When Should Weapon's Training Begin?

[Makalakumu]

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?

 

[MJS]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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.

 

[Andrew Green]

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.

 

[Makalakumu]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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?

 

[MJS]

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.

 

[arnisador]

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!

 

[Makalakumu]

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.

 

[tshadowchaser]

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

 

[Shaolinwind]

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.

 

[Ceicei]

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

 

[Brother John]

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

 

[Jonathan Randall]

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.

 

[Grenadier]

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.

 

[Mark Lynn]

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

 

[Mark Lynn]

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

 

[RichK]

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.

 

[brothershaw]

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.