Bo Staff training at home

[Tez3]

My point is that if you strive for mediocrity by being satisfied with "whatever works", then what you'll end up with is mediocrity. Precision is a good thing and something that should be striven for in my opinion. If you don't share that opinion, then why would you bother to correct your students when they perform a technique incorrectly? If they don't properly engage the body when delivering a blow, it may still work just fine, despite the fact that it is incorrect. Whatever works right?

This is what I'd assumed you meant hence my post about 'that'll do'. 'Whatever works' and 'that'll do' are the same things.

 

[lklawson]

But you are talking about something completely different. You seem to have problems with some unknown people that you've labeled as "very hard core traditionalists"

Problem? Nope. Neither types bother me in the least. In a lot of ways, I'm in both camps. You didn't think I expected to get into a Bowie Knife duel did you?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[pgsmith]

Problem? Nope. Neither types bother me in the least. In a lot of ways, I'm in both camps. You didn't think I expected to get into a Bowie Knife duel did you?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You mean a Bowie Knife knife duel?

 

[Tames D]

T

You mean a Bowie Knife knife duel?

That'll do

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But you are talking about something completely different. You seem to have problems with some unknown people that you've labeled as "very hard core traditionalists" and are attempting to transfer what I am saying to whatever these unknown people have told you.

My point is that if you strive for mediocrity by being satisfied with "whatever works", then what you'll end up with is mediocrity. Precision is a good thing and something that should be striven for in my opinion. If you don't share that opinion, then why would you bother to correct your students when they perform a technique incorrectly? If they don't properly engage the body when delivering a blow, it may still work just fine, despite the fact that it is incorrect. Whatever works right?

Actually, I think he was making the point that he doesn't have a problem with that. For folks who are in it for the tradition, effectiveness in the modern context isn't a primary factor. They want to learn something the way it was done at some specific point in time, and to maintain that tradition. His comparison to the Mona Lisa is apt. Someone who's looking for effective painting techniques for their kitchen wouldn't find the techniques in the Mona Lisa useful or interesting, but to artists who paint ("traditionalists"), those techniques are important for intrinsic purposes.

 

[pgsmith]

Actually, I think he was making the point that he doesn't have a problem with that. For folks who are in it for the tradition, effectiveness in the modern context isn't a primary factor. They want to learn something the way it was done at some specific point in time, and to maintain that tradition. His comparison to the Mona Lisa is apt. Someone who's looking for effective painting techniques for their kitchen wouldn't find the techniques in the Mona Lisa useful or interesting, but to artists who paint ("traditionalists"), those techniques are important for intrinsic purposes.

But he asked for evidence of how "whatever works" leads to a downward spiral, evidence which I provided. Evidence which I assert still holds true in your example. While nobody would go to a fine arts school to learn how to paint their kitchen (unless they wanted murals!), if someone purported to teach how to properly paint kitchens, "whatever works" would still be a terrible idea. You wouldn't want your kitchen painting students using towels to paint with just because they are "whatever works". There's a correct way to do everything. This correct way may vary slightly according to each individual, but there is still a correct way, and even though something else may work, that doesn't necessarily make it correct.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But he asked for evidence of how "whatever works" leads to a downward spiral, evidence which I provided. Evidence which I assert still holds true in your example. While nobody would go to a fine arts school to learn how to paint their kitchen (unless they wanted murals!), if someone purported to teach how to properly paint kitchens, "whatever works" would still be a terrible idea. You wouldn't want your kitchen painting students using towels to paint with just because they are "whatever works". There's a correct way to do everything. This correct way may vary slightly according to each individual, but there is still a correct way, and even though something else may work, that doesn't necessarily make it correct.

Actually, "whatever works" isn't a problem for effective kitchen painting. There are actually many correct ways to do most things (think of how many different variations of hand strikes there are). As for painting a kitchen, if the end result is attractive and durable, why would it matter whether they sprayed, used a roller, used a sponge, used a trowel, painted it with nail polish applicators, or finger-painted it on? If it works, it works.

You appear to be using "whatever works" to mean "whatever", and that's not the same concept. "Whatever works" implies the chosen solution must actually be effective for the purpose intended - it has to "work".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

even though something else may work, that doesn't necessarily make it correct

If it actually works, then how is it incorrect?

 

[Tez3]

As for painting a kitchen, if the end result is attractive and durable, why would it matter whether they sprayed, used a roller, used a sponge, used a trowel, painted it with nail polish applicators, or finger-painted it on? If it works, it works.

Ah, now here's the thing, it may work putting the paint on the wall but the various methods produce various messes that will make much more work than painting efficiently and dare I say it...properly. There's a reason that painter and decorators have to go to college and/or be apprentices then qualify. The 'end result' might be fine but oh dear the mess you are going to have if you don't do it properly, you could of course cover everything up spending hours before you can even start painting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ah, now here's the thing, it may work putting the paint on the wall but the various methods produce various messes that will make much more work than painting efficiently and dare I say it...properly. There's a reason that painter and decorators have to go to college and/or be apprentices then qualify. The 'end result' might be fine but oh dear the mess you are going to have if you don't do it properly, you could of course cover everything up spending hours before you can even start painting.

Some of them will create more mess. Some of them create similar messes. Those that create more messes, the mess only matters under certain circumstances (for instance, are we replacing the floor, anyway?). My point is there are many ways to get the result. Some have distinct deficiencies, but even those can be useful (as opposed to "wrong") in some situations. And there are many (applying with sponge, applying with standard brush, applying with roller) that can get very similar results, and which is "better" depends upon the situations - none is more correct than the others in that group without context being applied.

 

[Tez3]

Some of them will create more mess. Some of them create similar messes. Those that create more messes, the mess only matters under certain circumstances (for instance, are we replacing the floor, anyway?). My point is there are many ways to get the result. Some have distinct deficiencies, but even those can be useful (as opposed to "wrong") in some situations. And there are many (applying with sponge, applying with standard brush, applying with roller) that can get very similar results, and which is "better" depends upon the situations - none is more correct than the others in that group without context being applied.

Nah, you get a qualified painter and decorator in, it's a win win every time.

 

[pgsmith]

If it actually works, then how is it incorrect?

Now you're being deliberately obtuse to provoke a reaction!
Here's a pretty clear example for you that actually happened years ago when I was still practicing aikido. We were working on the first teaching ikkyo (ude osae or straight arm throw). I was a strong young buck then, and could control people pretty effectively with it. However, I wasn't doing it correctly. I have large hands and plenty of upper body strength, so I could grip the wrist and upper arm, and pretty much control whatever I wanted without actually locking up the elbow. It actually worked very effectively for me, but it wasn't correct. As my instructor pointed out to me, I had to learn how to do the technique correctly, because some day I would hopefully need to teach it to someone without my upper body strength, and then they wouldn't be able to do the technique at all because I never learned it correctly and thus couldn't explain how it was supposed to be done.

Everything should be taught correctly. Then, once a student has learned enough to know themselves and what they're doing, the techniques can be modified to be most effective for that individual. The Japanese refer to this a shu-ha-ri. By not learning the correct way to do something, then the correct way gets lost for subsequent teachings unless it is rediscovered.

I can drive from my house to work by weaving back and forth through three lanes of the freeway. It actually works, but it is definitely the incorrect way to drive (despite the fact that a good number of idiots tend to drive that way!).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse to provoke a reaction!

Try leaving the insults out of a reasonable discussion. If you disagree with my point, say so without being an ***.

Here's a pretty clear example for you that actually happened years ago when I was still practicing aikido. We were working on the first teaching ikkyo (ude osae or straight arm throw). I was a strong young buck then, and could control people pretty effectively with it. However, I wasn't doing it correctly. I have large hands and plenty of upper body strength, so I could grip the wrist and upper arm, and pretty much control whatever I wanted without actually locking up the elbow. It actually worked very effectively for me, but it wasn't correct. As my instructor pointed out to me, I had to learn how to do the technique correctly, because some day I would hopefully need to teach it to someone without my upper body strength, and then they wouldn't be able to do the technique at all because I never learned it correctly and thus couldn't explain how it was supposed to be done.

Ah. That's an example of something that worked in a single situation, but doesn't work in others. It's not actually incorrect to use it where it will work, but not useful in the larger context. That actually fits my point. It wouldn't be incorrect to use that incomplete ikkyo in application, so long as it gets the needed result. You need to learn a different version (the complete ikkyo) for a different context. In the larger context, the incomplete ikkyo isn't fully effective. If it were, there wouldn't be a functional need to do the more "correct" version, though it wouldn't be wrong to use it, either.

Everything should be taught correctly. Then, once a student has learned enough to know themselves and what they're doing, the techniques can be modified to be most effective for that individual. The Japanese refer to this a shu-ha-ri. By not learning the correct way to do something, then the correct way gets lost for subsequent teachings unless it is rediscovered.

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

I can drive from my house to work by weaving back and forth through three lanes of the freeway. It actually works, but it is definitely the incorrect way to drive (despite the fact that a good number of idiots tend to drive that way!).

Actually, that only works when there's not other traffic, nor any cops, so it's not effective for getting home when there's traffic and/or cops present.

 

[punisher73]

I know it's redundant to say "bo staff", but I also know that if you just say "bo" many people think of "bow" as in archery. I think that, for them, they are just trying to be more descriptive to help others understand.

Kind of like when you always hear on the news about the HIV Virus. Redundant, but not unacceptable.

 

[MI_martialist]

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?

Martial Arts Books Weaponry Kata Series Bo Staff

 

[Tez3]

I know it's redundant to say "bo staff", but I also know that if you just say "bo" many people think of "bow" as in archery

The 'o' in Bo is short, the 'o' in bow is long you can't mistake them, at least in English, American I wouldn't be sure of as they pronounce aluminium for example very strangely.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The 'o' in Bo is short, the 'o' in bow is long you can't mistake them, at least in English, American I wouldn't be sure of as they pronounce aluminium for example very strangely.

I'm not aware of any American dialect that distinguishes between "bo" and "bow". And where the hell does that extra "i" come from?

 

[TSDTexan]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse to provoke a reaction!
Here's a pretty clear example for you that actually happened years ago when I was still practicing aikido. We were working on the first teaching ikkyo (ude osae or straight arm throw). I was a strong young buck then, and could control people pretty effectively with it. However, I wasn't doing it correctly. I have large hands and plenty of upper body strength, so I could grip the wrist and upper arm, and pretty much control whatever I wanted without actually locking up the elbow. It actually worked very effectively for me, but it wasn't correct. As my instructor pointed out to me, I had to learn how to do the technique correctly, because some day I would hopefully need to teach it to someone without my upper body strength, and then they wouldn't be able to do the technique at all because I never learned it correctly and thus couldn't explain how it was supposed to be done.

Everything should be taught correctly. Then, once a student has learned enough to know themselves and what they're doing, the techniques can be modified to be most effective for that individual. The Japanese refer to this a shu-ha-ri. By not learning the correct way to do something, then the correct way gets lost for subsequent teachings unless it is rediscovered.

I can drive from my house to work by weaving back and forth through three lanes of the freeway. It actually works, but it is definitely the incorrect way to drive (despite the fact that a good number of idiots tend to drive that way!).

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.

 

[punisher73]

The 'o' in Bo is short, the 'o' in bow is long you can't mistake them, at least in English, American I wouldn't be sure of as they pronounce aluminium for example very strangely.

Across the pond here, they are pronounced the same.

 

[Chris Parker]

The 'o' in Bo is short, the 'o' in bow is long you can't mistake them, at least in English, American I wouldn't be sure of as they pronounce aluminium for example very strangely.

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...