Never done that before

[skribs]

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.

Guess what? I do! This isn't the whole model! I'm only showing a piece of it, and you're criticizing it as the whole thing!

If you watch a boxing video and someone shows a tutorial on how to do a jab, do you say "you didn't do a cross, hook, or uppercut, or show any blocking or evasion skills, so your training model sucks."

Like I said earlier, this is the Phylum level of the taxonomy.

• Life - Martial Arts
• Kingdom - Martial Arts Melee Weapons
• Phylum - Stick, Blade, or Flail
• Class - Axe, Hammer, Stick, Polearm
• Order - Eskrima Stick, Tonfa, Staff, Cane, Umbrella
• Family - Quarterstaff, Bo Staff, Jo Staff, Walking Stick
• Genus - Fiberglass Bo Staff, Oak Bo Staff, Bamboo Bo Staff, Alluminum Bo Staff

You're telling me that I'm not detailed enough, because you're critiquing a model you don't fully understand. And rather than trying to understand it better, you just say "it sucks."

I'm not here to give a dissertation on every idea I come up with. Just an idea I came up with. For you to just take that idea and tell me "it's garbage" is just a low blow.

 

[Martial D]

Categorizations are only useful if they simplify understanding. If they add layers of convolution they serve no purpose whatsoever, and in fact, work against their intended purpose.

 

[Dirty Dog]

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.

Given that every single thing you've said here is wrong, I'm just going to say you should either leave this to people who understand these weapons or go get some actual training with these weapons. Preferably the later, of course.

 

[skribs]

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.

This is kind of the point I'm trying to make. Not that you would be an expert in something, but that you would be dangerous. Now, my experience tells me that most people who pick up nunchaku with no training, are more likely to hurt themselves than the other person. But, the physics involved in NOT hurting yourself, are the same for any flail.

And maybe that's what I'm categorizing. Not necessarily how to hurt your opponent, but how to NOT hurt yourself. With a flail weapon, it's understanding how the physics of the chain or rope work. With a stick weapon, it's mostly just about having the spacial awareness to not hit yourself in the back of the head (which I've seen happen). With an edged weapon, there's the additional safety considerations that come into play with a sharp weapon.

With that in mind, I still would categorize a lot of axes under "stick", because the edge by itself is not sharp. If you grab an ax head, you're not very likely to cut yourself, but if you grab the wrong part of a sword you will. Maybe some polearms would fit under the "edge" category and others more into the "stick" category.

 

[skribs]

Given that every single thing you've said here is wrong, I'm just going to say you should either leave this to people who understand these weapons or go get some actual training with these weapons. Preferably the later, of course.

Can you elaborate beyond "you're wrong"? Because I don't think I am.

 

[Dirty Dog]

And maybe that's what I'm categorizing. Not necessarily how to hurt your opponent, but how to NOT hurt yourself.

That's easy. Drop the weapon. Do something you understand.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Can you elaborate beyond "you're wrong"? Because I don't think I am.

I don't see how. Every single thing you said in that post was wrong. Ever.y Single. Thing. It's painfully obvious that you don't understand those weapons or how they're used. I understand what you're trying to do with your comparisons, but you don't have enough understanding to grasp WHY your categories are ludicrous. And that's why you don't think you're wrong.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's easy. Drop the weapon. Do something you understand.

I disagree, per my post above.

And yes, some weapons you would be more likely than others to hurt yourself, without training.

 

[skribs]

I don't see how. Every single thing you said in that post was wrong. Ever.y Single. Thing. It's painfully obvious that you don't understand those weapons or how they're used. I understand what you're trying to do with your comparisons, but you don't have enough understanding to grasp WHY your categories are ludicrous. And that's why you don't think you're wrong.

And see, I think you're the one who doesn't understand. If you can't see how those things are connected, then the lack of understanding is on you, not me. And you can take that lack of understanding of my model, and you can ignore my model, attempt to correct my model, attempt to understand my model, or ridicule me. Only one of those is toxic behavior, and you have chosen that one.

I'm not saying that each of those weapons is exactly the same. I'm saying a lot of the skills you use in the adjacent weapons will translate. I'm saying there's overlap. One Venn Diagram over another, where the techniques used by one weapon pass over into the next. There's a lot of skills that are unique to each, and a lot of skills that fit in that overlap.

The problem is, that with everything having unique skills, and everything having overlap, wherever you draw a line, you're going to cut some of that overlap, and you're also going to have some of those unique flavors lumped into the category.

I've come up with a model. It works for me. Variations of it work for other people I talk to about it. Everyone categorizes weapons in different ways. Mine is no less valid because you don't like it.

 

[skribs]

That's easy. Drop the weapon. Do something you understand.

Are you seriously saying I should stop training? Instead of suggesting I train more so I do understand?

This is toxic gate-keeping behavior at its worst.

 

[Flying Crane]

Are you seriously saying I should stop training? Instead of suggesting I train more so I do understand?

This is toxic gate-keeping behavior at its worst.

I would say the point is, get training for the weapons you have an interest in. However, if you need to grab a weapon in a pinch and use it, go for it.

Hell, I’ll pick up just about anything and see what it’s about. But I’ve had some decent training in a variety of things, so none of it scares me. I just think they are cool.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I disagree, per my post above.

And yes, some weapons you would be more likely than others to hurt yourself, without training.

I'll repeat. If your biggest concern with a weapon is how to not hurt yourself, you're better off getting rid of the weapon.

And see, I think you're the one who doesn't understand.

The difference is that I do know how to use the edged weapons you're talking about. That's why I know how utterly wrong you are. You don't know what you don't know. So you're convinced you're right.

Are you seriously saying I should stop training? Instead of suggesting I train more so I do understand?

This is toxic gate-keeping behavior at its worst.

Check your reading. I started this off by saying 'leave it to people who understand them, or get some training. Preferably the latter.'

This is reading comprehension at its worst.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So brass knuckles are not even a weapon, axes and warhammers handle like a stick and are sticks...

You know what, I honestly can't even give this a serious reply lol

It's actually reasonable, if you're just looking to classify by gross estimation of the movements used, which I think is what he intended. Use of brass knuckles will approximate (though not be quite the same as, in some cases) unarmed movement. If we include the "club" (stick with a weighted end) as part of the model for sticks, then a mace and axe both have some of that movement - again, only in a gross approximation, but that's good enough for rough categorization.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

That could be true if you depend upon the classification too much. But if you just use it as a conceptual guide, I don't see any danger in it. I can use some sticks like a sword (using cutting motions and sword blocks), and I know the limitations of that, so I don't expect it to perform like a sword. Other sticks can be used like a mace. So, I could draw a category wherever it usefully links things, without ever thinking everything in that category actually works the same way - I just know there are some similar principles that can be used, though perhaps to different effect.

Realistically, saying an axe is like some sticks isn't more dangerous than classifying "swords" together - they can be easily as different (some even being a bit closer to an axe than a sword).

 

[Martial D]

It's actually reasonable, if you're just looking to classify by gross estimation of the movements used, which I think is what he intended. Use of brass knuckles will approximate (though not be quite the same as, in some cases) unarmed movement. If we include the "club" (stick with a weighted end) as part of the model for sticks, then a mace and axe both have some of that movement - again, only in a gross approximation, but that's good enough for rough categorization.

An axe..hmm you mean that thing with the huge blade on it that must be swing with a carefully aligned edge like a sword, and does cutting rather blunt force damage?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

He did say if you know how to punch, you could learn to use a knuckle duster (not that you'd already know fully how to use it).

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

Which, I think, is why he said if you can swing an axe, you can use a stick similarly, rather than the other way around. It would be useful for a stick that's of similar balance, and you'd no longer need to worry about alignment.

If it were me, I'd have a "club" category, and most axes will have a bit of "blade" and a bit of "club" to them.

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.

He didn't say everything is the same about them. If you can do basic nunchuku work, some of that will, in fact, translate to a chain. It doesn't fully teach you to use a chain, but you've got a start on some of the work, and are likely better equipped than someone who just picks it up with no preparation, at all. Even better if you just take a couple of opportunities to see how a chain responds to some of the nunchuku movements.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Allowing for nuance, grey areas, and cross-over (in other words, being okay with the inherent ambiguity), it makes reasonable sense to me. It's imperfect and words well enough for the purpose so long as the imperfection is understood.

 

[skribs]

I'll repeat. If your biggest concern with a weapon is how to not hurt yourself, you're better off getting rid of the weapon.

So people shouldn't train gun safety? People shouldn't learn how to safely handle knives and other weapons? It's okay if you hit yourself with your nunchucks as long as you can also hit the other guy?

The difference is that I do know how to use the edged weapons you're talking about. That's why I know how utterly wrong you are. You don't know what you don't know. So you're convinced you're right.

I can say the same thing about you. So we're at an impasse. What I'm guessing is happening here is more likely that you don't understand the point I'm making, and instead of trying to discuss it, are just telling me I'm wrong.

Check your reading. I started this off by saying 'leave it to people who understand them, or get some training. Preferably the latter.'

Then when I asked for advice, your only advice was for me to stop training.

An axe..hmm you mean that thing with the huge blade on it that must be swing with a carefully aligned edge like a sword, and does cutting rather blunt force damage?

So you lump it with blades. Or you make it its own category. You do what makes sense you to. I lump it in with sticks and maces because the same swings you'd use with a hammer, you'd use with an ax.

 

[skribs]

Allowing for nuance, grey areas, and cross-over (in other words, being okay with the inherent ambiguity), it makes reasonable sense to me. It's imperfect and words well enough for the purpose so long as the imperfection is understood.

I think the issue is that people assume I'm talking about a training model, when in reality I'm just talking about a way of thinking about things.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

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.

This is exactly the reason that it's dangerous to compare the two, and also why I disagree with @skribs assertion that knowing one weapon in a category will make you more competent at a different weapon than someone who does not know a weapon in the category.

As an example; let's say that I know how to use a stick fairly well. And part of my training is to constantly move it around, in arcs, in front of me. This is fine, and should come in handy if I need to use a stick. But then me and someone with no stick-related training both pick up an axe. He swings it intuitively, and it's a benefit towards him. I remember being told it's similar to a stick, so start treating it like it's a stick. I'm not expecting the weight difference, and on the down slash in faster than expect, and I end up with a nice gash on my leg. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't bothered thinking of an axe like a stick, and just tried to use it like an axe.