# Carbon Fiber Bo Staffs



## DawnieMarie_X (Aug 27, 2015)

Anyone have any opinions on carbon fiber bo staffs?  I would use it obviously more for spins and extreme forms.  What would the durability be for strikes and such?  Any help would be appreciated?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 27, 2015)

I would be extremely reluctant to use most carbon fiber staffs for any actual striking.  I've only seen a few, but they were designed more for speedy swinging and twirling, and I just don't think they'd hold up to much striking.  Even the carbon fiber baseball bats have a limited number of hits before they start to break down.


----------



## DawnieMarie_X (Aug 27, 2015)

Do you know if there are different core materials that would make a difference? foam vs titanium, or anything else? And forgive me if it's a silly question.  haha


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 28, 2015)

DawnieMarie_X said:


> Anyone have any opinions on carbon fiber bo staffs?  I would use it obviously more for spins and extreme forms.  What would the durability be for strikes and such?  Any help would be appreciated?



Hi Dawn,

Hmm… opinions… yeah… not good ones, though.

Frankly, they're not good weapons… what they are good for is, essentially, baton twirling. They're light, with the ends often tapered (to reduce weight even more), centrally balanced (instead of properly weighted across the length of the weapon, which would be needed for striking)… all of which makes them great for speed and spinning… but lacking in all the properties that would make them a useful, practical weapon for martial arts practice. There are reasons no system that actually trains bo as a weapon (and no, I don't count XMA-style usage as actual weapon training) use such things. 

What all this means, of course, is that it comes down to the intended purpose. If you're just using it for XMA-style performance, fast spinning etc, well, that's what they're designed for. But if you're wanting to use it for striking (target or an opponent in a training drill), I'd stick to wood. And I'd go to a school who knows how to teach it that way.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 28, 2015)

They are as Chris and jks9199 said good for what they are designed for which is twirling, fast spinning, demonstration of XMA, etc.  They are not real tools that are designed for striking or serious martial usage.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 28, 2015)

I don't know that I agree with the adjective "serious", Brian.  The folks that do the XMA stuff are hardworking, and I'm sure they take what they do seriously, and while it's not really my thing, I don't want to belittle their work or effort.  I'd suggest "practical" instead of "serious."

As to the question of whether or not a change in core, or structure make one more usable?  Probably.  Like I said, they do make carbon fiber baseball & softball bats, and they use carbon fiber shafts in some golf clubs.  (Interesting article I came across regarding the use of carbon fiber...)  But...  Trees are cheap, and pretty easily replaced.  Wooden staffs work well.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 28, 2015)

Okay maybe "serious" is the wrong term as I agree that they are hardworking and some are incredible athletes.  Practical makes a lot more sense.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2015)

Cricket bats however are made of at least 90% wood.
90% of the volume of bat handles should be made of cane, wood and/or twine.
The other 10% can be used "for the purpose of reducing vibration, for example rubber".
None of these new fangled modern materials allowed.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 30, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Cricket bats however are made of at least 90% wood.
> 90% of the volume of bat handles should be made of cane, wood and/or twine.
> The other 10% can be used "for the purpose of reducing vibration, for example rubber".
> None of these new fangled modern materials allowed.



Yet * another * relic of the empire on which the sun set, long ago. When are you folks gonna finally give it up for rounders.....er, I mean" baseball?"


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2015)

elder999 said:


> Yet * another * relic of the empire on which the sun set, long ago. When are you folks gonna finally give it up for rounders.....er, I mean" baseball?"




We don't want to upset the colonials you know, they love their cricket besides more countries and people play cricket than play baseball. (We also invented rounders.0
USACA

International Cricket Council has given following status to their member countries: 

Test Status; 
1. Australia 
2. Bangladesh 
3. England 
4. India 
5. New Zealand 
6. Pakistan 
7. South Africa 
8. Sri Lanka 
9. West Indies 

Zimbabwe also has Test status as 10th Country But they are not playing Test due to Political reasons of their Country. 

All 10 are Full members of ICC. 

At present along with these 10 countries following Countries have one-day status (based on World Cricket League): 

1. Afghanistan 
2. Canada 
3. Ireland 
4. Kenya 
5. Netherlands 
6. Scotland 

34 another countries played in World Cricket League. Argentina, Belgium belongs to this group. Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Netherlands, Scotland also belongs to this group. 

All 34 countries are Associate members of ICC. 

Another 60 countries also played cricket according to Laws of Cricket. The are Affiliate members of ICC. 

Afghanistan, Bhutan, Brazil belongs to this group.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 31, 2015)

DawnieMarie_X said:


> Anyone have any opinions on carbon fiber bo staffs?  I would use it obviously more for spins and extreme forms.  What would the durability be for strikes and such?  Any help would be appreciated?



Carbon fiber bo's are generally going to be a bad idea.  

They're simply too light to generate an effective strike, and the insubstantial weight can easily lead to the development of mechanical errors when it comes to your bojutsu fundamentals.  Proper bojutsu mechanics, after all, should rely on the legs and hips being used to generate power and speed, not the hands and arms.  With a carbon fiber bo, you never really develop a feel for using those legs and hips, since it's too easy to twirl it around using just the hands and arms (no worries about fatigue).  

If you really want a lighter weight bo that will still be useful, there are plenty of wood selections that would do just fine, such as ash, hard maple, or even waxwood.  Any of the three are going to be relatively inexpensive.


----------

