When whould weapon's training begin? By weapon's training, I don't mean empty hand defense against a weapon, but actual usage/techniques/strategy of a particular weapon...ie stick, knife, sword, staff, anything.

In order to further illustrate this question, I'll give a few examples from my training in arts that included weapons. In Shotokan one does not learn weapons until shodan. In Jujutsu one does not learn weapons until higher dan ranks. In Arnis de Mano, weapons training began the first day. In Kali, weapons training began the first day. In Tang Soo Do, weapons training began after two to three years of empty hand training.

Is there a reason that you think it should begin at the time you picked? Why is that?

When whould weapon's training begin? By weapon's training, I don't mean empty hand defense against a weapon, but actual usage/techniques/strategy of a particular weapon...ie stick, knife, sword, staff, anything.

In order to further illustrate this question, I'll give a few examples from my training in arts that included weapons. In Shotokan one does not learn weapons until shodan. In Jujutsu one does not learn weapons until higher dan ranks. In Arnis de Mano, weapons training began the first day. In Kali, weapons training began the first day. In Tang Soo Do, weapons training began after two to three years of empty hand training.

Is there a reason that you think it should begin at the time you picked? Why is that?

I guess it would depend on what the art is. Arnis, Kali, etc. are weapon based arts, so I can see someone picking up a weapon either the first day, or within the first week of classes. The other arts that you mention are not weapon based, so the priority is going to be more on the empty hand aspect. I feel though, that if one really wants to be good at weapon defense, then they should have a good understanding of the weapon prior.

Mike

I voted for two years. This is how I decided to do it at my school. I think two years is a pretty good time to introduce weapons for the following reasons...

1. Weapons are force multipliers and I think that I can get to know a student well enough that I trust them.

2. I'm afraid that I might be held liable if something happens involving a student in which I taught weapon skills.

3. I prefer my students to have a base in empty hand techniques before adding to their repotoire.

I guess the biggest reasons are number 1 and 2, though.

First day, or whenever their is an interest and a class being taught. No need to hold off on it, it's not harder then empty hand stuff. Fencers, Kendo, arnis, etc. all manage just fine without waiting.

I guess it would depend on what the art is. Arnis, Kali, etc. are weapon based arts, so I can see someone picking up a weapon either the first day, or within the first week of classes. The other arts that you mention are not weapon based, so the priority is going to be more on the empty hand aspect. I feel though, that if one really wants to be good at weapon defense, then they should have a good understanding of the weapon prior.

I see your point, however, if we strip the art aside, I wonder if its responsible to teach weapons on the first day.

I know that Arnis and Kali have weapon parts of the art. In fact, the theory, as if was explained to me, was that empty hand, flowed into weapons and weapons flowed into empty hands, making both better. Is it possible to teach the empty hand first and get to weapons at a later date?

I'm not trying to pick on FMA's, btw, I'm just trying to get an all around feel on how weapons are taught across the arts that teach them. I'm also trying to compare some of the philosophies behind the teaching of weapons.

:asian:

upnorthkyosa

First day, or whenever their is an interest and a class being taught. No need to hold off on it, it's not harder then empty hand stuff. Fencers, Kendo, arnis, etc. all manage just fine without waiting.

Has an instructor ever been sued for something they taught a student?

I see your point, however, if we strip the art aside, I wonder if its responsible to teach weapons on the first day.

I don't see why not. Starting off slow, showing some basic moves would be a good start.

I know that Arnis and Kali have weapon parts of the art. In fact, the theory, as if was explained to me, was that empty hand, flowed into weapons and weapons flowed into empty hands, making both better. Is it possible to teach the empty hand first and get to weapons at a later date?

Most that I've seen do the weapon first, but it is possible to reverse the order.

I'm not trying to pick on FMA's, btw, I'm just trying to get an all around feel on how weapons are taught across the arts that teach them. I'm also trying to compare some of the philosophies behind the teaching of weapons.

I didn't take it that way.:) Never anything wrong with asking questions.

Mike

I voted first day; FMA as you quoted though.

That is just my thoughts, and I respect that other traditional arts may do it differently. :)

I voted first day; FMA as you quoted though.

That is just my thoughts, and I respect that other traditional arts may do it differently.

Yes, it's a choice. In FMA, first day; but from when I studied Karate, I thought it was best for that art to delay it around 2 years or so. It depends on what the art is intended to accomplish...and how!

I want to add a huge caveat that I just thought about...some arts ONLY teach weapons like Iaido. There isn't much choice in those cases. So, I guess my question only applies if there is an empty hand part of the art.

Yep fme first day
Anything else it depends onthe art but I would say minimum of 1 to 2 years

When whould weapon's training begin? By weapon's training, I don't mean empty hand defense against a weapon, but actual usage/techniques/strategy of a particular weapon...ie stick, knife, sword, staff, anything.

In order to further illustrate this question, I'll give a few examples from my training in arts that included weapons. In Shotokan one does not learn weapons until shodan. In Jujutsu one does not learn weapons until higher dan ranks. In Arnis de Mano, weapons training began the first day. In Kali, weapons training began the first day. In Tang Soo Do, weapons training began after two to three years of empty hand training.

Is there a reason that you think it should begin at the time you picked? Why is that?

I started on staff in my first week. I wouldn't have it any other way.

As a beginner, I learned the basics of nunchakus within the first three months and the bo staff within six months. As I progress through the years, the use of and defense against weapons become more varied and challenging. In addition to nunchakus and bo staff, I've expanded to sticks, kamas, knives, and swords. My next level will involve guns. It is necessary to understand how to use, not just defend, against these weapons. How else can defense be done correctly if the weapon function is not fully understood?

I think a lot has to do with the goals and training purposes of the schools. I believe it is up to the instructor to determine the readiness levels of his students.

- Ceicei

of course it depends on the art....some arts (FMA) it should be right after they sign on the dotted line. Others it should take a bit, because their weapons skills are predicated upon competency with their empty hand skills.
I voted first year. I think it helps augement ones over all development to get to weapons once the first belt (Fundamentals) is gotten down pat.

Your Brother
John

It depends upon the art (as the other's have mentioned) as well as upon the INDIVIDUAL student. Also, aside from FMA's and assorted weapons based arts, I think that knife work should only be introduced to advanced students who have proven themselves over TIME to be both level-headed and responsible citizens. The time period thrown around on this thread of about two years sounds just right to me for most circumstances.

There is no one right answer.

I'll simply give my opinion from a Karate viewpoint.

In general, we allow folks who have attained 7th kyu rank to start training in kobudo, if their empty hand fundamentals are good enough (typically, they are at that level).

However, if someone has had previous experience, or is simply an outstanding talent, I am more than happy to make exceptions.

Of course, there are some who start slacking off and let their fundamentals degenerate into something disgraceful. In those cases, I will not allow them to train in kobudo until they show consistent improvement.

I absolutely will not allow someone to handle a live sword (shinken) until he has proven himself to be a very responsible character, and has demonstrated a strong set of techniques and handling with a bokken.

I see your point, however, if we strip the art aside, I wonder if its responsible to teach weapons on the first day.

I know that Arnis and Kali have weapon parts of the art. In fact, the theory, as if was explained to me, was that empty hand, flowed into weapons and weapons flowed into empty hands, making both better. Is it possible to teach the empty hand first and get to weapons at a later date?

I'm not trying to pick on FMA's, btw, I'm just trying to get an all around feel on how weapons are taught across the arts that teach them. I'm also trying to compare some of the philosophies behind the teaching of weapons.

:asian:
upnorthkyosa

I voted for the first month, however coming from a FMA stand point which is what I primarily teach than it would be the first day.

The reason for why I believe weapons (theroy and application) should be taught early on is that I think it helps the student see the connection between empty hand skills and weapon skills. However if it is seperated by several years (even two) then the weapons/empty hand connection I think is diluted at best. For the following reasons.
1) The student sees that empty hand is the primary art taught (since it is taught first), therefore there must be a distinction between the two.

2) The student often is taught different stances or the same stances really but in a static (kata) sort of way. What I mean is that the student is told in this system of Kobudo we stand like this, hold your wepaon like that, swing like this etc. etc. Instead of this is just like your front stance and you use it to close the distance between you and your opponent as you strike at them.

3) You learn the weapons seperated by "Ok you at this level are going to learn the Bo staff". So you learn a kata, some basic blocks and strikes, and some basic two man drills and then you pass onto the next wepaon say Sai and repeat the process. Again instilling in the student that each and every weapon is different and a seperate art unto themselves.

Instead of teaching the concept of having to weapons the same length, Sais, Kamas, Sticks, knives, palm sticks and using them like that. The Sai can be used like the kama, like the stick etc. etc. The palm stick can be used like double knives, like two mini mag light flash lights, like a hammer fist strike etc. etc.

Or having a single weapon where the stick can be an impact weapon, or a edged weapon, etc. etc. Or this motion can be used with empty hand or a weapon, or this defense off of a kick etc. etc.

Mark

In my previous post I was coming from the perspective of teaching weapons as an add on to your empty hand system. If you are teaching a pure tradtional weapon based system (some Kobudo system, Jodo, Kendo, Iaido etc. etc.) and your student's are learning that then I wouldn't teach it in the method I described. Rather I would respect the art and teach it in the manner it was handed down.

However it has been my experience that a lot of instructors or associations teach weapons as a requirement for black belt ranks and all they are really teaching are the basics of the different weapons, by way of some drills and or katas much in the same format as they teach the empty hand art but now with a weapon. And if that is the case then I think that weapons should be taught earlier on in the program.

Mark

I really could not vote. As everyone has said it depends on the style, plus it also depends on the student. So if you started a child at 5 when do you put a weapon in his/her hands? I started teaching my son Kenpo at 4 and then when I moved to another state the following year switched him to Aikido at 5. His maturity level was high enough that the instructor, a very great one and one of the few high ranking Americans in Aikido, put a boken in his hands.

There will alwyas be some people who will want to show off what they know as soon as they learn it, whether its a kicking combo, a throw, etc. So I can understand how some teachers feel about showing weapons.
However most people who want to really hurt other people wont stick it out a martial arts school so that being said unless its a weapon based art I would say 2 months. And weapons based arts also have more than enough material that a student is going to learn any really "dangerous" stuff in the first couple of months.

ON the very serious side it is extremely likely that a person will get attacked with a weapon so the sooner they get used to reacting to one the better for them.

Also coming from an FMA standpoint, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I chose 1 month. The reason behind that is even though an FMA student will be picking up a stick almost from the first day, the true training doesn't come till after a good baseline of techniques are established. This is especially evident with studnets that have had no other formal training and are getting into the arts for the first time with a form of an FMA. These fundamentals are going to take about a month or so (or eve nlonger) based on the comprehension and retention of the materials. My dad (full on Filipino, born and raised in PI) still thinks that we don't do anything except stick work and he believes it's largely impractical since it's reliant on using a stick or two. He doesn't realize that there are empty hand applications that require just as much practice as doing the motions of an armed technique. Again, this is usually learned first and draws a baseline to the rest of the FMA studies and/or career. Again, coming from a standpoint of an FMA practitioner. Sorry if it was a tad long winded. :)

well you left alot of blanks in there, at the school i go to we start wepon training at green belt if they want to learn. So a year or less but certinaly not in a month

If the school is not weapon based to an extent they have all the time in the world to get to weapons if they do at all from a curriculum standpoint.
Whether that is in a students best interests is another story.

My opinion is that if you're going to teach weapons, you should start right away, or at the least, very early in training. Focusing for too long on unarmed techniques can develop bad habits when weapons come into play. I've seen people with significant unarmed training try to block a sword cut in sparring with a hand or arm, which is a hard habit to break once you're used to using your arms as a first line of defence.

Weapons training, and swordsmanship in particular will hone your unarmed fighting, in that the angles you must use become so much more apparent when you've got the equivalent of a four foot ruler in your hands showing you exactly when you're wrong. :)

Weapons are also intrinsically less intuitive for most people. The learning curve can be pretty steep, so one might as well start early rather than late.

Best regards,

-Mark

Well my curriculum has weapon training starting in the third year, but bagua is essentially an unarmed art. I think it is necessary for a student to be comfortable with who they are and what they can do with their own body before adding a potential complication like weaponry. Having said that, I also think that weapon training is essential to get a full, rounded, understanding of the art.

What is more natural for a human than to pick up sticks, and stones, and use them. We are 'tool users', and given the opportunity to play can be very creative. The only practical, non-political, reasons to withhold weapons training are based on the student's character/maturity.

Voted for 'day one'.

What is more natural for a human than to pick up sticks, and stones, and use them. We are 'tool users', and given the opportunity to play can be very creative. The only practical, non-political, reasons to withhold weapons training are based on the student's character/maturity.

Voted for 'day one'.

Also, weapons are a huge advantage in combat. Some that learn unarmed MA have a false sense of security when approaching weapons training or dealing with armed assailants. Weapons are incredible force multipliers, and I think that the sooner one understands how to use them, the better. :)

-Mark

Thought I'd put my .02 in there...

In the past it was predominantly weapons that were taught. Empty hand techniques were taught later, if at all. Even horse-riding skills were considered more important. When actually taught, it was mostly grappling (I.E. Kampfringen/Shuaijiao/Jujutsu).

The only reason more people don't have this outlook now is because of propaganda, fantasy, and sheer stupidity. Any teacher that thinks that training in weapons is unnecessary or relegates it to forms is ignorant and irresponsible. It should be brought to the forefront.

I beleive weapons are a very important part of training. I start me weapons training with my students around the 2nd month of training.

As a student, i love weapons training, so much so that i'm a little suss about my enthusiam. Weapons have a bit of a status in MA training; they look cool, they feel great in yr hand, they improve yr striking power and reach immeasurably etc. In a way, i think that this could be a reason to hold off weapons training until you can display competent, instinctive and repeatable empty hand skills. I can't speak for other styles, but certainly the weapons training i've had in ba gua very much dovetail the basic footwork and empty hand techniques. In the case of the deer hook knives, it's pretty much like snapping extra spiky bits on the end of yr arms! http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

How long this takes is up to the student and the school i guess. I was told by my first teacher that weapons training would begin after 8-10 years of empty hand drilling and sparring. Yet at my current school, i started deer hook knife forms and apps within 2 years.

Bring on the broadsword i say! http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

I think it depends on what the focus of your training is. Is it for competition, fighting, self-defense, or combat?

That said, I incorporate 'tools' as much as possible from day one. I believe one should never be unarmed.

These are the general principles that should be taken into account though:

1. There are no weapons, simply tools.
2. These tools should merely be an extension of the body
3. Most tools should only be viewed as geometric shapes with various advantages and disadvantages.

With these three concepts in mind, 'weapons' training should be no more dangerous than any unarmed techniques, and you teach the flexibility to be able to use any tool on hand at the moment.

Personally, I encourage all my students to wear a belt, carry a lighter, and carry keys with them. These are great tools that are readily applied in most self defense scenarios.

When whould weapon's training begin? By weapon's training, I don't mean empty hand defense against a weapon, but actual usage/techniques/strategy of a particular weapon...ie stick, knife, sword, staff, anything.

In order to further illustrate this question, I'll give a few examples from my training in arts that included weapons. In Shotokan one does not learn weapons until shodan. In Jujutsu one does not learn weapons until higher dan ranks. In Arnis de Mano, weapons training began the first day. In Kali, weapons training began the first day. In Tang Soo Do, weapons training began after two to three years of empty hand training.

Is there a reason that you think it should begin at the time you picked? Why is that?

Whenever the student wants to learn.

Simple answer when your instructor says so, plan and simple told you.

With these three concepts in mind, 'weapons' training should be no more dangerous than any unarmed techniques, and you teach the flexibility to be able to use any tool on hand at the moment.

Personally, I encourage all my students to wear a belt, carry a lighter, and carry keys with them. These are great tools that are readily applied in most self defense scenarios.

Assuming that you are recommending that they carry such things specifically for self defense purposes, why don't you recommend them to carry tools that are specifically designed for such, rather than improvised wea... tools?

Lamont

Bindside, I guess that it's because it isn't really legal to carry real weapons? ;).

Well, today my instructor said something about this subject... He thinks that you should only learn weapons when you master the unarmed part of the art because then you'll be able to understand it and you'll be able to actually do something useful with it... Also, a weapon is an extension of your limbs and if you can't even properly use your limbs, it will be quite difficult to master a weapon.
But I guess this only applies to Pencak Silat because our jurus (kihon/kata) can be used both armed and unarmed.
So, if you first learned all 36 jurus, you could fight quite effectively without a weapon - and then you add a weapon, like the cabang (sai), teach the few techniques you need to properly use it (turning it around etc.) and sudddenly you can do 36 jurus with a cabang without too much difficulty.
If you were to put a cabang in someone's hand and teach him the jurus that way, you won't have the benefit of understanding both armed an unarmed...
Also, the jurus represent a load of principles - it's not like you learn one jurus and then you suddenly master it - it's all about being able to use all the principles and techniques of one jurus in all sorts of combinations and situations. I think you can't possibly teach that with a weapon, you'll really need to master the unarmed part first if you really want to understand your weapon and use it in your style.
I mean, I think it's fairly easy to pick up a sai and start twirling it around. But if you're a karateka and want to learn how to use it according to the principles in your art, it will be quite hard to learn that principles by using the weapon immediately - you should rather learn how to do karate first...

My teacher, however, doesn't think that you need to master all jurus before even touching a weapon... He's taught us a few basic techniques of the stick and the sai because then we'll be able to practise them and eventually, when we really start on the weapons work, we'll no be hindered by not knowing how it works at all... Still, it's not like we've got a fixed curriculum or so and there's so much to learn about the unarmed part alone, that weapons have always had a more inferior place in our training - there's just not enough time to cover it all.

So, when should one start with weaponstraining? As soon as you understand the unarmed part of the art... I'm not saying that it has to be perfect, but I think that it's quite useful when you understand how to move, block, evade etc.

I also practise Iaido and I think it's really hard to train a weapons art without a weapon ;). So, in that case, weaponstraining should begin on the first day - of course.

I think if the right safety procedures are in place it should be started as soon as possible if weapons are a part of the MA one is studying. I believe the likelihood of a weapon being involved in a lethal encounter is just as likely for a neophyte as an expert and any familiarity may save a life.

D.

I agree with the Kali principle of teaching weapons training from the beginning....and systems like the FMA are able to integrate all the skills so that common skills used with a knife, are applicable to stick and empty hand.....it seems like a much quicker progression of total skills to have underlying unifying principles that governs all weapons, whether they be knife, stick or empty hand.

Throughout history serious martial arts - where serious means "Those guys are trying to kill me. I want to stay alive" - have focused on using the best weapons available. Sometimes that means fists which really sucks. Sometimes it means knives or clubs or guns.

If you're doing what you do for cultural, social, historical, fitness, competitive or other such reasons weapons training might never be appropriate.

If you're doing it to stay alive when unpleasant people want you to die, then weapons training will start early.

Now how did I miss this thread? http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

For me it is from the get go because IRT is a tool based art. Practitioners will be picking up all different kinds of tools relatively quickly from blunt, blade, firearm, chemical, etc. Serious personal protection skills like Tellner quoted above are interested in keeping people alive. Tools are very, very important in that scheme.

Anything involved with self defense should be included in the curriculum right away, and then evolve and grow. Why wait for 2 years to learn some simple knife or club defenses when these are the things we might really need to know??

Coming from FMAs, I voted for first day, right off the bat, as soon as they step into the room ! I agree with the FMA posters on this thread and will add that working with canes will enhance your empty hand self defense skill set.

Take care,
Brian Johns

Beginners (pre BB) in my school learn (among other things) 5 animals. Each animal embodies a specific set of techniques. We discover an animal through a basic empty hand form. When the techniques empty handed are considered good enough, then we learn another form of the same animal, this time, with the basic animal's weapon. The principle is 'if you don't get it, empty handed, how can you do it with a weapon?'. It is a theory that makes sense... to me...
However, my little sister practiced Kali for awhile, and she had those little nasty sticks in her hands from day one. The theory was 'This is it. Kali is about those sticks.' That makes sense too.
So i guess that i all depends on what you want to do and which martial art you have chosen.

from as soon as they have the basic stances and such learned.. from white belt depending of course on the weapon. I would not start a white belt on kama, but bo or tunfa or nunchuku.. yes.

We begin weapons training (Bo, Jo, Sword) after the student earns Shodan (1st Black Belt).

In the styles I have studied Shaolin Kenpo (Chinese influenced Karate/Kung Fu Hybrid) and Tai Chi Praying Mantis Kung Fu (Traditional Northern Kung Fu)

The first weapon is the staff and it is the basis for all other weapons.

In both systems the staff was taught after about one year of training.

The rational for training in weapons for both systems is too develop better reflexes, and expertise to apply to empty hand self defense; apply this ancient weapon knowledge to weapons of similar type in the modern world; and to preserve the ancient tradition of weapon training.

I dont think it is safe or smart to start weapons right away. There are a lot of core elements that need to be learned first before moving into weapons. For teh safety of teacher and student.

I dont think it is safe or smart to start weapons right away. There are a lot of core elements that need to be learned first before moving into weapons. For teh safety of teacher and student.

Could you explain more?

Why for the safety of the teacher and the student?

Thanks

I dont think it is safe or smart to start weapons right away. There are a lot of core elements that need to be learned first before moving into weapons. For teh safety of teacher and student.

I agree here. It's not just the immediate safety of the student, but also for the long term.

Aside from the obvious, of where a student might directly injure someone with a poorly controlled swing of a weapon, even swinging an ordinary rokushaku (bo) can prove hazardous to the student in the long run, if the body mechanics are not correct.

Some folks whose bo training was gained from watching movies, for example, might be swinging almost entirely with their arms, and not using the legs and hips to drive the bo in the first place. As a result, some might even develop tendonitis as a result of this self-training.

This is why our school waits until they've at least graduated from the beginner classes, before teaching them kobudo. By the time they hit the intermediate class, they have a good working knowledge of using the whole body to "hit" someone, and this can really help out their kobudo training, by not just being an arm-flailer.

Could you explain more?

Why for the safety of the teacher and the student?

Thanks
I meant that the student has other more important basics to learn first. Most importantly stance work, and striking and blocking. The student needs to have so idea of focus and depth perception which will come from striking/blocking as well as stance work. A foundation must be laid before you can get to training in weapons. My school wait until intermediate level before we start training in weapons and the first one is Shaolin Staff. :) This will also prevent injury to people in the vicinity of the training student , potentially the teacher, the student him/her self as well as other students around. Like the saying goes, you have to learn how to walk before you can run.

A proviso that I think is important is that weapons tuition should come from someone qualified to do so.

That might sound obvious but the number of karate and kung fu instructors who 'tack on' some showy weapons training to their curriculum is difficult to estimate.

With the sword arts in particular, for someone, who does not hold grade in them, to add them to an empty-hand course of study is a recipe for less than stellar results. I only have limited exposure to seeing some karateka's and aikidoka's swinging katana around but those I have witnessed would be better advised to seek out an iai sensei.

Given this, I don't know what to answer in the poll :o.

My honest answer is 'never' for an empty-hand style with weapons 'trimmings' or right away (clearly :D) for a weapons based style.

If the empty-hand teacher is properly graded in a weapons style too, then I would guess that five years of grounding in the non-weapons parts of the schools curriculum should be enough to enable the diversification to be done without dilution of what has been learned.

A proviso that I think is important is that weapons tuition should come from someone qualified to do so.

That might sound obvious but the number of karate and kung fu instructors who 'tack on' some showy weapons training to their curriculum is difficult to estimate.

With the sword arts in particular, for someone, who does not hold grade in them, to add them to an empty-hand course of study is a recipe for less than stellar results. I only have limited exposure to seeing some karateka's and aikidoka's swinging katana around but those I have witnessed would be better advised to seek out an iai sensei.

Given this, I don't know what to answer in the poll :o.

My honest answer is 'never' for an empty-hand style with weapons 'trimmings' or right away (clearly :D) for a weapons based style.

If the empty-hand teacher is properly graded in a weapons style too, then I would guess that five years of grounding in the non-weapons parts of the schools curriculum should be enough to enable the diversification to be done without dilution of what has been learned.

Out of curiosity what would you say in regards to the style that I study ? I study Shaolin Longfist and that has numerous weapons. Would Shaolin Longfist be considered a open hand style or a weapons style ? IMO there seems to be a ton of open hand and weapons training involved in that style. I would appreciate your insight.

That is indeed a third option that I didn't go into viz a style wherein the weapons are inherently intended to be included.

I can't speak to the specifics of Shaolin Longfist tho' as, other than hearing it mentioned, to misquote Manuel from Faulty Towers, "I know nothing!" :D.

My honest answer is 'never' for an empty-hand style with weapons 'trimmings' or right away (clearly :D) for a weapons based style.

I don't think that there's any danger in starting weapons training right away. That's what they do in most WMA, and that's how I do it. I've never had anyone not use control from the very start.

Perhaps some people delay weapons training so long because they don't know enough about weapons to actually have a cirriculum? :flame:;)

Best regards,

-Mark

I think it depends a lot on the student. Some are ready and capable sooner than others. Some will never be, and should never pick up a real weapon. Some should always use blunts or fakes or something, and should never use a live weapon such as a sword with a sharp edge.

When I was young and started in the martial arts, I began in kenpo. We had some limited bo and stick training, which was introduced around brown belt. At the time, that seemed reasonable to me. I was young, perhaps I should not be playing with such things prior to then (altho I bought real nunchaku, throwing stars, and sai prior to ever training, I was rather young and I'm surprised in retrospect that I was able to convince my mother to go along with it...)

Anyway, when I began studying Chinese arts as an adult, my sifu introduced taiji sword after perhaps a year or so of training, and he introduced White Crane staff again after perhaps a year, followed by broadsword. Now he'll teach me whatever I am interested in, if it's something he knows.

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule. I tend to agree with Sukerkin, an art that is focused on weapons, such as Philippine arts and Japanese sword arts and Western sword arts, need to introduce the weapon right away. I suppose in those cases, the question to ask might be, when is it appropriate to graduate the student from blunts to live blades and such. Again, I think that just depends on the student and the teacher's trust in him.

I don't like the idea of a hand art that tacks on weapons as an afterthought, if this is ever really done. However the weapon is included, the teacher ought to know what he is doing. When to introduce them? I suppose that would depend on what the teacher wants for the focus of the school. If empty-hand is to be the focus of the training, then leaving weapons for later might be appropriate.

But if it is a Chinese art, many of which incorporate weapons as a matter of course, I think whenever the sifu feels the student is capable of handling it. For some that will be sooner, for others it will be later. For still others, never.

Some very good points in this thread. I also agree that ultimately it is the teachers decision. I do feel that , for myself, it shows a dedication that you are willing to train for 3-6 months before you start training weapons. If you have the "patience" to wait for weapons training then you will appreciate it more. Not to mention it is possible to give students a false sense of confidence in a weapon and thus potentially lower their confidence if they rely too heavily on weapons and then there isn't one around when they need it. It may cause a feeling of inadequacy and potentially be dangerous for the student. Most encounters are going to occur when there is no weapon on hand.

Unless you are always packing sai, sword, staff, etc...... Picture that in this day and age and I bet you will get a million stares :P

When whould weapon's training begin? By weapon's training, I don't mean empty hand defense against a weapon, but actual usage/techniques/strategy of a particular weapon...ie stick, knife, sword, staff, anything.

In order to further illustrate this question, I'll give a few examples from my training in arts that included weapons. In Shotokan one does not learn weapons until shodan. In Jujutsu one does not learn weapons until higher dan ranks. In Arnis de Mano, weapons training began the first day. In Kali, weapons training began the first day. In Tang Soo Do, weapons training began after two to three years of empty hand training.

Is there a reason that you think it should begin at the time you picked? Why is that?

Whenever people want to train them, that's when.

If I taught (might someday), then I don't think I should teach anyone that I COULDN'T be trusted with weapons training.

I meant that the student has other more important basics to learn first. Most importantly stance work, and striking and blocking. The student needs to have so idea of focus and depth perception which will come from striking/blocking as well as stance work. A foundation must be laid before you can get to training in weapons. My school wait until intermediate level before we start training in weapons and the first one is Shaolin Staff. :) This will also prevent injury to people in the vicinity of the training student , potentially the teacher, the student him/her self as well as other students around. Like the saying goes, you have to learn how to walk before you can run.


Interesting.

I use the weapon to show why one needs to have proper body mechanics from the beginning. I use the weapon to help with distance and also control from the beginning.

Interesting.

I use the weapon to show why one needs to have proper body mechanics from the beginning. I use the weapon to help with distance and also control from the beginning.

In this way, weapons training really helps to teach good body dynamics. When it's not coming together right, the weapon really shows up the problem. BTW, did you ever hear that old karate saying that "weapons are just an extention of your empty hand techniques"? Well, you might as well go around saying, "Empty hands are just an abbreviation of weapons technique!" ...at least that's how we look at it in the FMAs.

If you take away a long stick and give a guy a short one, he should be able to adjust. Then give him a palm stick (yawara for the JMA folks). Then let him use his palms or fists. The transitions become seamless and automatic. There is no dependence on the weapon, as Bowser supposed. Anything handy can be a weapon...or nothing at all. You're attitude makes it work with whatever you've got. And the sooner you start training like that, the better.

I have been thinking about this thread and the question of when weapons training should begin. I have come to the conclusion that training b should begin with the first day a person is handed a weapon. It should be started at home when that young person is given his/her first knife, gun, bow, etc.

The training should start with the proper respect for the weapon and common rules of respect and use.

If It is a knife the person should be taught how to open and close or draw it properly.

They should learn how to properly care for, clean. And use that weapon. They should also use that weapon as often as possible so that they are familiar with the feel, weight, etc. of that weapon.

Weapons training should not have to start in a classroom, dojo, etc. It should start with the gift or purchase of that weapon.

Now if a person has never handled a weapon in their entire life that is a different story

A weapon is an extention of yourself. I have taught weapons without teaching an empty hand art first and have found it is much more efficient to teach an empty hand art first before teaching weapons, as in the kobudo arts. One learns how to move and one learns balance and breathing from the empty hand art and provides a foundation to build upon.

It really depends on the student. Like you we usually do not start training in Kobudo until Shodan. It really depends on the students maturity. One of the reasons we wait is because of the students maturity level especially with children. It is usually 4 yrs until we start training kids. It is really easy for someone to go to the hospital when training in weapons. When I was a kid one of my fellow students was hauled off to the hospital because the kid next to him wasn't paying attention and turned with his bo and hit him right in the eye. What makes it worse is that the instructor had just ended the session.
With adults it is really based on coordination more so than maturity. If a student doesn't have control of himself and good coordination in empt hands then teaching them weapons would be a disaster. But many of the adults start about a year to two years after starting the class usually green belt.

Well, I teach FMA and always start off w/ footwork and a brief explanation of whats in store. we pick up the stick very first lesson after footwork.

I used to not incorporate or teach any bladed weapon until I was comfortable w/ my students. BUT!! I had a revelation, and was told by my teacher. WHY? He started me on blade work immedietly. He explained that in order to understand and learn to defend any weapon one must study it in its whole. As for teaching them to kill! Really let's analayze this: as my Guro told me and from a lawenforcement perspective.

Many people cometo the ma for different reasons.

But if someone wants to learn how to kill someone or hack someone up, chances are they'll not need to study a martial art. Hell they can go to google and find sites like this: http://www.birdflumanual.com/resources/Self_Defense/files/USE%20OF%20THE%20KNIFE%20Fairburn%20Method%201943. pdf

and anyone can be a certified knife killer. SO what is our responsibility as teachers?

We start by explaining the do' and donts of knife tactics.. We teach the deadly combat art from first (HOW TO KILL) U learn how to use the knife in all its aspects. Once they are comfortable w/ this knowledge you completly reform them and train them to defend against the blade. Once you are confident you can kill w/ the blade (which anyone can do that) the martial art side, the part that makes them student is when they learn to value the system and can proficietly defend against the blade. Knowing they can kill but w/ the proper training they can actually use enough skill and sense to save themselves and others by not having to kill someone... A true master or a true martial artist knows how to kill but also has enough confidece that they don't have to kill someone to finish a fight.. There are other ways. And by TRUE Kali training you'll beginto learn this as trainig continues.

So, when I look at that perspective I agreed and this is how I teach whatwas passed down to me to this day...

So my answer is, weapons are taught from week ONE!!!


I have one student who came to me, openly and honestly he tells me while he was in PRISON he learned of KALI. that when he got out of prison he wanted to learn the art. I asked him why? He said because it was what he was interested him. While in prison he "shanked" someone to survive.... So I asked do I really need to teach him how to kill or have the mentality to do so? HELL NO I DON"T.. he already has that instinct. And by him having that I need to teach him the art side..

REFORM him to understand that knowing how to kill does not make you a warrior. TO be a true warrior you need to know how to survive!!!

He has been one of the hardest working and quickest learning students i've had.. He says the martial arts is what keeps him from going off and getting into trouble. So to me, by him having this training its' reforming him. It's almost therapuetic to him to the point that having and training w/ blades he doesnt feel any need to be violent.

In a sense isn't that why we all do martial arts in some form or another? THERAPUETIC!! I know for me when Im training I am relaxed, and clear my mind of every day crap.. If this helps people like him and people like the rest of us, whoare we to judge who gets to play w/ weapons or not? I understand in essence each teacher has thier own reasoning behind what they do and thats acceptable. Butfor me this is what works..

i think that 1st or 2nd year is good. I'd say immediately is good too and weapons do teach footwork, timing etc, but i think it would be better to get at least some basic handtohand combat skills downpat before moving onto weapons. That's why i voted, one year.

That goes for someone that doesnt have any real ma training. But if someone has already had experiences with kungfu, karate or judo to have acquired some skills, then i think it's good to move onto weapons right away. Anything can become a weapon and i think it is good to practice with a variety of different weapons as well as specialize in certain ones.

j