Weapons Training???? Why is your Karate not good enough?

[Toptomcat]

Ever trained in weapons???

Techniques learned with a sai could be easily adapted to a stick of the same size. This is true of nunchaku as well.... ever heard of a sap??? Take a sock and put something heavy in it... a rock, a bar of soap, a lock, even change.... Then wield it like nunchaku; it is a very effective weapon.

Techniques learned on a cama could very easily be adapted to a standard hammer. It has the same basic shape with a lot more weight.

Techniques learned on tonfa could be adapted to any T shaped device... a breaker bar with an extension on it... a ratchet with a deep socket attached, a chair leg....

Techniques learned with a bokken, or oar, could be easily adapted to a bat, or any straight hard object.

The list goes on and on. Proficiency in weapons is always better than nothing.

Okay, first of all: 'kama.' That's the accepted Romanization.

Second, I'd like to address your examples point-by-point.

If training with a sai translates to proficiency with sticks, then why not simply train with sticks? There are a lot of excellent stickfighting arts out there. And the degree to which your sai techniques intelligently exploit the unique features of the sai- its prongs, which enable it to be held in different grips than a stick and to parry other weapons in a unique fashion- is the degree to which they will be unsuitable for use with a typical stick.

Much of proper nunchaku use depends on the balanced nature of the weapon, the fact that you can easily wield it from either end. Use a half-brick in a sock the way you will a nunchaku once you've gotten good with it, and you'll be hitting people with the sock end half the time. It doesn't translate well to an improvised flail with only one weighted end.

As for the kama- if you're using an edged weapon even remotely like a hammer, something is wrong. The defining strength of an edged weapon- the *reason* you put an edge on one- is that a blade behaves much differently than a blunt weapon, requiring far less impact to cause significant injury. Knives are popular and deadly weapons because you can essentially slap-fight someone to death with a sufficiently sharp one. While the kama may be weighted like a hammer, in use it shouldn't even resemble one, and vice versa.

I won't say anything about the tonfa except that your examples seem rather strained for examples of 'typical' items that you're likely to have on or near you in a self-defense situation, unless you're a mechanic or are very good at quickly and precisely breaking chair legs off.

And agreed- staff techniques are widely adaptable.

The question isn't whether proficiency in any weapon is better than nothing- it's whether attaining proficiency in those particular weapons is better than spending the same amount of time and effort studying weapons that will more closely resemble what you're likely to have on hand or close by in a typical self-defense encounter, such as Tallgeese's aforementioned club, knife, and gun. The list shouldn't 'go on and on'- it should be as short and as widely applicable as possible.

[mudansha]

Ever trained in weapons???

Techniques learned with a sai could be easily adapted to a stick of the same size. This is true of nunchaku as well.... ever heard of a sap??? Take a sock and put something heavy in it... a rock, a bar of soap, a lock, even change.... Then wield it like nunchaku; it is a very effective weapon.

Techniques learned on a cama could very easily be adapted to a standard hammer. It has the same basic shape with a lot more weight.

Techniques learned on tonfa could be adapted to any T shaped device... a breaker bar with an extension on it... a ratchet with a deep socket attached, a chair leg....

Techniques learned with a bokken, or oar, could be easily adapted to a bat, or any straight hard object.

The list goes on and on. Proficiency in weapons is always better than nothing.

Okay, first of all: 'kama.' That's the accepted Romanization.

Second, I'd like to address your examples point-by-point.

If training with a sai translates to proficiency with sticks, then why not simply train with sticks? There are a lot of excellent stickfighting arts out there. And the degree to which your sai techniques intelligently exploit the unique features of the sai- its prongs, which enable it to be held in different grips than a stick and to parry other weapons in a unique fashion- is the degree to which they will be unsuitable for use with a typical stick.

Much of proper nunchaku use depends on the balanced nature of the weapon, the fact that you can easily wield it from either end. Use a half-brick in a sock the way you will a nunchaku once you've gotten good with it, and you'll be hitting people with the sock end half the time. It doesn't translate well to an improvised flail with only one weighted end.

As for the kama- if you're using an edged weapon even remotely like a hammer, something is wrong. The defining strength of an edged weapon- the *reason* you put an edge on one- is that a blade behaves much differently than a blunt weapon, requiring far less impact to cause significant injury. Knives are popular and deadly weapons because you can essentially slap-fight someone to death with a sufficiently sharp one. While the kama may be weighted like a hammer, in use it shouldn't even resemble one, and vice versa.

I won't say anything about the tonfa except that your examples seem rather strained for examples of 'typical' items that you're likely to have on or near you in a self-defense situation, unless you're a mechanic or are very good at quickly and precisely breaking chair legs off.

And agreed- staff techniques are widely adaptable.

The question isn't whether proficiency in any weapon is better than nothing- it's whether attaining proficiency in those particular weapons is better than spending the same amount of time and effort studying weapons that will more closely resemble what you're likely to have on hand or close by in a typical self-defense encounter, such as Tallgeese's aforementioned club, knife, and gun. The list shouldn't 'go on and on'- it should be as short and as widely applicable as possible.

We can go back and forth all day long and it wont really change anyone's mind. My argument, however, is the easier to prove. My statement is that proficiency in traditional martial arts weapons will better-prepare you to use objects around you for self defense. Even if it is a minute amount, the statement is correct. Are you stating that being proficient in traditional weaponry will have absolutely no benefit in self defense scenarios?

The other aspect is, why not do both??

I have spent thousands on firearms training and am more proficient with a Glock than a nunchaku, sai, bo staff, or any other traditional weapon. In California, carrying a concealed, loaded weapon without a permit is a misdemeanor where carrying nunchaku is a felony. One might argue that if I am proficient with the glock, why even bother with nunchaku? I take a holistic approach to self defense. I think training in any weapon is beneficial.

[Toptomcat]

The majority of empirical evidence indicates that the 'know lots of techniques' model of martial arts is typically far less successful in practice than the 'know a small, optimally chosen handful of techniques very, very well' model.

[tallgeese]

That's Bruce Siddle's argument. His work "Shapening the Warrior's Edge" is definatly worth a read. It touches heavily on the subject of choosing a few, widley applicable tactics.

It's a solid argument. The trick is picking the best tactics. That's pretty much what we're getting caught up on here to an extent. Personally, I feel that this is where Siddle misses the mark when he develop's PPCT (the DT program he developed for LE use). But that's a personal thing.

That being said, the argument is solid. Less is often more with sd.

[mudansha]

That's Bruce Siddle's argument. His work "Shapening the Warrior's Edge" is definatly worth a read. It touches heavily on the subject of choosing a few, widley applicable tactics.

It's a solid argument. The trick is picking the best tactics. That's pretty much what we're getting caught up on here to an extent. Personally, I feel that this is where Siddle misses the mark when he develop's PPCT (the DT program he developed for LE use). But that's a personal thing.

That being said, the argument is solid. Less is often more with sd.

I think that is aimed more at the black belt level.

It is not up to a white belt to choose specific techniques to "master". Only after the karateka has been exposed to everything, should he decide to start "trimming the fat".

Get proficient with several weapons.... and then settle for one that you choose to master.

If it be the bo staff because it is the most adaptable... then so be it.

[tallgeese]

In the scope of trad weapons, the bo might have the most value. However, I'd still say that a short stick, hanbo or escrima would have more immediate usefulness. Espicially in the day and age of easily accessable collapsable batons.

I think as far as white belt vs. blac belt, it's really up to the instructor and the system rather than the individual student at a certain level. The teacher and his system will define what he teaches. A student will either be into that or not.

At that point it does kind of come back to the white belt student. What are you in it for? Self defense, cultural exploration, exercise, competition, ect. It's a step I think all practitioners at every level need to go thru regularly. It ensures that you're getting the most out of your training time and keeps you on task.

To some white belts, who join for sd purposes, they might need an instructor to guide them towards the training that will let them reach their goals. Conversly, a student who's been training for sd for years might decide that he want to explore something more artistic. I've seen and been through both.

Just some thoughts.

[mudansha]

Well.. unfortunately, here in California, collapsible batons are classified as felonies to posess.

Any stick or hard object carried for personal defense is felony possession of a "billy".

It is also a felony to possess a sap, nunchaku, metal knuckles, weighted gloves, throwing stars, shuriken... et cetera.

Now... if one has a broom stick at his disposal, or a walking stick... and someone happens to attack him, then it is ok to use it for defense, but to carry something easily identifiable as a self-defense weapon, is against the law in California.

Carrying a concealed, loaded firearm, is only a misdemeanor... I think I would rather go that way anyway.

[Fearun9033]

My dojo never trains with weapons of any sort. The only thing close we got were when we did Jitte katas and kihon with a 20 lbs. training bar (those things are heavy as hell...) and pretending it was a Bo staff. It was hardcore, but it was a really good workout and arm strengthening but still no weapon training.

I personally think that, unless you are in a martial art that specifically focuses on weapons (e.g. Kendo), any training with weapon should be extra. I disagree however when you say that it is useless.

Over the summer, I didn't have much to do so I picked up a few nunchucks and started playing around with them. After a few knocks to the nuts and faces, I started practicing seriously. Ok, now Nunchucks are illegal in the streets and I won't be carrying them outside any time soon, but they helped me develop quicker reflexes and most importantly, an incredibly strong and quick grip. My hands were sore after every workout and they become really strong. I found that after, during normal kumite in karate, I am able to better grab incoming kicks and even punches sometimes.

So I guess in conclusion: weapon training widens your knowledge and experience in martial art. Knowing how to use a weapon is better than not knowing how!