Expert Village....

**judoka_uk** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 6:31pm

For the record, I definitely don't get it.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 6:32pm

From a quick look around the internet the 3 sectional is (possibly) much older than the Ming dynasty, but of course no one fucking knows where it originated (Wiki proudly states there is no historical evidence but maybe it came from Song dynasty times).

Oh well...no shock there, no one fucking knows which explains all the tall tales.

For all we know the 3 section could be some sort of ancient tool, rather than a weapon. That is allegedly also the origin of the monk's spade (which is largely a shovel).

**Colin** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 6:34pm

Originally Posted by judoka_uk

For the record, I definitely don't get it.

This might help:

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 6:36pm

Hung ga baby.

Fifth Brother Eight Trigram Pole.

**judoka_uk** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 6:52pm

I really need to gather up my notes and publish the shaolin part of my CMA history thread.

However, in the meantime there is zero evidence for a three part staff being in use in the ming period. They were all solid, single shaft staffs, we have illustrations and many technical diagrams from manuals detailing not only Shaolin methods, but also mutliple other styles.

None of them feature a 3 part staff. Furthermore, in the period, there is much criticism of the over emphasis of Shaolin on the staff and its deleterious effects for combat, because the spear was considered superior and the application of staff methods to spear practice not to be sufficient.

It must be considered that even in the 17th century there was concern amongst senior military personnel and martial artists about the dilution of combat efficacy of martial arts in general and the styles eminating from the Shaolin monastery in particular. As many martial artists made their living being 'rivers and lakes' i.e itinerant travels more and more techniques for show and crowd appeal crept in and for money reasons pushed out the combat effective techniques.

As a result many people purported to be teaching Shaolin martial arts and indeed genuine 'teh deadly' martial arts without any real qualifications. Bullshido is nothing new and even 400 years ago people were trying to deal with it.

So what you have to bear in mind is that if we are having problems with 'teh genuine shaolin' in 1610. Then anything you've been told in the 20th century is highly likely to be heaviy tainted with BS.

**Colin** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 6:59pm

Originally Posted by judoka_uk

I really need to gather up my notes and publish the shaolin part of my CMA history thread.

orly?

It's not like you already have the entire senior membership of the site already hanging on the edge of their seat for your shaolin report! bring it on! (gonna go right now and make sure I'm subbed to the thread)

Furthermore, this is the thread: (for those who didn't know)

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=105854

**BrassMan** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 7:18pm

Originally Posted by judoka_uk

The real Shaolin staffs from the Ming period, when they were actually used for fighting against bandits and occasionaly in battle against Wako pirates. Were made of either wood or iron, were 8-9 feet long for wooden staffs and just shy of 8 foot for metal staffs. Wooden staffs weighed 3-4lbs and metal ones 19-21lbs.

That sounds extremely heavy, bordering on unusable. Do you know if any re-enactors have tested a staff weighted to 20lb?

**Colin** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 7:24pm

Originally Posted by BrassMan

That sounds extremely heavy, bordering on unusable. Do you know if any re-enactors have tested a staff weighted to 20lb?

Swing a crowbar around.

Not a Rebar.

Not a Jimmy Bar.

A CROW bar.

Then YOU can become a 're-enactor'.

**judoka_uk** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 7:27pm

Originally Posted by BrassMan

That sounds extremely heavy, bordering on unusable. Do you know if any re-enactors have tested a staff weighted to 20lb?

I have no idea if re-enactors have tested it. However, the contemporary source puts it at that weight.

It may be significant that during this period the Shaolin monks were actually expected to fight people and so a heavy, impactful staff may well have been necessary to overcome adversaries. And so an sturdy staff would be beneficial. However, on the flip side many monks died in military campaigns they took part in and their military significance was more psycological than tactical.

**BrassMan** · Posted On: 5/14/2011 7:53pm

I'm having trouble finding weights of surviving polearms, but from memory that is two to three times the weight that I would expect. Is it possible that the metal staffs were similar to Baring Swords? only for ceremonial use, not for hitting anyone?

Re reading your post, that seems to be what you are saying.

Colin: I can swing a 14lb sledge with little trouble (go me!), but that doesn't make it a practical weapon. HEMA-types would be better than re-enactors, but I can't see many of them being into Shaolin history.