# Bo Kata Help?



## Drakanyst (Jul 12, 2011)

I am from a traditional Korean martial arts school. When our instructor gave us an assignment to learn more bo techniques, he told us to go to the source (namely, Okinawan practice). We have recently begun to train in Okinawan Bo Kata, however, I would like to try to find a "dueling" Bo Kata, if possible. Can anyone help me with this? Does a form like this even exist? 

Thank you.


----------



## harlan (Jul 12, 2011)

Funnily enough, I just gave my first workshop to a TKD class about kobudo. 

In my school, we refer to the pre-arranged two-person bo exercises/kata/fighting as bunkai. Might not be technically the correct term. We only practice two different sets, but the idea is basically to have a kata with 'the other side' worked out. The kata switches from person to person during the drill, so at times one is performing the kata, and at other points is the adversary. Here is one example that I found looking for 'bo bo fighting'


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2011)

Isshin-Ryu has three bo katas:  Tokumine no kun, Shishi no kun, and Urashi no kun.  All are one-person katas.  However, like our empty-handed kata, we perform our kata with the 'backside' as well as the kata.  That is, one person provokes the kata, which is the response.  This can take the form of bo-bo kumite or bo-sai kumite.

This is very much like the one we practice in our dojo:






Note the repeated series - low attack/block, middle attack/block, high attack/block.  J-hook parry, pool cue strike, overhead strike, evade low strike.  Just the basics.

I'm still struggling with my first bo kata, so I'm no expert.  But I hope this helps.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 13, 2011)

Drakanyst said:


> I am from a traditional Korean martial arts school. When our instructor gave us an assignment to learn more bo techniques, he told us to go to the source (namely, Okinawan practice). We have recently begun to train in Okinawan Bo Kata, however, I would like to try to find a "dueling" Bo Kata, if possible. Can anyone help me with this? Does a form like this even exist?
> 
> Thank you.



Hi Drakanyst,

Well, where to start? First off, as you have put this in the Japanese Martial Arts section, let's look at that. The examples shown are examples of Okinawan methods, which are different to Japanese methods. Okinawan usage of a Bo tend more towards holding the hands each one third of the way up the staff, and keeping them there. Additionally, due to the Chinese influence, one of the primary methods to teach it is a solo training drill, refered to as a kata (which means "shape", or "form", implying that the method keeps the same form as it is repeated, without deviation). They then can be examined by looking at the application of the solo movements against an attacking partner, which is what is shown in Bill's clip above (this is what is refered to as "Bunkai", which basically means "application"). The other one (from Harlan) is a stunt group, rather than an actual martial system, for the record.

For what you are looking for (Bo versus another weapon), that is done in many of the Japanese systems, in their form of kata (which, particularly in the older systems, is a paired exercise, with one partner being the "reciever" - the person having the technique done on them - and the other being the "performer"). Many will utilise the Bo against a Sword, others against weapons such as Naginata, or another Bo, and so on, depending on the system itself. It should be noted that a Japanese method of using a Bo is fairly different to an Okinawan usage, with the hands moving from one end of the Bo to the other freely, taking more advantage of the range of the weapon. Some examples are as follows:





 Tenshin Hyoho Kukishin Ryu 





 Kukishin Ryu Bojutsu (as taught in the Genbukan)





 Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu Omote no Bo





 A rare one... Katori Shinto Ryu Gogyo no Bo (Bo versus Bo)





 Yagyu Shingan Ryu Taijutsu Bojutsu

It really should be noted, though, that if you are looking at Okinawan methods, then Okinawan methods tend to not have these type of kata.


----------



## Drakanyst (Jul 14, 2011)

Thank you, everyone! This is very informative. Sadly, bo is still fairly foreign to me, so I am trying to learn as much as possible. I appreciate all the links and descriptions!

@Chris: You are absolutely right. I believe the deviation in my message is between what we started with, and what I personally had in mind for the demonstration team that a few fellow instructors and I are taking part in. We were first told to seek out Okinawan practices regarding bo staff, and we have learned basic strikes and forms for this style. However, in the past I had seen a few Japanese representations and figured that would be more appropriate for a weapons demo. Thank you for the distinction in style, I am going to spend the next couple of days researching these.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 15, 2011)

Cool. Remember, though, that the movement of the Japanse systems is unlike the movement of your Okinawan-sourced usage. The best idea may be to just use what you have, and create a Bunkai (application) style demonstration form, similar to the one that Bill Mattocks linked. Some of the better demos I've seen show the solo pattern first, then the "paired" application afterwards, which could be an idea.

The only thing I'm going to say as a definate no-no (not that I think this is what you may do, though) would be to try to copy the movements/patterns of these systems. That is one of the most unpardonable sins when it comes to traditional martial arts, especially with things such as the Koryu systems I've presented.


----------



## harlan (Jul 15, 2011)

To Drakanyst: good fortune on the journey. Martial arts is a diverse field, and one can spend many lifetimes and still not learn everything. I know that TKD didn't bring any systemized weapons training along with it, and think it's great when teachers support supplemental studies. What I have learned is that most empty hand arts taught along with a weapons system tend to share basic ideas on movement, and that is why most teachers of styles with no weapons wait until their students are proficient in the basics of movement - they don't want the new studies to mess with the primary practice. 'So, the question becomes...what weapons form might be best for me to integrate into my studies? Or that is so different that the training won't 'bleed over' into my empty hand?' Just something to think about as you go forward. And as Chris noted, 'Japanese' and 'Okinawan' traditions of weapons schools are different, so you might want to clarify with your teacher as if he was specifically pointing to Okinawan traditions. 

I would also like to address some points made in Chris post (below): 

You posted in a Japanese section. Although a distinct culture that is the result of Japanese, Chinese and other influences, it IS considered part of Japan.

In defense of my youtube post, it was a quick search meant to give a visual on the idea of 'bo to bo'. 

As for points regarding Okinawan studies, such as bo kept in thirds, solo kata, etc. I'd posit that the biggest difference between 'Japanese' weapons systems and Okinawan is accessability and the degree to which it can inform one's art. 



Chris Parker said:


> Hi Drakanyst,
> 
> Well, where to start? First off, as you have put this in the Japanese Martial Arts section, let's look at that. The examples shown are examples of Okinawan methods, which are different to Japanese methods. Okinawan usage of a Bo tend more towards holding the hands each one third of the way up the staff, and keeping them there. Additionally, due to the Chinese influence, one of the primary methods to teach it is a solo training drill, refered to as a kata (which means "shape", or "form", implying that the method keeps the same form as it is repeated, without deviation). They then can be examined by looking at the application of the solo movements against an attacking partner, which is what is shown in Bill's clip above (this is what is refered to as "Bunkai", which basically means "application"). The other one (from Harlan) is a stunt group, rather than an actual martial system, for the record.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 15, 2011)

harlan said:


> To Drakanyst: good fortune on the journey. Martial arts is a diverse field, and one can spend many lifetimes and still not learn everything. I know that TKD didn't bring any systemized weapons training along with it, and think it's great when teachers support supplemental studies.



All absolutely seconded.



harlan said:


> What I have learned is that most empty hand arts taught along with a weapons system tend to share basic ideas on movement, and that is why most teachers of styles with no weapons wait until their students are proficient in the basics of movement - they don't want the new studies to mess with the primary practice. 'So, the question becomes...what weapons form might be best for me to integrate into my studies? Or that is so different that the training won't 'bleed over' into my empty hand?' Just something to think about as you go forward. And as Chris noted, 'Japanese' and 'Okinawan' traditions of weapons schools are different, so you might want to clarify with your teacher as if he was specifically pointing to Okinawan traditions.



Completely agreed (which is why I was saying that the examples with bo versus other weapons, being mainly Japanese, may not be the ideal source for your research).



harlan said:


> I would also like to address some points made in Chris post (below):
> 
> You posted in a Japanese section. Although a distinct culture that is the result of Japanese, Chinese and other influences, it IS considered part of Japan.



I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here; are you talking about the Korean arts, or the Okinawan (being part of Japan)? Okinawan methods and movement is far more influenced by the Chinese than the Japanese cultures, for the record (when it comes to martial traditions).



harlan said:


> In defense of my youtube post, it was a quick search meant to give a visual on the idea of 'bo to bo'.



Ha, no defence needed, I just wanted to clarify for Drakanyst that it was not considered authentic or accurate usage of the weapon. Similar, but not the same. That's all.



harlan said:


> As for points regarding Okinawan studies, such as bo kept in thirds, solo kata, etc. I'd posit that the biggest difference between 'Japanese' weapons systems and Okinawan is accessability and the degree to which it can inform one's art.



Sorry, you lost me again. Not quite sure what you mean by "the biggest difference... is accessability". The differences are technical, tactical, distance (ma-ai), and more. And they are pretty big differences at that (you should see what I'm like watching a "martial art" movie with friends... "That's not how that weapon is used!" "They're Chinese, why are they moving in such a Japanese fashion!" "What on earth, where did they pull that insane move from?". My friends usually tell me to just go in another room at that point....).


----------



## harlan (Jul 15, 2011)

Sorry, was writing while thinking...not always a good combo. 

Accessability. On three levels, 'Japanese' schools, as I think you mean it, tend to be harder to find. I could be wrong, but with the plethora of karate schools (good and bad) that have started in the USA over the last 50 years, many came with some basic Okinawan bo studies. When I first started looking into MA, I wanted to study jodo. It was impossible to find near me. The second level is that this TKD student's task is to learn bo. I'm going on the assumption that a two person form for bo-bo is the best use of time as both students learn bo (against bo). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but trying to study bo-jutsu in any 'Japanese' school would only be a small slice of the curriculum; most bo studies...are they not against a different type of weapon? So, that entails learning TWO weapons. And lastly, this is a TKD school. Not saying it HAS to be so, but for the most part, the weapons study they look for relates to their empty hand; there is an 'ease' of transition to *basic* bo/tonfa/sai Okinawan studies.

As for some of the other things you mention, depending on the robustness of the school, all things are variable. (Ex: Just because a beginner trains a bo in an Okinawan tradition in thirds, doesn't mean students stay there.)

As for the degree of 'Japanese-ness' and 'Chinese-ness' of movement...I've gotten slammed for bringing that up! :0  'What is 'Chinese' movement'. And my reply is 'flowing and circular', and 'more internal power'...which has been pointed out to me are both wrong assumptions. (Perhaps that is another discussion. )


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 15, 2011)

Ha, cool. 

Right, onto the first thing. Japanese schools that teach Bo can be much harder to find, and will tend to be Koryu or Koryu related. Most don't specialise in Bojutsu itself, but have it as a supplementary teaching (the Kukishin Ryu has a high emphasis on Bojutsu, and is found in the Ninjutsu-related organisations, as well as a few other groups, and a "mainline" group, the Tenshin Hyoho Kukishinden. As a result, yes, the Bo will be learnt against other weapons, such as sword, typically due to the sword being the main weapon already learnt. Interestingly, I was talking with a Jodo instructor recently, remarking on the hallmarks of Katori Shinto Ryu Kenjutsu that are apparent in the weapon usage....

Next, the idea of both partners learning different sides of the Bo patterns, well, that'll depend on the system itself. I'd say that, if your concern is the speed with which the students learn, then solo patterns are the way to go.

On the last point, agreed completely. I'd be looking far more towards an Okinawan/Karate Bo form than any of the more Japanese systems out there for these and other reasons. The biggest thing to be cautious of, though, is the amount of people I've come across, especially in TKD/Karate it seems, who have absolutely no idea of any real weapon usage whatsoever, yet think that their experience/skill in the unarmed system translates across. It doesn't.


----------



## harlan (Jul 15, 2011)

Qft!



chris parker said:


> the biggest thing to be cautious of, though, is the amount of people i've come across, especially in tkd/karate it seems, who have absolutely no idea of any real weapon usage whatsoever, yet think that their experience/skill in the unarmed system translates across. It doesn't.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 15, 2011)

Drakanyst said:


> I am from a traditional Korean martial arts school. When our instructor gave us an assignment to learn more bo techniques, he told us to go to the source (namely, Okinawan practice). We have recently begun to train in Okinawan Bo Kata, however, I would like to try to find a "dueling" Bo Kata, if possible. Can anyone help me with this? Does a form like this even exist?
> 
> Thank you.



Before training in a bo vs. bo exercise, it's best to have a working proficiency with the bo, first.  Your best bet is to talk to some of the local instructors in your area, and see what kind of kobudo / kobujutsu they offer.  

Many Karate schools teach Okinawan kobudo as a supplement.  For example, my dojo teaches Shotokan Karate, but also Yamanni Ryu kobudo, even though the two systems are significantly different from each other.  While it's not typical for someone to come in and only train in kobudo, it does happen at various schools, especially at places where the highest level instructors have their dojos.  

In general, you're going to find that there are three major systems of kobudo out there.  You have Matayoshi kobudo, as well as Ryu Kyu kobudo, both of which differ significantly from the third system, Yamanni Ryu, which uses long, flowing strikes, and continual motion.  Matayoshi and Ryu Kyu tend to favor short, staccato strikes instead.  

I'm not about to argue which is the best, since it's going to vary from person to person. 

There's also Kenshin Ryu, which is mostly taught at some Shito Ryu schools.  Unfortunately, I cannot provide much insight into Kenshin Ryu, since I have never trained in it, and haven't seen it in action.  

Regardless of which you choose, as the others have stated, it's best to learn from a live instructor, and then use videos to supplement your live instruction, instead of using primarily video as a teacher.


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Sep 23, 2011)

Here is a two person weapons form demonsrated by Hanshi Pat McCarthy. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhowcM4jLVQ&feature=channel_video_title

I have done some two person drills with the bo staff recently. I was looking back on some youtube videos of some tutorials on Bo staffs. I saw this video 4 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZL47DB-pRA&feature=related


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 24, 2011)

Black Belt Jedi said:


> Here is a two person weapons form demonsrated by Hanshi Pat McCarthy.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhowcM4jLVQ&feature=channel_video_title
> 
> I have done some two person drills with the bo staff recently. I was looking back on some youtube videos of some tutorials on Bo staffs. I saw this video 4 years ago.
> ...



The first one:




is another example of the Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu posted earlier (this time it's the Sugino-dojo, rather than the mainline [Otake] or Hatakeyama that I put up), showing the Omote no Bo.

The second one:




is very much an example of the Okinawan use of Bo (as opposed to the Japanese) that I was referring to earlier, with the hands kept very much in the one position. Not fond of a couple of the actions, but not a bad clip from an Okinawan view.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 25, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Drakanyst,
> 
> Well, where to start? First off, as you have put this in the Japanese Martial Arts section, let's look at that. The examples shown are examples of Okinawan methods, which are different to Japanese methods. Okinawan usage of a Bo tend more towards holding the hands each one third of the way up the staff, and keeping them there. Additionally, due to the Chinese influence, one of the primary methods to teach it is a solo training drill, refered to as a kata (which means "shape", or "form", implying that the method keeps the same form as it is repeated, without deviation). They then can be examined by looking at the application of the solo movements against an attacking partner, which is what is shown in Bill's clip above (this is what is refered to as "Bunkai", which basically means "application"). The other one (from Harlan) is a stunt group, rather than an actual martial system, for the record.
> 
> ...



These sorts of videos of staff katas have always confused me. They just look.....impractical. Like the original purpose for most of the movements where forgotten or embellished on over time. And bo is my favorite thing to practice! Is it just the katas that look this way? Are they meant to teach principles and not necessarily simulate actual fighting? Especially when compared to HEMA, it really looks like there are pieces missing.


----------



## donald1 (Mar 25, 2015)

I know this stuff! Im not sure if I know how to put in words and I cant tell you anything about Korean bo style. but I do practice several goju bo forms and they are decent (not great but decent)
My favorite bo kata is tokumine no dai

What specificly are you looking for?


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 25, 2015)

donald1 said:


> I know this stuff! Im not sure if I know how to put in words and I cant tell you anything about Korean bo style. but I do practice several goju bo forms and they are decent (not great but decent)
> My favorite bo kata is tokumine no dai
> 
> What specificly are you looking for?



Just some insider knowledge.  I'm not looking for a particular form or anything.
All the videos of bo katas that I've seen just don't look quite right to me. It looks like they were made to certain principles or moves, and aren't actually supposed to demonstrate what a fight might look like.
Have you done any bo sparring? I haven't, for the record. But, if you actually try to hit something with a staff....it just doesn't look the same. It's hard to explain.













I'm not saying these people are bad at what they're doing (despite them being a bit dramatic  ). It looks like they can certainly work a bo well enough. It's just, when you actually hit a target, you need less delicate alignment, and moves that don't cross your arms so much because it gets caught up against things. There are many moves where I don't understand why they used at all, or why they switched from one move to another.  I don't know what system they practice, but it seems to be pretty common problem I have with these sorts of videos.

Compare it with this HEMA quarterstaff technique demonstration. I'm not trying to say style versus style here. I'm just talking about how they position their arms and body for good striking leverage. You can do the same thing with the Japanese type of bo stuff I've seen, but they don't for some reason.






I actually looked up that kata you mentioned, and it doesn't have this problem at all.






I guess I'm wondering if a lot of people teach bo in a traditional sense, and aren't that connected to the understanding of it's combat applications. Maybe it got watered down over time because there is very little sparring? If ever? Or maybe just haven't seen many good practitioners? Maybe it's more stylized for demonstration, like wushu is, but the techniques would still make sense in context? What do you think?


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 25, 2015)

Failed at the videos. Sorry. Here they are.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 25, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> These sorts of videos of staff katas have always confused me. They just look.....impractical. Like the original purpose for most of the movements where forgotten or embellished on over time. And bo is my favorite thing to practice! Is it just the katas that look this way? Are they meant to teach principles and not necessarily simulate actual fighting? Especially when compared to HEMA, it really looks like there are pieces missing.


I cannot comment on the actual kata as I've not trained in them. However, if a kata is teaching principles, vs. simulating actual fighting (as you put it), it's going to have much more value.  You cannot simulate fighting in a kata like this.  You just end up choreographing a dance routine and that's not real fighting.  However, if you train and understand principles, and understand technique as it expresses principles, then you can do anything with it and that is much more valuable as a training tool than trying to simulate or mimic a fight.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 25, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> I cannot comment on the actual kata as I've not trained in them. However, if a kata is teaching principles, vs. simulating actual fighting (as you put it), it's going to have much more value.  You cannot simulate fighting in a kata like this.  You just end up choreographing a dance routine and that's not real fighting.  However, if you train and understand principles, and understand technique as it expresses principles, then you can do anything with it and that is much more valuable as a training tool than trying to simulate or mimic a fight.



Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down the concept of teaching principles without simulating fighting, or kata. That's perfectly fine. I'm just concerned with the principles being taught. Or rather.... a lack of a specific mechanic that's being taught.
You know how using a sword is different than using a stick of same weight and properties just because a sword requires edge alignment? Edge alignment isn't necessary with a stick, so it isn't implemented. You can roll your limbs in a slightly more liberal way. With these staff videos, I'm concerned with how the body can generate force and then keep leverage. And when I see videos of people doing staff kata, they just don't look like their body is producing the necessary force, or keeping the body alignment to keep leverage. Not all of them, by any means. It's a somewhat subtle difference. 

Take the Kyle Montagna video for example. Most of the time, that guy isn't actually striking. He's moving his body and staff to next position really quickly, but  without impact. His body maintains the technical leverage it would need for the blow to contain force, but doesn't but force behind it. It's the same thing as twirling the staff back and forth. It looks fast, but without leverage, it doesn't matter. There isn't anything super wrong about the moves themselves though.

The traditional bo staff video has the opposite problem. That guy is trying to put force into his strikes, but his body doesn't have the leverage to make them land well. 
Aside from that technical problem, I am personally a little confused about some of the moves in these videos. But that's a contextual style thing, and is outside my beef zone.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 25, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down the concept of teaching principles without simulating fighting, or kata. That's perfectly fine. I'm just concerned with the principles being taught. Or rather.... a lack of a specific mechanic that's being taught.
> You know how using a sword is different than using a stick of same weight and properties just because a sword requires edge alignment? Edge alignment isn't necessary with a stick, so it isn't implemented. You can roll your limbs in a slightly more liberal way. With these staff videos, I'm concerned with how the body can generate force and then keep leverage. And when I see videos of people doing staff kata, they just don't look like their body is producing the necessary force, or keeping the body alignment to keep leverage. Not all of them, by any means. It's a somewhat subtle difference.
> 
> Take the Kyle Montagna video for example. Most of the time, that guy isn't actually striking. He's moving his body and staff to next position really quickly, but  without impact. His body maintains the technical leverage it would need for the blow to contain force, but doesn't but force behind it. It's the same thing as twirling the staff back and forth. It looks fast, but without leverage, it doesn't matter. There isn't anything super wrong about the moves themselves though.
> ...


I understand your issues and I don't have the answers simply because I've not trained by in these methods.  I have trained in chinese staff however, and I completely get what you are saying.  I actually really appreciate your comments because it tells me that you actually "get" it and are really thinking about this stuff in a meaningful way.  I think most people do not do so.  

Since I'm not qualified to comment on this particular material, I'll mostly leave it at that, other than to say tha the Kyle montagna kata was sheer theatrical nonsense with a bit oth athleticism thrown in, but not real martial arts training.  That stuff is embarrassing to watch, all the screaming and crap, featherweight Bo staff and jumping around.  Ugh.

But I go back to the principles.  Proper technique should express the principles, and on that level it is more important and more valuable than simply trying to recreate a fight.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 25, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> I understand your issues and I don't have the answers simply because I've not trained by in these methods.  I have trained in chinese staff however, and I completely get what you are saying.  I actually really appreciate your comments because it tells me that you actually "get" it and are really thinking about this stuff in a meaningful way.  I think most people do not do so.
> 
> Since I'm not qualified to comment on this particular material, I'll mostly leave it at that, other than to say tha the Kyle montagna kata was sheer theatrical nonsense with a bit oth athleticism thrown in, but not real martial arts training.  That stuff is embarrassing to watch, all the screaming and crap, featherweight Bo staff and jumping around.  Ugh.
> 
> But I go back to the principles.  Proper technique should express the principles, and on that level it is more important and more valuable than simply trying to recreate a fight.



Very much agreed. Thanks for the compliment too.  

The featherweight bo's drive me crazy too. It really hurts martial arts too, painting a ridiculous picture that pushes people away from something awesome. I found a video some guy with double graphite staffs..... You know that one commercial? "That's not how this works! That's now how any of this works!" 

As far as fight simulation is concerned, most things don't need to be in a fight simulation to be learned. But I do think a lot of techniques shouldn't be used all that often, or need testing to see if they would work for any purpose. Not every move needs to be some ultra effective strike or combo. Spinning the bo side to side for example, can be used to pre-generate a lot of momentum that could end up falling in a lot of directions at any time. I think it definitely has the potential to be useful, just not all the time. Some moves have very few realistic applications. So I think some of them should be put in a variety of under harsh conditions to see how it might be helpful. 

There was a move that I once thought couldn't be effective because it was impossible for your hand grip strength match the force of the blow, pushing the staff out of your hand. Long story short, I was wrong. I think it's a very chinese type of move but I don't know what you would call it. The one where you move the staff to the side (let's say you're holding the staff right hand forward, and you move the point of the stick to the left) and quickly pivot to slam the tip into the side of the target? Yeah, that one. Thought it was useless back then. It's really, really, REALLY not. 
The point is, I wondered about a move, tried testing it, and found it lacking for reality. But I didn't test it in enough ways, so it didn't find how useful it could be. 
On the other side of that coin, I used a move on a heavybag that I thought was kickass ( doing a horizontal swipe with the back end) and wound up hitting myself in the face with the front end because my body mechanics weren't right. I figured it out eventually, but without a simulated testing, I never would've known better.
There are plenty of examples like this. It seems to be more common with weapons for some reason. I feel that some of these kata moves have this problem, (which is fine, as long you understand the good bio mechanics and the pros and cons of the move's practical application), but the practitioners don't realize it. I think simulating fighting could remedy this problem.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 25, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Very much agreed. Thanks for the compliment too.
> 
> The featherweight bo's drive me crazy too. It really hurts martial arts too, painting a ridiculous picture that pushes people away from something awesome. I found a video some guy with double graphite staffs..... You know that one commercial? "That's not how this works! That's now how any of this works!"
> 
> ...


I think that most people do not really understand weapons well.  The weapons are not well taught, are taught without proper grounding in the basics that are appropriate to the weapon.  It's just an add-on to an empty hand method and as such it's usually garbage, or at least poorly executed.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 25, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> I think that most people do not really understand weapons well.  The weapons are not well taught, are taught without proper grounding in the basics that are appropriate to the weapon.  It's just an add-on to an empty hand method and as such it's usually garbage, or at least poorly executed.


 
I love that you brought that up! I keep hearing from people that their curriculum is so effective and streamlined because their hand skills translate into their weapon skills and I just think, "Um.....no?"
There are a few minor exceptions, to be fair. But not many. Weapons  are  almost always fundamentally different. 
Anyway, I've wondered about that, and I'm glad you brought it too light.


----------



## jphing (Mar 26, 2015)

Drakanyst said:


> I am from a traditional Korean martial arts school. When our instructor gave us an assignment to learn more bo techniques, he told us to go to the source (namely, Okinawan practice). We have recently begun to train in Okinawan Bo Kata, however, I would like to try to find a "dueling" Bo Kata, if possible. Can anyone help me with this? Does a form like this even exist?
> 
> Thank you.



Where about do you stay?

My Uncle Edward Jardine is the Shihan for Ryu Kyu Kobujutsu South Africa
Branch chief abroad ryukyukobujutsuhozonshinkokai.org

He use to travel abroad so I may be able out who the Shihan of your country is
if not listed


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> These sorts of videos of staff katas have always confused me. They just look.....impractical. Like the original purpose for most of the movements where forgotten or embellished on over time. And bo is my favorite thing to practice! Is it just the katas that look this way? Are they meant to teach principles and not necessarily simulate actual fighting? Especially when compared to HEMA, it really looks like there are pieces missing.



Honestly, you lost me there… you're quoting my post, and referencing "these sorts of videos"… so I'd assume you mean the forms in the clips I posted. However, all your comments seem to be about other types, or expressions, of bojutsu… can you clarify exactly what you're seeing, or commenting on?



donald1 said:


> I know this stuff! Im not sure if I know how to put in words and I cant tell you anything about Korean bo style. but I do practice several goju bo forms and they are decent (not great but decent)
> My favorite bo kata is tokumine no dai
> 
> What specificly are you looking for?



Psst… Donald… 2011, mate… not sure the OP is still looking… 



Orange Lightning said:


> Just some insider knowledge.  I'm not looking for a particular form or anything.
> All the videos of bo katas that I've seen just don't look quite right to me. It looks like they were made to certain principles or moves, and aren't actually supposed to demonstrate what a fight might look like.



Speaking for both the Okinawan and Japanese forms, in a real way, no, they're not meant to demonstrate what a fight might look like.



Orange Lightning said:


> Have you done any bo sparring? I haven't, for the record. But, if you actually try to hit something with a staff....it just doesn't look the same. It's hard to explain.



Well, probably the first thing to explain is that neither of those is actually traditional, authentic, or realistically speaking, actual bojutsu… the first is a modern, made-up sequence, and the second is more akin to dancing than anything else. Neither should be looked at as examples of weapon use at all.



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm not saying these people are bad at what they're doing (despite them being a bit dramatic  ). It looks like they can certainly work a bo well enough.



Er… no, they can't. 



Orange Lightning said:


> It's just, when you actually hit a target, you need less delicate alignment, and moves that don't cross your arms so much because it gets caught up against things.



Both are honestly fairly baseless (combatively), and that is shown in pretty much everything they do, including the fancy, fast, but thoroughly ineffective actions such as you're citing here.



Orange Lightning said:


> There are many moves where I don't understand why they used at all, or why they switched from one move to another.  I don't know what system they practice, but it seems to be pretty common problem I have with these sorts of videos.



The second one is XMA… a very modern take on martial systems without having the worry about needing to be effective, efficient, useful, realistic, or based in anything other than looking very pretty and showcasing gymnastics. The first is a modern, Western based karate system, who decided that they understood combat enough to invent their own weapon syllabus… sadly, that is far from the case.

This problem is common in these systems. Not in others (such as the clips I provided).



Orange Lightning said:


> Compare it with this HEMA quarterstaff technique demonstration. I'm not trying to say style versus style here. I'm just talking about how they position their arms and body for good striking leverage.



Well, let's be fair to HEMA here as well… you mention "gaps" in the systems not present in HEMA… honestly, HEMA has plenty of gaps itself. After all, HEMA is the attempted reconstruction of old Western combat systems, largely from experimentation and a range of manuals extant from the time… but, due to the fact that they're not relying on continued knowledge and experience, they are quite literally trying to fill up the gaps in what they do. I love the approach, and admire the results… but to consider it without gaps compared to, say, the Japanese systems, is quite an error, I feel.



Orange Lightning said:


> You can do the same thing with the Japanese type of bo stuff I've seen, but they don't for some reason.



Er… what? The HEMA representation is the closest to the Japanese you'll find… in fact, Japanese methods are often looked to to help structure the HEMA forms. I'd say that the common Japanese approach (and I'm talking about Koryu here) are quite a fair bit above and beyond this form from HEMA methodology here.



Orange Lightning said:


> I actually looked up that kata you mentioned, and it doesn't have this problem at all.



Well… the Tokimune Kata is a legitimate one… as opposed to the ones you selected… 



Orange Lightning said:


> I guess I'm wondering if a lot of people teach bo in a traditional sense, and aren't that connected to the understanding of it's combat applications. Maybe it got watered down over time because there is very little sparring? If ever? Or maybe just haven't seen many good practitioners? Maybe it's more stylized for demonstration, like wushu is, but the techniques would still make sense in context? What do you think?



If they teach Bo in a "traditional sense", but don't have an understanding of the combative principles, then they're not teaching in a traditional sense… or, I'd say, even teaching Bo… just swinging a stick around. Sparring has, bluntly, nothing to do with it.

As far as what practitioners you've seen, the clips I gave had some incredibly well respected and highly skilled practitioners… the ones you selected were a kid doing something even his teachers didn't know, and a showman performing a baton-twirling dance with no combative resonance or connection at all.



Orange Lightning said:


> Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down the concept of teaching principles without simulating fighting, or kata. That's perfectly fine. I'm just concerned with the principles being taught. Or rather.... a lack of a specific mechanic that's being taught.



Then don't look at the non-legit bojutsu methods… 



Orange Lightning said:


> You know how using a sword is different than using a stick of same weight and properties just because a sword requires edge alignment? Edge alignment isn't necessary with a stick, so it isn't implemented. You can roll your limbs in a slightly more liberal way.



Actually, that's not correct. Edge alignment is still very important in staff work… and the turning of the limbs is essential to get right.



Orange Lightning said:


> With these staff videos, I'm concerned with how the body can generate force and then keep leverage. And when I see videos of people doing staff kata, they just don't look like their body is producing the necessary force, or keeping the body alignment to keep leverage. Not all of them, by any means. It's a somewhat subtle difference.



Again, the clips you selected do not represent actual Bojutsu.



Orange Lightning said:


> Take the Kyle Montagna video for example.



I'd really rather not… ha!



Orange Lightning said:


> Most of the time, that guy isn't actually striking.



No, he's not. And that's far from the least thing he's not doing… 



Orange Lightning said:


> He's moving his body and staff to next position really quickly, but  without impact. His body maintains the technical leverage it would need for the blow to contain force, but doesn't but force behind it.



Nah, I don't think he's got the technical ability for actual strikes there at all… it's just not part of his system.



Orange Lightning said:


> It's the same thing as twirling the staff back and forth. It looks fast, but without leverage, it doesn't matter.



None of it matters. All it's intended to do is to look fancy and impressive… with no other benefit at all.



Orange Lightning said:


> There isn't anything super wrong about the moves themselves though.



Oh, yes, there is… 



Orange Lightning said:


> The traditional bo staff video has the opposite problem.



It's not traditional… and it also has a large number of problems.



Orange Lightning said:


> That guy is trying to put force into his strikes, but his body doesn't have the leverage to make them land well.



He doesn't have the technique, the training, or the methods for it. The "kata" is far from a good, sound base, and doesn't help him in the slightest.



Orange Lightning said:


> Aside from that technical problem, I am personally a little confused about some of the moves in these videos. But that's a contextual style thing, and is outside my beef zone.



I tend to only concern myself in such dealings with actual bojutsu… these aren't.



Orange Lightning said:


> Very much agreed. Thanks for the compliment too.
> 
> The featherweight bo's drive me crazy too. It really hurts martial arts too, painting a ridiculous picture that pushes people away from something awesome. I found a video some guy with double graphite staffs..... You know that one commercial? "That's not how this works! That's now how any of this works!"



Yeah… look, those "weapons" are again the providence of such modern, untraditional, performance-focused systems… nothing like the actual weapons of genuine bojutsu. 



Orange Lightning said:


> As far as fight simulation is concerned, most things don't need to be in a fight simulation to be learned. But I do think a lot of techniques shouldn't be used all that often, or need testing to see if they would work for any purpose. Not every move needs to be some ultra effective strike or combo. Spinning the bo side to side for example, can be used to pre-generate a lot of momentum that could end up falling in a lot of directions at any time. I think it definitely has the potential to be useful, just not all the time. Some moves have very few realistic applications. So I think some of them should be put in a variety of under harsh conditions to see how it might be helpful.



That's actually not as helpful as you might believe… for one thing, getting an opponent who understands the context and facing side isn't particularly easy. Honestly, the best way to ensure viable combative actions is to ensure that the system you're learning is based in actual bojutsu, rather than guesses and attempts to look pretty.



Orange Lightning said:


> There was a move that I once thought couldn't be effective because it was impossible for your hand grip strength match the force of the blow, pushing the staff out of your hand. Long story short, I was wrong. I think it's a very chinese type of move but I don't know what you would call it. The one where you move the staff to the side (let's say you're holding the staff right hand forward, and you move the point of the stick to the left) and quickly pivot to slam the tip into the side of the target? Yeah, that one. Thought it was useless back then. It's really, really, REALLY not.
> The point is, I wondered about a move, tried testing it, and found it lacking for reality. But I didn't test it in enough ways, so it didn't find how useful it could be.



To be honest, that sounds to me like more a case of poor instruction… can I ask, do you actually study bojutsu? If so, what system? If not, are you simply trying things out yourself to see what "works" to you?



Orange Lightning said:


> On the other side of that coin, I used a move on a heavybag that I thought was kickass ( doing a horizontal swipe with the back end) and wound up hitting myself in the face with the front end because my body mechanics weren't right. I figured it out eventually, but without a simulated testing, I never would've known better.



How is hitting a bag a "simulated testing"?



Orange Lightning said:


> There are plenty of examples like this. It seems to be more common with weapons for some reason. I feel that some of these kata moves have this problem, (which is fine, as long you understand the good bio mechanics and the pros and cons of the move's practical application), but the practitioners don't realize it. I think simulating fighting could remedy this problem.



Weapons are often added without basis or education… simply being a "best guess" at best, a wild delusion based on movie fantasy at worst (and sadly, fairly commonly). And no, often the students, and more and more frequently, the instructors, are either blind to that fact, or simply believe that what they're doing must be genuine.



Orange Lightning said:


> I love that you brought that up! I keep hearing from people that their curriculum is so effective and streamlined because their hand skills translate into their weapon skills and I just think, "Um.....no?"
> There are a few minor exceptions, to be fair. But not many. Weapons  are  almost always fundamentally different.
> Anyway, I've wondered about that, and I'm glad you brought it too light.



Not always, no. In any good composite system (one comprising of multiple aspects, unarmed, weapons etc), there is always cross-over and shared mechanics… that's how the systems work. Are they exactly the same? No. But they still need to share more than a common name...


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2015)

jphing said:


> Where about do you stay?
> 
> My Uncle Edward Jardine is the Shihan for Ryu Kyu Kobujutsu South Africa
> Branch chief abroad ryukyukobujutsuhozonshinkokai.org
> ...



Good to know… but again, the OP is from 2011… I don't think an answer is even expected anymore…


----------



## donald1 (Mar 26, 2015)

My bad! Thanks for the tip chris


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2015)

No stress. After all, it's helped spark off some (hopefully) interesting conversation! We'll see if Orange Lightning has any further questions or comments…


----------



## jphing (Mar 26, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Good to know… but again, the OP is from 2011… I don't think an answer is even expected anymore…


Sorry. I didn't check date


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 26, 2015)

Quote isn't working for some reason.

Chris - It's kind of difficult to respond to much at one time, but I will give it a go.

I think my first answer will resolve most of your questions. I have not been taught bo staff by anyone. The only reference I have to what traditional bo staff looks like is the internet. So I don't know that much about which ones are truly traditional or otherwise. But I do know which ones aren't any good. And yeah, the top 2 I posted aren't any good and all the ones your posted are good, but there are a couple of things in the ones you posted that confuse me. I'll get to that later though.

I'm not trying to learn a specific system for bo. Although, I am trying to pick up as many good references as I can, which is particularly difficult on the internet. Can you direct me to more?

How do you do that quote thing?
Orange Lightning said: ↑
On the other side of that coin, I used a move on a heavybag that I thought was kickass ( doing a horizontal swipe with the back end) and wound up hitting myself in the face with the front end because my body mechanics weren't right. I figured it out eventually, but without a simulated testing, I never would've known better.
How is hitting a bag a "simulated testing"?

When swing a staff, or any weapon for that matter, against nothing but air, there are small things that work differently from actually striking a target. It's easy to not realize that your body doesn't have the structure necessary to strike well, or that your point of impact isn't where you think it is, or that you wouldn't be able to continue a set of moves as you'd think you could. If you don't hit targets in a variety of stressed situations, these small details can easily never be found. 
So, I do a lot of tests and drills to make sure I have these little things ingrained in my mind. Try hitting stable targets like the heavybag or trees, hitting oddly shaped targets that force you to work on accuracy( to make sure you're points of impact are where they should be with certain moves) missing targets to see what the failure outcome is, putting myself too close or too far, and putting a variety of obstacles nearby for the bo to catch on that I should be mindful of. 
You know how a lot of moves fizzle if your body mechanics aren't exactly right when you land on the target? A heavybag is a heavy, moving target, so it can help to ingrain in your mind how it feels to land correctly, and strongly penalize you for messing up. 
Another test kind of requires a compliant tree branch, but I find it humbling. Finding a flexible branch that will get out of the way quickly when you strike it, but will snap back quickly is one more way you can realize the moments when you're open, how long it takes to recover from a move, and how long a particular move takes to execute, especially in tandem with other moves.
This is what I mean by simulating fighting. When does it work? Why? What are the pros and cons? Why should I use this instead of another move and which moves work well together? These tests help discover and teach these things. And unfortunately, that's the best I have, because I don't have bo staff instructor. 
For the record, those examples where from when I was very young. The only bo practice I got was just swinging against the empty air, and when I got my first heavybag, it taught me these differences.

Alright, now I have a question for you. In the Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu Omote no Bo and Katori Shinto Ryu Gogyo no Bo, why do they retract their staffs backward like that? They sort slowly....poke the staff backward and reach a stance to strike from, then return to a regular stance. What is the purpose of that?


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 30, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Quote isn't working for some reason.
> 
> Chris - It's kind of difficult to respond to much at one time, but I will give it a go.



Cool.



Orange Lightning said:


> I think my first answer will resolve most of your questions. I have not been taught bo staff by anyone. The only reference I have to what traditional bo staff looks like is the internet. So I don't know that much about which ones are truly traditional or otherwise. But I do know which ones aren't any good. And yeah, the top 2 I posted aren't any good and all the ones your posted are good, but there are a couple of things in the ones you posted that confuse me. I'll get to that later though.



Hmm… okay… the most pressing question, of course, is that, if you have no education other than looking at videos online, how do you know which are good or not?



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm not trying to learn a specific system for bo. Although, I am trying to pick up as many good references as I can, which is particularly difficult on the internet. Can you direct me to more?



No. You need an instructor. And you need to learn a specific system. Trying to pick bits and pieces from a variety of different sources is confusing at best, and a complete waste of time in the main.



Orange Lightning said:


> How do you do that quote thing?



Click on "+ QUOTE" at the bottom of the posts to add it to a list of quotes in a single post, then hit "insert quotes" when you go to reply. Other than that, hitting "REPLY" automatically quotes the post you're replying to.



Orange Lightning said:


> > > Orange Lightning said: ↑
> > > On the other side of that coin, I used a move on a heavybag that I thought was kickass ( doing a horizontal swipe with the back end) and wound up hitting myself in the face with the front end because my body mechanics weren't right. I figured it out eventually, but without a simulated testing, I never would've known better.
> >
> >
> ...



Yeah… I get that part… what I'm suggesting is that you're not aware of what you're actually testing, and that this form of "testing" is really, when all's said and done, of incredibly limited value. The only thing it does is lead you to an impression, which could be completely incorrect, that what you're doing "works" (whatever that means). In other words, it's a false "test" that doesn't actually do anything.



Orange Lightning said:


> So, I do a lot of tests and drills to make sure I have these little things ingrained in my mind. Try hitting stable targets like the heavybag or trees, hitting oddly shaped targets that force you to work on accuracy( to make sure you're points of impact are where they should be with certain moves) missing targets to see what the failure outcome is, putting myself too close or too far, and putting a variety of obstacles nearby for the bo to catch on that I should be mindful of.



Yeah… look, I've been training in bojutsu for a few decades now… and am familiar with a range of different ryu-ha. Believe me, I know about different training methodologies, and their value. But here's the thing… if you haven't trained in a specific methodology, you're really not testing anything there, as you don't actually have anything to test. You're just doing random actions… which is not the same as training/studying bojutsu.



Orange Lightning said:


> You know how a lot of moves fizzle if your body mechanics aren't exactly right when you land on the target? A heavybag is a heavy, moving target, so it can help to ingrain in your mind how it feels to land correctly, and strongly penalize you for messing up.



It can give some feedback in terms of structural base, but you're still not guaranteed that what you're doing is even close to "right"… and is quite removed from actual bojutsu.



Orange Lightning said:


> Another test kind of requires a compliant tree branch, but I find it humbling. Finding a flexible branch that will get out of the way quickly when you strike it, but will snap back quickly is one more way you can realize the moments when you're open, how long it takes to recover from a move, and how long a particular move takes to execute, especially in tandem with other moves.



Er… no. Quite removed from the reality, and actually shows nothing like when you're open or not.



Orange Lightning said:


> This is what I mean by simulating fighting. When does it work? Why? What are the pros and cons? Why should I use this instead of another move and which moves work well together? These tests help discover and teach these things. And unfortunately, that's the best I have, because I don't have bo staff instructor.



No, actually, they don't. And, again, without an instructor, and learning a specific system, you're not doing bo… which makes all of this rather pointless, to be honest. You may feel it's the "best you can do", but it's really not even related, honestly. Self taught simply doesn't work.



Orange Lightning said:


> For the record, those examples where from when I was very young. The only bo practice I got was just swinging against the empty air, and when I got my first heavybag, it taught me these differences.



Yeah… which makes it even less valid, to be frank.



Orange Lightning said:


> Alright, now I have a question for you. In the Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu Omote no Bo and Katori Shinto Ryu Gogyo no Bo, why do they retract their staffs backward like that? They sort slowly....poke the staff backward and reach a stance to strike from, then return to a regular stance. What is the purpose of that?



Honestly, I'm not comfortable answering that at this point… can you tell me why you're interested in the methodology of Shinto Ryu? Give me a reason for giving an answer?


----------



## Orange Lightning (Mar 30, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I should probably quit using the word "bo".  It's just a hand carved, stout staff of 6 feet in length. Both the rattan bo's that I tried to were broke (only one of them was shoddy. The other was from years of hard use), so I just made my own out of ironwood or maple.
Please understand that, I'm not commenting on the quality of any bojutsu specifically. I'm giving my opinion and asking questions about their staff work. Not the style of bojutsu itself.

I understand that I cannot learn bojutsu this way. But I do think I pick up small bits of wisdom that I haven't been exposed to. I look up a variety of videos on the subject of staff fighting. I lookup English quarterstaff, HEMA spear, HEMA warhammer (different but related) chinese spear, japanese bo, kendo naginata, and some odd fringe stuff from Africa and India, and many more I can't remember, all for the same purpose as I do for looking up bo katas. 
Out of all the polearm videos I've seen, the Japanese ones (can't isolate a specific style) are unique because they usually focus entirely on using the bo from a middle grip where either side can be used. I wondered why, so I started thinking and comparing them to other systems, trying to figure out why they had the method they did. 

I've been using a staff for a long time. True, it's been entirely self taught. When I can find an instructor, I will. But until then, I refuse to believe that I can't develop in the mean time. Ultimately, I understand there are almost certainly gaps in my understanding, and I'm trying to learn about them. I've spent roughly a 1/6 of my life swinging a staff. It's been my primary focus. It's kept me in good shape throughout most of it. Even if I'm not learning anything effective ( a sentiment I would disagree with) , it's still a great exercise, I enjoy it, and it's good for my mind.
In the near future, I'm going to be able to go to a school. I would like to look at some quality bojutsu, because odds are, it's the only type of staff I'm going to be practicing. I've been looking for schools within 40 miles of me, and this seems to be the most likely outcome. So I would like to know quality when I see it. I am very aware of that a lot of people have no idea what they're doing with weapons. Particularly in bo staff katas. 



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm… okay… the most pressing question, of course, is that, if you have no education other than looking at videos online, how do you know which are good or not?
> 
> No. You need an instructor. And you need to learn a specific system. Trying to pick bits and pieces from a variety of different sources is confusing at best, and a complete waste of time in the main.
> 
> ...


Point 1 - Eh....I just can. I can tell the difference between good staff work and lesser quality staff work. I confess, I know very little about real bojutsu, but I could still tell which of these videos made sense and which ones didn't. I can't really prove this beyond what I already have. 

Point 2 - Not learning a unified system does indeed mean I'm trying to pick up bits and pieces from different strategies. And trying to apply them all doesn't make sense. Learning bio mechanics does make sense, and that's primarily what I'm doing. I can derive little bits of why most methods employ certain techniques. I get that it doesn't mean I have "learned it", in the sense that I could employ the same method or strategy as effectively just by looking. 

Point 3 - Limited as it may be, I can still gain a better understanding of how long certain moves take, which ones flow together, and recovery speed.

The self taught thing - It definitely has it's problems. I understand them all too well, and have always been barriers to my progress. But I refuse to put it down. I know for myself, it has been massively beneficial for me. My ability to use a staff is debatable, but the benefits that training with one for the majority of my life are not. At the very least, I know I can effectively defend myself with one. It's better than nothing, and I'll be on an accelerated learning curve when I find a teacher. There is nothing anyone can say that will make me stop. 

I'm not here to debate the merits or flaws of self training. I get that it's widely frowned upon. I get it has many problems. It will remedied as soon as it possibly can. In the mean time, I'm still going to be researching and practicing what I can. I value the information I can get from traditional sources sources highly, whether it be for their contextual interest or their bio mechanics. I collect as many as I can possibly find. If you have information that could help me, I would appreciate it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 15, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> I should probably quit using the word "bo".  It's just a hand carved, stout staff of 6 feet in length. Both the rattan bo's that I tried to were broke (only one of them was shoddy. The other was from years of hard use), so I just made my own out of ironwood or maple.



Er… what? Who said anything about usage of the term "bo"? It just means "stick", or "rod" anyway… there's no issue using it to describe a staff… it's just the Japanese word for it. Thing is, what you're doing isn't bojutsu… that's a specific term for a particular set of methodologies… and, so far, you haven't shown any grasp or experience with any of it.



Orange Lightning said:


> Please understand that, I'm not commenting on the quality of any bojutsu specifically. I'm giving my opinion and asking questions about their staff work. Not the style of bojutsu itself.



Then you've missed entirely what's been said, and why.



Orange Lightning said:


> I understand that I cannot learn bojutsu this way. But I do think I pick up small bits of wisdom that I haven't been exposed to. I look up a variety of videos on the subject of staff fighting. I lookup English quarterstaff, HEMA spear, HEMA warhammer (different but related) chinese spear, japanese bo, kendo naginata, and some odd fringe stuff from Africa and India, and many more I can't remember, all for the same purpose as I do for looking up bo katas.



Which is, if you're aiming to actually learn bojutsu, completely pointless and potentially rather counter-productive. Really, all you're doing is the same as trying to pick up half a dozen words in different languages, rather than learning one properly.



Orange Lightning said:


> Out of all the polearm videos I've seen, the Japanese ones (can't isolate a specific style) are unique because they usually focus entirely on using the bo from a middle grip where either side can be used. I wondered why, so I started thinking and comparing them to other systems, trying to figure out why they had the method they did.



And, again… what? No, Japanese arts don't hold the staff in the centre… that's the Okinawan methodology you're describing (which might be why you can't actually find any examples…). Japanese arts typically feature a large amount of sliding the hands along the length of the bo, employing the length of the weapon.

So… no. Wrong.



Orange Lightning said:


> I've been using a staff for a long time. True, it's been entirely self taught. When I can find an instructor, I will. But until then, I refuse to believe that I can't develop in the mean time. Ultimately, I understand there are almost certainly gaps in my understanding, and I'm trying to learn about them. I've spent roughly a 1/6 of my life swinging a staff. It's been my primary focus. It's kept me in good shape throughout most of it. Even if I'm not learning anything effective ( a sentiment I would disagree with) , it's still a great exercise, I enjoy it, and it's good for my mind.



It's great that you enjoy it… but you haven't spent minute one in bojutsu yet.



Orange Lightning said:


> In the near future, I'm going to be able to go to a school. I would like to look at some quality bojutsu, because odds are, it's the only type of staff I'm going to be practicing. I've been looking for schools within 40 miles of me, and this seems to be the most likely outcome. So I would like to know quality when I see it. I am very aware of that a lot of people have no idea what they're doing with weapons. Particularly in bo staff katas.



First thing would be what form of bo you'd be training… if it's Japanese, which system? "Quality" is somewhat subjective… and what's "good" for one is not for another… of course, there are certain things that are universal, but at this point, you're not in a position to recognise them.

Oh, and be prepared to be told that everything you think you know about bo is wrong if you do start in a school… 



Orange Lightning said:


> Point 1 - Eh....I just can. I can tell the difference between good staff work and lesser quality staff work. I confess, I know very little about real bojutsu, but I could still tell which of these videos made sense and which ones didn't. I can't really prove this beyond what I already have.



Eh… frankly, no, you can't. And you've already proven that, for the record. 



Orange Lightning said:


> Point 2 - Not learning a unified system does indeed mean I'm trying to pick up bits and pieces from different strategies. And trying to apply them all doesn't make sense. Learning bio mechanics does make sense, and that's primarily what I'm doing. I can derive little bits of why most methods employ certain techniques. I get that it doesn't mean I have "learned it", in the sense that I could employ the same method or strategy as effectively just by looking.



Bio-mechanics can change, and be very specific from one system to another… In other words, what you're "learning" isn't really anything yet… and, honestly, without a teacher to confirm and correct, there's really no guarantee that your idea of mechanics are good, correct, optimal, or anything else.



Orange Lightning said:


> Point 3 - Limited as it may be, I can still gain a better understanding of how long certain moves take, which ones flow together, and recovery speed.



Except you have no understanding of the context of the actions, the interplay, the ma-ai, the hyoshi, or anything else.



Orange Lightning said:


> The self taught thing - It definitely has it's problems. I understand them all too well, and have always been barriers to my progress. But I refuse to put it down. I know for myself, it has been massively beneficial for me. My ability to use a staff is debatable, but the benefits that training with one for the majority of my life are not. At the very least, I know I can effectively defend myself with one. It's better than nothing, and I'll be on an accelerated learning curve when I find a teacher. There is nothing anyone can say that will make me stop.



Again, great that you feel you're getting something out of it, but frankly, you haven't done minute one of actual learning yet.



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm not here to debate the merits or flaws of self training. I get that it's widely frowned upon. I get it has many problems. It will remedied as soon as it possibly can. In the mean time, I'm still going to be researching and practicing what I can. I value the information I can get from traditional sources sources highly, whether it be for their contextual interest or their bio mechanics. I collect as many as I can possibly find. If you have information that could help me, I would appreciate it.



The best I can offer is to suggest you look for a school first and foremost. Stop "collecting", it doesn't do anything at this point. Practicing things that you don't know, or understand, or are able to follow properly is really not anything like actually training.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 15, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> I love that you brought that up! I keep hearing from people that their curriculum is so effective and streamlined because their hand skills translate into their weapon skills and I just think, "Um.....no?"
> There are a few minor exceptions, to be fair. But not many. Weapons  are  almost always fundamentally different.
> Anyway, I've wondered about that, and I'm glad you brought it too light.


No, they don't have to be.  In fact, in many systems, there are clear and strong relationships between empty hand and weapon hand techniques.  There are some differences, but the underlying mechanics all flow from the same place.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 17, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> No, they don't have to be.  In fact, in many systems, there are clear and strong relationships between empty hand and weapon hand techniques.  There are some differences, but the underlying mechanics all flow from the same place.



I can see that. In retrospect, I wrote that post when I was thinking about someone that just said to me that their style's weapon methods translate into their hand skills, _and therefore_ he knew how to use weapons, seemingly ignorant of the differences in mechanics.
 I can see how some of them can share a functional relationship, to a degree. In the case of staff, your essentially operating a giant lever or fulcrum. It functions differently from working just the hands because the hands operate independently. In some ways, yeah, I can see how the flow is similar or how a particular technique has the same hand motion as an empty hand motion. But  how the impact generates force and how the impact lands is usually very different from empty hand. And this guy literally said to me "If you're staff skills don't translate into you're hand to hand skills, you're doing it wrong." 
This guy seemed like he believed WAY  too much in his system. Or at least the marketing of it. It was Kuntao by the way.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 17, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> I can see that. In retrospect, I wrote that post when I was thinking about someone that just said to me that their style's weapon methods translate into their hand skills, _and therefore_ he knew how to use weapons, seemingly ignorant of the differences in mechanics.
> I can see how some of them can share a functional relationship, to a degree. In the case of staff, your essentially operating a giant lever or fulcrum. It functions differently from working just the hands because the hands operate independently. In some ways, yeah, I can see how the flow is similar or how a particular technique has the same hand motion as an empty hand motion. But  how the impact generates force and how the impact lands is usually very different from empty hand. And this guy literally said to me "If you're staff skills don't translate into you're hand to hand skills, you're doing it wrong."
> This guy seemed like he believed WAY  too much in his system. Or at least the marketing of it. It was Kuntao by the way.


There can be a lot more overlap than you understand.  In my system, with minimal adjustment, the same body dynamics and principals apply to a straight punch, a thrust with a knife, a strike with a short to medium stick, or a long stick.  The same stance principles, weight shifts, even use of the hands...  The changes are minor, and generally recognition of the range difference offered by the weapon.

Conflicts between empty hand and weapon hand dynamics generally show up when someone grafts, say, an Okinawan weapon into a Korean or Chinese art...  Not that we ever see that happen .  If you look across Japanese systems, at Japanese weapons,  you'll see a lot of common trends, which you also see in Japanese empty hand systems.  Same thing if you look at the intrinsic weapons in Chinese arts.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 17, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> There can be a lot more overlap than you understand.  In my system, with minimal adjustment, the same body dynamics and principals apply to a straight punch, a thrust with a knife, a strike with a short to medium stick, or a long stick.  The same stance principles, weight shifts, even use of the hands...  The changes are minor, and generally recognition of the range difference offered by the weapon.
> 
> Conflicts between empty hand and weapon hand dynamics generally show up when someone grafts, say, an Okinawan weapon into a Korean or Chinese art...  Not that we ever see that happen .  If you look across Japanese systems, at Japanese weapons,  you'll see a lot of common trends, which you also see in Japanese empty hand systems.  Same thing if you look at the intrinsic weapons in Chinese arts.



I forgot about stance and footwork.   Things like knives and small sticks I can understand immediately translating. Medium weapons I can understand only needing to make a few minor changes and still having the same principle, or at least having the same muscle groups or directions. Basically working on the same theory with a different set of cards.
Weapons 4 feet and beyond....I'm having a harder time picturing. Can you give me an example? I believe you but, I'm having a hard time picturing it. Outside of using the same muscles, I don't see how something like poking with a 4 or 6 foot stick is could be similar to straight punches. They have similar motions but don't seem to work....quite the same way. I can see....for example, having a circular blocking method would help rotate either end of a staff. The only attacks I can think of being relevant are backfists for flicks and hammerfists for directional swinging. Other than that, I see them being different motions or twisting the weapon to make impact in ways that would look silly barehanded. 
In summary, I can see some ways that medium and long weapons could be vaguely similar in where the hands reside, stance, and footwork, but I'm not seeing the similarities as much with how the hands generate power in the weapon.  I would like an example. I'm curious to explore this now. 
It also just occurred to me that what are basically reverse punches happen sometimes too. Have I answered my own question or is there more to it?

Subtopic - Do you follow the idea that weapons should feel like extensions of the hand? I understand that premise, but mechanically, it works more like an extra joint. Especially with longer weapons. In my thinking, it works if you understand perfectly what you want to do with your weapon, but only mentally. Once you're proficient enough you just sort of....point where you want to go and how with your hands.  But usually, they don't work like literal hand extensions. Using an Indian pata, which is pretty much a sword gauntlet is an exception that demonstrates what it would _literally_ be like, and plays very differently than a hand held sword or stick. Can you imagine using one of these? It would be weird but kind of awesome.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 19, 2015)

Yeah… you're still far from correct, you understand. Yes, there is a major connection between any weapon work and unarmed within a system, and yes, within that system, the usage of a longer weapon (such as a bo) can be quite indicative of unarmed methodology as well. 

See, here's the problem. You're still completely inexperienced in this field, and are trying to rely on what you think makes sense, without any real grasp of the realities, contexts, specifics, or anything similar. Your "Kuntao guy" wasn't just believing in the rhetoric of his system too much… he was telling you the way it works there. And, gotta tell you, that's the norm.

The rest of your posts are too full of issues for me to go through in detail… but suffice to say, you're not arguing from any position of knowledge.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 19, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… you're still far from correct, you understand. Yes, there is a major connection between any weapon work and unarmed within a system, and yes, within that system, the usage of a longer weapon (such as a bo) can be quite indicative of unarmed methodology as well.
> 
> See, here's the problem. You're still completely inexperienced in this field, and are trying to rely on what you think makes sense, without any real grasp of the realities, contexts, specifics, or anything similar. Your "Kuntao guy" wasn't just believing in the rhetoric of his system too much… he was telling you the way it works there. And, gotta tell you, that's the norm.
> 
> The rest of your posts are too full of issues for me to go through in detail… but suffice to say, you're not arguing from any position of knowledge.



Nah. That was the tip of glacier on that guy. '"Boxing isn't a martial art". He says a lot of strange and blatantly ridiculous things. I do think that he was very knowledgeable and understanding in his system, and upon examples and demonstration, I would wager that it works well for him in application. But man....."Strength won't help you hit harder or faster. You need to do chi punching. It's the best form of punching."   Upon demonstration and explanation, he literally just meant having body weight behind your punches. And apparently, boxers don't do this. 

I'm beginning to tire of hearing that. I understand your position on the subject. You don't need to keep repeating it. I get that you think I'm "completely inexperienced in this field", and I don't agree. There is no point in beating that dead horse. I am here to share opinions and learn, so it's very frustrating to hear that I don't know *what I know that I don't know*,* and is a large part of the reason I'm here,* when I'm trying to understand positions different from my own. If I'm wrong, just explain it to me. Don't tell me I'm ignorant if things I know I'm ignorant of and am attempting to *not be ignorant of,* and then fail to cure me of my ignorance. 
What else would I use but what I think makes sense? Do you not rely on what you think makes sense? I have knowledge about the bio mechanics I've learned and cursory knowledge on various styles and historical contexts. From these things, I have an opinions. You have barely pointed anything you truly disagree with me about besides you think that what I've learned amounts to nothing. I'd like a bit more discussing in my discussion.
I wonder for example, if this disagreement with the relationship between weapon and hand techniques is simply a difference in margins. How similar exactly does a weapon movement need to be for either of us to consider it similar to a hand movement? Does this synergy only exist between the style's weapon and hand methods, or do you think it applies to all movement in general? We won't know if we don't *actually discuss it.* This specific disagreement could be as simple as me using a different weapon technique than the hand technique I've learned, and thus the relationship that could be isn't clear to me. Or the margin thing.

Contexts. What exactly do you mean when you say contexts? Are you talking about the historical context and usage of a method, or the specific context of specific moves?


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 19, 2015)

It's more than i want to try to do on my phone, buy the body dynamos and even MUCH of the hand motions can be very much alike, whether the weapon is the empty hand, a stick barely longer than the fist, or a 7 or 8 foot long staff.  You won't like what I'm going to say -- but you almost certainly need real instruction to understand this. That's just the way it works. As to internalizing the principles and developing instinctive use of a weapon... Well, your ideas are naive is the kindest way I can put it.  

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 19, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> It's more than i want to try to do on my phone, buy the body dynamos and even MUCH of the hand motions can be very much alike, whether the weapon is the empty hand, a stick barely longer than the fist, or a 7 or 8 foot long staff.  You won't like what I'm going to say -- but you almost certainly need real instruction to understand this. That's just the way it works. As to internalizing the principles and developing instinctive use of a weapon... Well, your ideas are naive is the kindest way I can put it.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk



I can totally believe that I'm wrong about something. I can own up to that and move past it. But I have to have the proof that I'm wrong. I cannot just assume that I am.
If you're up for explaining it, you don't need to go into specifics with text. A visual comparison should do. I think it's the only way I'm going to get past that "margin" concept I was discussing earlier.
Also, I'm curious what specifically it is that sounds naive. Or is it just everything I say? xD That wouldn't surprise me either.
EDIT: Nevermind I get what the naive comment was referring to now. I figured you'd probably disagree with that too, just based on the disagreement between the weapon and hand relationship thing. So....you DO think that weapons should be like an extension of the hand?


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 19, 2015)

I went back and read it and it does sound kind of naive.  It doesn't read how I meant it. I didn't mean you _literally_ point your hands were you want the weapon to go. I meant that, once you understand the mechanics really well, you don't need to think about it anymore. You just do. You act. Point. Just like you would any other part of your body would strike in a manner you were used to, and how the other parts of your body follow suit and do what they need to. Exactly how you've trained. In that sense, I can think of a weapon like an extension of the hand. But again, IMO, it usually doesn't  mechanically work that way.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 19, 2015)

Ha! Some agreement from bloggers! 

The Stick Chick The Weapon Is An Extension Of The Hand - Except It Totally Isn t

THE WEAPON IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE HAND Big Stick Combat Blog


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 20, 2015)

Dude, no.

Look, I'm not spending the time to go through it tonight, I'll probably come back to it in a couple of days, but for now, just no.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 20, 2015)

Take your time. No rush.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 20, 2015)

The question of whether weapons work should be seen as an extension of the body mechanics used for unarmed fighting techniques can be contentious. I think much of it comes down to which aspects you are focusing on. I can demonstrate certain aspects of body mechanics which are very similar for armed and unarmed work - and I can demonstrate other aspects which are very different.


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 20, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Don't tell me I'm ignorant if things I know I'm ignorant of and am attempting to *not be ignorant of,* and then fail to cure me of my ignorance.
> What else would I use but what I think makes sense? Do you not rely on what you think makes sense? I have knowledge about the bio mechanics I've learned and cursory knowledge on various styles and historical contexts. From these things, I have an opinions. You have barely pointed anything you truly disagree with me about besides you think that what I've learned amounts to nothing. I'd like a bit more discussing in my discussion.



  I would like to enter an outside opinion for you in an attempt to maybe make things a little more clear. I practice Japanese sword arts, and have for about 20 years now. I've seen the same enthusiastic approach as yours from many people over the years. They watch videos, they talk with many people, and they do what they think is the correct thing on their own. I have one of those folks going to my dojo right now. Every single one of them that have come and practiced in the dojo have been terrible in the beginning. They all had to relearn how to do things properly.

  The biggest problem that all of these folks have encountered is that the weapon arts, at least the Japanese arts that I'm familiar with, all use movements that are NOT natural. They tend to be difficult to learn in the beginning because they DON'T make intuitive sense, and the body doesn't NATURALLY move in the manner required. It's counter-intuitive and not easy to see from a video. I can stand next to someone practicing and tell them that they need to balance their weight more, or turn their hips a bit farther to the left, or they are bending too much at the waist, or this foot needs to point more forward. If I'm talking to someone blind over the internet, all I can say is "you have to properly engage your tanden" and you have no idea what I mean, or how to go about doing it. Further, I have no interest in expending the necessary time and energy trying to explain it in such a way that a stranger over the internet can understand it. I reserve that level of effort for those that come into my dojo, and who may be able to return some of my expended effort to the ryu some day.

  It's possible to do what you're trying to do once you have trained long enough with a decent instructor to learn some solid foundations. Without something to start with though, you're just going to end up floundering around without any idea if what you are attempting is correct or not, as you have no real way to knowing.

  Hope that makes things a bit more clear.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 20, 2015)

pgsmith said:


> I would like to enter an outside opinion for you in an attempt to maybe make things a little more clear. I practice Japanese sword arts, and have for about 20 years now. I've seen the same enthusiastic approach as yours from many people over the years. They watch videos, they talk with many people, and they do what they think is the correct thing on their own. I have one of those folks going to my dojo right now. Every single one of them that have come and practiced in the dojo have been terrible in the beginning. They all had to relearn how to do things properly.
> 
> The biggest problem that all of these folks have encountered is that the weapon arts, at least the Japanese arts that I'm familiar with, all use movements that are NOT natural. They tend to be difficult to learn in the beginning because they DON'T make intuitive sense, and the body doesn't NATURALLY move in the manner required. It's counter-intuitive and not easy to see from a video. I can stand next to someone practicing and tell them that they need to balance their weight more, or turn their hips a bit farther to the left, or they are bending too much at the waist, or this foot needs to point more forward. If I'm talking to someone blind over the internet, all I can say is "you have to properly engage your tanden" and you have no idea what I mean, or how to go about doing it. Further, I have no interest in expending the necessary time and energy trying to explain it in such a way that a stranger over the internet can understand it. I reserve that level of effort for those that come into my dojo, and who may be able to return some of my expended effort to the ryu some day.
> 
> ...



It does make it a bit more clear. I understand that many things can be next to impossible to explain even in person, let alone over the internet through text alone.  I'm not trying to learn any art or complete system just by looking at it. That would be ridiculous. With regard to weapons, (sticks to be specific. of any length), I'm learning how to hit with them in the most efficient way I possibly can, and train to improve my ability to do that. I recognize that I simply cannot learn an art in it's full entirety. I'm not trying to. I can learn a way of generating force, or an effective combination of moves that I believe would enable me to defend myself. In the simplest possible terms, I'm learning how to hit things effectively with the objective of avoiding being hit myself.
All of my discussion here is either an attempt to understand and improve what *I can do better*, or simple curiosity that I don't intend to act on. (For example, Okinawan staff technique, something I don't intend to use, or what weapons were used for what reasons on battlefields, etc.)  And that will have to do until I start receiving proper instruction. 
In this way, nothing I'm doing can be wrong. It can be ineffective, or could be improved, but not wrong. Swinging a baseball bat for example, will have it's pros and cons for me. I can improve my swinging technique and ability to swing, and the bat itself as a weapon has pros and cons that I can learn. Even assuming there is an element of my swinging that isn't "correct", and upon correction would improve my technique, it wasn't exactly totally ineffective as a weapon before the correction. It just could have been improved.

I can understand not wanting to take the tedious time to explain, in text, through posts, something that the recipient probably wouldn't even understand anyway. If that's the case for an art's relationship between it's hand and weapon movements of an art, I'm alright with that. It's really not that big of a deal of a discussion. Or at least not to me. But translating that somehow into me being totally incapable of understandings mechanics of any kind at any level is nonsense to my ears.  I'm tired of hearing it's impossible for me to improve my ability to defend myself. What I've done has paid off for me, and is continuing to do so. I don't understand why I need to keep defending myself about that. It's not relevant to much. I don't understand this insistence I tell me otherwise.  I'd rather just discuss MA and training. At some point in this discussion, those things got mixed.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2015)

Pgsmith has touched on some of why I can't put it into text -- and there are several reasons I'm not going to try to post videos.

But let me try anyway...

The body is a collection of levers and pivot points, right?  Those levers and pivots can be used to generate force in a variety of ways using various principles.  A martial discipline combines a set of those principles along with a set of tactics, strategies, and philosophies in how to use them.  Make sense so far?

Add a weapon into the mix, and you simply add another set of levers and pivot points.  Depending on how you integrate them, these new levers may simply enlarge or lengthen existing internal ones -- or they can add a whole new set of dynamics.  But they're still going to be powered by the original ones, unless you start getting into things like firearms, bows and arrows, and the like which provide their own power.  They're a whole different thing -- though there's some overlap.  Not getting into now...

Depending on how well you understand the integration and underlying dynamics -- that's how naturally or smoothly the weapon "extends the empty hand."  Add to that how well the weapon principles are integrated with the unarmed principles...  That's why I said it matters if the weapons are something simply grabbed and added in from outside, or are an inherent part of the system, too.  If I were to try to simply grab some Filipino stick drills and exercises, without also understanding how they use footwork to deliver the weapon, stance and body structure to support it, even the philosophies that get into the targeting -- it's not going to smoothly be an extension of my empty hand.  I use cooking analogies a lot...  If you simply try to throw some Tex-Mex spices into a French dish...  The results probably aren't going to be very happy, are they?  The flavor profiles simply don't match, without some thought and work to align them.  Same thing with trying to let a weapon be an extension of your body; unless the principles are in alignment, you'll have to switch between two sets of principles depending on what you're doing.

Does this make some sense?


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2015)

OK, re: the links about the weapon not being an extension of the hand...

They do have a point.  A weapon is not MERELY an extension of the hand.  It does bring it's own principles in, especially as you move into edged weapons rather than sticks or other blunt weapons.   There are principles involved in cutting, and those actually depend a bit on the type of weapon, too.  A chopping weapon is used one way, a slashing or slicing in a little different way, and thrusts are another.  So there are refinements or adjustments to the techniques to make them work.  And, of course, there are some elements that can enhance a weapon's use beyond the mere empty hand principles.  And, certainly, each weapon can bring it's own tactics into the game, too.

Then there are the elements of range...  And defending against a weapon is another question... 

But, if your weapon is integrated with your empty hand, the principles of using it are going to extend and flow from the one to the other.  (Some arts run the other way...  They start with weapons, and move to empty hand, taking the same principles and tactics, but adjusting them for the absence of the weapon....  )


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 20, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> Pgsmith has touched on some of why I can't put it into text -- and there are several reasons I'm not going to try to post videos.
> 
> But let me try anyway...
> 
> ...



Yeah. That makes sense. 
Honestly though, none of that is new to me. It's a pretty spiffy explanation though. Nice job on that. 

It sounds to me like your saying an understanding of a weapon style's usage will allow you to employ a similar strategy or methodology as the hand method within that style. You aren't so much saying that the mechanics for applying the methodology or literally the same or nearly the same, but you _aren't _saying that the literal mechanics are entirely disparate from each other. Additionally, a hand or weapon style from a different system wouldn't flow as smoothly for them because too many aspects of the ideas taught dissimilar from the other, and could thus limit your progress in one or the other. Is my interpretation accurate?

I could agree with that, if it's the case. I can see how, for example, learning boxing would in no way at all prepare one for using sticks. Now that I think about it, I've actually experienced that exact disparity myself, trying to learn boxing after learning a lot about sticks.  Maybe that has something to do with the huge difference in opinion I have.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 20, 2015)

Here's the thing with weapons: on a rudimentary level they are pretty obvious how they are to be used.  With a bladed weapon you cut him with the sharp edge and you poke him with the pointy end.  With an impact weapon like a staff, you hit him with it or thrust him with the end.  With a weapon like a spear, you poke him with the sharp end or you hit him with the other end.  These things are obvious.  As such, it doesn't take long for someone with no instruction to pick it up and become familiar enough with it to become hazardous to the enemy, or hazardous to himself.  You don't need years of instruction to be able to kill someone with a sword, staff, stick, spear or whatever.

However, whatever you can figure out for yourself will be very rudimentary, will not be the most efficient and structurally sound way to execute your techniques, and you will fail to even come close to understanding the true potential and capabilities of the weapon.  You might even develop habits that, while still being hazardous to the enemy, could result in damage to the weapon. You might develop habits that lead to repetitive-motion injuries to yourself as you practice.  You might go about your practice in a way that leaves you vulnerable to actually injuring yourself with the weapon.  You could see things on YouTube that were done by people who don't know what they are doing and when you copy their ideas, you get hurt.  There are a lot of bad ideas out there.

So yes, you can pick up the weapon and "kind of figure it out" and be hazardous to your enemy, but that doesn't mean that you have any idea of what you are really doing, or the best way to go about it.

And yes, the fundamental principles of the training methodology should also be present in the weapon methods.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 21, 2015)

Flying Crane said:


> Here's the thing with weapons: on a rudimentary level they are pretty obvious how they are to be used.  With a bladed weapon you cut him with the sharp edge and you poke him with the pointy end.  With an impact weapon like a staff, you hit him with it or thrust him with the end.  With a weapon like a spear, you poke him with the sharp end or you hit him with the other end.  These things are obvious.  As such, it doesn't take long for someone with no instruction to pick it up and become familiar enough with it to become hazardous to the enemy, or hazardous to himself.  You don't need years of instruction to be able to kill someone with a sword, staff, stick, spear or whatever.
> 
> However, whatever you can figure out for yourself will be very rudimentary, will not be the most efficient and structurally sound way to execute your techniques, and you will fail to even come close to understanding the true potential and capabilities of the weapon.  You might even develop habits that, while still being hazardous to the enemy, could result in damage to the weapon. You might develop habits that lead to repetitive-motion injuries to yourself as you practice.  You might go about your practice in a way that leaves you vulnerable to actually injuring yourself with the weapon.  You could see things on YouTube that were done by people who don't know what they are doing and when you copy their ideas, you get hurt.  There are a lot of bad ideas out there.
> 
> ...



I agree with 99% of this The 1% is at the bottom. I have the potential to injure myself by trying something I don't understand, or over time by doing bad training. I can become happy with bad habits. Even in the unlikely best case scenario, where I understand everything I'm doing and there isn't anything technically wrong with my technique, it can still only advance so far. I have no challenges to overcome or puzzles to solve. Even having an understanding of a theory, I cannot become effective at certain aspects of trying to strike a foe, or defend myself from one. Even if I become _amazing_ at whatever I've figured out, I have no way to verify the quality of what I'm doing compared to a properly taught art, even if I could swear it seems to be of quality to me. Especially compared to what I find on the internet. 
That said, I'm pretty happy with my ability. Even acknowledging the possibilities that there are probably things I could learn or unlearn to improve my understanding or there could be things about my existing technique that could be optimized.

The "whole extension of the hand thing" I'm not going to debate anymore. It mostly seems to have been a difference in way of thinking. Not understanding. It was interesting though. For me at least. My position on the subject has been slightly updated, and I learned something about myself.  I can't believe no one mentioned the pata. Not once. xD

By the way, the martial arts youtube cracked me up when I discovered it. I think I was.....16 at the time.  All it occurred to me to do was to search "Bo Staff Kata" and I found nonsense a plenty. That was when I learned what XMA was. "Master Bater" doing crazy tricks with a graphite bo. xD
One of the very few videos I could find that I thought was any good was from this guy named Adam Pecoraro. This isn't the same video of him, but I think it's the same kata.






I didn't have good internet connection for very long, so it was one of the only videos I saw. Even then, I had things I was used to doing, and of course the video had an influence on me at the time and I tried to mimic it. Long story short, it wasn't doing it right. I knew that, so I dropped everything about it that I felt I couldn't do well or didn't understand the purpose of. Years of training later, I get it. It's not all that complicated really. I still didn't "copy" the methodology, but it did give me a good basis of comparison for things when I was younger. Got me thinking a little more heavily on things like flow and power generation.

There is one sentence I don't agree with. I suppose the disagreement could be chalked up to semantics _"So yes, you can pick up the weapon and "kind of figure it out" and be hazardous to your enemy, but that doesn't mean that you have any idea of what you are really doing, or the best way to go about it."_
I can see, feel, and "know" in a literal sense, what I'm doing.  I can measure how hard or fast I'm hitting, feel where my feet are, understand the objectives of my movements, compare the usefulness of different techniques, so on and so forth. My strategy or mechanics can be *bad*, but I can still know, _literally, _what I'm doing with my body and weapon, and what the effects are. From that, it is possible to gauge the effectiveness of my own moves *to a degree*. I understand that can only be taken so far in isolation. 

Lastly, I'm not being foolhardy. I'm not diving headstrong into anything I don't know about or aren't confident in. I'm not ignoring my body when it hurts. Caution is taken with all new material. I rarely take on new material though, so it isn't generally a big concern.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 24, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> Take your time. No rush.



Sure. You might want to settle in, though… this is gonna take a while… 



Orange Lightning said:


> Nah. That was the tip of glacier on that guy. '"Boxing isn't a martial art". He says a lot of strange and blatantly ridiculous things. I do think that he was very knowledgeable and understanding in his system, and upon examples and demonstration, I would wager that it works well for him in application. But man....."Strength won't help you hit harder or faster. You need to do chi punching. It's the best form of punching."   Upon demonstration and explanation, he literally just meant having body weight behind your punches. And apparently, boxers don't do this.



Yeah… again, you're out of your depth here. The guy you were talking to was simply describing things from his perspective (and, for the record, the idea that boxing isn't a "martial art" is a valid one, on a large number of criteria, depending on how you classify martial arts in the first place…), and as for the discussion of the "best form of punching", he was describing the way his art deals with the concept (which they, obviously, feel is the "best"). 

Dude, when it comes to discussing people's opinions who have actually trained in something, when you have only played at pretend yourself, doesn't help you here… you don't have much credibility… and are here just showing how you simply are largely ignorant of everything we're talking about.



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm beginning to tire of hearing that. I understand your position on the subject. You don't need to keep repeating it. I get that you think I'm "completely inexperienced in this field", and I don't agree. There is no point in beating that dead horse. I am here to share opinions and learn, so it's very frustrating to hear that I don't know *what I know that I don't know*,* and is a large part of the reason I'm here,* when I'm trying to understand positions different from my own. If I'm wrong, just explain it to me. Don't tell me I'm ignorant if things I know I'm ignorant of and am attempting to *not be ignorant of,* and then fail to cure me of my ignorance.



Yeah, I get that… but, of course, when you keep coming out with the same stuff yourself, continually making the same basic errors, showing the same ignorance, arguing against what you're being told, and refusing to take on board what is said, then yeah, we're going to continue pointing out that you are completely inexperienced in this field.

You can share opinions, but realise that they will not be seen as well-founded ones… and you can learn, if you take the opportunity to see that you currently don't know anything… especially what you think you do know. And, for the record, a large part of what you're mistaken about isn't something that can be explained in a simple, black and white fashion… it's different for each system that might be discussed… in a way, it's a case of there not being a single "right", but there being definite "wrongs"… and you're constantly on the "wrong" side of things… which means that the only real response is to point out that it's wrong, rather than cover the myriad of ways that might be "right".

Again, in a very real sense, the first step to you understanding what you're being told will be for you to actually start training… until then, you have no basis for comparison.



Orange Lightning said:


> What else would I use but what I think makes sense? Do you not rely on what you think makes sense?



What else would you use? Education in what actually works… which isn't always, or even commonly, what "makes sense". And do I rely on what makes sense to me? Not at all… I rely on the wisdom of far more experience and understanding than I have when it comes to a combative system. All too often I see students do what "makes sense" to them… and it doesn't work. 



Orange Lightning said:


> I have knowledge about the bio mechanics I've learned and cursory knowledge on various styles and historical contexts.



Honestly, what you think you understand is again without base. And cursory knowledge is, well, less than none in this area.



Orange Lightning said:


> From these things, I have an opinions.



Sure… but baseless, ill-informed ones. That really can't be left off.



Orange Lightning said:


> You have barely pointed anything you truly disagree with me about besides you think that what I've learned amounts to nothing. I'd like a bit more discussing in my discussion.



You might want to go back and re-read then… from the beginning, I've been pointing out that your ideas of how a combative system works is inaccurate, your take on what is "good" is deeply flawed, you ability to discern methodologies is lacking, and your self-congratulatory "training" are based only in your lack of knowledge, experience, and understanding.



Orange Lightning said:


> I wonder for example, if this disagreement with the relationship between weapon and hand techniques is simply a difference in margins.



Honestly? No. But we'll get to that.



Orange Lightning said:


> How similar exactly does a weapon movement need to be for either of us to consider it similar to a hand movement?



You're thinking too literally, as well as missing entirely what is meant.



Orange Lightning said:


> Does this synergy only exist between the style's weapon and hand methods, or do you think it applies to all movement in general?



Within a system, it should apply to everything. And that goes beyond "movement".



Orange Lightning said:


> We won't know if we don't *actually discuss it.* This specific disagreement could be as simple as me using a different weapon technique than the hand technique I've learned, and thus the relationship that could be isn't clear to me. Or the margin thing.



Without you having any basis in any actual martial system, you are simply not in a position to follow any discussion. It's not about "techniques".



Orange Lightning said:


> Contexts. What exactly do you mean when you say contexts? Are you talking about the historical context and usage of a method, or the specific context of specific moves?



That, and far more.



Orange Lightning said:


> I can totally believe that I'm wrong about something. I can own up to that and move past it. But I have to have the proof that I'm wrong. I cannot just assume that I am.



You don't seem to have been able to believe, accept, or move past it yet… and it's got nothing to do with assumption. You've come along to a martial arts forum, and are being told the same thing from a number of different people, of different backgrounds, different arts, all telling you the same thing. And when a bunch of experienced people tell someone with little to no experience something that contradicts the understanding of the inexperienced person, it's a fairly safe conclusion that, well, you're wrong.



Orange Lightning said:


> If you're up for explaining it, you don't need to go into specifics with text. A visual comparison should do. I think it's the only way I'm going to get past that "margin" concept I was discussing earlier.



The only way to explain it is to be specific… and honestly, text is not the way to do it. It's experienced. Until you have a basis to work from, there isn't much more to say other than to tell you the way combative systems actually work.



Orange Lightning said:


> Also, I'm curious what specifically it is that sounds naive. Or is it just everything I say? xD That wouldn't surprise me either.



Well… yeah. It's everything. From your first post here, honestly.



Orange Lightning said:


> EDIT: Nevermind I get what the naive comment was referring to now. I figured you'd probably disagree with that too, just based on the disagreement between the weapon and hand relationship thing. So....you DO think that weapons should be like an extension of the hand?



That's not the only thing that was referred to… as I said, it's in everything you've written since you started posting here. But, to answer your question… yes. In my arts, we have a phrase.. ken tai ichi jo (劒体一条), which roughly translated means "the body and the weapon are united as one".



Orange Lightning said:


> I went back and read it and it does sound kind of naive.  It doesn't read how I meant it. I didn't mean you _literally_ point your hands were you want the weapon to go. I meant that, once you understand the mechanics really well, you don't need to think about it anymore. You just do. You act. Point. Just like you would any other part of your body would strike in a manner you were used to, and how the other parts of your body follow suit and do what they need to. Exactly how you've trained. In that sense, I can think of a weapon like an extension of the hand. But again, IMO, it usually doesn't  mechanically work that way.



Yeah… you've skipped over a bunch of steps there, and are really talking about something largely unrelated here… 



Orange Lightning said:


> Ha! Some agreement from bloggers!
> 
> The Stick Chick The Weapon Is An Extension Of The Hand - Except It Totally Isn t



Look, I know Jackie from a couple of Facebook pages… she's a lovely girl, but it should be realised that she's still relatively new to all of this… and frankly, much of what she comes up with is flawed in and of itself (a product of too much thinking too early, rather than training and discovering… not uncommon, really). In the case of this blog post, she's missing what is actually meant by "the weapon is an extension of the hand" (or body) by thinking it's about contrast of comparisons between empty hand and weapon work. That's really not what is meant at all… 




Orange Lightning said:


> THE WEAPON IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF THE HAND Big Stick Combat Blog



This guy I don't know… but he's making the same mistake Jackie made (and you're making) in not understanding the phrase. Both of these blogs are focused on FMA approaches… and the misunderstanding is not uncommon there, it seems. But the actual meaning of the phrase isn't that the techniques are the same, it's that the weapon shouldn't be considered separate from the rest of your body or limb… yes, the mechanics will change (but not in all cases… footwork, for instance, often remains largely the same) to take advantage of the different properties of the weapon (both in your hands, and in your opponents, if they're armed), but the main point is that you should move beyond the idea of being a person with a weapon, and simply make the weapon a part of yourself and your action.

In other words, these are not examples of people supporting your ideas, but a couple of cases of misunderstanding of the phrase in the first place.



Orange Lightning said:


> It does make it a bit more clear. I understand that many things can be next to impossible to explain even in person, let alone over the internet through text alone.



Yet you still insist that you can figure it out for yourself… ignoring what Paul said entirely.



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm not trying to learn any art or complete system just by looking at it. That would be ridiculous.



Yes, it would be… however, thinking you can gain any understanding without learning an art (specific) in the first place is just as ridiculous.



Orange Lightning said:


> With regard to weapons, (sticks to be specific. of any length), I'm learning how to hit with them in the most efficient way I possibly can, and train to improve my ability to do that.



No, you're not. Your trying to do what you think is the most efficient way… but that is dependant on context, and you don't have any. So, frankly, you're improving your ability to do nothing.



Orange Lightning said:


> I recognize that I simply cannot learn an art in it's full entirety. I'm not trying to. I can learn a way of generating force, or an effective combination of moves that I believe would enable me to defend myself.



Defend yourself? Seriously? Dude… you carry a bo wherever you go, in case of attack by a samurai?

Get some reality. Please.

But, for the record, you have absolutely no way of knowing if anything you do is really generating force the way it can be done, or if your combination of moves is even partially "effective" (whatever that means… context is important).



Orange Lightning said:


> In the simplest possible terms, I'm learning how to hit things effectively with the objective of avoiding being hit myself.



And, again, without a specific context, in the simplest possible terms, no, you're not. You're playing with what you think such things are, with no way of knowing just how far off you really are.



Orange Lightning said:


> All of my discussion here is either an attempt to understand and improve what *I can do better*, or simple curiosity that I don't intend to act on. (For example, Okinawan staff technique, something I don't intend to use, or what weapons were used for what reasons on battlefields, etc.)



What you can do better is to stop thinking you know anything about bojutsu, and get to a school. As far as the idle curiosity, you don't have any way to put it in context… which makes it less than useless to you. It'd be like having the knowledge that a Xhosa Uhadi Bow is a traditional instrument… but not knowing what it's an instrument of, how it's used, where it's from, or anything else.



Orange Lightning said:


> And that will have to do until I start receiving proper instruction.



And then some.



Orange Lightning said:


> In this way, nothing I'm doing can be wrong.



Oh, so much irony in so few words… yes, absolutely many things you do can be "wrong"… including holding the belief that nothing you're doing can be "wrong"… 



Orange Lightning said:


> It can be ineffective, or could be improved, but not wrong. Swinging a baseball bat for example, will have it's pros and cons for me. I can improve my swinging technique and ability to swing, and the bat itself as a weapon has pros and cons that I can learn. Even assuming there is an element of my swinging that isn't "correct", and upon correction would improve my technique, it wasn't exactly totally ineffective as a weapon before the correction. It just could have been improved.



Son, I heartily recommend you shelve this line of thought… it's just delusional.



Orange Lightning said:


> I can understand not wanting to take the tedious time to explain, in text, through posts, something that the recipient probably wouldn't even understand anyway.



Oh, good.



Orange Lightning said:


> If that's the case for an art's relationship between it's hand and weapon movements of an art, I'm alright with that. It's really not that big of a deal of a discussion. Or at least not to me.



Really? For the record, that's not the case there… the case there is that each art will do it in it's own individual way… and, largely, it's something that must be experienced to be understood. When you learn a system, starting with one aspect (such as unarmed methods), then you progress to another area (weapons), you can then start to see where it all joins together… until then, the only thing to do is to tell you that that's the way it is… and hope you show enough insight to be able to follow such a simple explanation.



Orange Lightning said:


> But translating that somehow into me being totally incapable of understandings mechanics of any kind at any level is nonsense to my ears.



I know it's nonsense to you at this point… but you have to remember that you don't have anything to contrast your personal ideas with. In many cases here, you're dealing with people who are not only students of their arts, but instructors… and we've seen people such as yourself come in, thinking that because they've played with things in their backyard, and think they have an idea of what they're doing, they think that it's "effective", or "works", only to show that they're damn lucky to be holding the right end of a blade.

It's nonsense to you right now, but to us, it's old news.



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm tired of hearing it's impossible for me to improve my ability to defend myself.



Bojutsu isn't about defending yourself, mate… if you think that's what you're doing, you really have no clue.



Orange Lightning said:


> What I've done has paid off for me, and is continuing to do so.



Really? You've defended yourself against an opposing swordsman using bojutsu, have you? It's paid off, has it? 

Again, it's great that you think you're getting something positive out of your playing… but don't confuse it with actually training, studying, or being experienced and educated in this topic.



Orange Lightning said:


> I don't understand why I need to keep defending myself about that. It's not relevant to much. I don't understand this insistence I tell me otherwise.



The only person bringing up "self defence" here is you… no-one's made any comment about it… so I'm not sure why you think you need to defend such a bizarre idea either… 



Orange Lightning said:


> I'd rather just discuss MA and training.



Great. And when you get some, we'll be happy to discuss it with you.

Look, at this point you're an interested outsider… which is fine… good, even. But you're trying to also be an informed insider… and you're not. We do train martial arts… you don't. We have a frame of reference to discuss martial arts and martial arts training from… you don't. And, until you get one, you're simply not in a position to discuss such things with us. If you have questions, that's encouraged… but discussion is honestly a bit beyond you at this point.



Orange Lightning said:


> At some point in this discussion, those things got mixed.



No, they didn't. The discussion is bojutsu in particular (although your ideas of martial arts training itself needs some attention), and that hasn't been left off at all. The conversation has simply been firstly to establish if you have any genuine experience or understanding, and, when it became apparent that you didn't, has been a number of attempts to show you exactly why your lack in this regard is a hindrance to the conversation you think you're trying to have.



Orange Lightning said:


> Yeah. That makes sense.
> Honestly though, none of that is new to me. It's a pretty spiffy explanation though. Nice job on that.



If none of it is news, the how come it is highlighting exactly the issues in your posts?



Orange Lightning said:


> It sounds to me like your saying an understanding of a weapon style's usage will allow you to employ a similar strategy or methodology as the hand method within that style.



No, that's not what he's saying.



Orange Lightning said:


> You aren't so much saying that the mechanics for applying the methodology or literally the same or nearly the same, but you _aren't _saying that the literal mechanics are entirely disparate from each other. Additionally, a hand or weapon style from a different system wouldn't flow as smoothly for them because too many aspects of the ideas taught dissimilar from the other, and could thus limit your progress in one or the other. Is my interpretation accurate?



Not quite, no. What JKS was saying is that weapon usage, in an integrated system (one that has multiple aspects, unarmed, different weapons etc) will have a lot of cross-over, with the mechanics (and tactics) altering to suit the weapon itself… and that picking up an "alien", or un-integrated form of weapon (a BJJ guy picking up a sword, for example) without having an understanding of the weapon itself, or a basis for it's usage, leads to the issues suggested earlier in the thread. "Flowing smoothly" is kinda the least symptom of the problem.



Orange Lightning said:


> I could agree with that, if it's the case. I can see how, for example, learning boxing would in no way at all prepare one for using sticks. Now that I think about it, I've actually experienced that exact disparity myself, trying to learn boxing after learning a lot about sticks.  Maybe that has something to do with the huge difference in opinion I have.



"Learn about boxing"? Have you actually learnt anything from an actual teacher? Maybe that has something to do with the huge difference in opinion you're finding here?



Orange Lightning said:


> I agree with 99% of this The 1% is at the bottom. I have the potential to injure myself by trying something I don't understand, or over time by doing bad training.



Yeah… and that's only one of the myriad issues with that approach.



Orange Lightning said:


> I can become happy with bad habits.



Then we have nothing to discuss with you. We aren't "happy with bad habits"… we work hard and long to rid ourselves of them… that's the point of the training. If you're "happy with bad habits", you have no place in martial arts, and no place holding a weapon.

Frankly, this attitude alone is indicative that you have no place in this discussion.



Orange Lightning said:


> Even in the unlikely best case scenario, where I understand everything I'm doing and there isn't anything technically wrong with my technique, it can still only advance so far. I have no challenges to overcome or puzzles to solve. Even having an understanding of a theory, I cannot become effective at certain aspects of trying to strike a foe, or defend myself from one. Even if I become _amazing_ at whatever I've figured out, I have no way to verify the quality of what I'm doing compared to a properly taught art, even if I could swear it seems to be of quality to me. Especially compared to what I find on the internet.



Okay… first off, you can't do any of that. Believe me. Secondly, yes, that's part of what we've been telling you… and without any type of genuine external verification, all you're doing is playing games.



Orange Lightning said:


> That said, I'm pretty happy with my ability. Even acknowledging the possibilities that there are probably things I could learn or unlearn to improve my understanding or there could be things about my existing technique that could be optimised.



It's great that you're happy with your ability… but again, do not mistake it for actual skill, understanding, experience, or similar. The number of people who believe they're really good dancers, despite all evidence to the contrary, doesn't bode in your favour… and it's not a dissimilar idea.



Orange Lightning said:


> The "whole extension of the hand thing" I'm not going to debate anymore. It mostly seems to have been a difference in way of thinking. Not understanding. It was interesting though. For me at least. My position on the subject has been slightly updated, and I learned something about myself.  I can't believe no one mentioned the pata. Not once. xD



Mentioned the what?



Orange Lightning said:


> By the way, the martial arts youtube cracked me up when I discovered it. I think I was.....16 at the time.  All it occurred to me to do was to search "Bo Staff Kata" and I found nonsense a plenty. That was when I learned what XMA was. "Master Bater" doing crazy tricks with a graphite bo. xD
> One of the very few videos I could find that I thought was any good was from this guy named Adam Pecoraro. This isn't the same video of him, but I think it's the same kata.



Good god, that was horrible!

Dude, that's yet another case of someone with no idea of weapon usage making garbage up. If you think that was good (not just the performance, if you think that "kata" has any credibility or legitimacy at all), then you really don't have the first clue what you're looking at. I mean… it's a "Kickboxing and Fitness" school… what credibility do you think their weapon usage is going to have?



Orange Lightning said:


> I didn't have good internet connection for very long, so it was one of the only videos I saw. Even then, I had things I was used to doing, and of course the video had an influence on me at the time and I tried to mimic it. Long story short, it wasn't doing it right. I knew that, so I dropped everything about it that I felt I couldn't do well or didn't understand the purpose of. Years of training later, I get it. It's not all that complicated really. I still didn't "copy" the methodology, but it did give me a good basis of comparison for things when I was younger. Got me thinking a little more heavily on things like flow and power generation.



It's garbage, and the martial equivalent of baton twirling. Do not, I repeat, do not base any ideas of how a bo should be used on such tripe.



Orange Lightning said:


> There is one sentence I don't agree with. I suppose the disagreement could be chalked up to semantics _"So yes, you can pick up the weapon and "kind of figure it out" and be hazardous to your enemy, but that doesn't mean that you have any idea of what you are really doing, or the best way to go about it."_
> I can see, feel, and "know" in a literal sense, what I'm doing.



No, you can't. You don't have any point of reference to understand what "good" feels like. You can see, feel, and "know" what you think is good… which, without having some incredibly highly developed sense of self-appraisal combined with practical experience and education in what "good" actually is, is far from being the same as saying what you "see, feel, and 'know'" is actually good.



Orange Lightning said:


> I can measure how hard or fast I'm hitting, feel where my feet are, understand the objectives of my movements, compare the usefulness of different techniques, so on and so forth.



Okay, you can feel where your feet are… do you know where they're meant to be? Or how the muscles in your legs are supposed to feel at the time? Or which fingers do the gripping of the weapon? Or where your centre of balance should be? Where internal tension should be felt? What you're meant to be doing with your sacrum?

In other words, do you actually know what you think you know? My money would be on no… 



Orange Lightning said:


> My strategy or mechanics can be *bad*, but I can still know, _literally, _what I'm doing with my body and weapon, and what the effects are. From that, it is possible to gauge the effectiveness of my own moves *to a degree*. I understand that can only be taken so far in isolation.



If your strategy (not sure you get what that word actually refers to…), mechanics etc are bad, but you can know what you're doing, why are you doing things that are bad?

Again, you simply don't have the self-reflection to do what you think you can do here… don't take that as an attack, that's the same for everyone. You, simply, don't have anything to inform you of what you're looking for.



Orange Lightning said:


> Lastly, I'm not being foolhardy. I'm not diving headstrong into anything I don't know about or aren't confident in. I'm not ignoring my body when it hurts. Caution is taken with all new material. I rarely take on new material though, so it isn't generally a big concern.



You may not be  being foolhardy, but you are being foolish if you think that you're doing anything of value here. And, despite your confidence, you absolutely are diving headstrong (headlong, perhaps?) into something you don't know about.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 24, 2015)

You've misinterpreted quite a bit of what I said.

I'm not trying to learn "bojutsu" I've stated that many times. I'm "practicing" how to "fight with sticks" for "self defense".  And yes, that isn't preposterous for me. I live in an really rural area and I carry a walking stick literally every time I walk out my door. Where I live, I carry a 5 "8 ironwood staff for walking. Great hiking tool. Walking to actual destinations, a jo length ironwood walking stick is more practical and sociable. Great defense against animals or unruly people. It was a lot more so a concern when I was younger and not powerful enough to defend myself or run from adults.
Mostly though, it's a great way to cultivate my mind and improve my health. Work through my thoughts, think critically, build strength and skill, etc. It's plenty enjoyable for various reasons. 

This bit about "being happy with bad habits".  That meant that I can become happy with mechanics that are inefficient or could be better without realizing the problem. Not that I don't care that they exist.

This is a pata. It's an indian weapon. It's essentially a sword attached to a gauntlet, and the point of bringing it up was to illustrate what it would _literally_ be like to use a weapon like an extension of your hand, instead of principally. According to Wikipedia, it was a good anti cavalry weapon for infantry.







There is a lot more you misinterpreted. I could get into it and the debate but... I really don't see the point anymore.
All I wanted was the historical context of Okinawan staff fighting, with no intention of using it.  In hindsight, I see how what I said later about "what I'm doing" made it sound otherwise.  And it spurred into all this other... stuff.

I've already stated that you aren't going to dissuade me from what I'm doing. I've stated, *so many times,* that I understand it's far lesser than proper teaching. I've also stated that I intend to find that teaching as soon as possible. The best you can do is give me advice or knowledge on how to improve in the mean time. Which I now understand, there is no version of this where you do that. I would think a forum would be a great place to get that sort of information. For the most part, it has been.

In regards to what you have _actually explained,_ thanks.


----------



## pgsmith (Apr 27, 2015)

La la la la la la la la .....


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 28, 2015)

Orange Lightning said:


> You've misinterpreted quite a bit of what I said.



Personally, I'm not sure of that… frankly, I feel it's the other way around.



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm not trying to learn "bojutsu" I've stated that many times.



Then you're on the wrong thread.



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm "practicing" how to "fight with sticks" for "self defines".



Then you're delusional.



Orange Lightning said:


> And yes, that isn't preposterous for me. I live in an really rural area and I carry a walking stick literally every time I walk out my door. Where I live, I carry a 5 "8 ironwood staff for walking. Great hiking tool. Walking to actual destinations, a jo length ironwood walking stick is more practical and sociable. Great defense against animals or unruly people. It was a lot more so a concern when I was younger and not powerful enough to defend myself or run from adults.



Then you're trying to live out a fantasy.



Orange Lightning said:


> Mostly though, it's a great way to cultivate my mind and improve my health. Work through my thoughts, think critically, build strength and skill, etc. It's plenty enjoyable for various reasons.



Oh dear lord… look, for the last time, I'm happy that you think you're getting benefits… but there is no way to validate anything that you think you're getting, and bluntly, it's doubtful that you're actually getting what you think you are. Frankly, you're playing with sticks. That's it.



Orange Lightning said:


> This bit about "being happy with bad habits".  That meant that I can become happy with mechanics that are inefficient or could be better without realizing the problem. Not that I don't care that they exist.



That has to be one of the most ludicrous things I've read in a while… and I've just gone through all of Mad Dog's posts… if you're "training for self defence", why on earth would you be happy with something that's less than optimal? Dude… 



Orange Lightning said:


> This is a pata. It's an indian weapon. It's essentially a sword attached to a gauntlet, and the point of bringing it up was to illustrate what it would _literally_ be like to use a weapon like an extension of your hand, instead of principally. According to Wikipedia, it was a good anti cavalry weapon for infantry.



That thing? Why would we mention it? Just because you brought it up due to your lack of comprehension of the concept of "extension of the hand"? It has nothing to do with this thread, so we ignored it.



Orange Lightning said:


> There is a lot more you misinterpreted. I could get into it and the debate but... I really don't see the point anymore.



Yeah… I'm not sure of the point in trying to explain things to you either… 



Orange Lightning said:


> All I wanted was the historical context of Okinawan staff fighting, with no intention of using it.  In hindsight, I see how what I said later about "what I'm doing" made it sound otherwise.  And it spurred into all this other... stuff.



The context of Okinawan staff fighting is exactly that… that it's Okinawan. Different Ryukyu Kobudo systems will have slightly different contexts… but without getting specific, that's as far as we could go. And, once you get specific, you'd need to talk to the practitioners of the specific systems themselves… and even then, not necessarily get an answer.



Orange Lightning said:


> I've already stated that you aren't going to dissuade me from what I'm doing.



You don't know what you're doing, and frankly, that level of self-delusion is almost impossible to dislodge… so I didn't have high hopes. 



Orange Lightning said:


> I've stated, *so many times,* that I understand it's far lesser than proper teaching.



No, it's not… it's impossible. Not far lesser. Simply not possible. All you can do with the method you're applying is play with sticks.



Orange Lightning said:


> I've also stated that I intend to find that teaching as soon as possible.



Honestly, I'm not sure you'd even know what to look for… but I do hold out hope that, maybe, someday, you will get yourself to an actual school. Maybe then, after a while, you'll come back here and actually understand what you've been told.



Orange Lightning said:


> The best you can do is give me advice or knowledge on how to improve in the mean time.



There is no "meantime". You're not doing anything. You're not training. You're playing with sticks. You haven't started yet, so there's no advice to give. But the primary piece of advice, should you start, will be to listen to your instructor… there isn't any "generic" advice that could be offered, as it could easily not apply to any specific system you might start.



Orange Lightning said:


> Which I now understand, there is no version of this where you do that.



Actually, quite the opposite… I've given you frank and honest advice from the beginning. It simply hasn't been what you wanted to hear… and bluntly, that ain't on me, and it's not concern of mine.



Orange Lightning said:


> I would think a forum would be a great place to get that sort of information. For the most part, it has been.



You have no idea of the amount of information you can get here… or even what you've already been given. Sadly.



Orange Lightning said:


> In regards to what you have _actually explained,_ thanks.



Sure.


----------



## Orange Lightning (Apr 29, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Personally, I'm not sure of that… frankly, I feel it's the other way around.



I've been getting the sense that, on many posts, where aren't even talking about the same things. Not only do we disagree, but are sometimes talking about different things entirely. That possibility leads into a few other points I'm going to make.



Chris Parker said:


> Then you're on the wrong thread.



What I am actually trying to do doesn't have anything to do with what I was originally trying to learn. That historical crap I was talking about earlier, and to be able to know quality when I see it. Because, odds were, when I found someone that teaches staff, it would be Okinawan. I asked questions that I thought someone would be able to answer, and instead, we're talking about how terrible self training is as it pertains to me specifically.



Chris Parker said:


> Then you're trying to live out a fantasy.



In what way is using a walking stick delusional or a fantasy? They _are_ great hiking tools. It's the fact of the matter. They assist one in _walking_. They can also equip you with greater force than if you went barehanded.

Neat uses for a walking stick - *Walking* (something you're going to be doing a lot), particularly up or down hills, a ward against spider webs when you walk between trees, getting sticks and brush out of your walking path, getting over or through bodies of water, knocking fruit out of trees, an improvised digging tool, or touching things you don't want to touch with your body (water, fire, dirt, a plant, whatever). 
All that, as well as being able to bludgeon things quickly and forcefully from a relatively safe distance. In a fix, it can be made into a stabbing implement (again, for whatever reason). It can be used to make yourself look larger to animals, and can make a lot of noise by smacking it against things. I once scared a bear away by smacking a stick against a propane tank. 



Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear lord… look, for the last time, I'm happy that you think you're getting benefits… but there is no way to validate anything that you think you're getting, and bluntly, it's doubtful that you're actually getting what you think you are. Frankly, you're playing with sticks. That's it.



Um....you made a comment about me doing bo and jo training being delusional if I planned on using it primarily for self defense. (which was also a misinterpretation from an earlier post, but I suppose it's my fault because I mixed the discussions of "self training/self defense" and learning "how to fight with sticks" have worded that one better). My response was to point out that it wasn't so. Self defense with a stick is a pretty unlikely thing to occur, particularly with a 6 ft staff. This response was to point out that while yes, the possibility of actually using it to fight anything are extremely low (barring using a shovel or something for crazy circumstances), I still do it today for it's other benefits.



Chris Parker said:


> That has to be one of the most ludicrous things I've read in a while… and I've just gone through all of Mad Dog's posts… if you're "training for self defence", why on earth would you be happy with something that's less than optimal? Dude…



You interpreted that the same way as you did last time. It isn't what I'm saying. I'll try to frame it differently.
I am not happy with less than optimal technique. Without feedback, it can be harder for me to know if I'm making mistakes. If I become _aware_ of a mistake that I'm making, obviously, I try to get rid of it. But I understand that the odds of me not being aware of things I could do better is high. I'm not "happy" with that aspect. I mean can get used to doing things sub optimally, unaware that it isn't optimal. Outside of research, training epiphany, or a natural progression of skill, I can't know for certain if I'm doing anything the best way it possibly can be. Like you keep saying. That doesn't mean I like it. That doesn't mean I'm not trying to see things I could be doing wrong, or could do better.



Chris Parker said:


> The context of Okinawan staff fighting is exactly that… that it's Okinawan. Different Ryukyu Kobudo systems will have slightly different contexts… but without getting specific, that's as far as we could go. And, once you get specific, you'd need to talk to the practitioners of the specific systems themselves… and even then, not necessarily get an answer.



  That's a good enough answer for me. 
Honestly though, I'm beginning to doubt that the kind of context I'm trying to find exists simply because they were farm tools turned weapons. Not weapons designed originally for fighting that were allowed to be conspicuous about the fact they were, indeed, weapons. In this way, the context of something like....the tips of longswords and arming swords in Europe getting smaller to go through smaller holes in armor, or why Scandinavians used a particular kind of shield, the tactics of certain types of archers or crossbowman, etc. Since Okinawan weapons weren't supposed to look like weapons and weren't originally designed to be weapons, this "context" I was asking about seems to have just been a desperate necessity for the best they could make or get and practice in secret, and not so much a design of making the best weapons to fight certain challenges.
Although, I am still curious about these stylistic specific contexts, I understand it can't really be explained this way.



Chris Parker said:


> You don't know what you're doing, and frankly, that level of self-delusion is almost impossible to dislodge… so I didn't have high hopes.



I did I state that I "knew what I was doing"? I mean, I think I do, or at least I know about what I know, for a lack of better of a better description. 
Whatever though. This subtopic doesn't have anything to do with anything. As far as "self delusion" see the bottom comment.



Chris Parker said:


> No, it's not… it's impossible. Not far lesser. Simply not possible. All you can do with the method you're applying is play with sticks.



XD You think that it is literally impossible to improve past the square one of complete inexperience? You think that, even if it doesn't resemble effective martial technique, it's totally impossible to get better with the simple mechanics of how it works? Sliding the hands? Switching grips? Switching sides? Pushing and pulling on both ends for more power generation? Putting your weight behind strikes? Concepts like leverage and recovery speed?
That's hilarious. As if it's LITERALLY impossible to get even marginally better at something with experimentation and practice. Of course it gets more complicated than that, but the simple mechanics of how a stick works really aren't that complex. Techniques can be come advanced, or it's application harder to grasp, but the mechanics themselves are basic things. Yeah, progression is going to suck and the end result will always be far worse than proper teaching but....xD It's like your saying it's impossible to understand that I overcooked my eggs unless someone tells me.

Sure dude. Fine. It's "playing with sticks". And one can get very good at playing with sticks, and those abilities can translate to a faster understanding of effective techniques when they are finally found.

I realize that any "techniques" learned alone have a good chance of being ineffective, but I don't see how you can debate that you can't get better in the slightest, in any way shape or form in these basic mechanics. There's obviously a lot more to it than that though.
I would contend, at the very least, a person practiced in such mechanics would advance at an accelerated pace if they were familiar with such mechanics. 



Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, I'm not sure you'd even know what to look for… but I do hold out hope that, maybe, someday, you will get yourself to an actual school. Maybe then, after a while, you'll come back here and actually understand what you've been told.



Actually, that's something I mentioned earlier that you never answered. If for no other reason than to be able to know, at least to within a respectable degree, good staff teachers when I see them. I would like to know more about Okinawan staff fighting as it is the most likely type of staff fighting I'm going to find. I don't intend to implement or "self teach" any of it because I don't find it useful to me _right now_, but I may later when I see it and actually learn it.
And I'll most definitely find a school. Eventually. Oddly enough, I was going to go check out a TKD place today that got recommended to me, but something came up and I'll have to go next week.



Chris Parker said:


> There is no "meantime". You're not doing anything. You're not training. You're playing with sticks. You haven't started yet, so there's no advice to give. But the primary piece of advice, should you start, will be to listen to your instructor… there isn't any "generic" advice that could be offered, as it could easily not apply to any specific system you might start.



 Good advice! 



Chris Parker said:


> Actually, quite the opposite… I've given you frank and honest advice from the beginning. It simply hasn't been what you wanted to hear… and bluntly, that ain't on me, and it's not concern of mine.



Frank? Yes. Relevant? Sometimes....kind of.... in a way, but rarely on what I'm trying to ask.

Well, you're right about one thing. It's not wanted I wanted to hear. But not in the sense that you seem to think. I didn't expect you, or anyone else here for that matter, to agree with me about an aspect of self training. I didn't expect to even talk to anyone on the site about the subject. I actually expected your exact position. I've never really wanted to discuss self training or my own ability. For some reason, _you_ really want to tell _me_ that my experience doesn't add up to much. Which.....I don't entirely disagree with. I disagree about the benefits of self training as a concept, but I don't disagree that it places me far beneath someone who is training properly.



Chris Parker said:


> You have no idea of the amount of information you can get here… or even what you've already been given. Sadly.



....Ok? Did I say something counter to that?
As far as this information is already given is concerned.....This is something that's hard to explain in text. It's not exactly that I think you're totally wrong. It's more like...... I have way more concerns that, for whatever reason, the information you're giving me doesn't apply or isn't relevant to what I said. I'm saying this disregarding both our positions on a subject. It seems to me we are misinterpreting each other because we aren't always talking about quite the same things. It might be similar, or different but related, but not often sharing the same image of what we're actually discussing. Or having different terminology for some things, your terminology obviously being more credible than mine.  Pertaining to martial arts, there have been many times were I assumed I was misinformed or totally wrong about something due to the information given to me by someone like yourself, only to be validated as correct, or at least partially so, later. The reasons for that have been varied and sometimes confusing. Such reasons can allow us to both simultaneously be correct because we aren't actually talking about the same thing. Or one of us right for their own context, and wrong for the other persons.
So, in a situation where I don't think we're exactly talking about the same thing (like this one), I need to know for myself. I need contexts, examples, research, comparisons, so on and so forth. In this conversation, there is too much uncertainty for me in what precisely you're talking about to assume it's totally correct in all cases, assuming it's even relevant, with no grey areas or exceptions. And that's not even taking opinions, or whether or not what you're saying is an opinion or a fact, into account.

This is not meant as a dig. There are clearly misunderstandings, and I need more information to confirm things for myself. You seem like a pretty credible source, but this discrepancy in communication as well as a massive disagreement about some things and disagreements about other things I'm not even talking about has made this....a conversation to wade through. Seems like you feel the same way.
Are we done playing brick walls yet? We aren't going to come to a consensus on this "self training" thing. You mostly answered my context question as best you could, without getting into specifics. The only unanswered question I have is how to spot good Okinawan bo teachers. Or is that different for the different styles too?


----------



## Chris Parker (May 4, 2015)

This is getting long… so I'll try to be brief, where I can.



Orange Lightning said:


> I've been getting the sense that, on many posts, where aren't even talking about the same things. Not only do we disagree, but are sometimes talking about different things entirely. That possibility leads into a few other points I'm going to make.



Possible. I'm talking about the combative use of bo, you're talking about playing with sticks.



Orange Lightning said:


> What I am actually trying to do doesn't have anything to do with what I was originally trying to learn. That historical crap I was talking about earlier, and to be able to know quality when I see it. Because, odds were, when I found someone that teaches staff, it would be Okinawan. I asked questions that I thought someone would be able to answer, and instead, we're talking about how terrible self training is as it pertains to me specifically.



Odds are, if you find someone who actually knows Ryukyu Kobudo, you won't just learn Bo. It's rarely, if ever, taught by itself, but is part of a larger system… sometimes as a more "pure" Ryukyu Kobudo system, as one of a number of weapons, or as a "tack-on" to a karate system. Finding a school that teaches Bo by itself is a real rarity… in fact, the only ways I can think of are Japanese (Chikubujima Ryu, for example), French (La Canne) and Portuguese (Jogo de Pau). The most common staff fighting method you'll encounter is not actually bojutsu, but Jodo/jojutsu… and can be found as both Seitei Jodo and Shinto Muso Ryu Jodo/Jojutsu. None of which are really anything like Ryukyu Kobudo's methodologies, nor are they anything that related to modern self defence requirements. So your assumptions as to what you would find aren't really that accurate either…

Oh, and again, you don't know quality, and can't recognise it based on your posts here. And I have no idea what you think you're talking about with that reference to "historical crap"… really not the way to describe things with me… 



Orange Lightning said:


> In what way is using a walking stick delusional or a fantasy? They _are_ great hiking tools. It's the fact of the matter. They assist one in _walking_. They can also equip you with greater force than if you went barehanded.



The fantasy is that you carrying a walking stick is in any way related to combative use or self defence with a staff. Look, this type of fantasy is not uncommon… the fantasy of power… but it's still a fantasy.



Orange Lightning said:


> Neat uses for a walking stick - *Walking* (something you're going to be doing a lot), particularly up or down hills, a ward against spider webs when you walk between trees, getting sticks and brush out of your walking path, getting over or through bodies of water, knocking fruit out of trees, an improvised digging tool, or touching things you don't want to touch with your body (water, fire, dirt, a plant, whatever).



Yeah… look, no-one's argued against using a walking stick as a walking stick, you realise… just this whole "I'd use it to fight with as well!" thing.



Orange Lightning said:


> All that, as well as being able to bludgeon things quickly and forcefully from a relatively safe distance. In a fix, it can be made into a stabbing implement (again, for whatever reason). It can be used to make yourself look larger to animals, and can make a lot of noise by smacking it against things. I once scared a bear away by smacking a stick against a propane tank.



And here you venture into areas you're not cognisant of… you're throwing around a number of ideas without having the required understandings of the realities associated.



Orange Lightning said:


> Um....you made a comment about me doing bo and jo training being delusional if I planned on using it primarily for self defense. (which was also a misinterpretation from an earlier post, but I suppose it's my fault because I mixed the discussions of "self training/self defense" and learning "how to fight with sticks" have worded that one better). My response was to point out that it wasn't so. Self defense with a stick is a pretty unlikely thing to occur, particularly with a 6 ft staff. This response was to point out that while yes, the possibility of actually using it to fight anything are extremely low (barring using a shovel or something for crazy circumstances), I still do it today for it's other benefits.



And you're still playing with sticks.



Orange Lightning said:


> You interpreted that the same way as you did last time. It isn't what I'm saying. I'll try to frame it differently.
> I am not happy with less than optimal technique. Without feedback, it can be harder for me to know if I'm making mistakes. If I become _aware_ of a mistake that I'm making, obviously, I try to get rid of it. But I understand that the odds of me not being aware of things I could do better is high. I'm not "happy" with that aspect. I mean can get used to doing things sub optimally, unaware that it isn't optimal. Outside of research, training epiphany, or a natural progression of skill, I can't know for certain if I'm doing anything the best way it possibly can be. Like you keep saying. That doesn't mean I like it. That doesn't mean I'm not trying to see things I could be doing wrong, or could do better.



Get to a school. That's your only option if you actually want to have something real to base your ideas on.



Orange Lightning said:


> That's a good enough answer for me.
> Honestly though, I'm beginning to doubt that the kind of context I'm trying to find exists simply because they were farm tools turned weapons. Not weapons designed originally for fighting that were allowed to be conspicuous about the fact they were, indeed, weapons. In this way, the context of something like....the tips of longswords and arming swords in Europe getting smaller to go through smaller holes in armor, or why Scandinavians used a particular kind of shield, the tactics of certain types of archers or crossbowman, etc. Since Okinawan weapons weren't supposed to look like weapons and weren't originally designed to be weapons, this "context" I was asking about seems to have just been a desperate necessity for the best they could make or get and practice in secret, and not so much a design of making the best weapons to fight certain challenges.
> Although, I am still curious about these stylistic specific contexts, I understand it can't really be explained this way.



Yeah… you're a little out on a number of counts there… in fact, the only thing you get right is the idea that what you're looking for doesn't exist… as, well, it doesn't. You're looking for something that fits your fantasy. Reality rarely does that.



Orange Lightning said:


> I did I state that I "knew what I was doing"? I mean, I think I do, or at least I know about what I know, for a lack of better of a better description.
> Whatever though. This subtopic doesn't have anything to do with anything. As far as "self delusion" see the bottom comment.



I get that you think you know what you're doing… but, gotta tell you, you really don't. And this "subtopic" is the heart of your issues, honestly.



Orange Lightning said:


> XD You think that it is literally impossible to improve past the square one of complete inexperience? You think that, even if it doesn't resemble effective martial technique, it's totally impossible to get better with the simple mechanics of how it works? Sliding the hands? Switching grips? Switching sides? Pushing and pulling on both ends for more power generation? Putting your weight behind strikes? Concepts like leverage and recovery speed?



No, I think it's impossible to create something from nothing where the contextual crucible required doesn't exist anymore. As for the mechanical ideas you're looking at… what makes you think you're even close on any of them?



Orange Lightning said:


> That's hilarious. As if it's LITERALLY impossible to get even marginally better at something with experimentation and practice. Of course it gets more complicated than that, but the simple mechanics of how a stick works really aren't that complex. Techniques can be come advanced, or it's application harder to grasp, but the mechanics themselves are basic things. Yeah, progression is going to suck and the end result will always be far worse than proper teaching but....xD It's like your saying it's impossible to understand that I overcooked my eggs unless someone tells me.



You can get better, sure… but the question is what you're getting better at. And really, if you're getting it wrong in the first place, you're only getting better at doing it all wrong. Is that really better than not doing it at all?

Here's the thing… mechanics are specific. And they are the hardest part to get right. They're fundamental, not basic. But, most importantly, your very base ideas are incorrect, as are your assumptions on how these things work.



Orange Lightning said:


> Sure dude. Fine. It's "playing with sticks". And one can get very good at playing with sticks, and those abilities can translate to a faster understanding of effective techniques when they are finally found.



Not if you have to retrain everything about the way you handle a staff… in fact, it actually slows down your understanding and skill development.

But most importantly, this thread is not about you playing with sticks… in fact, none of this forum is. It's about the actual methods and arts, proper training and knowledge, real education and experience. What you do to make yourself feel good is really not what this site is about.



Orange Lightning said:


> I realize that any "techniques" learned alone have a good chance of being ineffective, but I don't see how you can debate that you can't get better in the slightest, in any way shape or form in these basic mechanics. There's obviously a lot more to it than that though.
> I would contend, at the very least, a person practiced in such mechanics would advance at an accelerated pace if they were familiar with such mechanics.



You're not familiar with any actual mechanics, though… that's the point. You're making up what you think it is, but that's it. And I get that you don't see how I can debate against what you think you know, but, and here's the kicker, that's because you don't know what you're talking about, and are focusing on the wrong things.



Orange Lightning said:


> Actually, that's something I mentioned earlier that you never answered. If for no other reason than to be able to know, at least to within a respectable degree, good staff teachers when I see them. I would like to know more about Okinawan staff fighting as it is the most likely type of staff fighting I'm going to find. I don't intend to implement or "self teach" any of it because I don't find it useful to me _right now_, but I may later when I see it and actually learn it.



You need experience to be able to tell, which is what I answered earlier. No, it wasn't the answer you were looking for, but it's the reality.



Orange Lightning said:


> And I'll most definitely find a school. Eventually. Oddly enough, I was going to go check out a TKD place today that got recommended to me, but something came up and I'll have to go next week.



You might want to read earlier in the thread before thinking you're going to get something of value from a TKD school in regard to Bojutsu… 



Orange Lightning said:


> Good advice!



Sure.



Orange Lightning said:


> Frank? Yes. Relevant? Sometimes....kind of.... in a way, but rarely on what I'm trying to ask.



It's been far more relevant than you understand.



Orange Lightning said:


> Well, you're right about one thing. It's not wanted I wanted to hear. But not in the sense that you seem to think. I didn't expect you, or anyone else here for that matter, to agree with me about an aspect of self training. I didn't expect to even talk to anyone on the site about the subject. I actually expected your exact position. I've never really wanted to discuss self training or my own ability. For some reason, _you_ really want to tell _me_ that my experience doesn't add up to much. Which.....I don't entirely disagree with. I disagree about the benefits of self training as a concept, but I don't disagree that it places me far beneath someone who is training properly.



Get some actual education and training, and you might find that your way of thinking changes to one closer to mine.



Orange Lightning said:


> ....Ok? Did I say something counter to that?



In every post, and every PM you've typed.



Orange Lightning said:


> As far as this information is already given is concerned.....This is something that's hard to explain in text. It's not exactly that I think you're totally wrong. It's more like...... I have way more concerns that, for whatever reason, the information you're giving me doesn't apply or isn't relevant to what I said.



Oh dear… look… in this conversation, we have two people… one who has a few decades experience, and one who has none. And, while it's gratifying that the one who has none has conceded that the guy who knows what he's talking about isn't "totally wrong", it's also a little concerning that you still think you're able to discern what's relevant or not.



Orange Lightning said:


> I'm saying this disregarding both our positions on a subject.



Which would be a mistake.



Orange Lightning said:


> It seems to me we are misinterpreting each other because we aren't always talking about quite the same things. It might be similar, or different but related, but not often sharing the same image of what we're actually discussing.



I'm talking about study of staff usage… you're not.



Orange Lightning said:


> Or having different terminology for some things, your terminology obviously being more credible than mine.



No, my terminology is correct and accurate… yours is misapplied and misunderstood. But, when all's said and done, that's the least of the issues here.



Orange Lightning said:


> Pertaining to martial arts, there have been many times were I assumed I was misinformed or totally wrong about something due to the information given to me by someone like yourself, only to be validated as correct, or at least partially so, later.



Validated how? With your solo methods? How, as I asked earlier, does that actually validate anything?



Orange Lightning said:


> The reasons for that have been varied and sometimes confusing. Such reasons can allow us to both simultaneously be correct because we aren't actually talking about the same thing. Or one of us right for their own context, and wrong for the other persons.



No.

You have no experience in this context. It's not actually possible for you to be right. Nor to be able to counter what I'm telling you.



Orange Lightning said:


> So, in a situation where I don't think we're exactly talking about the same thing (like this one), I need to know for myself. I need contexts, examples, research, comparisons, so on and so forth. In this conversation, there is too much uncertainty for me in what precisely you're talking about to assume it's totally correct in all cases, assuming it's even relevant, with no grey areas or exceptions. And that's not even taking opinions, or whether or not what you're saying is an opinion or a fact, into account.



Shinto Muso Ryu was founded by a practitioner of both Katori and Kashima traditions… however, it's context/methods/mechanics are rather different from both it's source schools… and different from other systems as well. For example, Shinto Muso Ryu treats a staff as if it's a flexible weapon… and focuses on controlling methods, both in terms of ma-ai and physical controlling techniques. It is practiced against both long and short swords, as well as against an opponent armed with both swords at once… not against anyone unarmed… and incorporates a range of other skill sets as auxiliary systems. 

Katori Shinto Ryu, as with many Japanese systems, treats bo as being, not so much a weapon in and of itself, but the methods used when a longer weapon is broken, such as a spear or naginata. Kukishin Ryu originated with the idea of a broken naginata, but evolved over it's time to have bo (specifically) as a primary focus, or central aspect to it's methods… and is incredibly different to Katori, for example, with very different postural concepts, power mechanics, tactical application, training ideologies, and so on.

Takenouchi Ryu again has quite a different approach… as does the Bojutsu of Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu… and that of Araki Ryu… and Kiraku Ryu… and so on. And we're only dealing with Japanese systems there. Okinawan is different again, and will have large or small changes depending on the particular system you're looking at.

In other words, until you're talking about a specific system itself, you don't have a context to discuss. That's part of what I've been trying to tell you.



Orange Lightning said:


> This is not meant as a dig. There are clearly misunderstandings, and I need more information to confirm things for myself. You seem like a pretty credible source, but this discrepancy in communication as well as a massive disagreement about some things and disagreements about other things I'm not even talking about has made this....a conversation to wade through. Seems like you feel the same way.



No, you don't need more information… you don't have any context to use as a frame of reference… you need that first. So, you need experience. Not information.

Just remember, information is not knowledge… nor wisdom. It's just… words.



Orange Lightning said:


> Are we done playing brick walls yet? We aren't going to come to a consensus on this "self training" thing. You mostly answered my context question as best you could, without getting into specifics. The only unanswered question I have is how to spot good Okinawan bo teachers. Or is that different for the different styles too?



The self training thing is only relevant as you only have that as your frame of reference to what staff work is like, or about. I've been trying to get through to you that your frame of reference is nothing, and completely irrelevant. That's the problem… trying to base your interpretation of my answers on your lack of experience or knowledge, when I'm pointing out that you need to let go of what you think you know in order to understand what I'm saying is where that whole side of the discussion has come from.

But, how do you learn to spot good Okinawan bo teachers? Learn what Okinawan bojutsu is first. And recognise that you, most likely, won't find it near you.


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 16, 2015)

My eyes just glazed over reading, and then skimming the above posts.....sorry Chris!!
If I am incorrect because of my brief, glazed look at the material I am sorry....
Orange, unless you have a teacher, and have been training for at least a few months, you simply do not have the background to completely understand the points of Chris's reply. It has nothing to do with cognitive ability, it has to do with a innate understanding of how and why the body moves with weapons, and this only occurs through practice.
I have 16 years under me, PG and Chris have more then that, and I feel that I am only now, understanding, really understanding my arts and my weapons.
Go, get a teacher and train....


----------

