Naughty Gorilla...There is no way to prove it, but the evidence is fairly strong.
Bob Nelson..."This topic should be retitled - "luck wins against unskilled opponents"-- Im sure there were 10,000 sword victories over sticks that went unnoticed"
I would definitely not call it luck. A staff has much more range, and it can be choked up on, if someone with a shorter weapon gets too close, thus it has the advantage over a sword. Now a sword is much deadlier, but not if you give the staf a blade at the end and turn it into a spear, glaive, bill or halberd with langets. In one on one combat, I would personally take the bladed staff anyday. A sword is more versatile, and better for closer ranged fighting. A good weapon that can be carried around practically. There could very well have been many victories of a sword over a staff, but it depends on who is weilding them. I still say the staff has the advantage.
Bob Nelson..."Having a sword was far preferable than Nunchaku or any other woden counterpart for close combat"
Well, the nunchaku are very close range, plus I feel they are a bad weapon. Just my opinion. If you made one stick on the nunchaku significantly longer and the other a bit shorter you would have a nice flail like the ones used in Europe.
As I said, a sword is much deadlier than a plain staff, but I still feel a good practitioner of the quarterstaff would give a swordsman hell, and if the staff had a blade, like I mentioned before, then it is just as deadly as a sword.
hackett..."That's a really weird statement. Don't you think the fact that the Spaniards took over the Philippines has more to do with it? Something like 1/5 of the Tagalog vocabulary is words of Spanish origin."
Yes, I think that had a lot to do with it, but the fact that a great deal of the vocabulary used in the fighting systems is Spanish, shows some evidence that the system adapted and probably incorporated Spanish techniques or may even have been revamped. Especially with terms like "Espada Y Daga" which means "sword and dagger". Sword and dagger fighting was used all over Europe for centuries and complete systems for it can be found in numerous manuals from the 16th through 17th centuries (up till the 18th in Spain).
hacket..."The question about Filipino arts vs. Spanish arts seems kind of silly to me anyway. Filipino martial arts aren't as concerned with "lineage" as Japanese arts, for example. They're of a military background and simply use whatever works. With the huge Spanish influence on Filipino culture, of course that will be extended to the martial arts."
It's not a question of lineage, it is a matter of cultural pride. The filipino's were conquered by the Spaniards and under their rule for 3 centuries. This causes a lot of anger and many people like to downplay the Spanish because the are the "bad guys". It's not fun to think that your people may have adapted much from their former overlords, especially the way they fight. It is natural cultural pride to want to say "this is our own". Some filipino kali masters even admit the large influence of the Spaniards on their system.
Stickgrappler..."if the spear wielder was highly skilled, he would beat other weapons, if the average foot soldier wielded the spear, he would not beat a highly skilled swordsman."
Not necessarily. Of course it is possible for an "average skilled" spearman to get beat by a highly skilled swordsman, but being that the spear has the advantage my nature, it could easly go the other way.
"The short staff or half pike, forest bill, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of perfect length, have the advantage against the battle axe, the halberd, the black bill, the two handed sword, the sword and target, and are too hard for two swords and daggers, or two rapier and poniards with gauntlets, and for the long staff and morris pike." - George Silver, 1599
lunitic-
no comment on my post?
I was getting there...lol
sreiter..."first off - all phillipine history was writen by non fillipinos - so you have to take any account w/a grain of salt - since spain was eventually the victor - its easy to see why magellan only had 50 guy's to the PI's 5000"
I am not sure what you're getting at here.
"everyone in the world went to a very thin rapier, almost a foil. the perfect sword was supposed to arch and bend in half when thrust against a wall"
I believe the weapon you are referring to here is a smallsword.
ttt nice tread
PC
You got the boxing question correct. Good info on the details too. I'll post some stuff on that myself when I have more time.
As for stevekt's commentary on the Spanish in the Phillipines, you're actually not totally correct. The supposed superiority of Filipino fighting arts over Spanish swordsmanship has been played up in recent years, but it has little basis in fact. People are always talking about Magellan's death, but, if you've ever read the period account of it by Antonio Pigafetta, you'd see that the Spanish actually put up a good fight that day on Mactan Island, especially considering that it was less than 50 Spaniards against over 1000 natives!
Also, don't forget that the Spanish were in the Phillipines for well over 300 years. And, don't you find it curious as to why so many terms in the Filipino arts are Spanish expressions (espada y daga, punyo, etc)?
TFS - I'd guess at boxing.
The main difference between old (ie. pre-Queensbury Rules of 1867) and modern boxing is that wrestling was allowed. Throws above the waist were permitted, for example the cross-buttock throw. Also, a round ended with a take-down/knock-down, rather than after a set time.
According to Pierce Egan's 'Boxiana' (1812), the lead hand was primarily used to block or grab the opponent, and the rear hand was used to launch attacks.
As for Greek boxing, if you want to go that far back, here are some of the differences (NB. as always when dealing with the ancient world, insert "The evidence leads me to believe..." before each of these):
- Open-handed attacks were allowed.
- You could attack the eyes (eg. with your thumb).
- You could hit the groin.
- You could attack a fallen opponent.
- Only a KO or submission ended the fight.
- If you clinched, you got beaten with a stick.
- You were allowed to grab with one hand and hit with the other.
- The lead hand was considered the guarding hand.
- Before the 4th century BC, boxers wore the 'soft thongs' (strips of leather wrapped around the wrist and/or hand). After this, they wore the 'sharp thongs' (they incorporated a hard bit of leather which could cut the flesh).
Some Spaniards went to the Phillipines a long time a go and got their asses handed to them by the local stick weilding Pinoys.
Ye Lunatic has gone above and beyond the call of duty in answering my first question. Yep, Richard Peeke beat up the 3 Spanish rapier & dagger men, and Musashi was humbled for once by Muso Gonnosuke.
One note on the handling of the quarterstaff: it is possible that the way this weapon was handled by 19th century practioners was a little different than the way it was used in Elizabethan times. I believe that, in the 16th century, the staff was divided into "quarters" (hence its name), and one could shift one's grip from quarter to quarter, as the situation demanded. The typical manner of use was not the "half-staffing" so commonly seen in Robin Hood flicks--instead, the staff could be held, for all intents and purposes, like a two-handed sword (and these two weapons were often wielded according to similar governing principles). Therefore, depending upon the length of the staff (6-8 feet), one could have anywhere from 4 to 6 feet of staff in front of him, giving the user a tremendous reach advantage (what type of wood was used could also of course be a factor here--ash was preferred to oak as it was both lighter and more flexible).
And that reach advantage is one of the assests of the staff that is so stressed by George Silver. It is also one of the main advantages that allowed Peeke to do what he did. Notice what Ye Lunatic quoted from Silver: "The short staff (quarterstaff) hath the vantage over two swords and daggers..." Peeke's victory was not some far-fetched Hollywood tale, it was merely an exceptional example of a weapon that was, as J. Christoph Amberger might say, superior by definition.
As for RobRPM2222's question, Ye Lunatic is also correct about Dan Inosanto teaching Bruce the use of the 'chucks. One can also see a distinct fencing influence on Bruce's style (Bruce had a brother who fenced in college) in the fight sequence in "Game of Death" where Bruce squares off against Dan using a rather thin, tapered piece of rattan or bamboo. Bruce saw the similarities between modern fencing and Wing Chun, and put those similarities to good use. Bruce was obsessed with the concept of the "stop-hit", which is one of fencing's most typical techniques.
Good job, guys... let's keep it going!
As I remember, Gonnosuke Muso's bo was (supposedly) cut by Musashi in their first encounter, and he used the resulting shorter staff in the next, known as a jo.
What kind of wood would one they have used for a staff, anyway?
Great thread, btw.
In Europe, ash was definitely the preferred wood for polearms or staff weapons, although other types of wood were also used. Ash is great because it is lighter than oak (hence can be wielded with greater speed), stronger than oak (always a good thing), and has some flexibility (oak has a tendency to crack or split).
In Japan, one of the main woods of choice was Japanese oak, which should not be confused with the cheap type of oak used commercially for mass-produced bokkens and whatnot. Michael Finn's book on Jodo gives some info on this.
Okay, let's continue...
What specific Western fighting art (and sport) has been theorized as possibly having a strong influence on the Chinese system of Wing Chun?
BONUS: After naming the art in question, can anyone tell me the various differences between the art as originally practiced, and the modern sport of today? I'm talking about both techniques AND rules.
I'll post specifics of what differences I know about between English and Asian staff handling when I have more time.
Great thread!
I wish HTML was on, I would post pics. Well, supposedly the stick was divided into imaginary sections, the ends being called the "quarterpoints".
R.G.A.Winn, a 19th century master at arms, and a noted practitioner of the quarterstaff, Saber, and Singlestick, wrote in his book
"Broadsword & Singlestick"
"The quarterstaff gets it's name
from the fact that it was gripped at
the quarterpoints, and the centre
of the staff.
With the left hand at the
centre, ( palm upwards ) and the
right hand at the lower quarterpoint, ( palm down )"
No one really knows what quaterstaff fighting exactly looked like in the Renaissance (it is a dead art, although some clowns may claim they teach an original form of it) and styles must have differed from country to country. In almost all the woodcuts I have seen though, from the 16th century through the 18th, the practitioner was always holding the staff as described above; with one hand on the end, and one near the center, pointing the stick at his opponent.
ttt
heading home and hopefully this thread will still be alive for TrueFightScholar.
stickgrappler - you've got you terms a little mixed up
stick = "-" is a roof block
stick = "/" is a umbrella as long as you finish it like a redonda, thats how you do a umbrella 6 count - if you just hold it there it's called a high wing
stick ="\" is a pluma. it roughly means a quill. you hold the stick like you would a writing quill.
i trained with dan inosanto and these are his terms - i trained with leo gaje' and these were his terms too. (i dont remember what he called the pluma). it is entirely possible that marc denny got the terms totally worng. it wouldnt be the first time. (the fang, isnt the fang at all)
Congrats to hackett for getting the Japanese two-handed sword question correct--yep, NO-DACHI was the answer (good job from IBI as well)! The no-dachi was essentially an oversized katana, some 5-6 feet long, usually with little or no ornamentation--these were strictly battlefield weapons. It could be slung across the back while on the march (much like the Scottish "claymore"), though it was probably more often carried "at the slope", as one would shoulder a rifle (and this is the manner in which German "landsknecht" infantrymen, and their Swiss adversaries, are shown carrying their two-handers). I believe the blade was sometimes simply wrapped in rice paper (as opposed to being carried in a proper scabbard), which was removed and discarded before action. Capable of terrible, sweeping cuts, the no-dachi was indeed a formidable sword.
sdumas--looks like other folks beat me to the punch in regards to the info on the Dempsey book--good luck finding it!
Next post fairly soon...
Q: Name the first wrestling manual to be published in
the english language. Bonus points for the year of the
initial publication.
Jason Couch (hoping he has the correct answer)
in reguards to the fillipino changing boxing - still tring to get all the info - all i got now is it was sometime during the american occupation
" Like I said, when they punched it was more with a vertical fist. If it wasn't practical, why would they be using it for so long in a dynamic, contact sport? "
"In any contact, combat sport you are fighting against a live opponent, if a combat style is impractical when being used against a live, resisting opponent, it will show. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to hit effectively. We are talking about a sport that was around for hundreds of years...you don't think that in all time boxers didn't figure out how to punch effectively? "
well bruce lee found that the strong hand lead was more effective. why then do boxers remain in a weak hand lead for so long?
truefight - most interesting origins of my last name - no wonder i'm such a bad azz (j/k)- however it might explain my father being in the partisans, my brother being a golden glove boxer and a cop, and me a martial artist
as far as the stage fighting thing goes - what i meant to say was - in all the schools i've seen but her and new york (not sure if mr martinez is part of that NYC school) stage fighting class are the only place to learn 1600-1800 style of sword play. al these schools have masters teaching these and eppee/foil/sabre clases. the compition style of fencing, state of the art is totally different then 1600-1800 style. purhaps it's a marketing ploy to call it stage copmbat for actors to take classes. purhaps it's because the only place to put it to use is in the acting area, as fencing compitions dont use this type of movements - granted there certainly are carry overs - but all type of slashing and hacking movements and their counters are no longer part of the game - it is much quicker/effective to thrust then to slash or hack. plus in point matches (psydo duels) there's not much need for dismemberment like there might be in war.
i never said the spanish couldnt fight however i do think the fillipinos where better trained as a whole -
the noblity were really the only ones highly trained in the art swordsmanship other than the occasional bad ass street dude. much like todays martial artist. the military, just like our own military is trained to be effective in the most efficient manner. they dont try to make the soilders olympic grade shooters, just good enough to get the job done. and the hand to hand is miminal a few weeks at best, compaired to a martial artist who devotes years or a life time to training. the fillipino's trained like martial artists - you werent allow to even leave your village unless you were highly skilled - that had nothing to do but farm and train all day. they had to train heavily because they had to defend their villages from being invaded by other villages. even as recently as wwII the bolo battalians train all day long. they had nothing else to do - go on patrol and train. thats it -
even though i'm a instuctor of FMA - i was interested in western sword play sa well -i ws planning on getting in to it but bjj kinda sidetracked me. i dont even practise kali anymore (kali = escrima/arnis)
as far as the palms up punching - lets say that i was off (not that i admit that yet) - and i missunderstood what i was told - it was shown on his thread that the stand still was different and the punches still different than today. the changes still could have been brought about by a fillipino bad ass boxer
Hey Hy-
Bar is less than two weeks. Nerves are starting in a
little :-)
BTW, your site is better than ever, keep it up!
Ye Lunatic-
Not my site, it belongs to Keith Myers, although we
do get together and work out now and then. He's
working on a site for the German medieval dagger
and unarmed tradition now.
It is unbelievable how much info is available in the
extant western fight manuals out there. Biggest problem
I see right now is that some guys translating and/or
sharing and demonstrating the info don't always have
a firm grounding in the practical side. I'm sure that
will change with time, though, particularly as the info
gets disseminated more broadly.
Jason