Meaningful weapons programs

[Daniel Sullivan]

This quote is taken from a thread about McDojos. I wanted to break it off and address it as a separate thread, as issues with weapons programs are actually separate from the topic of McDojos.

No meaningful instruction in weapons that were designed based off farm implements to be used in a different era? Just pointing that out, I am well aware that the principles of these weapons can be applied to sometimes readily available everyday items (pool cues, sticks, etc). But is it really your or my place to judge the value of weapons training for other people? I choose to train in the weapons I carry with me or feel I can acquire in most instances. Predominantly my interests are in knives and firearms because I am rarely far from either. But I also enjoy more traditional weapons regardless of their day-to-day self-defense availability. I've seen a lot of schools that have weapons as part of the curriculum, traditional schools, that teach a handful of kata for each weapon, and don't practice them beyond kata. No practice or discussion of their practical application. It never seemed to bother the students. Were I teaching weapons would I want to teach practical applications? Absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily detract from the value of another school. People are enamored with weapons, they want to train in them, as a kid I wanted to train with them and not because I wanted to know how to use them to beat other people up, it was enjoyable. When you watch some of the "extreme" empty-hand and weapons forms that people create for competition that are designed to look good not be deadly do you think that they are wrong for doing so? If they find enjoyment in it, then so be it. Quality is important, but enjoyment is also important. If whatever depth you teach weapons, you are giving quality instruction in what you do teach then what is the problem? Teaching poor quality can be unethical, but we also have to remember that quality is subjective in everything including the martial arts. As far as your last statement, if an instructor adds something to their curriculum that is usually not there but that their students enjoy then this is bad? Back when I went through paramedic school my instructor made all of us learn the full medical school physical assessment that was above and beyond what was required of the curriculum. This made me a worse paramedic, yes? I bit of an extreme example, sorry. But the martial arts students learned a little bit extra about martial arts (even if not to the depth you would prefer or to be experts in the practical applications of that weapon) that they enjoyed learning and this is a qualification for a label?

Rather than address this point by point, I would like to address the topic of what constitutes a "meaningful weapons program."

If you are teaching the use of a weapon, that curriculum should include basic elements of what make the weapon a weapon. Not all weapons are farm implements. Different things make them effective in their use as a weapon. How it is held, gripped, how one guards, and how one strikes are all vitally important.

I've seen weapons programs where a staff is handed to a student and they're told, "you're a black belt. Here's your staff. Do this kata." They learn it, then they're told, "do this kata." This process continued through five kata, which brought the student to second dan grading, after which they started another weapon. Each kata came with an accompanying test that cost as much as a colored belt test, but minus any formal instruction beyond, "you're a black belt. Here's your staff. Do this kata."

What is missing? When that same student began karate/TKD, they were instructed on basics of how to move, guard, parry and strike before they were instructed on kata. But somehow, those same details were left unattended when a stick was put into their hands.

I don't mean to imply that most weapons programs are done in this way; just citing a particularly bad example that I saw first hand. The same school had a guy teaching dao forms he learned from Youtube.

Simply from a safety standpoint, basic instruction should be given. But more importantly, you don't step or stand the same way with a weapon that you do when you practice unarmed. You cannot simply stick a weapon in someone's hand and assume that since he or she is skilled in unarmed combat that they know basics of training with a weapon.

So, if you are going to teach traditional weapon authentically, you should teach the basics of the weapon's use.

If you're teaching XMA, you still need to learn those basics in order to do the kinds of techniques associated with XMA.

If you're teaching theatrical fighting, these basics are still necessary, plus there is a whole host of things specific to theatrical fighting that are not a part of practical weapons training, but which are a must in theatre and cinema.

If you're just having a fun time with weapons and kids using foam swords, then none of that matters all that much.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, all weapons are not farm implements. They each have their own characteristics. And styles using the same weapons often differ substantially in certain areas. Look at a swordman practicing a koryu kenjutsu ryu and compare him to a kendoka. Posture an footwork are very different. Some of the cutting details differ. Look at western swordsmanship and compare Spanish fencing to Italian and French fencing. You'll see very noticable differences between the three.

The cane is also not a farm implement, and several arts have very developed curricula for it.

What learning a weapon may mean personally to a student will vary from student to student. But meaningful instruction in the weapon is objective. It is quanifiable. So yes, I can judge the value of a program. So while I wouldn't judge the value to the student, I can judge the value and merit of the instruction.

 

[Fritz]

I think the trouble is when the lines become a bit crossed- training with a historical weapon and forgetting along the way that it is there to preserve the tradition and teach concepts such as distance and timing which can carry over to "modern" unarmed stuff. Or perhaps worse when you take modern weapons and try to back date them into kata and stuff.

And then there is the third prong- traditional weapons like the katana, which is so important to the Japanese martial arts, one could say that if you don't understand how it wroks you can begin to understand some of the higher lessons later on.

 

[lklawson]

Rather than address this point by point, I would like to address the topic of what constitutes a "meaningful weapons program."

I generally agree. A "meaningful weapons program" teaches the student how to use that weapon as a weapon and in the context the weapon and system was developed in. I.E. Dueling Sabre is taught as a weapon intended for dueling against other dueling sabres not against a Katana or some other foolishness which we all (myself included) enjoy in flights of fancy. Just because a weapon is not practical or applicable to a modern, civilian, military, or self-defense context doesn't mean it's not a "meaningful weapons program."

The cane is also not a farm implement, and several arts have very developed curricula for it.

This is actually one place where I'm going to have to disagree with you, at least a little bit. Stock Canes are pretty common. Here's one:


It's listed under "Horse Care & Equipment" at Farm & Fleet. A kajillion farm suppliers carry Stock Canes for, you know, managing "Stock" (animals). (And it's $11. Take that Canemasters!)

Nevertheless, I agree that various cane-based stick systems abound. Most of them, inexplicably, assume that the person using the cane doesn't need it for, you know, walking.

(OK, it's not "inexplicable" but it is silly when people consider it as a modern self defense tool.)

What learning a weapon may mean personally to a student will vary from student to student. But meaningful instruction in the weapon is objective. It is quanifiable. So yes, I can judge the value of a program. So while I wouldn't judge the value to the student, I can judge the value and merit of the instruction.

Agreed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

RE Canes: Makes sense, and is rather obvious when you think about it. Thanks!

 

[lklawson]

RE Canes: Makes sense, and is rather obvious when you think about it. Thanks!

I have trained for it several times though it's not been a standard part of my cane training usually. However, it was really brought home to me when I broke my foot and was hobbling around in one of those irritating "boot" removable compression cast things and regularly used a cane. 7/8 of my footwork was useless. I was really glad that I'd spent at least some time exploring the "what if you need a cane to walk and want to use it as a bludgeon as well" concept.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I agree with pretty much all of this. If you practice solo weapon kata without studying the actual combat use of that weapon (either historical or present day), then you aren't practicing a martial art - you're basically a majorette doing baton twirling with an oddly shaped baton. If that's something you enjoy, then go for it. Just realize that you don't need to pay a martial arts school for the experience.

If you are teaching a weapons program and you don't have significant training yourself in the actual combat use of that weapon, then you're basically a fraud.

 

[SENC-33]

A well trained traditionalist working a staff, sword or what have you is awe inspiring. I was never that person......

These days (like everything else) I take a combatives approach. I look for useful, effective ways to use objects from the environment such as chairs, sticks, pocket knives and what have you. My wife thinks I am a freaking nut becasue I am always commenting in public about items I could use in a pinch. My overactive brain is always spinning

 

[jks9199]

First, I'm very skeptical of the myths about farm implements being made into weapons. It just doesn't make sense. I recall reading an article where someone tried to find nunchuka being used as any sort of rice flail -- with no luck. Some stuff that was sort of similar, but significantly different. Look at a sai; what farm implement was it supposed to be? No -- most clear martial arts weapons were WEAPONS, not adapted other stuff. Some exceptions, like Okinawan Oar forms, some of the Chinese forms using a bench... and, of course, the staff was always a multi-purpose implement. But I just can't buy most of the "the poor downtrodden peasants were forced to use their plows as swords" lines...

Second -- Daniel's made a great and very important point. Learning a form without understanding the basics that underlie leads to empty, useless forms. My empty hand principles flow into weapon hand (even firearms...). That's not to say that everything's identical, but there are recognizable connections. One thing I see in a lot of edged weapon forms is complete lack of edge awareness or understanding of what goes into a cut... I've seen people claim to be cutting with a sword, but they've got the blade running at angle to the cut path, so that they're bludgeoning with it at best, for example. Or people using sticks, but no understanding of the ranges they're working on. Ideally, when I teach weapons, I start with the basics. What are the safety rules of the weapon? What are the principles that underlie it? Is it power or finesse based?

Finally... canes. Beautiful, nearly invisible weapon. But know who you're teaching it to and for. If the techniques require agility and balance, you're not teaching it for someone using a cane because of an injury; you're teaching someone using a cane to carry a weapon. What you teach for someone dealing with balance issues or other mobility needs for the cane is different. Connected -- but different. If they need the cane for balance, the shots will have to be quick, and recognize that the cane will have to get back to the ground quickly, in a way that let's them generate power and still recover their balance. Even (especially) if they miss... If their mobility is compromised, wraps and holds that require dynamic flexibility may well be out of the question.

 

[Tgace]

Some farm tools I have seen...my close friend is 1/2 Okinawan. When he was in the USMC he was stationed there and used to visit relatives. I have a photo of him cutting cane sugar with his uncle using a kama.

I guess Tonfa were mill handles once upon a time.

I don't know if chucks as we see them were ever threshers, but I've seen long staffs joined to a short stick by a chain. That makes more sense since you can stand upright with the long portion and beat the grains with the short. Two short sticks would have meant a lot of bending over.

Sai were obviously purpose designed and share many design qualities with the jitte.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[K-man]

This is actually one place where I'm going to have to disagree with you, at least a little bit. Stock Canes are pretty common. Here's one:
View attachment 18400

It's listed under "Horse Care & Equipment" at Farm & Fleet. A kajillion farm suppliers carry Stock Canes for, you know, managing "Stock" (animals). (And it's $11. Take that Canemasters!)

Nevertheless, I agree that various cane-based stick systems abound. Most of them, inexplicably, assume that the person using the cane doesn't need it for, you know, walking.

(OK, it's not "inexplicable" but it is silly when people consider it as a modern self defense tool.)

Agreed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

By hook or by crook, I think you're right.

Years ago my instructor taught us various drills with the walking stick, not kata but techniques based on kali. I've got a mind to start teaching it to some seniors groups when I get round to it. I used to sell walking sticks and we had one Irish one that was actually a Shillelagh.
:asian:

 

[lklawson]

Years ago my instructor taught us various drills with the walking stick, not kata but techniques based on kali. I've got a mind to start teaching it to some seniors groups when I get round to it. I used to sell walking sticks and we had one Irish one that was actually a Shillelagh.
:asian:

I know of two western based cane systems which use a crooked cane with the crook being at the fist end and used as a guard for the gripping hand. One is (very) loosely based upon saber. The other, I suspect is loosely based upon saber but don't know for sure.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I don't know if chucks as we see them were ever threshers, but I've seen long staffs joined to a short stick by a chain. That makes more sense since you can stand upright with the long portion and beat the grains with the short. Two short sticks would have meant a lot of bending over.

From the Jakob Sutor fight manual (German), 1612.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Nevertheless, I agree that various cane-based stick systems abound. Most of them, inexplicably, assume that the person using the cane doesn't need it for, you know, walking.

(OK, it's not "inexplicable" but it is silly when people consider it as a modern self defense tool.)

I teach from the A.C. Cunningham manual and work in some elements from hapkido cane work. I try to avoid too much flash & trash, as my curriculum is geared towards self defense in street clothes.

The appeal of the cane as a weapon goes back to the time when the cane replaced the sword as the gentleman's weapon of self defense, was a fashion accessory, and as noted in your post, a necessary accessory for rural farmers. It also ties into the the fact that a cane can be carried pretty much everywhere and doesn't register as a weapon, thus making it a viable sidearm for self defense.

 

[lklawson]

I teach from the A.C. Cunningham manual and work in some elements from hapkido cane work. I try to avoid too much flash & trash, as my curriculum is geared towards self defense in street clothes.

I really like Cunningham's method. I've studied it a bit but not enough to teach in depth. I really like Tony's expanded manual.

On the K.I.S.S. principle of cane methods, you should take a look a The Footpad and the Cane article. There doesn't seem to be much to it at first glance, but when you start digging into it, there's really a pretty good, if simple, system there. Ken Pfrenger's been doing a lot of research on it. Presented two seminar classes that I know of.

I usually stick to bata and Vigny/Lang/Bartitsu.

The appeal of the cane as a weapon goes back to the time when the cane replaced the sword as the gentleman's weapon of self defense, was a fashion accessory, and as noted in your post, a necessary accessory for rural farmers. It also ties into the the fact that a cane can be carried pretty much everywhere and doesn't register as a weapon, thus making it a viable sidearm for self defense.

I agree. Note, however, that few cops are fooled. They'll usually give you a once over and a knowing look before moving on.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I agree. Note, however, that few cops are fooled. They'll usually give you a once over and a knowing look before moving on.

I'd gather that a guy in his teens or twenties who looks very fit and is carrying a cane which he obviously has no need for, it might actually raise eyebrows of the police. It's all about being out of place.

I see men, often middle aged, who jog in the neighborhood, who are carrying straight sticks as long as a cane. They jog holding it like a batton, so there's no question that they are not in need of it for mobility. Given the possibility of stray dogs (fairly low in my area, but a possibility nonetheless), it is somewhat understandable. But nobody they are Ron-Obvious about the fact that they're carrying a weapon.

I carry a cane when I am dressed in a manner that a cane would be appropriate, but otherwise, I consider it an implement that is out of place and may raise eyebrows in spite of being otherwise legal.

 

[jrrrr]

a few issues
1 - Systems will have different histories including what/how weapons are used within the system. Okinawan systems have a history of using weapons from farm usage and they use a kata teaching methodology. Filipino systems also use farm weapnons. There farm weapons are machetes and knives though. They use a attacking angle to stepping drill methodology. The chinese had soldiers and many of their systems have soldier type weapons, swords, spears etc. They use a kata and two person drill training methodology(for the most part).
2 - One also needs to know the GOAL of the training. Are you training in a weapon that you WOULD use in a self defense situation and is a part of your everyday carry. Is it specifically self defense where one is using training methodologies geared for self defense. Or are you learning the weapon as historical usage and traditional training methodology only.

 

[Tgace]

From the Jakob Sutor fight manual (German), 1612.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

A similar flail is detailed in the muyedobotongji.

 

[lklawson]

A similar flail is detailed in the muyedobotongji.

12 o'clock.




Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Hyoho]

I first did weapons as part of Karate gradings.A rather meaningless exercise. It was 'karate with a weapon' ratherr than the particular weapon as an extension of the body. I then took up Kendo, Iaido, finally got a chance at Kobudo. Its been a journey. One thing I can say is if you practice with a particular weapon all other systems MUST be set aside. One particular Kobudo system has taught me that I can succeed with the same waza with a sword or a toothpick.
The epitome of all waza is based on defensive attack against someone that is already commited to a point of no return.

Most of the arts are a cultural activity now. Defending oneself nowadays is different ballgame. Using a weapon correctly takes years of practice. If Im carrying a lot of money or in an unfamliar area I find a taser works best.