# Bo Staff training at home



## Jedmus (Oct 10, 2016)

I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2016)

Perhaps some wall filler, paint and brushes too?


----------



## frank raud (Oct 10, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps some wall filler, paint and brushes too?


Don't forget ceiling tiles.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2016)

frank raud said:


> Don't forget ceiling tiles.



It depends, the polystyrene ones are illegal here as a fire risk. I'd suggest going outside but it's autumn so raining.

My instructor showed us how to use a Bo ( don't say Bo staff it upsets the purists as Bo means staff lol), but we never did anything with them in the way of kata etc, though he did hit me straight on the head with one when demonstrating to the kids lol.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 10, 2016)

Jedmus said:


> I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?


There are katas for the Bo, which ones would be most beneficial to you would depend on the style you are studying. Hopefully nothing like this


----------



## Danny T (Oct 10, 2016)

Curious, what is the difference in a 'bo', a 'staff', and a 'bo staff'?
My understanding is that a bo is a staff and a staff is a bo so a bo staff would be a bo bo or a staff staff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2016)

frank raud said:


> Don't forget ceiling tiles.


For me, it's lamps.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2016)

Jedmus said:


> I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?


On a serious note, have you had any training with a staff before? If you haven't I'd suggest finding someone competent to give you an introduction to basic handling before you train yourself. My reason for this is that training on your own with no foundation will likely result in ingraining bad habits that will be hard to un-learn. Once you have a few basics, extending that on your own will be more beneficial.

So, either look for someone local who will give you a few private lessons on basic staff technique or find a seminar that includes some. In most cases, they'll also teach you a simple kata for the staff, so you'll have something to work with at home.


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Oct 10, 2016)

Something to cover the TV so you don't smash it


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 10, 2016)

Check amazon.com they hAve lots of both dvd and books on bo staff


----------



## frank raud (Oct 10, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Curious, what is the difference in a 'bo', a 'staff', and a 'bo staff'?
> My understanding is that a bo is a staff and a staff is a bo so a bo staff would be a bo bo or a staff staff.


Bo is a Japanese term for a staff, traditionally 1.8m(71 inches) long. A staff is usually an English term for a weapon, traditionally somewhere between 6 an 9 feet long. In most people's minds the terms are interchangeable. A bo staff is redundant.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 10, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> For me, it's lamps.



Ceiling fans for me.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 10, 2016)

frank raud said:


> Bo is a Japanese term for a staff, traditionally 1.8m(71 inches) long. A staff is usually an English term for a weapon, traditionally somewhere between 6 an 9 feet long. In most people's minds the terms are interchangeable. A bo staff is redundant.



Unless your training in a system with multiple staff lengths, and you speak English or another non japanese language.

While Bo is a proper noun in Japanese,
It would be correct to use it as an adjective in this case:

ad·jec·tive
ˈajəktiv/
_noun_
GRAMMAR
plural noun: *adjectives*

a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.



An example:
Teacher: everyone go get a staff and line up.
A student asks: Teacher, long ones or short ones?

Vs

Teacher: Everyone go swap out your Bo Staffs (staves) for a Jo staff. Tonight we are learning a new form.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 10, 2016)

frank raud said:


> Bo is a Japanese term for a staff, traditionally 1.8m(71 inches) long. A staff is usually an English term for a weapon, traditionally somewhere between 6 an 9 feet long. In most people's minds the terms are interchangeable. A bo staff is redundant.


Yes, I realize that. Was my way of being informative with a question and the answer to show they are the same and that using bo staff is as you stated, redundant.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2016)

I said it first!


----------



## Danny T (Oct 10, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I said it first!


You are just a fast lady.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 10, 2016)

Danny T said:


> You are just a fast lady.



  I always did like fast women!


----------



## Danny T (Oct 10, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> I always did like fast women!



Uhh...Yep...I just knew someone was going to hop on that!


----------



## frank raud (Oct 10, 2016)

TSDTexan said:


> Unless your training in a system with multiple staff lengths, and you speak English or another non japanese language.
> 
> While Bo is a proper noun in Japanese,
> It would be correct to use it as an adjective in this case:
> ...



For your example to work, the students would have to know the difference in length between a Bo and a Jo(or a Hanbo), otherwise the adjective is irrelevant. AND, if they know what a Bo is, the term Bo staff is redundant.[/QUOTE]


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 10, 2016)

frank raud said:


> For your example to work, the students would have to know the difference in length between a Bo and a Jo(or a Hanbo), otherwise the adjective is irrelevant. AND, if they know what a Bo is, the term Bo staff is redundant.


[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. There maybe a newer student that transfered over from a different system that only used Bo. He or She maybe unfamiliar with the Jo.

English allows the use of proper nouns as a compound term. I know a school that never used Bo or Jo as the terms. They used Long and Short Staff as the terms.

Whatever works


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Uhh...Yep...I just knew someone was going to hop on that!


So to speak.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 11, 2016)

TSDTexan said:


> Not necessarily. There maybe a newer student that transfered over from a different system that only used Bo. He or She maybe unfamiliar with the Jo.
> 
> English allows the use of proper nouns as a compound term. I know a school that never used Bo or Jo as the terms. They used Long and Short Staff as the terms.
> 
> Whatever works


 
  I disagree. We should all strive to use the proper words, whether the language is English or something else.
 "Whatever works" inevitably leads to a downward spiral. I feel it is important to attempt to do whatever I'm doing to the best of my ability. We should strive for this with our students also.


----------



## TSDTexan (Oct 11, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> I disagree. We should all strive to use the proper words, whether the language is English or something else.
> "Whatever works" inevitably leads to a downward spiral. I feel it is important to attempt to do whatever I'm doing to the best of my ability. We should strive for this with our students also.



Bows,  walks away.


----------



## Tortoise (Oct 12, 2016)

Jedmus said:


> I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?



Don't know what your style of karate is, but I have used this video and found it helpful.

Kenpo Staff Set |

Good luck!


----------



## donald1 (Oct 12, 2016)

I train with rokushaku bo. Forms helped me get good. Having a good partner to do bunkai and sparring with helps a lot too.


----------



## Jedmus (Oct 12, 2016)

Tortoise said:


> Don't know what your style of karate is, but I have used this video and found it helpful.



Thanks for the link! I train in TKD and am starting Kuk Sool Won soon (Bo's are called Jang Bong in these martial arts (Long staff). I will have a look into this one for sure


----------



## BUCKNAKEDBULLFROG (Oct 12, 2016)

Jedmus said:


> I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?


This may sound dumb but i have used the bo in kata simply by replacing blocks or punch's with the bo as a blocking arm or punching fist.It will help you develop a feel for the bo.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 12, 2016)

I'm a huge fan of Nishiuchi and his Okinawan weapons.  If you have no one to directly teach you and really want to learn, follow this guy...


----------



## Mdwilson (Oct 31, 2016)

Nice video links. Thanks for posting these.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 7, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> don't say Bo staff it upsets the purists as Bo means staff lol


Are those the same purists who get cranky when some newb talks about loading ammunition in the "clip" of his pistol or get cranky when a newbie refers to his "Hungarian Makarov" and then the purists proceed to lecture him on his terminology, preferably with a belittling tone, instead of helping him with the question he asked?  I think I've met them.  I've seen them run off people.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Nov 7, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> I disagree. We should all strive to use the proper words, whether the language is English or something else.
> "Whatever works" inevitably leads to a downward spiral.


A "downward spiral" of what?  Of people using different terminology?

Evidence please of how this is a "bad thing" that hurts people in the long run.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> A "downward spiral" of what?  Of people using different terminology?


  A downward spiral of transmission. If you are satisfied with using "whatever works" then how do you know you are faithfully transmitting the information that you believe you are? If I tell you that 12 inches is equal to my foot size, then I show people learning from me to measure using their foot size, since that is "whatever works" for me. Now those people go on to teach that measurement is done with their foot size, but it is no longer correct because it's MY foot that's equal to 12 inches, not theirs. Admittedly, this is a tailor made scenario, but it is closely akin to what I've seen happen a lot in the martial arts.
  Here's a better example that happened to me a number of years back. We were renting space in a karate studio for some extra practice time. Some of the senior karate students were working on a wrist lock, but the one woman in the group just couldn't make it work. The problem was that the way the most senior of them had learned it required quite a bit of muscle. Being a large guy, he had no problem doing it, it was "whatever worked" for him. Since the woman in their group didn't have the necessary upper body strength, she couldn't do the technique, even though the technique would have been effective _if done correctly_. However, the fellow showing the others never learned it correctly since he didn't have to do it properly to make it work. Once I showed them how to properly engage the joints, they were astounded. The senior that was showing the others had no idea, and that's how you get into a downward spiral using "whatever works" rather than what is correct.


lklawson said:


> Evidence please of how this is a "bad thing" that hurts people in the long run.



  All you have to do is look around at the plethora of American karate or ninja schools that purport to be Japanese arts. Their usage and pronunciation of Japanese words in their arts are sometimes laughably ridiculous. I never said that it would "hurt" people, I merely said that settling for "whatever works" rather than what is correct will lead to degradation of what is being taught, whether it is actual techniques or simple pronunciation. I believe that if someone is going to teach an art that uses terminology in a foreign language, then they should use it correctly. If a person isn't interested in using it correctly, then they should use their native language rather than incorrectly using a foreign language.

  In my opinion, we should all make it a habit to strive for excellence, and never to strive for "whatever".
  Of course, that's just my opinion. Others may simply say "whatever".


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 7, 2016)

Many years ago when I was a Girl Guide we had a Captain who would get quite angry if you did something half hearted and then said 'that'll do'. 'No, that won't do' she'd say 'either try to do your best to do a good job or don't bother'. It rubbed off because I now say it to my Guides and Brownies, one must endeavour to do a good job no matter what it is.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 7, 2016)

Jedmus said:


> I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?


Check out a book titled *"BO: karate weapon of self defense" by Fumio Demura.* I've had this book for over 35 years and still reference it.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 8, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> A downward spiral of transmission. If you are satisfied with using "whatever works" then how do you know you are faithfully transmitting the information that you believe you are?


As a generic potential student, why would I care?  Whatever works means whatever works.  If a person is a "whatever works" person, then they don't particularly care if it's pieces-parts from other martial arts or cultures.  If it works, then it works.



> All you have to do is look around at the plethora of American karate or ninja schools that purport to be Japanese arts. Their usage and pronunciation of Japanese words in their arts are sometimes laughably ridiculous. I never said that it would "hurt" people, I merely said that settling for "whatever works" rather than what is correct will lead to degradation of what is being taught, whether it is actual techniques or simple pronunciation. I believe that if someone is going to teach an art that uses terminology in a foreign language, then they should use it correctly. If a person isn't interested in using it correctly, then they should use their native language rather than incorrectly using a foreign language.
> 
> In my opinion, we should all make it a habit to strive for excellence, and never to strive for "whatever".
> Of course, that's just my opinion. Others may simply say "whatever".


And that doesn't particularly harm anything except for the people who are very very concerned that what they consider an "important" cultural artifact might get lost in favor of something that "works" more reliably.

Personally, I'm kinda agnostic on the subject of staff fighting and staff styles.  I see a place for really hard core traditionalists who are practicing a cultural artifact regardless of whether or not it has any relevance at all to anything.  I also see a place for 100% practical "whatever works" practitioners who are free to call it everything from "Bo Staff" to "big wooden dildo" to "long beat'n stick."

And when those really hard core traditionalists complain that tradition is being flouted and lost through the actions of the "whatever works" practicalists, it amuses me.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 8, 2016)

lklawson said:


> I also see a place for 100% practical "whatever works" practitioners who are free to call it everything from "Bo Staff" to "big wooden dildo" to "long beat'n stick."



Please don't say that because you know there is always that one person who says what if.... and I really don't think A&E medics are going to be pleased at removing a big wooden dildo from anywhere.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 8, 2016)

lklawson said:


> As a generic potential student, why would I care?  Whatever works means whatever works.  If a person is a "whatever works" person, then they don't particularly care if it's pieces-parts from other martial arts or cultures.  If it works, then it works.
> 
> And that doesn't particularly harm anything except for the people who are very very concerned that what they consider an "important" cultural artifact might get lost in favor of something that "works" more reliably.
> 
> ...


Overall i can agree with your position, tho I do take some exception to one point, namely that there would be some kind of assumption that the traditional stuff is no longer relevant, which I take to mean, is not effective, does not work.  In my experience, the traditional stuff in which I have had instruction does work frightfully well.

"Whatever works" may work well enough.  But that traditional stuff, if properly understood and properly trained, just might work a fair bit better than that.  Of course that too depends on the individual.  In the end, ones mileage may vary.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Overall i can agree with your position, tho I do take some exception to one point, namely that there would be some kind of assumption that the traditional stuff is no longer relevant, which I take to mean, is not effective, does not work.  In my experience, the traditional stuff in which I have had instruction does work frightfully well.
> 
> "Whatever works" may work well enough.  But that traditional stuff, if properly understood and properly trained, just might work a fair bit better than that.  Of course that too depends on the individual.  In the end, ones mileage may vary.


I don't think Kirk's point was that traditional stuff doesn't work, rather that we shouldn't necessarily hang onto something simply because it is tradition (if we are looking to develop effective fighting skill). If the traditional works, then keep it. If not, then tradition should give way to something more effective.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 9, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Overall i can agree with your position, tho I do take some exception to one point, namely that there would be some kind of assumption that the traditional stuff is no longer relevant, which I take to mean, is not effective, does not work.  In my experience, the traditional stuff in which I have had instruction does work frightfully well.


Not exactly, no.  What I meant to imply was that for those very hard core traditionalists who view their art as an important cultural artifact, whether or not their art "works," is "effective" in a modern fighting context (how many staff fights happen in 1st World countries?), or is relevant is, well, irrelevant.  To them the art is important because it is a cultural artifact with tradition and intangible, cultural, importance.  Who cares if the Mona Lisa [sic] "effective" or "works?"  It's relevance to art lovers is as a cultural artifact: art.  That said, who cares how often modern practitioners of Bo are likely to engage in a fight against an armour clad Samurai wielding a sword?  That's not why they study the art.

But to those people who are "eh, whatever works," the idea of learning a Kata or series of techniques against a sai wielding opponent is an important distinction.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 9, 2016)

But you are talking about something completely different. You seem to have problems with some unknown people that you've labeled as "very hard core traditionalists" and are attempting to transfer what I am saying to whatever these unknown people have told you.

  My point is that if you strive for mediocrity by being satisfied with "whatever works", then what you'll end up with is mediocrity. Precision is a good thing and something that should be striven for in my opinion. If you don't share that opinion, then why would you bother to correct your students when they perform a technique incorrectly? If they don't properly engage the body when delivering a blow, it may still work just fine, despite the fact that it is incorrect. Whatever works right?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> My point is that if you strive for mediocrity by being satisfied with "whatever works", then what you'll end up with is mediocrity. Precision is a good thing and something that should be striven for in my opinion. If you don't share that opinion, then why would you bother to correct your students when they perform a technique incorrectly? If they don't properly engage the body when delivering a blow, it may still work just fine, despite the fact that it is incorrect. Whatever works right?



This is what I'd assumed you meant hence my post about 'that'll do'. 'Whatever works' and 'that'll do' are the same things.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 9, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> But you are talking about something completely different. You seem to have problems with some unknown people that you've labeled as "very hard core traditionalists"


Problem?  Nope.  Neither types bother me in the least.  In a lot of ways, I'm in both camps.  You didn't think I expected to get into a Bowie Knife duel did you?  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 9, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Problem?  Nope.  Neither types bother me in the least.  In a lot of ways, I'm in both camps.  You didn't think I expected to get into a Bowie Knife duel did you?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



 You mean a Bowie Knife knife duel?


----------



## Tames D (Nov 9, 2016)

T


pgsmith said:


> You mean a Bowie Knife knife duel?


That'll do


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> But you are talking about something completely different. You seem to have problems with some unknown people that you've labeled as "very hard core traditionalists" and are attempting to transfer what I am saying to whatever these unknown people have told you.
> 
> My point is that if you strive for mediocrity by being satisfied with "whatever works", then what you'll end up with is mediocrity. Precision is a good thing and something that should be striven for in my opinion. If you don't share that opinion, then why would you bother to correct your students when they perform a technique incorrectly? If they don't properly engage the body when delivering a blow, it may still work just fine, despite the fact that it is incorrect. Whatever works right?


Actually, I think he was making the point that he doesn't have a problem with that. For folks who are in it for the tradition, effectiveness in the modern context isn't a primary factor. They want to learn something the way it was done at some specific point in time, and to maintain that tradition. His comparison to the Mona Lisa is apt. Someone who's looking for effective painting techniques for their kitchen wouldn't find the techniques in the Mona Lisa useful or interesting, but to artists who paint ("traditionalists"), those techniques are important for intrinsic purposes.


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 10, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I think he was making the point that he doesn't have a problem with that. For folks who are in it for the tradition, effectiveness in the modern context isn't a primary factor. They want to learn something the way it was done at some specific point in time, and to maintain that tradition. His comparison to the Mona Lisa is apt. Someone who's looking for effective painting techniques for their kitchen wouldn't find the techniques in the Mona Lisa useful or interesting, but to artists who paint ("traditionalists"), those techniques are important for intrinsic purposes.


  But he asked for evidence of how "whatever works" leads to a downward spiral, evidence which I provided. Evidence which I assert still holds true in your example. While nobody would go to a fine arts school to learn how to paint their kitchen (unless they wanted murals!), if someone purported to teach how to properly paint kitchens, "whatever works" would still be a terrible idea. You wouldn't want your kitchen painting students using towels to paint with just because they are "whatever works". There's a correct way to do everything. This correct way may vary slightly according to each individual, but there is still a correct way, and even though something else may work, that doesn't necessarily make it correct.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 10, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> But he asked for evidence of how "whatever works" leads to a downward spiral, evidence which I provided. Evidence which I assert still holds true in your example. While nobody would go to a fine arts school to learn how to paint their kitchen (unless they wanted murals!), if someone purported to teach how to properly paint kitchens, "whatever works" would still be a terrible idea. You wouldn't want your kitchen painting students using towels to paint with just because they are "whatever works". There's a correct way to do everything. This correct way may vary slightly according to each individual, but there is still a correct way, and even though something else may work, that doesn't necessarily make it correct.


Actually, "whatever works" isn't a problem for effective kitchen painting. There are actually many correct ways to do most things (think of how many different variations of hand strikes there are). As for painting a kitchen, if the end result is attractive and durable, why would it matter whether they sprayed, used a roller, used a sponge, used a trowel, painted it with nail polish applicators, or finger-painted it on? If it works, it works.

You appear to be using "whatever works" to mean "whatever", and that's not the same concept. "Whatever works" implies the chosen solution must actually be effective for the purpose intended - it has to "work".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 10, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> even though something else may work, that doesn't necessarily make it correct


If it actually works, then how is it incorrect?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> As for painting a kitchen, if the end result is attractive and durable, why would it matter whether they sprayed, used a roller, used a sponge, used a trowel, painted it with nail polish applicators, or finger-painted it on? If it works, it works.



Ah, now here's the thing, it may work putting the paint on the wall but the various methods produce various messes that will make much more work than painting efficiently  and dare I say it...properly. There's a reason that painter and decorators have to go to college and/or be apprentices then qualify. The 'end result' might be fine but oh dear the mess you are going to have if you don't do it properly, you could of course cover everything up spending hours before you can even start painting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 10, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Ah, now here's the thing, it may work putting the paint on the wall but the various methods produce various messes that will make much more work than painting efficiently  and dare I say it...properly. There's a reason that painter and decorators have to go to college and/or be apprentices then qualify. The 'end result' might be fine but oh dear the mess you are going to have if you don't do it properly, you could of course cover everything up spending hours before you can even start painting.


Some of them will create more mess. Some of them create similar messes. Those that create more messes, the mess only matters under certain circumstances (for instance, are we replacing the floor, anyway?). My point is there are many ways to get the result. Some have distinct deficiencies, but even those can be useful (as opposed to "wrong") in some situations. And there are many (applying with sponge, applying with standard brush, applying with roller) that can get very similar results, and which is "better" depends upon the situations - none is more correct than the others in that group without context being applied.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 10, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Some of them will create more mess. Some of them create similar messes. Those that create more messes, the mess only matters under certain circumstances (for instance, are we replacing the floor, anyway?). My point is there are many ways to get the result. Some have distinct deficiencies, but even those can be useful (as opposed to "wrong") in some situations. And there are many (applying with sponge, applying with standard brush, applying with roller) that can get very similar results, and which is "better" depends upon the situations - none is more correct than the others in that group without context being applied.



Nah, you get a qualified painter and decorator in, it's a win win every time.


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 11, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> If it actually works, then how is it incorrect?



  Now you're being deliberately obtuse to provoke a reaction! 
  Here's a pretty clear example for you that actually happened years ago when I was still practicing aikido. We were working on the first teaching ikkyo (ude osae or straight arm throw). I was a strong young buck then, and could control people pretty effectively with it. However, I wasn't doing it correctly. I have large hands and plenty of upper body strength, so I could grip the wrist and upper arm, and pretty much control whatever I wanted without actually locking up the elbow. It actually worked very effectively for me, _but it wasn't correct_. As my instructor pointed out to me, I had to learn how to do the technique correctly, because some day I would hopefully need to teach it to someone without my upper body strength, and then they wouldn't be able to do the technique at all because I never learned it correctly and thus couldn't explain how it was supposed to be done.

  Everything should be taught correctly. Then, once a student has learned enough to know themselves and what they're doing, the techniques can be modified to be most effective for that individual. The Japanese refer to this a shu-ha-ri. By not learning the correct way to do something, then the correct way gets lost for subsequent teachings unless it is rediscovered.

  I can drive from my house to work by weaving back and forth through three lanes of the freeway. It actually works, but it is definitely the incorrect way to drive (despite the fact that a good number of idiots tend to drive that way!).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 11, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Now you're being deliberately obtuse to provoke a reaction!


Try leaving the insults out of a reasonable discussion. If you disagree with my point, say so without being an ***.


> Here's a pretty clear example for you that actually happened years ago when I was still practicing aikido. We were working on the first teaching ikkyo (ude osae or straight arm throw). I was a strong young buck then, and could control people pretty effectively with it. However, I wasn't doing it correctly. I have large hands and plenty of upper body strength, so I could grip the wrist and upper arm, and pretty much control whatever I wanted without actually locking up the elbow. It actually worked very effectively for me, _but it wasn't correct_. As my instructor pointed out to me, I had to learn how to do the technique correctly, because some day I would hopefully need to teach it to someone without my upper body strength, and then they wouldn't be able to do the technique at all because I never learned it correctly and thus couldn't explain how it was supposed to be done.



Ah. That's an example of something that worked in a single situation,  but doesn't work in others. It's not actually incorrect to use it where it will work, but not useful in the larger context. That actually fits my point. It wouldn't be incorrect to use that incomplete ikkyo in application, so long as it gets the needed result. You need to learn a different version (the complete ikkyo) for a different context. In the larger context, the incomplete ikkyo isn't fully effective. If it were, there wouldn't be a functional need to do the more "correct" version, though it wouldn't be wrong to use it, either.



> Everything should be taught correctly. Then, once a student has learned enough to know themselves and what they're doing, the techniques can be modified to be most effective for that individual. The Japanese refer to this a shu-ha-ri. By not learning the correct way to do something, then the correct way gets lost for subsequent teachings unless it is rediscovered.


That is true if the "incorrect" way isn't effective. 



> I can drive from my house to work by weaving back and forth through three lanes of the freeway. It actually works, but it is definitely the incorrect way to drive (despite the fact that a good number of idiots tend to drive that way!).



Actually, that only works when there's not other traffic, nor any cops, so it's not effective for getting home when there's traffic and/or cops present.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 12, 2016)

I know it's redundant to say "bo staff", but I also know that if you just say "bo" many people think of "bow" as in archery.  I think that, for them, they are just trying to be more descriptive to help others understand.

Kind of like when you always hear on the news about the HIV Virus.  Redundant, but not unacceptable.


----------



## MI_martialist (Nov 12, 2016)

Jedmus said:


> I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?




Martial Arts Books Weaponry Kata Series Bo Staff


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 12, 2016)

punisher73 said:


> I know it's redundant to say "bo staff", but I also know that if you just say "bo" many people think of "bow" as in archery



The 'o' in Bo is short, the 'o' in bow is long you can't mistake them, at least in English, American I wouldn't be sure of as they pronounce aluminium for example very strangely.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 12, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> The 'o' in Bo is short, the 'o' in bow is long you can't mistake them, at least in English, American I wouldn't be sure of as they pronounce aluminium for example very strangely.


I'm not aware of any American dialect that distinguishes between "bo" and "bow". And where the hell does that extra "i" come from?


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 12, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Now you're being deliberately obtuse to provoke a reaction!
> Here's a pretty clear example for you that actually happened years ago when I was still practicing aikido. We were working on the first teaching ikkyo (ude osae or straight arm throw). I was a strong young buck then, and could control people pretty effectively with it. However, I wasn't doing it correctly. I have large hands and plenty of upper body strength, so I could grip the wrist and upper arm, and pretty much control whatever I wanted without actually locking up the elbow. It actually worked very effectively for me, _but it wasn't correct_. As my instructor pointed out to me, I had to learn how to do the technique correctly, because some day I would hopefully need to teach it to someone without my upper body strength, and then they wouldn't be able to do the technique at all because I never learned it correctly and thus couldn't explain how it was supposed to be done.
> 
> Everything should be taught correctly. Then, once a student has learned enough to know themselves and what they're doing, the techniques can be modified to be most effective for that individual. The Japanese refer to this a shu-ha-ri. By not learning the correct way to do something, then the correct way gets lost for subsequent teachings unless it is rediscovered.
> ...




A good point.
But properly executing a technique is beyond the scope of context for my "whatever works" comment.

My comment as intended was contextual on terminology use, for non-japanese English-speaking people not technique use.

Potatoe,  Spud, or ground-apple it's the same night matter what it's called.

The point being that if an instructor chooses to employ a nonstandard or unorthodox term to get the point across, and the message is delivered and understood by the intended recipient(s), then it is good enough.

Whatever works.
I have seen a number of American Kabudo Association videos where the instructors use the term Bo Staff. They are ranked higher enough to know full well that it is a faux pas.

They do it anyway. IN their dojo they make the rules.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 12, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> The 'o' in Bo is short, the 'o' in bow is long you can't mistake them, at least in English, American I wouldn't be sure of as they pronounce aluminium for example very strangely.



Across the pond here, they are pronounced the same.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 13, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> The 'o' in Bo is short, the 'o' in bow is long you can't mistake them, at least in English, American I wouldn't be sure of as they pronounce aluminium for example very strangely.



Actually, no, the "o" in 棒 isn't "short"... it's written in hiragana as ぼう (bo-u), and is often romanized with a macron, thus: bō. Just for the record...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, no, the "o" in 棒 isn't "short"... it's written in hiragana as ぼう (bo-u), and is often romanized with a macron, thus: bō. Just for the record...



Just for the record I was talking about the English pronunciation not the Japanese which while undoubtedly the correct one doesn't stop English speakers pronouncing it the English way which is the short 'o' as opposed to the longer 'o' in bow.  Of course then you get on to the word bow as in bow of a boat which is different again as the o is 'ou' ( as in 'ouch'.) Aussies I imagine put the rising inflection on the end?


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 14, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That is true if the "incorrect" way isn't effective.



  You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I am entitled to believe they are "incorrect". Effectiveness is a rather poor way to determine the proper way of doing something. It is a good way to determine what CAN work, just not very good if you hope to find (or teach) what works best. Feel free to continue teaching your students "whatever works", and I will continue to teach mine "correctly".



TSDTexan said:


> A good point.
> But properly executing a technique is beyond the scope of context for my "whatever works" comment.
> 
> My comment as intended was contextual on terminology use, for non-japanese English-speaking people not technique use.
> ...



  They are certainly entitled to use whatever they wish in their own dojo. However, I view terminology exactly the same as any physical technique. If you're going to teach people to be sloppy in one, how can you expect them to be precise in the other? Far better, in my opinion, to be precise and correct in everything you teach, then you can reasonably expect precision out of those learning. This was my point originally, but I never expected so many people to get up in arms over it. To each their own I suppose, but I'm pretty much done beating this horse.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> Effectiveness is a rather poor way to determine the proper way of doing something.


Seriously?  Take that quote and apply it to *ANY* other topic.

This is, honestly, an illogical position to take.

Person A: "I did _X_ in order to achieve the desired result."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's wrong."
Person A: "It was effective.  It worked."
Person B : "But I was taught that the only way to do it was _Y_ so _X_ is wrong."
Person A: "_X_ was effective.  It worked."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's wrong."


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 15, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Seriously?  Take that quote and apply it to *ANY* other topic.
> 
> This is, honestly, an illogical position to take.
> 
> ...


  But your entire argument falls apart because I never said anything was wrong, just incorrect. I also never mentioned anything about not being able to do something incorrectly. In addition, I never mentioned anything about the correct way being the only way to do something. Here's an example, and I want you to explain to me how it is not right ... I train in Japanese swordsmanship. We are taught, and I teach, that you need to exhale into your cut in order to engage your center. This is the *correct* way to do it. However, it is entirely possible to cut something using only your arms and shoulders without engaging your center at all. I see people do it all the time. It's effective. It can definitely be done. It is incorrect for myriad reasons, but I'll list a few ... 1) It only works with those that have sufficient upper body strength. 2) it is much more difficult to do it well and consistently. 3) it takes much more effort and cannot be sustained very long without tiring. So, I teach people how to cut correctly, even though they may be able to cut _effectively_ already. If they choose to do things differently than I teach, that is their prerogative. However, I would be failing as an instructor if I did not teach them the correct way to cut, and instead told them to do "whatever worked".

  So, how is that scenario wrong in your eyes?


----------



## lklawson (Nov 15, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> But your entire argument falls apart because I never said anything was wrong, just incorrect.



You know that the "wrong" and "incorrect" are synonyms, right?
the definition of wrong
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error:
You are wrong to blame him.

Definition of WRONG
3:  the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a :  the state of being mistaken or incorrect

Anyway, nothing changes.  It's just as illogical.

Person A: "I did _X_ in order to achieve the desired result."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's incorrect."
Person A: "It was effective. It worked."
Person B : "But I was taught that the only way to do it was _Y_ so _X_ is incorrect."
Person A: "_X_ was effective. It worked."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's incorrect."


----------



## pgsmith (Nov 15, 2016)

lklawson said:


> You know that the "wrong" and "incorrect" are synonyms, right?
> the definition of wrong
> 3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error:
> You are wrong to blame him.
> ...


 
  So, as I said before, you are free to teach whatever you wish. You do whatever you feel you should. I will continue to teach as I was taught, that there are correct and incorrect ways to do things.

  P.S. You did NOT do as requested and explain to me how the scenario I outlined for you was wrong in your eyes, but I'm really not that interested anymore.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 16, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I am entitled to believe they are "incorrect". Effectiveness is a rather poor way to determine the proper way of doing something. It is a good way to determine what CAN work, just not very good if you hope to find (or teach) what works best. Feel free to continue teaching your students "whatever works", and I will continue to teach mine "correctly".
> 
> 
> 
> They are certainly entitled to use whatever they wish in their own dojo. However, I view terminology exactly the same as any physical technique. If you're going to teach people to be sloppy in one, how can you expect them to be precise in the other? Far better, in my opinion, to be precise and correct in everything you teach, then you can reasonably expect precision out of those learning. This was my point originally, but I never expected so many people to get up in arms over it. To each their own I suppose, but I'm pretty much done beating this horse.


So, you're saying that something that is fully effective can still be wrong? By what, then, do you measure correctness?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 16, 2016)

pgsmith said:


> But your entire argument falls apart because I never said anything was wrong, just incorrect. I also never mentioned anything about not being able to do something incorrectly. In addition, I never mentioned anything about the correct way being the only way to do something. Here's an example, and I want you to explain to me how it is not right ... I train in Japanese swordsmanship. We are taught, and I teach, that you need to exhale into your cut in order to engage your center. This is the *correct* way to do it. However, it is entirely possible to cut something using only your arms and shoulders without engaging your center at all. I see people do it all the time. It's effective. It can definitely be done. It is incorrect for myriad reasons, but I'll list a few ... 1) It only works with those that have sufficient upper body strength. 2) it is much more difficult to do it well and consistently. 3) it takes much more effort and cannot be sustained very long without tiring. So, I teach people how to cut correctly, even though they may be able to cut _effectively_ already. If they choose to do things differently than I teach, that is their prerogative. However, I would be failing as an instructor if I did not teach them the correct way to cut, and instead told them to do "whatever worked".
> 
> So, how is that scenario wrong in your eyes?


You are only including part of the result in your definition of "effective". Cutting with only the arms can produce the result of the cut, but it's not as effective if you consider the ability to cut many times in repetition in a set period of time. The more effective method makes that possible. Your argument is a strawman.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 17, 2016)

Having been taught properly ('proper' being relative to the style you may be learning), one can practice bo at home quite effectively, and should do so as often as possible.  Weapons forms require being at ease with the weapon, and that comfort level cannot be obtained without many repetitions.

In my style, Tokumine no Kun is a basic bo kata that is easy to learn and has a myriad of valid applications (bunkai).  If one gained proficiency through home practice with that kata, one would be pretty well situated to learn other bo katas or forms.


----------



## TSDTexan (Nov 21, 2016)

lklawson said:


> You know that the "wrong" and "incorrect" are synonyms, right?
> the definition of wrong
> 3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error:
> You are wrong to blame him.
> ...



Reminds me of the old karate joke.

Q: How many karateka does it take to change a light light bulb?

A: 100. 1 to change it, 99 to gripe, "that's wrong, it's not the way I was shown how to do it".


----------



## TSDTexan (Dec 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So, you're saying that something that is fully effective can still be wrong? By what, then, do you measure correctness?



Correctness = exact compliance with recieved tradition, no deviation. 
Imo: this is prevalent in dead arts, that cannot address new threats or challenges.

Ground fighting is absent from a very large percentage of striking arts.
If the kata or forms are modified to give skills for what an art never addressed, it becomes unorthodox. In the eyes of traditionalists...

HOWEVER:

IF an art is principle driven instead of technique driven it is easier to adapt as long as the essence is forefront.

I see some branches of wingchun looking into their forms for takedown defense and mitigation even though the art probably never foresaw a need for sprawling.

Is it correct?
Some will argue no. others will say yes.

My Judo coach was serious business in wingchun, and used it to get in close enough for throws. The range transition from close quarters striking to clinch & throw is almost instant.

Sport Judo abandoned serious Atemi Waza, as tournament rulesets evolved.

And at the same time japanese karate changed from okinawan self defense karate, to sport / tournament Karate, and amputated many sweeps, throws, grappling breaks and limb destructions.

It was almost as if in Japan you want to strike in tournaments  you must do karate tournaments, or if you want to throw people you do Judo tournaments... or be disqualified.

I see fewer and fewer Judo coaches who were thoroughly trained in atemi.
But I know 5 World War I I Judo guys who know oodles of it.


----------



## jacksmall (Feb 8, 2017)

There is a bunch of videos online with this instructor available.





There is also this guy's videos around.
UltimateTraining


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 21, 2017)

Jedmus said:


> I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?



Books I would suggest Fumio Demura books.

He has them for many different weapons and shows good traditional techniques and forms.

We got him to sign my son's copy of his book on the Sai a couple years ago.  It's one of my son's prized possessions.


----------



## DrewTheTKDStudent1992 (Jan 31, 2021)

Jedmus said:


> I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?



There is this book I am looking at. It’s called
*The Art and Science of Staff Fighting: A Complete Instructional Guide *by Joe Varady.

It’s available on Hardcover and eBook format on Amazon.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 1, 2021)

DrewTheTKDStudent1992 said:


> There is this book I am looking at. It’s called
> *The Art and Science of Staff Fighting: A Complete Instructional Guide *by Joe Varady.
> 
> It’s available on Hardcover and eBook format on Amazon.


You're about 4 years late on this one, friend.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## DrewTheTKDStudent1992 (Feb 1, 2021)

lklawson said:


> You're about 4 years late on this one, friend.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yeah, well it's better late than never.


----------

