# Bigger Pores



## masherdong (Feb 5, 2007)

Hi,

I just bought a pair of rattan sticks.  However, one feels lighter than the other.  Upon my observation, I noticed that the lighter one had larger pore holes than the heavier one.  So, my question is, which will be better to use for stick-to-stick, the more compact pores or the larger pores?  Thanks for your help.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 5, 2007)

You want higher density (smaller pores) for banging sticks.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 5, 2007)

Blindside said:


> You want higher density (smaller pores) for banging sticks.


 
Absolutely.  Not just the pores but the weight and thickness of the stick in general will make a differeance in how long it lasts.


----------



## lhommedieu (Feb 5, 2007)

I find that a good-quality astringent soap followed by a cold water wash closes the pores on my rattan sticks.

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## masherdong (Feb 5, 2007)

Ok, so smaller would be better then.  So, I will send the lighter one back and get a heavier one.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2007)

masherdong said:


> Ok, so smaller would be better then. So, I will send the lighter one back and get a heavier one.
> 
> Thanks for your help.


 
Depending on how you got them, you may want to return both insist that you get something thats closer to a matched pair.


----------



## masherdong (Feb 5, 2007)

No, I told the guy that I would return the lighter one and would like one that is a little more heavier.  I mean, it should be close to the one that I have.


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2007)

masherdong said:


> No, I told the guy that I would return the lighter one and would like one that is a little more heavier. I mean, it should be close to the one that I have.


 
You may also end up with a stick thats wider or longer than the one you didn't return.


----------



## masherdong (Feb 5, 2007)

Well, according to the auction, it says that they are 26" overall and 1 3/4" round.  So, I will see.


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2007)

masherdong said:


> Well, according to the auction, it says that they are 26" overall and 1 3/4" round. So, I will see.


 

Ah!  That I didn't know.  Hopefully the new one will be a better match.  :ultracool


----------



## Blindside (Feb 5, 2007)

masherdong said:


> Well, according to the auction, it says that they are 26" overall and 1 3/4" round. So, I will see.


 
Thats pretty skinny (3/4" diameter) for stick-on-stick work, I'm guessing you will chew through them pretty quick if you do much power hitting.  I like 1 to 1 1/8 inch if I am doing stick on stick or stick on tire.  

Lamont


----------



## tellner (Feb 5, 2007)

If the pores on the stick are hard and unsightly, rub them with a fresh ear of corn.

This little trick is known as hard pore cornography

*rimshot*


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Thats pretty skinny (3/4" diameter) for stick-on-stick work, I'm guessing you will chew through them pretty quick if you do much power hitting. I like 1 to 1 1/8 inch if I am doing stick on stick or stick on tire.
> 
> Lamont


 
I read that as '1 and 3/4 inch' (1.75"), not 3/4 inch.


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2007)

tellner said:


> If the pores on the stick are hard and unsightly, rub them with a fresh ear of corn.
> 
> This little trick is known as hard pore cornography
> 
> *rimshot*


 
Badda bing!  :lol2:


----------



## Blindside (Feb 6, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> I read that as '1 and 3/4 inch' (1.75"), not 3/4 inch.


 
Then thats a log, not a stick.   A diameter of 1.75 inches is well outside most peoples comfort area, my fingers and thumb wouldn't even touch, much less overlap on a stick that size.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 6, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Then thats a log, not a stick.  A diameter of 1.75 inches is well outside most peoples comfort area, my fingers and thumb wouldn't even touch, much less overlap on a stick that size.
> 
> I read "1 3/4" round" as a circumference, so sqrt of 1.75/3.14= .75 inches.



I do have some 1.5 inch Diameter sticks. I like them for myself.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 6, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> I do have some 1.5 inch Diameter sticks. I like them for myself.


 
Apparantly it is true, guys with big sticks have large hands.....

PS: Ignore my screwed up math, diameter result from a circumference of 1.75 should be .55 inches.


----------



## Carol (Feb 6, 2007)

I always thought it was the other way....guys with large hands have.... oh never mind


----------



## tuturuhan (Feb 6, 2007)

masherdong said:


> Hi,
> 
> I just bought a pair of rattan sticks.  However, one feels lighter than the other.  Upon my observation, I noticed that the lighter one had larger pore holes than the heavier one.  So, my question is, which will be better to use for stick-to-stick, the more compact pores or the larger pores?  Thanks for your help.



Each weapon has something to teach you.  Today, modern practitioners use the lightweight rattan sticks ranging from 28 inces to 42 inches.  The length, height and weight of the weapons provide variables that translate into "different methods".  Today, depending on how you practice for fun, sport or self defence, the techniques will differ vastly.

Remy Presas, in his book Modern Arnis, 1974 pg 9
"The old practitioners believed that the cane was saced, thus blocking was aimed at the hand and forearm and not at the cane.  Most of the students got hurt and they automaticallly lost inteest in learning Arnis.  But with the research that I have conduced, I made it possible to have the student learn the art ithoug getting hurt."

In a conversation I had with Juny Canete, which resulted in an article for "Inside Kung Fu" magazine"  I told him that I had come to the Phillippines looking for the "olise" close noded rattan heavy sticks.  

He told me that very few of those types of sticks were used today.  He said "He choose to use the lighter shorter lengthed sticks so as to modernize FMA.  He claimed that he even invented the doce pares body armor to furthe protect the practitioner."

As such, you can "bang" the sticks as a training exercise.  But, when you are training for focus, accuracy and self defense you must be able to "hit the hand" or any other vulnerable part of the body.  With practice, you learn how to control the weapon's impact "on the hand" even with the heavy axe handle that weighs for than 3 pounds.

At any rate...have fun with your sticks.  And consider trying various stick weapons.

Best Wishes,
Tuhan Joseph T. Oliva Arriola


----------



## MJS (Feb 6, 2007)

tuturuhan said:


> Each weapon has something to teach you. Today, modern practitioners use the lightweight rattan sticks ranging from 28 inces to 42 inches. The length, height and weight of the weapons provide variables that translate into "different methods". Today, depending on how you practice for fun, sport or self defence, the techniques will differ vastly.
> 
> Remy Presas, in his book Modern Arnis, 1974 pg 9
> "The old practitioners believed that the cane was saced, thus blocking was aimed at the hand and forearm and not at the cane. Most of the students got hurt and they automaticallly lost inteest in learning Arnis. But with the research that I have conduced, I made it possible to have the student learn the art ithoug getting hurt."
> ...


 
Sir,

This post is slightly off track here.  I don't believe that the OP (original poster) was asking what sticks are best used to hit the body, but what sticks are best when striking another stick.  Please feel free to start another thread discussing changes made to the art for safety reasons.

Mike


----------



## tuturuhan (Feb 6, 2007)

MJS said:


> Sir,
> 
> This post is slightly off track here.  I don't believe that the OP (original poster) was asking what sticks are best used to hit the body, but what sticks are best when striking another stick.  Please feel free to start another thread discussing changes made to the art for safety reasons.
> 
> Mike



Sir,

I disagree respectfully.  This was a beginner "stickfighter" who is entitled to know how the weapon can be used beyond banging.  

If he is to study FMA he must know the difference between training for "hitting other sticks", meaning safety factor and the feeling of power vs. finesse and control and actual self defense.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 6, 2007)

sorry but the question was


> So, my question is, which will be better to use for stick-to-stick


if you want to start a discussion on what is better for banging the body please do so


----------



## MJS (Feb 6, 2007)

tuturuhan said:


> Sir,
> 
> I disagree respectfully. This was a beginner "stickfighter" who is entitled to know how the weapon can be used beyond banging.
> 
> If he is to study FMA he must know the difference between training for "hitting other sticks", meaning safety factor and the feeling of power vs. finesse and control and actual self defense.


 
Please let me give another example.  If I was to start a thread in the Grappling section titled, "How to escape the mount position?" I am gearing that discussion towards escapes from the mount.  I am not interested in hearing about the guard, the side mount or north/south, as it has nothing to do with the original question.  Now if the thread was titled, "How to escape bottom positions?" that could be taken as the defender on the bottom in the mount, the bottom in the guard, the bottom in side mount, and the bottom in north/south.  

I'm not disputing the fact that its important to know all aspects of FMA, striking, etc., but that was not what the OP asked and looking at the replies he's received so far, the others are posting in accordance with what he asked.  Thread drift to an extent is bound to happen, but if the OP is asking a specific question, any drift takes away from that, just like I used in my grappling example.


----------



## masherdong (Feb 6, 2007)

> So, my question is, which will be better to use for stick-to-stick



Big pores or small pores?  That is what the question was for.


----------

