Meaningful weapons programs

[lklawson]

I first did weapons as part of Karate gradings.A rather meaningless exercise. It was 'karate with a weapon' ratherr than the particular weapon as an extension of the body.

Weapons are not just extensions of the body. If they were then the "karate with a weapon" would have worked just fine. Weapons function differently than the body so they must be used differently.

One thing I can say is if you practice with a particular weapon all other systems MUST be set aside.

I disagree. It was common since the creation of weapons to study the weapon in conjunction with other methods, both other weapons and unarmed. Yes, there are some fight systems which are at odds with other systems in basic premisses, but that is not specific to weapon or no weapon and is more about much more basic assumptions of the fight.

One particular Kobudo system has taught me that I can succeed with the same waza with a sword or a toothpick.

I'm afraid that I must disagree with this as well. Different weapons are designed differently and must be used differently, that means with different techniques. A Stiletto is not a Shamshir. One is designed to slash at arms length and the other to pierce at knife distances. Neither of them are a Tomahawk which chops and bashes. To use a Glaive with exact same unmodified waza as a shinken is foolhardy and suicidal. Even when there are plain similarities, such as a Shinken and a Machete, the waza must be modified to fit the specific weapon because the optimum distance, cutting style, number of hands on the weapon, thrusting ability, and parrying options are simply different for each. Heck, even when unarmed, it's still the same. There's a reason that people with short legs are often told that uchimata is probably not going to be their go-to technique; their "weapon" (legs) aren't suited for it in comparison with the average person. To a large degree the weapon dictates the waza, not the other way around.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your points.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Hyoho]

Weapons are not just extensions of the body. If they were then the "karate with a weapon" would have worked just fine. Weapons function differently than the body so they must be used differently.

I disagree. It was common since the creation of weapons to study the weapon in conjunction with other methods, both other weapons and unarmed. Yes, there are some fight systems which are at odds with other systems in basic premisses, but that is not specific to weapon or no weapon and is more about much more basic assumptions of the fight.

I'm afraid that I must disagree with this as well. Different weapons are designed differently and must be used differently, that means with different techniques. A Stiletto is not a Shamshir. One is designed to slash at arms length and the other to pierce at knife distances. Neither of them are a Tomahawk which chops and bashes. To use a Glaive with exact same unmodified waza as a shinken is foolhardy and suicidal. Even when there are plain similarities, such as a Shinken and a Machete, the waza must be modified to fit the specific weapon because the optimum distance, cutting style, number of hands on the weapon, thrusting ability, and parrying options are simply different for each. Heck, even when unarmed, it's still the same. There's a reason that people with short legs are often told that uchimata is probably not going to be their go-to technique; their "weapon" (legs) aren't suited for it in comparison with the average person. To a large degree the weapon dictates the waza, not the other way around.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your points.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I can teach anyone to do tameshigiri in 20 minutes. But it
Just motion, no technique. We chopped vegetables with a decent Japanese kitchen knife last night. Little technique involved.t

The words system was used. An automatic natural response with a weapon. So you dont think that weapons are used as an? extension of the body? Im wondering what weapons you are skilled with and to what level?

Karate requires the use of koshi. If you can successfully extend that principle into your weapon technique? Thats fine. But I was forced to do one technique with one weapon for 7 years until it was deemed to be fundamental.

Where I live most of the time we all carry long blades in public. Main thing here is to keep off the booze. Last time round a local was stabbed 23 times. Three against one he was a bit outnumbered.

 

[lklawson]

I can teach anyone to do tameshigiri in 20 minutes. But it Just motion, no technique.

That's kinda the point of tameshigiri. To test and prove technique. If the cut is done right on the tatami then it proves technique. Maybe not much more than that, of course. It certainly doesn't prove that the person making the cut can perform the technique under "fighting" circumstances, but it does prove the technique (against tatami any way).

The words system was used. An automatic natural response with a weapon.

Huh? A "system" is an "automatic natural response with a weapon"??? Perhaps we have differing definitions of "system." When I use the word in this context it usually means, loosely, a coherent methodology and set of techniques which all work in unison and "make sense" within a specific context of the martial "system," including social contexts, armor, the weapon(s) itself, and several other similar data points. A "system" is a theory of combat and set of techniques which are synergistic to the combat goal, be it 18th Century Smallsword Dueling, modern Boxing, Karate, or Bo-jutsu.

Perhaps you could define what you mean by "system?"

So you dont think that weapons are used as an? extension of the body?

Not in the way that it appeared you were implying, no. You can't use a weapon in the same way that you would use your body parts unarmed. You can't "punch" with a sword using the same mechanics and bio-mechanical orientation as you would punch with your fist, unless it's something specifically designed for that such as a "punch dagger." You can't slash with a knife using the same bio-mechanics as you hit with a hammer-fist. Further, attempting to hammer-fist using the same mechanics as a slash or attempting to punch using mechanics as a sword thrust ensures that your fist is in the wrong orientation to the target and will likely be injured upon impact. The timing is different too. The length and shape of the blade dramatically, if subtlety, impacts footwork, distance, timing, and what sort of feints can be set up. Nor can you always use two weapons the same way, even though they may appear to have some similarities. A hardwood stick the length of a wakizashi simply cannot be used the same way. It is an impact weapon. It has no point for thrusting, nor edge for slashing. If you attempt to use a wakizashi the way you use a short stick, then you will be "hacking" and not using the excellent slashing properties of the blade, never-mind such niceties as edge awareness (that's why there's a string on the shinai). You can't use a Smallsword the same way you use a Khukri.

While there may be some gross, very large, similarities of bio-mechanics, such as, "drive the movement with your hips" it is simply not accurate to say, except in the most superficial way, that a weapon is merely an extension of the body. Even then it's not a hard-and-fast "rule." Many Smallsword thrusts were driven with nothing more than the arm and the shoulder; no significant hip movement unless you were thrusting on a pass (while walking past each other) or in a Lunge. Early forms of Rapier had no Lunge and were all hitting on the pass. As you pointed out yourself, you can't simply "do karate with a weapon."

Im wondering what weapons you are skilled with and to what level?

I'm rated Expert in Bowie Knife and instructor on several other western based weapons such as the cane and the Tomahawk. I'd probably be rated expert in 'hawk too if I ever sought rating for it.

Thats fine. But I was forced to do one technique with one weapon for 7 years until it was deemed to be fundamental.

I know you're not going to like what I write next so I'm going to apologize ahead of time if you feel insulted. Sorry, man. That said, forcing a student to practice one single technique for seven years is NOT about learning the fundamentals. It's about the student proving his loyalty and dedication. Any student that cannot learn the fundamentals of a single technique in well under a couple of months, at longest, either suffers from a learning disability or exceptionally poor instruction. If any instructor actually believes that forcing a student to practice one technique for more than two-thrids of a decade is actually teaching technique, then the instructor must admit that the method suffers a monumental lack of efficiency. Most other systems I've seen can turn out a decent practitioner in 7 years. Heck, in Kendo, it seems to take around 2-4 years, depending on the student's natural aptitude and dedication, to reach Shodan. In seven years, a Kendoka could theoretically have made Sandan and Nidan is within the realm of reasonable expectations. Frankly, I find it bizarre in the extreme that people have turned extreme inefficiencies into a virtue. It seems particularly un-Japanese to me to claim it is about establishing fundamentals. Proving loyalty and dedication? Sure. Very Japanese.

Again, I know you're not going to like that. Sorry.

Where I live most of the time we all carry long blades in public. Main thing here is to keep off the booze. Last time round a local was stabbed 23 times. Three against one he was a bit outnumbered.

Um... OK. What's that have to do with the discussion at hand: "Meaningful weapons program?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The words system was used. An automatic natural response with a weapon. So you dont think that weapons are used as an? extension of the body?

I know that this wasn't directed to me, but I am going to respond. They are used as an extension of the body but they cannot, as LKLawson said, be used with the same biomechanics. The fact is that weapons are not a part of the body. With good instruction and faithful practice, one can make the techniques come naturally, but the use of weapons is not in and of itself natural. Anymore than playing hockey or golf is natural. While some weapons are more intuitive than others (sticks tend to be more intuitive than swords), they are still tools, not part of you.

Im wondering what weapons you are skilled with and to what level?

At least in the context of this discussion, what difference does it make? We're on the internet, so he could tell you anything he wants. I prefer to take a poster's words on their merit rather than on any claim of rank.

Karate requires the use of koshi. If you can successfully extend that principle into your weapon technique? Thats fine.

Principles of combat and of power generation cross over from unarmed into armed combat, but the techniques used to translate those principles into practical application will differ, both between being armed and unarmed and between different types of weapons.

But I was forced to do one technique with one weapon for 7 years until it was deemed to be fundamental.

The practice of basics/kihon/kibon/whatever your art's word is for basics, is lifelong. Learning a technique to a proficient level should not take seven years. Perhaps you mean something else by this?

Where I live most of the time we all carry long blades in public. Main thing here is to keep off the booze. Last time round a local was stabbed 23 times. Three against one he was a bit outnumbered.

This is just kind of hanging out there with no relation to the rest of your post. What does this have to do with instruction in weapons?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

That's kinda the point of tameshigiri. To test and prove technique. If the cut is done right on the tatami then it proves technique. Maybe not much more than that, of course. It certainly doesn't prove that the person making the cut can perform the technique under "fighting" circumstances, but it does prove the technique (against tatami any way).

I had always thought that tameshigiri had developed to test the blade, not the swordsman. I do know that its practice is not universal in Japanese sword arts.

 

[lklawson]

I had always thought that tameshigiri had developed to test the blade, not the swordsman. I do know that its practice is not universal in Japanese sword arts.

I guess it depends on which instructor you ask. In Japanese arts, I've heard both to test the blade and to test the technique. If you don't have the right mechanics and edge-orientation, the cutting media will show it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk