The term Martial Art has become a generic term commonly used to describe a wide diversity of fighting types, ranging from Kung fu, Karate, Aikido, and Tae Kwon do etc. It seems, however that lots of these methods have developed into sports or exotic expressions and have lost their original Martial purpose for which they were designed, that is to fight for your life and defeat an enemy with or without weapons. They have in-fact become 'Art Martial'.
The defeat or total annihilation of an enemy is a brutal offensive action, which calls for great courage, speed, power, strength and mental and physical conditioning second to none, which is a completely different ball game and mind set to the above.

Having an interest in fighting with sticks, I am always analysing and assessing old and new combat stick methods and information. I have recently been sifting through certain oriental, Korean, stick fighting methods, to be more precise the walking cane as a weapon of self-defence. The main theme of these systems is passive, in that when an opponent does this you respond with this etc, all utilising reaction as bedrock foundation.
The technique's advocated, includes intricate and elaborate throws, locks, disarms, and flips, which to an impressionable observer must seem really cool.
Hitting with the stick seems to be considered secondary, and those shots, which are employed, are to say the least a bit suspect in application and effectiveness.

The shots advocated, that are used as primary attacks, are still much to passive in execution.
After evaluating the evidence presented, and in conclusion, it would be fair to say the concepts of these methods of fighting could only have been based on pure theory and conjecture, as opposed to real fighting experience.

European methods of stick fighting, for example the English cudgel (Which have been overlooked and missed out and discarded, over the years) contain simple effectual methods of fighting and how to defeat an opponent. The basic concept is to whack your aggressor with your stick, offensively, as hard and as fast as you can, without being hit back yourself.
If the range closes the combatant's switch into immediate close quarter hitting and or grappling without a second thought. If the fight went to the floor they continued to use whatever was at hand, or any other means such as biting, gouging etc.
All the body was considered a target, and all striking tools including punching, kicking, head butts, knees and elbows is considered fair game. Secondary use of cosh's and daggers is brought into play when the fight goes to the clinch or to the ground.
It seems, from my research that the Europeans did not consider pugilism, grappling or the use of any weapon, as been separate arts, rather they were all divisions of the same total package.
(There is no difference in geographical expressions of these arts; they were in fact the same, for example in France as was practised in England)
Stick fighting, in the instance of this article, would equate into starting the fight off using a stick and then whatever else goes to win.
Their whole fighting concept and criteria was founded on practical combative experience, (Reality) and scientific application. Physical conditioning and lots of contact combat sparring underpinned this fighting concept.

If we now return to and consider the Oriental stick fighting method mentioned earlier and start to assess their combat effectiveness, what you will discover is that they will only work when the partner is compliant. (I'm sorry if I offend some of you who are still practising traditional arts; this is a personal professional critique)

They don't work in combat, period.
How can I make such a bold statement? Well, I'm speaking from experience and results from my experimentation, of all out full contact stick fighting, when my opponent is fully resisting my attempts to defeat him and is also trying to defeat me at the same time.
So why do these Oriental techniques not work? Answer, and to reiterate again, they are based solely on theory and conjecture as opposed to reality, combat experience and scientific application.

Utilising the concept of practical scientific application, based on a criterion of reality, should be your main consideration when viewing fighting from the perspective of street fighting or self-defence.
Do not become entrapped in the comfortable safety net of theory and conjecture.

Fighting arts that look nice and are aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and are relatively easy in execution, feel comfortable to the practitioner. They also, as a result generally attract large classes. These arts tend to breed false confidence like a raging cancer, while actually imparting the exponents with false hope, in a real all out encounter.

Fighting arts, which look like rough and ready fisticuffs and brawling, and work out like Spartans, tend to have relatively few practitioners; are more than likely to be reality based.

In final conclusion of this comparative analysis, if your objective is street fighting and self-defence, you must assess, and evaluate fighting arts and training methods realistically, and express them using scientific application as opposed to mere theory and conjecture.

Keep training, keep researching, and don't be apprehensive to make your own conclusions and observations.
And as always...