The Ultimate NHB Competitons

[ShaolinTiger00]

http://ejmas.com/jmanly/articles/200..._gorn_0401.htm

As I grew up in the Ohio Valley area, I'm actually very curious to know more about this..

[Serpent]

Biting one anothers Lips and Noses off, and gowging one another – that is, thrusting out one anothers Eyes, and kicking one another on the Cods

Sounds like me and Mrs Serpent when I come home drunk....

[Xebsball]

huh?
link no show to me

[Knifefighter]

Interesting read, both from the fighting methods used, as well as from a cultural perspective.

Seems like:
- Most fights went to the ground.
- Gouging eyes from the sockets was pretty common and usually happened on the ground.
- Conditioning, or lack thereof, played an important role.
- The only technical considerations given to ground fighting were the eye removal.

[MasterKiller]

"But what is worse than all," Isaac Weld observed, "these wretches in their combat endeavor to their utmost to tear out each other’s testicles"

"Still, liberating an eyeball quickly became a fighter’s surest route to victory and his most prestigious accomplishment."

Nut pulls and eye gouging do work against grapplers. Go figure.

"the equipment of the ‘chivalric Kentuckian,’" Charles Agustus Murray observed in the 1840s, as bowie knives ended more and more rough-and-tumbles. "

Grappling against someone on the street who may have a knife is not advantageous.

"Yet precisely because eye gouging was so violent – because combatants cherished maimings, blindings, even castrations – it unleashed death wishes that invited new technologies of destruction."

Mean bastads, sure enough.

- Conditioning, or lack thereof, played an important role.

Where did you see this in the article?

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
"Where did you see this in the article?

"...and the want of breath, brought him instantly to the ground."

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Nut pulls and eye gouging do work against grapplers. Go figure.

And who will have the advantage in this knowing the nuances of grappling and when you can eye gouge and pull nuts without getting your arm broken? The grappler. Go figure.

Originally posted by MasterKiller
"the equipment of the ‘chivalric Kentuckian,’" Charles Agustus Murray observed in the 1840s, as bowie knives ended more and more rough-and-tumbles. "

Grappling against someone on the street who may have a knife is advantageous.if you understand the control and positioning that will prevent him from accessing his blade.

[MasterKiller]

"...and the want of breath, brought him instantly to the ground."

Hitting him hard, and the fact that he was tired, setup the throw. So a stand-up fighter in better condition has the advantage?

And who will have the advantage in this knowing the nuances of grappling and when you can eye gouge and pull nuts without getting your arm broken? The grappler. Go figure.

OK; nevertheless, since most of these fights seemed to end with an eye coming out, it stands to reason this is not a low % technique afterall.

Grappling against someone on the street who may have a knife is advantageous.if you understand the control and positioning that will prevent him from accessing his blade. [/B]

Funny they never thought about anything like that, and yet they were exposed to it on a regular basis. They didn't try to modify their grappling to deal with knives---they abadoned the grappling because of knives.

[SifuAbel]

Ah, I see this is another "The Good Grappler® will overcome" thread.

[rubthebuddha]

Grappling against someone on the street who may have a knife is advantageous.if you understand the control and positioning that will prevent him from accessing his blade.

could be, but if you grapple with anyone with a weapon, wouldn't it make more sense to just beat the ****er down? even if you disarm them, they still have hands, feet, elbers, etc. to club you with. if you disarm them through unconsciousness, you take care of all his weapons, both organic and otherwise. i can understand grappling to restrain someone, but if they're swinging a blade, i don't think it's a time to hold back. my personal preference is to restrain rather than mash, but weapons change everything, period.

in addition, i'm not all that keen on grappling someone on the street for reasons of other sharp objects. i'm not talking about the proverbial broken glass, but something more along the lines of needles. get someone's heroin needle accidentally jabbed in you, and you have a good chance at catching whatever they have. even if you escape with but a few scratches, if one of those scratches is from the needle of a hep- or hiv-positive junkie, you just floated a few miles up **** creek, and the paddles were left back in the car. likelihood? slim, depending on where you live, but some things i'd rather not chance.

if you can deal with someone before they get a chance to arm themselves, fine. if the blade is out, the longer you're tied to them, the more likely you are to get cut. even if you "win" the fight, a good cut takes away your winning attitude real quick. i think it was rene latosa who shared the filipino phrase of "the winner of a knife fight dies in the hospital rather than the street" or something like that.

[rubthebuddha]

extension -- i'm not docking grappling as a response in anyway, as i really don't know grappling work on weapons outside of basic disarms, many of which can still leave you open. if an average grappler can eliminate both weapon and attacker from the fight in one play, i'm all for it. you just better teach it to me.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Hitting him hard, and the fact that he was tired, setup the throw. So a stand-up fighter in better condition has the advantage?

I don't think they were either standup or ground fighters, per se. They did both. All other things being equal, the better conditioned fighter has the advantage.

Originally posted by MasterKiller
OK; nevertheless, since most of these fights seemed to end with an eye coming out, it stands to reason this is not a low % technique afterall.

If you can dominate someone on the ground, you can do pretty much whatever you want to them. In that case it's probably not a low percentage move. Plucking the eye out of a standing, mobile opponent, on the other hand, is probably very low percentage

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Funny they never thought about anything like that, and yet they were exposed to it on a regular basis. They didn't try to modify their grappling to deal with knives---they abadoned the grappling because of knives.

They had very little technical knowledge of grappling and controlling positions on the ground. The only technical references I saw were related to standing boxing and pulling the eye out. Technical knowledge of ground fighting changes everything.

[ShaolinTiger00]

Knife fighter please correct me if I'm wrong here. You obviously have more experience on this subject from me. I've only attended a few seminars and weapon disarms and they were bare bones simple WWII stuff.

If you get in a fight with a knife, club etc.-You've just entered a grappling situation. His forward pressure is unavoidable. Contrary to fantasy, he's not going to dance around and circle you like Capt. Kirk and some alien warlord.. He wants to get close and whether you like it or not you're going to be grappling soon.

How do you beat him down? you aim to initiate the contact? planning on extending a limb? he'd like that.. whack/slash..

The only sensible solution for disarm is to grapple and put him down on the ground in a controled postition. You use positional dominance to let you use your entire body vs. the limb holding the weapon. "even if you disarm them, they still have hands, feet, elbers, etc. to club you with." -Which is exactly why you want them on the ground, so you know that they are controlled and can't continue to attack.

the longer you're tied to them, the more likely you are to get cut.

I'd disagree. I'd say that just like striking, the longer you are free standing the more likely he is to be able to hit or cut you because you have absolutely no control over him. even if you hit him, he is still holding his blade. He stabs at you and you take a glancing cut but manage to get him down and in side control to isolate the arm. the fight is mush less deadly.

That is the difference between going to the ground unskilled vs. skilled. two guys rolling around with no sense might be idiotic, but when you know and use a methodical strategy the difference is clear.

[Mr Punch]

MK I would say that saying that the prevalence of knives in these stand-up-to-grapple fests hastened the end of ground grappling tactics is not true. You are talking about people who practised ground grappling and striking AND using their knives in such a situation. So grappling on the ground was not ineffective against knives, but of course, between two people rolling around on the floor, all other things being equal, the one who can gain a position to effectively use a knife will win. Therefore, I would say that combined with grappling the knife became more deadly.

Following on from that, it must be fallacious to conclude that the existance of blades in these fights rendered this kind of grappling ineffective, but that they augmented each other.

In a modern self defence situation, I would hope that the average guy pulling a knife on you, even if they have the balls to use it, will not have experience of ground grappling, and possibly not standing grappling either, so grappling will have a better chance of being a viable self defence option.

This is not comparing it to striking, just an observation that I think your logic is faulty in this case.

Although, personally, if it is ever my misfortune to meet someone with a knife on the street again, I would want to step into range, control the arm and break it rather than risk not getting an incapacitating blow on someone who is quite likely on drugs. Maybe your experience differs... I admit my kicking is generally slow and not so hard, so that precludes me from a more safe(=long?)-ranged, heavy-weaponed (boot!) strategy.

Great article. I suspect that the real reason for the dying out of such fights has more to do with the eventuality of the law and perhaps a hint of civilisation creeping in to counterract the rising death rate, rather than the increased use of knives per se.

And on eye-gouging:

1) these loonies practised eye-gouging by eye-gouging... by physically forcing their thumbs and fingers into another man's eyes and ripping them out. Not by going through the motions and saying 'this is where I would gouge his eye out'. Not many people nowadays would have the lack of inhibition needed to make it a reality I think.

2) As many of the accounts on that site say, however colourfully dubious they are, in many cases it didn't even instantly stop the fight. Though again, I doubt many non-psychopathic modern 'streetfighters' would continue after losing an eye. Drugs could change that equation too.

3) And it is without a doubt grappling skills that got them into an eye-gouging position in the first place.

Just a couple of thoughts.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00
The only sensible solution for disarm is to grapple and put him down on the ground in a controled postition. You use positional dominance to let you use your entire body vs. the limb holding the weapon. "even if you disarm them, they still have hands, feet, elbers, etc. to club you with." -Which is exactly why you want them on the ground, so you know that they are controlled and can't continue to attack.

Exactly... The best time to do this is before he has a chance to access the weapon. If you can get mount, it is extremly hard for him to pull a blade. Even with side control, you can control his arms enough to keep him from getting the weapon in most cases. If he does manage to get it out, two-on-one control with side control, knee ride, or mount usually leads to a disarm and/or turning the weapon on him.

If he gets the blade out while standing and closes the gap quickly into inside range, the best bet is to go for two-on-one control. From there, there are a variety of potential disarms, takedowns, and ways to pull him to the ground while maintaining two-on-one control.

If he pulls the blade and doesn't close the distance immediately (this may also mean that he is just using the knife as an intimidation device and you can retreat to safety- which should always be your first choice if you have the option), you have a chance to get an equalizer of your own. In that case, you don't want to grapple unless inside fighting range is reached.

Fighting someone with a knife is obviously never easy, but a hidden reverse grip is probably the toughest to defend against. It's hard to see whether or not he even has a blade..It will look like he is just throwing blows, but the blade will be behind the forearm and will follow with a slicing motion just behind the blow. Most of the time, you are screwed because you are cut up before you even know there is a knife. Trying to block any of these blows just gets you cut up even more. A clip-on can be deployed into this grip without you even seeing it (watch for one hand slightly back by his waist or, if it is already in the grip, a slightly unaturally holding of one or both hands), which is why taking him down fast before he moves to access it can be your best bet.

[Mr Punch]

ttt

cos it's an interesting article about real fighting, and it also offers interesting analysis of secondary evidence in historical argument. It would be nice if there were more of these kinds of articles about 'real fighters' in Chinese history... if anyone knows of any please post them.

And because I liked it!

It's long, so if you can't be arsed now, copy it or bookmark it.