# Weapon and Multiple Attacker Defense



## MJS (Apr 25, 2006)

Considering there are numerous BJJ schools out there, I'd imagine that there would be some differences in the way material is taught.  That being said, I'd like to discuss how BJJ covers the area of weapons and more than one attacker.  I recall that Royce put out a book which had some weapon defenses in there.

Are weapons and mult. attackers covered in your school?  If they are, what methods of defense do you use?

Mike


----------



## MJS (May 1, 2006)

Wow, I was actually hoping to see some replies here, considering that we have quite a few grapplers on this site.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, and say that this is not something covered in the typical BJJ material?

Mike


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

Schools that focus _primarily_ on grappling are notoriously weak when it comes to these practical self-defense realities.  I'm guessing that is why this topic got few replies.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 1, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Wow, I was actually hoping to see some replies here, considering that we have quite a few grapplers on this site.
> 
> I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, and say that this is not something covered in the typical BJJ material?
> 
> Mike



Sorry, must have missed it 

Well, BJJ seems to be almost straight Judo in terms of weapon defences if you go "by the book". 

However each grappling school is going to be different, there is not a set criteria across the board like is often the goal for many other systems.  Every instructor will do things differently.

Many grappling schools don't go into either of those area's much at all, prefering to focus on a smaller skillset, but to a higher level.

That said, for both weapons and multiple attackers I think grappling is a neccessity, because it is going to happen whether you like it or not.

For multiple attackers you'd be looking at clinch work and takedown defence, standing up off the ground if you do end up down.  In the clinch you need to work strikes and control, trying to keep one person in between you and the others, and being able to break away quickly and cleanly.

With weapons, it's going to depend on the weapon.  If someone has a stick, and you don't, and you plan on fighting. I think you're going to want to try and crash in and fight in the clinch, or take it to the ground.  Need to get inside that range to take the sting out of the weapon, control the arm and hopefully get the weapon.

Bladed weapons... let's just admit you're going to get cut up 90% of the time.  But, if you're going to try you need to get control of that arm, which means clinch and some variation of a 2 on 1, possibly taking it to the ground from there.  But you need to control that weapon hand.

Of course I am not a BJJ stylist, but these are the things I've found work best, and best doesn't mean well, in live training.  But in either of those circumstances even untrained people are going to give you a hard time, especially if something sharp is involved and you got nothing.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Schools that focus _primarily_ on grappling are notoriously weak when it comes to these practical self-defense realities.  I'm guessing that is why this topic got few replies.



And sweeping generalizations are usually ________?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

That statement is itself a sweeping generalization.  The statement, "gravity makes things fall down" is a sweeping generalization -- and one that is true more often than it is not.  Grappling is an important skill.  It is not a primary defensive strategy for pragmatic self-defense, however, and among the reasons it is not are the very reasons you will not find a grappling school that can teach you how to successfully grapple your way out of a multiple-attacker or weapon-inclusive scenario.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 1, 2006)

How many grappling schools have you spent a good amount of time in that you are able to draw that conclusion?


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 1, 2006)

No BJJ school I have been to focuses on multiple attacker scenarios or weapon defense. Thats not to say these things don't exist (I hear Royce requires his black belts to know a_ lot_ of self defense techniques), they are just not the prime focus. Obviously, grappling skils are taught first and foremost.

However saying BJJ schools don't impart practical self defense skills is ridiculous. Even if multiple attacker and weapon based scenarios are not commonly taught, fundemental fighting principles are _constantly_ drilled into students heads. Blocking strikes to get the clinch, takedowns and takedown defense, getting off the ground quickly, and fighting from your back are all essential both to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and to surviving an attack. They are most commonly shown to be applied in one on one confrontations, but if a person can't defeat a single opponent they have little chance of defeating several of them.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 1, 2006)

> No BJJ school I have been to focuses on multiple attacker scenarios or weapon defense. Thats not to say these things don't exist (I hear Royce requires his black belts to know a_ lot_ of self defense techniques), they are just not the prime focus.



Exactly.  That is the problem.  Such schools ignore out of necessity facets of pragmatic self-defense that simply cannot be ignored when one considers real-life survival.  This does not make such schools bad; it simply makes their curriculum unrealistic or incomplete, depending on how you look at it.

We could just as easily ask, "What strategies do Formula One racing schools teach for dealing with roadblocks?"


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 1, 2006)

It's a fair enough criticism, though it depends on how much credit on gives to multiple attacker training in actually preparing a person for such a situation. Most of it I have seen is little more then roleplaying a set scenario. 

Personally, I'd rather have a good base in the general fighting skills I mentioned, and BJJ schools do a wonderful job of teaching this. As many people have pointed out, you don't know how an actual fight is going to go down untill you are involved in it. Good training that can be applied flexibly will pull a person through a fight safely before a set in stone technique will.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 1, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Exactly. That is the problem. Such schools ignore out of necessity facets of pragmatic self-defense that simply cannot be ignored when one considers real-life survival. This does not make such schools bad; it simply makes their curriculum unrealistic or incomplete, depending on how you look at it.
> 
> We could just as easily ask, "What strategies do Formula One racing schools teach for dealing with roadblocks?"



Can I repeat my question, what grappling experience do you have that lets you make the generalizations about it?

"it simply makes their curriculum unrealistic or incomplete, depending on how you look at it."

That's a pretty big claim to be making with out any decent first hand experience, and not one that I have heard anyone with a few months training in a grappling school make.  

Ignoring the stuff taught in grappling schools would IMO, lead too a much greater level of incompleteness and unrealistic training.


----------



## MJS (May 2, 2006)

EXCELLENT!!! Thanks for the great replies!! :ultracool 

This thread was started with the intention to 'pick the brain' so to speak, of people who grapple on a more regular basis, so to get a feel as to what type of training is done to assist with these attacks. It was in no way intended to slam or start a flame war. IMHO, civil, friendly discussions are much more productive than constantly bashing someone.

So...back to the discussion. Andrew and MGB: Looking at both of your posts, it seems like the general consensus is to close the distance, ie: clinch, and get control of the weapon. Certainly two points that I agree with. Of course, I'd imagine some modifications may have to be made, considering a weapon is involved, not just empty hands. Even with the Arnis and Kenpo that I train in, not waiting until the blade or stick is half way there is a key idea. 

On another note...I often hear that if its not a weapon oriented art, executing a defense will be a bit harder. What are you thoughts on this and how does this effect your defenses?

Mike


----------



## Andrew Green (May 2, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> On another note...I often hear that if its not a weapon oriented art, executing a defense will be a bit harder. What are you thoughts on this and how does this effect your defenses?
> 
> Mike



Not sure what you mean here?


----------



## MJS (May 2, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Not sure what you mean here?


 
Basically, the more focused an art is on something, the better the defense will be due to having an understanding on a much larger scale.  For example:  Kali, Arnis, etc. are all Filipino based arts.  The blade and stick are two things that these arts focus alot on.  The same for BJJ.  The focus is on grappling.  Yes, in the FMA's, there is also focus on empty hand just like in BJJ there is focus on striking and kicking.  I have weapon disarms in Kenpo, but I look at the FMA's to get a better understanding and expand my knowledge.  I look at BJJ to help round out my ground game.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 2, 2006)

Ok, then yes, I agree.

If you don't train with weapons regularly you'll have a harder time dealing with them.  You also need to learn both sides, so if you want to learn to defend a weapon, you need to learn to attack with one.  Otherwise you are just defending strikes from other people that don't know what they are doing, and that's not of much benefit.

Same as guys with no grappling stating factualy the best way to defend a takedown is "Insert silly theory here", if you don't train with weapons, chances are what you try won't be that effective.


----------



## green meanie (May 3, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Grappling is an important skill. It is not a primary defensive strategy for pragmatic self-defense, however, and among the reasons it is not are the very reasons you will not find a grappling school that can teach you how to successfully grapple your way out of a multiple-attacker or weapon-inclusive scenario.


 
That's not true. It depends on the school and where their priorities lie. It might be the case in a school that's primary focus is competing: Wrestling, Judo, Brazilian, or otherwise. But there are MANY good schools out there who train and with self-defense in mind and dealing with multiple attackrs and weapons are part of the curricululm.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 4, 2006)

Name some.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 4, 2006)

All of them. I have never been to a BJJ school that does not teach techniques which will protect someone in a fight, whether there are multiple attackers or one guy with a flashlight. 

BJJ teaches control over opponents, which is essential for surviving a weapon based attack. It teaches protection on the ground, and how to get up fast while protecting yourself, which is essential for surviving an attack by multiple people. It teaches how to block strikes, close the distance and take down an opponent while defending agaisnt the same, which is essential to surviving _any_ fight. 

Should people pull guard in a streetfight? Probably not, but at the same time no BJJ instructor teaches there students to do this. They teach them the basic skills which will protect them in a fight _and_ how to use them.

There are plenty of good schools within an hour from Syracuse, check them out and see what they have to offer before you condemn them.


----------



## RoninPimp (May 4, 2006)

Every BJJ school I personaly have been to addresses the problems that mutiple opponents and/or weapons present to an unarmed person. The odds in those situations suck, and they recognize that. They don't bother to teach hypothetical fantasy techniques to use. There are BJJ techniques found in most JJJ curriculum which are ok, but with weapons and/or mutiples are low percentage. These techniques are similar to the RedZone stuff too.

So no Phil, they don't teach their curriculum to fight and win in those situations. No realistic art should teach to fight unarmed and win against weapons and/or multiples. 

That said, the fundamental fighting skills that BJJ or MMA training build may carry over to those situations. I would argue for firearm usage in those situations though.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 4, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Name some.



Name some you've trained at that didn't...

Most do, but as has been said, recognize that in those situations, it doesn't matter what you got, you're odds suck.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 8, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Name some you've trained at that didn't...
> 
> Most do, but as has been said, recognize that in those situations, it doesn't matter what you got, you're odds suck.


 
odds suck, so it doesn't matter?

you guys can argue all day long about the facets of BJJ until you're blue in the face.  like it or not, phil is correct.  BJJ has nothing against multiple attackers.  weapons, some.

BJJ's emphasis is the ground.  that's what makes it different than traditional jujitsu and other manipulation systems.  do some research.

i'd be more than happy to name several in missouri.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 8, 2006)

In an attack by multiple people you are likely looking at a beating, especially if you can't escape. In that case the only thing that is going to protect you is knowing how to fight, and BJJ schools do an excellent job teaching this. The focus on takedowns involves dodging and blocking strikes, and stoping others from taking you down. The ground work will give you the best odds of not getting your head stomped if you are put on the floor and of getting up while protecting yourself. The conditioning BJJ gives will help keep your body working when it most needs to. 

Saying BJJ has nothing to do with multiple attackers is like saying boxing has nothing to do with multiple attackers. Boxers don't train to take on four guys at once, but they can certainly use their training to protect themselves against them. The fact that BJJ schools don't roleplay multiple attacker scenarios does not diminish the value of the art in that situation.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 8, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> odds suck, so it doesn't matter?


 
If self-defence is your goal, then it matters.  Still, best admit the truth up front.  If there is more then one you are in big trouble.



> you guys can argue all day long about the facets of BJJ until you're blue in the face. like it or not, phil is correct. BJJ has nothing against multiple attackers. weapons, some.


 
Many schools propably ignore it, grappling is also not restricted to BJJ.



> BJJ's emphasis is the ground. that's what makes it different than traditional jujitsu and other manipulation systems. do some research.



No, what makes it different from traditional jujitsu is it's emphasis on sparring and fighting, which leads to more groundwork.  Chicken and the egg thing maybe, but it is a important difference.


----------



## Don Roley (May 14, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> In an attack by multiple people you are likely looking at a beating, especially if you can't escape. In that case the only thing that is going to protect you is knowing how to fight,



Or learning how to run. Learning not to spend so much time on one person that you leave yourself open to being blindsided by another.

Or you could learn some sort of weapon to even the odds. Pepper spray works on crowds very well. How many schools deal with this idea?

There is more than one way to skin a chicken. And to declare than no one can deal with a problem and thus you should ignore it just seems defeatist to me.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 14, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Or learning how to run. Learning not to spend so much time on one person that you leave yourself open to being blindsided by another.
> 
> Or you could learn some sort of weapon to even the odds. Pepper spray works on crowds very well. How many schools deal with this idea?
> 
> There is more than one way to skin a chicken. And to declare than no one can deal with a problem and thus you should ignore it just seems defeatist to me.



Yes, if one trains with improvised weapons, and also sometimes in street clothes including winter jackets and gloves, one learns that there are limitations, and that is not adding in wet grass or snow or etcetera.


----------



## RoninPimp (May 14, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Yes, if one trains with improvised weapons, and also sometimes in street clothes including winter jackets and gloves, one learns that there are limitations, and that is not adding in wet grass or snow or etcetera.


-This is a benefit of training in the various grappling styles. The judogi imitates street clothing to an extent. Small MMA gloves restrict grabbing to an extent too.


----------



## Echsos (May 14, 2006)

I'd just like to point out that no art can really defend against weapons and multiple attackers, really.  People train and develop techniques to defend against knife attacks but the downfall lies in the fact that the way they simulate the situation in class is nothing like that on the street.  The knife attacks are usually done one at a time and precise while on the streets a knife slashes will be more erratic and spontaneous.  The best defense against a knife, I'd have to say, is to find a chair or some other improvised weapon of some sort and fight with that.  
As for multiple attackers, let's face it, no one can win against multiple attackers.  Not Fedor Emelianenko, not Bruce Lee, not Mas Oyama.  When the opponents are lunging at you from different directions and all at once then you're pretty much ****ed no matter what.  The only 'art' that can save you then would be a combination of 'Track and Field" and "Cross Country".


----------



## Selfcritical (May 14, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Name some.




Silat is primarily a grappling style focued on takedowns and groundwork, along with submission and breaks. Weapon defense is taught from day one.

Sambo is a submission wrestling style somewhat similar to BJJ. Devloped originally for control and detainment of prisoners, defense against improvised blades is a highly focused element. 

The Straight Blast gym is a competition-oriented martial arts gym whose STAB  program has been extremely well recieved in bladed weapon defense. 

As a kali and silat practicioner, I have a hard time thinking of an unarmed  bladed weapon defense that doesn't fall into one of two categories

1) step off the line of attack
2)control the attacking arm

the second one is grappling, and one would expect people with a lot of expierience in clinch range to be better at it than someone who isn't.


This is not to say that some schools reccomended techniques aren't worse than others....royce gracies weapon defenses in his book are fairly poor....but I think the SBGi has demonstrated pretty well that it's the guys with previous expierience in the clinch range who praticed with high levels of resistance who will be best able to APPLY the proper defense technique once it's been shown to them.


----------



## Don Roley (May 15, 2006)

Echsos said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that no art can really defend against weapons and multiple attackers, really.



Yet some people have done well against exactly that. Strange thing. Of course, if you are thinking of making someone _submit_ then trying to deal with multiple folks is a bit beyond anyone I know. But defending is not the same as defeating. I know folks who have survived multiple attackers and against knives.

Contrast that with the case I was recently made aware of. Some guy I know started a job as a bouncer. He found out why there was an opening. The previous guy had taken someone to the ground and got so wrapped up in dealing with the guy that some vicious piece of filth walked over and started kicking him. He was not a friend of the guy, he was just a piece of scum that went looking for someone to beat up and had worn steel toed shoes for the occasion.

Now, maybe the guy could not have put two folks in a submission hold, but he could have done things so he could have reacted to the other guy and jumped away. I do not know the details, but I have been shown holds that take a few seconds to disengage out of. Those are the types of things that I avoid since someone might be willing to jump in on the dance.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (May 15, 2006)

Echsos said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that no art can really defend against weapons and multiple attackers, really. People train and develop techniques to defend against knife attacks but the downfall lies in the fact that the way they simulate the situation in class is nothing like that on the street. The knife attacks are usually done one at a time and precise while on the streets a knife slashes will be more erratic and spontaneous. The best defense against a knife, I'd have to say, is to find a chair or some other improvised weapon of some sort and fight with that.
> As for multiple attackers, let's face it, no one can win against multiple attackers. Not Fedor Emelianenko, not Bruce Lee, not Mas Oyama. When the opponents are lunging at you from different directions and all at once then you're pretty much ****ed no matter what. The only 'art' that can save you then would be a combination of 'Track and Field" and "Cross Country".


 
I think it would be more accurate to say that, under _those circumstances, the odds are against you. _I had a friend that I've know since high school who had his car break down in a very, very bad area. A group of young men decided to take the opportunity to beat him up or worse simply because he's Korean. He was able to keep himself from being taken down or knocked out. A couple of things about him - one, he had been a semi-professional body-builder and was very well built with an extremely high pain tolerance, and secondly, he had been a black belt in the older, non-sport style of Tae Kwon Do and had years of very hardcore training. He did end up in the hospital, as did two of his attackers. However, if he had not had training and an excellent physical shape along with great strength, he probably would have been maimed or killed. Would I have survived the same situation? No, I don't think so. Part of his survival was based upon simple, brute strength and the fact that he had grown up as a young orphan in a pretty rough orphanage in Korea before being adopted by American Missionaries.


----------



## MJS (May 15, 2006)

Echsos said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that no art can really defend against weapons and multiple attackers, really. People train and develop techniques to defend against knife attacks but the downfall lies in the fact that the way they simulate the situation in class is nothing like that on the street. The knife attacks are usually done one at a time and precise while on the streets a knife slashes will be more erratic and spontaneous. The best defense against a knife, I'd have to say, is to find a chair or some other improvised weapon of some sort and fight with that.
> As for multiple attackers, let's face it, no one can win against multiple attackers. Not Fedor Emelianenko, not Bruce Lee, not Mas Oyama. When the opponents are lunging at you from different directions and all at once then you're pretty much ****ed no matter what. The only 'art' that can save you then would be a combination of 'Track and Field" and "Cross Country".


 
IMHO, I think that this is a pretty broad assumption.  The majority of this is going to come down to how someone trains.  Unless you've seen how everyone in the world trains, its not a good example to say what you've said above.

I started this thread to talk specifically about BJJ, regarding their use of weapons and multiple attackers.  For the sake of the discussion, lets try to stay with this particular art.

Mike


----------



## liuseongsystem (May 15, 2006)

arts that traditionally claim to provide defense against multiple armed attackers stereotypically stress two cardinal points, mobility and throwing technique. strikes are unreliable because a punch or kick only hits one person, and it may not debilitate them. in the mean time, you get attacked by the other opponent's.

a successful throw will neutralize the opponent, at least for as long as it takes him to get back to his feet. if he is injured he may be slowed significantly, or not get up at all.

mobility is key because a moving target is harder to hit and if you stop moving everyone will hone in on you and no can block or parry multiple incoming punches, and kicks, much less grasping or grabbing attacks.

mobility and throwing are tied together for multiples defense as you must throw one man into the path of the others, hopefully knocking down one or more of the others in the process. 

most multiples training i have seen is not true multiples, it is sequential. everyone takes turns coming from different angles. they might come in very quickly with little interval, but there are gaps in the 'multiple' attack

true multiples training is when you are attacked by everyone simoultaneously. and , theoretically, four opponents is the optimal number to train against. any more and they get in each others way to a certain extent. each person gets one 'quadrant' of you to strike at.

you need to take hold of one the attacker and change places with him by using a standup throwing/grappling technique, hopefully achieveing some measure of a domino effect. then you must immediately followup on any advantage you may have gained.

imo, any art that advocates going to the ground in a multiples scenario is giving very bad advice. notwithstanding guard, the time is takes to go down and come back up again is far too long to evade an additional attackers. chances are you would never get back up to your feet in time.

theorectically speaking of course...

thanx.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 15, 2006)

Just to set the record straight:

_*No one in BJJ advocates going to the ground if fighting multiple people.
*
_Yes, BJJ is a groundfighting art. Yes, people train for takedowns and pull guard. But no one is out there claiming that taking a fight to the ground in a multiple attacker situation is a good idea. The first thing most BJJ people say when talking about multiple attackers is the first thing everyone says; run away. 

But if you can't run away, the skills BJJ teaches are the best set of unarmed tactics you could have to fall back on; takedown work, strike defense, and ground work. It's not the only option, but it is at least the equal of anything else.


----------



## Selfcritical (May 16, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Just to set the record straight:
> 
> _*No one in BJJ advocates going to the ground if fighting multiple people.
> *
> ...




To defend a multiple attack scenario, almost no martial art will approach the effectiveness of attributes developed in american football or rugby.


----------



## Don Roley (May 16, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> _*No one in BJJ advocates going to the ground if fighting multiple people.
> *
> _Yes, BJJ is a groundfighting art. Yes, people train for takedowns and pull guard. But no one is out there claiming that taking a fight to the ground in a multiple attacker situation is a good idea.



The problem is that it is not as clear cut as looking at a situation with multiple guys coming at you and making a choice. As in the example I gave, there is always a chance that someone joining the dance.

And if you can't run, your best bet is to not get tied down with one person but to keep moving.



			
				liuseongsystem said:
			
		

> arts that traditionally claim to provide defense against multiple armed attackers stereotypically stress two cardinal points, mobility and throwing technique. strikes are unreliable because a punch or kick only hits one person, and it may not debilitate them. in the mean time, you get attacked by the other opponent's.



Huh???? :uhyeah: 

And during the time you are setting up a throw the other guys _can't_ hit you.:idunno: 

Trips, pushing a guy to the ground and into others, now _that_ is something I can agree with.


----------



## RoninPimp (May 16, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The problem is that it is not as clear cut as looking at a situation with multiple guys coming at you and making a choice. As in the example I gave, there is always a chance that someone joining the dance.
> 
> And if you can't run, your best bet is to not get tied down with one person but to keep moving.
> 
> ...


-He can try. Hopefully you would have a good clinch game to shut down his strikes. And as far as I've learned over the years, trips are a type of throw.


----------



## RoninPimp (May 16, 2006)

Selfcritical said:
			
		

> To defend a multiple attack scenario, almost no martial art will approach the effectiveness of attributes developed in american football or rugby.


-I agree with this. Team contact sports = team martial arts imo. It also helps to be 6'8" and 300lbs of muscle, which unfortunately, I am not.


----------



## liuseongsystem (May 16, 2006)

'Trips, pushing a guy to the ground and into others, now _that_ is something I can agree with.'

perhaps i should have been more clear, i am not referencing o goshi or hip technique, but rather 'trips', as you state.

in particular i was think of tenchi-nage style movements.

with trips.

standard silat.

peace.


----------



## bujuts (May 16, 2006)

Echsos said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that no art can really defend against weapons and multiple attackers, really.


 
This would Sir, this would imply you have a good understanding of "all" systems enough to make this statement. I'm guessing this is not really the case?



			
				Echsos said:
			
		

> People train and develop techniques to defend against knife attacks but the downfall lies in the fact that the way they simulate the situation in class is nothing like that on the street. The knife attacks are usually done one at a time and precise while on the streets a knife slashes will be more erratic and spontaneous.


 
True, some do train this way, and its a shame when they feel it makes them safe in reality. Again, you are making statements about training you have not witnessed. 10th Group Special Forces, as only ONE example, trains a system that is rich in just that - multiple assailants with weapons. They have to. I've laid hands with those boys, they don't play around, their intent in a confrontation is the real deal, and they don't let their comrades walk away with something that will not work. So, yes, its multiple weapons at the same time, against big fast dudes who all kick **** in their own right (cage fighters, boxers, kickboxers, spec ops, and the general steel jawed drill seargent types, you name it). And yes, the system does work. One thing is emphasized, though - stay on your feet. The ground is not a good place to be when people want to kill you.



			
				Echsos said:
			
		

> The best defense against a knife, I'd have to say, is to find a chair or some other improvised weapon of some sort and fight with that.


 
Give me a knife against a chair any time. I'll may take a lump on my arms on the way in, but there'd not be a second swing.



			
				Echsos said:
			
		

> As for multiple attackers, let's face it, no one can win against multiple attackers. Not Fedor Emelianenko, not Bruce Lee, not Mas Oyama. When the opponents are lunging at you from different directions and all at once then you're pretty much ****ed no matter what. The only 'art' that can save you then would be a combination of 'Track and Field" and "Cross Country".


 
Only in the movies would someone attempt to stand in the middle of an enclosing circle. Again, you jut haven't seen what all is out there. I encourage you to keep looking.

This has been a good topic, I'm interested to hear more. Thanks in advance,

Steven


----------



## RoninPimp (May 16, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> This would Sir, this would imply you have a good understanding of "all" systems enough to make this statement. I'm guessing this is not really the case?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


-So what are these magical techniques that allow people to take on multiple armed opponents empty handed? Sounds like BS to me.


----------



## bujuts (May 16, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -So what are these magical techniques that allow people to take on multiple armed opponents empty handed? Sounds like BS to me.


The boys in uniform are but some who train against multiple assailants.  But no, nothing will work against a gun outside the range of physical contact.  Nothing is magical, and nothing is foolproof.   

You likely already have elements of things that can be applied to multiple assailants.  I'm assuming you're a grappler, so don't grappling principles allow you to break joints while in motion with your feet?  Doesn't your system disarm the alpha's knife after dealing with the initial attack?  If so, do it in motion as you move away from bravo.   How fast can a competent grappler get to someone's back?  Pretty fast, so destroy his base and break some skeletal structures before his buddy makes it to you.  Can you throw someone quickly to put them on their head?  Did you disarm that knife in such a way that its now in your posession?  If so, use it.  Can you move around objects in the immediate environment?  Did you strip a pistol when this all started?  Can you ram someone's head into a wall?  Can you kick out a knee?  Can you break someone's nose with an inward elbow shot?  Can you grab someones ear and lever your thumb into their eye socket?  Can you stomp on someone's throat after you've slammed them onto their head.

My guess is you answered "yes" to most of these.  With proper footwork (footwork being your saving grace, btw), you're system likely already has the "magic" in it.  Your system is probably like Ragu - its in there.  You just need to find it then train it.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Steven


----------



## Shogun (May 16, 2006)

I don't know how all BJJ/GJJ schools train, but I guarantee you a legit Gracie Jiu-jitsu school teaching self defense aspects would not recommend Clinching with a guy, taking them down, armbarring them, or anything of that nature while their friends are stanfing by. thats just a bad idea. now, if you didn't see the friends, then no martial art is really going to help you. thats called "the circle of life" (enter Lion king theme) when you get into a fight and then get ambushed by two,three random friends outa nowhere.

besides, as Renzo Gracie says "most of the martial arts claiming to fend off multiple attackers can't even handle themselves against 1, well trained attacker"

Peace,
kyle


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Considering there are numerous BJJ schools out there, I'd imagine that there would be some differences in the way material is taught. That being said, I'd like to discuss how BJJ covers the area of weapons and more than one attacker. I recall that Royce put out a book which had some weapon defenses in there.
> 
> Are weapons and mult. attackers covered in your school? If they are, what methods of defense do you use?
> 
> Mike


 
Guys,

Just to remind everyone of the topic of the thread here.  For the sake of discussion, I'm looking specifically to discuss BJJ and grappling related arts, and how they deal with mult. attackers and weapons.  We've had some great replies and it would be even better if it would stay this way.

There are alot of grapplers on this forum.  I posted this here, not to cause a flame, but instead to get a better idea as to how grapplers deal with these types of attacks.  

Lets get back to some good discussion and refrain from the personal shots.

Mike


----------



## MJS (May 16, 2006)

Shogun said:
			
		

> I don't know how all BJJ/GJJ schools train, but I guarantee you a legit Gracie Jiu-jitsu school teaching self defense aspects would not recommend Clinching with a guy, taking them down, armbarring them, or anything of that nature while their friends are stanfing by. thats just a bad idea. now, if you didn't see the friends, then no martial art is really going to help you. thats called "the circle of life" (enter Lion king theme) when you get into a fight and then get ambushed by two,three random friends outa nowhere.
> 
> besides, as Renzo Gracie says "most of the martial arts claiming to fend off multiple attackers can't even handle themselves against 1, well trained attacker"
> 
> ...


 
I've seen a few others mention the clinch.  Now, in using this against more than one person, I'm guessing its not going to be the standard clinch that you'd see in a 1 on 1 match, but instead something along the lines of using the person briefly as a shield against the others, while at the same time delivering some shots to the person you're holding?

Mike


----------



## Shogun (May 16, 2006)

Well, in that aspect, the clinch might not be a bad idea. but I was refering to grabbing the attacker and trying to bring hi to the ground. because in the scenario, the attacker's friends were not attacking. they were just on the sidelines. personally, just flipping out and headlocking and punching things seems like a logical choice when multiple person fighting. lol


----------



## bujuts (May 17, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Guys,
> 
> Just to remind everyone of the topic of the thread here.  For the sake of discussion, I'm looking specifically to discuss BJJ and grappling related arts, and how they deal with mult. attackers and weapons.  We've had some great replies and it would be even better if it would stay this way.
> 
> ...



Agreed.  On that note, doesn't BJJ still employ breaking of joints even if on the feet?  I don't know enough about BJJ to comment on its capacity to deliver power from the stance work, but it seems that since joints are the so well known by any BJJ player, destruction of joints whilst moving on the feet would come easy.

Comments?  

Thanks,

Steven


----------



## MJS (May 17, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> Agreed. On that note, doesn't BJJ still employ breaking of joints even if on the feet? I don't know enough about BJJ to comment on its capacity to deliver power from the stance work, but it seems that since joints are the so well known by any BJJ player, destruction of joints whilst moving on the feet would come easy.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> ...


 
With some modifications some of the locks and chokes can be applied standing.  

On another note, we've been discussing mult. attackers, with defense including clinch work, avoidance, etc. I'd be interested in hearing a bit more on the lines of weapon defense.  Stick, knife and gun being the most common three.  What principles are used for these weapons?


----------



## bujuts (May 17, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> With some modifications some of the locks and chokes can be applied standing.
> 
> On another note, we've been discussing mult. attackers, with defense including clinch work, avoidance, etc. I'd be interested in hearing a bit more on the lines of weapon defense. Stick, knife and gun being the most common three. What principles are used for these weapons?


 
The gun is a whole animal in itself, and, lets face it, any empty handed system will not be of much help if someone truly wants to plug you. But, with that in mind, there are some principles that we should keep in mind.

1) The gun operates only in a single dimension (and for this reason, is inferior to the blade at close range). Control of the pistol demands control of the articulating hand, not just the arm. This is accomplished by straddling your grip over the wrist to immobilize the hand. A longer range weapon (shotgun, etc.) will likely be held with two hands, hopefully making redirection of the weapon easier.

2) It is unlikely that two hands will be used on the pistol if you're assaulted at close range. So, you have another limb to consider. Weapon fixation is a bad habit, and we must consider all of their weapons, not just the one that goes bang.

3) The line of fire should be kept in mind at all times. Its one thing to divert a pistol out of your way, its another to keep the bullet's trajectory away from your family behind you in addition to your own safety. This boils down to environmental awareness. Diverting the shot to an upward angle behind you is the safest insofar as protecting others is concerned, however this sort of manipulation is only available if the gun is roughly at chest level and close (under fifteen inches from you or so, based on my experience working this sort of defense)

4) Train to minimize the travel time of your arms to the weapon. I've personally tried it multiple times with a partner, using a (very) blank gun at each other's temple or forehead. There's simply not enough time to move before the attacker is aware of it and pulls the trigger. I was plugged numerous times attempting this. Its a little easier if its directly in front of you at chest level. If the gun is pressing into your head, you may use that to your advantage, however. More on that later, perhaps.

5) Its a fantasy to think that you're going to grab a revolver's hammer or a auto's slide in the process of your attack and prevent the pin from hitting the primer. Don't rely on this.

As for the knife:

1) Whether the knife is in a reverse or forward grip, the same control of the articulating wrist is mandatory.

2) In the reverse grip, the knife attacker has a greater capacity for manipulation and trapping, and can generate more physical power per cut. Any lack of control over the wrist will allow him to leverage his way out of hold on your forearm.

3) Disarming should be done by breaks and maiming. Do not attempt to submit and strip - its a fantasy. As an example: from the inside, an overhand break of the elbow may be accomplished from roughly the same motions as a chicken wing from a guard, but on a straight arm - shoot through with a rising elbow to the chin, and come crashing down with your bicep on the top of his elbow. Your arm that is controlling the wrist should be leveraging his arm up and rotating it to expose the joint. Its facilitated if you buckle his height with your knee into his leg. Its a nice and quick break from the inside, I wish I could show you, very difficult to describe.

4) Do not go into it with the thought that you will be cut. The only thing you should be thinking about is killing this human being (if the situation warrants him dying). Yes, you may be cut. But do not get into a cat and mouse game, trying to weave, dodge and avoid - you will likely be diced like sushi. Divert the initial attack and turn the tables. Become the attacker, put him into a state of co-contraction ASAP.

5) Again, do not become weapon fixated. Your attack should be focused on his skeleton, not the knife. Control the knife, keep it in front of you at all times, but attack the person wielding it.

6) Do not clinch. You are serving your throat on a silver platter.

7) Most importantly, know up front circumstances would lead you to hurt, maim, or kill another human being. Know this in terms of your own moral and ethical code, in context with the rules by which your actions will be judged (i.e. the law), and, in my opinion, before you step out of the door armed with the knowledge you possess. Do not deliberate on deadly matters in the middle of a fight.

One last thing on the subject of killing. This is a point of fantasy for many, I believe, and I contend too few take the time to maturely contemplate the implications of a bladed scenario. I will first disclaim that I have never done such a thing, and pray I never have to. But all ethical and moral discussions aside, the human body is very tough and there are very few ways to bring about a quick kill without a weapon. Something my teacher mentioned to me once that stuck with me: nothing is more dangerous than a human in the throngs of death. You remove an eyeball, collapse a trachea, you are putting someone in that state of being, the desperate state of co-contraction. All cards are now on the table, and its not a weekend bar scrap anymore. It may be that their intent wasn't so much to kill you as to just give you a quick stick in the belly so they can grab your wallet and leave you in a fetal position for a likely rescue. Now its different, now they want you 100% D-E-A-D, and if they think they're dying, that is pretty much all they're set on doing. The go bezerk, abondoning any concern for their own safety and ackolwedgement of pain - now you have real issues.  Any failure to control the weapon and their body could result in you dying too. Sketchy stuff, this knife business.

I look forward to more input. Not enough time to address multiple assailants right now.

Thanks for reading,

Steven


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2006)

Great post Steve.  Thanks for taking the time to type out such a detailed reply!:ultracool 

So, going on what was said in the above post, do the BJJ weapon disarms take these ideas into consideration or is something else done?

Mike


----------



## RoninPimp (May 18, 2006)

> 2) It is unlikely that two hands will be used on the pistol if you're assaulted at close range. So, you have another limb to consider. Weapon fixation is a bad habit, and we must consider all of their weapons, not just the one that goes bang.


-I would argue that 2 hands on his weapon hand is still the best way to go. You may eat a few strikes from his free hand but 2 of your hands on his is still your best chance to disarm. Worrying about his free hand having a knife is a bit of a red herring to me. That would be unlikely imo as he would be focussed on his most powerful weapon. You should be too imo.



> 6) Do not clinch. You are serving your throat on a silver platter.


-This I don't understand. If you are grabbing his weapon hand you are clinched.


----------



## RoninPimp (May 18, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Great post Steve. Thanks for taking the time to type out such a detailed reply!:ultracool
> 
> So, going on what was said in the above post, do the BJJ weapon disarms take these ideas into consideration or is something else done?
> 
> Mike


-I think so, more or less. I've heard many of those things before. The BJJ weapon disarms are all based around the "Kimura" or "Americana" grip aka "Ude Garami". This does require both hands but is very strong once locked in. *The hard part is getting the grip before you get shot or stabbed.* The Red Zone stuff I've seen is primarily based on the 2-on-1 to a Russian tie from wrestling. Both approaches are viable imo. Both are legitimate clinch techniques. Empty hands vs. weapons is basically clinch techniques focussed on controlling the weapon hand at all costs. With the clinch come all the knees, headbutts, and throws you can do while controlling their weapon hand. And in the case of a firearm, paying attention to the where the muzzle is pointing.


----------



## Marvin (May 18, 2006)

I think red zone and S.T.A.B. are both real good weapon defence set ups. Both are set up to put control on the attacker not the weapon.


----------



## Marvin (May 18, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -I think so, more or less. I've heard many of those things before. The BJJ weapon disarms are all based around the "Kimura" or "Americana" grip aka "Ude Garami". This does require both hands but is very strong once locked in. *The hard part is getting the grip before you get shot or stabbed.* The Red Zone stuff I've seen is primarily based on the 2-on-1 to a Russian tie from wrestling.


 
The STAB stuff starts from the premise that you have already been stabbed and you work to control the situation after that.


----------



## bujuts (May 18, 2006)

I'm not a great grappler, so I don't know enough to make any general statements about a "grappler's approach" to these kinds of things.  But, once you have control, be it with one or both of your hands, what kind of attack are you inclined to deliver?  Do you need them on the ground before you can start executing serious damage?  Would you as a grappler still prefer submission?  What are your thoughts on striking?  What will you hit and with what weapons on your body?  What vital targets do you train?  How will your footwork keep you out of hot water if there are potentially other threats nearby?  Can your lethal moves (generally breaking the neck is about the only realistic option) be executed on your feet?  Are your techniques diminished in any capacity if the assailant feels no pain?  

Thanks in advance, look forward to any responses.

Steven Brown


----------



## RoninPimp (May 18, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> I'm not a great grappler, so I don't know enough to make any general statements about a "grappler's approach" to these kinds of things. But, once you have control, be it with one or both of your hands, what kind of attack are you inclined to deliver? Do you need them on the ground before you can start executing serious damage? Would you as a grappler still prefer submission? What are your thoughts on striking? What will you hit and with what weapons on your body? What vital targets do you train? How will your footwork keep you out of hot water if there are potentially other threats nearby? Can your lethal moves (generally breaking the neck is about the only realistic option) be executed on your feet? Are your techniques diminished in any capacity if the assailant feels no pain?
> 
> Thanks in advance, look forward to any responses.
> 
> Steven Brown


-Once control is established, attack can be knees, headbutts, throws...And they can all be done standing. Targets can be the groin, thighs, abdomen. I would say a submission is secondary to disarming. Footwork would be all about constantly moving with multiples. I would argue that a "neck break" is very hard to do and low percentage. Chokes, knockouts, and joint locks are not pain dependant. They work whether the guy feels the pain or not.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2006)

I agree with the Red Zone and STAB material.  I've seen both and IMHO, its alot better than some things I've seen.  

I also agree that the 2 hands grabbing approach is important.  Getting control first and then working a counter certainly makes sense.

Mike


----------



## bujuts (May 19, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> I also agree that the 2 hands grabbing approach is important. Getting control first and then working a counter certainly makes sense.
> Mike


 
Fair enough.  Of course, everything is circumstantial, and there are no exact rules to follow.  I'd like to offer a scenario to continue this discussion, so we can perhaps drill down into some of the details on different people's approaches, and more specifically on the use of one or two hands.

The attack is a classic prison shanking, someone looking to run into you hard and fast, raising a knife, screwdriver, etc. into your belly with repeated thrusts.  He's coming in like a freight train with enough force to poke your spine through your small intestines, and he wants to make a pin cushion out of you, drop the weapon, and keep going.

This is not an easy attack to deal with.  For the sake of the discussion, assume the following: 1) you see it coming, 2) you're in a bad area with others around, but who aren't necessarily attacking you at the moment but warrant your caution, 3) you have no time to do anything but deal with the attacker, 4) there's nothing nearby to use as a weapon, 5) you are on asphalt or concrete, 6) you're alone, 7) he appears to you that his intent is to kill, 8) running is not an option.

A few things to consider.  1) with the knife close to his body, elbows in, he is going to have some stability and power behind that stab.  The attack not the classical, extended, unrealistic, off balance single thrust that is every martial artists wet dream.  2) you are not only dealing with the knife coming at you, but his mass as well.

I will leave the discussion at that, and let you guys take over.  What grappling principles might be used here?  What do you consider major do's and don'ts?

Thanks, look forward to any replies.

Steven Brown


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 21, 2006)

The Machado's did a great training video for this very situation called _Brazilian Brawl_. I suggest it to everyone, it took my training to the next level.

I'm no expert of weapon defense, but I love hypothetical questions so I'll answer anyway.  If he stabs me once I'm assuming I'm probably going to die, so I have to get control of the hand with the weapon first and foremost. If I can get reasonable control I'd try for an armdrag to a harness and go for a slam, because it is a powerful takedown that is set up from wrist control. As soon as he is down I would try and get control of the weapon. If that wasn't possible I would go for a submission on whatever arm was controling it, because that would maximize both control of the limb and my offensive potential.

That said, I don't think my chances of surviving injury free are very good.


----------



## green meanie (May 21, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> That said, I don't think my chances of surviving injury free are very good.


 
I don't think anyone's chances of surviving injury free are very good. To simply survive is about the best anyone can hope for.


----------



## bujuts (May 22, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> ...I have to get control of the hand with the weapon first and foremost. If I can get reasonable control I'd try for an armdrag to a harness and go for a slam, because it is a powerful takedown that is set up from wrist control. As soon as he is down I would try and get control of the weapon. If that wasn't possible I would go for a submission on whatever arm was controling it, because that would maximize both control of the limb and my offensive potential.



What about attacking via hitting?  I recognize that BJJ's speciality is obviously grappling, but I believe its important to recognize the criticality of taking the fight out of him ASAP.  Throwing, clinching, or getting to a submission all take critical time, and you may not have that luxury.  Drive your knuckles into his eyebrows, finger(s) into his eye(s), etc., and do so an a selective angle to attack a dimension, i.e. get a specific result such as rocking the head backwards, or turning it to the side to reduce his ability to rotate on the axis of his spine.

We should also recognize that we do not need to be necessarily grabbing the offending arm in order to control it.  Use of proper bracing angles off the initial deflection or block can be used to press the arm into him.  For control, press in above his elbow - blocking below the elbow leaves some unwanted variability.
Grab the arm after the first strike, and if you've got a hold of his arm, whether from the inside or the outside, a break should not be difficult.  It does require, however, the ability to deliver breaking power through your stance work.

There's a particular mantra our group works when dealing with a knife, either as blade against blade or defending empty hand against blade.  Its the three D's: Deflect, Dominate, and Destroy.  Striking becomes vital in my opinion, as it is the quickest method of attack and cone be done simultaneously with your initial block or deflection.  Follow it up immediately with grabs and locks as needed, but I hold the opinion that the attacker must be attacked, and his ability / desire to fight must be taken out of him in the process of gaining control.

Your thoughts are welcome.

Steven Brown


----------



## MJS (May 22, 2006)

bujuts said:
			
		

> Fair enough. Of course, everything is circumstantial, and there are no exact rules to follow. I'd like to offer a scenario to continue this discussion, so we can perhaps drill down into some of the details on different people's approaches, and more specifically on the use of one or two hands.
> 
> The attack is a classic prison shanking, someone looking to run into you hard and fast, raising a knife, screwdriver, etc. into your belly with repeated thrusts. He's coming in like a freight train with enough force to poke your spine through your small intestines, and he wants to make a pin cushion out of you, drop the weapon, and keep going.
> 
> ...


 
Almost forgot about this thread.  I sat down a few days ago to view the Red Zone knife tape.  There was many segements that reminded me of this thread, but one stuck..lol, no pun intended, in my mind.  There was mention of moving around, so as to avoid the attacker.  Of course, this was shown and needless to say, there was not too much avoidance going on.  Every time the defender moved, parried, etc., the attacker was still right there on him, not letting up.  Now, this isn't to say that the movement is bad, but I'd suggest not thinking that its going to buy a ton of time.  As for your scenario above, I'd think that moving off line of the attack and gaining control would be first and foremost.  If there was an opportunity to get in a hit, such as a jab to the eyes, go for it, but getting control and working knees, stomps on the foot, slamming the person into a nearby wall or working for some sort of takedown to control would be my thoughts.





> What about attacking via hitting? I recognize that BJJ's speciality is obviously grappling, but I believe its important to recognize the criticality of taking the fight out of him ASAP. Throwing, clinching, or getting to a submission all take critical time, and you may not have that luxury. Drive your knuckles into his eyebrows, finger(s) into his eye(s), etc., and do so an a selective angle to attack a dimension, i.e. get a specific result such as rocking the head backwards, or turning it to the side to reduce his ability to rotate on the axis of his spine.


 
I agree.  This isn't an unarmed match, so trying to get the best position is something that time will not allow.  As I said above, I'm all for taking some shots to hopefully buy us some time.



> We should also recognize that we do not need to be necessarily grabbing the offending arm in order to control it. Use of proper bracing angles off the initial deflection or block can be used to press the arm into him. For control, press in above his elbow - blocking below the elbow leaves some unwanted variability.
> Grab the arm after the first strike, and if you've got a hold of his arm, whether from the inside or the outside, a break should not be difficult. It does require, however, the ability to deliver breaking power through your stance work.


 
Good points!  There are many drills that we use in the FMA's against knives, that do the very same thing you've mentioned.  



> There's a particular mantra our group works when dealing with a knife, either as blade against blade or defending empty hand against blade. Its the three D's: Deflect, Dominate, and Destroy. Striking becomes vital in my opinion, as it is the quickest method of attack and cone be done simultaneously with your initial block or deflection. Follow it up immediately with grabs and locks as needed, but I hold the opinion that the attacker must be attacked, and his ability / desire to fight must be taken out of him in the process of gaining control.


 
More good points!  I like the thinking that goes with the 3 "D" theory!:ultracool 

Mike


----------



## Marvin (May 22, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> The Machado's did a great training video for this very situation called _Brazilian Brawl_. I suggest it to everyone, it took my training to the next level.


 
Indeed!!


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (May 22, 2006)

I didn't mention striking for a few reasons. First off, I doubt my ability to block his initial attack if I'm trying to hit him. I've never trained to do the "block is a strike" thing found in a lot of MA's, and when I've seen it done I was never impressed by the power of the punches. I'd rather concentrate fully on cotroling his weapon hand because like I said, if he stabs me once I assume I'm going to end up dead.

Clinching and throwing do not take much time to set up, a good grappler can execute a takedown in the same amount of time it takes a good striker to throw one or two good punches. The takedown will give far better control of the opponent then striking will, especially is facing a knife. I also think it is very important to control to knife hand above all else, hence the armdrag takedown. 

In the event we had to fight on the ground, I thought about mentioning eye gouges and strikes. The reason I didn't was because doing so would require me to sacrifice the control of the weapon hand a submission would provide (assuming I haven't been able to get the weapon). That's not to say I wouldn't do them if i thought it would help, just that they would not be my primary strategy.


----------



## bujuts (May 22, 2006)

Thanks for the response.



			
				MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> I didn't mention striking for a few reasons. First off, I doubt my ability to block his initial attack if I'm trying to hit him. I've never trained to do the "block is a strike" thing found in a lot of MA's, and when I've seen it done I was never impressed by the power of the punches.


 
Fair enough, but yes, it does require much training.  I'd personally never assume on of my blocks to be a disabling, and so the strike itself must be to vital and effective targets while the other arm does the deflection and blocking.  I also agree that many assume their strikes to be fight-ending, which I certainly do not.

An important aspect of striking, I believe, is not so much in its capacity to break or KO, but in its ability to manipulate the body.  In grappling, we manipulate the body, a portion of the body, or a limb based on physical grabs and joint manipulation.  We (our group, I mean) simply refer to this as _contact manipulation_.  _Impact_ manipulation accomplishes the same thing - moving the body or a portion thereof through striking into a position that feeds your next movement.  Many see a strike as something that will end a fight, or believe that repeated strikes will eventually produce a KO.  I believe this is a mistake to approach it this way, because not everyone's pain threshold will be the same, and not every body will be prone to the same damage.  The beauty of striking is just like grappling -it serves to manipulate the person's body.  In the exampleI have illustrated, rocking the head at the proper angle will facilitate your grab of the offending arm.



			
				MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Clinching and throwing do not take much time to set up, a good grappler can execute a takedown in the same amount of time it takes a good striker to throw one or two good punches. The takedown will give far better control of the opponent then striking will, especially is facing a knife. I also think it is very important to control to knife hand above all else, hence the armdrag takedown.


 
Good points, and I agree with the speed at which good grapplers can move in for an effective take down, no doubt about it.  We should at the same time bear in mind the environment and the potential for others.  Scan the surroudings while you continue your attack on the first person.  This goes back to the original topic of this post - weapons and multiple assailants.



			
				MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> In the event we had to fight on the ground, I thought about mentioning eye gouges and strikes. The reason I didn't was because doing so would require me to sacrifice the control of the weapon hand a submission would provide (assuming I haven't been able to get the weapon). That's not to say I wouldn't do them if i thought it would help, just that they would not be my primary strategy.


 
Good points. Thanks for the discussion.

Steven Brown


----------

