Talk:Quarterstaff

message: "Shepards (sic) used to have one with a sort of cup on one end of the staff, making the staff useable as a catapult..."  Is there a source for this information?  The traditional notion of a shepherd's staff has a crook at the end.  This sounds like a confused notion of Biblical stories where shepherds carry a sling, which is entirely separate from the staff. --Ortonmc 21:22, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously wrong. --— Sverdrup 21:28, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shepards 

message: Should this article cover just the actual English quarterstaff, or fighting staves in general?
I would have no opposition to moving the article to Staff(weapon) and including multiple "genres" of staves, though because of the current naming convention, I think that if it isn't called a "quarterstaff" it probably shouldn't go in this article. Also, please use the ~ four times in a row to sign your comments. -- Xiliquiern 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article? 

message: "long staves of 12 to as much as 18 feet (3.6 to 5.4 metres) were employed in Early Modern times" - 18 foot staves? I don't believe you! references please? Also, can you define "Early Modern" ?
:I believe George Silver Joachim Meyer (edit from below!) and Mair make mention of staves well over 12 feet, with the "usual recommended" falling somewhere between 7 and 10 feet. I'll have to double check later today, but an 18ft stave would have been a nice training, drilling and, in a rough spot (lack of supply chain?) a relatively nice weapon during the age of pike warfare. Early Modern probably refers to the later parts of the 15th century into the 16th century when pike formations became an extremely powerful weapon on the battlefield. The pike was another long weapon, as long as 22 feet, and, if I remember correctly, century masters comment on the relation between the staff and the pike (I know they comment on pike and spear in this manner) as learning nearly the same weapon. Use in formation, however, would be considerably different to to inherent spatial restrictions. -- Xiliquiern 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David Lindholms Fighting with the Quarterstaff makes note that Joachim Meyer and Paulus Hector Mair provided techniques for use with staves "11-14 feet long". The text also notes that these staves would not (and probably could not) be used in the same manner as shorter 7-8 foot staves. I do not have a source for anything above 14 feet though, so I too would like to see that reference. And for a chronological period, Meyer's work showing the "11-14" foot long staved is dated to 1570. -- Xiliquiern 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable enough, given the length of pikes. For future knowledge, what source is this from? -- Xiliquiern 18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paradoxes of Defence Megalophias (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 18 foot staves? 

message: A "Quarterstaff" is usually three quarters of the height of the man using it, generally, and thus for a six-foot man it is four and one-half feet long (54 inches).  My teachers explained to me that this is the reason why it is called a quarterstaff - it is one-quarter shorter than the man using it.  The Japanese Jo staff is typically four feet long but sometimes can be found four or five inches longer than that, similar in length to the quarterstaff (usually 53 inches).  The fighting dynamics of the quarterstaff make it separate from a standard staff of six feet (a Japanese Bo) and separate from a Japanese "hanbo" of three feet.  (Short hanbos are thirty inches).  A quarterstaff, or jo staff, can do some of the things that a Bo can and some of the things a Hanbo can and well as some things that neither of them can do easily.  Dr. Hatsumi of the international Bujinkan organization has an excellant book out on the hanbo, written with a Phillipine stick fighting master, which shows many hanbo grappling techniques that would be potentially awkward with a longer stick like the quarterstaff even though some of the techniques would still apply.  The comparision between the quarterstaff and the two-handed sword is absurd, and I have enough experience with both to consider this fact obvious.  Using a quarterstaff instead of a two-handed sword would be acceptable for training purposes when you are learning sword techniques similar to what the article describes, but those are sword postures and sword techniques, not quarterstaff methods.  The quarterstaff fights with both ends.  If you imagine a sword to be similar to a quarterstaff, try spinning the sword from the center to develop swinging power and grip it by the blade.  Until recently, Bo staves and Jo staves (or quarterstaves) were rarely used to thrust with one end like a spear, but the artists who use these weapons are developing modern usages that incorporate more thrusting.  I believe that the article as it stands has some interesting references to historical manuals, but medieval scholars with experience would realize the weight and length distinctions between quarterstaves and staves that are six or seven feet long.  You have to understand that some medieval writers had espionage purposes in mind just like modern writers do, and thus many medieval fighting manuals taught poor technique in the hope that good technique would remain secret.  This is particularly true with sword techniques.  The hand transitions during spins are different with a four and half foot weapon that they are with a six foot weapon - with a Bo one hand rarely touches the end of the Bo, for example, while this can still be done easily with a Jo or quarterstaff for practical striking at a distance.  Weapons that are 13 to 22 feet long are rare battlefield weapons that require hundreds or thousands of men to stand shoulder to shoulder with them so that the points form a wall.  If you encounter a single man with a twenty foot weapon, getting around his spear point will enable you to close in and dispatch him with a sword or short spear.  Quarterstaves strike with either end of the weapon, as I said, and are generally held diagonally in front of the body at one-third intervals along the weapon's length.  The upper right side strikes the head and the lower left side strikes the lower body.  The right hand grip is palm up and the left hand grip is palm down.  Jamming the opponent's hand by thrusting both arms forward so that the center of your staff collides with his hand is common.  It would be good for this article to emphasize the similarity between the Japanese Jo and the quarterstaff, which were used by the peasant classes of Japan and Europe in similar ways.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.231.73 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quarterstaff is a very vague term but it is not normally applied to jo-length sticks. These would normally be called sticks or batons, as used in Jogo do Pau, Savate, etc. I don't know of any source that refers to quarterstaves as being that short (your teacher's etymology is certainly mistaken) though of course it is very possible that one exists. I can point you to multiple sources referring to 6 to 9 feet lengths. But really the term is a very broad one and people apply it to all kinds of things. Megalophias (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: General Observations of a Martial Artist

message: If we listed every time the quarterstaff appears in fiction it would take pages. Is any of this remotely significant, excepting maybe Robin Hood? Megalophias (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Wikipedia is not a cross-reference to every use of a term in the media. There's a certain attraction to the "Well, people might want to see an example of quarterstaff" argument...except those examples, when in modern cinema or manga, often represent the real, physical object incorrectly. I.e., they aren't helpful, they are misleading, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Is the reality misconstrued in some meaningful way? Then it should be given a citation from a reputable source, explaining why the misperception is important. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: The reason for deleting the link at the top of the Quarterstaff article is that virtually everyone typing "quarterstaff" in the basic Wiki search text box is, in fact, looking for the the Quarterstaff article. And practically no one at all is looking for the Macintosh-only game released 30 years ago. (I may still own the game, somewhere. It ends annoyingly without any particular reason, at the point the project ran out of money.) Like recipe articles, where I am fond of removing the "also, some people like to add X" statements, there is a difference between what might be interesting to a fraction of people, and what obstructs what the majority are seeking. Like an advertisement, such add little, but interfere with the majority of readers.
Using , I had checked the number of views to Quarterstaff: The Tomb of Setmoth before deleting the link. It's on the order of 130 per month. Quarterstaff, however, has 9500. That's a ratio of 100 to 1.4. Next, how many people got to Quarterstaff: The Tomb of Setmoth through the Quarterstaff link? As many as 50%? It's unlikely to be nearly that high, but assume that's the case. How many of those readers, clicking the link, were actually interested in a game that likely can't be run on any computer they have had in their house in the last ten years?
So, the idea is the greatest good for the greatest number. If someone sees some other good...go for it. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I have no vested interest in this game "Quarterstaff".  I have never played it.  In fact, I have never heard of it.  However, I do know that the number of times I have typed in the name of something I am familiar with on Wikipedia and been misdirected has numbered in the dozens, if not the hundreds (for example, the genus zelotes; I wasn't looking for an apostle, I was looking for information on this).  I suspect there are individuals who are looking for the game, but only remember it as "Quarterstaff", without the subtitle.  If they type in "Quarterstaff", and then see the notice at the Quarterstaff page, they can get where they want.  People that are interested in the weapon, and not the computer game, however, will not be misdirected, however, because if they type in "Quarterstaff", they get brough to the page they're looking for.  They are most likely to ignore the notice at the top, as they're not looking for the game.  Why in the world do you think they would be so confused and click on the game's link when they're already at the page they're looking for?  I was just thinking of those 130 people who are trying to find the other article every month.  It doesn't kill us to help them out, you know?  The Jade Knight (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasoning for removing link to game

message: "Quarterstaff techniques as described in the early modern manuals closely resemble those of modern Kendo, a Japanese fencing style utilizing a two-handed bamboo staff close to  long."
I am deleting this because it is misleading. While quarterstaff play does resemble kendo, it also resembles pretty much any other way of fighting with an elongated object, that being the nature of this kind of thing. In addition, the shinai is  sword simulator and the techniques are based on two-handed sword use, not staff fighting. Megalophias (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kendo ref

message: I wish to raise a point here before wading into the article to edit it willy-nilly.
I believe the description of the hanging guard is incorrect, describing a reverse guard. "Raising the staff directly back over the head letting the tip point back at the ground behind oneself and looking under the butt end of the staff in front of oneself is called the high or hanging guard." This is probably a poor modern rendering of the hanging or pendent guard described by Wylde:
"From the Medium you may come to the Pendent, which I call the high Guard thus, Slip your right Hand almost to the left, and return your Staff round the back of your Head, then your Point will slope or hang dipping; but observe that you see your Opposer's Head twelve Inches under the Butt end of your Staff, or you can in no measure be safe: I do not approve of this Guard, although it was in much esteem formerly, but it is not valued; the Reason is, Because the Point of your Staff being dipped, your Defence is weak: The in or outside Guard at length, which I call the low Guard, is much the stronger, and far the better."
See http://www.the-exiles.org/Manual%20Zach%20Wylde.htm
What we should see from this is essentially the hanging left guard of the longsword. "From the Medium" mean Wylde is describing a movement from one guard to the next. The phrase "return your Staff round back of your Head" means to switch sides, the medium and low guards being on the left of the body, but now raised and swung over to the right side. The hands are behind the head, not the whole staff. "Dipping" means the point is still in front of the body, otherwise it would be called trailing. In this configuration, leverage between the hands is lost and the great length in front of the hands is slow to move, and thus Wylde is correct to say that this stance is not valued.
Wylde says that the pendent guard "was in much esteem formerly." That may be because it was executed differently in those former times. The hanging staff guard is also done by slipping the leading hand forward on the staff and held chin high, lifting the rear hand over the head. The staff stays on the left side of the body and hanging to the right (without "returning" or switching sides). This position affords excellent leverage, and with less of the staff in front of the leading hand it is even quicker to move in defense or offense. This stance is indeed estimable.
Wylde's interpretation of the pendent guard works only with a very short staff. A six-foot staff cannot be held comfortably in this position for a long time, much less Silver's perfect length staff of seven to nine feet. The long staff up to twelve feet cannot use the guard Wylde described at all. I would conclude that the proper technique, in that it works with any length of staff, was unknown to Wylde for whatever reason.
Swetnam also describes this guard, and calls it the high guard. See http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/swetnam.htm
Trueguard (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staff Guards: translating from older English word usage and writing styles 

message: I was told once that a quarterstaff was so named because it is a quarter of a rod , which is 5½ yards, or 16½ feet, making the quarterstaff 4'1½", although I have no written or on line evidence for this.Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of quarterstaff