New to Dueling with a Double-Bladed Lightsaber

[Null_Arc]

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.

[SirLiftaLot]

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.

[Null_Arc]

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?

[DarthProdigal]

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.

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.

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?

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)

[SirLiftaLot]

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?

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.

[Nodachi]

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

But nice weapon for artistry\flourishing videos

[SirLiftaLot]

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

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."

[Nodachi]

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

[janx]

Do you have any prior staff or bo training?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

[SirLiftaLot]

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

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.

[nunya]

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.

[janx]

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.

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.

[Nodachi]

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.

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

[nunya]

Gaze upon my cross-threading skills.  
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

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

[SirLiftaLot]

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

“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.