No.
What you've found there is a modern interpretation of Joachim Meyer's 1570 treatise on weapon usage, which is where the quarterstaff material is found... except, in a way, it's not staff fighting at all. Instead, in Meyer's work, quarterstaff is used as the framework to build skills, weapon management, and the strength and constitution to handle longer, heavier weapons... specifically halberds, pikes, other pole-arms, and even the large two-handed "great sword" (zweihandler). So this is really not a particularly good, nor typical, example of staff fighting methodologies.
Next, the idea of "poking" with a staff is, to put it bluntly, stupid. A staff is an impact weapon, one that generates power with momentum and having the weapon travel over a large distance... so swinging around to strike with the end of the weapon is going to be the "go-to"... thrusts can be powerful, but need to be done with a slower action... a "poke" is an annoyance... and anyone who approaches a weapon without understanding the first thing about it's usage is someone who is about to be killed.
Within that concept is of course nuance that will make a personwho knows what he is doing better than someone who doesn't. But for all practical purposes hold one end. Poke them with the other.
Nope. That's a spear.
Look, as you say, those who know what they're doing with a weapon will be better armed than the one who doesn't.... so let me say this. You don't know what you're doing with one, and, in this, along with Rat, are completely unarmed.
In addition, the idea of "hold one end" is also far from universal... holding the middle of the weapon is the more common method used in Okinawa, as already mentioned... and, one might note, "hold one end" is not going to be overly practical for a "Darth Maul" approach....
there is a reason why the spear was the go to weapon for a very long peroid fo time for fighting. It works even better if you have one and they dont.
Well, that's almost accurate... deeply simplified, of course, and missing much in the way of, you know, context, but basically enough that you can make it look like you know what you're talking about. You don't, of course, but a good attempt at picking something you think is obvious enough that it can't be argued with...
Just in case you want to make it seem like I'm saying things without basis, yes, there are many reasons that the spear was a dominant weapon... but that needs a lot of additional information added to it. In Japan, for example, spears became a dominant battlefield weapon in the Sengoku Jidai for ashigaru, as well as higher ranking samurai, with the idea of spearmanship being a measuring stick (so to speak) of individual skill... but that was, realistically, only in a certain context and only for a relatively short time. For the vast majority of the samurai's existence, the dominant weapon was the bow-and-arrow... with skill as an archer being the sign of a skilled warrior. That was from basically the 11th Century through to the mid-16th... which is when firearms started to reduce the effect that archery had.
Where spear came into it was when we got past the range of projectile weapons... once the distance closed, and it came down to hand-to-hand weapons, spears were the go-to in many cultures mainly due to the range itself... you can kill someone from a safer distance than a short sword or knife, so, yeah, that. But a staff won't kill someone from that range with "poking them"... and, although a staff is used in some systems to build skills that then transfer across to pole-arms (such as spears and halberds), it's still a different weapon.
@Chris Parker
I was going to give that a fancy reply, but given all three of your points contain logical fallacies i will just list them off.
First reply: Strawman, Adhominen and appeal to authorty. Your reply is not related to the points i made, you try to discredit my point based on authorty.
Second: Ad hominen, and despite conjecture not being a fallacy, you engage in it clear as day. What you wrote IS conejetre through a through.
Third: Adhominen and appealing to authorty. And further conjecture.
Well... either you don't understand the first thing about those logical fallacies, or you really didn't understand what I said, so let's make this clear...
You have exactly ZERO knowledge or understanding of the weapon, it's usage, it's context, or anything related.
Your comments show that you don't even know the basics of a safe grip on the weapon, let alone anything else.
You have no experience with the weapon at all.
I've trained in such weapons for close to three decades.
Your comments have no value.
Did that help?
Given the a bove three, you care not to argue my points and i want no further dealings with it, you know how to reply if you want a argument on my main point without just logical fallacing me to death. Until that point i am done here and i will not facilitate further discusson on this matter.
Let's just pull apart your idea on grip, and the placement (and stress on) the thumbs... as that, by itself, tells me you've never even held a staff in a combative sense before.
You said the following:
i think the double overhand puts too much stress on your thumbs and pending blocking type and the like, somone might be able to force the staff out of your grip down to most of the force being on your thumbs.
A proper grip on the weapon has the staff supported by your wrist, with the heel of your hand directly behind the opposite side to where the impact would be coming from... your thumbs aren't in a position where they are even taking any force, let alone getting stress from the impact. If you have your thumb along the back-side of the weapon (where it might be "forced out of your grip"), then you're holding it incorrectly.
This is the point... you don't have any experience or knowledge to back up the incredibly off-base "advise" you are trying to offer... when you do that, expect to get called on it by people who actually do these things. None of this is a logical fallacy, other than the lack of logic of you thinking you can offer genuine or valid advise... or are in a position to argue.
