Quarter Staff is a misconception, its a term for holding your staff at the quarter as mid staff is holding your staff at the mid, but by doing this [mid staff] you shorten your reach and face death to your fingers, seems most masters recomended quarter-staff holds..short staffs were said to be from 6-9ft long and long staffs well, much longer! Its the basis for all pole weapons....
What kind of wood are the quaterstaffs your using made of? And were certain types of quaterstaffs particular to areas of England? I'm from western Canada and the humidity or lack of it in my case does strange things to the local wood I've been using- I would like to find one that takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Thanks!
You're not necessarily wrong, but this is legitimate way of using a staff, usually referred to as an 'end-grip'. You're also right about the possibility of being disarmed on the lunge if you're not careful, but this way makes more use of the staff's length than a middle-grip.
@taj83 Length is all very good and fine... But personally the middle grip gives you and advantage- you've got two ends to parry with and to attack with. It basically doubles the rapidness of your strikes. Of course the way your doing it is fine... But I certainly prefer the middle grip- higher intensity and (in my opinion) strategy.
@jimban86 At least one school of thought says that the term 1/4 staff referred to the 1/4 mark is between the hands which makes this perfect. What is typically thought of as 1/4 staff fighting s actually 1/2 staffing. The confusion in the names comes from the fact that theatrcal plays that included scenes with "1/4 staff" fighting didn't have stages big enough for actual 1/4 staff work, so they shortened to a 1/2 staff position and called it 1/4 staff anyways. It has carried on since.
@taj83 Wrong, they're more like five to seven feet long... A long quarterstaff is but hard to use, thanks to it's weight and the ease for your opponent to lock it away.
Also, some commentary of the video itself =) You should try to counter as you block your opponent. For example, if he thrusts, you can push it to the side, take a step in and with the same movement, hit him hard. He will of course try to dodge or block, so keep your eyes out ;)
@DiabolusIgnis As regards the technique, you are no doubt right and I freely admit that neither of us in the video are particularly good.
As to the length of the staffs though, I must disagree. McCarthy and Phillips-Wolley (19th century) both recommend 8' staffs, MacBane and Wylde (18th century) recommend 7-8' and George Silver (early 17th) recommends about seven and a half to nine feet depending on the height of the user.
@taj83 Ah, but those aren't quarterstaves anymore, they're staffs. =) At least not medieval quarterstaves, they were those 5-7 feet long. It might be that later ones were longer, but I'm more into the medieval stuff, so I might of course be wrong.
@taj83 a "quarter" staff would be surely a quarter of the large 22'-25' pikes/greatstaves? so 5.5-6 foot. but sure they are staffs they certainly aren't much taller than the user.
The guy on the left has no chance to win a fight in a real situation holding the staff like that lol! Both didnt show any speed or power at all, lame.
Well, your partially right, and also staggeringly wrong. This is 19th century staff-fencing, so the aim isn;t actually to harm your opponent. However, it still really hurts, and you'd be surprised how much power you can get behind a swing from that position if you want. We just don't, because we're not actually trying to hurt each other. Now keep the criticism constructive, or come over here and we can discuss it with staffs.
At least in my country 19th century staff-fencing, the aim was to hurt your opponent:)
And that's with that in mind that we keep practicing today, or else you are just playing around with sticks(thats ok too if that's your aim). There are ways to do it so that people don't get hurt without sacrificing tecnique like that.
Cute and sleepy.
Recommended for Nikelodeon channel.
Schildschmied 7 months ago
here's a tip! Dip one end of your stick in shit, and I guarantee you will win.
dariod2007 9 months ago
Quarter Staff is a misconception, its a term for holding your staff at the quarter as mid staff is holding your staff at the mid, but by doing this [mid staff] you shorten your reach and face death to your fingers, seems most masters recomended quarter-staff holds..short staffs were said to be from 6-9ft long and long staffs well, much longer! Its the basis for all pole weapons....
SwordOwar 9 months ago
What kind of wood are the quaterstaffs your using made of? And were certain types of quaterstaffs particular to areas of England? I'm from western Canada and the humidity or lack of it in my case does strange things to the local wood I've been using- I would like to find one that takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Thanks!
Aikidobear129 2 years ago
I wonder are you not using your staffs lika a spear. You only using one end.
and i think you to long out whit you staff easy disarming. But its just me:)
jimban86 2 years ago
You're not necessarily wrong, but this is legitimate way of using a staff, usually referred to as an 'end-grip'. You're also right about the possibility of being disarmed on the lunge if you're not careful, but this way makes more use of the staff's length than a middle-grip.
taj83 2 years ago
@taj83 Length is all very good and fine... But personally the middle grip gives you and advantage- you've got two ends to parry with and to attack with. It basically doubles the rapidness of your strikes. Of course the way your doing it is fine... But I certainly prefer the middle grip- higher intensity and (in my opinion) strategy.
AidanWelsh215 1 year ago
@jimban86 At least one school of thought says that the term 1/4 staff referred to the 1/4 mark is between the hands which makes this perfect. What is typically thought of as 1/4 staff fighting s actually 1/2 staffing. The confusion in the names comes from the fact that theatrcal plays that included scenes with "1/4 staff" fighting didn't have stages big enough for actual 1/4 staff work, so they shortened to a 1/2 staff position and called it 1/4 staff anyways. It has carried on since.
KnightlySirJames1 3 months ago
I thought quarterstaffs were shorter.
8dahar1 2 years ago
Nope. These are 8 feet long which is about mid-range. Quarterstaffs were anything from about 6 feet to about 9 feet long.
taj83 2 years ago
@taj83 Wrong, they're more like five to seven feet long... A long quarterstaff is but hard to use, thanks to it's weight and the ease for your opponent to lock it away.
Also, some commentary of the video itself =) You should try to counter as you block your opponent. For example, if he thrusts, you can push it to the side, take a step in and with the same movement, hit him hard. He will of course try to dodge or block, so keep your eyes out ;)
DiabolusIgnis 1 year ago
@DiabolusIgnis As regards the technique, you are no doubt right and I freely admit that neither of us in the video are particularly good.
As to the length of the staffs though, I must disagree. McCarthy and Phillips-Wolley (19th century) both recommend 8' staffs, MacBane and Wylde (18th century) recommend 7-8' and George Silver (early 17th) recommends about seven and a half to nine feet depending on the height of the user.
taj83 1 year ago
@taj83 Ah, but those aren't quarterstaves anymore =) They're staffs.
DiabolusIgnis 1 year ago
@taj83 Ah, but those aren't quarterstaves anymore, they're staffs. =) At least not medieval quarterstaves, they were those 5-7 feet long. It might be that later ones were longer, but I'm more into the medieval stuff, so I might of course be wrong.
DiabolusIgnis 1 year ago
@taj83 a "quarter" staff would be surely a quarter of the large 22'-25' pikes/greatstaves? so 5.5-6 foot. but sure they are staffs they certainly aren't much taller than the user.
mandowarrior123 1 year ago
The guy on the left has no chance to win a fight in a real situation holding the staff like that lol! Both didnt show any speed or power at all, lame.
tarmynastyr 3 years ago 2
Well, your partially right, and also staggeringly wrong. This is 19th century staff-fencing, so the aim isn;t actually to harm your opponent. However, it still really hurts, and you'd be surprised how much power you can get behind a swing from that position if you want. We just don't, because we're not actually trying to hurt each other. Now keep the criticism constructive, or come over here and we can discuss it with staffs.
taj83 3 years ago
At least in my country 19th century staff-fencing, the aim was to hurt your opponent:)
And that's with that in mind that we keep practicing today, or else you are just playing around with sticks(thats ok too if that's your aim). There are ways to do it so that people don't get hurt without sacrificing tecnique like that.
frederico4d 3 years ago
It is refreshing to see the use of the end grip. It looks like these people read a little Joseph Swetnam.
captaintrub 4 years ago
I still have a bruise from this fight.
Love Stewart's commentating. :D
jabbathejack 4 years ago