Special fondness for a particular weapon...

[Musashi Padawan]

It’s a thinking deeply of the world kind of day...
I was reading through the “which lightsaber form do you favor?” thread and was inspired by something Master Althalus wrote. It took my thinking in a completely different direction to an entirely new topic. Follow me here.
Musashi wrote in The Five Rings
You should not have any special fondness for a particular weapon, or anything else, for that matter. Too much is the same as not enough.
There are similar translations such as:
You should not have a favorite weapon. To become over-familiar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well.
Now this line is sort vague and up to interpretation, like much of Musashi’s writings. It can be taken several ways. Translations and scholars can disagree.
The first way to look at this quote is that one should be proficient with a variety of weapons (during his time bow, spear, sword, gun, etc). In this section of the book, he is describing selecting weapons suited to different situations, for example a short sword in a narrow space. This makes sense for a professional warrior in the 1600s, but not so much for men and women with a light saber hobby now a days. We are all going to probably stick to sabers (or possibly a saberstaff) and spar within the safe and controlled confines or rules of our school, league or group.
The next way to look at this quote is that one should be proficient with a variety of techniques. Business men that study Mushashi often use this quote, as do martial artists like one of our own resident masters:

When it comes to the Seven Forms - to me, they don't make any sense at all (from a martial artist's PoV, mind you). You've got 7 different methods to use the same weapon, so basically you should be able to use any variant with every form.

Exactly! Reading this is what got me to thinking of the Musashi quote and how it relates to prescribed saber forms. One’s overall skill and knowledge should be applied to any sparring situation instead of stubbornly sticking to a particular form or mindset (which in essence is what I believe the 7 forms are, but that is yet another thread).
Ok, with me so far?
Because the third way to look at this quote is actually the reason I wanted to make this post and get everyone’s take.  That is the idea that one should not have a favorite weapon, or simply in our case one  lightsaber we exclusively train with. The idea that getting overly familiar or mastering the feel of just one certain saber is not good.
What do you think?  I understand these things are not cheap and many people do not have the option of many different sabers. But to those that can- do you mix up which hilts you train with?
I personally try to practice with a few of my different sabers. Or I’ll ask to use another student’s saber for a class. It helps me be more adaptable and study new way of applying the weapon. Also keeps me fresh.  I favor sabers for certain situations- sparring, forms practice, one-handed, two-handed even different opponents that I know well.
So, do you agree with Musashi or do you have one saber that, “is your life”? I am curious.

[Illyiss]

If I may offer yet another possible perspective; why not all of those at once?  Be proficient in many weapons; lightsaber (in it's various forms, staff, pike, shoto, curved, "regular"), unarmed combat, basic staff, knife/dagger, short staff, club, Shillelagh, tonfa, etc...  Be proficient in many or all styles, in as many "weapons" as you can.  Do not become reliant on one individual weapon of any type (particular saber hilt, for example).  Specialization has some very strong advantages, and should not be ignored, but outside of the right situation, that specialization can be as much of a disadvantage.  Diversity, in all things, can carry you through a wider range of potentialities than just specialization.

[wandering-seeker]

I'd say I agree with Illyiss. General proficiency is usually the best idea. At the same time, I would say that weapons are a weakness at the end of the day, your body is your first and last weapon.

[Karmack]

I tend to see my weapon(s) the same way that I see my musical instruments.  I am a shooter.  I know how to shoot many different guns.  But I have one weapon in particular that I have chosen as the best match for me for use as my personal side-arm.  I practice with this one weapon enough to keep it so familiar that it is like an extension of my body. 

I am a brass player.  I know how to play virtually every brass instrument to a level of basic proficiency.  But my "battle axe",  my primary instrument is the trombone.  I know how to play that instrument very well.  But my personal trombone is one that I know inside-and-out, I know its peculiarities, its bad notes, its good ones, and I play it all the time so that it becomes an extension of my body.

I am a lightsaber user.  I know how to use them in different forms and different styles.  I can use a staff, or a single bladed saber.  Long or short blades.  But I have one saber that I use all the time, one that suites my own fighting style and strengths and weaknesses.  One that I use constantly and that I am intimately familiar with...

You get the idea.  :-)

The point is this: You need to be aware of the broad base of what is possible.  Be competent in ALL the styles, ALL the weapons you may face.  But in the end you also need to be intimate with the weapon in your hand, and proficient beyond competency.  To do that requires that you specialize.  This is I think what Illyiss was saying as well.  Know yourself, the weapon is your body.  What you have in your hand is just the tool you're using right now...

[Illyiss]

I'd say I agree with Illyiss. General proficiency is usually the best idea. At the same time, I would say that weapons are a weakness at the end of the day, your body is your first and last weapon.

You misspelled mind.

I tend to see my weapon(s) the same way that I see my musical instruments.  I am a shooter.  I know how to shoot many different guns.  But I have one weapon in particular that I have chosen as the best match for me for use as my personal side-arm.  I practice with this one weapon enough to keep it so familiar that it is like an extension of my body. 

I am a brass player.  I know how to play virtually every brass instrument to a level of basic proficiency.  But my "battle axe",  my primary instrument is the trombone.  I know how to play that instrument very well.  But my personal trombone is one that I know inside-and-out, I know its peculiarities, its bad notes, its good ones, and I play it all the time so that it becomes an extension of my body.

I am a lightsaber user.  I know how to use them in different forms and different styles.  I can use a staff, or a single bladed saber.  Long or short blades.  But I have one saber that I use all the time, one that suites my own fighting style and strengths and weaknesses.  One that I use constantly and that I am intimately familiar with...

You get the idea.  :-)

The point is this: You need to be aware of the broad base of what is possible.  Be competent in ALL the styles, ALL the weapons you may face.  But in the end you also need to be intimate with the weapon in your hand, and proficient beyond competency.  To do that requires that you specialize.  This is I think what Illyiss was saying as well.  Know yourself, the weapon is your body.  What you have in your hand is just the tool you're using right now...

Karmack gets it.  Know much, and know more about what fits you best.  Point.

[wandering-seeker]

My mistake, Illyiss, for speaking in a purely martial sense. The mind is well and good, but training tells me that the body must be honed like a blade if the mind will come to best use in a fight.

[Illyiss]

My mistake, Illyiss, for speaking in a purely martial sense. The mind is well and good, but training tells me that the body must be honed like a blade if the mind will come to best use in a fight.

Oh, you aren't wrong with that, but it all starts with the mind.  Staying alert, storing the knowledge, avoiding conflict if possible, mindset, controlling fear.  All of it starts with the mind.  Even the decision to train the body. I meant the original to come across more tongue in cheek than it may have, if so, I apologize.

[Master Althalus]

inspired by something Master Althalus wrote.

Thank you, I didn't think my gruffy remark would be inspiring. 

You see, I'm researching, practicing and teaching Bolognese fencing for over 10 years now - and if there's one thing that most people find discouraging first, it's the vast variety of weapons used in this style. We start out with a single-handed sword, add various off-hand weapons, use a real two-handed sword and various pole-arms. But the beauty of the style is, that it's always the same method, with every weapon, adapted to the specific differences of the weapons (I've also adapted the method to unarmed combat, which works surprisingly good).

The same is also true for all styles that use different weapons: one method, adapted to specific weapons.

I'm no longsword fencer, but I can hold myself surprisingly good against them following the method and principles I use in Bolognese.

Now, the inherent weakness in the concept of the Seven Forms is, that there are 7 different methods for the same weapon. It's like the Knights Templar would have taught seven different methods of sword-and-shield combat to their squires ...

That's why I changed my approach for SaberAcademy Vienna from these Forms into the concept I call Functional Fiction. I have two technical Forms (splitting two- and one-handed wielding for easier learning), two tactical Forms (defense and offense) and two psychological Forms (deception and force). One learns the technical base then builds up knowledge on tactical principles and psychological factors. The METHOD never changes, only the application in a given situation can be adapted.

[Karmack]

Master Althalus,

Actually what you describe is very much in the same vein as how I understand the forms.  At least the first 4.  :-)  It starts with basics (form 1), then adds defensive techniques for fighting other swords (form 2) and blaster fire (form 3), then adds offensive techniques geared around athleticism (form 4) and strength (form 5).  Niman, form 6, was an attempt to distill 1-5 down into a single form that could be learned, but it is generally understood that as a pure form it is to much of a compromise between attack and defense, leaving the techniques for both wanting.  And form 7... I won't go into Juyo.  Of the forms, this one seems the most "literary" in that it was made up for story-telling reasons.  :-)

What you say is true.  I think, though, that the first five forms are not at all unlike what you described as what you teach.  Basics: technical one-hand, technical two-hand.  Then Tactical: defense and offense.  Then Psychological" deception and force. 

So, you also have six forms.   From a certain point of view.  ;-)

[Master Althalus]

So, you also have six forms.   From a certain point of view.  ;-)

I do - but in fact they're not separate. Everything is just an aspect of one method. I could indeed drop the term 'Form' altogether and the method would not change. I just wanted to keep it to fulfill certain expectations to some degree. 
But I'm not here to promote my method - I just wanted to illustrate my way of thinking.

[Karmack]

I do - but in fact they're not separate. Everything is just an aspect of one method. I could indeed drop the term 'Form' altogether and the method would not change. I just wanted to keep it to fulfill certain expectations to some degree. 
But I'm not here to promote my method - I just wanted to illustrate my way of thinking.

That's a good point.  Maybe its an error on my part, but I always viewed the seven forms as progressive system of operation all based on the same set of basics - Shii Cho - then applied with variation in different ways for different situations or applications.  But that, as I said, may be an error on my part in how I've viewed them.   As I've always read it, you have basic moves that all saber users learn (Jedi and Sith, presumably) in Chii Sho, then based on the practitioner's own strengths and weaknesses and the situation of the day the student then learns how to apply those basics in a particular way, with additional techniques learned as needed.  For example, form IV - Ataru - is a highly aggressive and acrobatic form focused on attack.  The "green super-ball" attack pattern that Yoda used against Dukoo in Ep 2 is presented as a penultimate example.  But it is still based in Shii Cho. 

Or it would be if it were rational, at any rate.  And maybe that's the problem.  I know far more about the "rationalized" forms as presented by groups like New York Jedi and TPLA, which is certainly different than a "pure" discussion of the fictional form.

I do agree with your assessment as far as it making more sense for the Jedi to have developed a unified form, particularly as they had developed what amounted to their own separate culture and had millenia to do the developing.  I suspect that at least SOME of people who have written the Forms over the years have the same concept of it that you do - one method with different emphasis for different situations - rather than totally separate systems, like Broadsword vs Jujitsu vs Bolognese.

[Master Nero Attoru]

Flexibility is key, of course.  That said, I think context is also important.  In Musashi's case, he lived during an era where familiarity with all different weapons would give one a better chance of surviving on the battlefield.  Knowing the capabilities of your enemy is incredibly valuable, and there's no more intimate way to learn these capabilities than to put yourself in his or her shoes.  Understanding the weapon being used against you is a big part of that!

[wandering-seeker]

Now, the inherent weakness in the concept of the Seven Forms is, that there are 7 different methods for the same weapon. It's like the Knights Templar would have taught seven different methods of sword-and-shield combat to their squires ...

I've always thought of the Seven Forms in much the same way as I was taught to think about the Animal Styles in my Kung Fu school. Tiger is about force and brutality, Snake focuses on grappling and flexibility, Crane on attacking pressure points and the joints, etc. All of the styles were built on the same mechanics for striking with stylistic differences that could vary depending on the exact animal style. But at the end of the day, the difference between the styles was their approach to combat. It wasn't physical as much as psychological, in how someone was trained to fight and the enemies they were trained to specialize in fighting.

[Illyiss]

I see the seven forms as a literary attempt at showing both the progression of development of a style, or the seeking to refine it (as it talks about where Shii Cho came from, how Makashi was a response, and so on), and the Jedi, stuck in tradition and hubris, held each evolution separate and needing of designation and continued application.  They anchored to so many pasts they could not accept the present nor be prepared for the future.

[Master Althalus]

I see the seven forms as a literary attempt at showing both the progression of development of a style, or the seeking to refine it (as it talks about where Shii Cho came from, how Makashi was a response, and so on), and the Jedi, stuck in tradition and hubris, held each evolution separate and needing of designation and continued application.  They anchored to so many pasts they could not accept the present nor be prepared for the future.

PERFECT! I love it!
At least within the setting, it's a perfect explanation.