Entertainment desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 9

what type of cancer did Arlene Francis have

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.219.35 (talk • contribs)

Hi, and Welcome to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. I say that assuming that You are new to Wikipedia since You didn't sign your post. Anyway, after clicking on links from the first 3 pages of Google results, I found nothing other than cancer. Maybe your best chance of finding out the cause of death would be to sign up for one of the public records sites free trials and then cancelling before You get hit with the recurring charge. Or You could slog through the 5.6 million Google results for her, but I suspect most will only say cancer. Jonel469 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Martial Art Escrima as good as the Practioners claim?

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

I have heard of a seemingly effective martial art called Escrima. Aside from the historical nonsense some of the practioners claim (I used to work as a historian, so I am quite used to myths and common misunderstandings when it comes to historical facts), I have heard some very positive feedbacks from people who recently started practicing this martial art. Since my speciality is the reception and interpretation of historical data and not so much the details of a fighting art itself, my question is: is Escrima nearly as effective as the supporters propagate it or is it more or less the same thing you could find in other martial arts and combat systems as well? Is it really special and outstanding?

Thank you very much for your responses.

I wish you all the very best.--178.195.94.230 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Eskrima for our article. One would have thought that a martial art which uses edged weapons would be more effective than one which uses only the body, and less effective than one which uses firearms, but that may be entering the realm of speculation. Tevildo (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under that reasoning, this martial art is undoubtedly the best of them all!--Jayron32 23:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even better are those well-known typographical errors, marital arts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Make love not war. --Jayron32 17:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love already is "not war". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Depends on how you like it... --Jayron32 18:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The enemy can not push a button... if you disable his hand!" Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any style is only as good as the fighter using it. All the learning and practice in the world can only help a naturally small, slow or stupid person so far. Long weapons have their perks, but if you leave yourself open to attack, it's up to your opponent to capitalize or not. If he's a better fighter, he'll punch/kick/throw/shoot you, and if he's good enough, you won't even remember your training (or your name).

Best to stay generally fit, mentally and physically. Pick and choose techniques that suit your own shape, abilities and likely opponents, rather than adhering strictly to any one school. Remember, fighting is theoretically very simple: Connect your hardest point with their softest point first. If it goes to the ground, mount. There are certain fundamentals to getting this done and a teacher helps, but the details will vary, person to person.

So no, nothing special about Eskrima, and nothing inherently ineffective about it, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a rumor, but is it true, that Escrima is extremely vulnerable when it comes to thrusting attacks? I am asking because the famous scholar Antonio Pigafetta mentions that many Filipinos who were against the Spaniards died by thrusting attacks in close combat (since this does not say much about the modern versions of the art, I am questioning the usefulness of the information for our own period).--178.195.94.230 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The windmill striking aspects aren't effective up close. They rely on focusing the momentum of the swing into the extreme end of the arm/leg/stick. Hitting someone close would be like hitting a baseball near the handle of the bat. A long swung weapon would be more cumbersome than useful in close, while a forward pointing spear (basically) only needs the room of its width.

Fortunately for Eskrima fighters, they've realized this and incorporated shorter technigues and weapons. Capoeira still doesn't seem to get the hint.

Here's an good overview of the fighting ranges, and tips for working with distance. (Three pages, click next at bottom. If you want, of course.) InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the informations.--178.195.94.230 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]