Originally posted by apoweyn
Right. But I think it’s well within the bounds of effective marketing and not particularly misleading to describe such a weapon (or an article on said weapon) as “chinese nunchaku.”
OK, if that’s what the article does. But I still get pizzed when people call nunchaku a “Chinese 2-section staff” when a Chinese staff is a long weapon, and 2 section staff is clearly much longer than a set of chucks.
Ap, do you perhaps have any web sources for the philipine version? I’m curious about the usage as compared to so called ‘chinese’ method vs. ‘japanese/okinawan’ method.
or book sources, I’ll go have a cup of coffe at B&N and read a bit…
CSN, imo, only if they will grab both sides of the flexible bits for application of technique. otherwise it’s just a variation of the flail…which, in my understanding, is mostly just holding onto the handle with one or both hands…
Man, that dude is tiny!
bwahahahhahaha!!! I don’t know why but that just about put me in tears!
I learned a couple of forms with the “two-sectioned” staff when I was studying Shorin Ryu in high school. I also saw one of our black belts put himself in the hospital hitting himself in the nutz
I read that the Chinese ones were made out of metal and some of them had a short and a longer length connected by a chain.
www.chinesearms.com had an antique pair for sale. These were very short.
Sounds reasonable. But looking back at George Xu, his weapon doesn’t look to me like its going to be passed back and for from one weighted end to the other - its simply too big for that.
What we have here are fundamental similarities in weapon design (take a stick, add a chain, add another stick at the other end of the chain) and then a number of variations that affect how it can be used, sometimes dramatically. I deliberately linked to a morgenstern design that uses a smooth stick as a striking surface instead of a spiky ball to obscure these distinctions, but nevertheless, the proportions of the weapon (not to mention the fact that it has a distinct handle complete with crossguard) mean it’s obviously NOT meant to be double ended, as the nunchaku is.
In fact, the more we look at similar weapons, the more it seems clear that the double-endedness is the defining trait of the nunchaku.
whenever I have seen the chinese two section staff used it’s been like a flail, but with typical chinese flair. I have certainly seen both ends used with equanimaty.
Originally posted by Bluesman
I read that the Chinese ones were made out of metal and some of them had a short and a longer length connected by a chain.
www.chinesearms.com had an antique pair for sale. These were very short.
You’ll notice on that site they call similar weapons “2-section stick” and “palm stick.”
http://www.chinesearms.com/chinesearms/chinesearms/001/other/oindex.htm
Looking over bluesman’s link, I see a lot of variation on the two sticks linked by chain concept - some look just like the classic bruce lee numbamachuckles, others a lot like George’s toy that I posted above, and still others like the morgenstern I linked to.
'Course, that site also has about a hundred different names for “a stick with a ball on one end” too. “Hand Thunder” “Brass Melon” “Iron Garlic” “Sleeve Thunder” “Iron Garlic” - I can’t tell if the guy’s more obsessed with weather or food!
the ‘legendary’ history I had been given about the flexible weapons talked about the ideas coming when rigid weapons broke. when you break a stick usually it doesn’t break all the way through and you now have a floppy bit. I’ve seen rattan staves and sticks break and the defender get hit with the now floppy end. so, it sort makes sense. so, a full size staff breaks and you see the 2 section staff and a club breaks and you get the flail. It would make sense to me that the double ended version would have been a spin off from the single ended flail.
And the palm stick appears to have two sections that can be used to grasp: Much like the nunchucku.
Oso, my thoughts exactly. For a culture that created weapons like the 3-section staff, a nunchucku type reapon would be simplier and more rational a progression.
Hmmm…it’s my understanding that in Europe, blunt weapons like the mace and morgenstern came into favor when armor grew too thick to penetrate with swords - a heavier, blunt weapon could still dent the armor enough to knock the guy inside silly. Chained weapons like the morgenstern and flail gained popularity when it was realized it didn’t take as much strength to give them armor-clocking impact because of the torque you develop whirling it - whereas you actually have to swing a rigid mace or hammer to get the same force.
Since thick metal armor never really developed in the far east (due to less raw material being available) I think there must have been some other reason for their development.
Originally posted by MasterKiller
OK, if that’s what the article does. But I still get pizzed when people call nunchaku a “Chinese 2-section staff” when a Chinese staff is a long weapon, and 2 section staff is clearly much longer than a set of chucks.
I can understand that.
Going back to ED’s post…weren’t nunchuks (as we know them) an Okinawan farming tool orginally used to mash rice patties?
Originally posted by Oso
[B]Ap, do you perhaps have any web sources for the philipine version? I’m curious about the usage as compared to so called ‘chinese’ method vs. ‘japanese/okinawan’ method.
or book sources, I’ll go have a cup of coffe at B&N and read a bit… [/B]
Hmm… not offhand, no. Inosanto mentions it in his book on filipino martial arts. But it’s out of print. And doesn’t have any sort of historical treatment of it.
As far as history goes, it’s probably hard to beat Mark Wiley’s books. If you go to B&N, keep an eye out for his stuff. I can’t guarantee anything about the tabak toyok. But it’d be a good place to start.
I’ll have a look online myself.
Stuart B.
Originally posted by Serpent
Man, that dude is tiny!
Hehe .. now that’s funny! You got a literal LOL here.
yes, okinawan rice gathering tool. I’ve seen it used for it’s real purpose, quite handy.
After a not-exactly-exhaustive search, I turned up this:
http://www.kungfuarnis.com/printseminars.html (No idea where this place is in relation to you, Oso. But there was apparently a seminar recently on tabak toyok.)
And this: http://www.neonhusky.com/history.html
Not very informative, but it does seem to at least back it up.
Most of the references to tabak toyok, however, came from the JKD crowd. Draw your own conclusions from that. 
This thread has so far been very informative and civil. I just hope no one slips up and mentions Sai.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Uh oh…
