# Material for staffs



## PhotonGuy

From what I've seen of bo staffs and jo staffs they're usually made out of red oak or white oak. White oak is a bit stronger but a bit more expensive than red oak. Sometimes they're also made with bamboo. Anyway, I was wondering what other materials they're made with. How about teak? I know teak is a very good wood, one of the strongest woods there is so I think it would be good for staffs.


----------



## jks9199

Like your question about steels for swords...  Different woods have different properties that make them more or less useful.  To be extreme -- a 6 ft balsa wood staff would be very light, but limited in strength for striking or blocking.  I like hickory a lot of the time, ironwood is another type I like.  Both have complex grain that gives a staff a lot of strength.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> Like your question about steels for swords...  Different woods have different properties that make them more or less useful.  To be extreme -- a 6 ft balsa wood staff would be very light, but limited in strength for striking or blocking.  I like hickory a lot of the time, ironwood is another type I like.  Both have complex grain that gives a staff a lot of strength.



You certainly wouldn't want to use balsa, it's way too weak and would snap on contact. Same thing with pine, its not strong enough. But teak is very strong and also very light and so it would probably make a very good staff. I don't know if it was teak you were referring to when you mentioned ironwood but teak sometimes is referred to as ironwood.


----------



## Blindside

I wouldn't use teak for an impact weapon, it tends to splinter easily.

I would go with impact grade hickory as the best alternative.  I have an old longsword waster that I made with hickory about 12 years ago that has held up just fine.


----------



## Transk53

Blindside said:


> I wouldn't use teak for an impact weapon, it tends to splinter easily.
> 
> I would go with impact grade hickory as the best alternative.  I have an old longsword waster that I made with hickory about 12 years ago that has held up just fine.



Longsword waster?


----------



## Blindside

Wooden sword for HEMA practice, equivalent to a bokken for Japanese sword arts.


----------



## PhotonGuy

How about walnut? Is that good for impact weapons?


----------



## donald1

I know lots of people who like purple heart wood, and I hear hickory is good too


----------



## tshadowchaser

I love Hickory.  I have used Birch a few time. I'm not sure about willow I guess it would depend on the planned usage


----------



## Ken Morgan

It's mostly about the splintering when the staff gets hit. You don't want large splinters coming out of the wood and impaling someone, somewhere important! I have some exotic woods but I mostly use my old hickory jo and bokken. They dent, but they don't splinter.


----------



## Blindside

Poplar would probably work, not I suspect it will be soft compared to hickory and dent from impact.

I have never made a weapon out of walnut, but I have turned it, and my impression is that it is brittle.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

CMA usually use wax wood for their staffs and spears and the JMA usually use the oaks for their Bo and Jo. 

Wax wood is flexible and shows the ging in the tip of it when practicing forms but can be used for impact training when you have a thicker piece. 

The oaks are rigid and a hard wood that dosent show ging in the weapon but is hard and a good choice for impact weapon. 

Both work and are good choices and both will break with heavy impact I believe wax wood is safer about splintering compared to oak since I've personally broken both during impact training.


----------



## jks9199

Walnut is brittle; a lot of your fruit or nut trees are kind of brittle.  Osage Orange can do a nice job, if you can find a big enough piece.  When I can find nice lengths, I still like ironwood.


----------



## PhotonGuy

So how about maple or lignum vitae? I don't know much about maple but I know lignum vitae is a very strong wood.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Japanese White Oak is great.

Hickory is good as well.

However, after all the years I like rattan for training tools in general. Primarily because in IRT we do a lot of hard contact striking and there is less chance of a break as rattan tends to splinter rather than solidly break.  Just a note though that rattan is used for training and a more dense hardwood is used for personal protection. (ie. white oak, hickory, kamagong, etc.)


----------



## Orange Lightning

It kind of matters what you want to use the staff for. Different wood has different properties. Incoming wall of text.

Rattan is light and extremely flexible. In my experience, it splinters at the tips from excessive use and is easier to cut, but not so much break. I would recommend this to someone new to staff because potential injuries you can incur upon yourself with it are small. Plus, it's easier for a beginner to enjoy using compared to a heavier wood.

Hickory is very strong and dense. If you buy a walking stick that's supposed to be strong from a magazine, odd's are it's hickory. Hickory is also not uncommon for tools like shovels, axes, or hammers. Personally, I think it would be a bit overkill in weight for a staff. Not that it's weight wouldn't have it's uses. That's only a personal preference. Plus, because of it's density, it can hurt your hands if you hit solid objects too hard. I doubt it would be an issue in martial training. In this context, when I say solid, I mean immovable. All the shock just goes back in your hands. The same is true for any extremely hard wood. But again, that level of shock is unlikely for martial purposes.
I don't know exactly how oak compares to hickory, but it's definitely in the same category.
For training, an overly heavy stick is *great*.

I think chinese staffs are made out of palm? And those staffs look pretty flexible.

I really like Ironwood. It's just flexible enough to absorb the shock, really durable (but not quite as durable as hickory), and doesn't scratch or scuff as easily as other woods. And yet, surprisingly light. Not light exactly, but not as heavy as you would expect for it's hardness.
I once read on a forum that "ironwood" was just the local name for whatever the strongest local wood was. Take that how you will. According to that person, the North American version of "ironwood" is called Hornbeam. I can confirm that my "ironwood" is Hornbeam.

Ash was traditional for a lot of spears in Europe. Haven't handled this one, although I've heard it's a mix of flexible and strong. According to About , British quarterstaffs were made from hazel, ash, oak, or blackthorn.

In my opinion, maple is a lighter hardwood. This could just be that the species of maple I've handled have been lighter. There are a lot of kinds of maple.
Maple is a good example to point out how different the properties of different woods can be. Compared to other hardwoods, maple is lighter. It is very stout. No flexibility at all. However, it can be broken with excessive tension or force. I recommend jo length only as a bo length would be easy to break. It's also easily scuffed.
For a lot of people, maple is a good wood for a walking stick. Light and stout, strong enough, and it can be pretty. 

Can't say I've ever handled a Walnut stick. Or heard of anyone trying. I don't know about the properties of Walnut.

The famous Shillelagh is made from Blackthorn. Notoriously heavy and strong. Beautiful too.
There I've heard of sticks being made from other materials. Like hazel, cypress, and sassafrass.

Are you planning on making your own staff or stick? If so, some things to consider.
The longer your stick is, the easier it will be to break. Don't mistake flexibility for weakness. At the same time, don't mistake a lack of it for strength. I don't recommend engravings because they usually splinter easily.
Shape is a complicated thing. Thickness, curvature, taper, whether or not to have grooves for hand grips, whether or not to have a head of some sort, etc. there's a lot that can go into the shape. Some things can be unexpectedly useful. A curve toward the end of a stick for example, can act as a grip and to help your hand stop at the start of the stick and not to slide off. Or, when swinging, wet or weak hands are less likely to lose the staff.
*TEST* your stick's durability (when it's dry) before putting too much work into it. It's possible that it's rotted, damaged, or structurally unsound in a way you can't see. I have learned this the hard way. At the same time, you don't need to push this too hard. A lesser strength wood that would be a perfectly serviceable stick can be broken. Test it within reason. Don't be fooled by a wood's seemingly impressive strength. It's still wood, and it can still break.
You can kind of feel from striking a surface if it's close to breaking. Just barely. But once it reaches that point, it midas well be broken completely anyway. But not all woods break the same. For example, a maple stick will probably break completely. Hornbeam will have bits of it damaged first before cracking.  Rattan seems to splinter in long strips and will not break off completely. Ever. It will only crack and starting splitting a section off of it. Duct tape can keep it running for a long time. 
Flexibility helps to reduce the shock that reverberates into your hands from striking things. Flexible wood is usually lighter than harder woods. If you're ever going to use your stick to assist in moving around (canes, "pole vaulting" getting over streams, etc.) you want it to be hard. An overly flexible stick will bend and possibly just crush under your weight.
Some recommend not to peel the bark until after the stick dries. It will be a lot harder to remove the bark, but it is believed to improve the durability.

Mostly, it's just about what you want the stick to do. A lot of wood will do fine. Although, some wouldn't be keen choices. Balsawood like JKS said. I wouldn't recommend or pine or....well, various types of wood I've encountered but haven't been able to identify.    Poplar seems alright. Similar issues to maple. 
I also might suggest not putting varnish of any kind on one of your sticks. If you use it often, the oils in your hands will work the stick from your use, and it will become shiny and smooth.


----------



## Chris Parker

And here was I thinking we'd established that you actually had no experience or background with staff work… I mean… not liking hickory or oak… being worried about the return impact (without knowing how that's actually dealt with)… and all that stuff at the end? Yeah… maybe not so much helpful…


----------



## Orange Lightning

PhotonGuy said:


> So how about maple or lignum vitae? I don't know much about maple but I know lignum vitae is a very strong wood.



According to this source, Lignum Vitae is amazing, but isn't stable. It gets damaged by differences in humidity.

AikiWeb Aikido Information Weapons Woods for Training Weapons


----------



## Orange Lightning

Chris Parker said:


> And here was I thinking we'd established that you actually had no experience or background with staff work… I mean… not liking hickory or oak… being worried about the return impact (without knowing how that's actually dealt with)… and all that stuff at the end? Yeah… maybe not so much helpful…



You established that was what you thought. Many, many times. 

I'm starting to think you only reading for what I _might_ be wrong about just so you can point it out. 

I said the issue of shock going back into your hands isn't likely to be an issue in martial arts. Still, I think it's worth mentioning.
I did not say I didn't like hickory or oak. I said I thought it was a bit overkill for martial arts. Both are heavy and powerful, and there is no reason why either aren't effective. _Personally_, I prefer a slightly lighter staff. In other words, it isn't my "favorite".  I'm not saying I _dislike_ hickory or oak or that they wouldn't be good choices.

Well, if one is planning to make their own stick, it is. If not, then it isn't. It's relevant to toss in to the conversation.


----------



## Chris Parker

You think it's a bit of an overkill, yet… oak is the single most common wood used in Japanese arts. Hickory is it's closest North American counterpart, sharing many properties (properties which have been noted to be practically ideal for wooden training weapons and real ones), making it a very good substitute… and really, if you think it's not going to be an issue for martial artists, who exactly do you think you're on a forum with?


----------



## Orange Lightning

Chris Parker said:


> You think it's a bit of an overkill, yet… oak is the single most common wood used in Japanese arts. Hickory is it's closest North American counterpart, sharing many properties (properties which have been noted to be practically ideal for wooden training weapons and real ones), making it a very good substitute… and really, if you think it's not going to be an issue for martial artists, who exactly do you think you're on a forum with?



There you go again. Misunderstanding everything I say.

Again, *it isn't a bad choice.* It's a really good one. Hickory and oak are great. I have a preference for hornbeam or "ironwood". That's it.
Because....it's worth mentioning? It's a property of really hard and heavy wood. It's worth knowing. Particularly because we are specifically talking about materials.


----------



## Chris Parker

Dude. I repeated your own words. They show that you have no clue about staff arts or the weapons constructs. 

But here's a suggestion… if you feel that you're always being misunderstood, even when you admit that it's your own fault (editing or whatnot), especially when people are simply repeating your own words back to you, perhaps it's time to look at how you present your thoughts?


----------



## donald1

Orange Lightning said:


> I did not say I didn't like hickory or oak. I said I thought it was a bit overkill for martial arts. Both are heavy and powerful.


I thought hickory was a light wood. (Though I could be wrong, I only have 2 bo staffs both red oak)


----------



## Chris Parker

It's a bit lighter than red oak, closer to white. Tighter grain (similar to white oak) as well, which aids in compression rather than splintering on contact.


----------



## Orange Lightning

Chris Parker said:


> Dude. I repeated your own words. They show that you have no clue about staff arts or the weapons constructs.
> 
> But here's a suggestion… if you feel that you're always being misunderstood, even when you admit that it's your own fault (editing or whatnot), especially when people are simply repeating your own words back to you, perhaps it's time to look at how you present your thoughts?



So....what you interpreted from my post and paraphrased back to me about me having a preference for a certain kind of wood proves all that....how exactly? And this "logic" would also somehow invalidate what I stated about different types of wood? And/or, would that have anything to do with a person's skill or lack of skill with a staff or stick? Can a person not know about one and know about the other?
This line of reasoning doesn't make sense.

Some quotes. Nowhere do I say that I dislike hickory or oak. I said it was overkill.



Orange Lightning said:


> Hickory is very strong and dense. If you buy a walking stick that's supposed to be strong from a magazine, odd's are it's hickory. Hickory is also not uncommon for tools like shovels, axes, or hammers. Personally, I think it would be a bit overkill in weight for a staff. Not that it's weight wouldn't have it's uses. That's only a personal preference. Plus, because of it's density, it can hurt your hands if you hit solid objects too hard. I doubt it would be an issue in martial training. In this context, when I say solid, I mean immovable. All the shock just goes back in your hands. The same is true for any extremely hard wood. But again, that level of shock is unlikely for martial purposes.
> I don't know exactly how oak compares to hickory, but it's definitely in the same category.
> For training, an overly heavy stick is *great*.





Chris Parker said:


> And here was I thinking we'd established that you actually had no experience or background with staff work… I mean… not liking hickory or oak… being worried about the return impact (without knowing how that's actually dealt with)… and all that stuff at the end? Yeah… maybe not so much helpful…





Orange Lightning said:


> I said the issue of shock going back into your hands isn't likely to be an issue in martial arts. Still, I think it's worth mentioning.
> I did not say I didn't like hickory or oak. I said I thought it was a bit overkill for martial arts. Both are heavy and powerful, and there is no reason why either aren't effective. _Personally_, I prefer a slightly lighter staff. In other words, it isn't my "favorite". I'm not saying I _dislike_ hickory or oak or that they wouldn't be good choices.





Chris Parker said:


> You think it's a bit of an overkill, yet… oak is the single most common wood used in Japanese arts. Hickory is it's closest North American counterpart, sharing many properties (properties which have been noted to be practically ideal for wooden training weapons and real ones), making it a very good substitute… and really, if you think it's not going to be an issue for martial artists, who exactly do you think you're on a forum with?



Do you get what I mean when I say that I think hickory and oak are a little overkill? I mean that the amount of force that can be produced with one is a lot more than the amount of force I want to produce. Again, _there isn't anything wrong with hickory or oak. They are great woods for weapons. _*Personally*, they produce more energy than I want to make. The amount of force they can produce to damage the body is to degree that is higher than I believe is necessary to hurt an opponent (that's good), the cost being that is requires more energy to use.  _Not that the extra force and weight wouldn't have it's uses_. (difficult to explain with just text) I'd just rather have more quickness and recovery control than the extra force. _I am not saying_ that Hickory or Oak wouldn't also work well. They work just fine. Great even. I haven't handled oak, but I'm comfortable with a hickory staff or stick. But I don't _prefer it._
To use some hypothetical analogies, I think it's sort of like using bigger bullets in bigger gun even though you're shooting someone in the head anyway. Or trying to kick through someone's knee even harder, even though it's already well beyond the point where they won't be using it  any time soon. To me, it makes more sense to get more bullets in less time, or more/faster kicks, given that the amount of force is already sufficient.

We even seem to agree that a heavier wood (like hickory or oak) is better for training. I really don't see why you would argue this opinion of mine. I didn't state it as a fact. It's also not as if people _only_ use hickory or oak for making wooden weapons.

Although, you do have a point about expression. There are definitely times when I could represent my thoughts better.


----------



## jks9199

The force produced is largely immaterial of what the stick is made of.  Physics produces the power.  You're using a big honking lever to hit someone, and may be dealing with angular momentum to generate power, as well -- and that's barely scratching the surface.  All else being equal, of course a heavier weapon will deliver a harder hit -- but you're really getting into details way before you need to worry about them.


----------



## donald1

Orange Lightning said:


> Do you get what I mean when I say that I think hickory and oak are a little overkill? I mean that the amount of force that can be produced with one is a lot more than the amount of force I want to produce.



I sort of understand what your saying here "overkill" like too much of something but in my opinion it dosnt seem any different then using another good bo staff. I may be mistaken but isnt that true about any good staff if used right regardless of what wood it is?


----------



## Blindside

Orange Lightning said:


> Again, *it isn't a bad choice.* It's a really good one. Hickory and oak are great. I have a preference for hornbeam or "ironwood". That's it. Because....it's worth mentioning? It's a property of really hard and heavy wood. It's worth knowing. Particularly because we are specifically talking about materials.





Orange Lightning said:


> Some quotes. Nowhere do I say that I dislike hickory or oak. I said it was overkill.
> Do you get what I mean when I say that I think hickory and oak are a little overkill? I mean that the amount of force that can be produced with one is a lot more than the amount of force I want to produce. Again, _there isn't anything wrong with hickory or oak. They are great woods for weapons. _*Personally*, they produce more energy than I want to make. The amount of force they can produce to damage the body is to degree that is higher than I believe is necessary to hurt an opponent (that's good), the cost being that is requires more energy to use. .


 
How much woodworking have you done?  I'll be the first to say that I have never worked with hornbeam, and I will specifiy American hornbeam because I think you metioned it earlier in the thread.  So I did a bit of digging (looked it up in the Wood Database) and I'll lay money that you could barely tell the difference in weight between a hornbeam staff and a hickory staff. 

American hornbeam stats, 49 pounds per cubic foot.: 
American Hornbeam The Wood Database - Lumber Identification Hardwoods 

Hickory stats, there are several, most of the true hickories come in around 51 pounds per cubic foot:
Mockernut Hickory The Wood Database - Lumber Identification Hardwoods 

So on average hornbeam is 96% as dense as hickory, a lets do a fairly substantial staff, say 1.30 inches in diameter and 6 feet long.  That results in a 96 cubic inch volume or .055 cubic foot, given those average densities that is a difference of something like 1.6 ounces in a 6 foot staff.  Ounces.  I have rattan kali sticks of the same diameter that vary almost that much, so I'm not buying that hickory hits so much harder than hornbeam that it can actually be a decision making factor in weapon selection. 

Oh, and white oak has an average density of 47 pounds per cubic foot, so it is actually lighter than hornbeam.


----------



## donald1

I never heard of hornbeam whats it like?


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> The force produced is largely immaterial of what the stick is made of.  Physics produces the power.  You're using a big honking lever to hit someone, and may be dealing with angular momentum to generate power, as well -- and that's barely scratching the surface.  All else being equal, of course a heavier weapon will deliver a harder hit -- but you're really getting into details way before you need to worry about them.


It also depends on the strength of the person swinging it. A stronger person will certainly be able to deliver a more powerful hit, but while a heavier stick will have more mass behind it a lighter stick can swing faster when swung by the same person. Momentum is a product of mass and velocity.


----------



## Orange Lightning

Blindside said:


> How much woodworking have you done?  I'll be the first to say that I have never worked with hornbeam, and I will specifiy American hornbeam because I think you metioned it earlier in the thread.  So I did a bit of digging (looked it up in the Wood Database) and I'll lay money that you could barely tell the difference in weight between a hornbeam staff and a hickory staff.
> 
> American hornbeam stats, 49 pounds per cubic foot.:
> American Hornbeam The Wood Database - Lumber Identification Hardwoods
> 
> Hickory stats, there are several, most of the true hickories come in around 51 pounds per cubic foot:
> Mockernut Hickory The Wood Database - Lumber Identification Hardwoods
> 
> So on average hornbeam is 96% as dense as hickory, a lets do a fairly substantial staff, say 1.30 inches in diameter and 6 feet long.  That results in a 96 cubic inch volume or .055 cubic foot, given those average densities that is a difference of something like 1.6 ounces in a 6 foot staff.  Ounces.  I have rattan kali sticks of the same diameter that vary almost that much, so I'm not buying that hickory hits so much harder than hornbeam that it can actually be a decision making factor in weapon selection.
> 
> Oh, and white oak has an average density of 47 pounds per cubic foot, so it is actually lighter than hornbeam.



This is .... a bit perplexing. I think I might have a bit of a mystery on my hands. 

First, my background in woodwork.  Most recently, I'm a hobbyist in making and selling walking sticks, canes, and staffs out of local wood. I've been doing that for quite a while. I can't truthfully remember when I started. I've been making sticks for roughly..... 5 years? Before that, I would occasionally work on projects with my grandfather. He didn't know that much about sticks or fighting, but he was an expert carpenter. I I took woodshop class like everyone else too.   Humble experience, but I know my local wood, and my original comment was my 2 cents of knowledge on my local wood, wood I've bought, and wood I've heard about and left for someone else to comment on.

I stumbled upon some kind of very tough and slightly flexible wood that had a high resistance to abrasion as well as breaking. Yet, it's not much heavier than anything else. I asked a lot of people what it was.I asked every wood hick I know (there are a lot where I live), one person studying plants in college, and one that....well, they just knew about plants. As well as researched it online. Everyone either identified it as "ironwood" or beech. Which seems to match descriptions and names for it I've found on other sites.

Carpinus caroliniana Walt

American Hornbeam Musclewood Missouri Department of Conservation

Then that thing I mentioned about some person saying that North American "ironwood" was hornbeam.  And more online looking showed that it indeed seemed to be hornbeam. Not so sure anymore.

Your sources show that American Hornbeam is very similar to what I've referred to as hornbeam on this thread. Except that it's heavy. I consider it a medium weight wood. 
It's also very similar to Hophornbeam.

Hophornbeam The Wood Database - Lumber Identification Hardwoods 

It now seems that I've misidentified this "ironwood" as hornbeam. At least slightly. Or, my feel for the weight of hickory is skewed by the species of hickory I've handled that where sticks alone and not tools. I've also seen trees that look almost identical in shape, bark, and leaves, to what I've called ironwood, but the leaves were _ever so slightly different_ and wasn't any good for a stick at all. Not even close.

Well, I'll check back in on that when I figure out exactly what it is. Or, when I figure out whatever thing it is that I'm missing. I'll take pictures when I next encounter it. See if anyone can identify it (again) if I can't.

Blindside, thanks for introducing me to that source and finding those stats.


----------



## Orange Lightning

jks9199 said:


> The force produced is largely immaterial of what the stick is made of.  Physics produces the power.  You're using a big honking lever to hit someone, and may be dealing with angular momentum to generate power, as well -- and that's barely scratching the surface.  All else being equal, of course a heavier weapon will deliver a harder hit -- but you're really getting into details way before you need to worry about them.



I get most of what you're saying. Physics, leverage, etc. produces the most force. Can you clarify what you mean by getting into details before you need to worry about them?


----------



## Blindside

Orange Lightning said:


> Well, I'll check back in on that when I figure out exactly what it is. Or, when I figure out whatever thing it is that I'm missing. I'll take pictures when I next encounter it. See if anyone can identify it (again) if I can't.
> 
> Blindside, thanks for introducing me to that source and finding those stats.



I completely understand, I recently found out that black locust is a really good weapon wood (supposedly comparable to hickory) and it has naturalized into our area.  So I have been spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find black locust saplings that might work for simple staffs and sticks.  And everything I have found so far has generally been very poor, perhaps because of our climate, but as a result my impression of this wood from my personal experience doesn't match what the wood database says either.


----------



## Orange Lightning

donald1 said:


> I sort of understand what your saying here "overkill" like too much of something but in my opinion it dosnt seem any different then using another good bo staff. I may be mistaken but isnt that true about any good staff if used right regardless of what wood it is?




Well....in my opinion, yes and no.  The shape, length, and material change how your generation of force will express itself. And those details will effect the amount of impact you make and how the stick handles. With something like hickory, you can just bop someone and it can still hurt them. At the extreme end of that comparison, you're going to need to wallop someone with rattan to get good results. Especially if they're wearing thick clothes. It matters more so in relation to the targets you hit and the ways you like to generate momentum. A bit hard to explain. For example, using a heavy staff for lots of wide, swathing movements with a large length of the staff could be fine if used judiciously. But it would be a lot easier to do with a lighter staff. On the other hand, some short and abrupt moves aren't going to have the same kick with a lighter staff.
Matt Easton from Scholagladiatoria recently did a video on partizan's that might explain this bit about the swathing movements better. 






Just to explain the idea, let's say I have a hickory staff or stick.. And I do a strike of some kind not a particularly powerful one, swing at an arm or a leg. You are no longer going to want to use that leg. That's fine. Now let's say that I full on strike the head. On the forehead, I probably want it to be hickory. If I hit anywhere else, it's this "overkill" I'm talking about. The nose? The eyes? Jaw? Temple? Ears? My opponent is not happy. If I was to try to strike that point with massive force, well, sure, if I hit the forehead or some other hard surface, that's fine. I want to hit that as hard as I can. But the eyes? The nose and ears? How much damage do I really need to do to those for it to get the desired effect? How much more advantage will I get by hitting that spot even harder?  It just makes more sense to me to have an improved ability to hit that spot in the first place.  Or land more. For you're opponent to have slightly less time to read your move. Or have enough time to change moves, or block something, or anything  you can think of.
That isn't to say that I think you should only use exactly the sufficient amount of force to do whatever you think your goal is. You just can't gauge things to that level of specificity. What happens happens, if you get what I mean.

This point has more to do with weapon weight, I.E., the amount of force you produce with whatever weapon you have, than it does material. But material, is related to weight. Not that having a heavier staff wouldn't be handy in  plenty of ways. It would be. Target's and moves available in ways and at higher levels of potency that wouldn't be otherwise.  But the same goes in the other direction. Techniques and tactics that would otherwise be less effective because the recovery time would take too long, or the move doesn't express itself quickly enough. And then, there's always the matter of strength that you, as a person, can exert. Do you need a heavy stick to do the job? Or will that strength only make a heavier stick more sensible? It all depends. So many variables. That's why context is the magic word. 
When using a heavier staff versus a lighter one, I tend to prefer different moves and ways of thinking. Does anyone else do the same? Or just the same stuff faster?


----------



## jks9199

Orange Lightning said:


> I get most of what you're saying. Physics, leverage, etc. produces the most force. Can you clarify what you mean by getting into details before you need to worry about them?


You're worrying about whether a heavy or light stick is going to do more damage -- but you really don't have the body mechanics in the first place.  You would get more effect by learning the mechanics that underlie it more thoroughly than worrying about which wood to use.  It's kind of like you're baseball player, arguing about whether maple, ash or aluminum is better for a bat -- but you haven't learned how to step into the hit in the first place.


----------



## Chris Parker

Orange Lightning said:


> So....what you interpreted from my post and paraphrased back to me about me having a preference for a certain kind of wood proves all that....how exactly? And this "logic" would also somehow invalidate what I stated about different types of wood? And/or, would that have anything to do with a person's skill or lack of skill with a staff or stick? Can a person not know about one and know about the other?



I get that it doesn't make sense to you… but the reality is that each different martial application and system will have different (highly specific) requirements and preferences for the materials they use to make their training and real weapons. Your lack of any real education or experience in this area leads you to assumptions about the suitability of a range of materials, with nothing but your unsubstantiated guesswork to back it up. 

That's the point.



Orange Lightning said:


> This line of reasoning doesn't make sense.



Actually, it does. You just have to get it first.



Orange Lightning said:


> Some quotes. Nowhere do I say that I dislike hickory or oak. I said it was overkill.



Overkill for martial arts, you said. And the point is that the only way you can have that opinion is to have no understanding or knowledge of the actual martial arts training and weapon usage you're commenting on.



Orange Lightning said:


> Do you get what I mean when I say that I think hickory and oak are a little overkill? I mean that the amount of force that can be produced with one is a lot more than the amount of force I want to produce. Again, _there isn't anything wrong with hickory or oak. They are great woods for weapons. _*Personally*, they produce more energy than I want to make. The amount of force they can produce to damage the body is to degree that is higher than I believe is necessary to hurt an opponent (that's good), the cost being that is requires more energy to use.  _Not that the extra force and weight wouldn't have it's uses_. (difficult to explain with just text) I'd just rather have more quickness and recovery control than the extra force. _I am not saying_ that Hickory or Oak wouldn't also work well. They work just fine. Great even. I haven't handled oak, but I'm comfortable with a hickory staff or stick. But I don't _prefer it._



Yeah… I get what you think you were saying. But here's the reality… you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. They get you to hit too hard? They're weapons, for crying out loud! "Extra force"?!?! Dude… you have no clue here at all. I mean… you do get that most of the properties that make them so suitable as to be the standard material used have nothing at all to do with "force", yeah?



Orange Lightning said:


> To use some hypothetical analogies, I think it's sort of like using bigger bullets in bigger gun even though you're shooting someone in the head anyway. Or trying to kick through someone's knee even harder, even though it's already well beyond the point where they won't be using it  any time soon. To me, it makes more sense to get more bullets in less time, or more/faster kicks, given that the amount of force is already sufficient.



Get to a school. Get some training. Get some education.

Your entire "hypothetical" is deeply and desperately flawed, as well as having no real connection to the realities of wood choice. It's yet another case of you making assumptions with nothing to back them up.



Orange Lightning said:


> We even seem to agree that a heavier wood (like hickory or oak) is better for training. I really don't see why you would argue this opinion of mine. I didn't state it as a fact. It's also not as if people _only_ use hickory or oak for making wooden weapons.



What? Where do I say that heavier is better for training? I said that oak (Japanese, either shirokashi or akakashi) or hickory are eminently suited for training (and real) weapons… again, you're making assumptions in areas you don't understand. As far as weight, that will depend heavily (ha!) on the systems preference itself… look at the variety of bokuto available… all made of the same stuff, but with wildly different "weights"… depending on the preference of the system. Again, you're really not arguing from any type of education here.



Orange Lightning said:


> Although, you do have a point about expression. There are definitely times when I could represent my thoughts better.



That's saying something… 



PhotonGuy said:


> It also depends on the strength of the person swinging it. A stronger person will certainly be able to deliver a more powerful hit, but while a heavier stick will have more mass behind it a lighter stick can swing faster when swung by the same person. Momentum is a product of mass and velocity.



Nowhere near as much as you'd think, though… 



Orange Lightning said:


> This is .... a bit perplexing. I think I might have a bit of a mystery on my hands.
> 
> First, my background in woodwork.  Most recently, I'm a hobbyist in making and selling walking sticks, canes, and staffs out of local wood. I've been doing that for quite a while. I can't truthfully remember when I started. I've been making sticks for roughly..... 5 years? Before that, I would occasionally work on projects with my grandfather. He didn't know that much about sticks or fighting, but he was an expert carpenter. I I took woodshop class like everyone else too.   Humble experience, but I know my local wood, and my original comment was my 2 cents of knowledge on my local wood, wood I've bought, and wood I've heard about and left for someone else to comment on.
> 
> I stumbled upon some kind of very tough and slightly flexible wood that had a high resistance to abrasion as well as breaking. Yet, it's not much heavier than anything else. I asked a lot of people what it was.I asked every wood hick I know (there are a lot where I live), one person studying plants in college, and one that....well, they just knew about plants. As well as researched it online. Everyone either identified it as "ironwood" or beech. Which seems to match descriptions and names for it I've found on other sites.
> 
> Carpinus caroliniana Walt
> 
> American Hornbeam Musclewood Missouri Department of Conservation
> 
> Then that thing I mentioned about some person saying that North American "ironwood" was hornbeam.  And more online looking showed that it indeed seemed to be hornbeam. Not so sure anymore.
> 
> Your sources show that American Hornbeam is very similar to what I've referred to as hornbeam on this thread. Except that it's heavy. I consider it a medium weight wood.
> It's also very similar to Hophornbeam.
> 
> Hophornbeam The Wood Database - Lumber Identification Hardwoods
> 
> It now seems that I've misidentified this "ironwood" as hornbeam. At least slightly. Or, my feel for the weight of hickory is skewed by the species of hickory I've handled that where sticks alone and not tools. I've also seen trees that look almost identical in shape, bark, and leaves, to what I've called ironwood, but the leaves were _ever so slightly different_ and wasn't any good for a stick at all. Not even close.
> 
> Well, I'll check back in on that when I figure out exactly what it is. Or, when I figure out whatever thing it is that I'm missing. I'll take pictures when I next encounter it. See if anyone can identify it (again) if I can't.
> 
> Blindside, thanks for introducing me to that source and finding those stats.



So… amateur woodworking making walking sticks. 

I'm going to give you some insight here… even very experienced woodworkers, if they are unfamiliar with martial training requirements, find it downright difficult, if not impossible, to accurately create training weapons (or real ones). It is a specialist area, and requires an intimate knowledge of the field… most that I know that do them well are all serious, experienced practitioners… anyone whose items I've used who doesn't have the requisite understanding have all been, bluntly, unusable. Despite their experience in woodworking.

So now we have you… with no formal training other than your own guesswork, and little real woodworking other than your hobbyist approach (to the point that you're incorrectly identifying woods), and we're not supposed to be questioning the value of what you're bringing here?



Orange Lightning said:


> I get most of what you're saying. Physics, leverage, etc. produces the most force. Can you clarify what you mean by getting into details before you need to worry about them?



In short… get to a school… get some genuine training… get some real education… stop with the guesswork… and stop thinking you understand the requirements of such things. Training is the first step. And it's one that you've skipped over. But it's where the answers genuinely are.



Orange Lightning said:


> Well....in my opinion, yes and no.  The shape, length, and material change how your generation of force will express itself. And those details will effect the amount of impact you make and how the stick handles. With something like hickory, you can just bop someone and it can still hurt them. At the extreme end of that comparison, you're going to need to wallop someone with rattan to get good results. Especially if they're wearing thick clothes. It matters more so in relation to the targets you hit and the ways you like to generate momentum. A bit hard to explain. For example, using a heavy staff for lots of wide, swathing movements with a large length of the staff could be fine if used judiciously. But it would be a lot easier to do with a lighter staff. On the other hand, some short and abrupt moves aren't going to have the same kick with a lighter staff.



You're guessing again. And, it must be stated, wrong in a range of aspects.



Orange Lightning said:


> Matt Easton from Scholagladiatoria recently did a video on partizan's that might explain this bit about the swathing movements better.



What? That had absolutely nothing to do with anything you said, or that has been discussed here… 



Orange Lightning said:


> Just to explain the idea, let's say I have a hickory staff or stick.. And I do a strike of some kind not a particularly powerful one, swing at an arm or a leg. You are no longer going to want to use that leg. That's fine. Now let's say that I full on strike the head. On the forehead, I probably want it to be hickory. If I hit anywhere else, it's this "overkill" I'm talking about. The nose? The eyes? Jaw? Temple? Ears? My opponent is not happy. If I was to try to strike that point with massive force, well, sure, if I hit the forehead or some other hard surface, that's fine. I want to hit that as hard as I can. But the eyes? The nose and ears? How much damage do I really need to do to those for it to get the desired effect? How much more advantage will I get by hitting that spot even harder?  It just makes more sense to me to have an improved ability to hit that spot in the first place.  Or land more. For you're opponent to have slightly less time to read your move. Or have enough time to change moves, or block something, or anything  you can think of.
> That isn't to say that I think you should only use exactly the sufficient amount of force to do whatever you think your goal is. You just can't gauge things to that level of specificity. What happens happens, if you get what I mean.



Guesswork, no education. This is the running theme of all your posts… in all your threads (the one on "natural weapons" is full of comments just as ill-founded).

The thing is that this entire paragraph is frankly nothing but a demonstration that you don't have any experience with martial arts, combative usage of staff weapons, or anything similar.



Orange Lightning said:


> This point has more to do with weapon weight, I.E., the amount of force you produce with whatever weapon you have, than it does material. But material, is related to weight. Not that having a heavier staff wouldn't be handy in  plenty of ways. It would be. Target's and moves available in ways and at higher levels of potency that wouldn't be otherwise.  But the same goes in the other direction. Techniques and tactics that would otherwise be less effective because the recovery time would take too long, or the move doesn't express itself quickly enough. And then, there's always the matter of strength that you, as a person, can exert. Do you need a heavy stick to do the job? Or will that strength only make a heavier stick more sensible? It all depends. So many variables. That's why context is the magic word.
> When using a heavier staff versus a lighter one, I tend to prefer different moves and ways of thinking. Does anyone else do the same? Or just the same stuff faster?



And it continues… 

Look, you come across as someone who has read a bit, played around, and think that means you have some understanding… take it from me, you don't. But that's okay… provided you understand your limitations. Honestly, get to a school. After some time, hopefully you'll be able to see just how off-base your comments here have been.


----------



## PhotonGuy

So how about Australian Buloke as wood for a fighting staff? Its got a hardness of 5060 on the Janka hardness scale and supposedly is the hardest wood in the world.


----------



## Orange Lightning

Chris -   Hmmm.....I'm not going to argue this much. This sunk into my thoughts a lot more than your other posts. Honestly, I'm believe you in most respects of it. You don't seem to have misinterpreted much. But I do need to clarify a few things.

The overkill bit - It was an opinion that's apparently pretty hard to explain. I simply think the weight requires more energy to use (less control) and that slight extra energy production is more than I think I need to injure the opponent enough. So I midas well use something slightly lighter. (more control, particularly when you have inferior leverage, slightly less damage but still very much enough). It's not even that much of a difference. I'm not saying I don't want to produce as much damage as I possibly can. I'm going to quit explaining it now, because clearly I can't get this opinion across correctly.
And yes, I understand it's not just about force.

The example where I "prove I don't have experience with martial arts" - A logical attempt to explain a physical concept. Not to be taken literally. Not in any way demonstrative of a real fight of any kind. Key word there was "hypothetical". Like "Let's say, hypothetically, in a situation where you happen to be riding a horse with shampoo in your hair while running from pirates....in _that_ situation, (whatever question or point you're making here.) ." The word disregards any would be logic about why or how up to that point so the question or point can be posited.
You know that whole hypothetical discussion of a knight fighting a samurai? Or really, any warrior from anywhere fighting any other type of warrior? It's a pointless discussion. And yet, the subject could be discussed for the educational benefit of people who don't know about either. As well as be a good example of context being so important. It doesn't matter that any points on what the results would be are moot, so long as you can use it to demonstrate a point or concept and to educate people. That was the point of my example being hypothetical.
For clarity, that isn't something I want to discuss.

The partizan bit - Had to do with how too many wide swathing movements might not be so great for a heavy polearm. I didn't really explain that though. Maybe didn't tie in too well either. 

The bit about wood crafting - I don't make accurate training weapons. I do have/make some things for the purpose of training, but they don't usually reflect the weapon well. That isn't the point. The have some _similar_ traits, like being of a certain length or shape, but don't need to reflect the weapon in any other way. They're just overly heavy, weapon like things meant to improve the strength and form of the weapon it's mimicking. I find that with an overly heavy weapon, you learn to drop unnecessary movements that your muscles were making up for.
I'm not the only one that does this.

Through a Lens Darkly 22 Heavy Knives and Stone Locks Strength Training in the Traditional Chinese Martial Arts Kung Fu Tea

  I make walking sticks and staffs with fighting in mind, but are primarily meant as walking sticks. Even the more decorative ones could have some solid weapon application. That's really interesting though. Kind of inspiring really. Makes me wonder how much better I can make my sticks. 
Why would I not want someone to question the value of something I say? I would hope people would. Me especially. I would hope everyone would take everyone's words with a critical thinking mindset. Anyone can think whatever they want.
About the ironwood, it turns out I was completely right. What I have is indeed Hophornbeam, otherwise called Ironwood.
Eastern Hophornbeam

Pictures are on their way. 

And it is, indeed, lighter than hickory. Thing is, this still leaves me with a mystery. It could be that my understanding of hickory is just skewed (for whatever reason. yet to be seen). Or my hickory stick is a different genus? Or maybe a different Hophornbeam genus? I don't know about this one. Research yet to be done.
I have a hypothesis. The site says that the _average_ posted weights are "...standardized to reflect the weight at  a 12% moisture content.". So, I wonder if the difference in weight I've found for ironwood is different because my ironwood doesn't have as much moisture moisture as my hickory? Or the sites hickory and ironwood? However, in that case, the site's stats on hickory would weigh less too...hmm..... The next experiment is to make a stick of identical shape and mass to my hickory one, to see if my understanding of hickory's weight is skewed. It seems the most likely answer.
I'm going to figure it out eventually. It' a good thing to know for benchmark comparisons. 

I would like to know these details I'm so wrong about, if it's possible to put in text. To be certain it's not just bad expression/interpretation/semantics. If it's not, that's fine.

It would be wrong to say, however I may sound, that I've read a bit and played around a bit. Tremendous understatement, it would be. Regardless, message received.

All that aside, I hear you. I'll take it down a peg. Maybe make a bit of a different focus for myself and this site. And continue to try to reach a point where I can go to a school. I'm to closer to that now than I ever have been, and I'm pretty excited about that. I think I've found a school a short walk away from my college. Just gotta work on finances. 

All that said, I'm going to continue training as I am, and probably keep frequenting this site as a useful and worldly supplement before and after I join a school.


----------



## Orange Lightning

donald1 said:


> I never heard of hornbeam whats it like?



Hophornbeam is white/yellow, and sanding can sometimes bring out brown stripes. Hophornbeam a bit flexible. Not flexible enough to whip unless it's really thin and long.   If it isn't totally dry, it can resist being bent surprisingly far, but usually will only bend slightly from impact. It's very resistant to this flexing though, so it wants to spring back a little on powerful strikes after the force has been delivered. It's highly resistant to denting (I would go as far as to say it's _immune _to it. I haven't found something to dent it yet.) and scratching. It is very strong, but too much massively heavy impact training can eventually cause a break. But never splintering.  In my experience, it has more minor splits that gradually wear it down than full on breaks.
It's slightly knobby and twisty. The knobs aren't an issue. You can leave them on if you want, or remove them. The twisting can be an issue. It likes to grow twisting _around_ a straight line. If you were to poke with it, the trajectory would be almost straight, but an excessively twisted stick will mess with you're technique.  You either need to find a way to straighten it, or find one that's straight enough that it doesn't re-adjust in the hands. Some of them just have a slight curve instead of twisting, usually with a small crook on the heavy side. Pictures are on their way. 

The bark peels off so easily that you can do it almost entirely with your fingers. Because of that, you can easily make a stick that consists entirely of the top layer of wood. 
This one could be my imagination, but I could swear it makes it more resilient to breaks. Wood, in my experience, seems to like to splinter or start splitting off in areas where there are different layers (like where branches used to be), so being almost all one layer seems like a boon to it's breaking resilience. Take this bit with a grain of salt though. Might not have anything to do with anything. 

It's a heavier wood. Heavier than maple. I can't say how heavy it is in comparison to other heavy woods right now because...well, this thread. Have to learn more about that for myself first. 

It's one of quite a few different woods nicknamed "ironwood". American Hornbeam, also called ironwood, is a different wood. I haven't handled it myself, but from internet research, it doesn't seem too different from Hophornbeam.


----------



## Orange Lightning

I just found that there was another thread made about this subject. 

Staff Material MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


----------



## PhotonGuy

So how about a white oak titanium tipped staff, how would that be for a fighting staff?


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> So how about a white oak titanium tipped staff, how would that be for a fighting staff?


Needlessly expensive.  White Oak is OK, and not expensive.  But why bother with titanium tips?  if you need a tip on it -- iron, steel, or brass are all solid options, and much more cost effective than titanium.


----------



## JowGaWolf

ST1Doppelganger said:


> CMA usually use wax wood for their staffs and spears and the JMA usually use the oaks for their Bo and Jo.
> 
> Wax wood is flexible and shows the ging in the tip of it when practicing forms but can be used for impact training when you have a thicker piece.
> 
> The oaks are rigid and a hard wood that dosent show ging in the weapon but is hard and a good choice for impact weapon.
> 
> Both work and are good choices and both will break with heavy impact I believe wax wood is safer about splintering compared to oak since I've personally broken both during impact training.


For me Wax Wood is the only material that is good for a staff or a spear.  The flexibility makes it more durable with impacts, provided that there are no structural defects.  I have a natural wax wood staff that I've own for more than 20 years and I'm amazed at how it has broken on me yet.  I don't like the wushu wax wood staffs, they are too thin for me.  I fall into the Chinese Martial Arts category that you speak of.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jks9199 said:


> Needlessly expensive.  White Oak is OK, and not expensive.  But why bother with titanium tips?  if you need a tip on it -- iron, steel, or brass are all solid options, and much more cost effective than titanium.


Any staff with a metal tip would be wasted money in my opinion.  The tip isn't the area of concern when it comes to breaks or splinters in a staff. I would think that the only use of a metal tip would be to increase the weight of the staff.


----------



## jks9199

JowGaWolf said:


> For me Wax Wood is the only material that is good for a staff or a spear.  The flexibility makes it more durable with impacts, provided that there are no structural defects.  I have a natural wax wood staff that I've own for more than 20 years and I'm amazed at how it has broken on me yet.  I don't like the wushu wax wood staffs, they are too thin for me.  I fall into the Chinese Martial Arts category that you speak of.



Depends on the principles that underlie your use of the stick.  Some styles and approaches want a whippy, lively stick, others demand a more rigid, heavier stick.  I had an inexpensive "red oak" standard martial arts staff that lasted me for several decades, including heavy contact exercises.  I've had others...  Yeah.  'nuff said.    I've also had used natural ironwood sticks that stood up to insanely heavy use -- but were also seriously HEAVY to use!



JowGaWolf said:


> Any staff with a metal tip would be wasted money in my opinion.  The tip isn't the area of concern when it comes to breaks or splinters in a staff. I would think that the only use of a metal tip would be to increase the weight of the staff.


I don't completely disagree -- but if you're actually going to carry and walk with the staff, as well as use it potentially to fight, I can see putting a metal tip or collar ring on it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Now using a fighting staff as a walking stick then yes.  A metal tip or even a rubber one would be good to keep unnecessary damage from happening to the stick.  We don't use collar rings in Jow Ga Kung Fu.  Our staffs are also thicker so metal would definitely make it heavier.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jks9199 said:


> Depends on the principles that underlie your use of the stick. Some styles and approaches want a whippy, lively stick, others demand a more rigid, heavier stick. I had an inexpensive "red oak" standard martial arts staff that lasted me for several decades, including heavy contact exercises. I've had others... Yeah. 'nuff said.  I've also had used natural ironwood sticks that stood up to insanely heavy use -- but were also seriously HEAVY to use!



I agree. The principles that underlie the use of the stick matter.  How was the natural ironwood?  I've never heard of those being used as a staff. Are they thick?


----------



## Chris Parker

PhotonGuy said:


> So how about a white oak titanium tipped staff, how would that be for a fighting staff?



Why? And what's the obsession with titanium?

Look, if you're training in a traditional system that uses bo/staff, go with their specifications and guidelines. If you're not, it's all fantasy so who cares what you make it from…



JowGaWolf said:


> Any staff with a metal tip would be wasted money in my opinion.  The tip isn't the area of concern when it comes to breaks or splinters in a staff. I would think that the only use of a metal tip would be to increase the weight of the staff.



Partially… it also depends on what the staff is expected to encounter… and a couple of other factors. Takamatsu, for example, had a rokushaku bo with nine iron rings on it (five at one end, four at the other) from Kukishin Ryu… the rings added weight, definitely, but it also gave a range of "markers" for range, as well as other uses.


----------



## donald1

Staffs are going to get marks on them after you spare. I know because mine has lots. But thats why I sand it and use tung oil. (Linseed oil also good and cheaper too)

Just curious. What do you need a metal tip for?  I ask this because Ive never seen a  staff (with metal tip) nor have I needed one


----------



## JowGaWolf

Chris Parker said:


> Takamatsu, for example, had a rokushaku bo with nine iron rings on it (five at one end, four at the other) from Kukishin Ryu… the rings added weight, definitely, but it also gave a range of "markers" for range, as well as other uses.



I don't think this is the case with the person who originally asked about the metal tip.  I can only assume that the metal tip from his question isn't a spearhead or something else that would serve a function.  What you are describing is something that was made for a purpose which requires the metal end to achieve that purpose. My comments are entirely based on a staff with a metal cap on the end of a staff.

If the person's idea of a metal tip = Spearhead then we would be having a totally different conversation, and the staff would no longer be a staff but a spear.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Chris Parker said:


> Why? And what's the obsession with titanium?
> 
> Look, if you're training in a traditional system that uses bo/staff, go with their specifications and guidelines. If you're not, it's all fantasy so who cares what you make it from…
> 
> 
> 
> Partially… it also depends on what the staff is expected to encounter… and a couple of other factors. Takamatsu, for example, had a rokushaku bo with nine iron rings on it (five at one end, four at the other) from Kukishin Ryu… the rings added weight, definitely, but it also gave a range of "markers" for range, as well as other uses.



Because titanium is a very strong and durable metal and has been used in many types of sporting goods equipment. 

Technological advancements is not fantasy. Back when staff fighting was first developed they didn't have all the advanced knowledge of metallurgy that they've got today. There is no reason why modern technology and modern engineering can't be applied to old fashioned tools, unless you want to be strictly a traditionalist.


----------



## Dirty Dog

donald1 said:


> Staffs are going to get marks on them after you spare. I know because mine has lots. But thats why I sand it and use tung oil. (Linseed oil also good and cheaper too)
> 
> Just curious. What do you need a metal tip for?  I ask this because Ive never seen a  staff (with metal tip) nor have I needed one



I've seen them. We called them a "spear"...


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Because titanium is a very strong and durable metal and has been used in many types of sporting goods equipment.
> 
> Technological advancements is not fantasy. Back when staff fighting was first developed they didn't have all the advanced knowledge of metallurgy that they've got today. There is no reason why modern technology and modern engineering can't be applied to old fashioned tools, unless you want to be strictly a traditionalist.


There's no reason... but titanium isn't inexpensive, and it's brittle, and not particularly easy to work with.  Why not just use iron or steel or brass?

One more thing about using metal... there's a difference between jewelry quality metals and what you'd want for a fighting staff.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> There's no reason... but titanium isn't inexpensive, and it's brittle, and not particularly easy to work with.  Why not just use iron or steel or brass?
> 
> One more thing about using metal... there's a difference between jewelry quality metals and what you'd want for a fighting staff.



Well the fact of the matter is, titanium has been used to make baseball bats, tennis racquets, lacrosse sticks and other such sporting gear that takes impact because of its strength. It might be a bit pricey but some people might pay a little extra for it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

PhotonGuy said:


> Well the fact of the matter is, titanium has been used to make baseball bats, tennis racquets, lacrosse sticks and other such sporting gear that takes impact because of its strength. It might be a bit pricey but some people might pay a little extra for it.



Sure. To quote PT Barnum... "There's a sucker born every minute."

I know people who have paid quite a premium (not on my recommendation) to buy titanium SCUBA regulators. That's fine, so long as you're only diving air.
But what happens when you decide to extend your bottom times by taking a NITROX course? Or, even worse, a tech diving course?
You find out that your incredibly expensive regulator, which doesn't actually do ANYTHING any better than a traditional regulator, cannot be safely used with nitrox.
Because they cause fires.
They are supposedly safe with air (21% O2), but I wouldn't use a regulator that does this:






with any gas. Nope. I might take it camping, though, and use it to start my fire.

There are always people who will pay more for a gimmick, even when that gimmick doesn't actually provide any benefit. 
These people are not wise.


----------



## Chrisoro

Probably bought by the same people who buy super expensive HDMI cables with gold plated contacts.


----------



## JowGaWolf

From the little bit that I know about blades and swords having flexibility is a good thing so long as it allows the sword to go back to it's original shape.  Swords that are too hard will break from the impact. This is what happens when a sword has no flexibility.







PhotonGuy said:


> titanium has been used to make baseball bats, tennis racquets, lacrosse sticks and other such sporting gear



Yes these things take an impact, but the impact isn't metal to metal.  The impact of lacrosse sticks is not the same impact or weight as a bladed weapon. I have yet to see a stress test for a titanium blade.  If the blade doesn't flex then it will snap
.


----------



## Chris Parker

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think this is the case with the person who originally asked about the metal tip.  I can only assume that the metal tip from his question isn't a spearhead or something else that would serve a function.  What you are describing is something that was made for a purpose which requires the metal end to achieve that purpose. My comments are entirely based on a staff with a metal cap on the end of a staff.



And I was giving you an example of a metal tipped staff… with multiple rings at each end (including ones that basically are at the "tip" of each end). You said you couldn't think of a reason… I gave you a few. Ideally, you might take this as an indication that there is more in this area than you're familiar with.



JowGaWolf said:


> If the person's idea of a metal tip = Spearhead then we would be having a totally different conversation, and the staff would no longer be a staff but a spear.



Er… yeah? And? Who was bringing up the idea of a blade?



PhotonGuy said:


> Because titanium is a very strong and durable metal and has been used in many types of sporting goods equipment.



Oh dear lord… so what?

Dude. We're talking classical weapon use… so "technological advancements" beyond what was around in the time of the weapon are irrelevant and out of place. Sporting goods are nothing like what is being discussed… and, again, you're in the realm of fantasy weapons here.



PhotonGuy said:


> Technological advancements is not fantasy. Back when staff fighting was first developed they didn't have all the advanced knowledge of metallurgy that they've got today. There is no reason why modern technology and modern engineering can't be applied to old fashioned tools, unless you want to be strictly a traditionalist.



Hang on, are you saying that they didn't have an "advanced knowledge of metallurgy" when they were developing the use of these WOODEN weapons??? And therefore we should make these WOODEN weapons with a metal you think is "advanced" now??? 

Yes, this is fantasy.



JowGaWolf said:


> From the little bit that I know about blades and swords having flexibility is a good thing so long as it allows the sword to go back to it's original shape.  Swords that are too hard will break from the impact. This is what happens when a sword has no flexibility.



There are many things wrong with that "blade"… "flexibility" isn't quite it. Nor is it about coming "back to shape". There's a fair bit to cover, and it's a bit off topic here, so I'm not going to… but just know that there's a lot more to it than is being suggested.



JowGaWolf said:


> Yes these things take an impact, but the impact isn't metal to metal.  The impact of lacrosse sticks is not the same impact or weight as a bladed weapon. I have yet to see a stress test for a titanium blade.  If the blade doesn't flex then it will snap.



This I agree with. Again, of course, there's a lot more to it… but… yeah.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear lord… so what?
> 
> Dude. We're talking classical weapon use… so "technological advancements" beyond what was around in the time of the weapon are irrelevant and out of place. Sporting goods are nothing like what is being discussed… and, again, you're in the realm of fantasy weapons here.


Some people see nothing wrong with making modern modifications to classical weapons. Somebody who strictly wants to be a traditionalist might be opposed to that and based on your posts, you sound like you do. Sporting goods might not be the main topic of discussion but its an example of how effective a metal such as titanium can be. 

BTW something isn't fantasy if it exists. I see no reason why a titanium tipped staff couldn't be made, and if its made its not fantasy. It might not be historically accurate or traditionally accurate but its not fantasy.

And on a side note Im not your lord.



Chris Parker said:


> Hang on, are you saying that they didn't have an "advanced knowledge of metallurgy" when they were developing the use of these WOODEN weapons???


Certainly not like they do now.



Chris Parker said:


> And therefore we should make these WOODEN weapons with a metal you think is "advanced" now???
> 
> Yes, this is fantasy.


Back then it would be fantasy but not today.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> And on a side note Im not your lord.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Chris Parker said:


> I gave you a few. Ideally, you might take this as an indication that there is more in this area than you're familiar with.


I'm definitely not familiar with any martial art's staffs like you have discussed.


----------



## Chris Parker

PhotonGuy said:


> Some people see nothing wrong with making modern modifications to classical weapons. Somebody who strictly wants to be a traditionalist might be opposed to that and based on your posts, you sound like you do. Sporting goods might not be the main topic of discussion but its an example of how effective a metal such as titanium can be.



No, it's not. You've ignored every aspect of reality that everyone has given you.



PhotonGuy said:


> BTW something isn't fantasy if it exists. I see no reason why a titanium tipped staff couldn't be made, and if its made its not fantasy. It might not be historically accurate or traditionally accurate but its not fantasy.



Yes, it is fantasy. Yes, you could make it, but it'd be redundant and, well… fantasy.



PhotonGuy said:


> And on a side note Im not your lord.



Really? You're serious with that comment?



PhotonGuy said:


> Certainly not like they do now.



Dude… WOODEN weapons. WOODEN. Please explain what development in metallurgy has to do with WOODEN weapons.



PhotonGuy said:


> Back then it would be fantasy but not today.



Yes, it would.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm definitely not familiar with any martial art's staffs like you have discussed.



Which is why I gave it to you.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Chris Parker said:


> Dude… WOODEN weapons. WOODEN. Please explain what development in metallurgy has to do with WOODEN weapons.


You yourself mentioned that some of the wooden staffs had metal in them. You mentioned metal rings in a previous post.


----------



## Chris Parker

Yes, I did. However, they are a rarity… and, frankly, doesn't mean anything when you're still asking about what metals are useful for WOODEN weapons…


----------

