Bo Kata Help?

[Flying Crane]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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…

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.

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…

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.

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.

Take the Kyle Montagna video for example.

I'd really rather not… ha!

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…

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.

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.

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

Oh, yes, there is…

The traditional bo staff video has the opposite problem.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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"?

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.

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]

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

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

 

[donald1]

My bad! Thanks for the tip chris

 

[Chris Parker]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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: ↑
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Cool.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?