Arnis vs. Kali - What are the differences?

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
RACastanet
Posts: 3744
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Arnis vs. Kali - What are the differences?

Post by RACastanet »

To Raffi D. sensei and other FMA participants: Explain Arnis and Kali to me please.
Rich
david
Posts: 2077
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Boston, MA

Arnis vs. Kali - What are the differences?

Post by david »

Rich,

I hear arnis, escrima and kali used interchangably, refering to the Filipino Martial Arts. The only differentiating descriptions of these terms I have read come from Mark Wiley's "Filipino Martial Culture." This is not to say his descriptions are "right" or accurate (as some have raised questions about his accuracy.)

Initial (Wiley) descriptions:

Arnis - modern form of filipino stick fighting. Also "sporting" related.

Eskrima (escrima) - classical stick fighting/fencing.

Kali - ancient bladed weapons art.

Since usage of terms have become more and more mixed, even by the masters themselves, Wiley suggested it's better to examine the actual techniques of various systems and to place them in the categories of "ancient", "classical", or "modern."

I think Wiley is taking a cue off of Draeger's three volume work on Japanese/Okinawan arts -- Classical Bujutsu, Classical Budo and Modern Bujutsu and Budo.

david

[This message has been edited by david (edited 11-16-99).]
Scaramouche
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 1999 6:01 am
Location: LA, CA, USA

Arnis vs. Kali - What are the differences?

Post by Scaramouche »

I agree with David's main points. If there was ever a clear difference between arnis, escrima, and kali, there isn't one now. In addition, there are many other names used for the Filipino arts (pananadata is an example), depending on, for example, the language of the region the art is associated with.

Wiley's classification system is a good one, but if one wants to understand these arts it is also useful to think of them in terms of preferred fighting range, main weapon or weapons focused on, degree and nature of empty-handed techniques, and other factors less easily described in a short post. Wiley's suggestion that looking at the actual individual arts is a very good one.

Despite some similarities (such as starting with weapons training, using weapons training as a foundation for developing empty-handed skills, using the same footwork and body mechanics for all weapons and empty-handed work, openness to innovation, a very strong focus on flow and mobility, a heavy conceptual basis -- especially when dealing with fighting ranges) these arts often differ significantly in other ways.

Scaramouche
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”