# Train the Stick to Learn the Blade?



## Phil Elmore (Oct 31, 2003)

*Train the Stick to Learn the Blade?*http://www.themartialist.com/1103/sticktoblade.htm


----------



## lhommedieu (Oct 31, 2003)

For one aspect, see:

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze4fs8i/bodymechanics.htm

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## Titan Uk (Nov 2, 2003)

Just started to look at weapon fighting.
There are some great ideas and information. 

Many thanks


----------



## triwahine (Dec 23, 2003)

I took a look at these sights.  Very interesting.  Thanks for sharing.

Aloha,
B


----------



## dohap (Dec 25, 2003)

One got to use a stick as a blade simulator, so got to forget about some kind of moves: abanico, curved strikes, grasping the stick and many traditional ways of blocking.


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 26, 2003)

> One got to use a stick as a blade simulator,



Just curious who you study with; I have only heard one group use this expression.

Chad


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 26, 2003)

Steve-
Nice site!


----------



## Gaucho (Dec 26, 2003)

While it is true that you can grossly approximate blade fighting with sticks (if the instructor is a skilled enough bladefighter to know the differences between stick and blade and constantly pounds the proper intention and mechanics in his students), in my experience the translation from stick to blade is just that, a gross approximation. 

The longer and/or wider the blade, the less closely you can approximate its feel with a rattan stick.

The feel of a particular blade as you swing it and strike with it- its overall wt, its point of balance, its sweet spot, its momentum and inertia, the relationship between its point and edge geometry- holds the secrets to its effective use in combat. These secrets unfortunately cannot be discovered if you train with a stick. The machete is an excellent example of this.

The machete has a very particular feel in the hand. It is tip heavy. Its blade is wide and acts like a wing when you swing it at speed, and this airfoil effect generates its own unique inertia. We have discovered through painful experience that some of the machete handling skills that one learns in the various traditional FMA bolo/machete flow drills using sticks fail- *do not work*- when attempted with a real (albeit blunted) machete. In realtime a machete just moves completely differently than a stick.

The same is true to a greater or lesser degree with other blades.

Don't get me wrong. I love stick work. I practice it all the time. But as stick work. Now, if I lived in a place and time where blade training was punishable by death, then of course I would train publicly with sticks. But fortunately I don't live in such a place or time. I am free to train as I please with the most realistic equipment I can afford. So, since outstanding blade trainers are available for relatively little cost through companies like Sof-Stix Concepts, Edges 2 Inc, Purpleheart Armoury and others, I can train to fight with blades more efficiently with them than with sticks. 

Oh, BTW, if machetes are what you are into, my friend David Monroe at Sof-Stix made up some absolutely terrific machete trainers for me and my guys. They closely approximate the wt and feel of real machetes, they are cheap, and although they still whack you pretty good, they don't hurt nearly as much as wooden wasters from Purpleheart or blunted live machetes from Ontario or whomever. They are a great way to start exploring effective machete fighting (please note that I have no assoc with the above mentioned companies whatsoever other than happily using their stuff).

Respectfully,

Mario


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 26, 2003)

I agree with Mario to a degree.

When Remy Presas said, "It's all da same!" He didn't mean identical. He ment finding the similarities in your movement to different tools so that your skills can "translate" from one tool to the next. This way, my blade work helps my stickwork, my stickwork helps my blade work, my weapon work helps my empty hand, and so forth. "translating" is important. But, its also important that we are aware of our tools, and the strengths and limitations. A stick and a blade don't feel the same, and the body mechanics in using a blunt weapon differ then using a sharp weapon.

Now, can you use a stick like a "training blade" with partner work? I believe so. The difference is, though, you have to use it like a blade, though and not a stick. You also have to do live blade drawing and cutting drills, so you know how a real blade feels in your hand, and how it cuts. When you know this, you can simlate a blade in training with a stick or training blade no problem.

The key is recognizing the differences and similarities of your tools, so you can make them work for you.

PAUL


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2003)

Mario & Paul,

This is why I say you must understand the attributes and characteristics of the weapon you are using, even if it is empty hands.

Thanks


----------



## Gaucho (Dec 26, 2003)

Clearly the universal principles translate back and forth across the continuum of weapons and EHs work. But the specific skills do not always translate back and forth from weapon to weapon. 

In our experience, fighting skills seem to translate outward from the blade better than they do inward to the blade, which is why we teach from the blade out. But that's us. There are many paths to the same end. The bottom line is that it takes a lot of work, a lot sweat and bruise and blood equity, to get to the point of GM Presas' "Its all da same!". To be able to pick up anything at hand- or nothing at all- and fight your fight efficiently and well...that is truly Art.

Mario


----------



## Gaucho (Dec 26, 2003)

Here's another interesting example to mull over- the entrenching tool. A small camp shovel.

Swing it like a stick. It doesn't feel very good- you have to muscle it around- and beleive me it doesn't fight all that well either.

How about like a machete? Definitely better, but what feels good is limited, the rest is still muscle. And, since there is no real edge, you lose a lot of the more subtle work.

Now, how about like a tomahawk? That's what it looked like to me initially- a broadheaded, blunt tomahawk. And swinging it like a 'hawk works pretty good, actually, although its not nearly as fast in the hand because the balance is wrong.

Now, choke up on the handle until you find the center of balance. Swing it now (like the Russians do). Its MUCH faster and more liquid in the hand. Point, edges, flat, punyo all become much more accessable in realtime.

Each weapon speaks to you. It behooves you to learn its language.

Mario


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gaucho _
> *In our experience, fighting skills seem to translate outward from the blade better than they do inward to the blade, which is why we teach from the blade out.  *



Interesting thought. I thought your previous post on the differences between sword and stick was also very good--the point about the center of balance of a sword is very important. Additionally, a sword must be sliced through an opponent, not simply swung at them (unless one intends to hack, not cut).

There's a lot of good info. in this thread!


----------



## Gaucho (Dec 26, 2003)

Thinking about the tomahawk reminded me of something Tuhon Leo (Gaje) said. According to him, when Filipino sailors were first exposed to the tomahawk, they immediately flipped it upside down and held it with the 'hawk's head as their punyo. What an elegant solution!  huh?

The tomahawk when wielded correctly obviously felt wrong to them given their stick experience. By flipping it, they could wield it comfortably like a stick and have the added benefit of a sharp handguard/punyo to boot.  They lost a significant amount of the tomahawk's wonderful capabilities in the process, of course, but it did allow them to translate their familiar skills to the new weapon instantly. I presume that over time, many of these fighters learned to use 'hawks in the more traditional head-up way as the benefits far outweigh the necessary training time required to learn it.

Mario


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 26, 2003)

> Each weapon speaks to you. It behooves you to learn its language.



I like that! In fact I am going to steal it!  this is something I have tried to explain time and again using way too many words!

Chad


----------



## Gaucho (Dec 26, 2003)

You're welcome to it Chad  . I'm sure I probably stole it from someone else at some point . 

The second part to the saying is that with each new language you learn, it becomes that much easier to learn the next. And after a while, the underlying patterns in language families- e.g., short swords; axes and maces; one handed swords and canes; flexible weapons...- start to emerge. You start to see the forest for the trees again and begin to find the universality of movement and principle that underlies all fighting. Its a challenging, joyful, lifelong process, IMO.

Best regards,

Mario


----------



## Gaucho (Dec 26, 2003)

You know, another issue that we should probably clarify further is to look at this from the point of view of the counter attacker.

In partner drills, sparring, or scenario training, if you work against a blade with a point, a palpable edge or edges, flats, etc., you actually learn what will work against a blade and what won't. Your reactions to attacks will be truer, your evasions, your parries, your counter-attacks, your destructions, your disarms all will be truer. Consequently, your assessment of your ability to survive a real encounter against a live blade will be more accurate.

Mario


----------



## Phil Elmore (Dec 30, 2003)

> Clearly the universal principles translate back and forth across the continuum of weapons and EHs work. But the specific skills do not always translate back and forth from weapon to weapon.



This was the thesis of my original article.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 22, 2004)

You know, a short while back I spent some time training (briefly) under the guy who can be found at silat-video.com and something he talked about kind of struck me.

Back when these arts and their training methods were developed, the machete was not a weapon. It was a tool used every day. People used is every day to cut paths, farm things, etc. Every day they used the thing to cut.

So, to them, they already had a daily training regime to know how to orient the blade.

Nowdays of course we don't carry machetes around as tools in our belts. So it seems that something that the original creators took for granted has been dropped.

Food for thought.


----------



## OULobo (Sep 24, 2004)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> You know, a short while back I spent some time training (briefly) under the guy who can be found at silat-video.com and something he talked about kind of struck me.
> 
> Back when these arts and their training methods were developed, the machete was not a weapon. It was a tool used every day. People used is every day to cut paths, farm things, etc. Every day they used the thing to cut.
> 
> ...



They were conditioned to swing it and experienced in the better angles of cutting, but that doesn't always equate to a good fighter. Still it makes you long for the days when things were tools and on weapons (as labeled by the federal government).


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> They were conditioned to swing it and experienced in the better angles of cutting, but that doesn't always equate to a good fighter.



Yes. I never said that using a tool would make you a fighter. But it does teach you the use of the edge. So if you couple that with combat training, you get the full skill use. And the other aspects of combat training do not have to worry too much with ingraining you with edge use. But the aspects that they took for granted (i.e. using a blade to cut aeveryday) has been dropped. So, is it that important or should there be other expercises and training included to cover the gap?


----------

