Bo Staff training at home

[Tez3]

Actually, no, the "o" in 棒 isn't "short"... it's written in hiragana as ぼう (bo-u), and is often romanized with a macron, thus: bō. Just for the record...

Just for the record I was talking about the English pronunciation not the Japanese which while undoubtedly the correct one doesn't stop English speakers pronouncing it the English way which is the short 'o' as opposed to the longer 'o' in bow. Of course then you get on to the word bow as in bow of a boat which is different again as the o is 'ou' ( as in 'ouch'.) Aussies I imagine put the rising inflection on the end?

 

[pgsmith]

That is true if the "incorrect" way isn't effective.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I am entitled to believe they are "incorrect". Effectiveness is a rather poor way to determine the proper way of doing something. It is a good way to determine what CAN work, just not very good if you hope to find (or teach) what works best. Feel free to continue teaching your students "whatever works", and I will continue to teach mine "correctly".

A good point.
But properly executing a technique is beyond the scope of context for my "whatever works" comment.

My comment as intended was contextual on terminology use, for non-japanese English-speaking people not technique use.

Potatoe, Spud, or ground-apple it's the same night matter what it's called.

The point being that if an instructor chooses to employ a nonstandard or unorthodox term to get the point across, and the message is delivered and understood by the intended recipient(s), then it is good enough.

Whatever works.
I have seen a number of American Kabudo Association videos where the instructors use the term Bo Staff. They are ranked higher enough to know full well that it is a faux pas.

They do it anyway. IN their dojo they make the rules.

They are certainly entitled to use whatever they wish in their own dojo. However, I view terminology exactly the same as any physical technique. If you're going to teach people to be sloppy in one, how can you expect them to be precise in the other? Far better, in my opinion, to be precise and correct in everything you teach, then you can reasonably expect precision out of those learning. This was my point originally, but I never expected so many people to get up in arms over it. To each their own I suppose, but I'm pretty much done beating this horse.

 

[lklawson]

Effectiveness is a rather poor way to determine the proper way of doing something.

Seriously? Take that quote and apply it to ANY other topic.

This is, honestly, an illogical position to take.

Person A: "I did X in order to achieve the desired result."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's wrong."
Person A: "It was effective. It worked."
Person B : "But I was taught that the only way to do it was Y so X is wrong."
Person A: "X was effective. It worked."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's wrong."

 

[pgsmith]

Seriously? Take that quote and apply it to ANY other topic.

This is, honestly, an illogical position to take.

Person A: "I did X in order to achieve the desired result."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's wrong."
Person A: "It was effective. It worked."
Person B : "But I was taught that the only way to do it was Y so X is wrong."
Person A: "X was effective. It worked."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's wrong."

But your entire argument falls apart because I never said anything was wrong, just incorrect. I also never mentioned anything about not being able to do something incorrectly. In addition, I never mentioned anything about the correct way being the only way to do something. Here's an example, and I want you to explain to me how it is not right ... I train in Japanese swordsmanship. We are taught, and I teach, that you need to exhale into your cut in order to engage your center. This is the correct way to do it. However, it is entirely possible to cut something using only your arms and shoulders without engaging your center at all. I see people do it all the time. It's effective. It can definitely be done. It is incorrect for myriad reasons, but I'll list a few ... 1) It only works with those that have sufficient upper body strength. 2) it is much more difficult to do it well and consistently. 3) it takes much more effort and cannot be sustained very long without tiring. So, I teach people how to cut correctly, even though they may be able to cut effectively already. If they choose to do things differently than I teach, that is their prerogative. However, I would be failing as an instructor if I did not teach them the correct way to cut, and instead told them to do "whatever worked".

So, how is that scenario wrong in your eyes?

 

[lklawson]

But your entire argument falls apart because I never said anything was wrong, just incorrect.

You know that the "wrong" and "incorrect" are synonyms, right?
the definition of wrong
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error:
You are wrong to blame him.

Definition of WRONG
3: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect

Anyway, nothing changes. It's just as illogical.

Person A: "I did X in order to achieve the desired result."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's incorrect."
Person A: "It was effective. It worked."
Person B : "But I was taught that the only way to do it was Y so X is incorrect."
Person A: "X was effective. It worked."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's incorrect."

 

[pgsmith]

You know that the "wrong" and "incorrect" are synonyms, right?
the definition of wrong
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error:
You are wrong to blame him.

Definition of WRONG
3: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect

Anyway, nothing changes. It's just as illogical.

Person A: "I did X in order to achieve the desired result."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's incorrect."
Person A: "It was effective. It worked."
Person B : "But I was taught that the only way to do it was Y so X is incorrect."
Person A: "X was effective. It worked."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's incorrect."

So, as I said before, you are free to teach whatever you wish. You do whatever you feel you should. I will continue to teach as I was taught, that there are correct and incorrect ways to do things.

P.S. You did NOT do as requested and explain to me how the scenario I outlined for you was wrong in your eyes, but I'm really not that interested anymore.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I am entitled to believe they are "incorrect". Effectiveness is a rather poor way to determine the proper way of doing something. It is a good way to determine what CAN work, just not very good if you hope to find (or teach) what works best. Feel free to continue teaching your students "whatever works", and I will continue to teach mine "correctly".



They are certainly entitled to use whatever they wish in their own dojo. However, I view terminology exactly the same as any physical technique. If you're going to teach people to be sloppy in one, how can you expect them to be precise in the other? Far better, in my opinion, to be precise and correct in everything you teach, then you can reasonably expect precision out of those learning. This was my point originally, but I never expected so many people to get up in arms over it. To each their own I suppose, but I'm pretty much done beating this horse.

So, you're saying that something that is fully effective can still be wrong? By what, then, do you measure correctness?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But your entire argument falls apart because I never said anything was wrong, just incorrect. I also never mentioned anything about not being able to do something incorrectly. In addition, I never mentioned anything about the correct way being the only way to do something. Here's an example, and I want you to explain to me how it is not right ... I train in Japanese swordsmanship. We are taught, and I teach, that you need to exhale into your cut in order to engage your center. This is the correct way to do it. However, it is entirely possible to cut something using only your arms and shoulders without engaging your center at all. I see people do it all the time. It's effective. It can definitely be done. It is incorrect for myriad reasons, but I'll list a few ... 1) It only works with those that have sufficient upper body strength. 2) it is much more difficult to do it well and consistently. 3) it takes much more effort and cannot be sustained very long without tiring. So, I teach people how to cut correctly, even though they may be able to cut effectively already. If they choose to do things differently than I teach, that is their prerogative. However, I would be failing as an instructor if I did not teach them the correct way to cut, and instead told them to do "whatever worked".

So, how is that scenario wrong in your eyes?

You are only including part of the result in your definition of "effective". Cutting with only the arms can produce the result of the cut, but it's not as effective if you consider the ability to cut many times in repetition in a set period of time. The more effective method makes that possible. Your argument is a strawman.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Having been taught properly ('proper' being relative to the style you may be learning), one can practice bo at home quite effectively, and should do so as often as possible. Weapons forms require being at ease with the weapon, and that comfort level cannot be obtained without many repetitions.

In my style, Tokumine no Kun is a basic bo kata that is easy to learn and has a myriad of valid applications (bunkai). If one gained proficiency through home practice with that kata, one would be pretty well situated to learn other bo katas or forms.

 

[TSDTexan]

You know that the "wrong" and "incorrect" are synonyms, right?
the definition of wrong
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error:
You are wrong to blame him.



Definition of WRONG
3: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect

Anyway, nothing changes. It's just as illogical.

Person A: "I did X in order to achieve the desired result."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's incorrect."
Person A: "It was effective. It worked."
Person B : "But I was taught that the only way to do it was Y so X is incorrect."
Person A: "X was effective. It worked."
Person B: "You can't do it that way, it's incorrect."

Reminds me of the old karate joke.

Q: How many karateka does it take to change a light light bulb?

A: 100. 1 to change it, 99 to gripe, "that's wrong, it's not the way I was shown how to do it".

 

[TSDTexan]

So, you're saying that something that is fully effective can still be wrong? By what, then, do you measure correctness?

Correctness = exact compliance with recieved tradition, no deviation.
Imo: this is prevalent in dead arts, that cannot address new threats or challenges.

Ground fighting is absent from a very large percentage of striking arts.
If the kata or forms are modified to give skills for what an art never addressed, it becomes unorthodox. In the eyes of traditionalists...

HOWEVER:

IF an art is principle driven instead of technique driven it is easier to adapt as long as the essence is forefront.

I see some branches of wingchun looking into their forms for takedown defense and mitigation even though the art probably never foresaw a need for sprawling.

Is it correct?
Some will argue no. others will say yes.

My Judo coach was serious business in wingchun, and used it to get in close enough for throws. The range transition from close quarters striking to clinch & throw is almost instant.

Sport Judo abandoned serious Atemi Waza, as tournament rulesets evolved.

And at the same time japanese karate changed from okinawan self defense karate, to sport / tournament Karate, and amputated many sweeps, throws, grappling breaks and limb destructions.

It was almost as if in Japan you want to strike in tournaments you must do karate tournaments, or if you want to throw people you do Judo tournaments... or be disqualified.

I see fewer and fewer Judo coaches who were thoroughly trained in atemi.
But I know 5 World War I I Judo guys who know oodles of it.

 

[jacksmall]

There is a bunch of videos online with this instructor available.

There is also this guy's videos around.
UltimateTraining

 

[CB Jones]

I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?

Books I would suggest Fumio Demura books.

He has them for many different weapons and shows good traditional techniques and forms.

We got him to sign my son's copy of his book on the Sai a couple years ago. It's one of my son's prized possessions.

 

[DrewTheTKDStudent1992]

I was just wondering if anyone knew of any resources that could help with my Bo Staff training at home? For instance any patterns or forms, instructional books?

There is this book I am looking at. It’s called
The Art and Science of Staff Fighting: A Complete Instructional Guide by Joe Varady.

It’s available on Hardcover and eBook format on Amazon.

 

[lklawson]

There is this book I am looking at. It’s called
The Art and Science of Staff Fighting: A Complete Instructional Guide by Joe Varady.

It’s available on Hardcover and eBook format on Amazon.

You're about 4 years late on this one, friend.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[DrewTheTKDStudent1992]

You're about 4 years late on this one, friend.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yeah, well it's better late than never.