Weapons Training?

SmudgeDoodle

I've posted here before with a different username and you guys have always been helpful, so here's hoping you've got some wisdom for me again this time!

I'm living in Dublin and for a while now I've been looking online for weapons training. I'm interested in sword and nunchaku primarily, but I'd try anything really. But all I've found are ordinary martial arts clubs which say they occasionally do weapons, as opposed to any weapons clubs or dedicated classes. My best alternative so far has been trying to work it out myself using the odd youtube videos, but I could do with some proper instruction, or at the very least a sparring partner!

Do any of you have recommendations of where or how I might find something like that?

maguffin

Try here for Iaido.....

http://www.iaido.ie/

hope this helps.

Doug Cartel

You could also try kendo or fencing.

From experience I fond kendo to be a bit far from what I'd seen in samurai films for my liking. Not knocking it, but given that your other weapon of choice is the nunchuck, kendo might not be your cup of tea. Never tried fencing, so I can't say much about it.

There's also Filipino Martial Arts - which focus heavily on stick and short blade weapons - and historical European fencing with broad-swords and the like.

Whatever you do, I don't think watching some videos and then sparring with swords is a good idea.

maguffin

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Whatever you do, I don't think watching some videos and then sparring with swords is a good idea.

I agree entirely....far too dangerous, especially if you engage a training partner.
Also, while Kendo doesn't represent 'samurai' style sword work, it does encompass the 'Kendo No Kata' using wooden bokken, which gives a better insight to actual sword usage.

Dyr

Filipino Martial Arts, one of the few martial arts that teach weapons from day one and trains primarily in weapons. Most other martial arts that train weapons tend to leave it at a couple of forms that senior guys bust out once in a while.

FMA in dublin you have Doces Pares, Warriors Eskrima and Newman Escrima all in the city centre. Lameco Valencia out toward tallaght, and JKD/Karasac Kali in Drimnagh/Blanchardstown. Probably others too but I can't remember 'em.


As for the old nunchuckles, they're called tabay tayok in FMA, was only sparring with a padded pair last night but they don't show up in our curriculum until the second phase of instructor level material.


Other than that Western Martial arts perhaps or good old olympic fencing, then maybe a gun club or archery

Oh yeah the ninja guys use weapons too

Niall Keane

Emptyhand forms the basis for weapon work, timing, range, angle , heavy sparring etc. evasion and counter / recovery is paramount so excellent footwork is a must, there are always drills in any system to train such, but really nothing substitutes for heavy sparring, competition etc. to pressure test and teach us where we err.
So I wouldn't knock systems that require some proficiency prior to weapon work. Consider a Thai boxer who has fought ring side and trained his traditional weapons, or a Kung fu fighter who has a Sanshou background to his training, such individuals should have excellent reflex and awareness, timing, footwork, range and angle all the requirements to be able to deliver "technique". I can't see a European fencer who has only trained for "linear" exchanges being comfortable against someone able to move, switch angle and use two weapons at once?
As for keeping them at point, who's going to be better at "faints and draws" and most kung fu will have studied spear so such tactics and their limitations should be ingrained.
As for "chain" weapons, I'm not a great fan personally, recovery seems harder to control or more so takes more time micro seconds, I agree, but take the idea of striking by swinging at the neck/ side of head, in the tai chi Chuan move "pick a star on the left" a sabre is used, but the left hand is used to stop the swing of the weapon, so maximum power can be delivered, and should you miss (the opponent steps out of range) well he faces the point of the sabre, instead of letting it fall past the target and so opening up or a counter. Now if you use a flail type weapon it will continue and yes you can spin it back, but right there before it recovers back online with the opponent is a fatal flaw, that someone with experience will draw out.... Just saying!


Edit:
I can see the use of a flail to "get around" a shield, but it then doesnt surprise me that they dissappeared from European battlefields when infantry stopped using shields?

Dyr

Niall Keane wrote: »

Emptyhand forms the basis for weapon work,

Weapons work is the basis for weapons work

pearsquasher

Bujinkan is a weapons based japanese martial art...... Several dojo in dublin. Www.happobiken.com for my teachers dojo.

padimus2

I do Filipino Martial arts out in Bray, Classes are evenly split between empty hand and Stick & Knife training from Beginners level.

I'd highly recommend it.

peter11

Depends on what style of sword you want to study,if its japanese you have 2 choices iai jutsu or ken jutsu, but try find a club that teaches sword full time not just as an add on and check out that the style they teach is legit and not something they made up,ask loads of questions and ask on forums about that club,if they have nothing to hide they wont mind.

da mo

Bambi wrote: »

Weapons work is the basis for weapons work

NO.
A weapon is an extention, an extra tool. The first tool to master (or at least get a good foundation) is your body. Footwork, intention, structural principles, energetic principles, dynamics, etc etc.
I'm not saying you can't do weapon practise from day 1, but make sure the basics are not overlooked. Any weapon training is NOT basics, as much as you'd like it to be.

Dyr

da mo wrote: »

NO.
A weapon is an extention, an extra tool. The first tool to master (or at least get a good foundation) is your body. Footwork, intention, structural principles, energetic principles, dynamics, etc etc.
I'm not saying you can't do weapon practise from day 1, but make sure the basics are not overlooked. Any weapon training is NOT basics, as much as you'd like it to be.

em YES?

A weapon is not an extension of the arm. A blade does not just extend your arms function, it allows you to cut, giving it a different function entirely. If you believe a weapon is just an extension of your hand try pick your nose with a blade and let us know how it goes :pac:

The first tool to master (or at least get a good foundation) is your body

Your body is not a tool, it's your body. An important concept to grasp in terms of human evolution I would say.

Any weapon training is NOT basics, as much as you'd like it to be.

Maybe for people who view a weapon as an exotic detour to unarmed training but it is simply basic training. If you want to be good at a skill you do learn and practice that skill not something vaguely related. Simple logic.

da mo

Bambi wrote: »

A weapon is not an extension of the arm. A blade does not just extend your arms function, it allows you to cut, giving it a different function entirely.

Yes, we actually mean the same, excuse me for my poor wording here. It gives you an EXTRA function, exactly. It's an addition. Still, the arm keeps its function, wether there is a fist attached to it or a fist plus blade. The arm is there to control the end tool, such as giving it momentum.

Bambi wrote: »

Your body is not a tool, it's your body. An important concept to grasp in terms of human evolution I would say.

Within the context of MA it can be seen as both a target and a tool. You might not call it such. Again, different use of language. Have it as you wish, I don't see any real ground for argument here.

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe for people who view a weapon as an exotic detour to unarmed training but it is simply basic training.

The key in this conversation is in what you call basic. That depends on your school / style. Some schools train the mind for years before they even get to the body basics. Most schools start with training with the body, then take it to a single partner/opponent. Usually weapons and multiple opponents come later in the system. There's no rules for this, no good or bad.
But what is meant by the word 'basic'? It seems to me that what you mean by basic training is the routines that you do on a daily basis, and that beginners can start doing more or less straight away. Which is fine.
What I mean by basic training is training on the left side of mentioned scale, for argument's sake let me call it: mind - body - application training - complete self-defence
In this scale, weapons only come into play halfway through. As I mentioned before, this doesn't at all mean that you cannot start weapon training from day 1. But skipping the left side of the scale altogether means you're only practising half a martial art at best.

Bambi wrote: »

If you want to be good at a skill you do learn and practice that skill not something vaguely related. Simple logic.

Agreed. And every skill has a base, a foundation. If you're training neither the skill nor its foundation, it would seem to be irrelevant practise altogether.

pearsquasher

Consider this idea - pertaining to mainland Japanese arts.

For a long period of history a large majority of people habitually carried weapons (unlike today).

During that time, study of weapons was essential as it gave you an advantage because
a) a lot of folks had them too
b) it gave you an advantage if they didn't.

The exact same reasoning applies to armed gangs in today's Ireland.... a simple mathematical advantage if you have them. Weapons are force multipliers if used correctly.

So weapons was the norm. It was prudent therefore to train without weapons in case that you lost, broke or dropped your weapon .... so unarmed fighting natural came out of armed fighting. It turns out that the movement of unarmed fighting naturally extended from armed fighting with adjustments made for the fact that your fists/hands are more damageable than wood/metal as well as distance concerns.

The popular way of thinking these days, from what I've seen on popular MA forums is that unarmed came first. WRONG! Armed came first. This popular notion is partially derived from the widespread dissemination of combat sports that exclude weapons in modern times. This idea is a new one... but the classical Japanese MA notion is a more prudent one imo.

A real fight, by necessity, will probably involve weapons. If you do not assume that that is the case, and you end up in one, then you are screwed.

Put it this way, if you suddenly encountered and cornered an intruder in your house, I bet you you would assume that he had a weapon and that you would grab one too, realizing in an instant that if you're right at least you have parity and if you're wrong you now have the advantage.

Martial arts ARE weapons based first an foremost. Everything else is a modern warped offshoot of this idea (MA as a sport, Ma as meditation, MA as physical exercise)

Dyr

pearsquasher wrote: »

Martial arts ARE weapons based first an foremost. Everything else is a modern warped offshoot of this idea (MA as a sport, Ma as meditation, MA as physical exercise)

It's not really warped, training with weapons became an anachronism in society where they were no longer being carried or where they had become outmoded. The rise of unarmed martial arts just reflects that.