasing here) "Hey, just like Tatang Elorde, Flash's dad!".
That froze me on the spot and I went over to ask him about Flash's father. He said he and the other young guys would hang out with Flash and ask Flash's father to show off his footwork and his long and short stick work. He said the man was a blur, and the other boxers would be impressed.
I believe when Ali was in the Philippines to promote 'Thrilla in Manila' he was quoted by several magazines as giving Flash his props as an influence.
I've watched many of the old time boxer's old reels and what they lacked was lateral footwork and movement. It is less apparent now but can still be seen by the more former East European boxers.
There was a reason Elorde was dubbed 'Flash' and it was due to his movement and timing. He wasn't an in fighter but fought the way Ali fought. They weren't smaller than their opponents because they were the same weight.
There's also information that many of the black regiments that served in the Philippine - American 'insurrection' also introduced the SPORT of boxing to the Filipinos and the natives loved the sport.
As per Pacquiao, I thought he was from Mindanao. Did he train in Elorde's gym when he was in the islands? He gave Barrera more trouble than I thought he would, since Barrera is a remarkable fighter and can adjust to about any style. Barrera's dismantling of England's Prince Hasim is a classic. It seems that Pacquiao's off beat timing and angles gave Barrera problems. I never saw Barrera so flustered or out of his game.
Btw, I don't know if the Howe interview was lifted from my own postings on another forum but I know I have the article somewhere. It was from an Inside Kung Fu or Black Belt mag from the mid eighties.
posted by Sun Helmet
--Rafael--
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version