Some views on weapons

[Knifefighter]

For Shooter, Black Jack, and Water Dragon- here are a few of my "unorthodox" opinions on weapons.

- People are more intimidated by knives that what reality dictates. Blade wounds have a low percentage of lethality. Most people who are cut/stabbed with a weapon do not die.

- Blade disarms will usually not work unless you are actually holding onto the blade.

- You can hold the blade without getting cut.

- "Softening up" your opponent with strikes before attempting a disarm is not a very smart strategy. Landing strikes should be incidental, if not accidental, to the disarm (the opposite of what is commonly taught).

- If you know ground fighting and understand some basic principles of weapons, being on the ground is the best place (other than not being there at all) to be against an opponent who has a weapon.

- If you are going non-edged vs. non-edged weapon, your best bet is to use the weapon to close the distance, ditch your weapon, take the opponent down, disarm his weapon, and finish him off with his own weapon.

- European long and medium length blade work is generally superior to Filipino and Indonesian long and medium blade systems.

- You cannot learn weapons effectively unless you spar full contact, 100% against opponents who are doing the same.

- Weapons techniques do not transfer to empty-handed striking techs.

[Badger]

Knifefighter-
Do you carry a weapon? If so what??(this may be a silly question)


Badger

[Water Dragon]

- People are more intimidated by knives that what reality dictates. Blade wounds have a low percentage of lethality. Most people who are cut/stabbed with a weapon do not die.

Yes, I've seen this first hand with knives and handguns. The thing is, you're getting into a really tricky situation here and the potential for serious damage/death is much greater. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen, but the danger is defiantely there.

- Blade disarms will usually not work unless you are actually holding onto the blade.

From what I've seen, this is true as well

- You can hold the blade without getting cut.

From what I've seen, this is not true. However, I'd rather deal with a little cut on my hand then a big one across my arm or torso.

- "Softening up" your opponent with strikes before attempting a disarm is not a very smart strategy. Landing strikes should be incidental, if not accidental, to the disarm (the opposite of what is commonly taught).

- If you know ground fighting and understand some basic principles of weapons, being on the ground is the best place (other than not being there at all) to be against an opponent who has a weapon.

I put these two together for a reason. It's because I THINK that this will have a lot to do with how well you've trained. My personal preference, if confronted with a weapon, is to throw the guy down real hard and run like he.ll. Yes, I want him on the ground, but I don't want to be there with him. If BJJ was my primary rather than secondary art, I woul;d probably think differently here.


- Weapons techniques do not transfer to empty-handed striking techs.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. That is why weapons are equalizers. You don't need a stiff jab to gut someone with a knife. You need to learn how to use a knife.

I can't comment on the other points. I don't have the experience to.

[JWTAYLOR]

I'm not on your list but I'd like to comment anyway.

Most people who are cut/stabbed with a weapon do not die.

This statement is only somewhat backed up by the data from the Uniform Crime Reports published by the FBI. Yes, of ALL knife wounds, most people live. However, that belies the fact that most knife wounds occur from a threatening posture where the opponent is presented with a blade prior to it's use. In other words, most people who are cut/stabbed are attacked by opponents who did not initially intend to use the weapon during the attack. According to the UCR, those individuals that were attacked without warning were usually stabbed multiple times and without available whitnesses. The VAST majority of these peole died. That is becuase they blead to death before anyone available to call for medical attention. Unlike a gun, a knife makes no loud bang for everyone to hear.

As for
Blade disarms will usually not work unless you are actually holding onto the blade. and

You can hold the blade without getting cut. I would also agree.

You can ineed hold onto the blade without getting cut. However, I would like to add that's only if the blade isn't moving, and you will most likely never be able to hold onto a blade so hard that it can not be moved within your hand. That is why I don't take much stock in any dissarm that does not put two of your hands on the weapon hand. I want one controling the hand or wrist and one on the knife itself.

As a whole, however, I find actual disarms where the weapon leaves the individual's control are MUCH harder than most would have you think. So much so that I would consider them not very valuabe and not a high enough percentage of likelyhood to spend much time practicing.


Softening up" your opponent with strikes before attempting a disarm is not a very smart strategy. Landing strikes should be incidental, if not accidental, to the disarm (the opposite of what is commonly taught).

Absolutely. If you intend to actually remove the weapon from the attacker then it seems absolutely assinine to give them any opportunity to use it.

That said, I don't take much stock in removing the weapon. I am much more interested in incapacitating the attacker or controlling his movments than the actuall disarm. I think that is what your ground argument is all about. And I agree with it.

I understand the concept of "defanging the snake". But I've killed allot of rattlesnakes and every single one of them still had their fangs in them when I smashed their skull. The same rule very much applies to human combat.

If you are going non-edged vs. non-edged weapon, your best bet is to use the weapon to close the distance, ditch your weapon, take the opponent down, disarm his weapon, and finish him off with his own weapon.

I absolutely dissagree with that statement and think it directly violates the the "softening up" statement you made earlier. If your opponent is similarly skilled, you have not improved your position by closing the distance, ditching your weapon, attempting a takedown, and then disarming him. I can not buy into the idea of choosing to disarm and take down an opponent who has just as much skill as me when that will leave me unarmed against a similarly skilled armed opponent. If I KNEW the opponent couldn't hack the takedown or the ground game then I woudl go with your plan.


European long and medium length blade work is generally superior to Filipino and Indonesian long and medium blade systems.

The only European long and medium length blade work I've seen is from fencing. Specifically Saber Fencing. I've never seen any long range Indonesian or Phillipino stuff.


You cannot learn weapons effectively unless you spar full contact, 100% against opponents who are doing the same.

As long as that's not your only learning experience and assuming your wearing some kind of safety gear and using "practice" weapons, absolutely.

Weapons techniques do not transfer to empty-handed striking techs.

Again, I agree completely.

JWT

[Shooter]

Didn't read the responses from others as I didn't want to corrupt my initial reaction to what Knifefighter posted. BTW, Thanks a lot Knifefighter!

->" People are more intimidated by knives that what reality dictates. Blade wounds have a low percentage of lethality. Most people who are cut/stabbed with a weapon do not die."<

I know this is generally the case. However, just knowing that may be a danger to someone who tries to be a cowboy. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

>"- Blade disarms will usually not work unless you are actually holding onto the blade"<

Haven't had much experience with that one. I tend to find the offending hand/arm pretty quick even after being hit, (in the case of an undetected assault scenario).


>"- You can hold the blade without getting cut"<

As long as there's no sharpened serrations on the back of the blade. I agree that you can "ride" the blade with your hand in a "soft-grip"and control the direction as long as the attacker isn't allowed to jerk the weapon abruptly. Forward pressure and taking the blade to the outside of the action.

>"- "Softening up" your opponent with strikes before attempting a disarm is not a very smart strategy. Landing strikes should be incidental, if not accidental, to the disarm (the opposite of what is commonly taught)"<

Based on my own training, this can vary with the commitment and (simulated) emotional state of the "attacker". Some guys are better actors than others. Incidental impacts should always be added as a part of the flow.

>"- If you know ground fighting and understand some basic principles of weapons, being on the ground is the best place (other than not being there at all) to be against an opponent who has a weapon"<

Yes. I'm in complete agreement. Even if you have a blade of your own. I started looking into this after one of Keating's Riddle Of Steel camps from the early 90s.

>"- If you are going non-edged vs. non-edged weapon, your best bet is to use the weapon to close the distance, ditch your weapon, take the opponent down, disarm his weapon, and finish him off with his own weapon"<

Yes. It's best to play the odds if you have no choice but to engage the attacker.

>"- European long and medium length blade work is generally superior to Filipino and Indonesian long and medium blade systems."<

Haven't had enough exposure to either to comment.

>"- You cannot learn weapons effectively unless you spar full contact, 100% against opponents who are doing the same"<

That goes without saying.

>"- Weapons techniques do not transfer to empty-handed striking techs"<

I agree if we're talking about edged weapons, but blunt and short weapons have a lot of cross-over in my own experience. However, there are some lateral striking applications done with the radius and ulna bones that, in and of themselves, are crippling enough, but can be readily modified by extending the range to suit a point-insertion tactic with a knife.

Ultimately, the situation dictates the response. But as general guidelines, these are worth exploring.

Thanks a lot Knifefighter. Much appreciated.

[Black Jack]

Knifefighter, here are some of my own current thoughts, for whatever they are worth, their are many different schools of though on the matters of knife defense, so each to his own.

Topic 1: I agree that people are often very intimidated by knifes, to an extent which is often overdone, but on the aspect of lethality in a knife attack, it is a lethal weapon, every situation is different, are you facing someone who is not really commited, a guy with some actual experiance, maybe even prison experiance, a classical trained knifer, a group attack, someone who is in a zoned out rage, their are to many physical and psychological variables to list, but as Waterdragon said, their is potential, IMHO great potential for serious harm and death, not to mention that when a person is cut they can also die from hemorrhagic or psychogenic shock if not treated.

Topic 2: The medieval euorpean systems actually use this method a lot, it can been seen in many different classical manuels, it can be a viable option, but their can also be serious drawbacks like loosing your grip from sweat, blood, fatigue and pain, those older systems often had gloves on, either leather or metal, their weapons also were not sharpened as ours are now, there blades were more thrusting based than slashing based, I disagree that this would always be the best option with every type of knife, I think it is unrealistic to expect to catch the arm, hand or knife from a determined attacker, its simply moving to **** fast, if its stationary thats one thing, I turn to more of the re-direct/off center the knifing arm and attack the vital targets, but be opportunistic, if I can grab a arm I hang and still attack, pain can be a disarm, i.e broken knee.

Not to mention that by grabbing the blade, hand, arm, I am then locked into a wrestling match, if he is stronger, faster, more aggressive or more skilled then me I am in more trouble.

Topic 3: This also matters on where you grab the blade and what kind of a knife, a folder, a fixed blade, a push dagger, what basic grip are they using, foward or reverse, their are such a things as tip rips, the blades of today are so sharp it that I would not always hold this idea true, just lightly touch a spyderco to your forearm out of the box and you will bleed, grabbing one would slice your hand to the bone and IMHO make holding it very, very hard.

Topic 4: See number 2.

Topic 5: I 100% disagree, their goes that wrestling match thing again, a knife is a close quater weapon, by doing this you are bringing that weapon into its zone of use, you now have no where to run, no escape method, your awareness is for ****, you are open to multiple attackers, its good to train in these unconventail circumstances but to take a unkown attacker with a blade to the ground is bad mo-jo, this being if you can control the flow of the confrontation, not everyone is a duellist, a amush or bulldog strategy is more often what you will see, people interested in killing you are not going to step out from the shadows, cross-draw their knifes and go "on-guard"!

Topic 6: I 100% disagree again, ditch your weapon!! I like the dog brothers but come on, that is just distrubing, again we have the wrestling match strategy, this time telling someone to actually loose their weapon, would you advocate this to a women, to drop their advantage and start street grappling.

OT: Tell me one thing, why do the dog brothers in their tourneys/training, not allow two handed thrusts, this is what I have heard, I heard these were outlawed because of the fear for damage.

Topic 7: On this one, for certain reasons, I am baised to the European systems myself, but its not the style behind the knife, its the man I am worried about, their are some good non-duelling fma systems out their though, Sayoc Kali comes to mind.

Topic 8: Disagree, real knife fights are ambushes, fast, dirty and quick, its rare that both people have deployed weapons, duelling can build good attributes but if it is not averaged with scenario-based training it can can lead to bad habits, most of the western systems do no duelling, and the better combat task oriented FMA and IMA dont as well, IMHO if you want to do research on real knife fights one should research prison shankings.

Its a stupid movie but a good example is "Urban Cowboy", when John Travolta tries to go after the guy who was flirting with his girlfriend at the bar, all you see is the guy kinda blade his stance off a little bit and taunt him, Travolta gets grabbed by his friends before he can tackle the guy, what John does not know and that we now see is that the flirting guy in the bar had with one-hand unfolded a small buck behind his back.

Its a good example of misdirection.

Topic 9: I agree, their is a big difference between hand and knife techs, not angles and basic structure but in its application.

Sorry Knifefighter, I have trouble agreeing with a lot of whats posted here, I am an expert by no means, take what I say for whats its worth, my only knife experiances are once being attacked with a butcher knife by a drunk relative and being an outside witness to knife altercation where the knifer/punk kid got his ass beat.

Just my two cents,

Peace

[Shooter]

Black Jack raises some good points. If the duelists approach is the only training method, then the tactics are going to be a lttle more 'rehearsed" than a random attack.

In the case of prison experience as Black Jack referred to (what I call "the prison stabbing"), you'll feel the blade before you see it. In that vein, what I was hoping to see come from this discussion is the "undetected/noncompliance assault" scenario (as I call it) being explored more.

A mugging or abduction is what I call a "compliance scenario" wherein the attacker wants his victim to see the weapon in order to elicit their compliance.

Then there's the emotional component that contributes greatly to how things unfold. This is scenario-specific though, and depends on the direction people take in developing scenarios for training those aspects.

[wolfkiller]

how can going to the ground be effective against a weapon like a knife or stick?

on the ground your mobility is limited. how can you evade or redirect attacks?

how will you even be able to bring him down without him striking you in a vital part of hte bady like the neck or head?

[Water Dragon]

how can going to the ground be effective against a weapon like a knife or stick?

Against a stick, you just can't get the momentum to swing it. I don't think I could handle a knife on the ground. But just because I can't, doesn't mean nobody can.

on the ground your mobility is limited. how can you evade or redirect attacks?

Yes, your mobility is limited, so is his. And if you spend time learning to move around down there and the other guy doesn't, guess who has the advantage?

how will you even be able to bring him down without him striking you in a vital part of hte bady like the neck or head?

Can anybody say SHUAI CHIAO

[Shooter]

In Knifefighter's post he wrote that the ground is the best place to be IF you know ground-fighting and understand some basic principles. Doesn't mean it's the only place to be.

As in all things, too many variables to be thinking in terms of absolutes.

[Black Jack]

Shooter, no offense to Knifefighter, he sounds like he has a very good background, but going to the ground on purpose with a blade is not my idea of a smart tactic.

A stick, as WaterDragon pointed out, is different, you can not swing it if you can bridge and trap the attacker up, but the same idea applies that you are taking a attacker to the ground on purpose, not my bad of apples, I am not confident enough in myself, attributes, luck and the enviroment to try something like that when my ass is on the line, even more so when the tactic is to chuck your own weapon, if I land down their fine, I will deal with it to the best of my ability, but to take it their is another story.

IMHO the more damaging strikes are not swings anyway but thrusts, which can be done if on the ground, though come to think about it so could swings, if you are mounted.

Either way it is to much presuming for my tastes.

[Shooter]

Black Jack, in a one-on-one duel, it's actually pretty effective if the other guy tries to follow you to the ground. Again, it just one option well worth exploring IMO.

Perhaps Knifefighter will jump back in here and carry the discussion further.

[Braden]

I seem to recall often seeing in BJJ the case where an opponent has a hand free, but can generate no leverage and has no space for power with it. An acceptable position unarmed, but not if he has a knife. Is this just shoddy BJJ in general?

[wolfkiller]

Originally posted by Water Dragon
[

Can anybody say SHUAI CHIAO [/B]

shuai chiao doesn't have ground fighting.

and wouldn't it be better if you are on your feet while the armed assailant stays on the ground ?

[Sam Wiley]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
For Shooter, Black Jack, and Water Dragon- here are a few of my "unorthodox" opinions on weapons.

- People are more intimidated by knives that what reality dictates. Blade wounds have a low percentage of lethality. Most people who are cut/stabbed with a weapon do not die.

Yes, but they lived because the people who stabbed them did not know what they were doing. Most cuts are not over important places, and most stabs miss vital organs. I do not believe that the statistics take that into account, however I don't think it really matters. The two people who have pulled knives on me were not trained, and most people who pull knives on someone are not trained.

- Blade disarms will usually not work unless you are actually holding onto the blade.

- You can hold the blade without getting cut.

I agree on both counts, and from experience. In any case a cut on the hand is preferable to a cut on the face or throat or abdomen. Despite my agreement, I do not think disarms are a smart thing to attempt. However, that does not mean I would not attempt a disarm in a tight situation. I simply do not recommend disarms to others; better to either follow the advice that says temporarily disable him and run, or take your life into your own hands with a disarm.

- "Softening up" your opponent with strikes before attempting a disarm is not a very smart strategy. Landing strikes should be incidental, if not accidental, to the disarm (the opposite of what is commonly taught).

Agreed, though not an the "accidental" part. Giving him the opportunity to blindly slash while I try to pummel him senseless before trying the disarm is not my idea of a good time. But strikes are definitely going to be part of my method.

- If you know ground fighting and understand some basic principles of weapons, being on the ground is the best place (other than not being there at all) to be against an opponent who has a weapon.

If I am in the dominant position (and who wouldn't want to be), I can at least see where you're coming from. Taking him down, mounting him, and then disarming him is definitely a viable option...if you are intent on disarming him and finishing him off. However, finishing him off is a must here, and I am talking about being brutal and cruel. Not finishing him off in a decisively cruel manner would make the takedown pointless. After all, he DID pull a knife on you.

- If you are going non-edged vs. non-edged weapon, your best bet is to use the weapon to close the distance, ditch your weapon, take the opponent down, disarm his weapon, and finish him off with his own weapon.

Against a club or stick or something, I can see doing this. Closing the distance minimizes personal risk because it hampers his ability to derive momentum and power with a blunt object by eliminating the necessary space. Eliminating one weapon from the equation limits his potential for damage. Making your weapon the eliminated one gives you at least one more hand with which to work, and you control where it goes. And finishing him off with his own weapon is, besides being poetic, a practical alternative to eliminating the second weapon, since you rearm yourself at the same time as you disarm him, giving you a decided advantage.

Knifefighter, if these strategies are "unorthodox" then I'd hate to hear what orthodox strategies are. Very good post.