Weapon Familiarization

[MJS]

On another forum, I was having a discussion with a few other Kenpo people, on the use of weapons in the Kenpo system, specifically the blade and the stick. There seems to be 2 viewpoints, so I wanted to post this here, and get some other opinions.

Some feel that as long as you have a good idea of the ideas, concepts and principles that the empty hand techniques teach, that you could put a blade in your hand, and be proficient with the weapon. In other words, you should be capable of doing an empty hand tech. with the blade in your hand, as well as having a solid understanding of how to use the blade, how it can be used against you, etc.

My thought on this is that, yes, while you can do your techs with a weapon in your hand, that will only take your knowledge of the weapon so far. Anyone could put something in their hand and use it, but IMO, its not really teaching you the ins and outs of it. I feel that if you really want to have a solid understanding of the weapon, you need to go to someone who can teach you properly. I mean, it'd be like giving someone a gun, and saying all you need to do is point and shoot, but never taking the time to teach the person about gun safety, how to hold the gun, how to stand, taking them to the range, etc.

Interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

[fighter_x]

The problem with inserting weapons into empty handed techniques is that it doesn't create weapon techniques, but rather hand techniques with a weapon. This is not the same thing. Its like a blind person wearing reading glasses. On the surface, he moves about doing everything as he usually does, while never properly utilizing the glasses. Like any technique, the key to prowess is practice and familiarization. A weapon is not merely an extension of the limb, it is an extension of your entire person. It effects how you stand, how you think, what you feel, etc.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Movement and handling of a weapon can be very different from empty handed techniques. Just look at some of the MA that incorporate Japanese swords into their curriculum, the spins, and the shortening up of the sword would never or very, very rarely happen in legitimate JSA. Generally we fight at a distance, we have a three foot long razor blade, why for goodness sakes, would we close in on an opponent??? And we would never turn our back on an opponent we have not yet killed.

Also look at the issue of a proper grip, translating into a proper strike, I’ve been practicing for 10 ½ years and my grip still needs lots of work. Without a proper grip you may not kill your opponent.

We get people from other arts coming through our club on a regular basis, even the way we move and visualize our opponents are quiet different. It takes years to learn how to move your body in the JSA correctly.

Then again, all that being said, look to Rwanda for example, untrained people with an $8 machete can kill quite easily.

 

[bribrius]

On another forum, I was having a discussion with a few other Kenpo people, on the use of weapons in the Kenpo system, specifically the blade and the stick. There seems to be 2 viewpoints, so I wanted to post this here, and get some other opinions.

Some feel that as long as you have a good idea of the ideas, concepts and principles that the empty hand techniques teach, that you could put a blade in your hand, and be proficient with the weapon. In other words, you should be capable of doing an empty hand tech. with the blade in your hand, as well as having a solid understanding of how to use the blade, how it can be used against you, etc.

My thought on this is that, yes, while you can do your techs with a weapon in your hand, that will only take your knowledge of the weapon so far. Anyone could put something in their hand and use it, but IMO, its not really teaching you the ins and outs of it. I feel that if you really want to have a solid understanding of the weapon, you need to go to someone who can teach you properly. I mean, it'd be like giving someone a gun, and saying all you need to do is point and shoot, but never taking the time to teach the person about gun safety, how to hold the gun, how to stand, taking them to the range, etc.

Interested in hearing your thoughts.

eskrima is the opposite. you are introduced to weapons and then move to open hand. seems to work.

considering your debate. I agree with both sides. What you are arguing about is the the level of weapons training.

 

[seasoned]

I do thing that we can take our MA to the extreme in peaceful times. Whether with a weapon or empty hand the purpose was always to kill or maim someone. Straight forward and direct with nothing fancy. In my art of Okinawan GoJu the Bo or Staff is used. When we first learned it it was taught as an extension of our hand techniques, and this has served us well. If you were to look at what it has become in tournaments, you will understand what I am talking about. In order to make the Bo more interesting to the spectators, practitioners have taken this sample weapon and turned it into a marching band baton, with all of it's over head swinging and nonessential moves. I understand that this 6' weapon will need some extra consideration while wielding it, but in my opinion not to the extent that it is portrayed to the public. On the other hand there are "weapons arts" that get very involved, but these are arts unto themselves. Once you mix the two, one has to dominate while the other is auxiliary, IMO.

 

[MANOS: THE HANDS OF FATE]

I'm taking Balintawak where we start out with a weapon/stick and then the empty hands. My impression is that there is a significant difference between the two that demand much personal instruction with a weapon. Knowing how to do one (empty hands) that not mean you can do the other (weapon) at all. There are so many uses for a weapon that I have not even considered until I had proper instruction.

I'll tell you this, If I was threatened by someone with a weapon (non-firearm) that showed a impressive level of dexterity with it-- I would not engage unless escape was not possible.

 

[Langenschwert]

Some feel that as long as you have a good idea of the ideas, concepts and principles that the empty hand techniques teach, that you could put a blade in your hand, and be proficient with the weapon. In other words, you should be capable of doing an empty hand tech. with the blade in your hand, as well as having a solid understanding of how to use the blade, how it can be used against you, etc.

This is a load of nonsense IMO. I've trained a lot of people with lots of empty hand experience who were transitioning to sword/dagger work. The amount of bad habits that empty-hand practicioners initially transfer to weapons is telling. I've seen the following:

False Time (Moving the body into range before the weapon is moving to protect you)
Blocking sword attacks with the arm during sparring
Wanting to go for a choke when the opponent's knife is free
Going for leg attacks, leaving the head open
Letting free hand wander away from body (easy, dibilitating target for a sword)

And that's people with significant experience in unarmed MA. The plain and simple truth is that getting into an armed confrontation with only unarmed MA experience is a recipe for distaster.

However, extensive training in unarmed MA gives one range and timing and reasonable body mechancis... that certainly makes the learning curve a bit faster. But isn't a replacement for dedicated weapons training.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[seasoned]

We must define what weapons we are talking about. Modern or traditional. From a traditional point of view I am looking at the old weapons, which were an extension of the art taught at the time.

 

[Jenna]

For the purpose of this discourse, I think it would be clearer if we viewed empty hands as weapons in themselves.

In that case when we train unarmed we are actually training to use the limbs as weapons. Therefore when we train with weapons we are necessarily utilising an entirely different set of mechanics to achieve the blows and the defence of those blows.

Of course, while there are external similarities between perhaps for example a hook punch and a blade slash, training in the one cannot be automatically assumed to give proficiency in the other [either way around]

I think the disciplines are different. I think they are different enough to say that if you are not trained in use of a weapon, then feeling you will be able to wield that weapon by virtue of empty hand adeptness would be imprudent. And similarly the other way about if that makes sense

Jenna x

 

[seasoned]

For the purpose of this discourse, I think it would be clearer if we viewed empty hands as weapons in themselves.

In that case when we train unarmed we are actually training to use the limbs as weapons. Therefore when we train with weapons we are necessarily utilizing an entirely different set of mechanics to achieve the blows and the defense of those blows.

Of course, while there are external similarities between perhaps for example a hook punch and a blade slash, training in the one cannot be automatically assumed to give proficiency in the other [either way around]

I think the disciplines are different. I think they are different enough to say that if you are not trained in use of a weapon, then feeling you will be able to wield that weapon by virtue of empty hand adeptness would be imprudent. And similarly the other way about if that makes sense

Jenna x

It makes perfect sense Jenna. I guess what I am saying, is what has already been said. By an extension of our unarmed techniques, perhaps all the body mechanics are there, and only needs familiarization with any particular weapon to become functional. The weapons of Okinawa contain punching and blocking with the weapon in hand, the same as if the hand was empty. Add that with the "become one with the weapon" concept, and there it is. IMO

 

[Jenna]

It makes perfect sense Jenna. I guess what I am saying, is what has already been said. By an extension of our unarmed techniques, perhaps all the body mechanics are there, and only needs familiarization with any particular weapon to become functional. The weapons of Okinawa contain punching and blocking with the weapon in hand, the same as if the hand was empty. Add that with the "become one with the weapon" concept, and there it is. IMO

Oh yes I agree entirely entirely! I think one proficient in unarmed technique will be much easier to train in armed technique and vice versa - particularly if the two are formed from the same root system I would only suggest that it would be imprudent to assume that skill in one automatically confers skill in the other Jenna xox

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I do think a practitioner from a completely unarmed martial system can make a faster leap learning weapons/tools. However, there is no substitute for actual practice with what you are using. There is also no substitute for understanding based on practice the properties of different weapons/tools. Personally I think systems like the FMA's and Budo Taijutsu have it right with learning to utilize tools early on and in conjunction with the movement that also transfers to empty hand skill sets. To many systems have weapons/tools as ad on's that happen at a later date and quite unfortunately these ad on weapon/tool systems teach mechanics that work against the principles and properties of the tools they are utilizing. I have seen some god awful stuff out there and let's just say that is not what you want to be relying on in a moment of violence!

 

[BloodMoney]

I remember a friend asking why I bothered drilling weapon techniques, using the same arguments (just do empty hand but with a knife in etc).

I told him to roll up his sleeves, and gave him a marker pen, and said go.

He went through a few attacks, basically his open hand drills, with a knife in his hand.

Afterwards I said 'now look at your arms'. He had pen marks all over them.

'Yeah you just cut up your own arms, in fact that one there slit your wrist length ways'.

He didnt have much to say after that. He didnt realize that by introducing a knife into your hand it can (and usually does) completely change how you would attack, you have to be a lot more careful and precise.

 

[Chris Parker]

On another forum, I was having a discussion with a few other Kenpo people, on the use of weapons in the Kenpo system, specifically the blade and the stick. There seems to be 2 viewpoints, so I wanted to post this here, and get some other opinions.

Some feel that as long as you have a good idea of the ideas, concepts and principles that the empty hand techniques teach, that you could put a blade in your hand, and be proficient with the weapon. In other words, you should be capable of doing an empty hand tech. with the blade in your hand, as well as having a solid understanding of how to use the blade, how it can be used against you, etc.

My thought on this is that, yes, while you can do your techs with a weapon in your hand, that will only take your knowledge of the weapon so far. Anyone could put something in their hand and use it, but IMO, its not really teaching you the ins and outs of it. I feel that if you really want to have a solid understanding of the weapon, you need to go to someone who can teach you properly. I mean, it'd be like giving someone a gun, and saying all you need to do is point and shoot, but never taking the time to teach the person about gun safety, how to hold the gun, how to stand, taking them to the range, etc.

Interested in hearing your thoughts.

Hey Mike,

While I can see where your compatriats are coming from, frankly, no. It's the equivalent of saying that because you can play table-tennis, you can play tennis. There are definate similarities, even down to the name, but that's it.

I've come across a number of unarmed teachers and practitioners (even some of my former teachers as well) who use a similar claim (just use your unarmed, but with a weapon), even to the point of hearing it fairly frequently in an art you may expect to actually be good with a weapon... unfortunately, I've come across a number who misunderstand what is meant, and don't really understand the weapons in question, leading to a distinct lack of skill there (to be completely clear, this system does also have quite a number of practitioners who are quite good with weapons o f various forms, but as the unarmed is the focus, with the weapons added to it, that shows in a number of places).

A weapon really needs to be studied on it's own merits. That really is the only way that any skill or understanding of the weapon can be attained. Now, I'm not suggesting that someone trained purely in unarmed shouldn't be willing to pick up a weapon in defence of their own life should the need arise, or that the skills are completely alien to each other, but to simply state that "unarmed techniques plus weapon equals weapon techniques" is to dangerously miss the reality of the situations and environments. It's really no different to our discussions of "just taking stand-up techniques to the ground" and expecting them to work.

 

[MJS]

Thanks for the replies everyone! To address a few members:

Seasoned: The weapon in question that sparked me to ask the question here, was the knife.

Fighter x, Chris, Brian, Langenschwert, I agree 100% with what you're all saying. One of the things that I like about Arnis, is how the weapon techniques, and the empty hand techs all transition. Let me clarify. I could take one of the stick vs. stick disarms that we have, and perform my disarm. I could do that same disarm, me being unarmed. I could replace the stick with a blade, and still do the same disarm, of course, with some slight modifications.

These of course, are all solid techs. that were developed and taught by GM Remy Presas. Its a tech with the weapon in mind, not simply taking the weapon and performing the empty hand tech. What the Kenpo folks on that other thread are doing, is just what you all said...putting a knife in hand, and going thru empty hand moves.

IMO, that is not teaching anyting about the knife or fighting with the knife. There are things in the FMA techs that most likely will not be found by the Kenpo guy picking up the blade and doing techs.

And Chris, yes, thanks for bringing up the discussion about the upright techs being done on the ground. This is the mentality that I'm talking about. LOL. I believe I shared that video clip with you (if I didn't let me know) so you know what I'm talking about. LOL.

This is the point that I 'tried' to make. You're not going to improve your knowledge of the weapon, unless you're studying that weapon.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Yes MJS as you know we tend to think a like.

A weapon/tool needs to be understood by it's different properties. Just because you study an empty hand system does not mean you can fire a firearm well at all. With a stick or a knife it is no different. There are all kinds of different tools such as chemical, natural, every day or man made objects to list some. Anything can be used but that understanding of the properties of what you are using is essential. The understanding then must be coupled with training in order to complete the process. The same argument is often made by systems that do not grapple. They say anything that you can do standing up you can do on the ground. To some extent this is true but.... by utilizing a stand up system will not make you very capable on the ground. (maybe better than someone with no training) Particularly if you come across someone who understands working on the ground. Then you are really in for it unless of course you simply have better attributes and mental toughness. No in the end the only way to be good at some thing is to practice it well with someone that knows what they are doing!

 

[jks9199]

In my system, the weapon hand and the empty hand are related. The weapon is an extension of the hand; the body dynamics and general principles apply whether the weapon is a hammer fist, a stick, or a blade. However, that's not to say that you don't need to spend time learning specifics of each weapon. Sure, the gross body dynamics are much the same between an upward diagonal (for discussion, right hip to left shoulder line) hammer fist, short stick strike, or kukri or knife cut. But, for example, blade alignment with the cut is vital for the edged weapon, and minimal for the stick -- but important again with the fist (unless you want to see what broken hand bones feel like, of course!) A straight punch becomes one of a couple of stick strikes or knife thrusts/cuts -- but there are details to each that are weapon specific.

I will say that if you have poor empty hand body dynamics, you will almost certainly have problems with weapons -- and if you have poor body dynamics with weapons, you will almost certainly have problems with the empty hand!

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

That's one of the reasons I spend short little sessions with my boys and their Nerf swords or lightsabers.

They have fun while I am laying groundwork for future study and attribute development. Playfight a little, make them work a technique or a combo, have them use it and then a little more playfight.

It works, I've been doing this with the 8 year old for almost 3 years and a couple weeks back him and a friend of his were play fencing with the nerf swords and my boy used alot of the things he learned to defeat his buddy 90% of the time.

Mock weapons, playfighting and Judo, good for a boy as long as you teach him morality as well.
Better for him than his Nintendo DS at least.

 

[seasoned]

[/quote]=MJS;1324300]Thanks for the replies everyone! To address a few members:

[/quote]=Seasoned: The weapon in question that sparked me to ask the question here, was the knife.

Thanks, Mike. My comments were geared toward the Okinawan Kobudo. They were for the most part developed from farm implements. Sorry to perhaps take the thread off tract. Bo, Sai, Tonfa, Nunchaku, and Kama are the weapons I am familiar with. All are an extention of hand techniques, with strikes and blocks within them. Not to be taken lightly in their pratice, where it takes years to become "one with the weapon". Great thread, thanks.

 

[Balrog]

We started teaching weapons in the ATA 15 years or so ago. For the longest time, we didn't do weapons. Then the Grandmaster had a change of heart and said the best way to learn how to defend against a weapon is to first learn how to use the weapon.

Can't say that I argue with him on that.