<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Fynreswolf:
<B>Just for information, a good quarter staff user can easily kill an fighter in full maximillian plate, there are specific move designed to do just that. A quarterstaff is one of the most useful weapons around, it only is deadly if the trained user wants it to be, ie: kill or damage. I have used a quarterstaff for the lasr 25 years in one or more varients, 3' to 7' long, I happen to prefeer the 6' length.
Dave
Ld Terric in the sca.
p.s. my experience is not sca but real life.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You've killed people in real life?
Sheesh.
Quarterstaffs
-
Jean Paul de Sens
- Archive Member
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Stillwater, OK 74075
- Contact:
-
Jean Paul de Sens
- Archive Member
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Stillwater, OK 74075
- Contact:
-
Stoffel
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: corpus christi, tx
- Contact:
Personally I dont see a difference between me fighting sca with a 6 foot rattan glaive, unpadded, with a spear and butt spike. If I were to design an sca verson of a staff, it would be made the exact same way I made my glaive. I would fight just about the same way I do now, but probaby wouldnt use the spear point all that much.
-
JJ Shred
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10324
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Altamont, Tennessee
- Contact:
At the Denver Bob Charron/Fiore seminar he demonstrated some useful transitions between grappling and dagger with bastions or batons. They were used in a cross grip and you attempted to catch and bind the attacker's dagger, much like the dagger-to-dagger 2-handed work. Some of the spear work also shared quarterstaff techniques, with a butt-spike "well shod in iron" to deliver reverse strikes and thrusts.
Stoffel:
From what I remember being told years ago, the problems with using a staff as a staff were:
1- the power generated by the swings
2- the "return power" one gets when the A end of the stick bounes off a target and you use the momentum generated to hit with the B side of the stick
3- the increased odds of hitting an illegal taget, specifically the lower legs
4- the fact that, in the armour of the time, most of the moves couldn't be performed because of binding.
Granted, 4 has been overcome by quality armourers and 3 is a training issue (IMO)so 1 and 2 are the main reasons. To prevent injuries, the SCA made it illegal to have 2 striking ends on a weapon (top and bottom, per se). Both can thrust, as in a butt spike or the glave you describe, but only one can strike a non-thrusting hit. So I guess, using that description, people that wield a glave with one hand on the end and the other 1/4 the way up are marninally using quarterstaff techniques.
Even when staffs are used in martial arts, unlimited fights are rare at the lower levels because of the danger. Even with training, injuries abound. Still, when considering the cost, it's a great weapon.
Paul
From what I remember being told years ago, the problems with using a staff as a staff were:
1- the power generated by the swings
2- the "return power" one gets when the A end of the stick bounes off a target and you use the momentum generated to hit with the B side of the stick
3- the increased odds of hitting an illegal taget, specifically the lower legs
4- the fact that, in the armour of the time, most of the moves couldn't be performed because of binding.
Granted, 4 has been overcome by quality armourers and 3 is a training issue (IMO)so 1 and 2 are the main reasons. To prevent injuries, the SCA made it illegal to have 2 striking ends on a weapon (top and bottom, per se). Both can thrust, as in a butt spike or the glave you describe, but only one can strike a non-thrusting hit. So I guess, using that description, people that wield a glave with one hand on the end and the other 1/4 the way up are marninally using quarterstaff techniques.
Even when staffs are used in martial arts, unlimited fights are rare at the lower levels because of the danger. Even with training, injuries abound. Still, when considering the cost, it's a great weapon.
Paul
-
David Blackmane
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4941
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: The Midwest....again.
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lurker:
<B>Stoffel:
From what I remember being told years ago, the problems with using a staff as a staff were:
1- the power generated by the swings
2- the "return power" one gets when the A end of the stick bounes off a target and you use the momentum generated to hit with the B side of the stick
3- the increased odds of hitting an illegal taget, specifically the lower legs
4- the fact that, in the armour of the time, most of the moves couldn't be performed because of binding.
Granted, 4 has been overcome by quality armourers and 3 is a training issue (IMO)so 1 and 2 are the main reasons. To prevent injuries, the SCA made it illegal to have 2 striking ends on a weapon (top and bottom, per se). Both can thrust, as in a butt spike or the glave you describe, but only one can strike a non-thrusting hit. So I guess, using that description, people that wield a glave with one hand on the end and the other 1/4 the way up are marninally using quarterstaff techniques.
Even when staffs are used in martial arts, unlimited fights are rare at the lower levels because of the danger. Even with training, injuries abound. Still, when considering the cost, it's a great weapon.
Paul</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In the East kingdom there was a brief period of time during which two people (and as far as I know, only two people) were permitted to use polearms with two *striking* ends, against opponents who agreed to face the "experimental" form. The upshot of it was that the initiative to legalize the form was dropped as it was viewed, by the gentlemen permitted to work with it, as excessively dangerous.
The problem isn't that staves move too fast... good polearms move plenty fast. It isn't that they hit too hard, not any different from an unpadded polearm, and for SCA purposes it wouldn't really be any different than an unpadded polearm, physically.
Where you get into trouble is two points, both safety issues. Actual staff techniques involve sweeps and throws that SCA doesn't permit (as well as striking at any point along the entire weapon). Someone who walked in with staff training and thought they were being allowed to fight with a staff might use techniques not allowed in SCA. (Yes, largely a training issue, and you let the would be staff fighter use a "polearm" and follow the SCA rules
)
The second problem was/is that the return blows struck with the "other" end of the weapon come in very fast and hard and with little time to prepare in any sense. It had a tendency to put people in positions where they were unacceptably open to injury.
That's the East Kingdom view on staffs and double-ended polearms, as I recall it from our experimentation.
Gavin
<B>Stoffel:
From what I remember being told years ago, the problems with using a staff as a staff were:
1- the power generated by the swings
2- the "return power" one gets when the A end of the stick bounes off a target and you use the momentum generated to hit with the B side of the stick
3- the increased odds of hitting an illegal taget, specifically the lower legs
4- the fact that, in the armour of the time, most of the moves couldn't be performed because of binding.
Granted, 4 has been overcome by quality armourers and 3 is a training issue (IMO)so 1 and 2 are the main reasons. To prevent injuries, the SCA made it illegal to have 2 striking ends on a weapon (top and bottom, per se). Both can thrust, as in a butt spike or the glave you describe, but only one can strike a non-thrusting hit. So I guess, using that description, people that wield a glave with one hand on the end and the other 1/4 the way up are marninally using quarterstaff techniques.
Even when staffs are used in martial arts, unlimited fights are rare at the lower levels because of the danger. Even with training, injuries abound. Still, when considering the cost, it's a great weapon.
Paul</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In the East kingdom there was a brief period of time during which two people (and as far as I know, only two people) were permitted to use polearms with two *striking* ends, against opponents who agreed to face the "experimental" form. The upshot of it was that the initiative to legalize the form was dropped as it was viewed, by the gentlemen permitted to work with it, as excessively dangerous.
The problem isn't that staves move too fast... good polearms move plenty fast. It isn't that they hit too hard, not any different from an unpadded polearm, and for SCA purposes it wouldn't really be any different than an unpadded polearm, physically.
Where you get into trouble is two points, both safety issues. Actual staff techniques involve sweeps and throws that SCA doesn't permit (as well as striking at any point along the entire weapon). Someone who walked in with staff training and thought they were being allowed to fight with a staff might use techniques not allowed in SCA. (Yes, largely a training issue, and you let the would be staff fighter use a "polearm" and follow the SCA rules
)The second problem was/is that the return blows struck with the "other" end of the weapon come in very fast and hard and with little time to prepare in any sense. It had a tendency to put people in positions where they were unacceptably open to injury.
That's the East Kingdom view on staffs and double-ended polearms, as I recall it from our experimentation.
Gavin
-
JJ Shred
- Archive Member
- Posts: 10324
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Altamont, Tennessee
- Contact:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The second problem was/is that the return blows struck with the "other" end of the weapon come in very fast and hard and with little time to prepare in any sense. It had a tendency to put people in positions where they were unacceptably open to injury.</font>
That's been my experience, as well, although not SCA. Throw an overhead, he blocks, quickly follow with the crotch shot, he generally gets there in time, but then a swift crack back on the noggin... Most men protect the nads first, noggin second. With the first feint, the nads look like the target (and would be, if he misses his block).
However, I was referring to an actual quarterstaff made of ash or oak, not a fibreglass rod wrapped with duct tape following the 800 pound gorilla's set of rules. It would be nice to return to real quarterstaffs and let those who play the SCA game start their own thread...please?
-
Jean Paul de Sens
- Archive Member
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Stillwater, OK 74075
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bascot:
<B> That's been my experience, as well, although not SCA. Throw an overhead, he blocks, quickly follow with the crotch shot, he generally gets there in time, but then a swift crack back on the noggin... Most men protect the nads first, noggin second. With the first feint, the nads look like the target (and would be, if he misses his block).
However, I was referring to an actual quarterstaff</B> made of ash or oak, not a fibreglass rod wrapped with duct tape following the 800 pound gorilla's set of rules. It would be nice to return to real quarterstaffs and let those who play the SCA game start their own thread...please? </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Certainly! My opinion on the subject is that while quarterstaff techniques are viable, useful, and dangerous, the weapon has all of the stupid hype of the katana... just makes me grit my teeth. Fine you take your stick of wood. I'll take MY stick of wood with metal bits on the ends and we'll see what happens...
Quarterstaff good, pole-arm better.
<B> That's been my experience, as well, although not SCA. Throw an overhead, he blocks, quickly follow with the crotch shot, he generally gets there in time, but then a swift crack back on the noggin... Most men protect the nads first, noggin second. With the first feint, the nads look like the target (and would be, if he misses his block).
However, I was referring to an actual quarterstaff</B> made of ash or oak, not a fibreglass rod wrapped with duct tape following the 800 pound gorilla's set of rules. It would be nice to return to real quarterstaffs and let those who play the SCA game start their own thread...please? </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Certainly! My opinion on the subject is that while quarterstaff techniques are viable, useful, and dangerous, the weapon has all of the stupid hype of the katana... just makes me grit my teeth. Fine you take your stick of wood. I'll take MY stick of wood with metal bits on the ends and we'll see what happens...
Quarterstaff good, pole-arm better.
-
TerminusEst
- Archive Member
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: PIttsburgh
Either blades or weighted blunts.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jean Paul de Sens:
Quarterstaff good, pole-arm better.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But...a pole arm is just a quarterstaff with a spiky bit on!
Seriously, I've been doing a little quarterstaff stuff recently (and now that I've got some of the training materials posted here, there will be more done!). If someone starts to run up your spear, turning it into a quarterstaff is a helluva surprise for them!
Quarterstaff good, pole-arm better.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But...a pole arm is just a quarterstaff with a spiky bit on!
Seriously, I've been doing a little quarterstaff stuff recently (and now that I've got some of the training materials posted here, there will be more done!). If someone starts to run up your spear, turning it into a quarterstaff is a helluva surprise for them!