[themorningstar]

Originally Posted by Federico

Without citation, we kill any possibility of an academic discussion, as citation is the core of a proper academic discourse. Without citation, the discussion turns quickly to a discussion of personal opinion. IMHO it is the lack of citation that tends to lead to a lack of research. It is amazing, how many un-backed claims are picked up on in weapons collecting circles as truth without question. Then through repitition of such claims, they gain validity through weight of voice, and not merit of factuality. And without citation, it becomes difficult to verify or negate the validity of such claims. Eg. if I say, observers saw ancient Filipinos use kampilan. Without citation, or in the very least some point of reference, it is contextless. What account am I referencing? Whom exactly are these observers? Are there alternate motives behind the account? Or even a temporal date is lacking (eg. does ancient mean 1600, 1700, 1950, etc...)? Also, which account is being referenced, particularly when multiple accounts exist? However, if I say in Pigafetta's account, he noted warriors used kampilan. Others can go back to the account, and note, hey he never used the word kampilan, where am I getting this claim from. While, it makes it easier for others to dis-agree, it does keep a higher standard of academic research. Of course, when common knowledge is being referenced, particularly amongst peers, for brevities sake one can forgo alot of citation.

As for the training of the barong. Well, what constitutes training? Does one have to wear a gi, and have a belt ranking system, to be "training" in a style? Does working out scenarios with family members constitute training? I do believe mindset plays a very important role in fighting ability, often overlooked by many Westerners. However, from a sheer mechanical perspective, at the bare minimum there would have to be at least enough training given to utilize a tool. Cutting with a blade for many is not an instinctual action, let alone cutting with a barong. Pure logic in itself would suggest that not training would make it impossible for there to be any regular success of cutting to happen, let alone a reputation for being skilled workers to be formed. That being said, how much training is truly needed to create a good warrior, is something that is debatable.

the day has finally dawned. let me kindly address a few things in this post. 1. citations, i have no need of so-called citations or your research. i lived in sulu and grew up w/ a barung as my blanket, my life was my research and that is all the verification required. 2. training, there was no gi or belt ranking system in my family's style of silat. yes, working out scenarios with "family members" actually constituted a large part of training as our art was only kept within the "family" direct or extended. cutting w/ a blade actually is an instinctual action amongst those that were raised by the old law of the barung that effected a natural as well as necessary instinct. cutting with a barung is an art and science unto itself that escapes many, especially those that train in a closed-guard. pure logic suggests nothing because that is its essence, logic is logic, suggestion borders on assumption. and finally, ioo (in our opinion) a warrior's skill is not measured by their amount of training, but in their ability to use their training, and that is not debatable.