Never done that before

[skribs]

The weight on them makes both how to swing them and the strategy/tactics involved different. As a basic example, i cant do an umbrella block with an axe.



Brass knuckles require a different hand position, and different strategies. There are also things you can do with them (block weapons), and things you cant (grab) to make it different from unarmed.

Its risky to create broad categories for weapons like that and try to force them into those categories, for two reasons. First is that any weapon you will conceivably have on you, you should be training with. Second is you shouldn't assume you know, or are capable of using or teaching, a weapon because you are capable of using another weapon in the same "group", which categorizing it like that would absolutely lead people to do.

I'm obviously making very broad categories here. It's a way of categorizing them that makes sense to me. It doesn't have to make sense to you. I even gave you bigger flaws than you're giving me, and you haven't jumped on those. You're not even going to try to use the dagger vs. greatsword argument?

And the reason I make these categories is not necessarily for weapons you train with, but more for improvised weapons. If I am trained in sticks, I can pick up a stick. If I am trained in nunchucks, I can pick up a chain. It's not about what I carry, but about what I can find.

Also, where do guns fit?

Some fit in holsters, others in slings.

 

[skribs]

Also, where do guns fit?

I should have clarified that my thought process was more regarding improvised weapons than carry weapons. However, it is conceivable that a gun could fit into the stick category.

 

[Martial D]

You would use the same type of strike for an axe or warhammer. It's like the difference between an open-hand block and a closed-fisted block.

You would use the same types of techniques with brass knuckles as if you were punching.

If you look at it from the perspective of what types of techniques you would use with it, they are very similar. Now, it's not perfect. There's obviously a difference between a dagger and a greatsword. But I'm just boiling down to as few categories as I can. You have weapons that use their weight, weapons that use their edge, and weapons that can bend.

Eh. If you find that to be coherent or useful, knock yourself out.

 

[skribs]

Eh. If you find that to be coherent or useful, knock yourself out.

To be clear, I'm not saying they're exactly the same. I'm saying if you know how to punch, and you pick up brass knuckles, it's not going to be a huge learning curve in how to effectively use them.

If you know how to use an ax, then you could pick up a big stick, a baseball bat, a hammer, a tire iron, a folding chair, and effectively use them.

If you know how to use nunchucks, then you could pick up a chain and use it.

Knowing how to punch doesn't translate as well to using a sword or an ax. Knowing how to use escrima sticks doesn't translate to how to use a chain. This is why I categorize them this way.

 

[Martial D]

To be clear, I'm not saying they're exactly the same. I'm saying if you know how to punch, and you pick up brass knuckles, it's not going to be a huge learning curve in how to effectively use them.

If you know how to use an ax, then you could pick up a big stick, a baseball bat, a hammer, a tire iron, a folding chair, and effectively use them.

If you know how to use nunchucks, then you could pick up a chain and use it.

Knowing how to punch doesn't translate as well to using a sword or an ax. Knowing how to use escrima sticks doesn't translate to how to use a chain. This is why I categorize them this way.

Hmm. There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin lol

At the beginning I guess.

Knuckle dusters are used aligned to the middle knuckle, striking with them is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment. So sort of but not really.

Swinging an axe is markedly different than swinging a stick (ignoring the fact that it has a blade..why is it a stick and not a blade? Anyway..). You have edge alignment, end weighting which makes the swing pivot different than a weapon that is evenly weighted like a stick, the striking zone is on the head rather than anywhere. Etc

Nunchuku and a chain. Again completely different. Swing a chain around and catch the end. I'm sure your fingers will heal. One is two ten inch rigid sticks(why isn't it a stick? It certainly more similar than an axe....) connected by 3-4 inches of plyable 'bendy' stuff(chain or rope) the other entirely bendy stuff. The physics of how they move is completely different.

Anyway this is stupid. I feel like I have lost iq points for taking the bait on this.

 

[skribs]

Hmm. There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin lol

At the beginning I guess.

Knuckle dusters are used aligned to the middle knuckle, striking with them is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment. So sort of but not really.

Swinging an axe is markedly different than swinging a stick (ignoring the fact that it has a blade..why is it a stick and not a blade? Anyway..). You have edge alignment, end weighting which makes the swing pivot different than a weapon that is evenly weighted like a stick, the striking zone is on the head rather than anywhere. Etc

Nunchuku and a chain. Again completely different. Swing a chain around and catch the end. I'm sure your fingers will heal. One is two ten inch rigid sticks(why isn't it a stick? It certainly more similar than an axe....) connected by 3-4 inches of plyable 'bendy' stuff(chain or rope) the other entirely bendy stuff. The physics of how they move is completely different.

Anyway this is stupid. I feel like I have lost iq points for taking the bait on this.

I expected better from you. Did you drink before writing this post? I don't think I've ever seen you this blatantly disrespectful to another opinion than yours. Or have I just not been paying attention to you?

"Striking with knuckle-dusters is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment." So there's only one way to align a hook punch? If someone is good at hook punches, would you not assume they can use knuckle-dusters? Also, fist weapons extends beyond just knuckle dusters. Some of them will work a lot better with the motions of a straight punch.

I've picked up a chain and used the same techniques as on my nunchucks. Is it perfectly the same? No. But the way it moves when you swing it is the same. If I strike someone with a chain, I'm going to use a similar technique as nunchucks. It's not about what is hitting, it's about how you would use it.

I categorized axes as sticks, because I categorized maces and hammers as sticks, and both axes and maces use the exact same physics when you swing, and are similarly designed for defense.

"Anyway this is stupid. I feel like I have lost iq points for taking the bait on this." Great way to help me win the argument, resort to insults.

 

[Martial D]

I expected better from you. Did you drink before writing this post? I don't think I've ever seen you this blatantly disrespectful to another opinion than yours. Or have I just not been paying attention to you?

"Striking with knuckle-dusters is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment." So there's only one way to align a hook punch? If someone is good at hook punches, would you not assume they can use knuckle-dusters? Also, fist weapons extends beyond just knuckle dusters. Some of them will work a lot better with the motions of a straight punch.

I've picked up a chain and used the same techniques as on my nunchucks. Is it perfectly the same? No. But the way it moves when you swing it is the same. If I strike someone with a chain, I'm going to use a similar technique as nunchucks. It's not about what is hitting, it's about how you would use it.

I categorized axes as sticks, because I categorized maces and hammers as sticks, and both axes and maces use the exact same physics when you swing, and are similarly designed for defense.

"Anyway this is stupid. I feel like I have lost iq points for taking the bait on this." Great way to help me win the argument, resort to insults.

I reply to people as they teach me to reply to them. Respect certainly is always the starting point, but not always the end point.

Much of what you post is so far into the stratosphere it registers on DOPPLER.

That is all.

 

[jobo]

I expected better from you. Did you drink before writing this post? I don't think I've ever seen you this blatantly disrespectful to another opinion than yours. Or have I just not been paying attention to you?

"Striking with knuckle-dusters is similar to a hook punch, but different alignment." So there's only one way to align a hook punch? If someone is good at hook punches, would you not assume they can use knuckle-dusters? Also, fist weapons extends beyond just knuckle dusters. Some of them will work a lot better with the motions of a straight punch.

I've picked up a chain and used the same techniques as on my nunchucks. Is it perfectly the same? No. But the way it moves when you swing it is the same. If I strike someone with a chain, I'm going to use a similar technique as nunchucks. It's not about what is hitting, it's about how you would use it.

I categorized axes as sticks, because I categorized maces and hammers as sticks, and both axes and maces use the exact same physics when you swing, and are similarly designed for defense.

"Anyway this is stupid. I feel like I have lost iq points for taking the bait on this." Great way to help me win the argument, resort to insults.

striking with Knuckles dusters is a lot different, they are of course a force multiplyer, but only to the point that at a certain force they cause possibly an equal level of damage to the user or at least throwing proper hook punch with a duster will breaks your hand, so you can't and have to extensively modify it

 

[skribs]

I reply to people as they teach me to reply to them. Respect certainly is always the starting point, but not always the end point.

Much of what you post is so far into the stratosphere it registers on DOPPLER.

That is all.

Who are you to be casting stones on this?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

To be clear, I'm not saying they're exactly the same. I'm saying if you know how to punch, and you pick up brass knuckles, it's not going to be a huge learning curve in how to effectively use them.

If you know how to use an ax, then you could pick up a big stick, a baseball bat, a hammer, a tire iron, a folding chair, and effectively use them.

If you know how to use nunchucks, then you could pick up a chain and use it.

Knowing how to punch doesn't translate as well to using a sword or an ax. Knowing how to use escrima sticks doesn't translate to how to use a chain. This is why I categorize them this way.

The issue here is that there still is a learning curve, that people have to be aware of, even for improvising weapons. You should train as closely as possible to the improvised weapon as you can, which might not happen if you put knife and halberd in the same category.

 

[skribs]

The issue here is that there still is a learning curve, that people have to be aware of, even for improvising weapons. You should train as closely as possible to the improvised weapon as you can, which might not happen if you put knife and halberd in the same category.

I don't. Halberd is more of a stick. And how do you improvise a halberd?

Like I said, it's not perfect. But there are a lot of things that translate. Just like there are a lot of things a boxer doesn't know about kicks, but a lot of the concepts of striking translate (like how your hips and your shoulders determine your power). Someone with a year of practicing nunchucks would be better with a chain than someone without. Someone with a year of practicing a staff would be better at eskrima than someone with no training, even if both have never touched an eskrima stick before.

I can make more categories, but then you run into the other problem. How granular do you get when categorizing things? Do I keep spears, staves, and polearms together? Do I separate Halberds from Bills and Voulges? How deep do my categories need to go?

What I'm doing is separating them into large categories, like how scientists have separated Vertibrates from Invertibrates, and then have separated out Fish, Amphibians, Mammals, Birds, and Reptiles. And then have separated out whales, apes, dogs, cats, rodents, marsupials, bats, foxes, weasels, goats...you get the point.

I'm just looking at a way of categorizing things. Maybe I need to go down a level, and we can argue what that level is. I was just trying to be as generic as possible. And I still have yet to hear someone refute that you have:

• Weapons which the primary damage is done by concentrating weight
• Weapons in which the primary damage is done by cutting or piercing with an edge or point
• Weapons which are not completely solid

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I'm just looking at a way of categorizing things. Maybe I need to go down a level, and we can argue what that level is. I was just trying to be as generic as possible. And I still have yet to hear someone refute that you have:

• Weapons which the primary damage is done by concentrating weight
• Weapons in which the primary damage is done by cutting or piercing with an edge or point
• Weapons which are not completely solid

To address this point first: I did refute this earlier, you just kind of dismissed it, or didn't realize it was a refutation. But there are two refutations to this. The first is projectiles. Guns, slingshots, bows, rubber bands even. Those don't fit into any of those categories, and some can by improvised weapons (I can make an improvised slingshot and use some rocks if I really wanted to). That's easily solved by adding a fourth category: projectiles.

The second refutation is that there are weapons that do multiples of those things. One I mentioned; the halberd. You could use it as a stick-like weapon, but you can also use it as a bladed weapon. You've also got spears, which can be used as either a staff or a really long sword. There's even a weapon I've got at my home (bought from a farmer in spain), which acts as both a slingshot and a whip. It's primary purpose was for herding goat, the noises from the whip keep them moving in x direction, then you shoot a rock in that area to make a noise, preventing them from going too far. But for self-defense, you could use it as either a sling or a whip.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I don't. Halberd is more of a stick. And how do you improvise a halberd?

Like I said, it's not perfect. But there are a lot of things that translate. Just like there are a lot of things a boxer doesn't know about kicks, but a lot of the concepts of striking translate (like how your hips and your shoulders determine your power). Someone with a year of practicing nunchucks would be better with a chain than someone without. Someone with a year of practicing a staff would be better at eskrima than someone with no training, even if both have never touched an eskrima stick before.

With a staff and eskrima, possibly, but not necessarily. It might cause issues of assuming things will work that don't, and put you in some issues. I wouldn't state that someone using escrima sticks or knife (both bladed and sticks), better than a spear (which could fall into either category). My fencing could probably translate "a bit", but I can tell you I'm crap at using a spear, despite having training in all the general categories you mentioned (and sparring/more than just forms training). So I don't think even that premise is correct, and is more likely to lead to overconfidence and danger.

 

[skribs]

To address this point first: I did refute this earlier, you just kind of dismissed it, or didn't realize it was a refutation. But there are two refutations to this. The first is projectiles. Guns, slingshots, bows, rubber bands even. Those don't fit into any of those categories, and some can by improvised weapons (I can make an improvised slingshot and use some rocks if I really wanted to). That's easily solved by adding a fourth category: projectiles.

The second refutation is that there are weapons that do multiples of those things. One I mentioned; the halberd. You could use it as a stick-like weapon, but you can also use it as a bladed weapon. You've also got spears, which can be used as either a staff or a really long sword. There's even a weapon I've got at my home (bought from a farmer in spain), which acts as both a slingshot and a whip. It's primary purpose was for herding goat, the noises from the whip keep them moving in x direction, then you shoot a rock in that area to make a noise, preventing them from going too far. But for self-defense, you could use it as either a sling or a whip.

And the fact that weapons fit into multiple categories means you can do a couple of things with it:

1. Identify a new category that fits new weapons. This does not keep it simple.
2. Lump them into one category that you feel is a best fit.
3. Lump them into both categories, which is a duplication of work.

I didn't say this was a perfect model. It's just one way of conceptualizing things.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

And the fact that weapons fit into multiple categories means you can do a couple of things with it:

1. Identify a new category that fits new weapons. This does not keep it simple.
2. Lump them into one category that you feel is a best fit.
3. Lump them into both categories, which is a duplication of work.

I didn't say this was a perfect model. It's just one way of conceptualizing things.

But having to choose one of those three for multiple weapons, suggests that it's not just not a perfect model, but a bad model. And a useless one, as skillsets from one set of weapons within the category to another are non-transferrable.

 

[skribs]

But having to choose one of those three for multiple weapons, suggests that it's not just not a perfect model, but a bad model. And a useless one, as skillsets from one set of weapons within the category to another are non-transferrable.

Let's use the example of a Dagger vs. a Greatsword. The techniques between the two are not transferable. But what is?

• A dagger and an arming sword are fairly similar.
• A hand-and-a-half sword can be used to emulate an arming sword or a longsword.
• There are similarities between a long sword and a greatsword.

Now, where do you draw the line, that X is not like Y? I can take a dagger and a greatsword, and the two are obviously unalike. But if I connect the dots, you can see how they work. Let's follow how this train of thought goes, and I'll show you why I circled back to the method I did.

1. Let's set the limit at 1H swords and 2H swords. So we have Daggers and Arming swords in one group, and hand-and-a-half swords, longswords, and greatswords in the other.
2. But, hand-and-a-half swords and arming swords can use similar techniques.
3. Therefore, 1H swords and 2H swords are similar.

I understand the logic isn't perfect. This isn't a complete model. If I were to go for complete model, it would be something far more complex. For swords alone I'd several categories between how many hands you use, what types of cuts work best (i.e. slashes, hacks, stabs), whether it is light or heavy (i.e. rapier vs. falcion), how well it protects your hands, whether it is single or double edged. There's always more specific you can be.

But what I'm doing is providing these in the same way you would define a mammal - vertibrate, lungs, fur, live birth, gives milk. (And then there's the Platypus). This definition covers everything from mice to blue whales, covers things as dumb as an ox or as smart as a human, as peaceful as a sloth or as ferocious as a mama bear. But it covers them all.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Let's use the example of a Dagger vs. a Greatsword. The techniques between the two are not transferable. But what is?

• A dagger and an arming sword are fairly similar.
• A hand-and-a-half sword can be used to emulate an arming sword or a longsword.
• There are similarities between a long sword and a greatsword.

Now, where do you draw the line, that X is not like Y? I can take a dagger and a greatsword, and the two are obviously unalike. But if I connect the dots, you can see how they work. Let's follow how this train of thought goes, and I'll show you why I circled back to the method I did.

1. Let's set the limit at 1H swords and 2H swords. So we have Daggers and Arming swords in one group, and hand-and-a-half swords, longswords, and greatswords in the other.
2. But, hand-and-a-half swords and arming swords can use similar techniques.
3. Therefore, 1H swords and 2H swords are similar.

I understand the logic isn't perfect. This isn't a complete model. If I were to go for complete model, it would be something far more complex. For swords alone I'd several categories between how many hands you use, what types of cuts work best (i.e. slashes, hacks, stabs), whether it is light or heavy (i.e. rapier vs. falcion), how well it protects your hands, whether it is single or double edged. There's always more specific you can be.

But what I'm doing is providing these in the same way you would define a mammal - vertibrate, lungs, fur, live birth, gives milk. (And then there's the Platypus). This definition covers everything from mice to blue whales, covers things as dumb as an ox or as smart as a human, as peaceful as a sloth or as ferocious as a mama bear. But it covers them all.

But again, when you are covering that much stuff, it is a pointless distinction. And not even an accurate one, considering the stuff that transfers between multiple "categories", and the stuff that doesn't fit in any category. You keep saying it's not perfect, suggesting that it's a good distinction, just that it has faults. But its not just not perfect, it's also, useless, misleading and inaccurate. If you want to categorize weapons like you are, you need that complexity to do so.

 

[wab25]

And I still have yet to hear someone refute that you have:

• Weapons which the primary damage is done by concentrating weight
• Weapons in which the primary damage is done by cutting or piercing with an edge or point
• Weapons which are not completely solid

A mace, consisting of a large, heavy metal ball, with pointy spikes on it, which is connected to a handle by a chain. This does damage by concentrating the weight onto the point and this weapon is not completely solid.

You would not use this like a whip, chain or nunchuck (be fun to watch that), you don't use your knife, sword or spear skills with it nor do you use your axe, hammer and stick skills. Still, it fills all 3 categories.

 

[Flying Crane]

I want to point something out regarding weapons. In conversations here in the forums there has been a lot of talk about he proper way to use them, what is proper technique or not, whether or not technique from one translates well to another, etc. In some cultural traditions like the Japanese sword, there is a tremendous amount of attention given to the details in how the sword is used and that has played out in various threads here. I am seeing some of that in this thread as well.

Something to keep in mind: these weapons are actually pretty intuitive. Stab him with the pointy end. Cut him with the edge. Poke him with the blunt end. Club him with the clubby end. Whip him with it if it flexes. Block his attacks with a sturdy part of the weapon. Some weapons have a sharp end and a blunt end. Some have a sharp end and a whippy end or a blunt end and a whippy end, etc. But it’s pretty intuitive what can be done with these things, at least on a rudimentary level. It does not take a lot of training (often none at all) to be able to pick up one of these weapons and be a danger to those around you. Even the Katana, where practitioners attach a huge amount of attention to the minutia, most any of us could pick one up and use it effectively, proper technique be damned.

The debates over good technique and proper training with the weapon are appropriate when one is training the weapon on a more comprehensive level, and a high level of skill is the goal. This training makes one far more efficient and enables one to fully understand what the weapon is capable of, which other people will not understand or be aware of.

But, if someone needed to pick something up on an impulse and use it, be it dagger or kitchen knife or sword or greatsword or spear or short stick or staff or halberd or bill book or boat hook or slingshot or axe or axe handle or claw hammer or tomahawk or katana or Kama or tonfa or broken beer bottle or screwdriver or rolled up magazine...on a rudimentary level anybody can pick these up and be dangerous. It really is intuitive. So for the sake of discussion, I’m not sure it is terribly meaningful to get bogged down with some of the details of what techniques translate to other weapons and whatnot. Assume that any of us could make use of them on some level, if we needed to.

 

[Flying Crane]

A mace, consisting of a large, heavy metal ball, with pointy spikes on it, which is connected to a handle by a chain. This does damage by concentrating the weight onto the point and this weapon is not completely solid.

You would not use this like a whip, chain or nunchuck (be fun to watch that), you don't use your knife, sword or spear skills with it nor do you use your axe, hammer and stick skills. Still, it fills all 3 categories.

A mace does not have a chain. It is a handle with a heavy, pointy metal end.

A morning star has a chain. It is a handle with a chain and a spiky ball.