With more and more people carrying weapons , and more and more people prepared to do anything (pool cues over the head ,bottles etc) is it essential these days to train with weapon arts ala escrima/kali etc? Following on from this point two, where i live - does have its potential for flare ups and barneys now and again. Yet i rarely if ever see them go to ground. So would you be better learning to defend against a weapon first over learning to grapple?
Interesting sig. Along those lines, is there any concrete evidence to suggest that more people are carrying weapons in your area. I hear lot of people talk about the increase in people packing, but have yet to see studys that actively confirm that claim. Not trying to shoot you down. Just trying to separate fact from hearsay. - Matt
It's all part of a complete fighter's game. You need weapons work, striking, AND grappling to be prepared for any situation.
Tej> barney = fight Matt> round here its mainly just the usual bottles and anything at hand, normally after quite a few bottles of Newcastle Brown Ale
If you think you're likely to be in an armed confrontation get a weapon. Although, if you know it's coming discretion is the better part of valor. On the other side of the argument, you may not get the chance to arm yourself in some cases. Most schools won't teach weapons until a certain point in training under the assumption: If you don't have enough skill to fight without a weapon, how can I teach you to fight with one. Since the weapon is just an extention of the body.
I don't know about that last comment, a fair few schools work it the other way around, teaching the weapon first and the empty handed application of the art later.
True, that would depend on the art in question, within weapon focused arts i.e. Kali, Escrima, Kenjutsu etc... It's more likely to go the other way, but I was speaking about martial arts in general.
Hi Geordie Boy, I was wondering what art you study and where abouts you do it? I am a student in Newcastle and I'm curous whats on offer outside the university?
Very true, as I noted before my first choice if it's unavoidable would be to arm myself. But it's somewhat out of context with the position I was mentioning. The other side is that training with weapons requires greater focus, the added weight and control issues (depending on weapon) make it far more difficult then unarmed training, which fosters more development overall. But then that's a bit off from the topic at hand. Personally I wouldn't try to go for a one or the other situation, I'd say train in both.
Wasn't the overall UK trend supposed to be that there was a decrease in violent crime and a decrease in weapons being used. Although there was an increase in gun crime. Perhaps you have just become more aware of what people are willing to do in a fight. I'd maybe look for something that offers elements of both to begin with. Then you can specialise or expand your horizons later if you feel the need.
Hi Geordie Boy - nice to see another local. My teacher includes weapons training in our Tang Soo Do class at Whitley Bay. Although he teaches the traditional arts, he always looks to what might (hopefully won't) happen in real life. The main benefit of learning a weapon in a class situation is to see what it can do, and what it exposes the 'amature' user to when using it. I know that its unlikely someone will have a 6-foot pole to hit me with, but a nutter in a bar - worse the wear for drink - may start swinging a pool cue about. [Note the word 'amature' - I'm sure the stuff we learn would be of very limited use against a passing Yoda or other stick swinger... ] His main advice for not getting involved in weapons fighting is simply not to be in places where it might happen. The follow on advice is RUN AWAY. Dealing with a weapon carrier is a last resort. Gask - I've always known a Barney as a fight, but seeing in print I just wondered if it may be Cockney rhyming slang - Barney Rubble = Trouble
