:iamwithst That would just make you ultra skinny. yawn. Eat a sandwich you bolemic Paris wannabe.
Originally Posted by Kidspatula
You are a girl dimwit.
Neither does a dickload of smilies. :jerkit2yf :XXbuzzsaw :iamwithst :headbang: :violent5: :XXbazooka :f-off:
Or making three posts to reply to one, single post.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Make the damned video you ribbon dancing fairy ****.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AnnaTrocity again.
As someone with a kung fu geek brother (at least 7 years now) who's learned a bunch of crazy-ass Chinese weapons (lots of the section weapons, lots of swords), there seems to be a simple truth here.
From what I know (learned and observed), Chinese kung fu weapons have a great deal of novelty, essentially because various masters would go out and invent exotic weapons so that (a) they could win duels with novelty ("Hey, whatís that? What the hellOH **** *death*) (b) they could teach it for money ("I want to learn Crazy-Monkey-Sword-Staff-Chuck!Ē). Chinese soldiers throughout history did not use these weapons- they used swords, spears, and various pole arms, because they wanted to stay alive and couldn't dedicate 7 years to learning a new novelty weapon that might break in your first encounter with no ready replacement, leaving you unarmed and useless (Right now, my bro is learning My Jong Law Horn, which is a stripped-down compilation kung fu designed for soldiers in some war I canít mention. They tend toward practicality, from what I understand, and not crazy sections)
You could definitely hurt someone with a 3 section staff. You could probably hurt them a lot. That doesn't make it a godlike practical weapon used in war. I would rather have a big-ass spear, for with which to poke my enemies and kill them with pointy-ness.
How to use a three section staff effectively:
1. Use it like two seperate sticks
2. Gab one end and the middle and use it like a regular flail
3. Do not under any circumstances use it like a three section staff.
4. Take it apart and use the sticks as clubs.
Originally Posted by MEGA JESUS-SAN
^Probably the most important step.
Yeah, but nobody maintained a lineage in them. All modern Western arts seem to date from the 18th-19th centuries* except for those that were deliberately reconstructed in the 20th. This is KFDW's point.
Originally Posted by MEGA JESUS-SAN
Mind you, Asian TMAs have lineage** issues too, such that boasting based on knowing that lineage is premature.
Therefore, fantasies about arming sword-fighting ancestors are just as silly as those about three-section staff fighting ancestors.***
That said, there are weapons in CMA curricula that exist to put extra stress on the practitioner's athletic ability at least as much as have any practical use, and some weapons that were almost definitely only used for that kind of stress training.
* From what I've been able to determine, there's no proof that what the Greeks and Romans called boxing and wrestling provided a series of teachers leading to what we called boxing and wrestling. "Greco-Roman" appears to be a rules set for folkstyle techniques reconstituted to reconstruct that form. And in the last few hundred years or so, pugilism has changed so radically that you'd be hard-pressed to say there was a continuous recognizable lineage there, either. Sport fencing has ample evidence for gradual transformation (smallsword->foil, especially), but nobody considers it a martial art when they being WMA Dudes.
** Examples: Japanese koryu are mostly regulated and taught according to the customs that governed old (late Tokugawa/Meiji) trade associations, not the Sengoku/Tokugawa military hierarchies they supposedly come from. As JFS has pointed out, CMA lineages have a large element of myth in them, to the point where in (or example) Xingyi's case, you have ancient founders who existed centuries before the first guys we actually know for sure existed. Modern karate probably looks nothing like ancient te or te CMAs it takes inspiration from, and all the schools date to the 19th Century.
***Basically, all this fantasizing about how a cadre of Chinese bannermen or knights did things is a dumb waste of time. I suspect that the social framework aruond violence was probably so different that it isn't easy to even know what constituted a fight when people read about them.