Northern Thai staff
- Thread starter VASI
- Start date
A general observation I have about Thai weapons is that, with all the weapons, these solo forms are put on a pedestal and are expressly associated with showing respect or deference (whether to the Buddha, the king, the style or whatever), and that they all involve continuous discrete movements. It's implied that if someone can do these movements well, they are good at fighting. For obvious reasons, people don't go head to head with weapons just to test their skill, not only because of the casualty rate but because the zero-sum outcome is kind of optimistic.
In Thai boxing the forms can go backstage, because the proof is in the pudding and Thai boxers fight it out to find out who's the best, but in the weapons arts they are in the foreground.
A couple of problems with this approach. First, why bother with the respect element towards Thai culture, the Buddha, teachers, etc.? I have nothing against them, and think all of these cultural aspects are attractive, but it doesn't follow that having more respect for an art or a culture or a religious or historical figure makes you a better fighter.
Second, you can't teach continuous discrete movements from generation to generation without considerable distortion and loss of detail. Someone somewhere was presumably a great staff fighter, and he could show his fluidity and control with certain movements. Reproducing those movements cannot give you the same staff fighting skills as that fighter. His natural, spontaneous movements in ritual fight-dance were special and were copied by his students and others because he was a great fighter, not the other way around. You could say this same argument applies to empty hand arts, but it doesn't. In all empty hand arts people will come together and fight, to test if the "applications" inside the forms have any merit.
That said, I think this type of training is what it is. Old Thai boxing had a big emphasis on forms as well. But an active pugilist environment surviving right up to date has given it a very different flavour.
In Thai boxing the forms can go backstage, because the proof is in the pudding and Thai boxers fight it out to find out who's the best, but in the weapons arts they are in the foreground.
A couple of problems with this approach. First, why bother with the respect element towards Thai culture, the Buddha, teachers, etc.? I have nothing against them, and think all of these cultural aspects are attractive, but it doesn't follow that having more respect for an art or a culture or a religious or historical figure makes you a better fighter.
Second, you can't teach continuous discrete movements from generation to generation without considerable distortion and loss of detail. Someone somewhere was presumably a great staff fighter, and he could show his fluidity and control with certain movements. Reproducing those movements cannot give you the same staff fighting skills as that fighter. His natural, spontaneous movements in ritual fight-dance were special and were copied by his students and others because he was a great fighter, not the other way around. You could say this same argument applies to empty hand arts, but it doesn't. In all empty hand arts people will come together and fight, to test if the "applications" inside the forms have any merit.
That said, I think this type of training is what it is. Old Thai boxing had a big emphasis on forms as well. But an active pugilist environment surviving right up to date has given it a very different flavour.
ZapEm said:
No, but it is their way of life after all. Obviously I cannot comprehend it, but it is there.
I had the chance to learn Lanna sword, double swords and staff. I had to go through the
dances/forms at first, my teacher even broke the movements of the form down and showed
the single techs on me as an attacker.
But after that came the footwork, the techniques, the attacks/blocks and the movements.
These were extrapolated from the forms, but there was much more than that.
I think if you look at Lyoto Machida who learned traditional karate and then fought you see he
applied some karate kicks and punches from the katas when he could, but the katas are not there of course
because you cannot apply dead patterns to a live fight.
A form is a form and it doesn't contain what all you need for fighting.
dances/forms at first, my teacher even broke the movements of the form down and showed
the single techs on me as an attacker.
But after that came the footwork, the techniques, the attacks/blocks and the movements.
These were extrapolated from the forms, but there was much more than that.
I think if you look at Lyoto Machida who learned traditional karate and then fought you see he
applied some karate kicks and punches from the katas when he could, but the katas are not there of course
because you cannot apply dead patterns to a live fight.
A form is a form and it doesn't contain what all you need for fighting.
Similar threads
