# Never done that before



## skribs (Aug 6, 2019)

So far, at my school, we have officially used nunchaku, eskrima sticks, bo staff, knife, and sword as weapons.  Unofficially, I've practiced the 3-section staff and lightsaber.

Today, we used a new weapon.  One I hadn't used before.  The belt.

My Master started showing us how to use the belt to wrap someone up.  That was an interesting class.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 6, 2019)

....the lightsaber !?


----------



## wab25 (Aug 6, 2019)

skribs said:


> My Master started showing us how to use the belt to wrap someone up. That was an interesting class.


Wait till he starts showing you how to throw someone with it...

1:45 mark here:


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 6, 2019)

Xue Sheng said:


> ....the lightsaber !?


They have competitions for it. One of my friends 'trains' it, they have actual forms and everything. I tried learning from the place he was learning it, but not a fan of the people. He taught me seperately for about 6 months; kind of stage combat stuff. Think wushu but less acrobatic. Not my cup of tea.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 6, 2019)

Its a belt basically just a worse Nunchuk?  principles seem to be the same.      or should be similar at least.   


Oh wait, do you mean the grading belt type of belt and not a actual belt?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 6, 2019)

Rat said:


> Its a belt basically just a worse Nunchuk?  principles seem to be the same.      or should be similar at least.
> 
> 
> Oh wait, do you mean the grading belt type of belt and not a actual belt?


A belt and a nunchuck are two entirely different things. And id rather learn how to use a belt, if for nothing else than im more likely to have one around.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 6, 2019)

My understanding a belt is more like a whip or a 9 section chain than it is a nunchuck


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 6, 2019)

Ancient assassin technique.


----------



## skribs (Aug 6, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Wait till he starts showing you how to throw someone with it...
> 
> 1:45 mark here:



Oh yeah, we were doing throws.  But arm throws, not neck throws.



Xue Sheng said:


> ....the lightsaber !?



Bought some and brought them in for our demonstration team to play with.  They were a huge hit.  



Rat said:


> Its a belt basically just a worse Nunchuk? principles seem to be the same. or should be similar at least.
> 
> 
> Oh wait, do you mean the grading belt type of belt and not a actual belt?



It's more like a rope.  You can smack people with it, but it's more useful for wrapping them up, to isolate or break limbs.



kempodisciple said:


> A belt and a nunchuck are two entirely different things. And id rather learn how to use a belt, if for nothing else than im more likely to have one around.



I'm more likely to have nunchucks.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Ancient assassin technique.



Our belts are WAY too thick for that.


----------



## skribs (Aug 6, 2019)

Xue Sheng said:


> My understanding a belt is more like a whip or a 9 section chain than it is a nunchuck



I think you can easily condense weapons into sticks, blades, and flails.  Whips, chains, nunchaku, etc. all follow similar principles of movement.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 6, 2019)

You can use your belt to develop your arm strength, grip strength, and MA technique at the same time. The easiest "strength training" equipment that you can carry with you no matter where you go.


----------



## skribs (Aug 6, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can use your belt to develop your arm strength, grip strength, and MA technique at the same time. The easiest "strength training" equipment that you can carry with you no matter where you go.



Those look like an even worse version of the elastic bands they use for resistance training.


----------



## jobo (Aug 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> Those look like an even worse version of the elastic bands they use for resistance training.


those elastic bands are excellent for resistance training and cost significantly less than a bar set, though I use old inner tubes as they are free and you can't get better than free,
, belts are in fact better for some exercisces

 , but I don't use a belt rather a nylon webbing dog lead , or some times a length of 1 tone breaking strain boating rope, as the extra  bit if stretcheness helps


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 7, 2019)

In the 80's in Korea, I watched a Guk Sool Won demonstration where they showed the use of belts, I don't recall now what in defense of.  A TKD student of mine mentioned his teach once showing the defense of nunchaku using the belt.  I was never taught that in the Hapkido I studied.  Maybe just didn't get high enough.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> I think you can easily condense weapons into sticks, blades, and flails.  Whips, chains, nunchaku, etc. all follow similar principles of movement.


Which of these three categories do brass knuckles fall into? Or warhammers? Or the garrote? 

Are axes swords and knives all 'blades'? Because they are handled completely differently.

Spears staves and Kali/Arnis stcks? There's a small amount of overlap as to how they handle. I guess.


----------



## skribs (Aug 7, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Which of these three categories do brass knuckles fall into? Or warhammers? Or the garrote?
> 
> Are axes swords and knives all 'blades'? Because they are handled completely differently.
> 
> Spears staves and Kali/Arnis stcks? There's a small amount of overlap as to how they handle. I guess.




Brass knuckles - unarmed.  (That's the skill Fist Weapons use in World of Warcraft, that's good enough for me).
Warhammers - sticks
Garrote - Flail
Axes - Sticks (based on how you use them)
Swords - Blades
Knives - Blades
Spears - Blades
Staves - Sticks
Kali/Arnis - Sticks (or blades if you're using knife techniques)


----------



## Martial D (Aug 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> Brass knuckles - unarmed.  (That's the skill Fist Weapons use in World of Warcraft, that's good enough for me).
> Warhammers - sticks
> Garrote - Flail
> Axes - Sticks (based on how you use them)
> ...


So brass knuckles are not even a weapon, axes and warhammers handle like a stick and are sticks...

You know what, I honestly can't even give this a serious reply lol


----------



## skribs (Aug 8, 2019)

Martial D said:


> So brass knuckles are not even a weapon, axes and warhammers handle like a stick and are sticks...
> 
> You know what, I honestly can't even give this a serious reply lol



You would use the same type of strike for an axe or warhammer.  It's like the difference between an open-hand block and a closed-fisted block.

You would use the same types of techniques with brass knuckles as if you were punching.

If you look at it from the perspective of what types of techniques you would use with it, they are very similar.  Now, it's not perfect.  There's obviously a difference between a dagger and a greatsword.  But I'm just boiling down to as few categories as I can.  You have weapons that use their weight, weapons that use their edge, and weapons that can bend.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> You would use the same type of strike for an axe or warhammer.  It's like the difference between an open-hand block and a closed-fisted block.



The weight on them makes both how to swing them and the strategy/tactics involved different. As a basic example, i cant do an umbrella block with an axe.



> You would use the same types of techniques with brass knuckles as if you were punching.



Brass knuckles require a different hand position, and different strategies. There are also things you can do with them (block weapons), and things you cant (grab) to make it different from unarmed.

Its risky to create broad categories for weapons like that and try to force them into those categories, for two reasons. First is that any weapon you will conceivably have on you, you should be training with. Second is you shouldn't assume you know, or are capable of using or teaching, a weapon because you are capable of using another weapon in the same "group", which categorizing it like that would absolutely lead people to do.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 8, 2019)

Also, where do guns fit?


----------



## skribs (Aug 8, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> The weight on them makes both how to swing them and the strategy/tactics involved different. As a basic example, i cant do an umbrella block with an axe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm obviously making very broad categories here.  It's a way of categorizing them that makes sense to me.  It doesn't have to make sense to you.  I even gave you bigger flaws than you're giving me, and you haven't jumped on those.  You're not even going to try to use the dagger vs. greatsword argument?

And the reason I make these categories is not necessarily for weapons you train with, but more for improvised weapons.  If I am trained in sticks, I can pick up a stick.  If I am trained in nunchucks, I can pick up a chain.  It's not about what I carry, but about what I can find.




kempodisciple said:


> Also, where do guns fit?



Some fit in holsters, others in slings.


----------



## skribs (Aug 8, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Also, where do guns fit?



I should have clarified that my thought process was more regarding improvised weapons than carry weapons.  However, it is conceivable that a gun could fit into the stick category.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> You would use the same type of strike for an axe or warhammer.  It's like the difference between an open-hand block and a closed-fisted block.
> 
> You would use the same types of techniques with brass knuckles as if you were punching.
> 
> If you look at it from the perspective of what types of techniques you would use with it, they are very similar.  Now, it's not perfect.  There's obviously a difference between a dagger and a greatsword.  But I'm just boiling down to as few categories as I can.  You have weapons that use their weight, weapons that use their edge, and weapons that can bend.


Eh. If you find that to be coherent or useful, knock yourself out.


----------



## skribs (Aug 8, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Eh. If you find that to be coherent or useful, knock yourself out.



To be clear, I'm not saying they're exactly the same.  I'm saying if you know how to punch, and you pick up brass knuckles, it's not going to be a huge learning curve in how to effectively use them.

If you know how to use an ax, then you could pick up a big stick, a baseball bat, a hammer, a tire iron, a folding chair, and effectively use them.

If you know how to use nunchucks, then you could pick up a chain and use it.

Knowing how to punch doesn't translate as well to using a sword or an ax.  Knowing how to use escrima sticks doesn't translate to how to use a chain.  This is why I categorize them this way.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> To be clear, I'm not saying they're exactly the same.  I'm saying if you know how to punch, and you pick up brass knuckles, it's not going to be a huge learning curve in how to effectively use them.
> 
> If you know how to use an ax, then you could pick up a big stick, a baseball bat, a hammer, a tire iron, a folding chair, and effectively use them.
> 
> ...


Hmm. There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin lol

At the beginning I guess.

Knuckle dusters are used aligned to the middle knuckle, striking with them is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment. So sort of but not really.

Swinging an axe is markedly different than swinging a stick (ignoring the fact that it has a blade..why is it a stick and not a blade? Anyway..). You have edge alignment, end weighting which makes the swing pivot different than a weapon that is evenly weighted like a stick, the striking zone is on the head rather than anywhere. Etc

Nunchuku and a chain. Again completely different. Swing a chain around and catch the end. I'm sure your fingers will heal. One is two ten inch rigid sticks(why isn't it a stick? It certainly more similar than an axe....) connected by 3-4 inches of plyable 'bendy' stuff(chain or rope) the other entirely bendy stuff. The physics of how they move is completely different.

Anyway this is stupid. I feel like I have lost iq points for taking the bait on this.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Hmm. There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin lol
> 
> At the beginning I guess.
> 
> ...



I expected better from you.  Did you drink before writing this post?  I don't think I've ever seen you this blatantly disrespectful to another opinion than yours.  Or have I just not been paying attention to you?

"Striking with knuckle-dusters is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment."  So there's only one way to align a hook punch?  If someone is good at hook punches, would you not assume they can use knuckle-dusters?  Also, fist weapons extends beyond just knuckle dusters.  Some of them will work a lot better with the motions of a straight punch.

I've picked up a chain and used the same techniques as on my nunchucks.  Is it perfectly the same?  No.  But the way it moves when you swing it is the same.  If I strike someone with a chain, I'm going to use a similar technique as nunchucks.  It's not about what is hitting, it's about how you would use it.

I categorized axes as sticks, because I categorized maces and hammers as sticks, and both axes and maces use the exact same physics when you swing, and are similarly designed for defense.

"Anyway this is stupid. I feel like I have lost iq points for taking the bait on this."  Great way to help me win the argument, resort to insults.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> I expected better from you.  Did you drink before writing this post?  I don't think I've ever seen you this blatantly disrespectful to another opinion than yours.  Or have I just not been paying attention to you?
> 
> "Striking with knuckle-dusters is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment."  So there's only one way to align a hook punch?  If someone is good at hook punches, would you not assume they can use knuckle-dusters?  Also, fist weapons extends beyond just knuckle dusters.  Some of them will work a lot better with the motions of a straight punch.
> 
> ...


I reply to people as they teach me to reply to them. Respect certainly is always the starting point, but not always the end point.

Much of what you post is so far into the stratosphere it registers on DOPPLER.

That is all.


----------



## jobo (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> I expected better from you.  Did you drink before writing this post?  I don't think I've ever seen you this blatantly disrespectful to another opinion than yours.  Or have I just not been paying attention to you?
> 
> "Striking with knuckle-dusters is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment."  So there's only one way to align a hook punch?  If someone is good at hook punches, would you not assume they can use knuckle-dusters?  Also, fist weapons extends beyond just knuckle dusters.  Some of them will work a lot better with the motions of a straight punch.
> 
> ...


striking with Knuckles dusters is a lot different, they are of course a force multiplyer, but only to the point that at a certain force they cause possibly an equal level of damage to the user or at least throwing proper hook punch with a duster will breaks your hand, so you can't and have to extensively modify it


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I reply to people as they teach me to reply to them. Respect certainly is always the starting point, but not always the end point.
> 
> Much of what you post is so far into the stratosphere it registers on DOPPLER.
> 
> That is all.



Who are you to be casting stones on this?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> To be clear, I'm not saying they're exactly the same.  I'm saying if you know how to punch, and you pick up brass knuckles, it's not going to be a huge learning curve in how to effectively use them.
> 
> If you know how to use an ax, then you could pick up a big stick, a baseball bat, a hammer, a tire iron, a folding chair, and effectively use them.
> 
> ...


The issue here is that there still is a learning curve, that people have to be aware of, even for improvising weapons. You should train as closely as possible to the improvised weapon as you can, which might not happen if you put knife and halberd in the same category.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> The issue here is that there still is a learning curve, that people have to be aware of, even for improvising weapons. You should train as closely as possible to the improvised weapon as you can, which might not happen if you put knife and halberd in the same category.



I don't.  Halberd is more of a stick.  And how do you improvise a halberd?

Like I said, it's not perfect.  But there are a lot of things that translate.  Just like there are a lot of things a boxer doesn't know about kicks, but a lot of the concepts of striking translate (like how your hips and your shoulders determine your power).  Someone with a year of practicing nunchucks would be better with a chain than someone without.  Someone with a year of practicing a staff would be better at eskrima than someone with no training, even if both have never touched an eskrima stick before.  

I can make more categories, but then you run into the other problem.  How granular do you get when categorizing things?  Do I keep spears, staves, and polearms together?  Do I separate Halberds from Bills and Voulges?  How deep do my categories need to go?

What I'm doing is separating them into large categories, like how scientists have separated Vertibrates from Invertibrates, and then have separated out Fish, Amphibians, Mammals, Birds, and Reptiles.  And then have separated out whales, apes, dogs, cats, rodents, marsupials, bats, foxes, weasels, goats...you get the point.  

I'm just looking at a way of categorizing things.  Maybe I need to go down a level, and we can argue what that level is.  I was just trying to be as generic as possible.  And I still have yet to hear someone refute that you have:

Weapons which the primary damage is done by concentrating weight
Weapons in which the primary damage is done by cutting or piercing with an edge or point
Weapons which are not completely solid


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm just looking at a way of categorizing things.  Maybe I need to go down a level, and we can argue what that level is.  I was just trying to be as generic as possible.  And I still have yet to hear someone refute that you have:
> 
> Weapons which the primary damage is done by concentrating weight
> Weapons in which the primary damage is done by cutting or piercing with an edge or point
> Weapons which are not completely solid


To address this point first: I did refute this earlier, you just kind of dismissed it, or didn't realize it was a refutation. But there are two refutations to this. The first is projectiles. Guns, slingshots, bows, rubber bands even. Those don't fit into any of those categories, and some can by improvised weapons (I can make an improvised slingshot and use some rocks if I really wanted to). That's easily solved by adding a fourth category: projectiles.

The second refutation is that there are weapons that do multiples of those things. One I mentioned; the halberd. You could use it as a stick-like weapon, but you can also use it as a bladed weapon. You've also got spears, which can be used as either a staff or a really long sword. There's even a weapon I've got at my home (bought from a farmer in spain), which acts as both a slingshot and a whip. It's primary purpose was for herding goat, the noises from the whip keep them moving in x direction, then you shoot a rock in that area to make a noise, preventing them from going too far. But for self-defense, you could use it as either a sling or a whip.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> I don't.  Halberd is more of a stick.  And how do you improvise a halberd?
> 
> Like I said, it's not perfect.  But there are a lot of things that translate.  Just like there are a lot of things a boxer doesn't know about kicks, but a lot of the concepts of striking translate (like how your hips and your shoulders determine your power).  Someone with a year of practicing nunchucks would be better with a chain than someone without.  Someone with a year of practicing a staff would be better at eskrima than someone with no training, even if both have never touched an eskrima stick before.


With a staff and eskrima, possibly, but not necessarily. It might cause issues of assuming things will work that don't, and put you in some issues. I wouldn't state that someone using escrima sticks or knife (both bladed and sticks), better than a spear (which could fall into either category). My fencing could probably translate "a bit", but I can tell you I'm crap at using a spear, despite having training in all the general categories you mentioned (and sparring/more than just forms training). So I don't think even that premise is correct, and is more likely to lead to overconfidence and danger.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> To address this point first: I did refute this earlier, you just kind of dismissed it, or didn't realize it was a refutation. But there are two refutations to this. The first is projectiles. Guns, slingshots, bows, rubber bands even. Those don't fit into any of those categories, and some can by improvised weapons (I can make an improvised slingshot and use some rocks if I really wanted to). That's easily solved by adding a fourth category: projectiles.
> 
> The second refutation is that there are weapons that do multiples of those things. One I mentioned; the halberd. You could use it as a stick-like weapon, but you can also use it as a bladed weapon. You've also got spears, which can be used as either a staff or a really long sword. There's even a weapon I've got at my home (bought from a farmer in spain), which acts as both a slingshot and a whip. It's primary purpose was for herding goat, the noises from the whip keep them moving in x direction, then you shoot a rock in that area to make a noise, preventing them from going too far. But for self-defense, you could use it as either a sling or a whip.



And the fact that weapons fit into multiple categories means you can do a couple of things with it:

Identify a new category that fits new weapons.  This does not keep it simple.
Lump them into one category that you feel is a best fit.
Lump them into both categories, which is a duplication of work.
I didn't say this was a perfect model.  It's just one way of conceptualizing things.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> And the fact that weapons fit into multiple categories means you can do a couple of things with it:
> 
> Identify a new category that fits new weapons.  This does not keep it simple.
> Lump them into one category that you feel is a best fit.
> ...


But having to choose one of those three for multiple weapons, suggests that it's not just not a perfect model, but a bad model. And a useless one, as skillsets from one set of weapons within the category to another are non-transferrable.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> But having to choose one of those three for multiple weapons, suggests that it's not just not a perfect model, but a bad model. And a useless one, as skillsets from one set of weapons within the category to another are non-transferrable.



Let's use the example of a Dagger vs. a Greatsword.  The techniques between the two are not transferable.  But what is?

A dagger and an arming sword are fairly similar. 
A hand-and-a-half sword can be used to emulate an arming sword or a longsword.
There are similarities between a long sword and a greatsword.
Now, where do you draw the line, that X is not like Y?  I can take a dagger and a greatsword, and the two are obviously unalike.  But if I connect the dots, you can see how they work.  Let's follow how this train of thought goes, and I'll show you why I circled back to the method I did.


Let's set the limit at 1H swords and 2H swords.  So we have Daggers and Arming swords in one group, and hand-and-a-half swords, longswords, and greatswords in the other.
But, hand-and-a-half swords and arming swords can use similar techniques.
Therefore, 1H swords and 2H swords are similar.
I understand the logic isn't perfect.  This isn't a complete model.  If I were to go for complete model, it would be something far more complex.  For swords alone I'd several categories between how many hands you use, what types of cuts work best (i.e. slashes, hacks, stabs), whether it is light or heavy (i.e. rapier vs. falcion), how well it protects your hands, whether it is single or double edged.  There's always more specific you can be.

But what I'm doing is providing these in the same way you would define a mammal - vertibrate, lungs, fur, live birth, gives milk.  (And then there's the Platypus).  This definition covers everything from mice to blue whales, covers things as dumb as an ox or as smart as a human, as peaceful as a sloth or as ferocious as a mama bear.  But it covers them all.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> Let's use the example of a Dagger vs. a Greatsword.  The techniques between the two are not transferable.  But what is?
> 
> A dagger and an arming sword are fairly similar.
> A hand-and-a-half sword can be used to emulate an arming sword or a longsword.
> ...


But again, when you are covering that much stuff, it is a pointless distinction. And not even an accurate one, considering the stuff that transfers between multiple "categories", and the stuff that doesn't fit in any category. You keep saying it's not perfect, suggesting that it's a good distinction, just that it has faults. But its not _just _not perfect, it's also, useless, misleading and inaccurate. If you want to categorize weapons like you are, you need that complexity to do so.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> And I still have yet to hear someone refute that you have:
> 
> Weapons which the primary damage is done by concentrating weight
> Weapons in which the primary damage is done by cutting or piercing with an edge or point
> Weapons which are not completely solid


A mace, consisting of a large, heavy metal ball, with pointy spikes on it, which is connected to a handle by a chain. This does damage by concentrating the weight onto the point and this weapon is not completely solid. 

You would not use this like a whip, chain or nunchuck (be fun to watch that), you don't use your knife, sword or spear skills with it nor do you use your axe, hammer and stick skills. Still, it fills all 3 categories.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

I want to point something out regarding weapons.  In conversations here in the forums there has been a lot of talk about he proper way to use them, what is proper technique or not, whether or not technique from one translates well to another, etc.  In some cultural traditions like the Japanese sword, there is a tremendous amount of attention given to the details in how the sword is used and that has played out in various threads here.  I am seeing some of that in this thread as well.

Something to keep in mind:  these weapons are actually pretty intuitive.  Stab him with the pointy end.  Cut him with the edge.  Poke him with the blunt end.  Club him with the clubby end.  Whip him with it if it flexes.  Block his attacks with a sturdy part of the weapon.  Some weapons have a sharp end and a blunt end.  Some have a sharp end and a whippy end or a blunt end and a whippy end, etc.  But it’s pretty intuitive what can be done with these things, at least on a rudimentary level.  It does not take a lot of training (often none at all) to be able to pick up one of these weapons and be a danger to those around you.  Even the Katana, where practitioners attach a huge amount of attention to the minutia, most any of us could pick one up and use it effectively, proper technique be damned.

The debates over good technique and proper training with the weapon are appropriate when one is training the weapon on a more comprehensive level, and a high level of skill is the goal.  This training makes one far more efficient and enables one to fully understand what the weapon is capable of, which other people will not understand or be aware of.

But, if someone needed to pick something up on an impulse and use it, be it dagger or kitchen knife or sword or greatsword or spear or short stick or staff or halberd or bill book or boat hook or slingshot or axe or axe handle or claw hammer or tomahawk or katana or Kama or tonfa or broken beer bottle or screwdriver or rolled up magazine...on a rudimentary level anybody can pick these up and be dangerous.  It really is intuitive.  So for the sake of discussion, I’m not sure it is terribly meaningful to get bogged down with some of the details of what techniques translate to other weapons and whatnot.  Assume that any of us could make use of them on some level, if we needed to.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

wab25 said:


> A mace, consisting of a large, heavy metal ball, with pointy spikes on it, which is connected to a handle by a chain. This does damage by concentrating the weight onto the point and this weapon is not completely solid.
> 
> You would not use this like a whip, chain or nunchuck (be fun to watch that), you don't use your knife, sword or spear skills with it nor do you use your axe, hammer and stick skills. Still, it fills all 3 categories.


A mace does not have a chain.  It is a handle with a heavy, pointy metal end.

A morning star has a chain.  It is a handle with a chain and a spiky ball.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> But again, when you are covering that much stuff, it is a pointless distinction. And not even an accurate one, considering the stuff that transfers between multiple "categories", and the stuff that doesn't fit in any category. You keep saying it's not perfect, suggesting that it's a good distinction, just that it has faults. But its not _just _not perfect, it's also, useless, misleading and inaccurate. If you want to categorize weapons like you are, you need that complexity to do so.



Guess what?  I do!  This isn't the whole model!  I'm only showing a piece of it, and you're criticizing it as the whole thing!

If you watch a boxing video and someone shows a tutorial on how to do a jab, do you say "you didn't do a cross, hook, or uppercut, or show any blocking or evasion skills, so your training model sucks."

Like I said earlier, this is the Phylum level of the taxonomy.

Life - Martial Arts
Kingdom - Martial Arts Melee Weapons
Phylum - Stick, Blade, or Flail
Class - Axe, Hammer, Stick, Polearm
Order - Eskrima Stick, Tonfa, Staff, Cane, Umbrella
Family - Quarterstaff, Bo Staff, Jo Staff, Walking Stick
Genus - Fiberglass Bo Staff, Oak Bo Staff, Bamboo Bo Staff, Alluminum Bo Staff
You're telling me that I'm not detailed enough, because you're critiquing a model you don't fully understand.  And rather than trying to understand it better, you just say "it sucks."

I'm not here to give a dissertation on every idea I come up with.  Just an idea I came up with.  For you to just take that idea and tell me "it's garbage" is just a low blow.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2019)

Categorizations are only useful if they simplify understanding. If they add layers of convolution they serve no purpose whatsoever, and in fact, work against their intended purpose.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> A dagger and an arming sword are fairly similar.
> A hand-and-a-half sword can be used to emulate an arming sword or a longsword.
> There are similarities between a long sword and a greatsword.



Given that every single thing you've said here is wrong, I'm just going to say you should either leave this to people who understand these weapons or go get some actual training with these weapons. Preferably the later, of course.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I want to point something out regarding weapons.  In conversations here in the forums there has been a lot of talk about he proper way to use them, what is proper technique or not, whether or not technique from one translates well to another, etc.  In some cultural traditions like the Japanese sword, there is a tremendous amount of attention given to the details in how the sword is used and that has played out in various threads here.  I am seeing some of that in this thread as well.
> 
> Something to keep in mind:  these weapons are actually pretty intuitive.  Stab him with the pointy end.  Cut him with the edge.  Poke him with the blunt end.  Club him with the clubby end.  Whip him with it if it flexes.  Block his attacks with a sturdy part of the weapon.  Some weapons have a sharp end and a blunt end.  Some have a sharp end and a whippy end or a blunt end and a whippy end, etc.  But it’s pretty intuitive what can be done with these things, at least on a rudimentary level.  It does not take a lot of training (often none at all) to be able to pick up one of these weapons and be a danger to those around you.  Even the Katana, where practitioners attach a huge amount of attention to the minutia, most any of us could pick one up and use it effectively, proper technique be damned.
> 
> ...



This is kind of the point I'm trying to make.  Not that you would be an expert in something, but that you would be dangerous.  Now, my experience tells me that most people who pick up nunchaku with no training, are more likely to hurt themselves than the other person.  But, the physics involved in NOT hurting yourself, are the same for any flail.

*And maybe that's what I'm categorizing.  Not necessarily how to hurt your opponent, but how to NOT hurt yourself.*  With a flail weapon, it's understanding how the physics of the chain or rope work.  With a stick weapon, it's mostly just about having the spacial awareness to not hit yourself in the back of the head (which I've seen happen).  With an edged weapon, there's the additional safety considerations that come into play with a sharp weapon.

With that in mind, I still would categorize a lot of axes under "stick", because the edge by itself is not sharp.  If you grab an ax head, you're not very likely to cut yourself, but if you grab the wrong part of a sword you will.  Maybe some polearms would fit under the "edge" category and others more into the "stick" category.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Given that every single thing you've said here is wrong, I'm just going to say you should either leave this to people who understand these weapons or go get some actual training with these weapons. Preferably the later, of course.



Can you elaborate beyond "you're wrong"?  Because I don't think I am.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> *And maybe that's what I'm categorizing.  Not necessarily how to hurt your opponent, but how to NOT hurt yourself.*



That's easy. Drop the weapon. Do something you understand.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> Can you elaborate beyond "you're wrong"?  Because I don't think I am.



I don't see how. Every single thing you said in that post was wrong. Ever.y Single. Thing. It's painfully obvious that you don't understand those weapons or how they're used. I understand what you're trying to do with your comparisons, but you don't have enough understanding to grasp WHY your categories are ludicrous. And that's why you don't think you're wrong.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's easy. Drop the weapon. Do something you understand.


I disagree, per my post above.

And yes, some weapons you would be more likely than others to hurt yourself, without training.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't see how. Every single thing you said in that post was wrong. Ever.y Single. Thing. It's painfully obvious that you don't understand those weapons or how they're used. I understand what you're trying to do with your comparisons, but you don't have enough understanding to grasp WHY your categories are ludicrous. And that's why you don't think you're wrong.



And see, I think you're the one who doesn't understand.  If you can't see how those things are connected, then the lack of understanding is on you, not me.  And you can take that lack of understanding of my model, and you can ignore my model, attempt to correct my model, attempt to understand my model, or ridicule me.  Only one of those is toxic behavior, and you have chosen that one.

I'm not saying that each of those weapons is exactly the same.  I'm saying a lot of the skills you use in the adjacent weapons will translate.  I'm saying there's overlap.  One Venn Diagram over another, where the techniques used by one weapon pass over into the next.  There's a lot of skills that are unique to each, and a lot of skills that fit in that overlap.

The problem is, that with everything having unique skills, and everything having overlap, wherever you draw a line, you're going to cut some of that overlap, and you're also going to have some of those unique flavors lumped into the category.

I've come up with a model.  It works for me.  Variations of it work for other people I talk to about it.  Everyone categorizes weapons in different ways.  Mine is no less valid because you don't like it.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's easy. Drop the weapon. Do something you understand.



Are you seriously saying I should stop training?  Instead of suggesting I train more so I do understand?

This is toxic gate-keeping behavior at its worst.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> Are you seriously saying I should stop training?  Instead of suggesting I train more so I do understand?
> 
> This is toxic gate-keeping behavior at its worst.


I would say the point is, get training for the weapons you have an interest in.  However, if you need to grab a weapon in a pinch and use it, go for it.

Hell, I’ll pick up just about anything and see what it’s about.  But I’ve had some decent training in a variety of things, so none of it scares me.  I just think they are cool.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 9, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I disagree, per my post above.
> 
> And yes, some weapons you would be more likely than others to hurt yourself, without training.



I'll repeat. If your biggest concern with a weapon is how to not hurt yourself, you're better off getting rid of the weapon.



skribs said:


> And see, I think you're the one who doesn't understand.



The difference is that I *do* know how to use the edged weapons you're talking about. That's why I know how utterly wrong you are. You don't know what you don't know. So you're convinced you're right.



skribs said:


> Are you seriously saying I should stop training?  Instead of suggesting I train more so I do understand?
> 
> This is toxic gate-keeping behavior at its worst.



Check your reading. I started this off by saying 'leave it to people who understand them, or get some training. _*Preferably the latter*_.'

This is reading comprehension at its worst.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> So brass knuckles are not even a weapon, axes and warhammers handle like a stick and are sticks...
> 
> You know what, I honestly can't even give this a serious reply lol


It's actually reasonable, if you're just looking to classify by gross estimation of the movements used, which I think is what he intended. Use of brass knuckles will approximate (though not be quite the same as, in some cases) unarmed movement. If we include the "club" (stick with a weighted end) as part of the model for sticks, then a mace and axe both have some of that movement - again, only in a gross approximation, but that's good enough for rough categorization.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Its risky to create broad categories for weapons like that and try to force them into those categories, for two reasons. First is that any weapon you will conceivably have on you, you should be training with. Second is you shouldn't assume you know, or are capable of using or teaching, a weapon because you are capable of using another weapon in the same "group", which categorizing it like that would absolutely lead people to do.


That could be true if you depend upon the classification too much. But if you just use it as a conceptual guide, I don't see any danger in it. I can use some sticks like a sword (using cutting motions and sword blocks), and I know the limitations of that, so I don't expect it to perform like a sword. Other sticks can be used like a mace. So, I could draw a category wherever it usefully links things, without ever thinking everything in that category actually works the same way - I just know there are some similar principles that can be used, though perhaps to different effect.

Realistically, saying an axe is like some sticks isn't more dangerous than classifying "swords" together - they can be easily as different (some even being a bit closer to an axe than a sword).


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's actually reasonable, if you're just looking to classify by gross estimation of the movements used, which I think is what he intended. Use of brass knuckles will approximate (though not be quite the same as, in some cases) unarmed movement. If we include the "club" (stick with a weighted end) as part of the model for sticks, then a mace and axe both have some of that movement - again, only in a gross approximation, but that's good enough for rough categorization.


An axe..hmm you mean that thing with the huge blade on it that must be swing with a carefully aligned edge like a sword, and does cutting rather blunt force damage?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Hmm. There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin lol
> 
> At the beginning I guess.
> 
> Knuckle dusters are used aligned to the middle knuckle, striking with them is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment. So sort of but not really.


He did say if you know how to punch, you could learn to use a knuckle duster (not that you'd already know fully how to use it).



> Swinging an axe is markedly different than swinging a stick (ignoring the fact that it has a blade..why is it a stick and not a blade? Anyway..). You have edge alignment, end weighting which makes the swing pivot different than a weapon that is evenly weighted like a stick, the striking zone is on the head rather than anywhere. Etc


Which, I think, is why he said if you can swing an axe, you can use a stick similarly, rather than the other way around. It would be useful for a stick that's of similar balance, and you'd no longer need to worry about alignment.

If it were me, I'd have a "club" category, and most axes will have a bit of "blade" and a bit of "club" to them.



> Nunchuku and a chain. Again completely different. Swing a chain around and catch the end. I'm sure your fingers will heal. One is two ten inch rigid sticks(why isn't it a stick? It certainly more similar than an axe....) connected by 3-4 inches of plyable 'bendy' stuff(chain or rope) the other entirely bendy stuff. The physics of how they move is completely different.


He didn't say everything is the same about them. If you can do basic nunchuku work, some of that will, in fact, translate to a chain. It doesn't fully teach you to use a chain, but you've got a start on some of the work, and are likely better equipped than someone who just picks it up with no preparation, at all. Even better if you just take a couple of opportunities to see how a chain responds to some of the nunchuku movements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> I don't.  Halberd is more of a stick.  And how do you improvise a halberd?
> 
> Like I said, it's not perfect.  But there are a lot of things that translate.  Just like there are a lot of things a boxer doesn't know about kicks, but a lot of the concepts of striking translate (like how your hips and your shoulders determine your power).  Someone with a year of practicing nunchucks would be better with a chain than someone without.  Someone with a year of practicing a staff would be better at eskrima than someone with no training, even if both have never touched an eskrima stick before.
> 
> ...


Allowing for nuance, grey areas, and cross-over (in other words, being okay with the inherent ambiguity), it makes reasonable sense to me. It's imperfect and words well enough for the purpose so long as the imperfection is understood.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'll repeat. If your biggest concern with a weapon is how to not hurt yourself, you're better off getting rid of the weapon.



So people shouldn't train gun safety?  People shouldn't learn how to safely handle knives and other weapons?  It's okay if you hit yourself with your nunchucks as long as you can also hit the other guy?



Dirty Dog said:


> The difference is that I *do* know how to use the edged weapons you're talking about. That's why I know how utterly wrong you are. You don't know what you don't know. So you're convinced you're right.



I can say the same thing about you.  So we're at an impasse.  What I'm guessing is happening here is more likely that you don't understand the point I'm making, and instead of trying to discuss it, are just telling me I'm wrong.



Dirty Dog said:


> Check your reading. I started this off by saying 'leave it to people who understand them, or get some training. _*Preferably the latter*_.'



Then when I asked for advice, your only advice was for me to stop training.



Martial D said:


> An axe..hmm you mean that thing with the huge blade on it that must be swing with a carefully aligned edge like a sword, and does cutting rather blunt force damage?



So you lump it with blades.  Or you make it its own category.  You do what makes sense you to.  I lump it in with sticks and maces because the same swings you'd use with a hammer, you'd use with an ax.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Allowing for nuance, grey areas, and cross-over (in other words, being okay with the inherent ambiguity), it makes reasonable sense to me. It's imperfect and words well enough for the purpose so long as the imperfection is understood.



I think the issue is that people assume I'm talking about a training model, when in reality I'm just talking about a way of thinking about things.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I want to point something out regarding weapons.  In conversations here in the forums there has been a lot of talk about he proper way to use them, what is proper technique or not, whether or not technique from one translates well to another, etc.  In some cultural traditions like the Japanese sword, there is a tremendous amount of attention given to the details in how the sword is used and that has played out in various threads here.  I am seeing some of that in this thread as well.
> 
> Something to keep in mind:  these weapons are actually pretty intuitive.  Stab him with the pointy end.  Cut him with the edge.  Poke him with the blunt end.  Club him with the clubby end.  Whip him with it if it flexes.  Block his attacks with a sturdy part of the weapon.  Some weapons have a sharp end and a blunt end.  Some have a sharp end and a whippy end or a blunt end and a whippy end, etc.  But it’s pretty intuitive what can be done with these things, at least on a rudimentary level.  It does not take a lot of training (often none at all) to be able to pick up one of these weapons and be a danger to those around you.  Even the Katana, where practitioners attach a huge amount of attention to the minutia, most any of us could pick one up and use it effectively, proper technique be damned.
> 
> ...


This is exactly the reason that it's dangerous to compare the two, and also why I disagree with @skribs assertion that knowing one weapon in a category will make you more competent at a different weapon than someone who does not know a weapon in the category. 

As an example; let's say that I know how to use a stick fairly well. And part of my training is to constantly move it around, in arcs, in front of me. This is fine, and should come in handy if I need to use a stick. But then me and someone with no stick-related training both pick up an axe. He swings it intuitively, and it's a benefit towards him. I remember being told it's similar to a stick, so start treating it like it's a stick. I'm not expecting the weight difference, and on the down slash in faster than expect, and I end up with a nice gash on my leg. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't bothered thinking of an axe like a stick, and just tried to use it like an axe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Categorizations are only useful if they simplify understanding. If they add layers of convolution they serve no purpose whatsoever, and in fact, work against their intended purpose.


They're useful if they help someone think things through. They need not be universally acceptable to others (because others may not find them as helpful).


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'll repeat. If your biggest concern with a weapon is how to not hurt yourself, you're better off getting rid of the weapon.


Good point, I agree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> I think the issue is that people assume I'm talking about a training model, when in reality I'm just talking about a way of thinking about things.


Some of that is a difference in how people process information. It's my experience that conceptual people have trouble communicating their ideas to concrete people (it's less problematic in the other direction, usually), because they expect clearer definition (and less ambiguity) than the conceptual person needs.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> You're telling me that I'm not detailed enough, because you're critiquing a model you don't fully understand.  And rather than trying to understand it better, you just say "it sucks."
> 
> I'm not here to give a dissertation on every idea I come up with.  Just an idea I came up with.  For you to just take that idea and tell me "it's garbage" is just a low blow.


First going to address this part, then going back and addressing your model in my next post. I double checked; the post that started this all said 





> I think you can easily condense weapons into sticks, blades, and flails. Whips, chains, nunchaku, etc. all follow similar principles of movement.


. 

First, that's incorrect, which I already addressed. Second, up until this point, you did not even hint that you have a full model for it. The closest that you did was suggest that there could be a debate about whether or not it should be characterized further, but not that you have done so. Do you expect people to know that you are actively leaving out information, and run with that assumption?

As for "Just an idea I came up with.  For you to just take that idea and tell me "it's garbage" is just a low blow." I don't see how it's a low blow. If I came up with a theory on kicking, and it was crap, I would want you to tell me it's crap. If you did, I wouldn't take it personally, or consider it a low blow, I would think "Hey, this person with a lot of experience in kicking seems to disagree with my idea. Maybe I should take a bit to consider that, and see if my idea needs revising and/or to be thrown out." 

Which incidentally, is what I've seen you do in the past. Not sure what's different about this idea, except maybe that we are telling you it should be thrown out, or majorly revised, instead of just tweaked.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> This is exactly the reason that it's dangerous to compare the two, and also why I disagree with @skribs assertion that knowing one weapon in a category will make you more competent at a different weapon than someone who does not know a weapon in the category.
> 
> As an example; let's say that I know how to use a stick fairly well. And part of my training is to constantly move it around, in arcs, in front of me. This is fine, and should come in handy if I need to use a stick. But then me and someone with no stick-related training both pick up an axe. He swings it intuitively, and it's a benefit towards him. I remember being told it's similar to a stick, so start treating it like it's a stick. I'm not expecting the weight difference, and on the down slash in faster than expect, and I end up with a nice gash on my leg. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't bothered thinking of an axe like a stick, and just tried to use it like an axe.


I dunno, I kinda feel like intuition might take over once you’ve got it in your hand.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> This is exactly the reason that it's dangerous to compare the two, and also why I disagree with @skribs assertion that knowing one weapon in a category will make you more competent at a different weapon than someone who does not know a weapon in the category.
> 
> As an example; let's say that I know how to use a stick fairly well. And part of my training is to constantly move it around, in arcs, in front of me. This is fine, and should come in handy if I need to use a stick. But then me and someone with no stick-related training both pick up an axe. He swings it intuitively, and it's a benefit towards him. I remember being told it's similar to a stick, so start treating it like it's a stick. I'm not expecting the weight difference, and on the down slash in faster than expect, and I end up with a nice gash on my leg. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't bothered thinking of an axe like a stick, and just tried to use it like an axe.



It depends on how you use the model.  If you use it as "any weapon I categorized as X uses the same techniques" it's a bad model.  If you use it as "I know how to generate power with a club, so I know how to generate power with an ax" then it's a good model.

I agree that if you pick up an ax and think "this is exactly like a stick", that's bad.  But if you pick up an ax and think "I could use some of my stick training, since this is basically a stick with a sharp weight on the end", then it will work.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I dunno, I kinda feel like intuition might take over once you’ve got it in your hand.


It should, but there's a chance that will come a bit too late. From my own experience playing with something new, it takes a few swings/stabs/thrusts/strokes/cycles/whatever to get the feel of it. It's in those first few, if you're overconfident in how it feels, that it becomes dangerous for you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> An axe..hmm you mean that thing with the huge blade on it that must be swing with a carefully aligned edge like a sword, and does cutting rather blunt force damage?


Turn it around. It still works as a weapon. You just end up using it as a club (which probably falls into his "stick" category). Now turn it back around. You can still use it the same way, it just does some different damage.

So, an axe has some properties that fit into that "stick" category. Some don't, but that's just the kind of ambiguity that comes with most conceptual categorization. So, when training, I can ask, "what is stick-like about this weapon?" It doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the differences.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> Like I said earlier, this is the Phylum level of the taxonomy.
> 
> Life - Martial Arts
> Kingdom - Martial Arts Melee Weapons
> ...


So now to get to the actual model. I noticed you added the word "melee" into weapons for the kingdoms, which is good, as you did not do that earlier in your posts (not sure if it was always parts of this model). 

That said, the issue with this model is still in the phylum. And it's still the same issue: certain weapons either don't fit into any of the options, or they fit into multiple options. Honestly, if you took away the phylum aspect, and started off with the different classes, I wouldn't have an issue with it. I don't 100% agree with it, as the issue will still exist on those smaller levels, but less so. As long as you aren't using it as a training tool it wouldn't be an issue, but you've already stated that you are not. 

So the one part of the model that you've been explaining is the part that sucks.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> They're useful if they help someone think things through. They need not be universally acceptable to others (because others may not find them as helpful).


This is only true if it's accurate though. If it's inaccurate, then it's letting someone learn it (and possibly teach it) badly, and will result in that person understanding the topic (any topic) worse than when they started. An example that I get the feeling you will understand from your work. In groups, there's an idea of forming, storming, norming and conforming. The idea is that you are supposed to go through each stage as a group, sometimes going backwards, sometimes forwards, but hopefully forwards. And that idea in itself is fine. Now let's say you define "storming" differently; instead of as conflict, you define storming as everyone agreeing on a leader, and communicating with that leader. That very well may happen, but not in the flow of those categories, and the person who is defining the categories that way is actually losing understanding, while feeling they are gaining it. Does that make sense?


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Good point, I agree.



Weapon safety is important.  If you do not think so, do not touch weapons until you are responsible enough to take weapon safety seriously.



kempodisciple said:


> First going to address this part, then going back and addressing your model in my next post. I double checked; the post that started this all said .
> 
> First, that's incorrect, which I already addressed. Second, up until this point, you did not even hint that you have a full model for it. The closest that you did was suggest that there could be a debate about whether or not it should be characterized further, but not that you have done so. Do you expect people to know that you are actively leaving out information, and run with that assumption?



Should I write my entire understanding of martial arts in every post I make?  Or should you assume I know more than I'm saying in each post?



> As for "Just an idea I came up with.  For you to just take that idea and tell me "it's garbage" is just a low blow." I don't see how it's a low blow. If I came up with a theory on kicking, and it was crap, I would want you to tell me it's crap. If you did, I wouldn't take it personally, or consider it a low blow, I would think "Hey, this person with a lot of experience in kicking seems to disagree with my idea. Maybe I should take a bit to consider that, and see if my idea needs revising and/or to be thrown out."



I wouldn't do that.  I would try to understand your idea and see if there's something I could glean from it, or I would tell you my understanding and why I think my way is better.  I wouldn't just tell you that your ideas are garbage.  Especially someone with whom I've previously had good discussions with and respect their opinion.



> Which incidentally, is what I've seen you do in the past. Not sure what's different about this idea, except maybe that we are telling you it should be thrown out, or majorly revised, instead of just tweaked.



I've only done this when the material supplied is not relevant to the discussion.  I'm not disregarding it as bad, I'm disregarding it as irrelevant.  For an exaggerated example: if we're arguing between open-hand techniques and closed-fisted techniques, and you start explaining to me what color of sportscar is best, that doesn't matter.  Even if I agree with you on your color choice, and even agree which car we'd put it on, it would be irrelevant to the discussion.

When I have done so on-topic, I've done my best to follow the guidelines I outlined above.  I try to either better understand your position, or explain why my position is better.  I don't try to tear down your position, and I don't insult you.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> It depends on how you use the model.  If you use it as "any weapon I categorized as X uses the same techniques" it's a bad model.  If you use it as "I know how to generate power with a club, so I know how to generate power with an ax" then it's a good model.
> 
> I agree that if you pick up an ax and think "this is exactly like a stick", that's bad.  But if you pick up an ax and think "I could use some of my stick training, since this is basically a stick with a sharp weight on the end", then it will work.


If you teach people that model, some will try to use it that way.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> This is only true if it's accurate though. If it's inaccurate, then it's letting someone learn it (and possibly teach it) badly, and will result in that person understanding the topic (any topic) worse than when they started. An example that I get the feeling you will understand from your work. In groups, there's an idea of forming, storming, norming and conforming. The idea is that you are supposed to go through each stage as a group, sometimes going backwards, sometimes forwards, but hopefully forwards. And that idea in itself is fine. Now let's say you define "storming" differently; instead of as conflict, you define storming as everyone agreeing on a leader, and communicating with that leader. That very well may happen, but not in the flow of those categories, and the person who is defining the categories that way is actually losing understanding, while feeling they are gaining it. Does that make sense?



That's one model of group work.  We have different models where I work.  Are our models wrong because we don't follow your 4 "ormings"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> This is only true if it's accurate though. If it's inaccurate, then it's letting someone learn it (and possibly teach it) badly, and will result in that person understanding the topic (any topic) worse than when they started. An example that I get the feeling you will understand from your work. In groups, there's an idea of forming, storming, norming and conforming. The idea is that you are supposed to go through each stage as a group, sometimes going backwards, sometimes forwards, but hopefully forwards. And that idea in itself is fine. Now let's say you define "storming" differently; instead of as conflict, you define storming as everyone agreeing on a leader, and communicating with that leader. That very well may happen, but not in the flow of those categories, and the person who is defining the categories that way is actually losing understanding, while feeling they are gaining it. Does that make sense?


That's actually a great example. Because research shows groups don't uniformly go through all of those stages, nor in that order. But it's still a useful model if you understand those limitations, and the fact that not every moment will be properly classified in one of those four stages. A group can actually be in three stages at once (since most groups aren't static, and often have to go back to some of the "forming" activity, which causes some "re-norming", often leading to new "storming"). The problems go well beyond that (including a reasonable argument that the 4th stage should be "performing", which has different implications), but the model has still served well for people looking to do a better job with groups.

Imperfect - even significantly flawed - models can be useful if they're not expected to be more than they are.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> If you teach people that model, some will try to use it that way.



First off, who said I was teaching this?  This is a way I think about them.

Second, even if I did teach it, errors in applying the model do not mean the model is bad.  It means it was applied incorrectly.  Every training model can be applied wrong, so by this logic all models are wrong.

Third, if I did teach it, I would give more than the one-sentence explanation.  I would teach it after I've taught someone how to use a staff, eskrima sticks, and a few other weapons.  I would then ask them to find similarities between each of them.  I would show them how you could use similar techniques with different kinds of weapons, and ask them to find concepts that the different weapons share.  This would be the introduction to how to use improvized weapons, would be to figure out what it has in common with things you've trained with in the past.

I wouldn't just say "go chop wood for an hour, now you can use a bo staff or eskrima sticks."


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> Should I write my entire understanding of martial arts in every post I make?  Or should you assume I know more than I'm saying in each post?


 You should mention the pertinent stuff, especially when the first post suggests that it is all there is to the subject.




> I wouldn't do that.  I would try to understand your idea and see if there's something I could glean from it, or I would tell you my understanding and why I think my way is better.  I wouldn't just tell you that your ideas are garbage.  Especially someone with whom I've previously had good discussions with and respect their opinion.



Which is what I tried to do at first. Then you continued with your explanation, and from what you had posted I decided that this particular idea was bad. Note, I'm not saying that about all your ideas (I actually like most of them), but this particular one, this particular aspect of it is bad. And I would want you to do the same for me, if you thought that.





> I've only done this when the material supplied is not relevant to the discussion.  I'm not disregarding it as bad, I'm disregarding it as irrelevant.  For an exaggerated example: if we're arguing between open-hand techniques and closed-fisted techniques, and you start explaining to me what color of sportscar is best, that doesn't matter.  Even if I agree with you on your color choice, and even agree which car we'd put it on, it would be irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> When I have done so on-topic, I've done my best to follow the guidelines I outlined above.  I try to either better understand your position, or explain why my position is better.


 Not sure if I wrote that last part well, since this is what I was trying to say. That you normally listen well, discuss, and tweak your ideas when appropriate.



> I don't try to tear down your position, and I don't insult you.



Again, if a position, after evaluating it, is harmful, it should be torn down. As for the insulting, I would have to go back and read my posts, but I really don't think I insulted you with any of my statements. Both because I don't like insulting people on here (I will insult ideas, but those aren't people), and because I'm not sure what insult I would say to you. If I did, I'd appreciate if you showed me where I insulted you, so I can either explain what I meant if it wasn't an insult, or apologize if it was.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's one model of group work.  We have different models where I work.  Are our models wrong because we don't follow your 4 "ormings"?


Not at all. There are plenty of models of it, I just chose a well known one. My point in that was to take a basic model that I assumed gerry would know, as a way to purposefully make the model worse, and explain how making it worse could cause misunderstandings.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> You should mention the pertinent stuff, especially when the first post suggests that it is all there is to the subject.



You went in with that assumption, and I don't think that assumption ever broke.  I feel like this whole time I'm defending that specific statement.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Good point, I agree.


@skribs, what are you disagreeing with here?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> First off, who said I was teaching this?  This is a way I think about them.



No one did. But I've found that when people categorize things in a way, particularly if they are a teacher, that's going to come out in how they teach.



> Second, even if I did teach it, errors in applying the model do not mean the model is bad.  It means it was applied incorrectly.  Every training model can be applied wrong, so by this logic all models are wrong.


 Again, the issue is not in applying the model. It is in one aspect of the model where the information is wrong.



> Third, if I did teach it, I would give more than the one-sentence explanation.  I would teach it after I've taught someone how to use a staff, eskrima sticks, and a few other weapons.  I would then ask them to find similarities between each of them.  I would show them how you could use similar techniques with different kinds of weapons, and ask them to find concepts that the different weapons share.  This would be the introduction to how to use improvized weapons, would be to figure out what it has in common with things you've trained with in the past.
> 
> I wouldn't just say "go chop wood for an hour, now you can use a bo staff or eskrima sticks."


I agree with that method.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> @skribs, what are you disagreeing with here?



The idea that weapon safety is unimportant.  Weapon safety is the first thing you should learn with any weapon, the more true the easier it is to have an accident with them.  (For example, a knife or a gun).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> You went in with that assumption, and I don't think that assumption ever broke.  I feel like this whole time I'm defending that specific statement.


Once you explained there was more than that, I no longer have that assumption. I was explaining why I had that assumption, not saying it was still relevant.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I agree with that method.



This is the point.  The line of thinking I had, was with this method.

Now, in this discussion, I've had people tell me the model is bad because axes have an edge.  No.  You're doing the same thing I was doing, you just came to a different conclusion.  You may group things differently than I do - and that's fine.  You see them in different ways than I do, you have different experiences with them than I do.  That's just human nature that we see things in different ways.

My original point was that *I* can see the weapons grouped this way.  And I specifically chose a broad category for reasons I outlined, with the understanding that there are flaws in those categories, flaws which I could catch if I focus on that specific weapon.  It was an off-hand comment about a way of looking at things, which was taken face value as a statement of absolute fact.



kempodisciple said:


> Once you explained there was more than that, I no longer have that assumption. I was explaining why I had that assumption, not saying it was still relevant.



But it feels like that assumption still exists, based on the way I'm forced to still defend it.



kempodisciple said:


> You should mention the pertinent stuff, especially when the first post suggests that it is all there is to the subject.



The problem here is the same problem we've been discussing - what do I categorize as "relevant" and what do I categorize as "irrelevant"?  And how will I know what that is, until someone questions it?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> The idea that weapon safety is unimportant.  Weapon safety is the first thing you should learn with any weapon, the more true the easier it is to have an accident with them.  (For example, a knife or a gun).


I believe we are in agreement.  He said if your biggest worry is hurting yourself with the weapon, then you should put it down.  I agreed with him.  That is a safety issue.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I believe we are in agreement.  He said if your biggest worry is hurting yourself with the weapon, then you should put it down.  I agreed with him.  That is a safety issue.



I took my "disagree" off of your post.  You took a different understanding of his post than I did.

I took it more as a personal shot, in the context of the other posts in this thread.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> So people shouldn't train gun safety?  People shouldn't learn how to safely handle knives and other weapons?  It's okay if you hit yourself with your nunchucks as long as you can also hit the other guy?



Never said anything remotely resembling that. Neither did anyone else.
 If you just want to argue with a strawman, you don't need me here. You two have a good time.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Never said anything remotely resembling that. Neither did anyone else.
> If you just want to argue with a strawman, you don't need me here. You two have a good time.



That's how I read your post.  That I was not worthy of training or teaching how to use weapons, because I think about how to use them safely.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 9, 2019)

skribs said:


> I took my "disagree" off of your post.  You took a different understanding of his post than I did.
> 
> I took it more as a personal shot, in the context of the other posts in this thread.


Fair enough, and I can’t speak to his intentions.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Turn it around. It still works as a weapon. You just end up using it as a club (which probably falls into his "stick" category). Now turn it back around. You can still use it the same way, it just does some different damage.
> 
> So, an axe has some properties that fit into that "stick" category. Some don't, but that's just the kind of ambiguity that comes with most conceptual categorization. So, when training, I can ask, "what is stick-like about this weapon?" It doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the differences.


Lol.

Turn a gun around, and it's a club! So a club is obviously the best way to categorize guns.

Good talk.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> They're useful if they help someone think things through. They need not be universally acceptable to others (because others may not find them as helpful).


Up until the point you incessantly try to get others to accept said (wacky) categorization, sure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Lol.
> 
> Turn a gun around, and it's a club! So a club is obviously the best way to categorize guns.
> 
> Good talk.


Actually, that's true. You could, in fact, use a gun that way if you didn't have any more ammo. So, yeah, it can be included in the club category, if you like.

It should also be in the projectile (or whatever) category.

See, it just depends whether putting it in that first category is useful for your purpose. If it doesn't help, don't put it there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Up until the point you incessantly try to get others to accept said (wacky) categorization, sure.


Well, when you step in with an outright attack, saying something is bananas just because you don't like the ambiguity of it, you should expect folks to respond to that. It's a pretty common reaction I'm sure you've seen before.

So why would you be surprised at the result of your action?


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Well, when you step in with an outright attack, saying something is bananas just because you don't like the ambiguity of it, you should expect folks to respond to that. It's a pretty common reaction I'm sure you've seen before.
> 
> So why would you be surprised at the result of your action?


No, at first I just (rightly) dismissed it. The discussion only started when op spasticiy kept insisting.

Sort of like you are doing now.

Go away now laddy, this is stupid, and it's making us both stupid.


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> No, at first I just (rightly) dismissed it. The discussion only started when op spasticiy kept insisting.
> 
> Sort of like you are doing now.
> 
> Go away now laddy, this is stupid, and it's making us both stupid.



And you wonder why I'm on the defensive?


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Saw this image, thought of this conversation...

"How Social Media Works:
*Me:* I prefer mangoes to oranges.
*Random Person:* So basically what you're saying is that you hate oranges?  You also failed to mention pineapples, bananas, and grapefruits.  Educate yourself."


----------



## skribs (Aug 9, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Lol.
> 
> Turn a gun around, and it's a club! So a club is obviously the best way to categorize guns.
> 
> Good talk.



I did actually say they could be used as clubs.  I also clarified later I was talking about melee weapons.  Which should have been obvious from the categories.

After all, there are two types of people:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets

I also left out Apache Helicopters with Hellfire missiles.  I left out ICBMs with nuclear warheads.  I left out needles laced with smallpox.  I left out attack dogs.  There are a lot of things that can be used as weapons I left out.  I didn't include what I felt wasn't relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2019)

Martial D said:


> No, at first I just (rightly) dismissed it. The discussion only started when op spasticiy kept insisting.
> 
> Sort of like you are doing now.
> 
> Go away now laddy, this is stupid, and it's making us both stupid.


Do you see what you're doing? I'm pointing out something about your behavior, and you now refer to what I'm doing as "spasticiy...insisting". So, because someone disagrees with you, they're being stupid, rather than maybe they just have a different opinion.

You usually are much better than that.


----------



## skribs (Aug 10, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Do you see what you're doing? I'm pointing out something about your behavior, and you now refer to what I'm doing as "spasticiy...insisting". So, because someone disagrees with you, they're being stupid, rather than maybe they just have a different opinion.
> 
> You usually are much better than that.



To be fair, I think he was saying I am being a spaz, not you.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 10, 2019)

Now I remember why I have Martial D on ignore. Lol

Took him off and it is back on.


----------



## pdg (Aug 11, 2019)

I'm intrigued about the variation in spelling of 'axe'.

How much of the US correctly includes the e and why?


----------



## skribs (Aug 11, 2019)

pdg said:


> I'm intrigued about the variation in spelling of 'axe'.
> 
> How much of the US correctly includes the e and why?



If I type "Axe" into my computer, it says it's wrong (red highlight underneath).  That's the spelling I used for a long time, but recently I've been changing it based on the feedback from my computer.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> I'm intrigued about the variation in spelling of 'axe'.
> 
> How much of the US correctly includes the e and why?





skribs said:


> If I type "Axe" into my computer, it says it's wrong (red highlight underneath).  That's the spelling I used for a long time, but recently I've been changing it based on the feedback from my computer.



Both spellings go back centuries in British and American English. “Axe” has been more prevalent for a while, but “ax” may be making a bit of a comeback.


----------



## skribs (Aug 12, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Both spellings go back centuries in British and American English. “Axe” has been more prevalent for a while, but “ax” may be making a bit of a comeback.


Probably because of Microsoft and other applications not having "axe" in their spell check.


----------



## skribs (Aug 12, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Both spellings go back centuries in British and American English. “Axe” has been more prevalent for a while, but “ax” may be making a bit of a comeback.


Probably because of Microsoft and other applications not having "axe" in their spell check.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> I'm intrigued about the variation in spelling of 'axe'.
> 
> How much of the US correctly includes the e and why?


"Axe" is just the way I've always spelled it. "Ax" always looks wrong to me.


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2019)

skribs said:


> Probably because of Microsoft and other applications not having "axe" in their spell check.



Have to nitpick first - Microsoft isn't an application, it's a company that produces software that includes operating systems as well as applications 

Just about every application designed for an international audience has both versions and will show either or both as correct depending on your location settings.

My computer shows only 'axe' as correct, whereas my phone recognises both 'ax' and 'axe'.

If the popularisation of 'ax' is because of computers, it's solely down to lazy users leaving everything as default - but I think it's more to do with the general trend toward Americanisation that's seeping into everything (some of it is good, some bad - I'm not getting into which bits I think fall on which side )


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> "Axe" is just the way I've always spelled it. "Ax" always looks wrong to me.



I agree, 'ax' looks incomplete.

I just find the variations in what is superficially the same language quite interesting.


----------



## skribs (Aug 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> Have to nitpick first - Microsoft isn't an application, it's a company that produces software that includes operating systems as well as applications
> 
> Just about every application designed for an international audience has both versions and will show either or both as correct depending on your location settings.
> 
> ...



Pardon me for trusting multiple multi-billion dollar companies to be better at spelling 2- and 3-letter words than me.

Especially when my particular weakness is with silent and double letters.  Do you know how many times it takes me to write sheriff?  I keep writing it sherrif, then sherriff, then sherif, then sherrif again, then sherriff again, then sheriff, and then I stare at it for 30 seconds because "that can't be it."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2019)

skribs said:


> Pardon me for trusting multiple multi-billion dollar companies to be better at spelling 2- and 3-letter words than me.
> 
> Especially when my particular weakness is with silent and double letters.  Do you know how many times it takes me to write sheriff?  I keep writing it sherrif, then sherriff, then sherif, then sherrif again, then sherriff again, then sheriff, and then I stare at it for 30 seconds because "that can't be it."


Well, that is one of "those" words. I work with a sheriff's office, and still misspell it literally every time I type it (including this sentence, when you'd conveniently provided the correct spelling for me to reference).


----------

