Saber Forum

So I'm pretty new to Lightsaber dueling as it is, but now I have a Double-Bladed Lightsaber, and it certainly is different. I have already found a technique that I like after just one 30 minute dueling session, and that is deflecting a sweeping attack by my opponent using one end of my saber, and then coming around with the other end cutting them in half. I'm still working on the move, but it sure has been efficient. However, for the most part, I feel like I am too exposed, and my opponent keeps taking advantage of the gap presented by the hilts, as I can't really maneuver the blades to easily protect my hands/hilts.

Does anyone have any good tips for Double-Bladed Lightsabers?
Also, I'm 6'1, and I'm currently using 32" blades. I'm thinking I should get longer blades. Should I go 36" or 40"?

Also, anyone in the Boulder County area of Colorado that might like to spar sometimes?

You may want to check TPLA's YouTube channel, they have much material about double-bladed saber combat....not to mention single-bladed or dual wielding saber combat.

As for the blade lengths, that depends on the hilts and the overall length of the staff. It should not exceed your height. What hilts do you have and how long is the current staff? I almost think the 32" blades should be enough for you...

I will check them out. Thanks!

The staff consists of two Menace CE's with a quick-release coupler. The staff with the blades is already taller than I am, but I still feel like I'm not getting a good reach with it. I'm not entirely sure if this is normal. I do actually have a couple of Ultraedge Midgrade 36" blades, so I'll try those and see how it feels.

I wouldn't go longer than 36" blades (and at 6' tall, I don't go longer than 36" blades). Longer tends to limit your angles of attack since you end up hitting the ground a lot.

First tip to using a double bladed saber is to always keep it moving. Otherwise your opponent can more easily take advantage of the holes in your defense. Like where the hilt and your hands are.

First thing to remember about using a double bladed saber is that you're only using a single bladed saber with another blade on the other end. In other words, unlike using a saber in each hand, you can only attack with one blade at a time. Which means your opponent only has to know where one blade is, and he automatically knows where your other blade is. You're only real advantage here is that the human brain normally tries to track both blades even though it doesn't have to.

And once again I second what Racona says, check out the TPLA YouTube channel and site. They are not the only lightsaber group out there, but they are very good and very organized, and they have videos on everything from single saber use to double bladed saber use to safety gear to philosophies of combat.

I agree with Sakura. 36" is the absolute maximum. I understand your feeling about the limited reach, but that's exactly what happens with a double-bladed saber - even with a single-bladed saber, you can have this: when you're fighting with the reverse grip. And most staffs are held with some kind of reverse grip if you analyze it in detail (look at one blade at a time and wield it - you'll clearly notice that you're using a reverse grip to move the blade). It's a totally different fighting style, and you have to adapt to it. A longer blade doesn't really compensate that.

Do you have any prior staff or bo training?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I've decided to stick with the 32". I would like a little more reach, but I would be compromising maneuverability with the staff if I do. I am slowly getting used to my staff, currently practicing spin-stab techniques.

It's so easy droids will soon be able to, if they can do it then you've got this.
(https://i.imgur.com/KyYDRUw.jpg)

Someone with more double-bladed experience will probably give better advice, but from what I've seen, one of the better strategies for using such a weapon is to press forward with rapid-alternating attacks: telegraph a strike with one end and when your opponent blocks it, use the other end of your weapon to strike at the area they have left exposed.  Even if they are fast enough to react and block again, your first blade will now once again be in a position to attack from an alternate angle.  Either you wear them down, or you get your hit in.  If they opt to dodge your initial attack, use the opening to follow through with a thrust (although as I understand, stabbing attacks are considered illegal in organized tournament).

Sooner or later, your opponent may wise up and begin to see the pattern in your attacks, at which point you can use feints to throw them off and trick them into leaving themselves open.

Im 6 2, I use 32 inch blades. I also use 2 Phantom Initiate V4 hilts with a normal coupler.

One of the things with a saber staff is using leverage, speed, and physical capacity to best your opponent. The hilt doesnt present an efficient target if its not in front of you, without your opponent committing to one side. If you have a proper stance, your opponent having committed to striking the area where your hilt is, will leave most of their body completely open. If you've ever taken martial arts, you learn to not present yourself to your opponent while standing in a normal posture. You put your dominant food forward, turn, and put your supporting foot in a comfortable position. Start with the saber staff in a traditional grip, with your hands spaced apart enough that you can leverage and quickly move the blades for attacking or defending. Have the saber angled so the blade that is closer to the opponent is able to quickly guard the upper body. You can guard the lower body with a quick rotation of the saber and wrists/arms to place the saber in the path of their strike. Use footwork and positioning to aid in your offense and defense. You have more than a saber in that situation. You have your body, and your combat area. Use those to your advantage as much as you can.

Diversion, deflection, and counter attacking are very strong suits of a saber staff. You dont have to attack first. You can let your opponent attack, let them commit to a movement, and deal with their saber and take advantage of their positioning and posture when you are comfortable doing so. You dont have to be aggressive with any saber type, if you dont want to. Your opponent will want to win, so you can use that against them where possible.

For aggressive approaches, try not to present the hilt to your opponent. Keep it off center, keep it more to the side than directly in front of you, as much as possible. Utilize leverage when blades come into contact, to throw their defense off.

Regarding the hilt issue, if the opponent aims for the hilt, then they are going to have to commit. Be faster than your opponent. Angle your blades, rotate your body, keep your footing and posture solid and try to get their blade off track, and out of range to be used to defend against a quick counter slash or thrust. Importance should be placed on efficient movements, using leverage, and allowing your opponent to extend into your part of the field, to try and attack your hilt in that case. While the hilt can be an easy target, its also a target that only occupies a small overall area. Its obvious where theyd have to strike to hit the hilt. You can control where that target is, and you can make sure its in areas you are most able to defend. Do your best to use those facts against your opponent.

It is possible you might lose to a hilt strike. Noones perfect. But practice speaks louder than words. No matter what anyone says for or against a saber staff VS a single saber, practice, find what works best for you.


You can effective use both blades in the process of an attack, even if only one is going to be scoring the point. For example, you can block a strike, use that blade to leverage their blade off track, and use the other blade to score the point while they are recovering their saber and posture. I wouldnt suggest using a saber staff against someone who is dual wielding. A saber staff cannot commit to two entirely different areas at one time. So dual wielding is a clear advantage if used properly in that context.

That's all some pretty interesting and well said advice on potential tactics and strategy. IMO it's all pretty sound advice and things I think about or employ regularly, I also like that Seclareon is in my relative height to blade ratio so I can not only see where they are coming from technically but also physically/literally in execution. I also have 32" blades in a Dark Apprentice v4 staff, which I've become comfortable wielding (more or less, it is a heavy beast to use for more than 45min-hour straight but I'm working on it). I have to say what both of these speakers mentioned about reactionary blocks, parries, and counter strikes had formed much of the basis of my thought process. I'd found myself drawing on my prior training ideology and sparring experiences to be very offensive based. More flurries of attacks (as Charlax mentions), Djem So style "manhandling" in parries/redirects of an opponents blade for swift retaliation (as Seclareon highlights), or my own ways of clearing a single blade out of the way to go for quick openings. Sadly I realized that I had grown accustomed to "offense, attack tempo, and 'momentum of varied attacks' being my defense" primarily. By momentum I don't mean like the inertia or force of said attacks, so much as the "momentum of battle" like when you set the pace of combat or relentlessly break through openings without giving an opponent time to breathe/regain stability.

I took myself back to thinking more seriously on pure defense options. Practicing fundamentals of blocking all over again, even reconsidering how to achieve successive blocks while managing resulting openings better. I noticed I'd taken for granted a lot of the defensive options including many of their positive and negative attributes. Since as I mentioned, I was only blocking as necessary in the moment, on instinct, or to achieve a secondary result. More cause and effect, my opponent attacks I block/parry and counterstrike type of actions in one light. Now instead I moved more toward thoughts of "what if I don't have the ability to fight just one person at a time on only one side, or if I'm forced into a more defensive retreat by a savage or skilled nemesis?" I won't lie in saying I hadn't been thinking toward fighting multiple foes, but to be pushed on full defense was something I felt needed more serious consideration/training. Even surviving 20-30 seconds of a vicious onslaught till you can make or find a true opening can be a necessity in a vigorous spar (although in reality if you're purely defensive that long you're likely outmatched or committed to letting your opponent tire themselves out/become open).

My whole point being, Thinking which blade I'd defend with in any given moment, mixed with following options for movements with the saberstaff became intriguing in ways previously overlooked. Namely that an almost pure vertical staff block on either side of the body covers that high side and low side from attack (with this blade length) simultaneously. Though as mentioned, your hilt being open is a consideration at all times (especially if it's considered a valid target, in addition to just worrying about your fingers). Overhead blocks became the most interesting now in execution. I delved into how faulty some of the staff orientations and "hand tie ups" could become in hastily defending. In essence I'm glad I spent the time going back and readdressing basics since it cast a light on some areas for improvement and different flows through the movements.

Truly I really do want to find a great sparring partner who uses dual wielding (Jar' Kai) and a few who also use saberstaffs. To train at a full strategic disadvantage in terms of available options and more against someone who has the same options but can/will use them differently. I just find this so necessary for my own growth curve. Being pressed or backed into a corner produces greater and faster results for me more often, pure survival mentality mixed with heightened instincts in those situations I suppose. At any rate, it was a pleasure to read these postings and simply contribute my own view/experience. It's wholly that, and should be taken as such. The quest for mastery is a long and trying road, I simply seek to evolve as much as possible walking the path before my own end. For I find nothing quite like wielding a weapon with purpose. May the Force serve you well in your pursuit of excellence.

Some great thoughts and considerations here. I do think that the staff has the potential for offensive and defensive minded strategy. On the defensive side, in addition to having two blades to better block more attacks, you can transition from blocking to striking quickly when done right, as you don’t have to bring the lead blade all the way around again like you would have to with a single blade, but can instead only do half a rotation to strike with the back end, and then carry that momentum to bring the initial lead blade back to the lead position if necessary. I suppose as it has been said, one can take this to a more offensive approach and draw the opponent to block your lead blade with their only blade and then follow up with the trail blade. I do agree that one has to be careful at times when the hands cross each other with a staff, as a skilled opponent could try to capitalize on that opening, particularly if the transitions are done slow or predictably. Going back and looking at some of my earlier spin techniques, such as figure eights, and other people’s as well, I noted a lot of people seem to do all the spinning on the sides of the body, and then sort of drag/rotate the blade across the body, which means that when facing an opponent, none of the strikes in the spin (as a good spin can be a series of strikes building momentum, not just fancy intimidation and exhibition) can really even pose a threat to an opponent directly in front of them. So I’m making sure to bring the lead blade during the spin across the body to the front while spinning, so it essentially means that for every full cycle of movement, you have many strikes of the blades that can actually pose a threat to an opponent in front of me, essentially a series of strikes at roughly 45 degrees repeated into spins. I’m taking time to make sure that I don’t try to get too flashy in terms of speed spins and flourishes that I end up losing functionality in my movements.

I feel your truth in the point made toward spinning. I always viewed it from a more offensive or defensive capability than pure show. A staff just "brings more hurt" to the table with spinning potentially. That propeller blade cycle, and alternating side to side is truly a flurry of repeated attacks. I've been watching my own movements through these spins for openings an opponent might try for and trying to address gaps produced too. Repetition and predictability of movement are always their own problems, but developing a quick and shifting momentum with these "attacks" is exhilarating. It reminds me heavily of SW books about using one sequence, then breaking it off and instantly initiating a different one. Simply shifting fluidly from kata to various spins and relatively well integrated defense or attack as necessary is a fun goal. Trying to eliminate any "stopping points" and becoming like water is always a joy. Though easier said than done. I agree so whole heartedly that the simple angle shift and staff position makes what was purely visual into a full on combat motion. But I feel like trying to time which blade impacts when during these rotations will also make a lot of difference in beneficial VS potentially disastrous openings/subsequent moves. It just seems paramount that the next movement or few movements should always be in the back of your mind when using a saber staff especially. I love the challenge of it all, being so limited in gripping options and not impacting my own body throughout techniques adds such a fun undercurrent of danger/excitement. Often times I'll stop just short of "cutting a leg off" or "partial decapitation" and reorient, redirect, or alter my body position and make mental notes. Safe to say this is one of the most enjoyable weapons I've trained with ever due to that "glow stick of death" aspect. As always it's good to see your input Sir.

I try to keep a blade in position to defend against an attempted attack, through the process of a rotation. I tend to rotate the staff with my body and positioning in addition to the staff, rather than relying on moving the staff by itself. The more you shift position, the more the opponent has to keep watch on your movements and blades, to prepare for what you might do. Both sides have the goal to win, both sides have to pay attention. That can be a benefit as well as a liability. It all depends on your practice and skill level. Think of Jar Kai, and how you want a blade in position for defense, even while attacking, to deal with quick counter moves by your opponent. Keep your eyes on as much of your opponents upper body as you can. Watch the angle of their arms, the position of their saber. Dont be afraid to let them try to attack you and just move out of the way if you can. Only defend with your saber if you have to. This will leave both of your blades open to be used against an opponent who will have to deal with the fact they have committed to an attack or movement, without their opponents blade being engaged or in any way inhibited.

For example, when executing a deflection from a strike aimed at my head or upper body, sometimes I will rotate my torso away from the opponent, and in the process pull my back arm in and push my front arm out. Attempting to bring their saber off track, and out of play. Even if only for a split second, while I keep the down force on their blade as much as possible, to keep it out of the way for as long as possible, and turn around to use the other blade to strike at their upper body or head. You have to be quick about this. Even with normal reaction time, your opponent can attempt to free their saber and even an inefficient graze is still a point against you. The opponent is free to flail their saber out of the lock, and to attempt to score a hit even without use of any formal techniques.

I thought Savage using his lightsaber like a hammer was interesting.

Oh! I just posted a thread on this myself I should have looked around. I have some techniques that may be helpful, and they deal with using one blade for thrusts, parries, and probing motions, while the second is chambered for a big attack. if done correctly, the opponent doesn’t have a chance to counter. I want to write more on this later if possible, but the basic idea is that the bottom blade functions as a trigger for the use of the top blade, practically allowing you a double-count attack, with no need for “rechambering” the saber.
  Such a technique requires an abandonment of anything “Maulish” and takes a bladed stance towards the opponent with staff at head leaven in an overhand/ underhand grip.

The good thing about the saberstaff is that it's pretty easy, and fast, to switch from a double-overhand grip to an over/under grip while doing any of a number of flourishes. You do get more power from an over/under grip, but I think you get more unpredictability from an over/over grip, as there's no real "lead" side.

Yes, double overhand definitely presents both blades as contenders in the fight and an attack could come from either. Do you think that double overhand grip  necessitates (or maybe encourages) a more squared and less bladed stance? It seems like in order to swing effectively with either blade you’d have to be frontally facing your opponent.

I also appreciate the ability to thrust, like a boxing jab, with the under-hand over-hand stance. That bottom blade (for me left hand and the blade I point towards my opponent) can thrust really quickly and be followed up by a powerful swing of the top blade.  It works like a jab and a cross, where the jab can probe and prod and set up an opportunity for the cross. Does describing that make sense?

Nice, you're using one of (or a variation of) my favorite practical techniques. It's a minorly simple strategy to add into your movements/attack patterns... but it's a solid one. Clever if applied properly. I've been practicing different variants of this for a little while now. Though I do tend to agree with the OP's sentiments on blade length to their height ratio. Having a similar setup to his original post, it's served me well thus far. Not to mention (as Sir, as well as others said) changing up your grip on the fly can be beneficial. In addition to footwork while striking, these "minor" adjustments can mean pretty decent/dramatic changes in the reach of your blades. I keep finding more & more I pick up about implementing this weapon.


And I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean in describing those movements and the stance... as stated I have done/do something similar. (from the sound of it anyway)

You can still present a smaller target with an over/over grip I'd say. You'd have to have one hand/side forward, making that hand the "lead" hand, but the advantage is you can easily have whichever hand/side is forwards become the lead hand as opposed to the nature of an over/under grip having one lead hand. I'd say this would be sort of "hybridizing" the over/over you are talking about and the over/under you are talking about, to essentially have the same stance you are likely considering, but with an over/over grip. Jabs/stabs are less feasible, but you can still deliver strikes and follow up strikes this way, but you have no true "lead" hand, which I think adds to the unpredictability.

I know you mentioned Maul as more of a "don't do this" example, but if you watch his fight with Ahsoka, he favors the over/over grip, and very rarely presents a square target/stance. Sure, he probably spins a bit more than is ideal for non-force sensitive fighters, but he delivers a wide range of strikes from many directions, typically with one side/shoulder forwards. He does square up at times, often to block, but it's far from his default or only stance or approach I'd say.

I gave a more in-depth response in the other thread, so if you want to keep this discussion there going forward so it's easier to track, that would be awesome.

Completely useless weapon
My instructor (who is also pole arms HEMA instructor as well and really experienced in all types of fencing) even tried to get max performance out of it, no luck
If you consider points for the "friendly fire" self-damage by false blade - nothing you can do against 1-2 handed lightsaber
As he said - you are removing all the good from staff and all the good from the sword when you join two sabers together

Video we made on the topic - https://www.instagram.com/tv/CSVSoxgD973/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link (https://www.instagram.com/tv/CSVSoxgD973/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)

But nice weapon for artistry\flourishing videos

My friend, there are very little weapons that are "completely useless." Maybe not having the same optimal maximal potential and/or a steeper learning curve to be proficient with, but that is hardly "completely useless." Your instructor may well be a great fencer and HEMA instructor, but of course he's not going to get "max performance" out of a weapon he's not as trained with. Bruce Lee said "I fear not the man who practiced ten-thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick ten-thousand times." I argue that your master can't possibly get "max performance" out of EVERY weapon known to man, as he hasn't put in maximum training into every possible weapon. My background is in Taekwondo. I'd be out of line to say that since I'm better with a bo staff, that a rapier isn't as effective for "max performance" because I'm not as skilled with it, having little to no practice with said weapon.

Does a double-bladed lightsaber lose many benefits of a bo staff or quarterstaff? Yes. You can't hold it towards one far end to gain a reach advantage, you can't touch the entirety of the staff against your body like you can with a normal staff, you can't really stab with it how you would with a spear due to the aforementioned grip location limitations, etc.

But LESS EFFECTIVE is not inherently synonymous with "completely useless." And remember, you are using the anecdotes and testing of ONE person who, while I'm sure is very experienced and talented, probably isn't the WORLD'S FOREMOST MARTIAL ARTIST who can speak definitively on every weapon in existence.

I'm ranting at this point, but I just think you're being a bit hyperbolic here. There's a difference between "completely useless" and "limited or suboptimal."

I understand what you are saying, great master can probably kill someone with a spoon, but I'm not going to assign some kill points to spoon as there are too many weapons ahead of it. So comparing to sword or staff - it is useless, if you don't like word completely-let's say 95% useless, it doesn't matter.

And of course I'm open for the videos where some master with double lighsaber defeat experienced fencer, it should be interesting

This is key, right here.

Because of the glowsticks, some aspects of staff technique are disallowed because you can't grip where it glows.

But the rest still works.

Here is a primary technique for long handled weapons, be it pikes, two handed swords or even saber staffs.
When you use your second hand, farther away from the first, you can pivot the blade faster than you could just swing it.

It's obvious when you hold a staff, horizontal around midpoint, hands about a foot apart.  Pull your right hand back while pushing your right hand forward.  Now reverse it.  That is WAY faster than you could one arm swing a blade from that position. It has more power as well.

Nearly every action with a staff should be like this, hit with one end, pivot and smack the other end in from the other direction.

two handed sword works the same way when the fighter realizes they can crank that pommel around the change direction.  You've got the same thing, just that there's another blade on the end of the pommel. German longsword style uses this to great effect.

Also, think about thrusting.  A staff is a spear without a pointy bit. Standing sideways to your enemy, you can lunge and extend as far as your arms will reach while holding it. You can swirl it around, bat at their blade. Now step forward while using your forward blade to push theirs away and reverse the ends and holy crap you are in their grill while cutting them down with the now forward end.

Basically, keep thinking of how to step and reverse that blade in concert.  Those reversals can be fast.

If you're comparing a saberstaff to a spoon, I should just stop engaging with you, as you're clearly unable to have a conversation without incessantly resorting to incredible hyperbole. Words have meaning. You seem unable to grasp that LESS USEFUL is not inherently synonymous with USELESS. It can be objectively less useful than a standard saber, or a light-spear, or light-naginata, but that doesn't make it USELESS by any stretch of the imagination.

Someone who is well trained with a saberstaff, while not as maximally effective as, say, a trained fencer with a single standard saber, can still easily catch an opponent off-guard who has not had a substantial amount of experience defending against a saberstaff. While the staff user likely has a good bit of experience defending against standard sabers. So while the fencer who has trained against a saberstaff will have the advantage, due to the rapier-like saber being more optimal here, if the fencer has little to no experience against a staff, they may be initially caught off guard while they learn how to counter their opponent. That's a potential utility.

It's conditionally beneficial, perhaps reliant on the opponent not having as much training against an unorthodox style. But, and I cannot reiterate or emphasize this enough, LESS USEFUL OR LESS OPTIMAL IS NOT INHERENTLY SYNONOMOUS WITH USELESS. They are different groupings of words that have different meanings.

(edit: it's just like all the YouTube HEMA practitioners say to NEVER spin in combat, but then there is at least one video of a professional sword-fighting match where someone scored a point by spinning. Sure, you shouldn't do it when you're learning, and it shouldn't be a standard or default option, but once you know the rules very well, perhaps you know when you can break them).

I hope you have learned something out of this. :)

uh...there is no spoon.

This harkens back to the nunchucks, saber-chuks and Shadiversity 3 part rant.

Shad's key metric is that a weapon can be compared to a Stick. And if the weapon is worse than a Stick, it's in his words, useless.  I'd agree that anything worse than a stick=bad weapon.  Not getting into "what if it's all you got", there's a rack of weapons. Would you choose it over  a stick?

An actual staff is better than a saber staff, if only because the user can grip it anywhere.  The whole "sabers cut anything" muddies the water, but pretend we're talking in context of sparring toys and not actual sci-fi.

If A has a sword and B has a staff, and both are "equally" trained, strong, fast, etc, who has advantage?  Possibly the staff because of reach.

If A has a sword and B has a saber staff, and both are "equally" trained, strong, fast, etc, who has advantage?  Probably the sword because B can't grip it to get more reach AND if we're strict about contact with the blade, can't even touch themselves with it. Sword guy is at low risk of cutting himself in comparison.

In normal sparring (and I have a collection of weapons including staff and spear), the poles are tricky to fight. Especially in the hands of someone who knows how to move and shift it. Because everybody thinks they can just step in on a longer weapon and gain the advantage, as if long weapon fighters don't have moves for that.

Some of that possibility is diminished by the glowstick blades.  Heck, remove one of the blades, and you might have a better weapon because of the now long handle.

a lot of words without info about cases which can highlight doubled saber usefulness, maybe you can start with this part instead of just writing huge posts about theory.
Any PROS of doubled saber weapon? anything?
CONS were mentioned here multiple times:
- huge risk of self damage
- less reach due to false blade control of friendly fire
- limited moves set (comparing to staff OR sword)
- exposed hands and hilt for hands snipping
- double size without any enhancement of all specifics mentioned.

staff - great weapon, doubled saber - just useless


And about polemics: if enhancement of the sword with second lightblade is useless without any PROS and in fact brings more disadvantages - entire new derived weapon is useless as well as it was created by useless change

Gaze upon my cross-threading skills.  ;D
not that i have any skin in this game but thanks to Janx i found this:
http://www.saberforum.com/index.php?topic=649.msg794627#msg794627 (http://www.saberforum.com/index.php?topic=649.msg794627#msg794627)

oh, and points to janx.  hell, points to you all!

“Useless.”

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Once again, less useful is not inherently synonymous with useless. It is really a very simple concept I’m sorry you seem incapable of grasping.

One potential benefit I did mention is the ability to perhaps catch someone who has little training against it off guard until they adapt to defending against it. Certain follow-up strikes are also faster than with a single saber. Regardless, less useful doesn’t mean useless.

Nice!

"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die."