# Kenpo Knife Defense by Juan José negreira



## MJS

[yt]2naLXAqsRss[/yt]

Thoughts?


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> [yt]2naLXAqsRss[/yt]
> 
> Thoughts?




The knife techs are still too unrealistic...the attacks are of the nonfunctional "idea NOT Ideal Phase" variety. The presentation of this kind of knife attack and the defenses that it prompts will get you cut or hurt worse,in all likelihood. Especially when compared directly with live and more realistic attacks. Compare the above attacks to this right here from my ATACX GYM


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> [yt]2naLXAqsRss[/yt]
> 
> Thoughts?


 
Honestly, Mike, I think it depends on what you're looking at it for. If you're looking at it for a training method that promotes flow, precision, co-ordination etc, then they're fine. If you're looking for realistic knife defence, they are sadly lacking in many ways. I will say, though, that I don't think that is really what they are for, with the former aspects being more important here, as they teach the "art" of Kempo.



ATACX GYM said:


> The knife techs are still too unrealistic...the attacks are of the nonfunctional "idea NOT Ideal Phase" variety. The presentation of this kind of knife attack and the defenses that it prompts will get you cut or hurt worse,in all likelihood. Especially when compared directly with live and more realistic attacks. Compare the above attacks to this right here from my ATACX GYM



I see where you are going with your clip, and it's not bad, however I may point out that the attack isn't quite are realistic as it may be. You are missing, for example, any form of realistic resistance, which would make the catch of the knife arm a lot harder than it is for you there. But all in all, not too bad.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, Mike, I think it depends on what you're looking at it for. If you're looking at it for a training method that promotes flow, precision, co-ordination etc, then they're fine. If you're looking for realistic knife defence, they are sadly lacking in many ways. I will say, though, that I don't think that is really what they are for, with the former aspects being more important here, as they teach the "art" of Kempo.
> 
> 
> 
> I see where you are going with your clip, and it's not bad, however I may point out that the attack isn't quite are realistic as it may be. You are missing, for example, any form of realistic resistance, which would make the catch of the knife arm a lot harder than it is for you there. But all in all, not too bad.



Thanks for the compliment,but I can assure you that the swings were live and the energy behind his attack was real. Once I caught the knife attack,I halted to go step by step with it. Even when I was talking he was still driving the knife toward me,and he does so again in PT.4 of this CHECKING THE STORM series. I do,however,think that I can do it alot more intensely and more combatively,and I did so on my DVD filming. I had to use more than one knife fighting friend for the knife fighting part,and it included strikes kicks and full resistance even from the non-knife bearing limb.


----------



## Chris Parker

Yep, the swings were decent, unskilled and committed, however what I'm referring to you illlustrate in your answer. A realistic responce to your grabbing your attackers knife hand is not for them to keep pushing in with the thrust, it's for them to try to pull out of your grip (and retain control of the knife, which, psychologically speaking, is their source of their power in this situation). And the double grip you come in with would have them immediately rip their arm out of your grip and continue stabbing you.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Yep, the swings were decent, unskilled and committed, however what I'm referring to you illlustrate in your answer. A realistic responce to your grabbing your attackers knife hand is not for them to keep pushing in with the thrust, it's for them to try to pull out of your grip (and retain control of the knife, which, psychologically speaking, is their source of their power in this situation). And the double grip you come in with would have them immediately rip their arm out of your grip and continue stabbing you.



Actually the double grip that I come in with is one of the very best possible responses to the knife attack.I've done it and maaany others have done it live in full on sparring and in self-defense scenarios. In the same sense that it's really hard to pull out of a wrestler's 2 on 1 grip,it's REALLY HARD to pull out of a 2 on 1 when you have a knife too.











Yes,I've trained with the Dog Brothers over the years and have done many many knife and blade sparring sessions. Without a doubt,the 2 on 1 has shown itself in both my view and many of the Dog Brothers' view to be vastly superior to most other techs (other than running away,which is by far the best option and should be the mandatory option if it's available).The primary danger to the 2 on 1 grip is becoming so fixated that you allow your opponent to shift the knife to the other hand,but even that is faaar more difficult to do when you latch on a 2 on 1 and you're skilled in its use. If you're in the L.A. area I would be happy to spar with you live and show you by repeated successes how viable and functional this tech is. I mean that with no disrespect.

 A realistic response IS for them to keep pushing in with their knife and try to cut me,a MORE REALISTIC RESPONSE would be for them to deploy their other arms and limbs in attempts to strike me and wrest control of the knife back from me. We sorta agree there. In 2 decades of knife fighting,I can say with confidence that at least 90% of the time my opponent(s) would use both limbs (yes this means the "live hand") and about 25% of the time all four limbs and head/teeth when I engage his knife hand as he struggles to maintain control of it. However the defense that I employ--especially when done at speed--is veeeerrry good at preventing such counters.What specific counters would you recommend? Do you have video of it? I mean this with no disrespect at all.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> Actually the double grip that I come in with is one of the very best possible responses to the knife attack.I've done it and maaany others have done it live in full on sparring and in self-defense scenarios. In the same sense that it's really hard to pull out of a wrestler's 2 on 1 grip,it's REALLY HARD to pull out of a 2 on 1 when you have a knife too.



Actually, I've trained that under a fair amount of pressure as well, and it's very easy to retrieve your arm before the grip is "on", or cut your way out once it is. So I'd still say there are better ways to approach this situation, although this is certainly far from the "bad" ones, as it does give some very solid principles (such as immediate control of the knife arm).




ATACX GYM said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WjSTIcE0cE



Honestly, I see a number of gaps in reality there.




ATACX GYM said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc



Yeah, I've seen that one before too. There are some things that I'd disagree with, including the "sparring" approach, but I'll get to that. I would point out, though, that the thing I am referring to (retrieve the knife and continue stabbing) is what Gabe is referring to as the "sewing machine".



ATACX GYM said:


> Yes,I've trained with the Dog Brothers over the years and have done many many knife and blade sparring sessions. Without a doubt,the 2 on 1 has shown itself in both my view and many of the Dog Brothers' view to be vastly superior to most other techs (other than running away,which is by far the best option and should be the mandatory option if it's available).The primary danger to the 2 on 1 grip is becoming so fixated that you allow your opponent to shift the knife to the other hand,but even that is faaar more difficult to do when you latch on a 2 on 1 and you're skilled in its use. If you're in the L.A. area I would be happy to spar with you live and show you by repeated successes how viable and functional this tech is. I mean that with no disrespect.



To the "sparring" aspect, it's not a training method I'm fond of if reality is your goal. Scenario training I feel is the best method, which can be done in a range of forms, all the way up to unannounced free form training. As to my visiting you, unfortunately I'm in Melbourne, Australia, so that is a little bit of a commute. But I'd say the primary danger isn't changing hands, or fending off the other hand, it's that it comes to a stalemate, with them still holding a knife (which is not what I'd be going for, honestly). I agree with using both hands to control the knife arm, but not in that method, it must be said.



ATACX GYM said:


> A realistic response IS for them to keep pushing in with their knife and try to cut me,a MORE REALISTIC RESPONSE would be for them to deploy their other arms and limbs in attempts to strike me and wrest control of the knife back from me. We sorta agree there. In 2 decades of knife fighting,I can say with confidence that at least 90% of the time my opponent(s) would use both limbs (yes this means the "live hand") and about 25% of the time all four limbs and head/teeth when I engage his knife hand as he struggles to maintain control of it. However the defense that I employ--especially when done at speed--is veeeerrry good at preventing such counters.What specific counters would you recommend? Do you have video of it? I mean this with no disrespect at all.



No, the most realistic responce is for them to try to retrieve the knife, and if they can't, then they aim to change hands or use the other hand (to strike, claw, etc), but the main emphasis is to regain control of the knife. The ones you are talking about are secondary... but by leaving off the initial retrieving action you're missing the reality of handling a knife.

I would ask, though, if your two decades of knife fighting is in the training hall (or outside, but in a training situation), as if that is all done with the training mentality, then it can invalidate, or taint the understanding gained. This isn't an attack on yourself or your training, nor even an indictment of your abilities, more a recognition that in training, both partners know that it is "training".. and, whether they resist or not, typically one of them (in this case, the knifeman) knows that they are supposed to "lose". There is also, as seen in the clips you linked, a habit of an attacker of "stopping" the attack once the defence starts, mainly as a self-preservation method. This is present in pretty much all training, otherwise injuries happen quite easily, but it does remove the reality, and some things are seen as being more effective than they are. There is also a greater "presence of mind", which can lead to things like the attacking partner being more likely to use their second hand, or change hands when it's not as common as they may believe.

In terms of what I would recommend is actually a relatively small change, keeping to the essence of what you are teaching. Basically, I'd move to the outside (which is what you prefer to do, from what you are saying in the clip), off the line of the attack (your movement in the clip leaves you open to secondary stabs, or even the first if you miss the grab), and control/grab both the forearm and upper arm, both inside and out. That makes a much more secure grip, which is far more difficult to break out of, as the "weak" part of the grip is on opposing sides, rather than both on the underside of their forearm/wrist in your example (which is where they would break out of your grip, by the way). From there you can continue in a large number of ways, including the way you show. As far as video, yeah, I have some. But none of it is on you-tube, or any other online site, nor is it likely to be. I would recommend the work of Michael Janich, though.


----------



## OKenpo942

I often think that Ras is full of himself (this may just be a perception as I have never met him in person) and misses a lot of what Kenpo has to teach when discussing his material and how he relays it to his students and others. However, I do think that, as far as functionality goes, he is on the right track. 

I think that he would be the first to admit that he sees no use for the ideal phase of a technique and only finds value in his functional versions. We have had discussions in other threads regarding this issue, so I won't go into it here. We just disagree in some areas.

I feel that his version of Checking the Storm is good in that he emphasizes the focus on the weapon, in this case a knife. All else is unimportant when a blade is present as we all know that they are nasty little buggers with devastating potential. I also think that in a dynamic situation without stopping to talk about what he is doing, he could adapt to the pushing or pulling that his opponent is employing. He dicusses this when he pulls the arms accross in front of him that leads to the extending of the knife hand's elbow by using the principle of borrowed force (he is pushing, so Ras is pulling in the same direction to assist him in his desired positioning of his opponent). This could also be done if his opponent were to pull away. Ras could then push, while not relinquishing his hold and manipulate his opponent into another position where he could disarm or incapacitate his attacker.

You can "what if" every situation to death, but I think that in this case, Ras has a lot of good information and a solid base of knowledge to relay to others. I just wish he would give his students more of the traditional information so that when Ras is not around, they will have all of the information and a comparable base to teach from.

James


----------



## Blindside

MJS said:


> [yt]2naLXAqsRss[/yt]
> 
> Thoughts?



I see a weird dichotomy between its early use of the demonstration of vital targets and attack lines, and those that show the active slash on the retraction, and then when it shows defense against a knife it does the standard giant overhand and stright thrust and "stone statue" the rest of the technique.  So what if the attacker isn't being massively telegraphic and trying to make the instructor look good?


----------



## ATACX GYM

OKenpo942 said:


> I often think that Ras is full of himself (this may just be a perception as I have never met him in person) and misses a lot of what Kenpo has to teach when discussing his material and how he relays it to his students and others. However, I do think that, as far as functionality goes, he is on the right track.
> 
> I think that he would be the first to admit that he sees no use for the ideal phase of a technique and only finds value in his functional versions. We have had discussions in other threads regarding this issue, so I won't go into it here. We just disagree in some areas.
> 
> I feel that his version of Checking the Storm is good in that he emphasizes the focus on the weapon, in this case a knife. All else is unimportant when a blade is present as we all know that they are nasty little buggers with devastating potential. I also think that in a dynamic situation without stopping to talk about what he is doing, he could adapt to the pushing or pulling that his opponent is employing. He dicusses this when he pulls the arms accross in front of him that leads to the extending of the knife hand's elbow by using the principle of borrowed force (he is pushing, so Ras is pulling in the same direction to assist him in his desired positioning of his opponent). This could also be done if his opponent were to pull away. Ras could then push, while not relinquishing his hold and manipulate his opponent into another position where he could disarm or incapacitate his attacker.
> 
> You can "what if" every situation to death, but I think that in this case, Ras has a lot of good information and a solid base of knowledge to relay to others. I just wish he would give his students more of the traditional information so that when Ras is not around, they will have all of the information and a comparable base to teach from.
> 
> James




Overall,this is an excellent response James. I do in fact recall some of the more energetic exchanges that we've had visavis the IP.Without getting into it too much,my position has never been "destroy the IP because it's the IP" my position has been "chuck anything that doesn't work and replace it with something that does". As Doc pointed out,the "ideal phase" is something that's crafted from teacher to student. But as I pointed out,somehow there has been a universalization of a DYSFUNCTIONAL physical expression of virtually all of the Kenpo techs comprising what is miscalled the IP but which is really (another quote from Doc) "the idea not the Ideal" Phase. My response is essentially what Mr. Parker envisioned for all Kenpoists: IPs that work. There are others whose IP works too. That's great. If it works? Kudos...my conversation about things that DON'T work isn't aimed at any Kenpo techs that DO work exactly as trained vs the attack it's supposed to thwart. The problem is? The dominant physical articulation of the IP fails to do this. Reliably. If YOUR expression SUCCEEDS at this? Terrific. You're not the guy I'm referring to. When I posted videos of the "idea not Ideal" Phase which DIDN'T functionally and reliably defeat the attacks they're purported to attack? THAT'S THE KIND OF THING I'M RAILING AGAINST. I'm not saying everybody should do like me; I'm championing a TRAINING PARADIGM BASED IN FUNCTIONALITY.The WAY you will be functional will be at once your own expression (you will do something that works and that something is something that works well FOR YOU) yet simultaneously share the overwhelmingly important aspects with me and anyone else who's functional regardless of the art they study (IT WORKS AS TAUGHT AGAINST THE ATTACK IT'S SUPPOSED TO THWART).I'm also saying that as self-defense instructors IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY to disseminate techs that actually work as taught,and as scripted,against the attack it's supposed to thwart. Somehow,there's been an almost universal agreement visavis the "idea not the Ideal" Phase that results in the overwhelming majority of Kenpoists being thoroughly inundated with techs that don't work as shown and which most instructors not only know don't work prior to teaching their students these moves,the instructors even knew that these techs (quoting Doc again) "are unworkable as written". I have NO IDEA how this happened on such a universal scale,but I do know that it's our responsibility to rectify it.

I really hope that I've clarified my position here. I don't run around seeking to trash Kenpo,an art I love. I'm not even trashing the IP; I pointed out that what I'm doing is championing the completely common sense notion of replacing the dysfunctional IP with an IP that works. I even coined a phrase for it: "THE FUNCTIONAL IDEAL". So my students DO in fact learn much of the discipline of Kenpo as I learned it; but where techs are plainly nonworkable or "miraculous" like this one:
















(and I can link you to at least a half dozen more but you get my point) I make them work by functionalizing them for my students. So again...just make it work. Whatever it is in Kenpo or whatever that you do? Just make it work.Exactly as advertised against exactly what it's supposed to defend against.

All the rest of your post I find to be well written and I agree with it. I even find the areas that we disagree about (me being full of myself and me rippin the IP) to be well written. I hope that at this point we've reached a better understanding of one another's positions. Outro.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Somehow THIS link to TWIST OF FATE...another example of a highly nonfunctional tech...didn't post when I last put it up so here it is:






there's a zillion ways to do this tech that works. Judo's twisting tai otoshi immediately comes to mind...merely prefix the tech with Kenpo strikes and BANG! Twist of Fate.That's one way to do it and that's what we do. As you can see,the common sense solution that I recommend has not found its way into the general and most prominent expression of TWIST OF FATE.ANY solution that is common sense efficient and functional should supercede what is currently the most prominent expression of TWIST OF FATE in the "IP".


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> Somehow THIS link to TWIST OF FATE...another example of a highly nonfunctional tech...didn't post when I last put it up so here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's a zillion ways to do this tech that works. Judo's twisting tai otoshi immediately comes to mind...merely prefix the tech with Kenpo strikes and BANG! Twist of Fate.That's one way to do it and that's what we do. As you can see,the common sense solution that I recommend has not found its way into the general and most prominent expression of TWIST OF FATE.ANY solution that is common sense efficient and functional should supercede what is currently the most prominent expression of TWIST OF FATE in the "IP".


The main problem i see with that Technique, is that once his Arms are restrained, he performs a Strike which doesnt do too much, rather than exploiting the reduced Defense of his Opponent.


----------



## Yondanchris

OKenpo942 said:


> You can "what if" every situation to death, but I think that in this case, Ras has a lot of good information and a solid base of knowledge to relay to others. I just wish he would give his students more of the traditional information so that when Ras is not around, they will have all of the information and a comparable base to teach from.
> 
> James



I agree that our whole idea of Ideal-what if-formulation has had to evolve into Ideal-EVEN IF-ideal, its just the fact that Ras' ideal is radically different from the "traditional" norm because he and his students USE their skills in real life way more than any of us combined! This whole debate comes down to methods of training, do you want the "traditional" outdated "ideals" or would you want something that is "modern" and has "street cred" ?? 

I do enjoy the base ideal models of AK, but like everything we must evolve or die. 

My humble and mostly ignorant .02 cents! 

Chris


----------



## Cyriacus

Sandanchris said:


> I agree that our whole idea of Ideal-what if-formulation has had to evolve into Ideal-EVEN IF-ideal, its just the fact that Ras' ideal is radically different from the "traditional" norm because he and his students USE their skills in real life way more than any of us combined! This whole debate comes down to methods of training, do you want the "traditional" outdated "ideals" or would you want something that is "modern" and has "street cred" ??
> 
> *On the Other Hand, if the Traditional Method still works just as well, why change it?*
> 
> I do enjoy the base ideal models of AK, but like everything we must evolve or die.
> 
> My humble and mostly ignorant .02 cents!
> 
> **
> 
> Chris



I just think that Traditional can be HIGHLY Subjective.


----------



## JohnEdward

Things always looks better and prettier on film. More people die from being shanked in prison than on the street. The these killers don't learn from these guys do they.   The are a plethora of  assumptions in both videos and the system.


----------



## JohnEdward

I am sorry, I was rushed and on my way out. Now that I read it is sounds not the way I wish it to. The camera always make things look better, when they are rehearsed it so you don't really get a good indication how it will test out. Most of us see how some of the moves are not very realistic, time consuming, cumbersome, and even impractical. The demo is impressive as far as it being well done. It catches the eye, and builds interest with the quick multiple hand moves.  But as a system it requires a great deal of practice to become muscle memory because of all the moves. The system has opportunity for error. If you miss or your strike or block is deflected detour it's line of attack recovery is limited. It lacks directness and I think the emphasis on quick multiple hand work. Take prison shank stabbings, not too many people survive those type of attacks. Gruesomely shanking someone evidently is very effective. There are no complicated techniques or involved counters. Such an attack is hard to defend against, you many not have the luxury of jumping back out of the way because of space and the type of attack. The is true for the kenpo system where the assumption (one of many) is the attacker is going to deliver an attack along prescribed methods, like a forward thrust from midriff on a straight line point to point. That isn't and most of the time the case, if you get a swinging or frontal attack as I said, then you have lotto. Overall, everything looks better on video.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> The knife techs are still too unrealistic...the attacks are of the nonfunctional "idea NOT Ideal Phase" variety. The presentation of this kind of knife attack and the defenses that it prompts will get you cut or hurt worse,in all likelihood. Especially when compared directly with live and more realistic attacks. Compare the above attacks to this right here from my ATACX GYM



This is why I tend to look at weapon based arts, ie: the FMAs, when it comes to knife work.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Honestly, Mike, I think it depends on what you're looking at it for. If you're looking at it for a training method that promotes flow, precision, co-ordination etc, then they're fine. If you're looking for realistic knife defence, they are sadly lacking in many ways. I will say, though, that I don't think that is really what they are for, with the former aspects being more important here, as they teach the "art" of Kempo.



Hey Chris,

Yes, I see your point...lol...no pun intended.   This clip could be viewed 2 different ways, such as you listed.  IMO, I think, and this goes for any clip really, that when something is viewed, its always shown in the same way....a static, controlled fashion.  Rarely, do we ever see a clip that shows both of the things that you mention, all rolled into one, ie: the flow, precision, etc, and then the same tech demonstrated in a live fashion.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, I've trained that under a fair amount of pressure as well, and it's very easy to retrieve your arm before the grip is "on", or cut your way out once it is. So I'd still say there are better ways to approach this situation, although this is certainly far from the "bad" ones, as it does give some very solid principles (such as immediate control of the knife arm).
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I see a number of gaps in reality there.
> 
> [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc"]
> 
> Yeah, I've seen that one before too. There are some things that I'd disagree with, including the "sparring" approach, but I'll get to that. I would point out, though, that the thing I am referring to (retrieve the knife and continue stabbing) is what Gabe is referring to as the "sewing machine".
> 
> 
> 
> To the "sparring" aspect, it's not a training method I'm fond of if reality is your goal. Scenario training I feel is the best method, which can be done in a range of forms, all the way up to unannounced free form training. As to my visiting you, unfortunately I'm in Melbourne, Australia, so that is a little bit of a commute. But I'd say the primary danger isn't changing hands, or fending off the other hand, it's that it comes to a stalemate, with them still holding a knife (which is not what I'd be going for, honestly). I agree with using both hands to control the knife arm, but not in that method, it must be said.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the most realistic responce is for them to try to retrieve the knife, and if they can't, then they aim to change hands or use the other hand (to strike, claw, etc), but the main emphasis is to regain control of the knife. The ones you are talking about are secondary... but by leaving off the initial retrieving action you're missing the reality of handling a knife.
> 
> I would ask, though, if your two decades of knife fighting is in the training hall (or outside, but in a training situation), as if that is all done with the training mentality, then it can invalidate, or taint the understanding gained. This isn't an attack on yourself or your training, nor even an indictment of your abilities, more a recognition that in training, both partners know that it is "training".. and, whether they resist or not, typically one of them (in this case, the knifeman) knows that they are supposed to "lose". There is also, as seen in the clips you linked, a habit of an attacker of "stopping" the attack once the defence starts, mainly as a self-preservation method. This is present in pretty much all training, otherwise injuries happen quite easily, but it does remove the reality, and some things are seen as being more effective than they are. There is also a greater "presence of mind", which can lead to things like the attacking partner being more likely to use their second hand, or change hands when it's not as common as they may believe.
> 
> In terms of what I would recommend is actually a relatively small change, keeping to the essence of what you are teaching. Basically, I'd move to the outside (which is what you prefer to do, from what you are saying in the clip), off the line of the attack (your movement in the clip leaves you open to secondary stabs, or even the first if you miss the grab), and control/grab both the forearm and upper arm, both inside and out. That makes a much more secure grip, which is far more difficult to break out of, as the "weak" part of the grip is on opposing sides, rather than both on the underside of their forearm/wrist in your example (which is where they would break out of your grip, by the way). From there you can continue in a large number of ways, including the way you show. As far as video, yeah, I have some. But none of it is on you-tube, or any other online site, nor is it likely to be. I would recommend the work of Michael Janich, though.




I think the 'sparring' term is used alot, but sometimes, its misunderstood.  I'm not saying thats the case here, but much like when someone says, BJJ, people automatically think ground.  When people hear 'spar' they think point, full contact, etc.  IMO, when it comes to training as realistic as you can, with the blade, a shock knife, or no lie blade, or putting lipstick on the edges, having the person with the knife attack in a realistic fashion, ie: more than one type of attack, using their other hand, or doing the 'sewing' maching type attacks.  

One of my FMA teachers, has an extensive background in Corrections.  Given that he's seen quite a wide array of assaults, we often work scenarios such as those that occur in the jails/prisons.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, I've trained that under a fair amount of pressure as well, and it's very easy to retrieve your arm before the grip is "on", or cut your way out once it is. So I'd still say there are better ways to approach this situation, although this is certainly far from the "bad" ones, as it does give some very solid principles (such as immediate control of the knife arm).
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I see a number of gaps in reality there.
> 
> [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc"]
> 
> Yeah, I've seen that one before too. There are some things that I'd disagree with, including the "sparring" approach, but I'll get to that. I would point out, though, that the thing I am referring to (retrieve the knife and continue stabbing) is what Gabe is referring to as the "sewing machine".
> 
> 
> 
> To the "sparring" aspect, it's not a training method I'm fond of if reality is your goal. Scenario training I feel is the best method, which can be done in a range of forms, all the way up to unannounced free form training. As to my visiting you, unfortunately I'm in Melbourne, Australia, so that is a little bit of a commute. But I'd say the primary danger isn't changing hands, or fending off the other hand, it's that it comes to a stalemate, with them still holding a knife (which is not what I'd be going for, honestly). I agree with using both hands to control the knife arm, but not in that method, it must be said.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the most realistic responce is for them to try to retrieve the knife, and if they can't, then they aim to change hands or use the other hand (to strike, claw, etc), but the main emphasis is to regain control of the knife. The ones you are talking about are secondary... but by leaving off the initial retrieving action you're missing the reality of handling a knife.
> 
> I would ask, though, if your two decades of knife fighting is in the training hall (or outside, but in a training situation), as if that is all done with the training mentality, then it can invalidate, or taint the understanding gained. This isn't an attack on yourself or your training, nor even an indictment of your abilities, more a recognition that in training, both partners know that it is "training".. and, whether they resist or not, typically one of them (in this case, the knifeman) knows that they are supposed to "lose". There is also, as seen in the clips you linked, a habit of an attacker of "stopping" the attack once the defence starts, mainly as a self-preservation method. This is present in pretty much all training, otherwise injuries happen quite easily, but it does remove the reality, and some things are seen as being more effective than they are. There is also a greater "presence of mind", which can lead to things like the attacking partner being more likely to use their second hand, or change hands when it's not as common as they may believe.
> 
> In terms of what I would recommend is actually a relatively small change, keeping to the essence of what you are teaching. Basically, I'd move to the outside (which is what you prefer to do, from what you are saying in the clip), off the line of the attack (your movement in the clip leaves you open to secondary stabs, or even the first if you miss the grab), and control/grab both the forearm and upper arm, both inside and out. That makes a much more secure grip, which is far more difficult to break out of, as the "weak" part of the grip is on opposing sides, rather than both on the underside of their forearm/wrist in your example (which is where they would break out of your grip, by the way). From there you can continue in a large number of ways, including the way you show. As far as video, yeah, I have some. But none of it is on you-tube, or any other online site, nor is it likely to be. I would recommend the work of Michael Janich, though.





This is a good post,Chris,and I am happy to answer some of your primary concerns.

To the issue of the 2 on 1...meaning the double grip on your opponent's wrist...I cannot emphasize how effective this is. It's highly effective even when women are grabbing larger stronger men. Why? Because this tech is being employed not in the static "let me grab on your wrist" method but instead in the explosive,whipping 2 on 1 manner being displayed in a way veeery similar to what's being shown here:







As for where is most of my knife fighting experience drawn from? Happily I can say that it's been on the mat and in the gym for the most part...with various military,special forces (my uncle who is my Grandmaster is a former Ranger; he is also an iaido master) kali students and masters,and talented martial artists from other systems with interests in the blade. Unfortunately,I can say that over the last 2 decades I have defended myself against the blade and numerous sharp objects on the streets...and I'm from the mean streets of the hoods of Southern Cali. South Central,home of the driveby.Compton. Long Beach. Southeast San Diego. Oakland. And it's interesting that the tech that I use which apparently you find not to be realistic,is perfectly suitable for all the others I mentioned and most recently was featured being used by the Israeli Special Forces on an episode of HUMAN WEAPON 

(go to 4:10 of this clip)






Note the 2 on 1 being used with a collar tie in this full speed knife attack on a Systema special forces martial arts instructor:

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnxlXPmLTjo&feature=related

^^^I think we have evidence here from some of the most elite forces on earth that the 2 on 1 works beyond a shadow of a doubt.


Notice that he uses the double tie,either over and under,the very same double tie that I use,and he uses it with his whole body behind it. I can't emphasize how it's muuuuuch harder than may initially be apparent to just "pull" out of my grip or even my female students' grip once they get a 2 on 1 on your wrist or arm...and use that as a total body arm-torso-legs-and-gravity whip. Many attackers lose their hold on the knife merely because of the power of the whip itself,even before our counterattacks start breaking bones. If you have experienced different things than I (and the Dog Brothers,and Special Forces the world over) have regarding the 2 on 1's success vs the knife? Okay cool no problem. But I would virtually guarantee that if you actually used a arm drag,a body weight drop,a total body whip? The results would be much more positive and explosively powerful.The opponent is virtually helpless to defend against this tech once you sieze the wrist and whip.

Now go back to my video.








 Consider that I'm talking about taking the movements from 1:42 to the disarm and counterattack while moving with the same level of explosivity that I displayed from 1:05-09,and you'll see why I slowed things to a crawl once I siezed control of the knife. Were I to whip the knife holding wrist with any legit energy and step in on my uke,levering the knife out of his hand,etc? Just the whipping arm drag and step in would cause damage to his arm.There is NO CHANCE of a knife switch,and the whipping arm drag takes the opposite arm and all the dangers that it entails completely out of the equation. The staggered grip...with thumbs facing opposite ends...is nice to do if you can do it,but it's not as fluidly explosive and efficient as the 2 on 1 with the whip drag. Furthermore,your opponent may have much longer and larger limbs than you do. The wrists are the smallest and most easiest to manipulate structure on the arm (in a scenario like this) as well as the closest available target for counterattack which offers control of the knife as well.


If the tech hasn't worked for you so far? You can try the tech as I suggested. If you do it properly? It will work for you...like it has for me and police and corrections officers and special forces the world over.


As for the sparring mindset? Well...the best thing that I can say is that there's dysfunctional and functional sparring. Here's the bottom line to that: everybody spars until they're facing the real life street threat. Every tech that you learned functionally you learned while sparring. Sparring isn't only the dysfunctional morass commonly miscalled "sparring",or the non or light contact stuff. Navy SEALS have been killed in what they call "live training exercises"...and that,too is sparring. Our sparring is always functional and covers the most prosaic and slowest stuff to the fastest most high powered stuff that we can coax from our bodies. 








But it's still sparring until we do the same thing vs some dude on the street...but because our sparring is very functional vs guys who are actually good with the attacks tactics and weapons used? We are more than prepared to deal with most people who consider getting out of hand. We must be careful not to conflate "sparring" with "dysfunction". There are those who "spar dysfunctionally"...but really that means that they're NOT sparring,they're SPARRING INCORRECTLY. If not? If one believes those who disparage sparring? Then we are forced to conclude that constantly engaging in live combat is the only way to become more proficient at self-defense. Sense that is absolutely and totally not the case,we must then assert without equivocation that sparring correctly and functionally not only translates to self-defense wholly and entirely...functional sparring is the penultimate litmus test for self-defense period. It oftentimes significantly outperforms the threat that we face when and if we're confronted with it because the people who we train with are generally more skilled and better conditioned than our attacker,who further suffers from generally vastly inferior technique AND has no idea that we have an arsenal of attacks at our beck and call for which he has no defense (if we train functionally).


----------



## ATACX GYM

JohnEdward said:


> Things always looks better and prettier on film. More people die from being shanked in prison than on the street. The these killers don't learn from these guys do they.   The are a plethora of  assumptions in both videos and the system.



Most prison shanking DEATHS are rear attacks,multifight ambush shankings,or both.These videos are frontal attack defenses. I have flank and rear attack defenses but they're on my upcoming DVD


----------



## ATACX GYM

Thoughts?


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Hey Chris,
> 
> Yes, I see your point...lol...no pun intended.   This clip could be viewed 2 different ways, such as you listed.  IMO, I think, and this goes for any clip really, that when something is viewed, its always shown in the same way....a static, controlled fashion.  Rarely, do we ever see a clip that shows both of the things that you mention, all rolled into one, ie: the flow, precision, etc, and then the same tech demonstrated in a live fashion.


 
Hey Mike,

Yep, agreed. Honestly, I think that that's because the two demonstration methods are relatively exclusive to each other. Neither are better than the other, but it should be recognised which you are actually viewing, and it should be reviewed in that way. Otherwise, expecting complete visceral realism out of a drilling method designed to drill principles, such as targeting, distance, movement, co-ordination etc and denigrating it for lacking the realism is like going to the movies and watching a heavy drama, then complaining that it wasn't funny enough, as you were looking for a light romantic comedy.



MJS said:


> I think the 'sparring' term is used alot, but sometimes, its misunderstood.  I'm not saying thats the case here, but much like when someone says, BJJ, people automatically think ground.  When people hear 'spar' they think point, full contact, etc.  IMO, when it comes to training as realistic as you can, with the blade, a shock knife, or no lie blade, or putting lipstick on the edges, having the person with the knife attack in a realistic fashion, ie: more than one type of attack, using their other hand, or doing the 'sewing' maching type attacks.
> 
> One of my FMA teachers, has an extensive background in Corrections.  Given that he's seen quite a wide array of assaults, we often work scenarios such as those that occur in the jails/prisons.



By "sparring", I'm referring to any form of training where the aim is out performing someone else. Reality is a little different, in that the aim is to survive and escape, rather than out perform. Honestly, all forms of training will have some flaws to them, as the only way to ensure reality is to genuinely damage your training partners, and have them genuinely try to damage you. As we aren't training under Ittosai, that's going a bit too far (an old Kenjutsu master whose teachings include the rule of "Learn by being cut"... )



ATACX GYM said:


> This is a good post,Chris,and I am happy to answer some of your primary concerns.
> 
> To the issue of the 2 on 1...meaning the double grip on your opponent's wrist...I cannot emphasize how effective this is. It's highly effective even when women are grabbing larger stronger men. Why? Because this tech is being employed not in the static "let me grab on your wrist" method but instead in the explosive,whipping 2 on 1 manner being displayed in a way veeery similar to what's being shown here:



Actually, the clip you presented shows much closer to the grip that I'm recommending (I'd have my right hand secure from on top, ideally), although the way it's being done here is rather dangerous against a knife. Changing the right hand as I said, and pulling it in towards your right hip will go a long way to securing a knife hand, and stop the other hand coming into play. Two hands on the wrist? As a desperation method, okay. But there are too many issues still for me to rely on it, or opt for it as a first choice.



ATACX GYM said:


> As for where is most of my knife fighting experience drawn from? Happily I can say that it's been on the mat and in the gym for the most part...with various military,special forces (my uncle who is my Grandmaster is a former Ranger; he is also an iaido master) kali students and masters,and talented martial artists from other systems with interests in the blade. Unfortunately,I can say that over the last 2 decades I have defended myself against the blade and numerous sharp objects on the streets...and I'm from the mean streets of the hoods of Southern Cali. South Central,home of the driveby.Compton. Long Beach. Southeast San Diego. Oakland. And it's interesting that the tech that I use which apparently you find not to be realistic,is perfectly suitable for all the others I mentioned and most recently was featured being used by the Israeli Special Forces on an episode of HUMAN WEAPON
> 
> (go to 4:10 of this clip)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the 2 on 1 being used with a collar tie in this full speed knife attack on a Systema special forces martial arts instructor:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^I think we have evidence here from some of the most elite forces on earth that the 2 on 1 works beyond a shadow of a doubt.



Firstly, it's the specific two-hands-catching-the-wrist part that I'd change, if you wanted the highest return method you could get. As I said, it can work as a desperation method, but there are still major issues, but I'll come back to those in a second. However, I didn't see a two-hands-on-the-wrist action in either clip you put up.

Next, I personally would have issues with the description of Systema you provide there (one of the most elite forces on earth....), but that's getting into the history controversies that exist around the system.

Next, neither of those clips are what I'd look to as anything closer to realism, honestly. In both clips the attacker "stops" as soon as the defender starts his defence (as can be easily seen in the slow-motion parts of the clips), which removes the reality aspect, in the first (the Krav Maga one), I counted numerous cuts and stabs to the defender, and a lack of control over the knife arm... but that was much better than the second one you posted, where there was no commitment from the attacker, and no control of the weapon hand at all. Both of these clips seem to suffer from a common problem, which is that the attackers are typically students of the demonstrator, and have learnt to be concerned when the demonstrator starts to move. Basically, as a self preservation method, they stop attacking (there's more to this, but that's a good basis). As a result, neither of these clips pass muster for a "realistic" attack or defence... but the Krav one is the better of the two.



ATACX GYM said:


> Notice that he uses the double tie,either over and under,the very same double tie that I use,and he uses it with his whole body behind it. I can't emphasize how it's muuuuuch harder than may initially be apparent to just "pull" out of my grip or even my female students' grip once they get a 2 on 1 on your wrist or arm...and use that as a total body arm-torso-legs-and-gravity whip. Many attackers lose their hold on the knife merely because of the power of the whip itself,even before our counterattacks start breaking bones. If you have experienced different things than I (and the Dog Brothers,and Special Forces the world over) have regarding the 2 on 1's success vs the knife? Okay cool no problem. But I would virtually guarantee that if you actually used a arm drag,a body weight drop,a total body whip? The results would be much more positive and explosively powerful.The opponent is virtually helpless to defend against this tech once you sieze the wrist and whip.



And here's one of the issues that I'm seeing... you mention a few times here "*once I have the grip on*". That's the problem.



ATACX GYM said:


> Now go back to my video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consider that I'm talking about taking the movements from 1:42 to the disarm and counterattack while moving with the same level of explosivity that I displayed from 1:05-09,and you'll see why I slowed things to a crawl once I siezed control of the knife. Were I to whip the knife holding wrist with any legit energy and step in on my uke,levering the knife out of his hand,etc? Just the whipping arm drag and step in would cause damage to his arm.There is NO CHANCE of a knife switch,and the whipping arm drag takes the opposite arm and all the dangers that it entails completely out of the equation. The staggered grip...with thumbs facing opposite ends...is nice to do if you can do it,but it's not as fluidly explosive and efficient as the 2 on 1 with the whip drag. Furthermore,your opponent may have much longer and larger limbs than you do. The wrists are the smallest and most easiest to manipulate structure on the arm (in a scenario like this) as well as the closest available target for counterattack which offers control of the knife as well.



Oh, yeah, I got the tempo of the whole movement, that's not what I'm spotting as an issue. Hmm, there may be some confusion here. Tell you what, let's take your clip, and I'll say what I see as the problems (such as they are), and how I would alter them for an even better result.

Really, there are two big things that jump out at me. The first I haven't mentioned so far, but would frankly get you gutted against a decent knifeman. It's your leap to evade. To be clear, leaping away from the initial slashes is a very smart thing to train, and not everyone realises that these things need to be given as much attention as the rest, otherwise freezing is a very real possibility (mainly because you typically will need a moment or two to orient yourself to the situation, and won't just move in straight away, as many teach to do). However, I'd advise keeping your leaps lower to the ground, and going for distance; the second leap you make is too high, and the knifeman would be on you, with his knife in you, before you landed. So leap, absolutely, but keep low.

The other thing is the exact secure you are getting here (two hands on the wrist, specifically - not the fact that it's two hands, it's that it's on the wrist. It's not a high-low secure, which is what you have shown in the clip you linked, and is what I'd advise it is changed to, it's a double grab to the wrist. That's what I'm having problems with).

The problems I see with the grab to the wrist are rather numerous, honestly. First off, you're not moving off the line of the attack, so if you miss, then you've just moved into a knife to your stomach. Next is the real possibility of driving your hands directly down onto the blade, or it slicing up the inside of your forearms. Now, that can be survivable, and you may still get your grip, but now it's going to be slippery with your own blood, making it less secure. Next, the grip works with both hands coming down from on top, meaning that the "weak" aspect of the grip (the opening in your hands where your grip is weakest, and against which all grip releases work) are both on the underside of his arm. If he does pull back (typically he may push against you with his free hand while stepping back and yanking his arm out), he will be working against the weakest part of your grab with both of your hands. A high-low secure means that only one of the hands will have it's "weak" side exposed in this way, so where one is weak, the other is strong, making a much more powerful control. Next, he will be flailing around with the blade on his way out, so unless the secure is very tight and controlling the knife itself (which it isn't if it's held out from your body, essentially it's just become a wrestling match now to see who's strongest), there's a good chance of being cut as a method to get you to let go. Finally, if the attack is more of the "sewing machine" attack, then simply getting the timing of catching the wrist with both hands is rather difficult, as the attacker is already pumping their arm back and forth. You may contact their wrist, and they're already pulling it back, which means you miss.

Instead, I'd move to the outside (outflank), allowing my left (lead) hand to catch the upper arm (which moves a lot slower), and my right (rear) hand to come down on top of the forearm, and then make it's way down to catch the wrist. From there, the knife hand is pulled in besides my right hip and I drop my bodyweight down on top of the attackers arm to help control. In this position, staying low and stable, even with the knifeman struggling, trying to pull the knife back, trying to shake me off, I can stay in control and ride the struggle. And, yes, I've trained that with people about twice my size. You can get an armbar against the elbow with your body, and the pull in to the hip is the same as your "whipping" action. Additionally, if I miss, my arms form a protective barrier against the knife, and I've moved offline so I don't get stabbed for missing it.

There is also minimalist chance of swapping the knife hand, or striking with the opposite hand in the version I mention as well, I might note, and it works even better against someone with longer limbs or someone taller (as you drag them down, and move inside their field of range). I would not advise going for the wrist initially the way you do as, although it is vital to control it against a knifeman, it is also the fastest moving part of his arm, and the easiest for him to avoid your grip with.



ATACX GYM said:


> If the tech hasn't worked for you so far? You can try the tech as I suggested. If you do it properly? It will work for you...like it has for me and police and corrections officers and special forces the world over.



I've been exposed to police training here in regards to knife defence. My response was along the lines of "So, they want you to die?"

Again, though, your method can work, but I would class it as a desperation method. If teaching someone, I would give them something much higher return for the reasons I stated.



ATACX GYM said:


> As for the sparring mindset? Well...the best thing that I can say is that there's dysfunctional and functional sparring. Here's the bottom line to that: everybody spars until they're facing the real life street threat. Every tech that you learned functionally you learned while sparring. Sparring isn't only the dysfunctional morass commonly miscalled "sparring",or the non or light contact stuff. Navy SEALS have been killed in what they call "live training exercises"...and that,too is sparring. Our sparring is always functional and covers the most prosaic and slowest stuff to the fastest most high powered stuff that we can coax from our bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's still sparring until we do the same thing vs some dude on the street...but because our sparring is very functional vs guys who are actually good with the attacks tactics and weapons used? We are more than prepared to deal with most people who consider getting out of hand. We must be careful not to conflate "sparring" with "dysfunction". There are those who "spar dysfunctionally"...but really that means that they're NOT sparring,they're SPARRING INCORRECTLY. If not? If one believes those who disparage sparring? Then we are forced to conclude that constantly engaging in live combat is the only way to become more proficient at self-defense. Sense that is absolutely and totally not the case,we must then assert without equivocation that sparring correctly and functionally not only translates to self-defense wholly and entirely...functional sparring is the penultimate litmus test for self-defense period. It oftentimes significantly outperforms the threat that we face when and if we're confronted with it because the people who we train with are generally more skilled and better conditioned than our attacker,who further suffers from generally vastly inferior technique AND has no idea that we have an arsenal of attacks at our beck and call for which he has no defense (if we train functionally).


 
It may just be a difference in terminology, but none of what I saw in your clip there was sparring. It was drilling, but not sparring. And I would say that nothing that I have learnt functionally was in what I refer to as "sparring", which is, as I said to Mike earlier in this post, a training exercise where both parties attempt to outperform each other. Most of my highly functional work has been against resistance, and with adrenaline, but it was not sparring.



ATACX GYM said:


> Thoughts?



Ha, yeah, I had a few....


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Yep, agreed. Honestly, I think that that's because the two demonstration methods are relatively exclusive to each other. Neither are better than the other, but it should be recognised which you are actually viewing, and it should be reviewed in that way. Otherwise, expecting complete visceral realism out of a drilling method designed to drill principles, such as targeting, distance, movement, co-ordination etc and denigrating it for lacking the realism is like going to the movies and watching a heavy drama, then complaining that it wasn't funny enough, as you were looking for a light romantic comedy.
> 
> 
> 
> By "sparring", I'm referring to any form of training where the aim is out performing someone else. Reality is a little different, in that the aim is to survive and escape, rather than out perform. Honestly, all forms of training will have some flaws to them, as the only way to ensure reality is to genuinely damage your training partners, and have them genuinely try to damage you. As we aren't training under Ittosai, that's going a bit too far (an old Kenjutsu master whose teachings include the rule of "Learn by being cut"... )
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the clip you presented shows much closer to the grip that I'm recommending (I'd have my right hand secure from on top, ideally), although the way it's being done here is rather dangerous against a knife. Changing the right hand as I said, and pulling it in towards your right hip will go a long way to securing a knife hand, and stop the other hand coming into play. Two hands on the wrist? As a desperation method, okay. But there are too many issues still for me to rely on it, or opt for it as a first choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, it's the specific two-hands-catching-the-wrist part that I'd change, if you wanted the highest return method you could get. As I said, it can work as a desperation method, but there are still major issues, but I'll come back to those in a second. However, I didn't see a two-hands-on-the-wrist action in either clip you put up.
> 
> Next, I personally would have issues with the description of Systema you provide there (one of the most elite forces on earth....), but that's getting into the history controversies that exist around the system.
> 
> Next, neither of those clips are what I'd look to as anything closer to realism, honestly. In both clips the attacker "stops" as soon as the defender starts his defence (as can be easily seen in the slow-motion parts of the clips), which removes the reality aspect, in the first (the Krav Maga one), I counted numerous cuts and stabs to the defender, and a lack of control over the knife arm... but that was much better than the second one you posted, where there was no commitment from the attacker, and no control of the weapon hand at all. Both of these clips seem to suffer from a common problem, which is that the attackers are typically students of the demonstrator, and have learnt to be concerned when the demonstrator starts to move. Basically, as a self preservation method, they stop attacking (there's more to this, but that's a good basis). As a result, neither of these clips pass muster for a "realistic" attack or defence... but the Krav one is the better of the two.
> 
> 
> 
> And here's one of the issues that I'm seeing... you mention a few times here "*once I have the grip on*". That's the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, I got the tempo of the whole movement, that's not what I'm spotting as an issue. Hmm, there may be some confusion here. Tell you what, let's take your clip, and I'll say what I see as the problems (such as they are), and how I would alter them for an even better result.
> 
> Really, there are two big things that jump out at me. The first I haven't mentioned so far, but would frankly get you gutted against a decent knifeman. It's your leap to evade. To be clear, leaping away from the initial slashes is a very smart thing to train, and not everyone realises that these things need to be given as much attention as the rest, otherwise freezing is a very real possibility (mainly because you typically will need a moment or two to orient yourself to the situation, and won't just move in straight away, as many teach to do). However, I'd advise keeping your leaps lower to the ground, and going for distance; the second leap you make is too high, and the knifeman would be on you, with his knife in you, before you landed. So leap, absolutely, but keep low.
> 
> The other thing is the exact secure you are getting here (two hands on the wrist, specifically - not the fact that it's two hands, it's that it's on the wrist. It's not a high-low secure, which is what you have shown in the clip you linked, and is what I'd advise it is changed to, it's a double grab to the wrist. That's what I'm having problems with).
> 
> The problems I see with the grab to the wrist are rather numerous, honestly. First off, you're not moving off the line of the attack, so if you miss, then you've just moved into a knife to your stomach. Next is the real possibility of driving your hands directly down onto the blade, or it slicing up the inside of your forearms. Now, that can be survivable, and you may still get your grip, but now it's going to be slippery with your own blood, making it less secure. Next, the grip works with both hands coming down from on top, meaning that the "weak" aspect of the grip (the opening in your hands where your grip is weakest, and against which all grip releases work) are both on the underside of his arm. If he does pull back (typically he may push against you with his free hand while stepping back and yanking his arm out), he will be working against the weakest part of your grab with both of your hands. A high-low secure means that only one of the hands will have it's "weak" side exposed in this way, so where one is weak, the other is strong, making a much more powerful control. Next, he will be flailing around with the blade on his way out, so unless the secure is very tight and controlling the knife itself (which it isn't if it's held out from your body, essentially it's just become a wrestling match now to see who's strongest), there's a good chance of being cut as a method to get you to let go. Finally, if the attack is more of the "sewing machine" attack, then simply getting the timing of catching the wrist with both hands is rather difficult, as the attacker is already pumping their arm back and forth. You may contact their wrist, and they're already pulling it back, which means you miss.
> 
> Instead, I'd move to the outside (outflank), allowing my left (lead) hand to catch the upper arm (which moves a lot slower), and my right (rear) hand to come down on top of the forearm, and then make it's way down to catch the wrist. From there, the knife hand is pulled in besides my right hip and I drop my bodyweight down on top of the attackers arm to help control. In this position, staying low and stable, even with the knifeman struggling, trying to pull the knife back, trying to shake me off, I can stay in control and ride the struggle. And, yes, I've trained that with people about twice my size. You can get an armbar against the elbow with your body, and the pull in to the hip is the same as your "whipping" action. Additionally, if I miss, my arms form a protective barrier against the knife, and I've moved offline so I don't get stabbed for missing it.
> 
> There is also minimalist chance of swapping the knife hand, or striking with the opposite hand in the version I mention as well, I might note, and it works even better against someone with longer limbs or someone taller (as you drag them down, and move inside their field of range). I would not advise going for the wrist initially the way you do as, although it is vital to control it against a knifeman, it is also the fastest moving part of his arm, and the easiest for him to avoid your grip with.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been exposed to police training here in regards to knife defence. My response was along the lines of "So, they want you to die?"
> 
> Again, though, your method can work, but I would class it as a desperation method. If teaching someone, I would give them something much higher return for the reasons I stated.
> 
> 
> 
> It may just be a difference in terminology, but none of what I saw in your clip there was sparring. It was drilling, but not sparring. And I would say that nothing that I have learnt functionally was in what I refer to as "sparring", which is, as I said to Mike earlier in this post, a training exercise where both parties attempt to outperform each other. Most of my highly functional work has been against resistance, and with adrenaline, but it was not sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, yeah, I had a few....



Another good post here,Chris...and I think we may be having a combination of issues here. The first may be just a specific preference based upon our experiences...specifically the 2 on 1. The second is the leap backwards body whip and hip stuff.The third may be more semantics than anything,regarding how we use the words "sparring" and "drilling" and what these words mean to each of us. I will address the second matter first.

If you go to my video CHECKING THE STORM PT.3 you will note a couple vital points of info that I think you might have missed the first time around when you noted my second leap backward from the knife at about 1:04 to 1:08. The first and most important part is that my leap changed direction. I went from backwards to a quick arcing,longer lateral jump without any warning. This movement buys me more time because not only does my attacker miss with the knife which requires him to readjust his arm,he also has to change direction to track me. He will not have time to nail me when I'm in the air.He could be a better than average knifeman,and he still wouldn't hit me because I'm not there to be hit.He would need to recover from the missed knife swing,pivot,step to me and attack in order to catch me and frankly that lateral movement of mine is flat out too quick for that. Secondly? I'm not high in the air,I just shot my hips back quickly then returned to my center of gravity very quickly and ATTACKED MY KNIFE WIELDING OPPONENT FROM OFF ANGLE IN ONE MOVEMENT THE SPLIT SECOND I LANDED.Look at the angle of the knife visavis my body at 1:08.The knife is angled off heading outside of my right hip. It was backward jump,lateral jump-land-attack all in one movement. That single fluid flow removed the knife from being direcly in line with me,and neatly sidestepped all of the issues you raised that were of concern--including using my hip as leverage against his knife hand--but which you didn't know that I already addressed.In short? Not only am I offline from the attack using a movement that will take my attacker extra time to adjust to,I attacked him from off angle prior to his full recovery.

I used this specific sequence several times before,but a specific time springs to mind: when I faced by one of the more notorious knife wielding Pirus in Compton. Usually those bruthas carry guns (he did too) but I'd already disarmed him and he came after me with a knife almost immediately after I'd disarmed him and injured his eye.It works very well,even against guys who's vision aren't impaired.

Secondly,remember that the attack is off angle.This prevents me from impaling myself on the knife should I miss...a very unlikely thing to happen because my movement put me in a very good position to grab the arm where I wish with minimal danger to myself.Which brings me to another very important and very often misunderstood area that you and I may just disagree on because we are different people and naturally differ on various matters: the 2 on 1 that you recommend is not a tech that you can go into immediately with power authority and control in multiple scenarios. If you're a woman against a bigger man,for instance,or if you're in a multifight. Especially a multifight with knives bottles chairs and whatnot around (been there working special assignment for THE QUEEN MARY in the X HALL in LONG BEACH). The first thing you must do is establish control,and the fastest most efficient universal method of control tha I know of and have tested is the off angle 2 on 1 bodywhip that I use. This 2 on 1 double wrist tie allows me the option to flow from 2 on 1 variant to 2 on 1 variant regardless of the scenario and regardless of the number and size discrepancy I face visavis opponents. The 2 on 1 wrist and bicep tie you refer to is a good hold that I really like,but it's not as immediately universal and effective as the one that I use. It's much better for 1 on 1 conflict with people of relatively similar size and usually works much better for men than it does for women.I recommend TRANSITIONING to that hold when circumstances favor or dictate that hold,but the best FOUNDATIONAL hold is the 2 on 1 wrist tie in my experience. Both holds work veeeery well against "the sewing machine". They don't get a chance to "sew". Lol.However,only the 2 on 1 double wrist tie provides the option to flow from 2 on 1 tie to 2 on 1 tie immediately while maintaining maximum mobility and keeping all striking and escape options open (we also do dive roll escapes here,which are VEEERY EFFECTIVE as the bad guy has NO IDEA that you can do such a thing and is shocked by its execution).There is also another danger to the bicep and wrist tie,and that is that if you're shorter than your attacker and especially shorter and lighter by any significant degree? You offer your hair up to be grabbed. Not fun.I've seen guys get peeled off of that hold or have their offense and defense nuetralized as the bad guy instinctively grabbed their hair started heaving and sawing the head about and sometimes into objects and walls, and throwing knees to the face while yanking to get their arm free and running (as in sprinting) through the defender. Once their arm is free,they get to doing "the sewing machine" with much greater vigor now because they realize that they're in danger and they're angry and worried about it. The 2 on 1 double wrist tie I recommend entirely eliminates those concerns. The 2 on 1 double wrist tie allows you to keep your balance and you have the option of using all of your offensive weapons at once while not exposing the top of your cranium or your hair to attacks from the bad guy. Again...we don't differ on using the 2 on 1. You just recommend a specific variation only,whereas I recommend an approach that not only  neatly side steps the issues that you raised but allows transitioning to all the other 2 on 1 variants including the bicep and wrist tie that you recommend,aaaand my approach allows you to flow to the bicep and wrist tie when warranted without sacrificing one iota of your total offense. The more versatile offense with the more impregnable defense is imho the superior option,and I think that I just demonstrated that the approach I recommend has more versatility and is alot harder to be countered than what may have been initially thought.

Allow me to address another point here. You harped upon a specific sentence fragment of mine which makes me want to repetitively clarify a specific point. When I say :"* once I have the grip on* " I mean it from the perspective of fluid siezing and flowing,not a choppy grab-stop-go motion. I know you said that you understand the body dynamics of grip-body whip being ONE MOVEMENT,but that makes me wonder why you specifically focused on me saying "once I have the grip on". If you understood that grip-body whip happens at once,then you'd know that the grip is part of the full motion of the body whip and they happen simultaneously and organically...like the muscle coordination of your arm as you shoot the jab.Getting hit with the jab means all the necessarily musculoskeletal coordination has already occurred to launch and crack you with it.You can't say:"Well once he hits me with the jab I will jam it at the bicep."  Because the bicep has to NOT BE JAMMED in order to hit you with the extended jab in the first place. You can't have an issue with my grip and divorce it from the body whip that it's part and parcel of. Had I executed the body whip with gusto? My friend Jabari in the CHECKING THE STORM PT. 3 video with me would have been tossed into and probably over the white fence partitioning his driveway from the neighbors driveway...and his arm and elbow would have suffered some form of significant damage. Like I've repeatedly stated,the bodywhip by itself frequently disarms opponents,whether you're a man or not. One of my colleagues--little 105 pound Latina named Myra--whom I taught this tech to has disarmed men twice her size with the 2 on 1 body whip.I witnessed this on 2 occassions myself. The 2nd time? The drunk in question went to the hospital,had his arm laid up for a few weeks and he actually tried to sue her.He lost the case,but still. Aaaand I might add that this guy was 250 pounds.The 2 on 1 wrist and bicep tie up would not have been the move for Myra under those circumstances.

Now,addressing the matter of "sparring" and "drilling"...to me? "Drilling" helps to impart specific skill sets into muscle memory. It's a repetitive act against specific stimuli which teaches you to apply a specific skill--knife disarms--against specific kinds of attacks. Sparring comes at various intensities and degrees and purposes,but what's universal to me for the term sparring are:

1. Sparring at the higher levels of intensity is the closest that we can get to actual combat. In fact,sparring against skilled opposition oftentimes exceeds the street or actual reality of self-defense by quite a bit,and this is probably theee most valuable benefit to sparring.

2. Sparring speed and intensity can be ratcheted down to accomodate the experience and skill level of the practitioner,so even n00bs can spar their very first day without fear of being hurt but with the benefit that accrues from sparring against resisting,noncooperative opposition of various levels of experiences,body types,etc etc.

What are your thoughts regarding "drilling" and "sparring"?

To me and for my ATACX GYM...NEITHER VIDEO OF ME that I showed was either "drilling" OR "sparring". This was just some mundane step-by-step stuff. In my DVD,you will see the difference. My drills are much faster,and oftentimes people think that my drills ARE sparring because they're very close in appearance and they're designed to be very close. Think of how Floyd and Roger Mayweather shadowboxing and working the mitts.






Now replace the mitts with the knife,and that's how I do my knife,stick,etc. drills. Very dynamic,very realistic. My sparring doesn't have the ceaseless perpetual motion of my drilling,but the intent to do damage is greater. You can and do get popped while drilling,but you can and do get popped MORE and usually HARDER while SPARRING.

Which brings me to another very important point: you said that you counted various knife hits on the Israeli spec-ops guy. Truth is? You're gonna get knicked clocked and cut if you train with knives,especially the real deal. I prefer wooden knives because I like the impact that teaches you to respect the weapon,it's cheaper than Shock Knives,and nobody bleeds (that much anyway). Because you know that one mistake will equal pain and blood,knife vs knife (even wooden knife) sparring tends to take on a clash-and get out approach. If you're facing a guy with a knife and you don't have one? We practice against the sewing machine attack most of the time,which also includes feints and slashes too. I have never gone a few weeks of knife training wherein I wasn't "cut" or clocked a couple times per session. I've never gone a month of knife training without taking at least one bad stab (especially in multifight scenarios) against my sparring partners. If anyone claims they have? Imo chances are very high that they're lying or their sparring partners suck.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Yep, agreed. Honestly, I think that that's because the two demonstration methods are relatively exclusive to each other. Neither are better than the other, but it should be recognised which you are actually viewing, and it should be reviewed in that way. Otherwise, expecting complete visceral realism out of a drilling method designed to drill principles, such as targeting, distance, movement, co-ordination etc and denigrating it for lacking the realism is like going to the movies and watching a heavy drama, then complaining that it wasn't funny enough, as you were looking for a light romantic comedy.



Hi Chris,

I hear what you're saying.  So, in this case, I'd say we're watching what we in the Kenpo world call the "Ideal Phase" where everything is just that...ideal.  Everything works according to plan, and the technique is a success.  However, and Ras can attest to this, whats rare, is viewing these techniques with someone doing something other than posing and cooperating.  It would be nice to see something other than the norm, so to speak...lol.  Reason I say this, is because for those that dont know any better, they will watch something like this, and possibly assume that reality is just like this, when in fact, its not.  





> By "sparring", I'm referring to any form of training where the aim is out performing someone else. Reality is a little different, in that the aim is to survive and escape, rather than out perform. Honestly, all forms of training will have some flaws to them, as the only way to ensure reality is to genuinely damage your training partners, and have them genuinely try to damage you. As we aren't training under Ittosai, that's going a bit too far (an old Kenjutsu master whose teachings include the rule of "Learn by being cut"... )



True, and I agree that we can't replicate a 'real' situation, we can come close, and people such as Police officers, Firefighters, and Military do this all the time.  IMO, 99% of the simulated training is the mindset.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> I hear what you're saying. So, in this case, I'd say we're watching what we in the Kenpo world call the "Ideal Phase" where everything is just that...ideal. Everything works according to plan, and the technique is a success. However, and Ras can attest to this, whats rare, is viewing these techniques with someone doing something other than posing and cooperating. It would be nice to see something other than the norm, so to speak...lol. Reason I say this, is because for those that dont know any better, they will watch something like this, and possibly assume that reality is just like this, when in fact, its not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, and I agree that we can't replicate a 'real' situation, we can come close, and people such as Police officers, Firefighters, and Military do this all the time. IMO, 99% of the simulated training is the mindset.




I disagree here. I think surviving and escaping is PART OF outperforming your opponent,depending on what's going on there. If you're a civilian? Surviving and escaping with zero or minimal damage is the number one goal;however you may not have that option. What if you're facing a knife wielding bad guy on a bus? What if you're with a loved one or baby or grandmother or some inebriated friends or any number of real world scenarios like a car jacking by knife or home invasion or mugging where escape is simply NOT an option? You have to repel the opponent,overwhelm him,overcome him.Or THEM. One's base training approach must take this reality into consideration,and use a methodology that seamlessly flows into both options and uses both or either instantaneously and decisively as the stituation requires.

What if you're the LEO called in to subdue the knife wielding suspect and you can't shoot him? Stick time or pepper spray or something,right? Well what if you did that and you're cuffing one BG and his knife wielding buddy jumps you from the flank? Now you gotta deal with this nutcase AND his buddy. I had to do that while working HRS in South Central,Compton,Long Beach,Paramount and a few other areas besides. That 2 on 1 grip made alllll the difference EVERY TIME in those scenarios. I can happily say in the instances that I referenced,I wasn't cut at all. I HAVE been cut on the street fighting guys with knives before (not fun,not at all recommended) but it's never been a bad cut. Most guys suck empty handed AND SUCK EVEN MORE with a weapon,they just FEEL THEY HAVE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EDGE OF EMPOWERMENT AND INTIMIDATION WITH A WEAPON.And for the most part,they're right.But if you have your quality reps in via quality training? You can feel pretty confident against some untrained schmuck trying to gut you...all you gotta do is manage the adrenaline dump and you're g2g.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I disagree here. I think surviving and escaping is PART OF outperforming your opponent,depending on what's going on there. If you're a civilian? Surviving and escaping with zero or minimal damage is the number one goal;however you may not have that option. What if you're facing a knife wielding bad guy on a bus? What if you're with a loved one or baby or grandmother or some inebriated friends or any number of real world scenarios like a car jacking by knife or home invasion or mugging where escape is simply NOT an option? You have to repel the opponent,overwhelm him,overcome him.Or THEM. One's base training approach must take this reality into consideration,and use a methodology that seamlessly flows into both options and uses both or either instantaneously and decisively as the stituation requires.
> 
> What if you're the LEO called in to subdue the knife wielding suspect and you can't shoot him? Stick time or pepper spray or something,right? Well what if you did that and you're cuffing one BG and his knife wielding buddy jumps you from the flank? Now you gotta deal with this nutcase AND his buddy. I had to do that while working HRS in South Central,Compton,Long Beach,Paramount and a few other areas besides. That 2 on 1 grip made alllll the difference EVERY TIME in those scenarios. I can happily say in the instances that I referenced,I wasn't cut at all. I HAVE been cut on the street fighting guys with knives before (not fun,not at all recommended) but it's never been a bad cut. Most guys suck empty handed AND SUCK EVEN MORE with a weapon,they just FEEL THEY HAVE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EDGE OF EMPOWERMENT AND INTIMIDATION WITH A WEAPON.And for the most part,they're right.But if you have your quality reps in via quality training? You can feel pretty confident against some untrained schmuck trying to gut you...all you gotta do is manage the adrenaline dump and you're g2g.



Umm...I'm confused.  What part of this are you disagreeing with?  I didn't think that I said anything that anyone would disagree with.  The first part of the post, I was responding to what Chris said about the videos...and how there are different ways to view them, depending on whats presented in the clip.  I simply said that in the vast majority of clips, all you ever see is compliance.  Rarely do you see aliveness.  

The second part of my statement was also in response to Chris.  He said real life is different than training, to which I agree.  I went further and stated that training is still important, ie: training simulations.  I said that LEOs, Military, etc, all do some sort of training to simulate the real deal, even though the training itself isnt real, meaning that the odds of someone getting seriously hurt or killed, are slim.

So...all that said, could you please clarify what you're saying?


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Umm...I'm confused. What part of this are you disagreeing with? I didn't think that I said anything that anyone would disagree with. The first part of the post, I was responding to what Chris said about the videos...and how there are different ways to view them, depending on whats presented in the clip. I simply said that in the vast majority of clips, all you ever see is compliance. Rarely do you see aliveness.
> 
> The second part of my statement was also in response to Chris. He said real life is different than training, to which I agree. I went further and stated that training is still important, ie: training simulations. I said that LEOs, Military, etc, all do some sort of training to simulate the real deal, even though the training itself isnt real, meaning that the odds of someone getting seriously hurt or killed, are slim.
> 
> So...all that said, could you please clarify what you're saying?




actually I quoted the wrong post there,MJS. My fault there. I was trying to focus on the part of Chris' quote where he mentioned the word "out perform" and the point that he was getting at as I understand it. I didn't mean to quote your post at all. Chris wrote a good post--again--I just disagree that first "outperforming" is relegated to any form of exclusive mindset or goal; there are those that denigrate sport combatives as not being beneficial for self-defense (which in several important aspects they're correct,and in several others they are very much incorrect). One's performance is exactly that; performance. There is no question that the person with the higher performance wavlength in whatever endeavor has the advantage in whatever endeavor visavis those who don't. It's very important to be as athletic as possible,EVEN MORESO FOR SELF DEFENSE BECAUSE THE VARIABLES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY WIDER IN SCOPE AND POTENTIALLY MORE DEADLY IN CONSEQUENCE. I neeever could understand why some of the most ardent champions of RBSD are sloppy out of shape kinda psycho types who tend to imply with their every word that every streetfighter out there is some nightmare combination of Jason from Friday the 13th and Vlad the Impaler. I want to call special attention to the part of Chris' post where he made this comment:

" And I would say that nothing that I have learnt functionally was in what I refer to as "sparring", which is, as I said to Mike earlier in this post, a training exercise where both parties attempt to outperform each other. Most of my highly functional work has been against resistance, and with adrenaline, but it was not sparring..."

I have no idea what he means by this in a real world sense. As I stated before...if you're not fighting in a live self-defense situation and you're not trying to maim the person you're working with? You're sparring.Sparring can be veeeery intense. As I stated earlier,Navy SEALS have been killed while "sparring", and they're not the only ones. Plus sparring is an extremely valuable tool that in many instances vastly outstrips the actual self-defense situation we're practicing to defend ourselves against because the people that we're working with are generally significantly superior to the people we will be defending ourselves against. Our sparring partners and scenarios tend to combine challenges that are MORE DIFFICULT than the "actual" self-defense scenario that we will find ourselves in ( for instance, I have a pretty common one where I make my upper belts and HRS guys enter a multifight,find a person who's getting beat up,rescue that person,and escape with them while protecting the rescued person and not getting beat up themselves.And they have to do this while the clock is ticking cuz it's a timed drill) and perform our techs against people who are superior physically and mentally visavis the BG in almost every regard,have a giant advantage visavis superior combat arsenal in every sense of the word,aaand our sparring partners tends to know our "go to" techs which forces us to work EVEN HARDER against them than we would against the clueless BG.

Maybe I completely miss what Chris is getting at. Am I missing your point,Chris? Or maybe what's happening here is that Chris' definition of "sparring" goes only to a particular level of intensity...and no further. But I assure you...if our friend Chris "sparred" with Rickson Gracie? His self-defense grappling performance would dramatically improve. If he trained with Diogenes Assahida (former primary striking trainer of Anderson Silva,whom I have had the honor of working with),his self-defense training would dramatically improve. If he got knife and stick happy with the Dog Brothers while sparring,his self-defense deployment of these weapons would improve. If he trained with whatever is the equivalent of his nearest big city SWAT TEAM,his weapons and CQB tactics would improve. And this comprehensive self-defense improvement would all accrue via sparring.

Sooo...Chris...what EXACTLY is sparring to you? Give us an example of your experience with what you deem to be "sparring"...and give us an example of the kinds of things you learned that was what you deem "highly functional" but what you DON'T call "sparring". Specifics,please,if you don't mind. I think that what is likely is that my definition of the word 'sparring' and the activities connected to it includes everything that you referred to when you said:

"...highly functional work has been against resistance, and with adrenaline, but it was not sparring..."

...so let's see from which perspective we're working from.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> actually I quoted the wrong post there,MJS. My fault there. I was trying to focus on the part of Chris' quote where he mentioned the word "out perform" and the point that he was getting at as I understand it. I didn't mean to quote your post at all. Chris wrote a good post--again--I just disagree that first "outperforming" is relegated to any form of exclusive mindset or goal; there are those that denigrate sport combatives as not being beneficial for self-defense (which in several important aspects they're correct,and in several others they are very much incorrect). One's performance is exactly that; performance. There is no question that the person with the higher performance wavlength in whatever endeavor has the advantage in whatever endeavor visavis those who don't. It's very important to be as athletic as possible,EVEN MORESO FOR SELF DEFENSE BECAUSE THE VARIABLES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY WIDER IN SCOPE AND POTENTIALLY MORE DEADLY IN CONSEQUENCE. I neeever could understand why some of the most ardent champions of RBSD are sloppy out of shape kinda psycho types who tend to imply with their every word that every streetfighter out there is some nightmare combination of Jason from Friday the 13th and Vlad the Impaler. I want to call special attention to the part of Chris' post where he made this comment:
> 
> " And I would say that nothing that I have learnt functionally was in what I refer to as "sparring", which is, as I said to Mike earlier in this post, a training exercise where both parties attempt to outperform each other. Most of my highly functional work has been against resistance, and with adrenaline, but it was not sparring..."
> 
> I have no idea what he means by this in a real world sense. As I stated before...if you're not fighting in a live self-defense situation and you're not trying to maim the person you're working with? You're sparring.Sparring can be veeeery intense. As I stated earlier,Navy SEALS have been killed while "sparring", and they're not the only ones. Plus sparring is an extremely valuable tool that in many instances vastly outstrips the actual self-defense situation we're practicing to defend ourselves against because the people that we're working with are generally significantly superior to the people we will be defending ourselves against. Our sparring partners and scenarios tend to combine challenges that are MORE DIFFICULT than the "actual" self-defense scenario that we will find ourselves in ( for instance, I have a pretty common one where I make my upper belts and HRS guys enter a multifight,find a person who's getting beat up,rescue that person,and escape with them while protecting the rescued person and not getting beat up themselves.And they have to do this while the clock is ticking cuz it's a timed drill) and perform our techs against people who are superior physically and mentally visavis the BG in almost every regard,have a giant advantage visavis superior combat arsenal in every sense of the word,aaand our sparring partners tends to know our "go to" techs which forces us to work EVEN HARDER against them than we would against the clueless BG.
> 
> Maybe I completely miss what Chris is getting at. Am I missing your point,Chris? Or maybe what's happening here is that Chris' definition of "sparring" goes only to a particular level of intensity...and no further. But I assure you...if our friend Chris "sparred" with Rickson Gracie? His self-defense grappling performance would dramatically improve. If he trained with Diogenes Assahida (former primary striking trainer of Anderson Silva,whom I have had the honor of working with),his self-defense training would dramatically improve. If he got knife and stick happy with the Dog Brothers while sparring,his self-defense deployment of these weapons would improve. If he trained with whatever is the equivalent of his nearest big city SWAT TEAM,his weapons and CQB tactics would improve. And this comprehensive self-defense improvement would all accrue via sparring.
> 
> Sooo...Chris...what EXACTLY is sparring to you? Give us an example of your experience with what you deem to be "sparring"...and give us an example of the kinds of things you learned that was what you deem "highly functional" but what you DON'T call "sparring". Specifics,please,if you don't mind. I think that what is likely is that my definition of the word 'sparring' and the activities connected to it includes everything that you referred to when you said:
> 
> "...highly functional work has been against resistance, and with adrenaline, but it was not sparring..."
> 
> ...so let's see from which perspective we're working from.



No problem Brutha...I figured that may've been the case, just wanted to make sure. 

I can only assume that what Chris is talking about, is....unless the situation was so real, that the end result was serious injury and/or death, or as he said, where the goal is to survive/escape, then its not reality.  I do agree with you though Ras...I've heard of SEAL Team training in which live fire exercises were done, and death resulted.  

Like I said, IMO, alot of it is the mindset.  No, chances are, we're probably not going to get killed, but we do need to take our training to that 'level' in which we can test ourselves.  Sure, when we work knife defense, when we get 'cut' and we have those black or red 'cuts' on us, we still have to be cognisant that "Hey, if that was a real blade, chances are, my arm may be taken out of the game."  I do this not only with blade work, but with stick work, and empty hand techs.  Its amazing what some stick sparring can do for reality sake.  In other words, a good portion of what you do in the relaxed state, tends to go out the window when that stick is coming very fast.   Same with empty hand stuff.


----------



## Chris Parker

Okay, this could take a bit....



ATACX GYM said:


> Another good post here,Chris...and I think we may be having a combination of issues here. The first may be just a specific preference based upon our experiences...specifically the 2 on 1. The second is the leap backwards body whip and hip stuff.The third may be more semantics than anything,regarding how we use the words "sparring" and "drilling" and what these words mean to each of us. I will address the second matter first.



Yeah, it could be semantics. Let's see if we can clear that up as much as possible.



ATACX GYM said:


> If you go to my video CHECKING THE STORM PT.3 you will note a couple vital points of info that I think you might have missed the first time around when you noted my second leap backward from the knife at about 1:04 to 1:08. The first and most important part is that my leap changed direction. I went from backwards to a quick arcing,longer lateral jump without any warning. This movement buys me more time because not only does my attacker miss with the knife which requires him to readjust his arm,he also has to change direction to track me. He will not have time to nail me when I'm in the air.He could be a better than average knifeman,and he still wouldn't hit me because I'm not there to be hit.He would need to recover from the missed knife swing,pivot,step to me and attack in order to catch me and frankly that lateral movement of mine is flat out too quick for that.



I've looked back at the video a number of times now, and to be frank, I see the knifeman wait for you. You do jump high, but not back far enough on the second jump, and if against myself, or any of our instructors or seniors, you'd be gutted. If any of my students leapt like that, they'd be shown why I advise against it, pretty quickly. We have a lot of leaping in our system, so it's something that I'm going to notice. You're not that quick, based on the video, my friend.



ATACX GYM said:


> Secondly? I'm not high in the air,I just shot my hips back quickly then returned to my center of gravity very quickly and ATTACKED MY KNIFE WIELDING OPPONENT FROM OFF ANGLE IN ONE MOVEMENT THE SPLIT SECOND I LANDED.Look at the angle of the knife visavis my body at 1:08.The knife is angled off heading outside of my right hip. It was backward jump,lateral jump-land-attack all in one movement. That single fluid flow removed the knife from being direcly in line with me,and neatly sidestepped all of the issues you raised that were of concern--including using my hip as leverage against his knife hand--but which you didn't know that I already addressed.In short? Not only am I offline from the attack using a movement that will take my attacker extra time to adjust to,I attacked him from off angle prior to his full recovery.



Now, that sounds wonderful, but it's still playing against the odds, even if what you're saying is correct. If you can achieve success with these lower-return methods relatively frequently, that's one thing. There are many things that I can do, and get away with, that my students wouldn't have a chance with yet. When teaching skills that are potentially taking their lives into account, I prefer to go for the most high-return actions I can. 

As far as "side-stepping the issues (I) mention", I currently have the clip paused at 1:09, the moment when you catch the knife. And, I have to say, it's still pointing pretty much straight at your gut (as well as the knifeman being in a better, more stable position than you are, frankly). 1:08 is you very much up in the air....



ATACX GYM said:


> I used this specific sequence several times before,but a specific time springs to mind: when I faced by one of the more notorious knife wielding Pirus in Compton. Usually those bruthas carry guns (he did too) but I'd already disarmed him and he came after me with a knife almost immediately after I'd disarmed him and injured his eye.It works very well,even against guys who's vision aren't impaired.



Again, glad it worked for you. I haven't said it wouldn't, just that it's more a desperation method, and when teaching people methods that are hopefully going to save their lives, I'm going to go for much higher return methods.



ATACX GYM said:


> Secondly,remember that the attack is off angle.This prevents me from impaling myself on the knife should I miss...a very unlikely thing to happen because my movement put me in a very good position to grab the arm where I wish with minimal danger to myself.Which brings me to another very important and very often misunderstood area that you and I may just disagree on because we are different people and naturally differ on various matters: the 2 on 1 that you recommend is not a tech that you can go into immediately with power authority and control in multiple scenarios. If you're a woman against a bigger man,for instance,or if you're in a multifight. Especially a multifight with knives bottles chairs and whatnot around (been there working special assignment for THE QUEEN MARY in the X HALL in LONG BEACH). The first thing you must do is establish control,and the fastest most efficient universal method of control tha I know of and have tested is the off angle 2 on 1 bodywhip that I use. This 2 on 1 double wrist tie allows me the option to flow from 2 on 1 variant to 2 on 1 variant regardless of the scenario and regardless of the number and size discrepancy I face visavis opponents. The 2 on 1 wrist and bicep tie you refer to is a good hold that I really like,but it's not as immediately universal and effective as the one that I use. It's much better for 1 on 1 conflict with people of relatively similar size and usually works much better for men than it does for women.I recommend TRANSITIONING to that hold when circumstances favor or dictate that hold,but the best FOUNDATIONAL hold is the 2 on 1 wrist tie in my experience. Both holds work veeeery well against "the sewing machine". They don't get a chance to "sew". Lol.However,only the 2 on 1 double wrist tie provides the option to flow from 2 on 1 tie to 2 on 1 tie immediately while maintaining maximum mobility and keeping all striking and escape options open (we also do dive roll escapes here,which are VEEERY EFFECTIVE as the bad guy has NO IDEA that you can do such a thing and is shocked by its execution).There is also another danger to the bicep and wrist tie,and that is that if you're shorter than your attacker and especially shorter and lighter by any significant degree? You offer your hair up to be grabbed. Not fun.I've seen guys get peeled off of that hold or have their offense and defense nuetralized as the bad guy instinctively grabbed their hair started heaving and sawing the head about and sometimes into objects and walls, and throwing knees to the face while yanking to get their arm free and running (as in sprinting) through the defender. Once their arm is free,they get to doing "the sewing machine" with much greater vigor now because they realize that they're in danger and they're angry and worried about it. The 2 on 1 double wrist tie I recommend entirely eliminates those concerns. The 2 on 1 double wrist tie allows you to keep your balance and you have the option of using all of your offensive weapons at once while not exposing the top of your cranium or your hair to attacks from the bad guy. Again...we don't differ on using the 2 on 1. You just recommend a specific variation only,whereas I recommend an approach that not only  neatly side steps the issues that you raised but allows transitioning to all the other 2 on 1 variants including the bicep and wrist tie that you recommend,aaaand my approach allows you to flow to the bicep and wrist tie when warranted without sacrificing one iota of your total offense. The more versatile offense with the more impregnable defense is imho the superior option,and I think that I just demonstrated that the approach I recommend has more versatility and is alot harder to be countered than what may have been initially thought.



Well, where to start here?

Yes, the grip I'm recommending is something that you can enter into easily, and provides better protection and control than the one you are suggesting immediately, either to the inside or outside. It depends on how well you enter in the first place, and what your control mechanisms are... It's also faster than yours, in my experience, I might add, as the control is immediate, secure, and tight, not requiring the two part action that your grip-and-whip method does.

As far as my preferred grip being better for similar sized combatants, I really have to disagree there as well. One of the aspects that I like about it so much is that it is specifically designed to not create a strength war. I have a student who's nearly 7 feet tall, and many others who I simply cannot out-muscle, and I apply this hold pretty damn well, even with them trying to pull out, or throw me off. It is designed to let you ride their force, whereas yours requires immediate application of timing, and if that is missed, can have some real troubles. I'm not going to comment on the "dive roll escapes".

When it comes to "if you're shorter or lighter... you can have your hair pulled", I don't think you've applied this grip the same way I do, honestly. Mainly because, if they try that (or some other such action with the "free" hand), their main arm gets broken, or at least majorly shocked. I really think this may be the big issue, you're simply not applying it the same way I am. The way I do it, it is tight, with their arm held in very securely against my body, so the issues you're talking about don't come up. In fact, they are some of the strongest aspects of it. Knees to the face simply aren't possible from that angle and distance, there simply isn't room.

When it comes to the issues of versatility, I've recommended what I feel and believe is the best, most low-risk, high-return method there is. But nowhere have I even suggested a lack of versatility, in fact, it's built in to the entire method we use. And, again, I believe that there are not the issues that you believe you are side-stepping, nor that your approach is safer. That said, I think we're just going to go round in circles with this. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Allow me to address another point here. You harped upon a specific sentence fragment of mine which makes me want to repetitively clarify a specific point. When I say :"* once I have the grip on* " I mean it from the perspective of fluid siezing and flowing,not a choppy grab-stop-go motion. I know you said that you understand the body dynamics of grip-body whip being ONE MOVEMENT,but that makes me wonder why you specifically focused on me saying "once I have the grip on". If you understood that grip-body whip happens at once,then you'd know that the grip is part of the full motion of the body whip and they happen simultaneously and organically...like the muscle coordination of your arm as you shoot the jab.Getting hit with the jab means all the necessarily musculoskeletal coordination has already occurred to launch and crack you with it.You can't say:"Well once he hits me with the jab I will jam it at the bicep."  Because the bicep has to NOT BE JAMMED in order to hit you with the extended jab in the first place. You can't have an issue with my grip and divorce it from the body whip that it's part and parcel of. Had I executed the body whip with gusto? My friend Jabari in the CHECKING THE STORM PT. 3 video with me would have been tossed into and probably over the white fence partitioning his driveway from the neighbors driveway...and his arm and elbow would have suffered some form of significant damage. Like I've repeatedly stated,the bodywhip by itself frequently disarms opponents,whether you're a man or not. One of my colleagues--little 105 pound Latina named Myra--whom I taught this tech to has disarmed men twice her size with the 2 on 1 body whip.I witnessed this on 2 occassions myself. The 2nd time? The drunk in question went to the hospital,had his arm laid up for a few weeks and he actually tried to sue her.He lost the case,but still. Aaaand I might add that this guy was 250 pounds.The 2 on 1 wrist and bicep tie up would not have been the move for Myra under those circumstances.



Yes, I get all of that... what I have meant is that the grip in the first place is not guaranteed, especially against the aforementioned "sewing machine" attack.



ATACX GYM said:


> Now,addressing the matter of "sparring" and "drilling"...to me? "Drilling" helps to impart specific skill sets into muscle memory. It's a repetitive act against specific stimuli which teaches you to apply a specific skill--knife disarms--against specific kinds of attacks. Sparring comes at various intensities and degrees and purposes,but what's universal to me for the term sparring are:
> 
> 1. Sparring at the higher levels of intensity is the closest that we can get to actual combat. In fact,sparring against skilled opposition oftentimes exceeds the street or actual reality of self-defense by quite a bit,and this is probably theee most valuable benefit to sparring.
> 
> 2. Sparring speed and intensity can be ratcheted down to accomodate the experience and skill level of the practitioner,so even n00bs can spar their very first day without fear of being hurt but with the benefit that accrues from sparring against resisting,noncooperative opposition of various levels of experiences,body types,etc etc.



Sparring is very removed from actual combat. That's an old discussion, though, but I prefer simulation exercises to sparring.



ATACX GYM said:


> What are your thoughts regarding "drilling" and "sparring"?



I think they both have their place, honestly, with drilling being the way you learn the methods themselves. Sparring has benefits, depending on the results desired, but I don't see it as having much relationship to reality at all, for a range of reasons. Again, they are all covered elsewhere, and most likely I am employing the term in a more specific way than you may be.



ATACX GYM said:


> To me and for my ATACX GYM...NEITHER VIDEO OF ME that I showed was either "drilling" OR "sparring". This was just some mundane step-by-step stuff. In my DVD,you will see the difference. My drills are much faster,and oftentimes people think that my drills ARE sparring because they're very close in appearance and they're designed to be very close. Think of how Floyd and Roger Mayweather shadowboxing and working the mitts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now replace the mitts with the knife,and that's how I do my knife,stick,etc. drills. Very dynamic,very realistic. My sparring doesn't have the ceaseless perpetual motion of my drilling,but the intent to do damage is greater. You can and do get popped while drilling,but you can and do get popped MORE and usually HARDER while SPARRING.



Out of interest, then, why did you link the second clip of yourself when discussing the value of sparring as you use the term if neither video actually showed it? 

With Floyd's clip, I don't think any of that could be mistaken for sparring, as there wasn't any. And if that's the way you drill knife defence, it's a great skill builder, but not realistic. The two are separate.



ATACX GYM said:


> Which brings me to another very important point: you said that you counted various knife hits on the Israeli spec-ops guy. Truth is? You're gonna get knicked clocked and cut if you train with knives,especially the real deal. I prefer wooden knives because I like the impact that teaches you to respect the weapon,it's cheaper than Shock Knives,and nobody bleeds (that much anyway). Because you know that one mistake will equal pain and blood,knife vs knife (even wooden knife) sparring tends to take on a clash-and get out approach. If you're facing a guy with a knife and you don't have one? We practice against the sewing machine attack most of the time,which also includes feints and slashes too. I have never gone a few weeks of knife training wherein I wasn't "cut" or clocked a couple times per session. I've never gone a month of knife training without taking at least one bad stab (especially in multifight scenarios) against my sparring partners. If anyone claims they have? Imo chances are very high that they're lying or their sparring partners suck.



Yeah, I recognise that that's the reality, my point was more that you were putting the Krav clip up as an example of how safely and successfully they applied similar methods to yours, although I didn't see the grip you use being applied there at all.



MJS said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> I hear what you're saying.  So, in this case, I'd say we're watching what we in the Kenpo world call the "Ideal Phase" where everything is just that...ideal.  Everything works according to plan, and the technique is a success.  However, and Ras can attest to this, whats rare, is viewing these techniques with someone doing something other than posing and cooperating.  It would be nice to see something other than the norm, so to speak...lol.  Reason I say this, is because for those that dont know any better, they will watch something like this, and possibly assume that reality is just like this, when in fact, its not.



I agree that it's not reality, but then again, I don't think that's the point. It comes across to me as a demonstration of the curriculum, which would be the IP methods, yeah?



MJS said:


> True, and I agree that we can't replicate a 'real' situation, we can come close, and people such as Police officers, Firefighters, and Military do this all the time.  IMO, 99% of the simulated training is the mindset.


 
Yeah, which is why I'm a big fan of simulation training over sparring. Even that, though, isn't quite it, but it's as close as you can get.



ATACX GYM said:


> I disagree here. I think surviving and escaping is PART OF outperforming your opponent,depending on what's going on there. If you're a civilian? Surviving and escaping with zero or minimal damage is the number one goal;however you may not have that option. What if you're facing a knife wielding bad guy on a bus? What if you're with a loved one or baby or grandmother or some inebriated friends or any number of real world scenarios like a car jacking by knife or home invasion or mugging where escape is simply NOT an option? You have to repel the opponent,overwhelm him,overcome him.Or THEM. One's base training approach must take this reality into consideration,and use a methodology that seamlessly flows into both options and uses both or either instantaneously and decisively as the stituation requires.



Outperforming implies "beating" someone, surviving and escaping can be very different. In each of the cases you mention, if you start with the mindset of "beating" them, you're behind the ball to begin with, as you've just removed yourself from the reality of the situation and the actual options, including what is realistically available to you. So I'd still say there is no aspect of "outperforming" present there, or if there is, it shouldn't be.



ATACX GYM said:


> What if you're the LEO called in to subdue the knife wielding suspect and you can't shoot him? Stick time or pepper spray or something,right? Well what if you did that and you're cuffing one BG and his knife wielding buddy jumps you from the flank? Now you gotta deal with this nutcase AND his buddy. I had to do that while working HRS in South Central,Compton,Long Beach,Paramount and a few other areas besides. That 2 on 1 grip made alllll the difference EVERY TIME in those scenarios. I can happily say in the instances that I referenced,I wasn't cut at all. I HAVE been cut on the street fighting guys with knives before (not fun,not at all recommended) but it's never been a bad cut. Most guys suck empty handed AND SUCK EVEN MORE with a weapon,they just FEEL THEY HAVE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EDGE OF EMPOWERMENT AND INTIMIDATION WITH A WEAPON.And for the most part,they're right.But if you have your quality reps in via quality training? You can feel pretty confident against some untrained schmuck trying to gut you...all you gotta do is manage the adrenaline dump and you're g2g.



None of which negates having a higher return lower risk approach in the first place. But again, we're just going round in circles here.



ATACX GYM said:


> actually I quoted the wrong post there,MJS. My fault there. I was trying to focus on the part of Chris' quote where he mentioned the word "out perform" and the point that he was getting at as I understand it. I didn't mean to quote your post at all. Chris wrote a good post--again--I just disagree that first "outperforming" is relegated to any form of exclusive mindset or goal; there are those that denigrate sport combatives as not being beneficial for self-defense (which in several important aspects they're correct,and in several others they are very much incorrect). One's performance is exactly that; performance. There is no question that the person with the higher performance wavlength in whatever endeavor has the advantage in whatever endeavor visavis those who don't. It's very important to be as athletic as possible,EVEN MORESO FOR SELF DEFENSE BECAUSE THE VARIABLES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY WIDER IN SCOPE AND POTENTIALLY MORE DEADLY IN CONSEQUENCE. I neeever could understand why some of the most ardent champions of RBSD are sloppy out of shape kinda psycho types who tend to imply with their every word that every streetfighter out there is some nightmare combination of Jason from Friday the 13th and Vlad the Impaler. I want to call special attention to the part of Chris' post where he made this comment:
> 
> " And I would say that nothing that I have learnt functionally was in what I refer to as "sparring", which is, as I said to Mike earlier in this post, a training exercise where both parties attempt to outperform each other. Most of my highly functional work has been against resistance, and with adrenaline, but it was not sparring..."
> 
> I have no idea what he means by this in a real world sense. As I stated before...if you're not fighting in a live self-defense situation and you're not trying to maim the person you're working with? You're sparring.Sparring can be veeeery intense. As I stated earlier,Navy SEALS have been killed while "sparring", and they're not the only ones. Plus sparring is an extremely valuable tool that in many instances vastly outstrips the actual self-defense situation we're practicing to defend ourselves against because the people that we're working with are generally significantly superior to the people we will be defending ourselves against. Our sparring partners and scenarios tend to combine challenges that are MORE DIFFICULT than the "actual" self-defense scenario that we will find ourselves in ( for instance, I have a pretty common one where I make my upper belts and HRS guys enter a multifight,find a person who's getting beat up,rescue that person,and escape with them while protecting the rescued person and not getting beat up themselves.And they have to do this while the clock is ticking cuz it's a timed drill) and perform our techs against people who are superior physically and mentally visavis the BG in almost every regard,have a giant advantage visavis superior combat arsenal in every sense of the word,aaand our sparring partners tends to know our "go to" techs which forces us to work EVEN HARDER against them than we would against the clueless BG.



I think we disagree on what sparring is, then. To me, sparring is a training exercise where two combatants attempt to "beat", or "outperform" their opponents; you simultaneously attack and defend, with an emphasis typically on the attacking side of things, and there is no attempt made to escape the situation, or any other realistic simulation of an actual self defence encounter. Scenario training, such as the SEALs training mentioned, is not sparring. I might suggest that the "ardent champions of RBSD" that you are referring to (with the caveat that your description is not the main as I have seen, including when I have trained under a number of them) are not the athletically endowed persons that you may expect because that is not the reality of actual violence. But I've never heard any of them describe a street predator or attacker as such a nightmare, either.

In terms of my saying that nothing I have learnt functionally coming out of sparring, that is completely true. Sparring has been a big part of my training background (in TKD, karate, some BJJ, some boxing, and more), but as it is divorced from reality, the benefits are not what I would class as "functional" lessons. Those lessons have come to me far more from drilling, adrenaline based drills, and scenario training.



ATACX GYM said:


> Maybe I completely miss what Chris is getting at. Am I missing your point,Chris? Or maybe what's happening here is that Chris' definition of "sparring" goes only to a particular level of intensity...and no further. But I assure you...if our friend Chris "sparred" with Rickson Gracie? His self-defense grappling performance would dramatically improve. If he trained with Diogenes Assahida (former primary striking trainer of Anderson Silva,whom I have had the honor of working with),his self-defense training would dramatically improve. If he got knife and stick happy with the Dog Brothers while sparring,his self-defense deployment of these weapons would improve. If he trained with whatever is the equivalent of his nearest big city SWAT TEAM,his weapons and CQB tactics would improve. And this comprehensive self-defense improvement would all accrue via sparring.



Ha, Rickson? No. Royce, yes, though. Does that count? Intensity has nothing to do with my definition of sparring, really. And I might suggest not suggesting what might "improve" my abilities within any area unless you are sure of what my level currently is. Especially when it comes to weapons, as that is something that I spend much of my time dealing in, in a wide variety of ways. And I can see none of it improving by unrealistic training methods, frankly.



ATACX GYM said:


> Sooo...Chris...what EXACTLY is sparring to you? Give us an example of your experience with what you deem to be "sparring"...and give us an example of the kinds of things you learned that was what you deem "highly functional" but what you DON'T call "sparring". Specifics,please,if you don't mind. I think that what is likely is that my definition of the word 'sparring' and the activities connected to it includes everything that you referred to when you said:
> 
> "...highly functional work has been against resistance, and with adrenaline, but it was not sparring..."
> 
> ...so let's see from which perspective we're working from.



Well, sparring is as I said above; scenario training and high level drilling (including adrenaline drilling) is where I develop my functional skills... as they are training me to apply the skills functionally in the situation that I might need to use them in. Sparring is a different environment, with different skills being required for success, hence it not being a functional training method for my needs. And don't get me wrong, I was actually pretty good at sparring within the systems I've trained in, I just don't have a use for it with my current approach to training.

But to specifics.... the best I can offer are the scenario drills, really. For example, there is the "wall" drill, where you have your eyes closed, and are suddenly shoved back into a wall, you open your eyes, and have to fend off an attack, or attack back, or escape (depending on the drill). It is also done side-on to the wall, or facing the wall. That gets you used to a sudden adrenal surge (rather than it being an already present aspect), as well as handling the chaos of a real encounter, and removing the issues of trying to "beat", or outperform someone. It's not sparring, but is a free-responce training method. And the skills I got out of that (handling adrenaline, handling an incoming barrage, etc) are highly functional, and were not gained from anything like sparring.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, this could take a bit....
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it could be semantics. Let's see if we can clear that up as much as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked back at the video a number of times now, and to be frank, I see the knifeman wait for you. You do jump high, but not back far enough on the second jump, and if against myself, or any of our instructors or seniors, you'd be gutted. If any of my students leapt like that, they'd be shown why I advise against it, pretty quickly. We have a lot of leaping in our system, so it's something that I'm going to notice. You're not that quick, based on the video, my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that sounds wonderful, but it's still playing against the odds, even if what you're saying is correct. If you can achieve success with these lower-return methods relatively frequently, that's one thing. There are many things that I can do, and get away with, that my students wouldn't have a chance with yet. When teaching skills that are potentially taking their lives into account, I prefer to go for the most high-return actions I can.
> 
> As far as "side-stepping the issues (I) mention", I currently have the clip paused at 1:09, the moment when you catch the knife. And, I have to say, it's still pointing pretty much straight at your gut (as well as the knifeman being in a better, more stable position than you are, frankly). 1:08 is you very much up in the air....
> 
> 
> 
> Again, glad it worked for you. I haven't said it wouldn't, just that it's more a desperation method, and when teaching people methods that are hopefully going to save their lives, I'm going to go for much higher return methods.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, where to start here?
> 
> Yes, the grip I'm recommending is something that you can enter into easily, and provides better protection and control than the one you are suggesting immediately, either to the inside or outside. It depends on how well you enter in the first place, and what your control mechanisms are... It's also faster than yours, in my experience, I might add, as the control is immediate, secure, and tight, not requiring the two part action that your grip-and-whip method does.
> 
> As far as my preferred grip being better for similar sized combatants, I really have to disagree there as well. One of the aspects that I like about it so much is that it is specifically designed to not create a strength war. I have a student who's nearly 7 feet tall, and many others who I simply cannot out-muscle, and I apply this hold pretty damn well, even with them trying to pull out, or throw me off. It is designed to let you ride their force, whereas yours requires immediate application of timing, and if that is missed, can have some real troubles. I'm not going to comment on the "dive roll escapes".
> 
> When it comes to "if you're shorter or lighter... you can have your hair pulled", I don't think you've applied this grip the same way I do, honestly. Mainly because, if they try that (or some other such action with the "free" hand), their main arm gets broken, or at least majorly shocked. I really think this may be the big issue, you're simply not applying it the same way I am. The way I do it, it is tight, with their arm held in very securely against my body, so the issues you're talking about don't come up. In fact, they are some of the strongest aspects of it. Knees to the face simply aren't possible from that angle and distance, there simply isn't room.
> 
> When it comes to the issues of versatility, I've recommended what I feel and believe is the best, most low-risk, high-return method there is. But nowhere have I even suggested a lack of versatility, in fact, it's built in to the entire method we use. And, again, I believe that there are not the issues that you believe you are side-stepping, nor that your approach is safer. That said, I think we're just going to go round in circles with this.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I get all of that... what I have meant is that the grip in the first place is not guaranteed, especially against the aforementioned "sewing machine" attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Sparring is very removed from actual combat. That's an old discussion, though, but I prefer simulation exercises to sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> I think they both have their place, honestly, with drilling being the way you learn the methods themselves. Sparring has benefits, depending on the results desired, but I don't see it as having much relationship to reality at all, for a range of reasons. Again, they are all covered elsewhere, and most likely I am employing the term in a more specific way than you may be.
> 
> 
> 
> Out of interest, then, why did you link the second clip of yourself when discussing the value of sparring as you use the term if neither video actually showed it?
> 
> With Floyd's clip, I don't think any of that could be mistaken for sparring, as there wasn't any. And if that's the way you drill knife defence, it's a great skill builder, but not realistic. The two are separate.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I recognise that that's the reality, my point was more that you were putting the Krav clip up as an example of how safely and successfully they applied similar methods to yours, although I didn't see the grip you use being applied there at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's not reality, but then again, I don't think that's the point. It comes across to me as a demonstration of the curriculum, which would be the IP methods, yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, which is why I'm a big fan of simulation training over sparring. Even that, though, isn't quite it, but it's as close as you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> Outperforming implies "beating" someone, surviving and escaping can be very different. In each of the cases you mention, if you start with the mindset of "beating" them, you're behind the ball to begin with, as you've just removed yourself from the reality of the situation and the actual options, including what is realistically available to you. So I'd still say there is no aspect of "outperforming" present there, or if there is, it shouldn't be.
> 
> 
> 
> None of which negates having a higher return lower risk approach in the first place. But again, we're just going round in circles here.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we disagree on what sparring is, then. To me, sparring is a training exercise where two combatants attempt to "beat", or "outperform" their opponents; you simultaneously attack and defend, with an emphasis typically on the attacking side of things, and there is no attempt made to escape the situation, or any other realistic simulation of an actual self defence encounter. Scenario training, such as the SEALs training mentioned, is not sparring. I might suggest that the "ardent champions of RBSD" that you are referring to (with the caveat that your description is not the main as I have seen, including when I have trained under a number of them) are not the athletically endowed persons that you may expect because that is not the reality of actual violence. But I've never heard any of them describe a street predator or attacker as such a nightmare, either.
> 
> In terms of my saying that nothing I have learnt functionally coming out of sparring, that is completely true. Sparring has been a big part of my training background (in TKD, karate, some BJJ, some boxing, and more), but as it is divorced from reality, the benefits are not what I would class as "functional" lessons. Those lessons have come to me far more from drilling, adrenaline based drills, and scenario training.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, Rickson? No. Royce, yes, though. Does that count? Intensity has nothing to do with my definition of sparring, really. And I might suggest not suggesting what might "improve" my abilities within any area unless you are sure of what my level currently is. Especially when it comes to weapons, as that is something that I spend much of my time dealing in, in a wide variety of ways. And I can see none of it improving by unrealistic training methods, frankly.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, sparring is as I said above; scenario training and high level drilling (including adrenaline drilling) is where I develop my functional skills... as they are training me to apply the skills functionally in the situation that I might need to use them in. Sparring is a different environment, with different skills being required for success, hence it not being a functional training method for my needs. And don't get me wrong, I was actually pretty good at sparring within the systems I've trained in, I just don't have a use for it with my current approach to training.
> 
> But to specifics.... the best I can offer are the scenario drills, really. For example, there is the "wall" drill, where you have your eyes closed, and are suddenly shoved back into a wall, you open your eyes, and have to fend off an attack, or attack back, or escape (depending on the drill). It is also done side-on to the wall, or facing the wall. That gets you used to a sudden adrenal surge (rather than it being an already present aspect), as well as handling the chaos of a real encounter, and removing the issues of trying to "beat", or outperform someone. It's not sparring, but is a free-responce training method. And the skills I got out of that (handling adrenaline, handling an incoming barrage, etc) are highly functional, and were not gained from anything like sparring.



Hey Chris,

Only 2 segments of this pertain to me, so I'll answer those first, and toss in my .02 on the other, later. 

Yes, to answer the first question....yes, you're correct, it is a demo of some of Kenpos knife techniques.  However, my point was simply....that is all you ever see...is demos....compliant demos.  I'd like to see some of these same techs. done with a bit more....pressure.   In other words....show the tech.  Show the ins and outs, how it works, all the fine points, etc.  Then gradually build up the speed and resistance.  When I teach a tech., this is what I do.  I want people to see it slow as well as fast.  When it comes time to demo the fast, I want my uke to really attack me.  If we're doing punch defense, then I want them to really try to hit me.  Its funny because many times, I have to stop and tell them to go harder....its ok....I'm taking full responsibility for whatever happens to me.  

As for the 2nd part....yes, we're in agreement.   Personally, I like the scenario drills.  IMO, it takes it yet one step further than just working the techs, in a back and forth fashion, even if the person if really trying to punch, stab, etc.  

As for the method of dealing with the knife and grabbing....well, for me, gaining control...solid control, is of utmost importance...even moreso, IMO, than working a disarm...at that given moment.  You can know a million disarms, but if you're not gaining control of the weapon, those disarms go out the window.  Personally, I like Karl Tanswells method.  We've seen the same in the DLO clips from the Dog Bros.

[yt]-_ZO17yWi7I[/yt]

[yt]ZlXiSiX1tgg&feature=related[/yt]


----------



## Chris Parker

Nice. I also kinda like the way both clips feature almost exclusively the grip I'm talking about....


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, this could take a bit....
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it could be semantics. Let's see if we can clear that up as much as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> I've looked back at the video a number of times now, and to be frank, I see the knifeman wait for you. You do jump high, but not back far enough on the second jump, and if against myself, or any of our instructors or seniors, you'd be gutted. If any of my students leapt like that, they'd be shown why I advise against it, pretty quickly. We have a lot of leaping in our system, so it's something that I'm going to notice. You're not that quick, based on the video, my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that sounds wonderful, but it's still playing against the odds, even if what you're saying is correct. If you can achieve success with these lower-return methods relatively frequently, that's one thing. There are many things that I can do, and get away with, that my students wouldn't have a chance with yet. When teaching skills that are potentially taking their lives into account, I prefer to go for the most high-return actions I can.
> 
> As far as "side-stepping the issues (I) mention", I currently have the clip paused at 1:09, the moment when you catch the knife. And, I have to say, it's still pointing pretty much straight at your gut (as well as the knifeman being in a better, more stable position than you are, frankly). 1:08 is you very much up in the air....
> 
> 
> 
> Again, glad it worked for you. I haven't said it wouldn't, just that it's more a desperation method, and when teaching people methods that are hopefully going to save their lives, I'm going to go for much higher return methods.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, where to start here?
> 
> Yes, the grip I'm recommending is something that you can enter into easily, and provides better protection and control than the one you are suggesting immediately, either to the inside or outside. It depends on how well you enter in the first place, and what your control mechanisms are... It's also faster than yours, in my experience, I might add, as the control is immediate, secure, and tight, not requiring the two part action that your grip-and-whip method does.
> 
> As far as my preferred grip being better for similar sized combatants, I really have to disagree there as well. One of the aspects that I like about it so much is that it is specifically designed to not create a strength war. I have a student who's nearly 7 feet tall, and many others who I simply cannot out-muscle, and I apply this hold pretty damn well, even with them trying to pull out, or throw me off. It is designed to let you ride their force, whereas yours requires immediate application of timing, and if that is missed, can have some real troubles. I'm not going to comment on the "dive roll escapes".
> 
> When it comes to "if you're shorter or lighter... you can have your hair pulled", I don't think you've applied this grip the same way I do, honestly. Mainly because, if they try that (or some other such action with the "free" hand), their main arm gets broken, or at least majorly shocked. I really think this may be the big issue, you're simply not applying it the same way I am. The way I do it, it is tight, with their arm held in very securely against my body, so the issues you're talking about don't come up. In fact, they are some of the strongest aspects of it. Knees to the face simply aren't possible from that angle and distance, there simply isn't room.
> 
> When it comes to the issues of versatility, I've recommended what I feel and believe is the best, most low-risk, high-return method there is. But nowhere have I even suggested a lack of versatility, in fact, it's built in to the entire method we use. And, again, I believe that there are not the issues that you believe you are side-stepping, nor that your approach is safer. That said, I think we're just going to go round in circles with this.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I get all of that... what I have meant is that the grip in the first place is not guaranteed, especially against the aforementioned "sewing machine" attack.
> 
> 
> 
> Sparring is very removed from actual combat. That's an old discussion, though, but I prefer simulation exercises to sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> I think they both have their place, honestly, with drilling being the way you learn the methods themselves. Sparring has benefits, depending on the results desired, but I don't see it as having much relationship to reality at all, for a range of reasons. Again, they are all covered elsewhere, and most likely I am employing the term in a more specific way than you may be.
> 
> 
> 
> Out of interest, then, why did you link the second clip of yourself when discussing the value of sparring as you use the term if neither video actually showed it?
> 
> With Floyd's clip, I don't think any of that could be mistaken for sparring, as there wasn't any. And if that's the way you drill knife defence, it's a great skill builder, but not realistic. The two are separate.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I recognise that that's the reality, my point was more that you were putting the Krav clip up as an example of how safely and successfully they applied similar methods to yours, although I didn't see the grip you use being applied there at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's not reality, but then again, I don't think that's the point. It comes across to me as a demonstration of the curriculum, which would be the IP methods, yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, which is why I'm a big fan of simulation training over sparring. Even that, though, isn't quite it, but it's as close as you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> Outperforming implies "beating" someone, surviving and escaping can be very different. In each of the cases you mention, if you start with the mindset of "beating" them, you're behind the ball to begin with, as you've just removed yourself from the reality of the situation and the actual options, including what is realistically available to you. So I'd still say there is no aspect of "outperforming" present there, or if there is, it shouldn't be.
> 
> 
> 
> None of which negates having a higher return lower risk approach in the first place. But again, we're just going round in circles here.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we disagree on what sparring is, then. To me, sparring is a training exercise where two combatants attempt to "beat", or "outperform" their opponents; you simultaneously attack and defend, with an emphasis typically on the attacking side of things, and there is no attempt made to escape the situation, or any other realistic simulation of an actual self defence encounter. Scenario training, such as the SEALs training mentioned, is not sparring. I might suggest that the "ardent champions of RBSD" that you are referring to (with the caveat that your description is not the main as I have seen, including when I have trained under a number of them) are not the athletically endowed persons that you may expect because that is not the reality of actual violence. But I've never heard any of them describe a street predator or attacker as such a nightmare, either.
> 
> In terms of my saying that nothing I have learnt functionally coming out of sparring, that is completely true. Sparring has been a big part of my training background (in TKD, karate, some BJJ, some boxing, and more), but as it is divorced from reality, the benefits are not what I would class as "functional" lessons. Those lessons have come to me far more from drilling, adrenaline based drills, and scenario training.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, Rickson? No. Royce, yes, though. Does that count? Intensity has nothing to do with my definition of sparring, really. And I might suggest not suggesting what might "improve" my abilities within any area unless you are sure of what my level currently is. Especially when it comes to weapons, as that is something that I spend much of my time dealing in, in a wide variety of ways. And I can see none of it improving by unrealistic training methods, frankly.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, sparring is as I said above; scenario training and high level drilling (including adrenaline drilling) is where I develop my functional skills... as they are training me to apply the skills functionally in the situation that I might need to use them in. Sparring is a different environment, with different skills being required for success, hence it not being a functional training method for my needs. And don't get me wrong, I was actually pretty good at sparring within the systems I've trained in, I just don't have a use for it with my current approach to training.
> 
> But to specifics.... the best I can offer are the scenario drills, really. For example, there is the "wall" drill, where you have your eyes closed, and are suddenly shoved back into a wall, you open your eyes, and have to fend off an attack, or attack back, or escape (depending on the drill). It is also done side-on to the wall, or facing the wall. That gets you used to a sudden adrenal surge (rather than it being an already present aspect), as well as handling the chaos of a real encounter, and removing the issues of trying to "beat", or outperform someone. It's not sparring, but is a free-responce training method. And the skills I got out of that (handling adrenaline, handling an incoming barrage, etc) are highly functional, and were not gained from anything like sparring.




I just saw this response of yours,man. For some reason I'm not getting the email prompts for responses to this thread,and I've been quite busy of late. I will most definitely respond much more in depth in the next few days as time allows,but I want to say a couple of things right quick:

1) When I opined that your self-defense skills grappling skills would increase if you rolled with Rickson Gracie,I offered that opinion because Rickson is widely renowned as either thee greatest combo of GJJ warrior and teacher ever or in the top 2.It's no insult to realize that your and my and anyone else's (pretty much) self defense grappling skill would experience a dramatic spike were we to train with Rickson. Training with Royce is quite good and impressive too...but it also makes my point. I would go out on a limb and say that you never had Royce in any real jeopardy while grappling with him...and Royce has famously stated numerous times that Rickson is "ten times better than me". Therefore, your grappling self-defense skills would increase dramatically were you to roll with and learn from Rickson.

2) I'm not in any way denigrating your weapons skills.

3) In the area in my video that you denigrate as a leap that would get me gutted by you and your friends? Not happening,lol. If you attacked me as my friend Jabari attacked me,I would elude you too. If you attacked me differently,I'd react differently...and very likely still elude you. I possess world class speed and reflex time. I will be putting up the videos proving it soon enough. I'm not bragging about this...it's true.I've been clocked at 4.35 in the 40,and in the middle 40's in the 400 meters.I routinely come in at the low 4.4's in the 40 and upper 40's in the 400 m. I'll put the film up.I'll also show me performing C.O.G. drills showing the speed of my lateral jumps and movements.I can perform nearly 90 multidirectional jumps in 30 seconds...and I have video of me doing 60 of them in 22 seconds.With ease. Unless you are possessed of like reflex quickness,I'd shake you like a earthquake.Lol. Again,no insult meant man. No disrespect at all.In addition,Jabari DID NOT WAIT FOR ME AT ALL. Lol. Immediately after I eluded his attack,I attacked him.

4) Much of what you call drills/scenario/adrenaline stuff,I call sparring. Everything that you've used that isn't full on fight for your life type stuff? That's sparring to me...training exercises with live fire weaponry and extractions etcetera is simply sparring with weapons and tactical scenarios to me. So I'm glad that we worked that out,as I suspected that this was the case.

5) I suspect that we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the grip that I and many others in high end SD employ,but that's a good thing...diversity can be VERY GOOD. I would very much,however,like to see you perform your techs on video. I'd like to see you elude a completely unscripted attack like I did. I have a great deal of confidence in my ability to do so,as I've done it against pretty much everyone. I even avoided the first two cuts of an iaido sensei...before being "slashed in half" by the third attack.Lol.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> I just think that Traditional can be HIGHLY Subjective.



I seem to recall that the primary thrust behind the FOUNDERS of various style was FUNCTIONAL INNOVATION. Kyokushin,goju-ryu,isshin-ryu,taekkyon,muay boran,chuan fa,capoeira,riesy,boxing...all martial arts...were founded on the mandatory premise of functional survival.All secondary considerations (personal refinement,spiritual enlightenment,etc.) come AFTER you keep yourself alive and for the most part safe and sound. If any martial art failed its combat test? Its adherents would be dead now and the art would've died a loong time ago with the creators the first time they tried their nonfunctional mess in a live or die,fight or flight throwdown. So alll martial arts that get a bad rap combatively...tai chi,capoeira,aikido,taekwondo,etc etc...have proven themselves in arenas of barbarous battle that most of us are blessed to never have to see.Their practitioners could do lots of things,but first and foremost they could functionally fight their kiesters off. During the passage of time,the combat effectiveness was largely lost or glossed over by THE SUCCESSORS of the Master.Not the Master and the Master's closest students.Therefore,returning to functionality in every area...forms,fighting,teaching,training,weapons,physical conditioning,character building,diet and nutrition,academic spiritual and philosophical studies,etc...is a RETURN to WHAT THE FOUNDERS OF OUR ARTS THEMSELVES DID AND PROMOTED.

I confess that I utterly,completely fail to see how bringing this historical fact up could paint me as being full of myself or anything like that. Recall...Bruce Lee and Ed Parker,Mestre Bimba,the African arts which migrated to India which became mavya and spawned the root of the all the arts prefixed by the word "Muay"...as in "Muay Boran/Thai" etc...all of these men and women who innovated and functionalized in some sense upset the apple cart by innovating and functionalizing training methodologies which lead to a change in martial technical expression and selection.But since they worked? Everybody takes them for granted. I say that it's all of our duty to continue in their footsteps.If we respect,understand and even revere our predecessors...how could we not continue to innovate? I mean in the case of Mestre Bimba,Ed Parker and Bruce Lee...THEY SPECIFICALLY TOLD US TO KEEP EVOLVING. So let's evolve. By following the TRUE traditionalism which our predecessors teachers and forebears gave us...FUNCTIONAL INNOVATION. Outro.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Nice. I also kinda like the way both clips feature almost exclusively the grip I'm talking about....



This grip is, IMO, easy to transition to, even if the initial grip is 2 handed, from the front.  It 'marries' the arm to your body, giving you more control.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> This grip is, IMO, easy to transition to, even if the initial grip is 2 handed, from the front.  It 'marries' the arm to your body, giving you more control.



I absolutely agree and made that very point myself. I like the grip tht Chris Parker champions and I use it myself. We just differ visavis entry,and like I stated in my earlier posts...and the S.T.A.B. videos seem to bear out...this hold is a more effective ENTRY when people of equivalent size reach and generally the same gender are scrappin. It works whether it's an entry or not,but it's MORE EFFECTIVE when the size are equivalent. When there is a significant strength,size,surprise,weight,etc. disparity? The 2 handed grip that I recommend is more functional in that it gives you options that the grip that Chris Parker recommends doesn't. But because I also include the grip that Chris recommends and he DOESN'T include the grip that I recommend? My approach seems to be clearly the more versatile.Basically I'm combining them together in a single flow...hard and soft,yin and yang as it were...and Chris doesn't seem to recommend that.Or more to the point,it seems that Chris believes that the grip shown alot in S.T.A.B. is the safest and best approach given the circumstances.However,my approach allows you to deal with all the basic matters at hand because it allows you to flow and adjust. You don't really get hit while you're seizing one limb or whatever.Note the following situation:


FIGHTING VS KNIFE FROM THE GUARD





ENTERING HARD VS SHOCK KNIFE





aaaaannnd use the S.T.A.B. methods too. I'm not saying USE ONLY MY VERSION OF THE 2 ON 1 GRIP,I'm saying...USE MY METHOD PLUS WHAT CHRIS PARKER SUGGESTS,AS MY METHOD ENCOMPASSES THEM BOTH. Which...imo...very clearly makes the argument for versatility viability and functionality in the real world.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> I just saw this response of yours,man. For some reason I'm not getting the email prompts for responses to this thread,and I've been quite busy of late. I will most definitely respond much more in depth in the next few days as time allows,but I want to say a couple of things right quick:



Not a problem, things have gotten away from me a bit as well.



ATACX GYM said:


> 1) When I opined that your self-defense skills grappling skills would increase if you rolled with Rickson Gracie,I offered that opinion because Rickson is widely renowned as either thee greatest combo of GJJ warrior and teacher ever or in the top 2.It's no insult to realize that your and my and anyone else's (pretty much) self defense grappling skill would experience a dramatic spike were we to train with Rickson. Training with Royce is quite good and impressive too...but it also makes my point. I would go out on a limb and say that you never had Royce in any real jeopardy while grappling with him...and Royce has famously stated numerous times that Rickson is "ten times better than me". Therefore, your grappling self-defense skills would increase dramatically were you to roll with and learn from Rickson.



Look, I'll be frank and say that I'm not really in a good mood, so take this as it is (blunt, really).

I have never seen anything in any BJJ class/seminar/video/demonstration or anything similar that I would equate anywhere near actual self defence. At all. From anyone. Royce's class was supposed to be basically entirely focused on it, and was so fundamentally flawed in the design of the techniques and the structure of the class that, when asked if I was sticking around for a photo with him, I said that I didn't have any need to claim I was there. I got more out of how to not structure a class than anything else that day. So while I take your point that my BJJ grappling skills and groundwork would improve, that to me is so far removed from saying my "grappling self defence skills" would improve that you might as well say that playing tennis with Pete Sampras would dramatically increase my playing of volleyball.

So while I couldn't outgrapple Royce (never thought I could), that's nothing to do with self defence. For the record, I don't count it as an insult, but I do constantly marvel at the way people confuse self defence with these specialist competitive systems and their approaches. To get better at self defence, the first thing is education, then drilling in a realistic scenario based fashion, not sparring, not rolling, not anything that contradicts the basic precepts of self defence. Two completely different realms.



ATACX GYM said:


> 2) I'm not in any way denigrating your weapons skills.



Thanks, didn't think you were though. My point was more to do with the fact that your attacker was not acting or moving like a knifeman, and that seemed to give you a false sense of safety in some of the things you were doing.



ATACX GYM said:


> 3) In the area in my video that you denigrate as a leap that would get me gutted by you and your friends? Not happening,lol. If you attacked me as my friend Jabari attacked me,I would elude you too. If you attacked me differently,I'd react differently...and very likely still elude you. I possess world class speed and reflex time. I will be putting up the videos proving it soon enough. I'm not bragging about this...it's true.I've been clocked at 4.35 in the 40,and in the middle 40's in the 400 meters.I routinely come in at the low 4.4's in the 40 and upper 40's in the 400 m. I'll put the film up.I'll also show me performing C.O.G. drills showing the speed of my lateral jumps and movements.I can perform nearly 90 multidirectional jumps in 30 seconds...and I have video of me doing 60 of them in 22 seconds.With ease. Unless you are possessed of like reflex quickness,I'd shake you like a earthquake.Lol. Again,no insult meant man. No disrespect at all.In addition,Jabari DID NOT WAIT FOR ME AT ALL. Lol. Immediately after I eluded his attack,I attacked him.



I don't denigrate it, I state what I see as flaws in your execution of it. And yes, if I attacked the way that Jabari did, you'd get away. But that's the thing - I wouldn't. I'd attack you like someone wanting to push a knife through you.

When it comes to your "world class speed", I'm again going to say that, if this is a method you are using to teach, what you can do isn't really relevant (or responsible for you to rely on when giving others potentially life-saving skill sets), it's about what you can impart to your students. As I've said, your grip can be good, and you may be able to get it to work a lot of the time, but it's still rather risky, relies on strength to a higher degree, doesn't get you out of range of the knife, and more, so when putting something together for students, look to what they can learn, not what you can do.

Honestly, though, I think this is just going to go round in circles, you saying "I'm just that damn fast", and me saying "no, you're not". I will say that the string of numbers there doesn't impress me much... mainly because I have no idea what you're referring to for most of them. But speed is far from the only criteria in this instance, and in fact, isn't one that I was focusing on. It was more your angle, height, and range.



ATACX GYM said:


> 4) Much of what you call drills/scenario/adrenaline stuff,I call sparring. Everything that you've used that isn't full on fight for your life type stuff? That's sparring to me...training exercises with live fire weaponry and extractions etcetera is simply sparring with weapons and tactical scenarios to me. So I'm glad that we worked that out,as I suspected that this was the case.



Yeah, gotta say that confused me. Do you make no distinction at all? I gotta say, you may want to look at the term sparring being a little more specific in communication here, it may help avoid these confusions in the future... I mean, would you consider a kata "sparring"? Even the two-person ones as found in traditional Japanese systems? They're not "fight for your life", after all... although, in a way, they are.



ATACX GYM said:


> 5) I suspect that we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the grip that I and many others in high end SD employ,but that's a good thing...diversity can be VERY GOOD. I would very much,however,like to see you perform your techs on video. I'd like to see you elude a completely unscripted attack like I did. I have a great deal of confidence in my ability to do so,as I've done it against pretty much everyone. I even avoided the first two cuts of an iaido sensei...before being "slashed in half" by the third attack.Lol.


 
Too much diversity can be bad, though (not that that's entirely the case here, although it does play into it... but I'll come back to that). Against an "Iaido sensei", hmm? Not sure of the relevance, but I'd be pretty sure that there's a few details that would allow evading the first couple, and again, not hugely impressive, as all it sounds like is a lack of understanding of the different environments. As to me on video, no, I won't be putting anything out there for a few reasons. I am curious as to who these other "high end SD" people are that employ your grip... pretty much all of the videos, especially those that I'd consider have some clue, may use it briefly, or as a desperation method, but they tend to prefer the one I use.



ATACX GYM said:


> I absolutely agree and made that very point myself. I like the grip tht Chris Parker champions and I use it myself. We just differ visavis entry,and like I stated in my earlier posts...and the S.T.A.B. videos seem to bear out...this hold is a more effective ENTRY when people of equivalent size reach and generally the same gender are scrappin. It works whether it's an entry or not,but it's MORE EFFECTIVE when the size are equivalent. When there is a significant strength,size,surprise,weight,etc. disparity? The 2 handed grip that I recommend is more functional in that it gives you options that the grip that Chris Parker recommends doesn't. But because I also include the grip that Chris recommends and he DOESN'T include the grip that I recommend? My approach seems to be clearly the more versatile.Basically I'm combining them together in a single flow...hard and soft,yin and yang as it were...and Chris doesn't seem to recommend that.Or more to the point,it seems that Chris believes that the grip shown alot in S.T.A.B. is the safest and best approach given the circumstances.However,my approach allows you to deal with all the basic matters at hand because it allows you to flow and adjust. You don't really get hit while you're seizing one limb or whatever.Note the following situation:
> 
> 
> FIGHTING VS KNIFE FROM THE GUARD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ENTERING HARD VS SHOCK KNIFE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaaaannnd use the S.T.A.B. methods too. I'm not saying USE ONLY MY VERSION OF THE 2 ON 1 GRIP,I'm saying...USE MY METHOD PLUS WHAT CHRIS PARKER SUGGESTS,AS MY METHOD ENCOMPASSES THEM BOTH. Which...imo...very clearly makes the argument for versatility viability and functionality in the real world.



The catch is, though, your method is a desperation method, whereas mine is based on complete control of the weapon and weapon hand immediately. So I'd say train mine, and maybe have yours as a fallback. Frankly, yours is not more functional, for a huge number of reasons, mainly stemming from how easy it is to get it very wrong, and thereby increasing the risk for performing it as a primary action. Yours is not the more versatile by a long shot, honestly, it leaves you trapped, with the only release immediately giving control of the weapon back to the knifeman, with you still in perfect range to be killed. I know this comes down to a disagreement in methods that could really only be solved with us both in the same room to test each other out, but that's the reality of your method as I see it and as you demonstrate it.

When it comes to the videos you posted, the first one is honestly terrible. He's going to get stabbed many times over, really. The grip he's using (against his leg) has the knifeman's arm far more functionally powerful than Burton's is, which means he's more likely to lose control of it. It's also kept in a position where the knife is stronger than the controlling grip, and keeps moving to his body, but out and not controlled. His partner is going along with what the teacher (Burton) is doing, but I have real doubts about the reliability of the shown method. The second one shows a desperation lunge (where he gets cut), rather than a more tactical use of angling and distancing. Honestly, it just shows the weaknesses of the grip you're talking about. Other than that, the strips in both leave a lot to be desired, especially in the first, as he's slicing up the inside of his own hand, which will make the strip that much harder to do (I'm with the idea of needing to sacrifice a body part to save your life, but this method sacrifices a body part to lose control, not a good idea). The second one just takes far too long, again I'm not seeing anything I'd rely on.

And that takes me to why I wouldn't suggest training that grip. I don't want to reinforce it as a powerful, go-to movement. I don't want to give my unconscious responce that option unless absolutely necessary. By training two methods as separate methods, you are basically giving your unconscious a choice, and hoping it makes the right one. I'd rather have a few expressions of a principle, so that that principle is the only option to choose from. Diversity can be damn dangerous in a real life or death situation, as it can lead you to a poor decision/action, or to hesitation, as you try to figure out what you should do. 



ATACX GYM said:


> I seem to recall that the primary thrust behind the FOUNDERS of various style was FUNCTIONAL INNOVATION. Kyokushin,goju-ryu,isshin-ryu,taekkyon,muay boran,chuan fa,capoeira,riesy,boxing...all martial arts...were founded on the mandatory premise of functional survival.All secondary considerations (personal refinement,spiritual enlightenment,etc.) come AFTER you keep yourself alive and for the most part safe and sound. If any martial art failed its combat test? Its adherents would be dead now and the art would've died a loong time ago with the creators the first time they tried their nonfunctional mess in a live or die,fight or flight throwdown. So alll martial arts that get a bad rap combatively...tai chi,capoeira,aikido,taekwondo,etc etc...have proven themselves in arenas of barbarous battle that most of us are blessed to never have to see.Their practitioners could do lots of things,but first and foremost they could functionally fight their kiesters off. During the passage of time,the combat effectiveness was largely lost or glossed over by THE SUCCESSORS of the Master.Not the Master and the Master's closest students.Therefore,returning to functionality in every area...forms,fighting,teaching,training,weapons,ph  ysical conditioning,character building,diet and nutrition,academic spiritual and philosophical studies,etc...is a RETURN to WHAT THE FOUNDERS OF OUR ARTS THEMSELVES DID AND PROMOTED.
> 
> I confess that I utterly,completely fail to see how bringing this historical fact up could paint me as being full of myself or anything like that. Recall...Bruce Lee and Ed Parker,Mestre Bimba,the African arts which migrated to India which became mavya and spawned the root of the all the arts prefixed by the word "Muay"...as in "Muay Boran/Thai" etc...all of these men and women who innovated and functionalized in some sense upset the apple cart by innovating and functionalizing training methodologies which lead to a change in martial technical expression and selection.But since they worked? Everybody takes them for granted. I say that it's all of our duty to continue in their footsteps.If we respect,understand and even revere our predecessors...how could we not continue to innovate? I mean in the case of Mestre Bimba,Ed Parker and Bruce Lee...THEY SPECIFICALLY TOLD US TO KEEP EVOLVING. So let's evolve. By following the TRUE traditionalism which our predecessors teachers and forebears gave us...FUNCTIONAL INNOVATION. Outro.



You may want to rethink your history, then. The closest you may get to would be drilling and training methods that are geared towards functional innovation would be in sporting methods. It was rarely in the other forms of martial arts, honestly. In fact, in a lot of traditional forms, the reasons would often be to express an idea getting away from the idea of killing. Add to that the fact that martial arts are, in a very real way, not about self defence, or even combative excellence in a number of ways, that is more a happy byproduct in some cases (not all...). Oh, and you're bringing Taekkyon into a martial history discussion? Chuan Fa? That's just a generic term meaning "fist method", not an actual martial art itself. And as far as boxing is concerned, the modern form traces itself to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, late 19th Century, and it removed a lot of the "functionally powerful" methods from earlier forms (as did Judo, and then BJJ, by the way...).


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Not a problem, things have gotten away from me a bit as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I'll be frank and say that I'm not really in a good mood, so take this as it is (blunt, really).
> 
> I have never seen anything in any BJJ class/seminar/video/demonstration or anything similar that I would equate anywhere near actual self defence. At all. From anyone. Royce's class was supposed to be basically entirely focused on it, and was so fundamentally flawed in the design of the techniques and the structure of the class that, when asked if I was sticking around for a photo with him, I said that I didn't have any need to claim I was there. I got more out of how to not structure a class than anything else that day. So while I take your point that my BJJ grappling skills and groundwork would improve, that to me is so far removed from saying my "grappling self defence skills" would improve that you might as well say that playing tennis with Pete Sampras would dramatically increase my playing of volleyball.
> 
> So while I couldn't outgrapple Royce (never thought I could), that's nothing to do with self defence. For the record, I don't count it as an insult, but I do constantly marvel at the way people confuse self defence with these specialist competitive systems and their approaches. To get better at self defence, the first thing is education, then drilling in a realistic scenario based fashion, not sparring, not rolling, not anything that contradicts the basic precepts of self defence. Two completely different realms.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, didn't think you were though. My point was more to do with the fact that your attacker was not acting or moving like a knifeman, and that seemed to give you a false sense of safety in some of the things you were doing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't denigrate it, I state what I see as flaws in your execution of it. And yes, if I attacked the way that Jabari did, you'd get away. But that's the thing - I wouldn't. I'd attack you like someone wanting to push a knife through you.
> 
> When it comes to your "world class speed", I'm again going to say that, if this is a method you are using to teach, what you can do isn't really relevant (or responsible for you to rely on when giving others potentially life-saving skill sets), it's about what you can impart to your students. As I've said, your grip can be good, and you may be able to get it to work a lot of the time, but it's still rather risky, relies on strength to a higher degree, doesn't get you out of range of the knife, and more, so when putting something together for students, look to what they can learn, not what you can do.
> 
> Honestly, though, I think this is just going to go round in circles, you saying "I'm just that damn fast", and me saying "no, you're not". I will say that the string of numbers there doesn't impress me much... mainly because I have no idea what you're referring to for most of them. But speed is far from the only criteria in this instance, and in fact, isn't one that I was focusing on. It was more your angle, height, and range.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, gotta say that confused me. Do you make no distinction at all? I gotta say, you may want to look at the term sparring being a little more specific in communication here, it may help avoid these confusions in the future... I mean, would you consider a kata "sparring"? Even the two-person ones as found in traditional Japanese systems? They're not "fight for your life", after all... although, in a way, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much diversity can be bad, though (not that that's entirely the case here, although it does play into it... but I'll come back to that). Against an "Iaido sensei", hmm? Not sure of the relevance, but I'd be pretty sure that there's a few details that would allow evading the first couple, and again, not hugely impressive, as all it sounds like is a lack of understanding of the different environments. As to me on video, no, I won't be putting anything out there for a few reasons. I am curious as to who these other "high end SD" people are that employ your grip... pretty much all of the videos, especially those that I'd consider have some clue, may use it briefly, or as a desperation method, but they tend to prefer the one I use.
> 
> 
> 
> The catch is, though, your method is a desperation method, whereas mine is based on complete control of the weapon and weapon hand immediately. So I'd say train mine, and maybe have yours as a fallback. Frankly, yours is not more functional, for a huge number of reasons, mainly stemming from how easy it is to get it very wrong, and thereby increasing the risk for performing it as a primary action. Yours is not the more versatile by a long shot, honestly, it leaves you trapped, with the only release immediately giving control of the weapon back to the knifeman, with you still in perfect range to be killed. I know this comes down to a disagreement in methods that could really only be solved with us both in the same room to test each other out, but that's the reality of your method as I see it and as you demonstrate it.
> 
> When it comes to the videos you posted, the first one is honestly terrible. He's going to get stabbed many times over, really. The grip he's using (against his leg) has the knifeman's arm far more functionally powerful than Burton's is, which means he's more likely to lose control of it. It's also kept in a position where the knife is stronger than the controlling grip, and keeps moving to his body, but out and not controlled. His partner is going along with what the teacher (Burton) is doing, but I have real doubts about the reliability of the shown method. The second one shows a desperation lunge (where he gets cut), rather than a more tactical use of angling and distancing. Honestly, it just shows the weaknesses of the grip you're talking about. Other than that, the strips in both leave a lot to be desired, especially in the first, as he's slicing up the inside of his own hand, which will make the strip that much harder to do (I'm with the idea of needing to sacrifice a body part to save your life, but this method sacrifices a body part to lose control, not a good idea). The second one just takes far too long, again I'm not seeing anything I'd rely on.
> 
> And that takes me to why I wouldn't suggest training that grip. I don't want to reinforce it as a powerful, go-to movement. I don't want to give my unconscious responce that option unless absolutely necessary. By training two methods as separate methods, you are basically giving your unconscious a choice, and hoping it makes the right one. I'd rather have a few expressions of a principle, so that that principle is the only option to choose from. Diversity can be damn dangerous in a real life or death situation, as it can lead you to a poor decision/action, or to hesitation, as you try to figure out what you should do.
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to rethink your history, then. The closest you may get to would be drilling and training methods that are geared towards functional innovation would be in sporting methods. It was rarely in the other forms of martial arts, honestly. In fact, in a lot of traditional forms, the reasons would often be to express an idea getting away from the idea of killing. Add to that the fact that martial arts are, in a very real way, not about self defence, or even combative excellence in a number of ways, that is more a happy byproduct in some cases (not all...). Oh, and you're bringing Taekkyon into a martial history discussion? Chuan Fa? That's just a generic term meaning "fist method", not an actual martial art itself. And as far as boxing is concerned, the modern form traces itself to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, late 19th Century, and it removed a lot of the "functionally powerful" methods from earlier forms (as did Judo, and then BJJ, by the way...).




I think "blunt" is good...and I am sorry you're in somewhat of a foul mood today.With that being said? Allow me a similarly direct reply:

The moment you said that you saw nothing of value in Royce's or by extension Rickson's grappling skills visavis self-defense and said that they're wholly removed in essence from actual self-defense? You made your position absolutely clear. Because your position is wholly the opposite of people like military specialists and warriors and special operatives in law enforcement in others the world over.Clearly,you have a position that is directly contrary to the U.S. Border Patrol,Special Forces, Delta and Navy Seal Operators and uniformed personnel in every branch of our military: US Army, US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard. In January 2002, the U.S. Army officially adopted Gracie Jiu-Jitsu as its foundation for hand-to-hand combat with the publication of a manual based almost entirely on the original program designed by Rorion Gracie. 

http://gracieacademy.com/military.asp

So Chris,your opinion differs from some of the most lethal and experienced and seasoned real world practitioners of the very same SD and faaaarrr worse SD than you will ever eeeever face in your life.But the great thing is that not only can your opinion differ from theirs? That's your RIGHT and I respect your right to do so.Whether your opinion has a more airtight combat foundation or whether its anywhere near as valid under the circumstances that these elite warriors and law enforcement units find themselves operating and facing real intense issues is another matter entirely.

Your grasp of martial arts history is similarly suspect. Every army the world over practiced martial arts. The SPIRITUAL AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS became more pronounced with civilian martial arts training,aaaannnd the desire of various governments to remain in power conflicting with (at times) various civilian or nongovernmental groups wishing to maintain their liberty also profoundly affected the nongovernmental martial arts. I strongly suspect that the capoeiristas who defied Brazil and Portugal to such an extent that the Portuguese government entered negotiations with them about rewarding them specific autonomy similar to what the Native Americans and Amish (to a lesser degree) enjoy here in the USA would find your contentions laughable.The Shaolin Monastery warriors might find a guffaw or five to be had from your position too. The mavya--(who are the Indians who inherited some African martial arts once they travelled from Africa to India)--who are the "boxers" who gave rise to the word "mavya" which in turn is the ancient root for the word Muay (as in Muay Boran,Muay Thai,etc) along with the Muay Boran and Krabi Kabong warriors might find themselves joining in to chortle.The moro moros who came from many regions including India to what is now the Phillipines,combined their martial arts into what later became known as Kali might join in for a knee slapping yukk or two.

Martial arts came from war.The martial arts survived because they worked in war.They went through various refinements and sometimes were tragically lost as they entered the civilian realm...but all of them work for self defense.And all of them had to refine,develope,and adapt--that is to say functionally innovate--in order to be crafted in the first place and survive until the present day.Furthermore,your definition of chuan fa is faulty. chaun fa literally means MOUNTAIN FIST,and WUSHU means MILITARY ART or its rough equivalent.And to be clear? "fist method" is ALSO a MARTIAL ART. While we're on the subject,as far as boxing is concerned? I think that the Greeks and ancient Africans would have a word or two to say about that.

It seems as if you're making the classic mistake that many of the most ardent practitioners of what they think is RBSD make: they conflate athletic attributes with sport performance.They seem to be wholly unaware of the overwhelming fact and thousands of years of legendary history proclaiming the overwhelming imminence of high performance self-defense athletics. Whic segues into the following point: yes I know that my athletic ability oftentimes isn't something that my students share.I don't train them assuming that their clones of me.My response to you was more specific: you indicated that you would have succeeded in knifing me. I doubt that you would do such a thing,as I doubt that you have the experience skill and attributes to pull it off against me as most people don't have the requisite mix.That again is not arrogance on my part,as I could be wrong...but based upon what you just posted? Your (imo) horriffic misassessment of the Gracie's self-defense skill? Your highly flawed recollection of martial history? I gain confidence in my previous assessment being accurate.Btw,the speeds I gave are Olympic calibur elite and the fact that you've never been on the receiving end of an iaido sensei's draw speaks soooo many volumes about what you've NOT faced that I won't get into it.Suffice it to say that you've done soooo much damage to your previous contentions that now your position would have to be infinitely more sturdy than it currently is to UPGRADE to the condition of post-atomic Nagasaki.

Regarding the grip...which to me is the main point...we partially agree. Basically you say that we should always enter with your recommended method. I disagree but I strongly agree that the variant that you propose is highly functional and desirable,as I use it myself.I don't think that my method is a desperation method and those persons who utilize my method--something which you acknowledge that you don't do--also agree.Recall...for clarity's sake...that my method encompasses yours,not the other way around. I have,in essence,twice the arsenal that you do and the videos that I've shown prove beyond a doubt that the approach works. Now you may not PREFER my approach,but IT'S FUNCTIONALITY is BEYOND DISPUTE. The special units,the highly skilled specialized practitioners,etc. use it daily against top flight full tilt boogie resistance...which is true and cool to say,but my own experience with it wholly guts your position.And since you don't use my method (which let us not forget also encompasses yours)? You're not in a position to offer from experience what it does and doesn't do; you offer an opinion which isn't girded by mat or street experience or both,whereas mine has all of them.And that's cool man. We can agree to disagree on that point and still be amicable towards one another. BUT...and here's a big "but"...I think that a person who has positions as strongly and articulately held as yours should be able to step up to the plate as it were and put his knife skills where his mouth (er,POSTS) are and show us the real deal. Or at least YOUR real deal.You're able to make direct empirical statements about my movements and draw opinions and inferences--however much I may agree or disagree with them,however much they may vary from or be in accordance with reality---because I put myself out there to be seen.Frankly I have the skill will resources and nuts to step up. When making points as insistent as yours are,sir,it would be much to your and our benefit for you to step up like I did. Put your knife where your mouth is. For instance...my position is that one of the major reasons to NOT do as you recommend in the way that you recommend is that you wholly ignore the almost 100% certainty that you'll get knocked and clocked by the other limb.In the S.T.A.B. video,this reality is repeatedly shown. My version provides a plethora of easy go-to (flow to) techs that happen organically very quickly and very effectively--including the one and only method that you champion--addresses the attacker(s) other limbs and deals with them. Have you fought a guy with a bottle,disarmed him,dealt with him,had his buddy rush you,dealt with him,and then dealt with his other homeboy who was rockin a bottle,disarmed him--only to have him pull a knife in the midst of you disarming his bottle? I have? I've had the same experience with an inebriated WOMAN. She took a swing with her bottle,I disarm her...ZING. Out comes the knife.And women tend to SLASH not STAB.Your inflexible method would get me you and others hurt and/or killed under those circumstance if we did as you recommended.Imo at any rate.My techs "win" under those circumstances,that's why I'm still here to post about it.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I absolutely agree and made that very point myself. I like the grip tht Chris Parker champions and I use it myself. We just differ visavis entry,and like I stated in my earlier posts...and the S.T.A.B. videos seem to bear out...this hold is a more effective ENTRY when people of equivalent size reach and generally the same gender are scrappin. It works whether it's an entry or not,but it's MORE EFFECTIVE when the size are equivalent. When there is a significant strength,size,surprise,weight,etc. disparity? The 2 handed grip that I recommend is more functional in that it gives you options that the grip that Chris Parker recommends doesn't. But because I also include the grip that Chris recommends and he DOESN'T include the grip that I recommend? My approach seems to be clearly the more versatile.Basically I'm combining them together in a single flow...hard and soft,yin and yang as it were...and Chris doesn't seem to recommend that.Or more to the point,it seems that Chris believes that the grip shown alot in S.T.A.B. is the safest and best approach given the circumstances.However,my approach allows you to deal with all the basic matters at hand because it allows you to flow and adjust. You don't really get hit while you're seizing one limb or whatever.Note the following situation:
> 
> 
> FIGHTING VS KNIFE FROM THE GUARD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ENTERING HARD VS SHOCK KNIFE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaaaannnd use the S.T.A.B. methods too. I'm not saying USE ONLY MY VERSION OF THE 2 ON 1 GRIP,I'm saying...USE MY METHOD PLUS WHAT CHRIS PARKER SUGGESTS,AS MY METHOD ENCOMPASSES THEM BOTH. Which...imo...very clearly makes the argument for versatility viability and functionality in the real world.



You're right...there are a ton of variables, and everyone will have his/her preferences.  One thing that I've only seen in the STAB clip, unless I missed it in the others, is that if we look at the shock knife clip, the guy with the knife did nothing other than struggle for the knife, when Richard grabbed him.  IMO, thats foolish, as the outcome will usually be determined by who's stronger.  What was wrong with his other hand?  Why wasn't he striking?  This is something that we really dont see in alot of the knife defenses.  We did see it in the STAB one though.  

I'm not against the 2 hand grip in front.  I've done it myself.  Fairly easy to transistion into some good locks, as well as redirecting the blade back into the guy.   You're also in a good position to fire off some kicks.  As for whats more effective....I suggested the STAB clip as my preference, due to the fact that we're marrying the guys arm to us, thus giving us our entire body against his 1 arm, instead of just relying on our hands.  I prefer that one more, also because unless we do something right away, again, the other guy, if he's smart, will most likely use his other hand.  Of course, its also important to take into consideration body size of the attacker and defender.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Not a problem, things have gotten away from me a bit as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I'll be frank and say that I'm not really in a good mood, so take this as it is (blunt, really).
> 
> I have never seen anything in any BJJ class/seminar/video/demonstration or anything similar that I would equate anywhere near actual self defence. At all. From anyone. Royce's class was supposed to be basically entirely focused on it, and was so fundamentally flawed in the design of the techniques and the structure of the class that, when asked if I was sticking around for a photo with him, I said that I didn't have any need to claim I was there. I got more out of how to not structure a class than anything else that day. So while I take your point that my BJJ grappling skills and groundwork would improve, that to me is so far removed from saying my "grappling self defence skills" would improve that you might as well say that playing tennis with Pete Sampras would dramatically increase my playing of volleyball.
> 
> So while I couldn't outgrapple Royce (never thought I could), that's nothing to do with self defence. For the record, I don't count it as an insult, but I do constantly marvel at the way people confuse self defence with these specialist competitive systems and their approaches. To get better at self defence, the first thing is education, then drilling in a realistic scenario based fashion, not sparring, not rolling, not anything that contradicts the basic precepts of self defence. Two completely different realms.



Agreed.  While I am a fan of people having some grappling in their toolbox, IMO, it needs to be adapted to street circumstances, not sport.  Yes, I'm sure this will piss someone off, but thats not my intent.  As I've said before, for *myself* I'll work the ground stuff in a fashion that it doesnt prolong my time on the ground, any more than necessary.  





> I don't denigrate it, I state what I see as flaws in your execution of it. And yes, if I attacked the way that Jabari did, you'd get away. But that's the thing - I wouldn't. I'd attack you like someone wanting to push a knife through you.
> 
> When it comes to your "world class speed", I'm again going to say that, if this is a method you are using to teach, what you can do isn't really relevant (or responsible for you to rely on when giving others potentially life-saving skill sets), it's about what you can impart to your students. As I've said, your grip can be good, and you may be able to get it to work a lot of the time, but it's still rather risky, relies on strength to a higher degree, doesn't get you out of range of the knife, and more, so when putting something together for students, look to what they can learn, not what you can do.
> 
> Honestly, though, I think this is just going to go round in circles, you saying "I'm just that damn fast", and me saying "no, you're not". I will say that the string of numbers there doesn't impress me much... mainly because I have no idea what you're referring to for most of them. But speed is far from the only criteria in this instance, and in fact, isn't one that I was focusing on. It was more your angle, height, and range.



Yup, this is kinda where I was going with what I said in my post.  I dont want to assume that I'm going to be quick or that the guy with the knife will be some skinny punk, who weighs 110lbs wet.  He could be some 6'5, 330lb mass of muscle.  






> The catch is, though, your method is a desperation method, whereas mine is based on complete control of the weapon and weapon hand immediately. So I'd say train mine, and maybe have yours as a fallback. Frankly, yours is not more functional, for a huge number of reasons, mainly stemming from how easy it is to get it very wrong, and thereby increasing the risk for performing it as a primary action. Yours is not the more versatile by a long shot, honestly, it leaves you trapped, with the only release immediately giving control of the weapon back to the knifeman, with you still in perfect range to be killed. I know this comes down to a disagreement in methods that could really only be solved with us both in the same room to test each other out, but that's the reality of your method as I see it and as you demonstrate it.



And as I've said many times myself, IMHO, when it comes to weapons, be it a stick, knife or gun, control of the weapon hand is first and foremost!  You could know hundreds of disarms, but they're going out the window, until you get solid control.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I think "blunt" is good...and I am sorry you're in somewhat of a foul mood today.With that being said? Allow me a similarly direct reply:
> 
> The moment you said that you saw nothing of value in Royce's or by extension Rickson's grappling skills visavis self-defense and said that they're wholly removed in essence from actual self-defense? You made your position absolutely clear. Because your position is wholly the opposite of people like military specialists and warriors and special operatives in law enforcement in others the world over.Clearly,you have a position that is directly contrary to the U.S. Border Patrol,Special Forces, Delta and Navy Seal Operators and uniformed personnel in every branch of our military: US Army, US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard. In January 2002, the U.S. Army officially adopted Gracie Jiu-Jitsu as its foundation for hand-to-hand combat with the publication of a manual based almost entirely on the original program designed by Rorion Gracie.
> 
> http://gracieacademy.com/military.asp
> 
> So Chris,your opinion differs from some of the most lethal and experienced and seasoned real world practitioners of the very same SD and faaaarrr worse SD than you will ever eeeever face in your life.But the great thing is that not only can your opinion differ from theirs? That's your RIGHT and I respect your right to do so.Whether your opinion has a more airtight combat foundation or whether its anywhere near as valid under the circumstances that these elite warriors and law enforcement units find themselves operating and facing real intense issues is another matter entirely.
> 
> Your grasp of martial arts history is similarly suspect. Every army the world over practiced martial arts. The SPIRITUAL AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS became more pronounced with civilian martial arts training,aaaannnd the desire of various governments to remain in power conflicting with (at times) various civilian or nongovernmental groups wishing to maintain their liberty also profoundly affected the nongovernmental martial arts. I strongly suspect that the capoeiristas who defied Brazil and Portugal to such an extent that the Portuguese government entered negotiations with them about rewarding them specific autonomy similar to what the Native Americans and Amish (to a lesser degree) enjoy here in the USA would find your contentions laughable.The Shaolin Monastery warriors might find a guffaw or five to be had from your position too. The mavya--(who are the Indians who inherited some African martial arts once they travelled from Africa to India)--who are the "boxers" who gave rise to the word "mavya" which in turn is the ancient root for the word Muay (as in Muay Boran,Muay Thai,etc) along with the Muay Boran and Krabi Kabong warriors might find themselves joining in to chortle.The moro moros who came from many regions including India to what is now the Phillipines,combined their martial arts into what later became known as Kali might join in for a knee slapping yukk or two.
> 
> Martial arts came from war.The martial arts survived because they worked in war.They went through various refinements and sometimes were tragically lost as they entered the civilian realm...but all of them work for self defense.And all of them had to refine,develope,and adapt--that is to say functionally innovate--in order to be crafted in the first place and survive until the present day.Furthermore,your definition of chuan fa is faulty. chaun fa literally means MOUNTAIN FIST,and WUSHU means MILITARY ART or its rough equivalent.And to be clear? "fist method" is ALSO a MARTIAL ART. While we're on the subject,as far as boxing is concerned? I think that the Greeks and ancient Africans would have a word or two to say about that.
> 
> It seems as if you're making the classic mistake that many of the most ardent practitioners of what they think is RBSD make: they conflate athletic attributes with sport performance.They seem to be wholly unaware of the overwhelming fact and thousands of years of legendary history proclaiming the overwhelming imminence of high performance self-defense athletics. Whic segues into the following point: yes I know that my athletic ability oftentimes isn't something that my students share.I don't train them assuming that their clones of me.My response to you was more specific: you indicated that you would have succeeded in knifing me. I doubt that you would do such a thing,as I doubt that you have the experience skill and attributes to pull it off against me as most people don't have the requisite mix.That again is not arrogance on my part,as I could be wrong...but based upon what you just posted? Your (imo) horriffic misassessment of the Gracie's self-defense skill? Your highly flawed recollection of martial history? I gain confidence in my previous assessment being accurate.Btw,the speeds I gave are Olympic calibur elite and the fact that you've never been on the receiving end of an iaido sensei's draw speaks soooo many volumes about what you've NOT faced that I won't get into it.Suffice it to say that you've done soooo much damage to your previous contentions that now your position would have to be infinitely more sturdy than it currently is to UPGRADE to the condition of post-atomic Nagasaki.



And I'll go so far as to say that this is simply a case of people jumping on the bandwagon.  1993, you rarely saw any MA school teaching grappling/MMA/BJJ.  Today....everyone offers it.  Hell, I was on FB today, as saw a Bujinkan Ninjutsu guy teaching Marines.  Yes, I've seen shows in which the military is doing grappling.  Yes, this is important, but like I said, its merely the flavor of the month.  Watch...when something 'new' comes out, everyone will put their old toys away in favor of the new ones.  Amazing how many people make the claim of teaching military.  Funny, because you'd figure that each respective branch would be doing the same thing, ie: Every Marine, anywhere in the US would be doing BJJ, yet you see JKD guys say they teach Marines, Ninjutsu guys saying it, everyone says it.  Its all about marketing and Rorion is the king of marketing...LOL.  



> Regarding the grip...which to me is the main point...we partially agree. Basically you say that we should always enter with your recommended method. I disagree but I strongly agree that the variant that you propose is highly functional and desirable,as I use it myself.I don't think that my method is a desperation method and those persons who utilize my method--something which you acknowledge that you don't do--also agree.Recall...for clarity's sake...that my method encompasses yours,not the other way around. I have,in essence,twice the arsenal that you do and the videos that I've shown prove beyond a doubt that the approach works. Now you may not PREFER my approach,but IT'S FUNCTIONALITY is BEYOND DISPUTE. The special units,the highly skilled specialized practitioners,etc. use it daily against top flight full tilt boogie resistance...which is true and cool to say,but my own experience with it wholly guts your position.And since you don't use my method (which let us not forget also encompasses yours)? You're not in a position to offer from experience what it does and doesn't do; you offer an opinion which isn't girded by mat or street experience or both,whereas mine has all of them.And that's cool man. We can agree to disagree on that point and still be amicable towards one another. BUT...and here's a big "but"...I think that a person who has positions as strongly and articulately held as yours should be able to step up to the plate as it were and put his knife skills where his mouth (er,POSTS) are and show us the real deal. Or at least YOUR real deal.You're able to make direct empirical statements about my movements and draw opinions and inferences--however much I may agree or disagree with them,however much they may vary from or be in accordance with reality---because I put myself out there to be seen.Frankly I have the skill will resources and nuts to step up. When making points as insistent as yours are,sir,it would be much to your and our benefit for you to step up like I did. Put your knife where your mouth is. For instance...my position is that one of the major reasons to NOT do as you recommend in the way that you recommend is that you wholly ignore the almost 100% certainty that you'll get knocked and clocked by the other limb.In the S.T.A.B. video,this reality is repeatedly shown. My version provides a plethora of easy go-to (flow to) techs that happen organically very quickly and very effectively--including the one and only method that you champion--addresses the attacker(s) other limbs and deals with them. Have you fought a guy with a bottle,disarmed him,dealt with him,had his buddy rush you,dealt with him,and then dealt with his other homeboy who was rockin a bottle,disarmed him--only to have him pull a knife in the midst of you disarming his bottle? I have? I've had the same experience with an inebriated WOMAN. She took a swing with her bottle,I disarm her...ZING. Out comes the knife.And women tend to SLASH not STAB.Your inflexible method would get me you and others hurt and/or killed under those circumstance if we did as you recommended.Imo at any rate.My techs "win" under those circumstances,that's why I'm still here to post about it.



Like I said, each of the methods has its place.  Of course, as I said, I think its also important to take into consideration, the size of the person.  The guy in your clip, was, IMO, about your height, but clearly, you seem stronger.  Were the bad guy, someone who was taller and stronger than you, it may not be as easy to move the guy, like you were in the clip.

No disrespect intended Ras.  I think its safe to say that you and I have engaged in many good discussions, and are, for the most part, on the same page, when it comes to the way we train.  Just throwing some other variables into the mix.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> I think "blunt" is good...and I am sorry you're in somewhat of a foul mood today.With that being said? Allow me a similarly direct reply:



Then let's keep that going, then.



ATACX GYM said:


> The moment you said that you saw nothing of value in Royce's or by extension Rickson's grappling skills visavis self-defense and said that they're wholly removed in essence from actual self-defense? You made your position absolutely clear. Because your position is wholly the opposite of people like military specialists and warriors and special operatives in law enforcement in others the world over.Clearly,you have a position that is directly contrary to the U.S. Border Patrol,Special Forces, Delta and Navy Seal Operators and uniformed personnel in every branch of our military: US Army, US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard. In January 2002, the U.S. Army officially adopted Gracie Jiu-Jitsu as its foundation for hand-to-hand combat with the publication of a manual based almost entirely on the original program designed by Rorion Gracie.
> 
> http://gracieacademy.com/military.asp



Let's break this down for you then. The groups you are discussing are not training in, nor anything like the bastions of, self defence. It's not their focus, it's not their role, it's not their need, and it's not their method. Military and LEO groups are concerned with going into danger, engaging, arresting and subduing or terminating targets, and so on. Self defence is kinda the opposite, frankly. And if you can't see the difference between them, you and I are going to simply go round in circles again.

That said, I've seen a number of things in LEO training that would, honestly, just get you killed. And as far as BJJ in Military use, do you know why it's there? It isn't for combative effectiveness, you know. It's there because the training methods allow a relatively safe competitive training method designed to engender an aggressive attitude, physical fitness, and bonding between the soldiers. One of the Machado BJJ Black Belts (John Wills) here in Australia went over to the US (Florida, I believe) to give a presentation to the Marines stationed there, along with a number of other martial art instructors, to see who would get to put together a training program for the guys. John was picked. But, as John himself said, it was nothing to do with the applicability of the system he was teaching, or it's effectiveness, it was because he knew how to present to the Marines properly, and they gelled with his approach better than the stiff, regimented delivery of other instructors.

Military or LEO adoption doesn't mean much unless you know why it was adopted in the first place. These have nothing to do with self defence.

And, to clarify, the entire approach that Royce presented was against a striking attack, and universally involved a complicated lock/tie up (which would not be easy, if at all possible, under the effects of adrenaline), which tied up at least one of your legs, and most often both arms, and always left you pinned underneath the opponent but still open to their friends kicking you. In classes, I was often told that the school I was at "didn't train for competition", yet "if you don't have your knee there, you won't get the points", and the instructors credentials were based around his Pan Pacific wins. Nothing to do with self defence save lip service. 

PS: Just went through the link you put there. The marketing hyperbole is incredible, really ("After the UFC took the world by storm in 1993, people all over the world realized that Gracie Jiu-Jitsu was the only system that would give someone a realistic chance against a larger, more athletic opponent".. I'm sorry, "the only system"? Give me a break...). And as far as LEO's using it, a big part of their job involves apprehending people, and that often involves taking them to the ground. Self defence doesn't.



ATACX GYM said:


> So Chris,your opinion differs from some of the most lethal and experienced and seasoned real world practitioners of the very same SD and faaaarrr worse SD than you will ever eeeever face in your life.But the great thing is that not only can your opinion differ from theirs? That's your RIGHT and I respect your right to do so.Whether your opinion has a more airtight combat foundation or whether its anywhere near as valid under the circumstances that these elite warriors and law enforcement units find themselves operating and facing real intense issues is another matter entirely.



I really don't think you get the distinction between self defence and combat, to be honest. What you are describing is not self defence, not matter how "faaarrrr worse" it is.



ATACX GYM said:


> Your grasp of martial arts history is similarly suspect. Every army the world over practiced martial arts. The SPIRITUAL AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS became more pronounced with civilian martial arts training,aaaannnd the desire of various governments to remain in power conflicting with (at times) various civilian or nongovernmental groups wishing to maintain their liberty also profoundly affected the nongovernmental martial arts. I strongly suspect that the capoeiristas who defied Brazil and Portugal to such an extent that the Portuguese government entered negotiations with them about rewarding them specific autonomy similar to what the Native Americans and Amish (to a lesser degree) enjoy here in the USA would find your contentions laughable.The Shaolin Monastery warriors might find a guffaw or five to be had from your position too. The mavya--(who are the Indians who inherited some African martial arts once they travelled from Africa to India)--who are the "boxers" who gave rise to the word "mavya" which in turn is the ancient root for the word Muay (as in Muay Boran,Muay Thai,etc) along with the Muay Boran and Krabi Kabong warriors might find themselves joining in to chortle.The moro moros who came from many regions including India to what is now the Phillipines,combined their martial arts into what later became known as Kali might join in for a knee slapping yukk or two.



Of all the people on this forum that you don't need to educate on martial arts history, I'd be up amongst the top. No army in the world practiced martial arts. It would take too long, be too complicated and too involved, be rather counter-productive, and too expensive. You're buying too much into the romanticised histories there. And seriously, don't get me started on your "Shaolin Monastery warriors" comment....



ATACX GYM said:


> Martial arts came from war.The martial arts survived because they worked in war.They went through various refinements and sometimes were tragically lost as they entered the civilian realm...but all of them work for self defense.And all of them had to refine,develope,and adapt--that is to say functionally innovate--in order to be crafted in the first place and survive until the present day.Furthermore,your definition of chuan fa is faulty. chaun fa literally means MOUNTAIN FIST,and WUSHU means MILITARY ART or its rough equivalent.And to be clear? "fist method" is ALSO a MARTIAL ART. While we're on the subject,as far as boxing is concerned? I think that the Greeks and ancient Africans would have a word or two to say about that.



Chuan Fa does not mean "Mountain Fist". The characters are &#25331; (Chuan) &#27861; (fa), and translate as "fist (chuan) method (fa)". The same characters pronounced in Japanese are Kenpo &#25331;&#27861;. It is a categorisation of a form of martial art, it is not a martial art itself (Ed Parkers American Kenpo is, Shorinji Kenpo is, Kenpo by itself is not a distinct system). As far as your take on boxing and the ancient Greeks, you really don't seem to get what you're arguing there....

There is little accurate in this entire paragraph, honestly, and shows that your understanding of the history of a wider range of arts is rather lacking. Again, I'm not someone needing education on this subject.



ATACX GYM said:


> It seems as if you're making the classic mistake that many of the most ardent practitioners of what they think is RBSD make: they conflate athletic attributes with sport performance.They seem to be wholly unaware of the overwhelming fact and thousands of years of legendary history proclaiming the overwhelming imminence of high performance self-defense athletics. Whic segues into the following point: yes I know that my athletic ability oftentimes isn't something that my students share.I don't train them assuming that their clones of me.My response to you was more specific: you indicated that you would have succeeded in knifing me. I doubt that you would do such a thing,as I doubt that you have the experience skill and attributes to pull it off against me as most people don't have the requisite mix.That again is not arrogance on my part,as I could be wrong...but based upon what you just posted? Your (imo) horriffic misassessment of the Gracie's self-defense skill? Your highly flawed recollection of martial history? I gain confidence in my previous assessment being accurate.Btw,the speeds I gave are Olympic calibur elite and the fact that you've never been on the receiving end of an iaido sensei's draw speaks soooo many volumes about what you've NOT faced that I won't get into it.Suffice it to say that you've done soooo much damage to your previous contentions that now your position would have to be infinitely more sturdy than it currently is to UPGRADE to the condition of post-atomic Nagasaki.



Son, I don't think you quite get what my experience, skill, and attributes actually are, nor what would be required. As for the rest of this paragraph, you have shown a lack of understanding of what self defence actually is, given romanticised counters to actual martial history, and tried to correct me incorrectly. And who on earth said I haven't gone up against an Iaido sensei? I train in Iai, Ras. A couple of different forms, actually. What I was getting at was that you would have known that the attack was coming (amongst other aspects), which would have aided in you evading the first cut or two. As I said, not relevant or impressive in these occasions. And if you're at Olympic caliber elite level in your speed, uh, why aren't you an actual athlete? Seriously, how am I not supposed to take this as arrogance?



ATACX GYM said:


> Regarding the grip...which to me is the main point...we partially agree. Basically you say that we should always enter with your recommended method. I disagree but I strongly agree that the variant that you propose is highly functional and desirable,as I use it myself.I don't think that my method is a desperation method and those persons who utilize my method--something which you acknowledge that you don't do--also agree.Recall...for clarity's sake...that my method encompasses yours,not the other way around. I have,in essence,twice the arsenal that you do and the videos that I've shown prove beyond a doubt that the approach works. Now you may not PREFER my approach,but IT'S FUNCTIONALITY is BEYOND DISPUTE. The special units,the highly skilled specialized practitioners,etc. use it daily against top flight full tilt boogie resistance...which is true and cool to say,but my own experience with it wholly guts your position.And since you don't use my method (which let us not forget also encompasses yours)? You're not in a position to offer from experience what it does and doesn't do; you offer an opinion which isn't girded by mat or street experience or both,whereas mine has all of them.And that's cool man. We can agree to disagree on that point and still be amicable towards one another. BUT...and here's a big "but"...I think that a person who has positions as strongly and articulately held as yours should be able to step up to the plate as it were and put his knife skills where his mouth (er,POSTS) are and show us the real deal. Or at least YOUR real deal.You're able to make direct empirical statements about my movements and draw opinions and inferences--however much I may agree or disagree with them,however much they may vary from or be in accordance with reality---because I put myself out there to be seen.Frankly I have the skill will resources and nuts to step up. When making points as insistent as yours are,sir,it would be much to your and our benefit for you to step up like I did. Put your knife where your mouth is. For instance...my position is that one of the major reasons to NOT do as you recommend in the way that you recommend is that you wholly ignore the almost 100% certainty that you'll get knocked and clocked by the other limb.In the S.T.A.B. video,this reality is repeatedly shown. My version provides a plethora of easy go-to (flow to) techs that happen organically very quickly and very effectively--including the one and only method that you champion--addresses the attacker(s) other limbs and deals with them. Have you fought a guy with a bottle,disarmed him,dealt with him,had his buddy rush you,dealt with him,and then dealt with his other homeboy who was rockin a bottle,disarmed him--only to have him pull a knife in the midst of you disarming his bottle? I have? I've had the same experience with an inebriated WOMAN. She took a swing with her bottle,I disarm her...ZING. Out comes the knife.And women tend to SLASH not STAB.Your inflexible method would get me you and others hurt and/or killed under those circumstance if we did as you recommended.Imo at any rate.My techs "win" under those circumstances,that's why I'm still here to post about it.



When it comes to my putting a video up, the techniques are not mine, and I am not putting them up without permission. That's really the only thing that would stop me, honestly, I have more than full confidence in them (and, I note, mine is the preferred method in the overwhelming majority of clips provided, the only one using yours is the flawed one against the shock knife). One more time, yours can work, but it's lower return and higher risk than it needs to be. End of story, really. I'm glad it worked for you, but it's not what you're making it out to be. And far from "BEYOND DISPUTE".


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> And I'll go so far as to say that this is simply a case of people jumping on the bandwagon.  1993, you rarely saw any MA school teaching grappling/MMA/BJJ.  Today....everyone offers it.  Hell, I was on FB today, as saw a Bujinkan Ninjutsu guy teaching Marines.  Yes, I've seen shows in which the military is doing grappling.  Yes, this is important, but like I said, its merely the flavor of the month.  Watch...when something 'new' comes out, everyone will put their old toys away in favor of the new ones.  Amazing how many people make the claim of teaching military.  Funny, because you'd figure that each respective branch would be doing the same thing, ie: Every Marine, anywhere in the US would be doing BJJ, yet you see JKD guys say they teach Marines, Ninjutsu guys saying it, everyone says it.  Its all about marketing and Rorion is the king of marketing...LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, each of the methods has its place.  Of course, as I said, I think its also important to take into consideration, the size of the person.  The guy in your clip, was, IMO, about your height, but clearly, you seem stronger.  Were the bad guy, someone who was taller and stronger than you, it may not be as easy to move the guy, like you were in the clip.
> 
> No disrespect intended Ras.  I think its safe to say that you and I have engaged in many good discussions, and are, for the most part, on the same page, when it comes to the way we train.  Just throwing some other variables into the mix.




Whaddup MJS! I'm kinda pressed for time here,and since I pretty much agree with what you posted up here,I will only reply--speedily and shallowly for me at any rate--about the 2 on 1 and its deployment vs larger stronger opponents:

My version of the 2 on 1 allows us the option to completely redirect the attack and run,employ kick,employ the use of your opponents force and hapkido/aikido/judo/chin na style locks and breaks in addition to every form of wrestling lock,deploy our own weapons,AND employ all the other 2 on 1 aka Russian tie up variants...including the S.T.A.B. variants.Preferring one method over the other removes the benefit of being fluid enough to use both.This is--again and again and again--the trump card which should silence debate about the best way to do things when it comes to a discussion between experienced reasonable practitioners online,and would absolutely silence debate when practiced on the mat in any energetic way.Sometimes the best option isn't to engage this guy,you may have to segue immediately into instant disarms,breaks,escapes or redirection so you can get to somebody else in dire need of help...like a friend being stomped by BGs. There's nothing wrong with having all the options that you can use in front of you.It's without question the better option. It's better to have a functional tool in your toolbox and not need it than it is to NOT have a functional tool in your tool box and need it.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi Ras, I was waiting to see if you'd come back with something else before I dealt with this, but honestly the language you're using ("this should silence debate.... the trump card..." etc) only say that you're refusing to listen to anything being said, or entertain other opinions. You have not demonstrated anything to put your grip above the one I describe (the one used in almost all the clips other than yours), and I still see all the same flaws in yours that lead it to being the less desirable option.

Simply saying over and over again "no, it isn't" doesn't really make an argument. So my real point here is that the above post is your opinion, which doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence you've given, so I didn't want you to take a non-answer as validation of your position.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Ras, I was waiting to see if you'd come back with something else before I dealt with this, but honestly the language you're using ("this should silence debate.... the trump card..." etc) only say that you're refusing to listen to anything being said, or entertain other opinions. You have not demonstrated anything to put your grip above the one I describe (the one used in almost all the clips other than yours), and I still see all the same flaws in yours that lead it to being the less desirable option.
> 
> Simply saying over and over again "no, it isn't" doesn't really make an argument. So my real point here is that the above post is your opinion, which doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence you've given, so I didn't want you to take a non-answer as validation of your position.



I haven't a shred of doubt that you're right about the above posts being my opinion,just as your posts reflect your own opinion.We are very much of different opinions about what the above evidence displays,because if I understand your posts aright your position is that one variant of the 2 on 1 and ONLY ONE is the BEST METHOD (as opposed to your "preferred method").Recall that my opinion encompasses your preferred grasp aaaand provides more options for kicks,sweeps,disengagements,has better stand up striking defenses vs the other arm,allows better options for multifights,and more.The above evidence imo is very clear on that point...and borne out by the multiple strikes that the S.T.A.B. practitioners absorbed in the process of employing the variant that you employed,and the lack of strikes that's even possible to employ when my 2 on 1 arm drag AND your preferred method AND other holds from wrestling,aikido,and other places are employed.Including Burton Richardson's evidence.

When I say "absolutely silence debate" and "trump card" please read the whole statement and don't take a single phrase out of context.Say the whole thing and put it into context:"Preferring one method over the other removes the benefit of being fluid enough to use both.This is--again and again and again--the trump card which should silence debate about the best way to do things when it comes to a discussion between experienced reasonable practitioners online,and would absolutely silence debate when practiced on the mat in any energetic way."<---That IS a REASONABLE statement with loads of evidence to support it and should be immediately sensible to any experienced knife combat instructor and practitioner...even if they disagree with it.Btw,the Gracies also use a knife defense variant that I've used successfully over the years when in CQB after I've secured the 2 on 1.






See,I wasn't going to bring this point up initially about Karl Tanswell's video because I really like his stuff and employ his suggestions as part of my overall knife defense practice but look...have you noticed that the S.T.A.B. videos that he has DOES NOT address knife attacks at slightly farther than knife arm reach? All of his defenses start at very close quarters (which is quite realistic in many ways) but his defenses PRIOR to getting into his preferred 2 on 1 are suspect.Or should I say not as refined as others who start at the farther out range.Look at 1:42 of the second video,the video with that old Beach Boys' song FUN FUN FUN or whatever it's title is...and realize that he'd get knifed for that movement,BEFORE he gets to face his opponent and apply the 2 on 1.I like his stuff when in close,but there's a way to preserve a mixture of the more better "at range" defenses,the method he uses,and the methods of a few others.My primary method involves all of that plus my own experiences,and is the only one which allows the buffet of functional methods to be applied. That 2 on 1 you recommend is good, until it's a little female against a big guy.I have a crew of studens that we call the FIVE FOOTERS because they're 5 feet tall or shorter.My method allows them to redirect the attack,strike and escape or segue directly into my variant of the 2 on 1 you prefer (my variant keeps their head on the other side of the arm in order to prevent hair grabs,facilitate bites,strikes,sweeps,knees,groin strikes,kicks,stomps,and more) like this in my video right here:







as well as employ all the methods shown in the S.T.A.B. video,by the Gracies and by Burton Richardson,Paul Vunak and others.The superior at range functional entry tha I employ to a wider variety of fight ending functional options (including all of yours that you recommend) simply makes the argument overwhelming that the version I prefer has without question the greater options which will function for the wider gamut of persons who employ it.What works for me may not work for you or be a preferred method for you or others onsite,but my version provides a sufficient functional array for pretty much anyone walking and moving on their own.Functional options from hapkido and aikido to kali and gungfu to sayoc and even capoeira are there.Whatever art you practice,a functional variant of your movements are there in my approach,but absent from yours.That's a maaajor reason why I say that the method that I recommend is superior overall.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> I haven't a shred of doubt that you're right about the above posts being my opinion,just as your posts reflect your own opinion.We are very much of different opinions about what the above evidence displays,because if I understand your posts aright your position is that one variant of the 2 on 1 and ONLY ONE is the BEST METHOD (as opposed to your "preferred method").Recall that my opinion encompasses your preferred grasp aaaand provides more options for kicks,sweeps,disengagements,has better stand up striking defenses vs the other arm,allows better options for multifights,and more.The above evidence imo is very clear on that point...and borne out by the multiple strikes that the S.T.A.B. practitioners absorbed in the process of employing the variant that you employed,and the lack of strikes that's even possible to employ when my 2 on 1 arm drag AND your preferred method AND other holds from wrestling,aikido,and other places are employed.Including Burton Richardson's evidence.



Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.

That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?



ATACX GYM said:


> When I say "absolutely silence debate" and "trump card" please read the whole statement and don't take a single phrase out of context.Say the whole thing and put it into context:"Preferring one method over the other removes the benefit of being fluid enough to use both.This is--again and again and again--the trump card which should silence debate about the best way to do things when it comes to a discussion between experienced reasonable practitioners online,and would absolutely silence debate when practiced on the mat in any energetic way."<---That IS a REASONABLE statement with loads of evidence to support it and should be immediately sensible to any experienced knife combat instructor and practitioner...even if they disagree with it.Btw,the Gracies also use a knife defense variant that I've used successfully over the years when in CQB after I've secured the 2 on 1.



Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work.


ATACX GYM said:


>



Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?



ATACX GYM said:


> See,I wasn't going to bring this point up initially about Karl Tanswell's video because I really like his stuff and employ his suggestions as part of my overall knife defense practice but look...have you noticed that the S.T.A.B. videos that he has DOES NOT address knife attacks at slightly farther than knife arm reach? All of his defenses start at very close quarters (which is quite realistic in many ways) but his defenses PRIOR to getting into his preferred 2 on 1 are suspect.Or should I say not as refined as others who start at the farther out range.Look at 1:42 of the second video,the video with that old Beach Boys' song FUN FUN FUN or whatever it's title is...and realize that he'd get knifed for that movement,BEFORE he gets to face his opponent and apply the 2 on 1.I like his stuff when in close,but there's a way to preserve a mixture of the more better "at range" defenses,the method he uses,and the methods of a few others.My primary method involves all of that plus my own experiences,and is the only one which allows the buffet of functional methods to be applied. That 2 on 1 you recommend is good, until it's a little female against a big guy.I have a crew of studens that we call the FIVE FOOTERS because they're 5 feet tall or shorter.My method allows them to redirect the attack,strike and escape or segue directly into my variant of the 2 on 1 you prefer (my variant keeps their head on the other side of the arm in order to prevent hair grabs,facilitate bites,strikes,sweeps,knees,groin strikes,kicks,stomps,and more) like this in my video right here:



Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.

As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say.



ATACX GYM said:


>



Yep, same issues again. Hadn't we already looked at that clip in this thread?



ATACX GYM said:


> as well as employ all the methods shown in the S.T.A.B. video,by the Gracies and by Burton Richardson,Paul Vunak and others.The superior at range functional entry tha I employ to a wider variety of fight ending functional options (including all of yours that you recommend) simply makes the argument overwhelming that the version I prefer has without question the greater options which will function for the wider gamut of persons who employ it.What works for me may not work for you or be a preferred method for you or others onsite,but my version provides a sufficient functional array for pretty much anyone walking and moving on their own.Functional options from hapkido and aikido to kali and gungfu to sayoc and even capoeira are there.Whatever art you practice,a functional variant of your movements are there in my approach,but absent from yours.That's a maaajor reason why I say that the method that I recommend is superior overall.



No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.
> 
> That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work.
> 
> 
> Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.
> 
> As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, same issues again. Hadn't we already looked at that clip in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly.



"Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.

That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?"


I'm of the opinion that if you're empty handed vs a knife gun or other weapon? You're already in the "last resort" stage. Our first resort,I would presume,is not to be in this kind of situation in the first place.And that's cool that you're not impressed by Burton.We disagree there,then.As for you and I scrappin in a room? That would stray from the primary subject. We're talking about techniques and tactics,not technicians and tacticians.If we scrapped? Didn't matter who came out on top.We're talking about the utility of a technique,not the superiority of the combatants.

"Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work."

^^^I'm not suggesting more than 4 options,and they all flow very well from the hold that I utilize.One of the options that I recommend is the option that you prefer.Clearly we have different life experiences that influence what we would call "high return methods". I've used my method in multiple scenarios; pretty much everything except in a theater of war.I've even pulled it off in a dynamic entry as a HRSP when getting a woman and her kids away from her psycho bf who was threatening passersby and them with his humongous butcher knife.Basically? You're confident in your method,I'm confident in mine...and clearly they both work.Which is what I meant when I said in previous posts that "the FUNCTIONAL VIABILITY IS BEYOND DISPUTE" of the method that I use. You may not PREFER it,but it IS a high percentage method...just not one that you employ or prefer.Between the two of us? I would have the greater experience in using the two methods that we use(which I employ as ONE METHOD,which has been my argument all along) plus a couple more that I use and that gives me the superior functional experience in that arena. I disagree with your opinion that my idea "goes against the way people actually work" for that reason...and because I have the superior experience in deploying a method that incudes your main approach fued with practical methods that you don't use? I think that my opinion would carry more weight in this matter. But again...that is merely my own opinion.


"Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?"

I don't agree with all of the logic that these two Gracies employed,but I've used this method and it wasn't hard to get to at all.The 2 on 1 flows directly into this method.I've used it in a multifight before. I only put this method up because this was the first video I could find that demonstrated the specific hand positioning that I meant and can easily get to using the 2 on 1 when somebody is really resisting you hard.

"Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.

As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say."

I'd like to see video of your female 5 footer resisting the big guy when he's going full tilt boogie...and congrats to her no matter how it goes.Glad that she's taking the time to seriously study martial arts. As for Karl's distance? Man...Karl is dealing with the in-close knife attack,80-90% with the antagonists facing each other prior to the knife being deployed.Like I said,I like his stuff and have used it loooong before I heard of him.However,maaany knife fights don't start at that very close distance.What happens when you're at a longer distance and you have to scrap anyway? Your response..."As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance?" ...underscores exactly what I've been saying before: you gotta have the versatility to engage the knifer regardless of being in close quarters or at length. Your response seems to indicate that you don't train at distance,and your preferred method of dealing with the knife is a very poor one to utilize at distance. Stand your 5 footer about half an arm's length out from your 6'10" student and have them scrap.Like she's a victim of a "walk up jacking".Record it. She'll look much worse than this guy did:

PAUL VUNAK KNIFE DEFENSE






As she would be wholly without proficiency in employing at range techs like kicks footwork and strikes that would be needed to keep her assailant away or prior to closing the distance or counterattacking prior to entering and engaging the 2 on 1 (supposing that she could do such a thing in the first place). Our training looks like THIS but with more Judo and "rushing energy" put into it and multifights too for good measure:






And training like this imparts the versatility that isn't apparent in the approach that you recommend.We can strike at range vs weapons because we train to do so and we train the defenses against it AAAAND we train the methods that you train.As time and weather permits,I will put up video of us doing exactly that.I'll show you KIDS and YOUNG TEENS that I train doing this.It's a huge advantage over merely hoping to already be in range for the single method that you prefer and it's a huge advantage over ignoring the other vital circumstances of combat,which cannot be predicted.Your method will get people killed in a multifight,killed at range,and without any options except when they're in the most dire of circumstances...well within knife attack range...which is a LAST RESORT range to be in.We should try to avoid that if at all possible,and activate the in-close 2 on 1 you use as your base method only if escape is impossible or only possible after nuetralizing the knife wielding threat.

"No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly."

Okay then we very much disagree here too,and that's fine.To me? It's overwhelmingly apparent that not only is my method far more versatile,it's the superior one visavis immediate disengagement between the methods that you recommend and I recommend because I keep the defender at range to disengage AND cover EVERYTHING that is done in your "preferred" method. In no way do I recommend "deliberately staying in the range of the knife" and I find your suggestion that I am as interesting.Recall that my range starts at a longer range than yours and not only closes to your range,but also provides multiple methods for escape.Your method is muuuch closer in and thus requires staying in the range of the knife due to proximity far more than mine does. I know that if done properly it's very difficult to get knifed using the method that you recommend (which again is only part of what I suggest to do) but the proximity still keeps you within range of the knifer and thus the knife.Mine provides the option of at range strikes,footwork,redirection and disengaging IMMEDIATELY whereas yours STARTS WITHIN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO and pretty much stays there until matters are resolved...without nuetralizing the far arm or other limbs the attacker may employ,ignoring the likelihood of multifights,ignoring the use of ankle stomps,knees,groin strikes,ignoring the reality of at range knife attacks,and more.Again and again...my version is by definition more versatile because it covers more circumstances and scenarios.

What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option? Looking at your primary response,your students would have your "natural response" options and basically the banzai kamikaze charge for the 2 on 1. My students could deploy both body and environmental weapons,footwork,escape methods including the roll escape which you malign but which in reality works so well that even military units recommend that you roll WHILE UNDER GUN FIRE toward shelter if available,aaaand we cover every area of the 2 on 1 method that you champion.You deny the functionality of the options that I recommend,but that allows you to simply not address the scenarios that I and others like me actually DO address...and denial of our functionality doesn't mean that we're not functional.It just means,as you stated about my previous posts,that IN YOUR OPINION some of what I recommend isn't high percentage.Regardless,I can empirically demonstrate that my method allows me to address whole scenarios which yours fails to address...and I speak from experience here because I use your method too.And THAT'S how I discovered its inherent weaknesses.You DON'T use my method,and you HAVEN'T practiced it properly enough to discover that it's a high percentage response that is very good for the kinds of scenarios which your method CANNOT address due to its body contact prerequisites.

Which means my method is more versatile.Yes,in my opinion.

Sooo...let's go beyond the point where we're going: "my method is more realistic and more versatile because it encapsulates all of yours plus the stuff yours doesn't", "no your method is more desperation and less realistic,my method is more realistic". Okay here's a scenario for you: your 5 footer is in the ladies' bathroom. She's washing her hands at the sink,and in comes BIG BG#1,5'10" and 20 pounds,knife in hand,ski mask on. His back is to the door,which is the only exit in the bathroom.He threatens to kill her if she makes a sound and closes to rape her.What does she do? Does she employ your 2 on 1?


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Whaddup MJS! I'm kinda pressed for time here,and since I pretty much agree with what you posted up here,I will only reply--speedily and shallowly for me at any rate--about the 2 on 1 and its deployment vs larger stronger opponents:
> 
> My version of the 2 on 1 allows us the option to completely redirect the attack and run,employ kick,employ the use of your opponents force and hapkido/aikido/judo/chin na style locks and breaks in addition to every form of wrestling lock,deploy our own weapons,AND employ all the other 2 on 1 aka Russian tie up variants...including the S.T.A.B. variants.Preferring one method over the other removes the benefit of being fluid enough to use both.This is--again and again and again--the trump card which should silence debate about the best way to do things when it comes to a discussion between experienced reasonable practitioners online,and would absolutely silence debate when practiced on the mat in any energetic way.Sometimes the best option isn't to engage this guy,you may have to segue immediately into instant disarms,breaks,escapes or redirection so you can get to somebody else in dire need of help...like a friend being stomped by BGs. There's nothing wrong with having all the options that you can use in front of you.It's without question the better option. It's better to have a functional tool in your toolbox and not need it than it is to NOT have a functional tool in your tool box and need it.



Hey Ras,

Like I said, I have done the 2 on 1 grip from the front.  I think we can compare it to say a punch defense...we all know there're many, but I think its safe to say that we all have our favorite, bread and butter moves, that we like to do, the ones that we feel the most comfortable with.  Of course, I've also said that its important to assess each situation and act accordingly.  I still maintain that with a larger opponent, pulling, as you shown, may not be as easy.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> See,I wasn't going to bring this point up initially about Karl Tanswell's video because I really like his stuff and employ his suggestions as part of my overall knife defense practice but look...have you noticed that the S.T.A.B. videos that he has DOES NOT address knife attacks at slightly farther than knife arm reach? All of his defenses start at very close quarters (which is quite realistic in many ways) but his defenses PRIOR to getting into his preferred 2 on 1 are suspect.Or should I say not as refined as others who start at the farther out range.Look at 1:42 of the second video,the video with that old Beach Boys' song FUN FUN FUN or whatever it's title is...and realize that he'd get knifed for that movement,BEFORE he gets to face his opponent and apply the 2 on 1.I like his stuff when in close,but there's a way to preserve a mixture of the more better "at range" defenses,the method he uses,and the methods of a few others.My primary method involves all of that plus my own experiences,and is the only one which allows the buffet of functional methods to be applied. That 2 on 1 you recommend is good, until it's a little female against a big guy.I have a crew of studens that we call the FIVE FOOTERS because they're 5 feet tall or shorter.My method allows them to redirect the attack,strike and escape or segue directly into my variant of the 2 on 1 you prefer (my variant keeps their head on the other side of the arm in order to prevent hair grabs,facilitate bites,strikes,sweeps,knees,groin strikes,kicks,stomps,and more) like this in my video right here:



IMO, the Gracie clip isn't at all impressive, and I, like Chris, disgree with what they said about their grandfather being a 'knife' master.  Listening to that, it tells me that they assume that because their grandfather knew about the blade (if thats true to begin with) that they'll automatically, somehow, be experts themselves.  LOL!  Thats laughable at best.  I've talked about this numerous times myself.  Frankly, I dont give a rats behind about what my teacher could do, what his teacher could do, or what anyone else can do.  No, what matters most is what *I* can do!  Just because their GF did something, doesnt mean they will be 'experts'.  

As for the Tanswell clip...is the 1:42 part, what you're talking about? His flaw was that he didn't have a good grip secured, but of course, nothing says that everything will go according to plan.  As for defense against something slightly further than arms reach....well, from that distance, he's got to move in on me anyways, so unless he does that, he could stab and slash til he's blue in the face, he isn't gonna reach me.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Hey Ras,
> 
> Like I said, I have done the 2 on 1 grip from the front.  I think we can compare it to say a punch defense...we all know there're many, but I think its safe to say that we all have our favorite, bread and butter moves, that we like to do, the ones that we feel the most comfortable with.  Of course, I've also said that its important to assess each situation and act accordingly.  I still maintain that with a larger opponent, pulling, as you shown, may not be as easy.



Then you and I are on the same page...and that's cool.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> IMO, the Gracie clip isn't at all impressive, and I, like Chris, disgree with what they said about their grandfather being a 'knife' master.  Listening to that, it tells me that they assume that because their grandfather knew about the blade (if thats true to begin with) that they'll automatically, somehow, be experts themselves.  LOL!  Thats laughable at best.  I've talked about this numerous times myself.  Frankly, I dont give a rats behind about what my teacher could do, what his teacher could do, or what anyone else can do.  No, what matters most is what *I* can do!  Just because their GF did something, doesnt mean they will be 'experts'.
> 
> As for the Tanswell clip...is the 1:42 part, what you're talking about? His flaw was that he didn't have a good grip secured, but of course, nothing says that everything will go according to plan.  As for defense against something slightly further than arms reach....well, from that distance, he's got to move in on me anyways, so unless he does that, he could stab and slash til he's blue in the face, he isn't gonna reach me.



I'm not especially impressed by anything in the Gracie clip EXCEPT for the tech they displayed.I used this tech at a shopping plaza post-midnight while working HRSP in Compton CA near the Compton Blue Line Station at night vs a knife wielding crackhead before.It works. I linked that video cuz it was the first video that I saw that showed that tech.All that other stuff about "knife master" Helio? Whatever.I have respect for Helio and all the fighting Gracies,but I don't buy into the marketing hype.Mat work please.And they got plenty of matwork.

The flaw at 1:42 wasn't the grip imo--you're gonna have to tussle for the grip when you're giving up reach strength and stuff to your opponent--it was the footwork and lack of employment of other options besides the 2 on 1.Even AFTER the 2 on 1 was secured. If your footwork sucks? He'll close on you and stab and slash til WE'RE not "blue in the face" but DEAD in the face.Lol. But if your footwork is right and tite? He won't get close enough to hurt us,and we can dictate the terms of engagement or nonengagement. This same footwork functionalizes the deployment of low kicks and other techs that aren't the 2 on 1.However,if your arsenal is ONLY the 2 on 1? Your options and efficacy levels are similarly decreased.Imo.And when I say "your"...I mean the GENERAL "your" here.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> I'm not especially impressed by anything in the Gracie clip EXCEPT for the tech they displayed.I used this tech at a shopping plaza post-midnight while working HRSP in Compton CA near the Compton Blue Line Station at night vs a knife wielding crackhead before.It works. I linked that video cuz it was the first video that I saw that showed that tech.All that other stuff about "knife master" Helio? Whatever.I have respect for Helio and all the fighting Gracies,but I don't buy into the marketing hype.Mat work please.And they got plenty of matwork.



I train the initial hit with the forearm.  Man, my teacher has done that on me before....hurts like hell! LOL!  From there, we work different things.  That lock is something that we do, however, I primarily use when we're both empty handed.  



> The flaw at 1:42 wasn't the grip imo--you're gonna have to tussle for the grip when you're giving up reach strength and stuff to your opponent--it was the footwork and lack of employment of other options besides the 2 on 1.Even AFTER the 2 on 1 was secured. If your footwork sucks? He'll close on you and stab and slash til WE'RE not "blue in the face" but DEAD in the face.Lol. But if your footwork is right and tite? He won't get close enough to hurt us,and we can dictate the terms of engagement or nonengagement. This same footwork functionalizes the deployment of low kicks and other techs that aren't the 2 on 1.However,if your arsenal is ONLY the 2 on 1? Your options and efficacy levels are similarly decreased.Imo.And when I say "your"...I mean the GENERAL "your" here.



Yeah, footwork, footwork, footwork...thats the key to everything my friend.


----------



## Chris Parker

Right, let's see if we can clear up the mess of quotes there.



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.
> 
> That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the opinion that if you're empty handed vs a knife gun or other weapon? You're already in the "last resort" stage. Our first resort,I would presume,is not to be in this kind of situation in the first place.And that's cool that you're not impressed by Burton.We disagree there,then.As for you and I scrappin in a room? That would stray from the primary subject. We're talking about techniques and tactics,not technicians and tacticians.If we scrapped? Didn't matter who came out on top.We're talking about the utility of a technique,not the superiority of the combatants.
Click to expand...


Now, you well know that I am referring to a "last resort" physical method here Ras. Some physical methods are going to be higher return, and more reliable (and safer) than others, and can be applied earlier in the sequence, provided there is enough awareness. It's when you get caught too late that you have to resort to what an instructor of mine once referred to as "oh hell!" techniques (okay, he used a different word, but the filters here wouldn't like me to use the real quote...), which is the "desperation" and "last resort" methods that I am referring to. Your method is one of these "late responce" methods, hence it being lower return, higher risk, and more desperation. And, to be frank, that actually means that when this method would most likely be applied would rob it of many of the benefits that you are extolling, making it harder to immediately pull the opponent off balance (if you are caught late, and therefore off balance yourself), as well as other aspects. And if you are early enough to catch it when still in balance, you are also early enough to move to a better, safer position, which is the method that I've been talking about, and that features in the majority of clips here.

As far as the two of us getting together, it wasn't a competition that I meant, I was referring more to my showing you (physically) what I see as the issues with your method, as well as having you show me what you feel are the issues with mine. I grab a knife and attack you, so see if you can use your responce, and then you grab a knife to see if I can use mine. That's really about the only way I can see us getting a conclusion here, honestly.



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^I'm not suggesting more than 4 options,and they all flow very well from the hold that I utilize.One of the options that I recommend is the option that you prefer.Clearly we have different life experiences that influence what we would call "high return methods". I've used my method in multiple scenarios; pretty much everything except in a theater of war.I've even pulled it off in a dynamic entry as a HRSP when getting a woman and her kids away from her psycho bf who was threatening passersby and them with his humongous butcher knife.Basically? You're confident in your method,I'm confident in mine...and clearly they both work.Which is what I meant when I said in previous posts that "the FUNCTIONAL VIABILITY IS BEYOND DISPUTE" of the method that I use. You may not PREFER it,but it IS a high percentage method...just not one that you employ or prefer.Between the two of us? I would have the greater experience in using the two methods that we use(which I employ as ONE METHOD,which has been my argument all along) plus a couple more that I use and that gives me the superior functional experience in that arena. I disagree with your opinion that my idea "goes against the way people actually work" for that reason...and because I have the superior experience in deploying a method that incudes your main approach fued with practical methods that you don't use? I think that my opinion would carry more weight in this matter. But again...that is merely my own opinion.
Click to expand...


Even four can be too many, though. Based on average responce times, it takes about half a second to consider an option before deciding whether or not to take it. So four options gives you two seconds. That's at least two to four cuts or thrusts before you've decided on what you're going to do.

In terms of "the functional viability is beyond dispute" (really, shouting with capitals isn't really necessary, Ras, nor is the long string of letters to stretch words out... all it shows is an emotional responce, which removes strength from your argument as you are running out of actual answers), all that shows is that you managed to pull it off... but my argument is that it is still a relatively risky method to be giving students who may not possess your "Olympic athlete standards". The question you have to ask yourself as a responsible instructor is "Is this the best method I can give my students, if they find themselves in a real, life threatening situation?" And, honestly, that is not the same thing.

Finally, all your talk of your "superior experience" is rather presumptuous, don't you think? As well as discussing what practical methods I may or may not use. Just a word to the wise there. All I'm discussing is the method you are showing and endorsing in your videos, if you said that this was a rare approach, and only featured in this occasion, with you dominantly showing something else, that would be a different discussion. But that's not what you've said, it's not what's shown, and I'm actually just offering you a way to improve what you present, as I see it. You don't have to, of course, but it's an offer.



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with all of the logic that these two Gracies employed,but I've used this method and it wasn't hard to get to at all.The 2 on 1 flows directly into this method.I've used it in a multifight before. I only put this method up because this was the first video I could find that demonstrated the specific hand positioning that I meant and can easily get to using the 2 on 1 when somebody is really resisting you hard.
Click to expand...


Again, I don't think you get what I meant there, either. The issue I saw with the Gracie clip was that the entry relied on the knife attack stopping when contact was made, allowing the transition into the lock. The lock was relatively fine (some control issues with the knife, though), but it was not an overtly realistic entry method. If you're grabbing the wrist first (your two on one), then you're not doing this technique, and as that initial control is what we're focused on, if you didn't use the same as the Gracies did there, what was the point in showing their clip? 



ATACX GYM said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.
> 
> As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see video of your female 5 footer resisting the big guy when he's going full tilt boogie...and congrats to her no matter how it goes.Glad that she's taking the time to seriously study martial arts. As for Karl's distance? Man...Karl is dealing with the in-close knife attack,80-90% with the antagonists facing each other prior to the knife being deployed.Like I said,I like his stuff and have used it loooong before I heard of him.However,maaany knife fights don't start at that very close distance.What happens when you're at a longer distance and you have to scrap anyway? Your response..."As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance?" ...underscores exactly what I've been saying before: you gotta have the versatility to engage the knifer regardless of being in close quarters or at length. Your response seems to indicate that you don't train at distance,and your preferred method of dealing with the knife is a very poor one to utilize at distance. Stand your 5 footer about half an arm's length out from your 6'10" student and have them scrap.Like she's a victim of a "walk up jacking".Record it. She'll look much worse than this guy did:
> 
> PAUL VUNAK KNIFE DEFENSE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As she would be wholly without proficiency in employing at range techs like kicks footwork and strikes that would be needed to keep her assailant away or prior to closing the distance or counterattacking prior to entering and engaging the 2 on 1 (supposing that she could do such a thing in the first place). Our training looks like THIS but with more Judo and "rushing energy" put into it and multifights too for good measure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And training like this imparts the versatility that isn't apparent in the approach that you recommend.We can strike at range vs weapons because we train to do so and we train the defenses against it AAAAND we train the methods that you train.As time and weather permits,I will put up video of us doing exactly that.I'll show you KIDS and YOUNG TEENS that I train doing this.It's a huge advantage over merely hoping to already be in range for the single method that you prefer and it's a huge advantage over ignoring the other vital circumstances of combat,which cannot be predicted.Your method will get people killed in a multifight,killed at range,and without any options except when they're in the most dire of circumstances...well within knife attack range...which is a LAST RESORT range to be in.We should try to avoid that if at all possible,and activate the in-close 2 on 1 you use as your base method only if escape is impossible or only possible after nuetralizing the knife wielding threat.
Click to expand...


Son, don't attempt to presume what she would or wouldn't be trained with (kicks, range control, etc), you're really just showing that you have no idea what I teach. Because, frankly, most of my guys would have significantly less ink on them... but that's to do with our tactical and training approach.

When it comes to dealing with a longer range to begin with? Are you serious with that question? I really don't even know where to start with that... if they come in from a distance, you get more time to react, but the actual methods don't really change. Again, don't presume about what we teach and train, you are way off. 

Now, to the clips themselves, these show rather unrealistic training methods when it comes down to it. They also show the big issue with a lot of "free form sparring" methods, in that the actual skills aren't trained properly in the first place, so what comes out is a lot less consistent than they should be. When you say that the second one is "more like you train", and that it imparts the "versatility that isn't apparent in (my) approach", really, gotta say again, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my training and teaching methods. That hasn't been the discussion here, really, and there is nothing that I've posted that could give you any real indication of the breadth of my methods. You'd find that it's probably a lot broader than yours, frankly.


ATACX GYM said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then we very much disagree here too,and that's fine.To me? It's overwhelmingly apparent that not only is my method far more versatile,it's the superior one visavis immediate disengagement between the methods that you recommend and I recommend because I keep the defender at range to disengage AND cover EVERYTHING that is done in your "preferred" method. In no way do I recommend "deliberately staying in the range of the knife" and I find your suggestion that I am as interesting.Recall that my range starts at a longer range than yours and not only closes to your range,but also provides multiple methods for escape.Your method is muuuch closer in and thus requires staying in the range of the knife due to proximity far more than mine does. I know that if done properly it's very difficult to get knifed using the method that you recommend (which again is only part of what I suggest to do) but the proximity still keeps you within range of the knifer and thus the knife.Mine provides the option of at range strikes,footwork,redirection and disengaging IMMEDIATELY whereas yours STARTS WITHIN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO and pretty much stays there until matters are resolved...without nuetralizing the far arm or other limbs the attacker may employ,ignoring the likelihood of multifights,ignoring the use of ankle stomps,knees,groin strikes,ignoring the reality of at range knife attacks,and more.Again and again...my version is by definition more versatile because it covers more circumstances and scenarios.
> 
> What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option? Looking at your primary response,your students would have your "natural response" options and basically the banzai kamikaze charge for the 2 on 1. My students could deploy both body and environmental weapons,footwork,escape methods including the roll escape which you malign but which in reality works so well that even military units recommend that you roll WHILE UNDER GUN FIRE toward shelter if available,aaaand we cover every area of the 2 on 1 method that you champion.You deny the functionality of the options that I recommend,but that allows you to simply not address the scenarios that I and others like me actually DO address...and denial of our functionality doesn't mean that we're not functional.It just means,as you stated about my previous posts,that IN YOUR OPINION some of what I recommend isn't high percentage.Regardless,I can empirically demonstrate that my method allows me to address whole scenarios which yours fails to address...and I speak from experience here because I use your method too.And THAT'S how I discovered its inherent weaknesses.You DON'T use my method,and you HAVEN'T practiced it properly enough to discover that it's a high percentage response that is very good for the kinds of scenarios which your method CANNOT address due to its body contact prerequisites.
> 
> Which means my method is more versatile.Yes,in my opinion.
Click to expand...


And this entire section shows me that you have a rather dangerous idea as to edged weapon assault, despite your apparent experience. In fact, let's rip this apart point by point, shall we? See if you can pick up the theme here...



ATACX GYM said:


> To me? It's overwhelmingly apparent that not only is my method far more versatile,it's the superior one visavis immediate disengagement between the methods that you recommend and I recommend because I keep the defender at range to disengage AND cover EVERYTHING that is done in your "preferred" method.



This tells me you don't understand the range. You disengage where you are, and you're dead. You disengage where I am, and you can continue as it's far harder for the opponent to cut you (you are inside their range, not in their range... there's a big difference). Oh, and if you're finding things like this, then you're not training in my "preferred" method, as you're not understanding it. You're covering far less than I am.



ATACX GYM said:


> In no way do I recommend "deliberately staying in the range of the knife" and I find your suggestion that I am as interesting.Recall that my range starts at a longer range than yours and not only closes to your range,but also provides multiple methods for escape.



Then why is your entire sequence done in the range of the knife? You stay out where it can cut you until the step in (at about 2 minutes in the your clip), at which point you don't have enough control over the upper arm, and are still in a fair amount of danger. And, frankly, there are not the methods of escape that you think there are present. Your evasions from that range are flawed, your entry is dangerous, and there is not enough control shown throughout the sequence. And as far as your starting out further than I do? You really don't have a clue about how I train this, Ras, presuming won't help you.



ATACX GYM said:


> Your method is muuuch closer in and thus requires staying in the range of the knife due to proximity far more than mine does. I know that if done properly it's very difficult to get knifed using the method that you recommend (which again is only part of what I suggest to do) but the proximity still keeps you within range of the knifer and thus the knife.



My control is much closer in, yep. That's because it's, you know, safer. And easier to control a larger, stronger person. And more secure. And more versatile. And puts you in a better position for any followup, disposal, control, strike, hold, pin, break, or anything you may want. The basic principle is found in every single decent weapon defence method that exists, in the Japanese arts it has become a proverb: Under the blade is Hell, Heaven is one step forward. Basically, there are only two safe distances against a weapon, out of it's range, or inside it's functional range (where it loses functionality), not directly in it's functional range, which is where you are staying. You really aren't showing a lot of understanding of the actual realities of edged weapon assaults, again despite your apparent experience.

But again, that is my distance for the control, not the entire method.



ATACX GYM said:


> Mine provides the option of at range strikes,footwork,redirection and disengaging IMMEDIATELY whereas yours STARTS WITHIN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO and pretty much stays there until matters are resolved...without nuetralizing the far arm or other limbs the attacker may employ,ignoring the likelihood of multifights,ignoring the use of ankle stomps,knees,groin strikes,ignoring the reality of at range knife attacks,and more.Again and again...my version is by definition more versatile because it covers more circumstances and scenarios.



Sigh... Ras, you really are showing no idea of a range of things here, including what the actual worst case scenario is (here's a clue, it involves disengaging from the distance you are at, not anything in the way I do things), as well as what my approach entails. Again, mine is rather more versatile than you seem to think, and rather more versatile, to a great degree because of the closer range, as well as the higher level of control, than your two hands on the wrist approach.



ATACX GYM said:


> What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?



Well, since you asked, the first tactic is awareness to not let them get close to you, recognise whether a weapon is present (or possibly present), and maintain distance accordingly. Next we teach evasive actions designed to maximise distance until safe to escape (which is why I can look at your leaping methods and tell you what the faults are, it's a big part of what we do), with moving in to engage something only to be considered and attempted if these early methods fail, or you cannot get enough distance. From there there are a range of entry methods (really a single principle taken and adapted to all angles of attack and entry, which involves a jamming action which can move immediately into a strike, push, or catch and control). This is all combined with an understanding of the psychology of both the attacker and defender, including the fact that moving immediately in is a highly unlikely event, and that is catered for in the methods taught.



ATACX GYM said:


> Looking at your primary response,your students would have your "natural response" options and basically the banzai kamikaze charge for the 2 on 1.



What we have discussed is our primary control method, Ras, not our primary responce. Again, if you are unaware of what we teach and train, don't presume. You haven't been close to right yet. For instance, the timing aspect hasn't been touched on yet, which is to move in pretty much straight after one attack has gone past, and the opponent is retrieving their blade for a second (or third) attack, timing it "between" the actions. That subtlety is a key aspect that makes our approach safer and easier, but if you don't get it, that's just showing that you don't train it the same way.



ATACX GYM said:


> My students could deploy both body and environmental weapons,footwork,escape methods including the roll escape which you malign but which in reality works so well that even military units recommend that you roll WHILE UNDER GUN FIRE toward shelter if available,aaaand we cover every area of the 2 on 1 method that you champion.



Oh, dear lord, Ras, context is key, you know. Rolling under gunfire is good and standard, mainly due to the dominant firing height that almost everyone adopts. Rolling under a knife attack at that close range means you get stabbed as you roll, or as you get up. Again, man, rolling is a big thing for us, I'm very aware of it's uses and limitations.

And if your comments here are any indication, you don't cover anywhere near "every area" of my controlling method, as you seem to be missing huge sections of understanding about it.



ATACX GYM said:


> You deny the functionality of the options that I recommend,but that allows you to simply not address the scenarios that I and others like me actually DO address...and denial of our functionality doesn't mean that we're not functional.



Find me where I've said your approach is inherently non-functional. I've said that it can work a number of times, however that it is not what I would give students if I wanted to give them the best preparation I could, due to the issues I have identified. And seriously, you would be incredibly hard pressed to find a scenario that you address that I don't. You are not that far beyond anyone, Ras.



ATACX GYM said:


> It just means,as you stated about my previous posts,that IN YOUR OPINION some of what I recommend isn't high percentage.



Your method of controlling the knife, really. And if that isn't high percentage, and fails, what follows it is of little consequence, wouldn't you say?



ATACX GYM said:


> Regardless,I can empirically demonstrate that my method allows me to address whole scenarios which yours fails to address...and I speak from experience here because I use your method too.



No, you can't. Firstly, you have no idea what scenarios I can or cannot address (particularly based on your comments here), and secondly what you are stating is not "empirically demonstrating" anything, it is subjectively demonstrating. And even in that there are quite a few issues that remain.

Oh, and if you used my method, actually used it, you wouldn't make the comments you have here. So I don't think you do.



ATACX GYM said:


> And THAT'S how I discovered its inherent weaknesses.You DON'T use my method,and you HAVEN'T practiced it properly enough to discover that it's a high percentage response that is very good for the kinds of scenarios which your method CANNOT address due to its body contact prerequisites.



This level of presumption doesn't help you, Ras. There is nothing that you have mentioned that is not addressed in my method, as well as more. And yes, I have practiced your method. You would not appear to be in a position to state anything of the kind here.



ATACX GYM said:


> Sooo...let's go beyond the point where we're going: "my method is more realistic and more versatile because it encapsulates all of yours plus the stuff yours doesn't", "no your method is more desperation and less realistic,my method is more realistic". Okay here's a scenario for you: your 5 footer is in the ladies' bathroom. She's washing her hands at the sink,and in comes BIG BG#1,5'10" and 20 pounds,knife in hand,ski mask on. His back is to the door,which is the only exit in the bathroom.He threatens to kill her if she makes a sound and closes to rape her.What does she do? Does she employ your 2 on 1?


 
Depending on the circumstances, how the attack plays out etc, yes, I'd certainly hope she would. And I'd hope that she stayed away from yours unless she wanted to be killed. But, to clarify, that depends on how the attack played out. Diving for the weapon is not how these methods work, and is not how they are drilled. If all he's doing is holding the knife to threaten and gain compliance, there are other methods used... but the control is the same.

These vague examples don't prove anything, though, Ras, and it's a poor excuse for debate.



ATACX GYM said:


> I'm not especially impressed by anything in the Gracie clip EXCEPT for the tech they displayed.I used this tech at a shopping plaza post-midnight while working HRSP in Compton CA near the Compton Blue Line Station at night vs a knife wielding crackhead before.It works. I linked that video cuz it was the first video that I saw that showed that tech.All that other stuff about "knife master" Helio? Whatever.I have respect for Helio and all the fighting Gracies,but I don't buy into the marketing hype.Mat work please.And they got plenty of matwork.



Yeah, they have plenty of matwork, but how much against knife? And the technique had issues, mainly on it's entry methods. If all you were meaning was the hold, that wasn't what we are discussing here, so it didn't have relevance. If you mean the entry method, that is a different one again to what we are discussing, so the relevance was limited. And I wasn't particularly impressed with anything in the clip at all, but then again I'm not much of a beach person.



ATACX GYM said:


> The flaw at 1:42 wasn't the grip imo--you're gonna have to tussle for the grip when you're giving up reach strength and stuff to your opponent--it was the footwork and lack of employment of other options besides the 2 on 1.Even AFTER the 2 on 1 was secured. If your footwork sucks? He'll close on you and stab and slash til WE'RE not "blue in the face" but DEAD in the face.Lol. But if your footwork is right and tite? He won't get close enough to hurt us,and we can dictate the terms of engagement or nonengagement. This same footwork functionalizes the deployment of low kicks and other techs that aren't the 2 on 1.However,if your arsenal is ONLY the 2 on 1? Your options and efficacy levels are similarly decreased.Imo.And when I say "your"...I mean the GENERAL "your" here.



And this tells me that you don't understand what you were looking at.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Right, let's see if we can clear up the mess of quotes there.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you well know that I am referring to a "last resort" physical method here Ras. Some physical methods are going to be higher return, and more reliable (and safer) than others, and can be applied earlier in the sequence, provided there is enough awareness. It's when you get caught too late that you have to resort to what an instructor of mine once referred to as "oh hell!" techniques (okay, he used a different word, but the filters here wouldn't like me to use the real quote...), which is the "desperation" and "last resort" methods that I am referring to. Your method is one of these "late responce" methods, hence it being lower return, higher risk, and more desperation. And, to be frank, that actually means that when this method would most likely be applied would rob it of many of the benefits that you are extolling, making it harder to immediately pull the opponent off balance (if you are caught late, and therefore off balance yourself), as well as other aspects. And if you are early enough to catch it when still in balance, you are also early enough to move to a better, safer position, which is the method that I've been talking about, and that features in the majority of clips here.
> 
> As far as the two of us getting together, it wasn't a competition that I meant, I was referring more to my showing you (physically) what I see as the issues with your method, as well as having you show me what you feel are the issues with mine. I grab a knife and attack you, so see if you can use your responce, and then you grab a knife to see if I can use mine. That's really about the only way I can see us getting a conclusion here, honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> Even four can be too many, though. Based on average responce times, it takes about half a second to consider an option before deciding whether or not to take it. So four options gives you two seconds. That's at least two to four cuts or thrusts before you've decided on what you're going to do.
> 
> In terms of "the functional viability is beyond dispute" (really, shouting with capitals isn't really necessary, Ras, nor is the long string of letters to stretch words out... all it shows is an emotional responce, which removes strength from your argument as you are running out of actual answers), all that shows is that you managed to pull it off... but my argument is that it is still a relatively risky method to be giving students who may not possess your "Olympic athlete standards". The question you have to ask yourself as a responsible instructor is "Is this the best method I can give my students, if they find themselves in a real, life threatening situation?" And, honestly, that is not the same thing.
> 
> Finally, all your talk of your "superior experience" is rather presumptuous, don't you think? As well as discussing what practical methods I may or may not use. Just a word to the wise there. All I'm discussing is the method you are showing and endorsing in your videos, if you said that this was a rare approach, and only featured in this occasion, with you dominantly showing something else, that would be a different discussion. But that's not what you've said, it's not what's shown, and I'm actually just offering you a way to improve what you present, as I see it. You don't have to, of course, but it's an offer.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you get what I meant there, either. The issue I saw with the Gracie clip was that the entry relied on the knife attack stopping when contact was made, allowing the transition into the lock. The lock was relatively fine (some control issues with the knife, though), but it was not an overtly realistic entry method. If you're grabbing the wrist first (your two on one), then you're not doing this technique, and as that initial control is what we're focused on, if you didn't use the same as the Gracies did there, what was the point in showing their clip?
> 
> 
> 
> Son, don't attempt to presume what she would or wouldn't be trained with (kicks, range control, etc), you're really just showing that you have no idea what I teach. Because, frankly, most of my guys would have significantly less ink on them... but that's to do with our tactical and training approach.
> 
> When it comes to dealing with a longer range to begin with? Are you serious with that question? I really don't even know where to start with that... if they come in from a distance, you get more time to react, but the actual methods don't really change. Again, don't presume about what we teach and train, you are way off.
> 
> Now, to the clips themselves, these show rather unrealistic training methods when it comes down to it. They also show the big issue with a lot of "free form sparring" methods, in that the actual skills aren't trained properly in the first place, so what comes out is a lot less consistent than they should be. When you say that the second one is "more like you train", and that it imparts the "versatility that isn't apparent in (my) approach", really, gotta say again, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my training and teaching methods. That hasn't been the discussion here, really, and there is nothing that I've posted that could give you any real indication of the breadth of my methods. You'd find that it's probably a lot broader than yours, frankly.
> 
> 
> And this entire section shows me that you have a rather dangerous idea as to edged weapon assault, despite your apparent experience. In fact, let's rip this apart point by point, shall we? See if you can pick up the theme here...
> 
> 
> 
> This tells me you don't understand the range. You disengage where you are, and you're dead. You disengage where I am, and you can continue as it's far harder for the opponent to cut you (you are inside their range, not in their range... there's a big difference). Oh, and if you're finding things like this, then you're not training in my "preferred" method, as you're not understanding it. You're covering far less than I am.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is your entire sequence done in the range of the knife? You stay out where it can cut you until the step in (at about 2 minutes in the your clip), at which point you don't have enough control over the upper arm, and are still in a fair amount of danger. And, frankly, there are not the methods of escape that you think there are present. Your evasions from that range are flawed, your entry is dangerous, and there is not enough control shown throughout the sequence. And as far as your starting out further than I do? You really don't have a clue about how I train this, Ras, presuming won't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> My control is much closer in, yep. That's because it's, you know, safer. And easier to control a larger, stronger person. And more secure. And more versatile. And puts you in a better position for any followup, disposal, control, strike, hold, pin, break, or anything you may want. The basic principle is found in every single decent weapon defence method that exists, in the Japanese arts it has become a proverb: Under the blade is Hell, Heaven is one step forward. Basically, there are only two safe distances against a weapon, out of it's range, or inside it's functional range (where it loses functionality), not directly in it's functional range, which is where you are staying. You really aren't showing a lot of understanding of the actual realities of edged weapon assaults, again despite your apparent experience.
> 
> But again, that is my distance for the control, not the entire method.
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh... Ras, you really are showing no idea of a range of things here, including what the actual worst case scenario is (here's a clue, it involves disengaging from the distance you are at, not anything in the way I do things), as well as what my approach entails. Again, mine is rather more versatile than you seem to think, and rather more versatile, to a great degree because of the closer range, as well as the higher level of control, than your two hands on the wrist approach.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you asked, the first tactic is awareness to not let them get close to you, recognise whether a weapon is present (or possibly present), and maintain distance accordingly. Next we teach evasive actions designed to maximise distance until safe to escape (which is why I can look at your leaping methods and tell you what the faults are, it's a big part of what we do), with moving in to engage something only to be considered and attempted if these early methods fail, or you cannot get enough distance. From there there are a range of entry methods (really a single principle taken and adapted to all angles of attack and entry, which involves a jamming action which can move immediately into a strike, push, or catch and control). This is all combined with an understanding of the psychology of both the attacker and defender, including the fact that moving immediately in is a highly unlikely event, and that is catered for in the methods taught.
> 
> 
> 
> What we have discussed is our primary control method, Ras, not our primary responce. Again, if you are unaware of what we teach and train, don't presume. You haven't been close to right yet. For instance, the timing aspect hasn't been touched on yet, which is to move in pretty much straight after one attack has gone past, and the opponent is retrieving their blade for a second (or third) attack, timing it "between" the actions. That subtlety is a key aspect that makes our approach safer and easier, but if you don't get it, that's just showing that you don't train it the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, dear lord, Ras, context is key, you know. Rolling under gunfire is good and standard, mainly due to the dominant firing height that almost everyone adopts. Rolling under a knife attack at that close range means you get stabbed as you roll, or as you get up. Again, man, rolling is a big thing for us, I'm very aware of it's uses and limitations.
> 
> And if your comments here are any indication, you don't cover anywhere near "every area" of my controlling method, as you seem to be missing huge sections of understanding about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Find me where I've said your approach is inherently non-functional. I've said that it can work a number of times, however that it is not what I would give students if I wanted to give them the best preparation I could, due to the issues I have identified. And seriously, you would be incredibly hard pressed to find a scenario that you address that I don't. You are not that far beyond anyone, Ras.
> 
> 
> 
> Your method of controlling the knife, really. And if that isn't high percentage, and fails, what follows it is of little consequence, wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't. Firstly, you have no idea what scenarios I can or cannot address (particularly based on your comments here), and secondly what you are stating is not "empirically demonstrating" anything, it is subjectively demonstrating. And even in that there are quite a few issues that remain.
> 
> Oh, and if you used my method, actually used it, you wouldn't make the comments you have here. So I don't think you do.
> 
> 
> 
> This level of presumption doesn't help you, Ras. There is nothing that you have mentioned that is not addressed in my method, as well as more. And yes, I have practiced your method. You would not appear to be in a position to state anything of the kind here.
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on the circumstances, how the attack plays out etc, yes, I'd certainly hope she would. And I'd hope that she stayed away from yours unless she wanted to be killed. But, to clarify, that depends on how the attack played out. Diving for the weapon is not how these methods work, and is not how they are drilled. If all he's doing is holding the knife to threaten and gain compliance, there are other methods used... but the control is the same.
> 
> These vague examples don't prove anything, though, Ras, and it's a poor excuse for debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they have plenty of matwork, but how much against knife? And the technique had issues, mainly on it's entry methods. If all you were meaning was the hold, that wasn't what we are discussing here, so it didn't have relevance. If you mean the entry method, that is a different one again to what we are discussing, so the relevance was limited. And I wasn't particularly impressed with anything in the clip at all, but then again I'm not much of a beach person.
> 
> 
> 
> And this tells me that you don't understand what you were looking at.




See,all of this above is a wonderful,persuasive,cogent answer. Very reasonable,sensible,detailed...

...except that it lacks the number one difference that makes the difference: the "show and prove factor". I could easily rebut all of the above,as there are gaping holes in the "real world context" in much of what you said,and there are sizeable portions of what you said that I agree with. However,the final difference here is precisely the kind of thing that makes the difference between those say..."commercial noncontact Kenpo"  or "commercial noncontact whatever" self defense schools and those moderate to high contact schools who are more hardcore.That difference,plainly,is the ability willingness and determination to empirically demonstrate one's skills,knowledge,drills,hypothesis,postulations,etc. ragning from step by step instruction to graduated levels of more and more intense resistance,and put it out there for the world to see,critique,ignore,and/or rave about.Purely on the merits of what is shown.To step up and use the multimedia mediums and physically show the differences which MAKE the difference.When it comes down to you and I,Chris,you have made it clear that--due to whatever agreements and/or conventions you have made with your instructor--you are apparently not allowed to demonstrate your self-defense techs on video. This,frankly,makes me INTENSELY skeptical of everything else that flew forth from your posts...because you could make literally any assertion,but have given yourself the ultimate out so you don't ever have to prove the smallest scintilla of them.

Am I saying for a fact that you can't do what you say you can? Nope. I hope you CAN do what you say you can. The difference is...I can PROVE that I can will have and shall again do what I said I can do.Merely by uploading a video. I mean,cell phones have youtube apps man. You could teach your friends a few moves and have THEM do some things that are uniquely your own,but based upon the principles that you learned.This way you miiiight be able to sidestep any binding conventions and maintain your integrity honesty and honor,yet empirically display your position for the edification of the thousands of us here on MartialTalk and wherever else you might frequent. If you choose not to do so? Fine I fully respect your position...but that places you squarely in the "commercial noncontact sparring dojo" predicament again: you are never in a position to show and prove what you do actually works.And I am.And I do. Sooo...when contrasted with someone who so strenuously and eloquently disagrees,I'm placed in a position wherein I can make a video response to your contentions and all you have to do is watch it and craft a cogent post of a response that sounds plausible...to anybody who's not actually out there putting in work.Especially those who are putting in work and putting it on video. For instance,I would genuinely like to know Burton Richardson's responses to your criticisms of his knife work.I've know Burton since prior to the L.A. RIOTS,when his school was on Pacific Avenue in Long Beach CA. He most definitely can handle himself with a knife,and I'd think his responses to some of the initially cogent appearing criticisms that you and others laid on his videos would be quite...educational.Especially for you.

See...I could do a video that soundly thrashes all of the above contentions that you made. And since you don't have to actually demonstrate or spar with your techs on video live, as it were (lol)? You could craft any amount of rational great sounding posts that flat out will NOT work the way you deem and claim they will.Or maybe...best case scenario for you...they will work EXACTLY the way you say they will.But nobody will be the wiser since you can't "show and prove" due to your...unusual?...convention with your instructor. And the whole reason I'm even on this site is because not only do I "show and prove"? I "show and prove" quite well.

Soooo...let's agree to disagree on this one. Sound reasonable?


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> See,all of this above is a wonderful,persuasive,cogent answer. Very reasonable,sensible,detailed...
> 
> ...except that it lacks the number one difference that makes the difference: the "show and prove factor". I could easily rebut all of the above,as there are gaping holes in the "real world context" in much of what you said,and there are sizeable portions of what you said that I agree with. However,the final difference here is precisely the kind of thing that makes the difference between those say..."commercial noncontact Kenpo"  or "commercial noncontact whatever" self defense schools and those moderate to high contact schools who are more hardcore.That difference,plainly,is the ability willingness and determination to empirically demonstrate one's skills,knowledge,drills,hypothesis,postulations,etc. ragning from step by step instruction to graduated levels of more and more intense resistance,and put it out there for the world to see,critique,ignore,and/or rave about.Purely on the merits of what is shown.To step up and use the multimedia mediums and physically show the differences which MAKE the difference.When it comes down to you and I,Chris,you have made it clear that--_*due to whatever agreements and/or conventions you have made with your instructor--you are apparently not allowed to demonstrate your self-defense techs on video.*_ This,frankly,makes me INTENSELY skeptical of everything else that flew forth from your posts...because you could make literally any assertion,but have given yourself the ultimate out so you don't ever have to prove the smallest scintilla of them.


To be fair, some Organisations do have Tenets which entail this. The more Traditionalistic (Depending on Origin), the more so.

Where I currently Train, for example, that would be; "...and never show off my Knowledge in the Art."
Which is right out of the Pledge everyone Recites at the end of every Class.
And ive seen Books that cite similar Lines back to the 50s.
Now, I have a feeling this stems from back when not many regular Civilians were not Trained or barely even Aware of such things. However, I for one Respect it for what it is, out of Respect for the Art and Organisation.

Now, this doesnt mean one cannot Talk about things. It just means you cannot Show People.

I can see how you might be Skeptical at first, but like I say; I imagine such things go back a lot of Years.
Personally, I wouldnt mind showing anything I know to other Martial Artists - However as mentioned; Out of Respect for the Art and Organisation, I choose not to.

The Main Reason im saying this, is to offer Retrospective.
I can see where youre coming from Debate wise, but its worth remembering why some Older Styles might still entail Secrecy, for reasons other than trying to obfuscate (By Definition, it kind of is to Obfuscate. Just not by a standard definition) and self promote.

Contact Wise; It isnt exactly safe to perform Full Contact with Strikes designed to Kill. Much in the same way that you cannot practice Thrusting someones Throat. Or Elbowing their Kidneys.
There are many ways to look at these things, and many conclusions one can draw.
But I feel a better way of approaching this, would simply be to Focus more on the Flaws, and allow those Flaws to be answered. Since if they are Valid Flaws in Mr Parkers Methodology, then He can Correct them, subsequent of being aware of them.

Just My Contribution.


----------



## mook jong man

I understand exactly what Chris Parker is talking about and quite frankly I agree with him , there is no need for him to demonstrate anything on video for you or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> See,all of this above is a wonderful,persuasive,cogent answer. Very reasonable,sensible,detailed...
> 
> ...except that it lacks the number one difference that makes the difference: the "show and prove factor". I could easily rebut all of the above,as there are gaping holes in the "real world context" in much of what you said,and there are sizeable portions of what you said that I agree with. However,the final difference here is precisely the kind of thing that makes the difference between those say..."commercial noncontact Kenpo"  or "commercial noncontact whatever" self defense schools and those moderate to high contact schools who are more hardcore.That difference,plainly,is the ability willingness and determination to empirically demonstrate one's skills,knowledge,drills,hypothesis,postulations,et  c. ragning from step by step instruction to graduated levels of more and more intense resistance,and put it out there for the world to see,critique,ignore,and/or rave about.Purely on the merits of what is shown.To step up and use the multimedia mediums and physically show the differences which MAKE the difference.When it comes down to you and I,Chris,you have made it clear that--due to whatever agreements and/or conventions you have made with your instructor--you are apparently not allowed to demonstrate your self-defense techs on video. This,frankly,makes me INTENSELY skeptical of everything else that flew forth from your posts...because you could make literally any assertion,but have given yourself the ultimate out so you don't ever have to prove the smallest scintilla of them.
> 
> Am I saying for a fact that you can't do what you say you can? Nope. I hope you CAN do what you say you can. The difference is...I can PROVE that I can will have and shall again do what I said I can do.Merely by uploading a video. I mean,cell phones have youtube apps man. You could teach your friends a few moves and have THEM do some things that are uniquely your own,but based upon the principles that you learned.This way you miiiight be able to sidestep any binding conventions and maintain your integrity honesty and honor,yet empirically display your position for the edification of the thousands of us here on MartialTalk and wherever else you might frequent. If you choose not to do so? Fine I fully respect your position...but that places you squarely in the "commercial noncontact sparring dojo" predicament again: you are never in a position to show and prove what you do actually works.And I am.And I do. Sooo...when contrasted with someone who so strenuously and eloquently disagrees,I'm placed in a position wherein I can make a video response to your contentions and all you have to do is watch it and craft a cogent post of a response that sounds plausible...to anybody who's not actually out there putting in work.Especially those who are putting in work and putting it on video. For instance,I would genuinely like to know Burton Richardson's responses to your criticisms of his knife work.I've know Burton since prior to the L.A. RIOTS,when his school was on Pacific Avenue in Long Beach CA. He most definitely can handle himself with a knife,and I'd think his responses to some of the initially cogent appearing criticisms that you and others laid on his videos would be quite...educational.Especially for you.
> 
> See...I could do a video that soundly thrashes all of the above contentions that you made. And since you don't have to actually demonstrate or spar with your techs on video live, as it were (lol)? You could craft any amount of rational great sounding posts that flat out will NOT work the way you deem and claim they will.Or maybe...best case scenario for you...they will work EXACTLY the way you say they will.But nobody will be the wiser since you can't "show and prove" due to your...unusual?...convention with your instructor. And the whole reason I'm even on this site is because not only do I "show and prove"? I "show and prove" quite well.
> 
> Soooo...let's agree to disagree on this one. Sound reasonable?



So let's get this straight.... in order to be taken seriously in a critique of the methods that you're demonstrating on your clip, I'd need to put out a clip myself? That would change the critique of your actions how, exactly? I might note that you have been very vague in your criticisms of my approach (labeling it as "less versatile", without saying why, and so on), whereas I have been as specific in my critique as I can be, pointing out exactly where and why I see issues, what the pitfalls are, and so on, but because I'm not putting a video up, that deems it all irrelevant? Really, Ras? And you don't see that as a weak argument?

In regards to my putting a video out there, let's see if we can clear that up, shall we? I have no problem putting myself on video, running through both yours and my versions of this type of technique, but there is the issue of personal representation. You are representing yourself and yourself alone, whereas I will be seen as representing my organisation and my instructor. It's not dissimilar to many traditional systems, which have rules against showing their methods to outsiders from the system (again if this is coming across as unusual to you, your understanding of martial history needs work). This is my Chief Instructors intellectual property, so it's up to him if he wants video out for public consumption... and I'm not about to put any out without his agreement... although to be frank I don't really see the need to request it as a video will only show that I can upload a video, it really provides no more credibility than that, frankly.

To illustrate:





This is a bogus ninjutsu group in Australia teaching some Scouts. The video, even of them teaching, gives no credibility to a frankly terrible display of martial arts, which is based on fantasy.





This is from a series of clips from an online show teaching the use of the sword... unfortunately, the person chosen is considered a joke in Japanese Sword Arts, who has most of his training in Chanbara foam weapon sports, and is far from an authority or credible source for Japanese Sword.





Say, here's a knife defence video, so these guys could critique your clip?

So I'm not sure what a video would achieve. Honestly, I don't have the need, or drive to be "famous" by putting videos of myself out there, I'm happy enough passing on what I've learnt to my students, who I can vet and monitor in terms of what they learn and what they get exposed to.

Honestly, so far your argument has amounted to a lot of "no it isn't" with little actual argument to cover it, other than asking for video. Sorry, Ras, that's not enough. If we were in the same place, I'd have no issue going through things with you personally, but I'm not putting my instructors material out for public consumption without his permission. If you can think of a way to send a video straight to you, then you may have a possibility.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> To be fair, some Organisations do have Tenets which entail this. The more Traditionalistic (Depending on Origin), the more so.
> 
> Where I currently Train, for example, that would be; "...and never show off my Knowledge in the Art."
> Which is right out of the Pledge everyone Recites at the end of every Class.
> And ive seen Books that cite similar Lines back to the 50s.
> Now, I have a feeling this stems from back when not many regular Civilians were not Trained or barely even Aware of such things. However, I for one Respect it for what it is, out of Respect for the Art and Organisation.
> 
> Now, this doesnt mean one cannot Talk about things. It just means you cannot Show People.
> 
> I can see how you might be Skeptical at first, but like I say; I imagine such things go back a lot of Years.
> Personally, I wouldnt mind showing anything I know to other Martial Artists - However as mentioned; Out of Respect for the Art and Organisation, I choose not to.
> 
> The Main Reason im saying this, is to offer Retrospective.
> I can see where youre coming from Debate wise, but its worth remembering why some Older Styles might still entail Secrecy, for reasons other than trying to obfuscate (By Definition, it kind of is to Obfuscate. Just not by a standard definition) and self promote.
> 
> Contact Wise; It isnt exactly safe to perform Full Contact with Strikes designed to Kill. Much in the same way that you cannot practice Thrusting someones Throat. Or Elbowing their Kidneys.
> There are many ways to look at these things, and many conclusions one can draw.
> But I feel a better way of approaching this, would simply be to Focus more on the Flaws, and allow those Flaws to be answered. Since if they are Valid Flaws in Mr Parkers Methodology, then He can Correct them, subsequent of being aware of them.
> 
> Just My Contribution.




That's a reasonable and good contribution man.Thanks. Allow me to respond to that first:

Quite a few older styles,if I recall correctly,associated with the Orient developed their tradition of secrecy due to being outlawed and oppressed by the government.Their tradition of secrecy was borne from a literal need for survival.Most of them,anyway.And many of these same older styles and stylists engaged in various challenge matches on lei tai which,IIRC,were elevated platforms for the purpose of friendly but intense sparring matches which promoted the efficacy of said older style.There were certainly specific family styles which were practiced only amongst family members for self-protection etc. etc. but those arts that survive,thrive,develope,and improve by necessity have to recruit and promote. 

Contact wise,I agree that it IS dangerous to practice fatal or maiming strikes directly to the unprotected human target. However,I have a hogu and mitts so I place the mitt at or near my throat and let my students practice throat and kidney and groin shots full power,and practice light strikes at the these and other sensitive areas.A little training ingenuity can go a long way.


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> That's a reasonable and good contribution man.Thanks. Allow me to respond to that first:
> 
> Quite a few older styles,if I recall correctly,associated with the Orient developed their tradition of secrecy due to being outlawed and oppressed by the government.Their tradition of secrecy was borne from a literal need for survival.Most of them,anyway.And many of these same older styles and stylists engaged in various challenge matches on lei tai which,IIRC,were elevated platforms for the purpose of friendly but intense sparring matches which promoted the efficacy of said older style.There were certainly specific family styles which were practiced only amongst family members for self-protection etc. etc. but those arts that survive,thrive,develope,and improve by necessity have to recruit and promote.
> 
> Contact wise,I agree that it IS dangerous to practice fatal or maiming strikes directly to the unprotected human target. However,I have a hogu and mitts so I place the mitt at or near my throat and let my students practice throat and kidney and groin shots full power,and practice light strikes at the these and other sensitive areas.A little training ingenuity can go a long way.



Wow. The number of gigantic inaccuracies in that middle section are frankly staggering, I wouldn't know where to start with correcting it.... 

No, the reason was nothing to do with being "outlawed".
Your take on the contests is highly romanticised and unrealistic (and strictly a more modern, as in 18 and 1900's, Chinese only concept).
Your concept on the family side of things is also way off, as is your idea of needing to recruit or promote.

Really, Ras, you were questioning my martial history and you come in with this? Sorry, mate, that takes all credibility from you there....


----------



## ATACX GYM

mook jong man said:


> I understand exactly what Chris Parker is talking about and quite frankly I agree with him , there is no need for him to demonstrate anything on video for you or anyone else for that matter.



I'm not talking about a mandate here; of course he doesn't HAVE TO drop anything on video anymore than you or I do. And if you agree with him? Fine. My point is that there come a point in time wherein some form of empirical demonstrable evidence is necessary in order to put into proper perspective the specifics of the disagreement and a way to directly convey to doubters critics and dissenters the empirical evidence for the conclusions of the person/group with a different perspective. It's why THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is so very good at conveying means to duplicate steps taken in laboratory experiments so those exact same steps can be performed again in another similarly stocked lab and produce the same results for the purposes of being scrutinized by other scientists.

What I'm saying here is that we can give the thrust parry and riposte ad infinitum without some kind of direct proveable video evidence showing the specifics of what I'm talking about and how it encompasses what Chris is talking about but so far what he's talking about does NOT encompass what I'm talking about. My position is that my techs include all of the areas that he has championed on his posts so far; his is that my position is significantly less safe,and less correct than his recommended approach. Now we can go back and forth as this very thread proves and each of us can make cogent,potent points. But the main reason why he's able to respond with such exact detail regarding my videos is that I actually HAVE VIDEOS TO DEMONSTRATE EXACT PHYSICAL ACTIONS. Not _all_ of the things that I do...way more than that is shown on my upcoming DVDs...but he's able to specify points on my video and specific actions that I take on my video that he disagrees with because...you know..._my actions are on video.  _

Since he _is not on video_ he doesn't put himself out there to the degree that I have and open himself up to the specificity of critique that I do. This means that in the real world? He or anyone else could lob many a comment that can be extra specific in critical detail because my video allows for such specificity. I'm cool with that. However,when the response to criticism is rebutted to the point that responses which are primarily posted text responses are insufficient to bring the area of contention to sufficient resolution? That's when video is needed. Chris believes that my 2 on1 which encompasses his tech is flawed in areas that my and others' direct experience very emphatically shows that it's not. I believe that my approach encompasses the areas that he specified (largely in the S.T.A.B. videos) more efficiently and effectively than so far his posts specified. Note I said "specified" because he alludes to various approaches like "natural responces" which are every bit as vague insofar as proof of real world articulation and proof of direct personal expression as everything else he's specified so far.

That's where the video makes the difference. I showed a portion of what I do,from which he was able to make some very direct criticisms. He shows nothing of what he does,therefore he can simply parry criticisms about his posted approach with what amounts to "I don't do that" and "you don't know what I do" and _be right...because he already stated that he WON'T show what he does on video._  Well,that makes for an unfair and uneven discussion because he could constantly recast his actions to simply fall beyond the reach and purview of critique because he won't allow himself to be placed under the harsh lights of critique via video.The same could be said visavis posts. I could say: "You said this which means that" and he could say:"No I said this which means the other" and we could go round that mulberry bush for an eternity without coming close to any form of resolution or happy pacification brought about by empirical data.Because only one of us has empirical data that he can will and has shared: moi.Chris absolutely refuses to do so.Which raises my skeptical hackles in this situation. Not all situations.But this one.As that same out is usually the one used by very articulate persons who are masters of marketing and the printed word but are very poor at bringing their magical musings cogent written material and puissant posts to actual combat real world reality.Since Chris will never provide actual evidence of his words,we can't actually be sure which side of the fence he actually is on...because he has to show his techs and drills etc etc etc to prove that point. I have.He hasn't and he won't.

That's why it's best to agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Wow. The number of gigantic inaccuracies in that middle section are frankly staggering, I wouldn't know where to start with correcting it....
> 
> No, the reason was nothing to do with being "outlawed".
> Your take on the contests is highly romanticised and unrealistic (and strictly a more modern, as in 18 and 1900's, Chinese only concept).
> Your concept on the family side of things is also way off, as is your idea of needing to recruit or promote.
> 
> Really, Ras, you were questioning my martial history and you come in with this? Sorry, mate, that takes all credibility from you there....



Where do you get your infallibe data on the various older styles,Chris,that you believe provides you with the unshakeable proof that your positions reflect?


----------



## Chris Parker

I train in them, Ras. I live them. And I know them intimately. So, I guess, my "infallible data" comes from those arts who have that history themselves. Just so you know.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> So let's get this straight.... in order to be taken seriously in a critique of the methods that you're demonstrating on your clip, I'd need to put out a clip myself? That would change the critique of your actions how, exactly? I might note that you have been very vague in your criticisms of my approach (labeling it as "less versatile", without saying why, and so on), whereas I have been as specific in my critique as I can be, pointing out exactly where and why I see issues, what the pitfalls are, and so on, but because I'm not putting a video up, that deems it all irrelevant? Really, Ras? And you don't see that as a weak argument?
> 
> In regards to my putting a video out there, let's see if we can clear that up, shall we? I have no problem putting myself on video, running through both yours and my versions of this type of technique, but there is the issue of personal representation. You are representing yourself and yourself alone, whereas I will be seen as representing my organisation and my instructor. It's not dissimilar to many traditional systems, which have rules against showing their methods to outsiders from the system (again if this is coming across as unusual to you, your understanding of martial history needs work). This is my Chief Instructors intellectual property, so it's up to him if he wants video out for public consumption... and I'm not about to put any out without his agreement... although to be frank I don't really see the need to request it as a video will only show that I can upload a video, it really provides no more credibility than that, frankly.
> 
> To illustrate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bogus ninjutsu group in Australia teaching some Scouts. The video, even of them teaching, gives no credibility to a frankly terrible display of martial arts, which is based on fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is from a series of clips from an online show teaching the use of the sword... unfortunately, the person chosen is considered a joke in Japanese Sword Arts, who has most of his training in Chanbara foam weapon sports, and is far from an authority or credible source for Japanese Sword.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say, here's a knife defence video, so these guys could critique your clip?
> 
> So I'm not sure what a video would achieve. Honestly, I don't have the need, or drive to be "famous" by putting videos of myself out there, I'm happy enough passing on what I've learnt to my students, who I can vet and monitor in terms of what they learn and what they get exposed to.
> 
> Honestly, so far your argument has amounted to a lot of "no it isn't" with little actual argument to cover it, other than asking for video. Sorry, Ras, that's not enough. If we were in the same place, I'd have no issue going through things with you personally, but I'm not putting my instructors material out for public consumption without his permission. If you can think of a way to send a video straight to you, then you may have a possibility.




Your argument is without merit,and you know it Chris. First my position has been that I've done what very little specific things that you mention that you've done visavis the 2 on 1,and that I incorporate it in my approach. You say that my 2 on 1 is dangerous and less reliable than what you say is your approach. The problem is exactly what you specified to me when I began to level more specific critique about your posts: we don't know your approach. This means that everything I say to you can essentially be answered with: "I don't do that" and there's nothing whatsoever to gainsay you.Theoretically you could adjust your position ad infinitum when faced with criticism and be out of the reach of ANY criticism as a result...because you never have to prove anything,and you said that you won't do so.This is the ultimate conversation stopper,faaar more than what you accused me of. You can just say that you do such and such and take your word for it. If I doubt anything all you have to say all you have to do is what you've already said and done,which is essentially:"You don't know what I do so don't presume that you do". You can specify your criticisms about my actions because I show and prove and you don't.That's really what it boils down to.

Ultimately the difference in debates on sites like this is that many of us have enough in common to draw upon those commonalities to reach some form of definitive conclusion.If somebody in TKD is debating someone who says that TKD lacks functional,competent grappling techs? That someone can not only make posts denying this claim,that specific someone can draw upon videos of TKD practitioners showing functional grappling techs. However,if there's a debate about the specifics of a knife defense tech and one side says their experience indicates that the tech being shown is dangerous or less than what the person showing video says it is,and the person who made such a video in the first place has experience with what the other person's posts claim to be their preferred method and their experiences are diametrically opposed? Then it's quite fair and sensible for the person (me in this case) being critiqued to not only defend their position but ask for specific demonstrations from the critic (that's you,Chris) to specify exactly what's being discussed here because clearly we're either talking about something with sharp and vital differences that aren't immediately being grasped appropriately and properly by both parties.I've been quite specific--contrary to your claims--in my criticism of some of your posts,but it's essentially for naught.I am trying to craft a response specifically to what you do; however you will never allow such a thing to happen.Which renders this whole conversation moot.

Without video? This conversation just revolves on and on. With video? The specifics could still be debated ad infinitum...but at least there are specifics now that have a far higher potential to bring the discussion to a mutually acceptible terminus by reaching a middle ground of some sort or by discovering that "hey...we ARE doing such and such it's just that you do it like this and I do it like that." Sugar Shane Mosley jabs,Floyd Mayweather jabs. They may dispute as to whose jab is better...but neither will deny that the other does indeed jab,nor the utility and ability of the other's jab. I state that my approach includes your approach,Chris,you state that I don't know what your approach is. And since you don't and won't video your efforts? Here is where the argument and problem is. You have never ever and apparently cannot ever ever specify exactly what it is that you actually do because we aren't local and you don't do video.Which leads us right back to that part where I said:" The problem is exactly what you specified to me when I began to level more specific critique about your posts: we don't know your approach. This means that everything I say to you can essentially be answered with: "I don't do that" and there's nothing whatsoever to gainsay you.Theoretically you could adjust your position ad infinitum when faced with criticism and be out of the reach of ANY criticism as a result...because you never have to prove anything,and you said that you won't do so."


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> I train in them, Ras. I live them. And I know them intimately. So, I guess, my "infallible data" comes from those arts who have that history themselves. Just so you know.



I do this as well.Just so you know. The difference is that if I were to be as harsh in my criticism as you have been? If I were to debunk your argument or position with commentary like this:"No, the reason was nothing to do with being "outlawed".
Your take on the contests is highly romanticised and unrealistic (and strictly a more modern, as in 18 and 1900's, Chinese only concept).
Your concept on the family side of things is also way off, as is your idea of needing to recruit or promote.

Really, Ras, you were questioning my martial history and you come in with this? Sorry, mate, that takes all credibility from you there...."


I would actually cite martial history,leave links,cite books,and stuff. Because your position so far isn't ennobled by a single scintilla of fact,merely frocked by your apparently passionate,articulate opinion. Which is not what I asked you for.I asked how you KNOW such a thing,not what makes you THINK such a thing or what your OPINION IS on such a thing. Just so you know.


----------



## MJS

I'll touch on a few points.  

1) Regarding the STAB clip at 1:40.  It appears as if it a drill working something specific.  Looked to me like it was a knife held at the side, the defender turning, pushing the attacker, then going for the knife/control of the arm.  

2) Chris, you mentioned the clips show unrealistic training.  Which ones were you talking about?  I ask because there were alot of clips posted...lol...just want to make sure I know which one(s) you were talking about.

3) Regarding footwork.  Yeah, obvioulsy thats important, but, I can certainly see that not happening during the initial attack.  Its probably going to take a second.

4) The static attack:  We saw that on the Gracie clip.  We see that in many knife clips.  Will that happen in real life?  Of course not.  You will get the sewing machine, pumping stabs.  As for that initial block....the idea is predicated on that being a limb destruction.  I've gone in about half speed/power and had that done to me.  It hurt like a *****.  It stopped me long enough for the person to transition into something else.  Does this mean it'll work on the next guy, or the guy after that, or the one after that?  Of course not.  Just like all of our techs., IMO, its foolish to assume everything will work.  Assuming it didnt work, and the guy stabs again and again, etc, you better be ready for plan b.

5) Ras said:

"What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?"

We all know how quick the distance can be closed, but until then, the guy can't reach us.  I'm a firm believer in using tools to help us.  Is there something I can use as a weapon, ie: a chair, a handful of change that I can toss for a momentary distraction, something I can use as a blunt impact weapon, is there something that I can use to position between me and the badguy, can I use footwork to evade.  In a nutshell, do what you have to do, until escape is an option.  Short of us being in a room with nothing else in it, there should be at least a few options to fall back on.

6) Again, I think the use of the word "Spar" may be misunderstood.  Sparring is usually thought of as a contest.  No, we should be dancing around, with one guy trying to cut the other, and the defender doing nothing but avoiding.  IMO, we should see someone training like we saw on the STAB clips or the DLO Dog Bros clips.  Someone is really coming in to stab, mult. times, and the defender defending.  

7) Having options.  Ras said having 4 options.  IMO, the 'techniques' that we have are merely building blocks.  Really, I'm not going to know what I'm going to do.  We need to take into consideration the "Oh ****!!!" moment as well.  Someone pulls a blade, and goes to stab, I may say, "Oh ****!" do a parry, sidestep, get some distance, and then deal with the rest.  If we limit ourselves to certain things, ie: 3 options, 10 options, what happens when #'s 4 and 11 happen?  

8) Last but not least....IMO, I dont see how posting a clip is really proof that something will definately work/not work.  Thats like the people who talk about high percentage moves.  High percentage for who?  Me? You? A 50yo man? A 23yo woman?  I could post clips, so could Chris, or anyone else.  IMO, its showing 1 possible option, not an end all be all solution.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> I'll touch on a few points.
> 
> 1) Regarding the STAB clip at 1:40.  It appears as if it a drill working something specific.  Looked to me like it was a knife held at the side, the defender turning, pushing the attacker, then going for the knife/control of the arm.
> 
> 2) Chris, you mentioned the clips show unrealistic training.  Which ones were you talking about?  I ask because there were alot of clips posted...lol...just want to make sure I know which one(s) you were talking about.
> 
> 3) Regarding footwork.  Yeah, obvioulsy thats important, but, I can certainly see that not happening during the initial attack.  Its probably going to take a second.
> 
> 4) The static attack:  We saw that on the Gracie clip.  We see that in many knife clips.  Will that happen in real life?  Of course not.  You will get the sewing machine, pumping stabs.  As for that initial block....the idea is predicated on that being a limb destruction.  I've gone in about half speed/power and had that done to me.  It hurt like a *****.  It stopped me long enough for the person to transition into something else.  Does this mean it'll work on the next guy, or the guy after that, or the one after that?  Of course not.  Just like all of our techs., IMO, its foolish to assume everything will work.  Assuming it didnt work, and the guy stabs again and again, etc, you better be ready for plan b.
> 
> 5) Ras said:
> 
> "What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?"
> 
> We all know how quick the distance can be closed, but until then, the guy can't reach us.  I'm a firm believer in using tools to help us.  Is there something I can use as a weapon, ie: a chair, a handful of change that I can toss for a momentary distraction, something I can use as a blunt impact weapon, is there something that I can use to position between me and the badguy, can I use footwork to evade.  In a nutshell, do what you have to do, until escape is an option.  Short of us being in a room with nothing else in it, there should be at least a few options to fall back on.
> 
> 6) Again, I think the use of the word "Spar" may be misunderstood.  Sparring is usually thought of as a contest.  No, we should be dancing around, with one guy trying to cut the other, and the defender doing nothing but avoiding.  IMO, we should see someone training like we saw on the STAB clips or the DLO Dog Bros clips.  Someone is really coming in to stab, mult. times, and the defender defending.
> 
> 7) Having options.  Ras said having 4 options.  IMO, the 'techniques' that we have are merely building blocks.  Really, I'm not going to know what I'm going to do.  We need to take into consideration the "Oh ****!!!" moment as well.  Someone pulls a blade, and goes to stab, I may say, "Oh ****!" do a parry, sidestep, get some distance, and then deal with the rest.  If we limit ourselves to certain things, ie: 3 options, 10 options, what happens when #'s 4 and 11 happen?
> 
> 8) Last but not least....IMO, I dont see how posting a clip is really proof that something will definately work/not work.  Thats like the people who talk about high percentage moves.  High percentage for who?  Me? You? A 50yo man? A 23yo woman?  I could post clips, so could Chris, or anyone else.  IMO, its showing 1 possible option, not an end all be all solution.




This is an excellent response,and as usual I find myself agreeing with almost all of what MJS has posted...and what differences I have are minor.Only one or two quick clarifications:

I suspect that we mean the same thing when I refer to 4 options,and you refer to the "Oh ****!" moment--I literally teach that with oftentimes that very phraseology,minus that word specifically for kids classes--and building blocks? We're talking about the same thing. As I do almost exactly what you referred to in #7 above.

I hope my specific focus visavis video on certain points to prove disprove or whatever on certain specific points was made clear by my previous post on the matter on this very page.


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> Contact wise,I agree that it IS dangerous to practice fatal or maiming strikes directly to the unprotected human target. However,I have a hogu and mitts so I place the mitt at or near my throat and let my students practice throat and kidney and groin shots full power,and practice light strikes at the these and other sensitive areas.A little training ingenuity can go a long way.



Im just going to stay out of the other Conversation;

Adding Padding can help, certainly. I perhaps could have elaborated on what I meant, which was that you cannot strike the Bare Surface.
On the flipside, it depends how Power-Happy your Form is. But it can still be improvised, certainly.
I can also see how many people would *need* to feel the Contact to be able to get used to performing the Action.


----------



## Cyriacus

On the other hand, im bored.
So now to Contribute to this debate, albeit slightly.

As far as I can tell, youre both making mostly Valid Points, then clashing over numerous Smaller Points, Logistics, and Personal Preferences.

I have a Book that talks about this.
Moves:
1: Provocation
2: Accusation
3: Attempt To Defuse Situation
4: Accusation
5: Defense
6: Now Ive Got You
7: See What You Made Me Do
8: Look How Hard Ive Tried
9; If It Werent For You...
10; Stress
11; Why Dont You - Yes But

...Looks pretty damn accurate to me.
In short, youre both stuck in a Logic Clash. That will just Spital unto itself more and more as it goes on, causing nothing but a bit of unneeded Stress for you both.
The Solution is to go back to the start, and break this down to its essential points, instead of playing "Now Ive Got You" over and over again on new issues every time.

Again - Not pitching myself too far into this Debate. Just mostly making sure it stays well purposed and controlled, rather than becoming some silly trade of;
6: Now Ive Got You
7: See What You Made Me Do
11; Why Dont You - Yes But
Over. And Over.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> On the other hand, im bored.
> So now to Contribute to this debate, albeit slightly.
> 
> As far as I can tell, youre both making mostly Valid Points, then clashing over numerous Smaller Points, Logistics, and Personal Preferences.
> 
> I have a Book that talks about this.
> Moves:
> 1: Provocation
> 2: Accusation
> 3: Attempt To Defuse Situation
> 4: Accusation
> 5: Defense
> 6: Now Ive Got You
> 7: See What You Made Me Do
> 8: Look How Hard Ive Tried
> 9; If It Werent For You...
> 10; Stress
> 11; Why Dont You - Yes But



"On the other hand,im bored..." LOLOLOL.

Now as for all the rest of that? I largely agree. But the Devil is in the detail.


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> "On the other hand,im bored..." LOLOLOL.
> 
> Now as for all the rest of that? I largely agree. But the Devil is in the detail.


The Edit to the end of the Original Post elaborates a bit - Perhaps for the better.
And yes, when im bored I join in debates


----------



## ATACX GYM

Cyriacus said:


> The Edit to the end of the Original Post elaborates a bit - Perhaps for the better.
> And yes, when im bored I join in debates




Okay Cyriacus...thanks for your contribution. I read your EDITED post,and in the spirit of that post (which I think is quite reasonable) let me offer this:

I've repeatedly stated that I use the 2 on 1 in all of its forms,which I consider to be one expression.A part of that single expression is very much akin to what I gather from Chris Parker's posts. Why don't I (just for clarification's sake) just put up a video of me flowing throwing and scrapping with this tech in drills and in practice to show what I'm talking about? That's really more an exercise for clarity on my part. Idk what Chris can do to make us visually grasp what he's talking about unless he's able to find videos that are very akin to what he's talking about and post them up.Then we can compare and contrast more effectively.Whaddya say? Should keep us on point without devolving into playground finger pointing and name calling.


----------



## Cyriacus

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay Cyriacus...thanks for your contribution. I read your EDITED post,and in the spirit of that post (which I think is quite reasonable) let me offer this:
> 
> I've repeatedly stated that I use the 2 on 1 in all of its forms,which I consider to be one expression.A part of that single expression is very much akin to what I gather from Chris Parker's posts. Why don't I (just for clarification's sake) just put up a video of me flowing throwing and scrapping with this tech in drills and in practice to show what I'm talking about? That's really more an exercise for clarity on my part. Idk what Chris can do to make us visually grasp what he's talking about unless he's able to find videos that are very akin to what he's talking about and post them up.Then we can compare and contrast more effectively.Whaddya say? Should keep us on point without devolving into playground finger pointing and name calling.


Its a more reasonable option, surely.
Your method of Communicating these things is Videos; So be it.
Chris's method is Textual; So be it.
If you present your cases to one another, rather than picking at points that can be backlashed by details, some more clear opinions may be drawn.

The Dynamics of Martial Arts will differ on Variables, of course.
For this to not just turn back into "But, what if", the best thing to do is to leave a slight void of Reasonable Doubt on both sides.

Other than that, this could save many pages worth of Argueing.
I think.
Hopefully. 

After all - At its core, this IS a discussion about Technical Applications. History and Logistics came into this WAY after it went off of that. In going back to the original Technical Applications, we have the best chance of Clear Communication.

EDIT: The main reason im adding all of this, is so you can all be as un-stressed by this as I am.
Whilst I type this, and you two are still intent on making your points clear; I am drinking Lemonade. Perhaps you should both go drink some Lemonade.


----------



## MJS

After 5 pages, Ras and Chris...please refresh me again with your grip preference.  IIRC, Ras is using the 2/1 while standing in front of the knifer, while Chris prefers the 2/1 while standing on the side, ie: the STAB clips.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> After 5 pages, Ras and Chris...please refresh me again with your grip preference.  IIRC, Ras is using the 2/1 while standing in front of the knifer, while Chris prefers the 2/1 while standing on the side, ie: the STAB clips.



I prefer the 2 on 1 that allows kicks disengagements knees levers throws trips locks breaks escapes disarms plus all the things in the STAB plus what Chris has spoken of and all the things that I spoke of. Chris seems to prefer a much more narrow interpretation which doesn't include all the things that I spoke of--including the longer range 2 on 1 grip,the "oh ****" moment that can lead to it AND the purposeful technical approach that is much more tactically sound...just contrary to his preferences and experience. He referred to "natural responces" which can be pretty much whatever he prefers because there hasn't been specific definitions thereof,and our grasp of it has much wider lattitude because we don't have a visual physical expression of it so he has to paint a picture with his words.

Unless a very accurate,very detailed word picture violates the injunction against sharing techs that he knows...


----------



## MJS

Thanks Ras.  I dont know if Chris has given up on this topic, but hopefully he'll chime in again.  I for one, do enjoy his insight and feedback on various topics.  

Anywho...in the end, everyone will have what they feel is 'the' best defense.  For me, my concern always has and always will be, gaining control, and putting myself into the best position possible, to maintain that control.  From there, everything else will come into play.  

I will say that it seems, to me anyways, that the STAB method is the more popular one.  We see it used with the Dog Bros in their DLO clips.  Actually, those clips seem to address more of dealing with the rapid pumping thrusts that are common.


----------



## MJS

To give another perspective, here is a clip of Jeff Speakman doing a tech.  His version is probably going to be slightly different, as he's made alot of changes to his material.

[yt]_Jh7O1VzkyA[/yt]


----------



## MJS

[yt]SPFfX-cfijg[/yt]

Some Kajukenbo.  The knife defense starts at 3:40.


----------



## Chris Parker

Right.



ATACX GYM said:


> Your argument is without merit,and you know it Chris. First my position has been that I've done what very little specific things that you mention that you've done visavis the 2 on 1,and that I incorporate it in my approach. You say that my 2 on 1 is dangerous and less reliable than what you say is your approach. The problem is exactly what you specified to me when I began to level more specific critique about your posts: we don't know your approach. This means that everything I say to you can essentially be answered with: "I don't do that" and there's nothing whatsoever to gainsay you.Theoretically you could adjust your position ad infinitum when faced with criticism and be out of the reach of ANY criticism as a result...because you never have to prove anything,and you said that you won't do so.This is the ultimate conversation stopper,faaar more than what you accused me of. You can just say that you do such and such and take your word for it. If I doubt anything all you have to say all you have to do is what you've already said and done,which is essentially:"You don't know what I do so don't presume that you do". You can specify your criticisms about my actions because I show and prove and you don't.That's really what it boils down to.



Let's get a few things straight, then.

The issue has been a critique of your actions, your method, your clip, not others. I have, however, provided my alternative instead of just saying "not a good idea" as a way of demonstrating my point and adding credibility to my argument, and have detailed exactly what I have meant through the thread, as well as having my method demonstrated in the majority of clips that others have posted (so my posting a clip of me doing the same thing would mean what, exactly?). When it comes to your "more specific" critiques of my method, the issue there has been that you haven't actually critiqued it at all, instead you have made vague, inaccurate assumptions in order to try to demonstrate (falsely) some form of superiority to your demonstrated clip.

You have claimed that my skills would improve in various areas if I did certain things ("self defence" grappling improving by sparring with Rickson Gracie, for instance), or your constant references to yourself as having superior experience in these and other things are what I'm talking about when saying that you are speaking out of turn, or out of ignorance. I haven't changed what I am saying once, in my description of my method, or my critique of yours. Any mention of "I don't do that" has been in responce to your false, and incorrect assumptions.

What all of this means is that you have posted a clip of yourself in a thread asking for critiques of a Kempo knife defence, with the take that your clip is better, but when critiqued, you basically resort to "well, where's your clip?" Ras, I'm not putting myself up for critique here, you are. That kinda means that I don't really need to put a clip up, especially when most other clips here show exactly what I'm talking about, as I'm discussing your method and it's pitfalls as presented by you in your clip, by offering what I see as a better alternative. My argument was basically that you are refusing to give my position credit if I am "not willing to show and tell", which is where the lack of merit comes in (your argument). Mine just showed the lack in yours, really.



ATACX GYM said:


> Ultimately the difference in debates on sites like this is that many of us have enough in common to draw upon those commonalities to reach some form of definitive conclusion.If somebody in TKD is debating someone who says that TKD lacks functional,competent grappling techs? That someone can not only make posts denying this claim,that specific someone can draw upon videos of TKD practitioners showing functional grappling techs. However,if there's a debate about the specifics of a knife defense tech and one side says their experience indicates that the tech being shown is dangerous or less than what the person showing video says it is,and the person who made such a video in the first place has experience with what the other person's posts claim to be their preferred method and their experiences are diametrically opposed? Then it's quite fair and sensible for the person (me in this case) being critiqued to not only defend their position but ask for specific demonstrations from the critic (that's you,Chris) to specify exactly what's being discussed here because clearly we're either talking about something with sharp and vital differences that aren't immediately being grasped appropriately and properly by both parties.I've been quite specific--contrary to your claims--in my criticism of some of your posts,but it's essentially for naught.I am trying to craft a response specifically to what you do; however you will never allow such a thing to happen.Which renders this whole conversation moot.



I'll repost (in quotes, in responce to MJS's question in a bit) my approach versus yours, if you still have questions about exactly what I'm talking about, ask, and I'll answer. But saying that the only way to get a real discussion is to post clips back and forth is going to suffer from the same issues as the written discussion. For example, I see your attacker pause, I see the knife pointing straight at you (you aren't off-line of the attack), I see you leap too high, taking too long on your second evasive leap, and more, and you simply turned around and said "No, I was safe, lol". Not really a quality argument... but the same can be leveled at a clip I put up, and if the argument is "no, that's not what I did", it's no different to this typed conversation.



ATACX GYM said:


> Without video? This conversation just revolves on and on. With video? The specifics could still be debated ad infinitum...but at least there are specifics now that have a far higher potential to bring the discussion to a mutually acceptible terminus by reaching a middle ground of some sort or by discovering that "hey...we ARE doing such and such it's just that you do it like this and I do it like that." Sugar Shane Mosley jabs,Floyd Mayweather jabs. They may dispute as to whose jab is better...but neither will deny that the other does indeed jab,nor the utility and ability of the other's jab. I state that my approach includes your approach,Chris,you state that I don't know what your approach is. And since you don't and won't video your efforts? Here is where the argument and problem is. You have never ever and apparently cannot ever ever specify exactly what it is that you actually do because we aren't local and you don't do video.Which leads us right back to that part where I said:" The problem is exactly what you specified to me when I began to level more specific critique about your posts: we don't know your approach. This means that everything I say to you can essentially be answered with: "I don't do that" and there's nothing whatsoever to gainsay you.Theoretically you could adjust your position ad infinitum when faced with criticism and be out of the reach of ANY criticism as a result...because you never have to prove anything,and you said that you won't do so."


 
Without video you get to rely on the words that I put here, as well as the clips linked by others that show what I'm talking about.... of course, the false analogy you use (the two different jabs) doesn't help, Ras. And again, this discussion is about the method you show in your clip. In post #20, you explicitly agree that that is the crux of the discussion ("To the issue of the 2 on 1...meaning the double grip on your opponent's wrist..."), in post 6 you stated that "Actually the double grip that I come in with is one of the very best possible responses to the knife attack", which is what my argument has been about. That specific grip as a first choice, best possible responce to a knife attack. Because it isn't. But I'll repost my reasons (again) in a bit.

And really, whether or not I put any video up doesn't change the issues with your grip as you present it there.



ATACX GYM said:


> I do this as well.Just so you know. The difference is that if I were to be as harsh in my criticism as you have been? If I were to debunk your argument or position with commentary like this:"No, the reason was nothing to do with being "outlawed".
> Your take on the contests is highly romanticised and unrealistic (and strictly a more modern, as in 18 and 1900's, Chinese only concept).
> Your concept on the family side of things is also way off, as is your idea of needing to recruit or promote.
> 
> Really, Ras, you were questioning my martial history and you come in with this? Sorry, mate, that takes all credibility from you there...."
> 
> 
> I would actually cite martial history,leave links,cite books,and stuff. Because your position so far isn't ennobled by a single scintilla of fact,merely frocked by your apparently passionate,articulate opinion. Which is not what I asked you for.I asked how you KNOW such a thing,not what makes you THINK such a thing or what your OPINION IS on such a thing. Just so you know.



Believe me, that was far from a "harsh" correction there. Out of interest, what are the traditional arts that you study?

But to the last there, my position comes from actually knowing these things, whether or not you feel it's "ennobled by a single scintilla of fact" doesn't come into it. Frankly, you've shown so much lack of understanding of martial history I could say the same, or further, about you. But do you really want a list of the teachings, histories, books, and so on that bring me to my knowledge here?



MJS said:


> I'll touch on a few points.
> 
> 1) Regarding the STAB clip at 1:40.  It appears as if it a drill working something specific.  Looked to me like it was a knife held at the side, the defender turning, pushing the attacker, then going for the knife/control of the arm.


 
Yep, it looks basically like a drill designed to ensure the student gains and maintains control of the weapon hand/arm while the opponent struggles (and strikes). And, I will also say that if that level and type of struggle happens when the knife is held out (as Ras is in his clip), then that's when you end up with a knife in the belly. 



MJS said:


> 2) Chris, you mentioned the clips show unrealistic training.  Which ones were you talking about?  I ask because there were alot of clips posted...lol...just want to make sure I know which one(s) you were talking about.



The specific quote I think you're referring to is in post #53, yeah? I was referring specifically to the two clips Ras posted there (Paul Vunak and the JKD test one). What I was talking about was the training methodology itself, which deals with a "sparring" type method. In the first one, for instance (Paul Vunak), he uses the old standard Magic Marker knife drill, all fine and good... but his partner, the defender, constantly tries to intercept, or hit down on the knife arm, and gets cut, without ever getting enough distance to escape. If he's not getting the distance, then his best option is to move in to control... he's just staying in the knife's preferred range at this stage, and as a result can't "catch" the knife, and gets cut pretty badly. If he was drilled in moving past the knife (outflanking), and controlling it, which is what I'm talking about, then the amount of ink would be severely reduced. His attempts at kicks lead to his leg being cut pretty often as well, and was basically a fear responce, attempting to keep the knifeman back, without ever having a real tactic being applied.



MJS said:


> 3) Regarding footwork.  Yeah, obvioulsy thats important, but, I can certainly see that not happening during the initial attack.  Its probably going to take a second.



Which is what the initial evasions that both Ras and I recommend are for. Yep, the initial reaction is typically that you will be overwhelmed, and move back in a flinch responce along what is referred to as the primal line before you "settle" enough to be able to actually respond positively.



MJS said:


> 4) The static attack:  We saw that on the Gracie clip.  We see that in many knife clips.  Will that happen in real life?  Of course not.  You will get the sewing machine, pumping stabs.  As for that initial block....the idea is predicated on that being a limb destruction.  I've gone in about half speed/power and had that done to me.  It hurt like a *****.  It stopped me long enough for the person to transition into something else.  Does this mean it'll work on the next guy, or the guy after that, or the one after that?  Of course not.  Just like all of our techs., IMO, its foolish to assume everything will work.  Assuming it didnt work, and the guy stabs again and again, etc, you better be ready for plan b.



Ah, but here's the thing. Under a serious, sudden adrenaline dump, it won't be anywhere near as effective as you felt when your instructor hit you. After all, most people who get stabbed (for instance) just think they've been punched... and pretty lightly, too. So I wouldn't rely on it being a limb destruction, really, particularly not at the angle the Gracie boys were coming in (it was more a deflecting angle than an attacking angle, really).



MJS said:


> 5) Ras said:
> 
> "What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?"
> 
> We all know how quick the distance can be closed, but until then, the guy can't reach us.  I'm a firm believer in using tools to help us.  Is there something I can use as a weapon, ie: a chair, a handful of change that I can toss for a momentary distraction, something I can use as a blunt impact weapon, is there something that I can use to position between me and the badguy, can I use footwork to evade.  In a nutshell, do what you have to do, until escape is an option.  Short of us being in a room with nothing else in it, there should be at least a few options to fall back on.



And here's a question for Ras... In the same scenario, would you expect your students to reach out and try to grab the knife wrist? Do you really think that's the safest, or best plan?



MJS said:


> 6) Again, I think the use of the word "Spar" may be misunderstood.  Sparring is usually thought of as a contest.  No, we should be dancing around, with one guy trying to cut the other, and the defender doing nothing but avoiding.  IMO, we should see someone training like we saw on the STAB clips or the DLO Dog Bros clips.  Someone is really coming in to stab, mult. times, and the defender defending.


 
Pure evasion as an initial, core skill set, absolutely. Constant attacks (even when the defender is defending), yep. But sparring? No. 



MJS said:


> 7) Having options.  Ras said having 4 options.  IMO, the 'techniques' that we have are merely building blocks.  Really, I'm not going to know what I'm going to do.  We need to take into consideration the "Oh ****!!!" moment as well.  Someone pulls a blade, and goes to stab, I may say, "Oh ****!" do a parry, sidestep, get some distance, and then deal with the rest.  If we limit ourselves to certain things, ie: 3 options, 10 options, what happens when #'s 4 and 11 happen?


 
That's the core concept of training and utilising principles, rather than having "techniques" to handle things. Ideally, if I can find one thing that'll cover 99% of situations, that's what I'll be working with. In fact, that's kinda what the knife defence I teach is. It is one principle which is applied against forehand, backhand, high, low, thrusts (high and low), inside, outside, grab and stab, threats, close quarters, distance attacks, and more. It is even pretty much the same (the same movement principles) if it's knife against knife, or unarmed knife defence. I don't offer lot's of options, or even more than a small number, as it's just the same principles adapted to the new environments/situations. 

So it doesn't matter if they come in with #4, or #11, or even #123, if the principles are solid, it'll be as effective no matter what. 



MJS said:


> 8) Last but not least....IMO, I dont see how posting a clip is really proof that something will definately work/not work.  Thats like the people who talk about high percentage moves.  High percentage for who?  Me? You? A 50yo man? A 23yo woman?  I could post clips, so could Chris, or anyone else.  IMO, its showing 1 possible option, not an end all be all solution.


 
Agreed other than the high percentage thing. High percentage should mean that it offers a higher likelihood of generating success for the greater number of people that apply it. It should be a simpler, easier, safer, more reliable, and more consistent method. That's kinda the definition of high percentage there, and something that I've been saying throughout this thread (what Ras can do doesn't matter as much as what his students can, and should rely on), so "for me, for a 50 year old" etc shouldn't come into it. The best chance at success for the greater number of people is high percentage.



ATACX GYM said:


> Okay Cyriacus...thanks for your contribution. I read your EDITED post,and in the spirit of that post (which I think is quite reasonable) let me offer this:
> 
> I've repeatedly stated that I use the 2 on 1 in all of its forms,which I consider to be one expression.A part of that single expression is very much akin to what I gather from Chris Parker's posts. Why don't I (just for clarification's sake) just put up a video of me flowing throwing and scrapping with this tech in drills and in practice to show what I'm talking about? That's really more an exercise for clarity on my part. Idk what Chris can do to make us visually grasp what he's talking about unless he's able to find videos that are very akin to what he's talking about and post them up.Then we can compare and contrast more effectively.Whaddya say? Should keep us on point without devolving into playground finger pointing and name calling.



Once again, though, this discussion has been on the method you present in your clip, as you yourself stated in posts #6 and #20 as repeated above. If you do other versions, great... but you have stated that the method you show in the clip is the best option, and the method you show is both hands on the knifeman's weapon-holding wrist. 

For a visual reference to the grip I'm talking about, one more time, look to almost every other clip presented here. Specifically look to the STAB clips that Mike posted in post #31... they both show something very close to my approach/grip, including the versatility (arm shock/bar, knees, disarms, controls, movement from hold to hold, and more) that you seem to think isn't present in that grip, and I will emphatically state is not present in yours (if you try kicking from there and they're still struggling for control of the knife, you will, at best, miss, and at worst get pulled completely off balance to begin with).



MJS said:


> After 5 pages, Ras and Chris...please refresh me again with your grip preference.  IIRC, Ras is using the 2/1 while standing in front of the knifer, while Chris prefers the 2/1 while standing on the side, ie: the STAB clips.



Ras's grip, and the issues I see (from post #23... way back on page two):



> The other thing is the exact secure you are getting here (two hands on the wrist, specifically - not the fact that it's two hands, it's that it's on the wrist. It's not a high-low secure, which is what you have shown in the clip you linked, and is what I'd advise it is changed to, it's a double grab to the wrist. That's what I'm having problems with).
> 
> The problems I see with the grab to the wrist are rather numerous, honestly. First off, you're not moving off the line of the attack, so if you miss, then you've just moved into a knife to your stomach. Next is the real possibility of driving your hands directly down onto the blade, or it slicing up the inside of your forearms. Now, that can be survivable, and you may still get your grip, but now it's going to be slippery with your own blood, making it less secure. Next, the grip works with both hands coming down from on top, meaning that the "weak" aspect of the grip (the opening in your hands where your grip is weakest, and against which all grip releases work) are both on the underside of his arm. If he does pull back (typically he may push against you with his free hand while stepping back and yanking his arm out), he will be working against the weakest part of your grab with both of your hands. A high-low secure means that only one of the hands will have it's "weak" side exposed in this way, so where one is weak, the other is strong, making a much more powerful control. Next, he will be flailing around with the blade on his way out, so unless the secure is very tight and controlling the knife itself (which it isn't if it's held out from your body, essentially it's just become a wrestling match now to see who's strongest), there's a good chance of being cut as a method to get you to let go. Finally, if the attack is more of the "sewing machine" attack, then simply getting the timing of catching the wrist with both hands is rather difficult, as the attacker is already pumping their arm back and forth. You may contact their wrist, and they're already pulling it back, which means you miss.



And my grip, as shown in the STAB clips (again, post #23)



> Instead, I'd move to the outside (outflank), allowing my left (lead) hand to catch the upper arm (which moves a lot slower), and my right (rear) hand to come down on top of the forearm, and then make it's way down to catch the wrist. From there, the knife hand is pulled in besides my right hip and I drop my bodyweight down on top of the attackers arm to help control. In this position, staying low and stable, even with the knifeman struggling, trying to pull the knife back, trying to shake me off, I can stay in control and ride the struggle. And, yes, I've trained that with people about twice my size. You can get an armbar against the elbow with your body, and the pull in to the hip is the same as your "whipping" action. Additionally, if I miss, my arms form a protective barrier against the knife, and I've moved offline so I don't get stabbed for missing it.
> 
> There is also minimalist chance of swapping the knife hand, or striking with the opposite hand in the version I mention as well, I might note, and it works even better against someone with longer limbs or someone taller (as you drag them down, and move inside their field of range). I would not advise going for the wrist initially the way you do as, although it is vital to control it against a knifeman, it is also the fastest moving part of his arm, and the easiest for him to avoid your grip with.



So, in essence, Ras has posted that two hands on the wrist is the "best option", and I have pointed out the issues with it, his entry, and what I feel is a better grip and entry method, involving a tighter, more secure, closer grip, inside the functional range of the knife.

Any more questions on that?



ATACX GYM said:


> I prefer the 2 on 1 that allows kicks disengagements knees levers throws trips locks breaks escapes disarms plus all the things in the STAB plus what Chris has spoken of and all the things that I spoke of. Chris seems to prefer a much more narrow interpretation which doesn't include all the things that I spoke of--including the longer range 2 on 1 grip,the "oh ****" moment that can lead to it AND the purposeful technical approach that is much more tactically sound...just contrary to his preferences and experience. He referred to "natural responces" which can be pretty much whatever he prefers because there hasn't been specific definitions thereof,and our grasp of it has much wider lattitude because we don't have a visual physical expression of it so he has to paint a picture with his words.
> 
> Unless a very accurate,very detailed word picture violates the injunction against sharing techs that he knows...


 
Oh boy. Really? You think you can kick easily when someone's struggling for their knife, and the knife is between the two of you? It's actually a lot easier to kick from the tighter position, although due to the range, you'd knee instead. And a knee lever (I'm assuming putting your knee on the elbow to force someone to the ground)? You're deliberately giving up balance when there's a knife involved? Ras, my method is firstly NOT narrower, it's higher return. Yours is also not more "tactically sound", as I can pull apart tactical issues in just this little paragraph here. Finally, when it comes to "natural responces", I actually mean what that sounds like. I mean the normal, expected, natural responce that is encountered in such situations, which are handled by the closer, tighter grip, but not by your method, gotta say. That includes the knifeman pulling their knife arm back, pushing against you, struggling to retain control, and so on.



MJS said:


> Thanks Ras.  I dont know if Chris has given up on this topic, but hopefully he'll chime in again.  I for one, do enjoy his insight and feedback on various topics.
> 
> Anywho...in the end, everyone will have what they feel is 'the' best defense.  For me, my concern always has and always will be, gaining control, and putting myself into the best position possible, to maintain that control.  From there, everything else will come into play.
> 
> I will say that it seems, to me anyways, that the STAB method is the more popular one.  We see it used with the Dog Bros in their DLO clips.  Actually, those clips seem to address more of dealing with the rapid pumping thrusts that are common.



Ha, no, I hadn't given up, but needed a bit of time to get this down.... you understand, yeah?



MJS said:


> To give another perspective, here is a clip of Jeff Speakman doing a tech.  His version is probably going to be slightly different, as he's made alot of changes to his material.
> 
> [yt]_Jh7O1VzkyA[/yt]


 
The control here is much better, with Jeff moving in past the knife (although I'm not fond of the initial defence), you might note that Jeff is using a high/low control (with his upper arm controlling the upper arm of the knifeman, another application of the same principle that I use). The biggest issue with this is the massively out of place murder at the end, with you, having disarmed the knifeman, proceeding to cut him to ribbons. Yeah, that's some pretty serious jail time for killing a now unarmed man there.... oh, and it's rather inefficient use of a knife, I might add....



MJS said:


> [yt]SPFfX-cfijg[/yt]
> 
> Some Kajukenbo.  The knife defense starts at 3:40.



Hmm, I'm going to be blunt here as well (well, why stop now?), and say that not much of that impressed me either. There's a lot of overkill, some dangerous actions, and a few outright fantasy sequences. I'm also not impressed with the "Ferrari versus Go-kart" approach, or the attackers habits of not just stopping the attack, but lowering their defences (their hands) each time as soon as the defence starts as well. Hmm. That said, there are a few things that can be stripped out of it to make a pretty good knife defence program, but a lot needs to be removed first.

Well, wasn't that fun? Oh, and Ras, if you still don't get what I'm talking about, I'll see about putting some kind of clip together that doesn't really give away too much. Okay? It may take a week or so, though. But only if you still don't get what I mean from all of this.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Yep, it looks basically like a drill designed to ensure the student gains and maintains control of the weapon hand/arm while the opponent struggles (and strikes). And, I will also say that if that level and type of struggle happens when the knife is held out (as Ras is in his clip), then that's when you end up with a knife in the belly.



Yeah, thats what I figured.





> The specific quote I think you're referring to is in post #53, yeah? I was referring specifically to the two clips Ras posted there (Paul Vunak and the JKD test one). What I was talking about was the training methodology itself, which deals with a "sparring" type method. In the first one, for instance (Paul Vunak), he uses the old standard Magic Marker knife drill, all fine and good... but his partner, the defender, constantly tries to intercept, or hit down on the knife arm, and gets cut, without ever getting enough distance to escape. If he's not getting the distance, then his best option is to move in to control... he's just staying in the knife's preferred range at this stage, and as a result can't "catch" the knife, and gets cut pretty badly. If he was drilled in moving past the knife (outflanking), and controlling it, which is what I'm talking about, then the amount of ink would be severely reduced. His attempts at kicks lead to his leg being cut pretty often as well, and was basically a fear responce, attempting to keep the knifeman back, without ever having a real tactic being applied.



Yeah, this is what I eluded to in #6.  IMO, alot of this is akin, IMO, to the typical Karate type sparring, only one person is just offense, and the other defense.  Like you said below, for evasion, sure, learning how to evade is a key skill...but, if thats all thats ever done, well, IMO, thats foolish.  It'd be like you pissing someone off in a roadrage incident, and you using your car as a shield.  How long are you going to run from the guy?  That may be a poor example, but I think you see what I'm saying.  





> Which is what the initial evasions that both Ras and I recommend are for. Yep, the initial reaction is typically that you will be overwhelmed, and move back in a flinch responce along what is referred to as the primal line before you "settle" enough to be able to actually respond positively.



Agreed.





> Ah, but here's the thing. Under a serious, sudden adrenaline dump, it won't be anywhere near as effective as you felt when your instructor hit you. After all, most people who get stabbed (for instance) just think they've been punched... and pretty lightly, too. So I wouldn't rely on it being a limb destruction, really, particularly not at the angle the Gracie boys were coming in (it was more a deflecting angle than an attacking angle, really).



Thus the reason why I said what I said, about it not being a shure shot thing every time and for every person.  Note in the Gracie clip, around 1:41, the block is done at, what seems to me, wrist level.  When I do this, I'm using the proper angling and hitting more on the forearm, which yes, will possibly cause the destruction.  Of course, I fully understand that with adrenaline, it may not work, which is akin to saying that if you punch someone, it may not have the desired effect.  I've been saying that for years...that I dont like to rely on the 1 shot/1 kill, though it has worked.  





> And here's a question for Ras... In the same scenario, would you expect your students to reach out and try to grab the knife wrist? Do you really think that's the safest, or best plan?



I'm not Ras, but, for me, no, I would not encourage that.  





> Pure evasion as an initial, core skill set, absolutely. Constant attacks (even when the defender is defending), yep. But sparring? No.



Agreed.  See above for my reply. 





> That's the core concept of training and utilising principles, rather than having "techniques" to handle things. Ideally, if I can find one thing that'll cover 99% of situations, that's what I'll be working with. In fact, that's kinda what the knife defence I teach is. It is one principle which is applied against forehand, backhand, high, low, thrusts (high and low), inside, outside, grab and stab, threats, close quarters, distance attacks, and more. It is even pretty much the same (the same movement principles) if it's knife against knife, or unarmed knife defence. I don't offer lot's of options, or even more than a small number, as it's just the same principles adapted to the new environments/situations.
> 
> So it doesn't matter if they come in with #4, or #11, or even #123, if the principles are solid, it'll be as effective no matter what.



Yup, I like to use this philosophy with my empty hand Kenpo stuff, which I've talked about many times.  Instead of having 30 different responses to 30 different attacks, I like to have what you said, 1 that'll cover 99% of them.  





> Agreed other than the high percentage thing. High percentage should mean that it offers a higher likelihood of generating success for the greater number of people that apply it. It should be a simpler, easier, safer, more reliable, and more consistent method. That's kinda the definition of high percentage there, and something that I've been saying throughout this thread (what Ras can do doesn't matter as much as what his students can, and should rely on), so "for me, for a 50 year old" etc shouldn't come into it. The best chance at success for the greater number of people is high percentage.



For the most part Chris I agree.  However, its a fact that things will probably have to be modified from person to person.  I'm 5'10.  Someone who stands 6'7, I'll probably have to modify what I do, due to the height, just like I'd have to make slight changes if I was facing someone 5'3.  








> Ras's grip, and the issues I see (from post #23... way back on page two):
> 
> 
> 
> And my grip, as shown in the STAB clips (again, post #23)



Ok. 







> Ha, no, I hadn't given up, but needed a bit of time to get this down.... you understand, yeah?



No problem my friend. 





> The control here is much better, with Jeff moving in past the knife (although I'm not fond of the initial defence), you might note that Jeff is using a high/low control (with his upper arm controlling the upper arm of the knifeman, another application of the same principle that I use). The biggest issue with this is the massively out of place murder at the end, with you, having disarmed the knifeman, proceeding to cut him to ribbons. Yeah, that's some pretty serious jail time for killing a now unarmed man there.... oh, and it's rather inefficient use of a knife, I might add....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I'm going to be blunt here as well (well, why stop now?), and say that not much of that impressed me either. There's a lot of overkill, some dangerous actions, and a few outright fantasy sequences. I'm also not impressed with the "Ferrari versus Go-kart" approach, or the attackers habits of not just stopping the attack, but lowering their defences (their hands) each time as soon as the defence starts as well. Hmm. That said, there are a few things that can be stripped out of it to make a pretty good knife defence program, but a lot needs to be removed first.



Yeah, theres alot of 'overkill' in Kenpo/Kaju, though some like to call it 'overskill', but to each their own.   I understand that just because the guy is down, doesnt mean he's out, so throwing more shots on the downed man, may be needed, though from the uneducated bystander, it'll seem overkill.  "The guy was down, where was the threat???"  Another reason why I always say its important to assess the situation and adjust accordinly.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey Mike,



MJS said:


> Yeah, this is what I eluded to in #6.  IMO, alot of this is akin, IMO, to the typical Karate type sparring, only one person is just offense, and the other defense.  Like you said below, for evasion, sure, learning how to evade is a key skill...but, if thats all thats ever done, well, IMO, thats foolish.  It'd be like you pissing someone off in a roadrage incident, and you using your car as a shield.  How long are you going to run from the guy?  That may be a poor example, but I think you see what I'm saying.



Single attacker, single defender isn't the issue (it's actually more realistic, honestly), it's the way that the defender isn't demonstrating usable skills other than getting his arms cut. I get that it was done to illustrate a point, but the skill set isn't there so the drilling method used is lacking.



MJS said:


> Thus the reason why I said what I said, about it not being a shure shot thing every time and for every person.  Note in the Gracie clip, around 1:41, the block is done at, what seems to me, wrist level.  When I do this, I'm using the proper angling and hitting more on the forearm, which yes, will possibly cause the destruction.  Of course, I fully understand that with adrenaline, it may not work, which is akin to saying that if you punch someone, it may not have the desired effect.  I've been saying that for years...that I dont like to rely on the 1 shot/1 kill, though it has worked.



As I'm sure you're aware, a strike to the body, or head, which is more static in it's position (relative to the moving, or incoming limb) is going to be higher return to impart force than striking to an incoming arm. So you can rely on a punch that way far more than this form of "limb destruction", to be frank. That said, agreed, all eggs in one basket isn't the best plan on the table.



MJS said:


> I'm not Ras, but, for me, no, I would not encourage that.



Ha, didn't think you would! That does leave me wondering what Ras was getting at when he invented that scenario, as my option seems to be by far and away the better out of the two discussed approaches there.... hmm....



MJS said:


> Yup, I like to use this philosophy with my empty hand Kenpo stuff, which I've talked about many times.  Instead of having 30 different responses to 30 different attacks, I like to have what you said, 1 that'll cover 99% of them.



 Which is found in the training of principles, over techniques.



MJS said:


> For the most part Chris I agree.  However, its a fact that things will probably have to be modified from person to person.  I'm 5'10.  Someone who stands 6'7, I'll probably have to modify what I do, due to the height, just like I'd have to make slight changes if I was facing someone 5'3.



The technical application will need to change in large or small ways, sure. But the principles shouldn't need to at all (if they do, they aren't really universal principles, are they?). Modification within the principles is the exact way it is supposed to go.



MJS said:


> Yeah, theres alot of 'overkill' in Kenpo/Kaju, though some like to call it 'overskill', but to each their own. I understand that just because the guy is down, doesnt mean he's out, so throwing more shots on the downed man, may be needed, though from the uneducated bystander, it'll seem overkill.  "The guy was down, where was the threat???"  Another reason why I always say its important to assess the situation and adjust accordinly.



Yeah, I get the "overwhelm" aspect, it's one of the hallmarks of American Kempo, Kajukembo etc, my big issue is more with Jeff's end to his technique, starting at 4:20 in the clip above. He strips the knife from his assailant, meaning that the attacker is now unarmed, and strikes to the side of the jaw with the butt of the weapon. Okay, that removes the threat, all good. However, Jeff then proceeds to cut the carotid artery of his unarmed opponent (which is already potentially murder charges, or at the very least aggrevated assault with intent to grievous bodily harm), then cuts back down through the guys cheek and mouth, and then, to clear the arm, cuts open the shoulder and tricep. Not content with that, against his now bleeding out and still unarmed opponent, clearly not posing any threat anymore, Jeff strikes the groin, cuts open the femoral artery now (the second major bleeder), moves behind, and cuts the testicles (for good measure, I suppose....?). That is beyond overkill, it's outright murder and highly irresponsible to be given under any circumstances. The only other place I really see this kind of thing is in the outrightly fraudulant bogus "ninja" schools - nothing historically used would waste that amount of time and energy, frankly!


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get a few things straight, then.
> 
> The issue has been a critique of your actions, your method, your clip, not others. I have, however, provided my alternative instead of just saying "not a good idea" as a way of demonstrating my point and adding credibility to my argument, and have detailed exactly what I have meant through the thread, as well as having my method demonstrated in the majority of clips that others have posted (so my posting a clip of me doing the same thing would mean what, exactly?). When it comes to your "more specific" critiques of my method, the issue there has been that you haven't actually critiqued it at all, instead you have made vague, inaccurate assumptions in order to try to demonstrate (falsely) some form of superiority to your demonstrated clip.
> 
> You have claimed that my skills would improve in various areas if I did certain things ("self defence" grappling improving by sparring with Rickson Gracie, for instance), or your constant references to yourself as having superior experience in these and other things are what I'm talking about when saying that you are speaking out of turn, or out of ignorance. I haven't changed what I am saying once, in my description of my method, or my critique of yours. Any mention of "I don't do that" has been in responce to your false, and incorrect assumptions.
> 
> What all of this means is that you have posted a clip of yourself in a thread asking for critiques of a Kempo knife defence, with the take that your clip is better, but when critiqued, you basically resort to "well, where's your clip?" Ras, I'm not putting myself up for critique here, you are. That kinda means that I don't really need to put a clip up, especially when most other clips here show exactly what I'm talking about, as I'm discussing your method and it's pitfalls as presented by you in your clip, by offering what I see as a better alternative. My argument was basically that you are refusing to give my position credit if I am "not willing to show and tell", which is where the lack of merit comes in (your argument). Mine just showed the lack in yours, really.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll repost (in quotes, in responce to MJS's question in a bit) my approach versus yours, if you still have questions about exactly what I'm talking about, ask, and I'll answer. But saying that the only way to get a real discussion is to post clips back and forth is going to suffer from the same issues as the written discussion. For example, I see your attacker pause, I see the knife pointing straight at you (you aren't off-line of the attack), I see you leap too high, taking too long on your second evasive leap, and more, and you simply turned around and said "No, I was safe, lol". Not really a quality argument... but the same can be leveled at a clip I put up, and if the argument is "no, that's not what I did", it's no different to this typed conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Without video you get to rely on the words that I put here, as well as the clips linked by others that show what I'm talking about.... of course, the false analogy you use (the two different jabs) doesn't help, Ras. And again, this discussion is about the method you show in your clip. In post #20, you explicitly agree that that is the crux of the discussion ("To the issue of the 2 on 1...meaning the double grip on your opponent's wrist..."), in post 6 you stated that "Actually the double grip that I come in with is one of the very best possible responses to the knife attack", which is what my argument has been about. That specific grip as a first choice, best possible responce to a knife attack. Because it isn't. But I'll repost my reasons (again) in a bit.
> 
> And really, whether or not I put any video up doesn't change the issues with your grip as you present it there.
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, that was far from a "harsh" correction there. Out of interest, what are the traditional arts that you study?
> 
> But to the last there, my position comes from actually knowing these things, whether or not you feel it's "ennobled by a single scintilla of fact" doesn't come into it. Frankly, you've shown so much lack of understanding of martial history I could say the same, or further, about you. But do you really want a list of the teachings, histories, books, and so on that bring me to my knowledge here?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, it looks basically like a drill designed to ensure the student gains and maintains control of the weapon hand/arm while the opponent struggles (and strikes). And, I will also say that if that level and type of struggle happens when the knife is held out (as Ras is in his clip), then that's when you end up with a knife in the belly.
> 
> 
> 
> The specific quote I think you're referring to is in post #53, yeah? I was referring specifically to the two clips Ras posted there (Paul Vunak and the JKD test one). What I was talking about was the training methodology itself, which deals with a "sparring" type method. In the first one, for instance (Paul Vunak), he uses the old standard Magic Marker knife drill, all fine and good... but his partner, the defender, constantly tries to intercept, or hit down on the knife arm, and gets cut, without ever getting enough distance to escape. If he's not getting the distance, then his best option is to move in to control... he's just staying in the knife's preferred range at this stage, and as a result can't "catch" the knife, and gets cut pretty badly. If he was drilled in moving past the knife (outflanking), and controlling it, which is what I'm talking about, then the amount of ink would be severely reduced. His attempts at kicks lead to his leg being cut pretty often as well, and was basically a fear responce, attempting to keep the knifeman back, without ever having a real tactic being applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what the initial evasions that both Ras and I recommend are for. Yep, the initial reaction is typically that you will be overwhelmed, and move back in a flinch responce along what is referred to as the primal line before you "settle" enough to be able to actually respond positively.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but here's the thing. Under a serious, sudden adrenaline dump, it won't be anywhere near as effective as you felt when your instructor hit you. After all, most people who get stabbed (for instance) just think they've been punched... and pretty lightly, too. So I wouldn't rely on it being a limb destruction, really, particularly not at the angle the Gracie boys were coming in (it was more a deflecting angle than an attacking angle, really).
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a question for Ras... In the same scenario, would you expect your students to reach out and try to grab the knife wrist? Do you really think that's the safest, or best plan?
> 
> 
> 
> Pure evasion as an initial, core skill set, absolutely. Constant attacks (even when the defender is defending), yep. But sparring? No.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the core concept of training and utilising principles, rather than having "techniques" to handle things. Ideally, if I can find one thing that'll cover 99% of situations, that's what I'll be working with. In fact, that's kinda what the knife defence I teach is. It is one principle which is applied against forehand, backhand, high, low, thrusts (high and low), inside, outside, grab and stab, threats, close quarters, distance attacks, and more. It is even pretty much the same (the same movement principles) if it's knife against knife, or unarmed knife defence. I don't offer lot's of options, or even more than a small number, as it's just the same principles adapted to the new environments/situations.
> 
> So it doesn't matter if they come in with #4, or #11, or even #123, if the principles are solid, it'll be as effective no matter what.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed other than the high percentage thing. High percentage should mean that it offers a higher likelihood of generating success for the greater number of people that apply it. It should be a simpler, easier, safer, more reliable, and more consistent method. That's kinda the definition of high percentage there, and something that I've been saying throughout this thread (what Ras can do doesn't matter as much as what his students can, and should rely on), so "for me, for a 50 year old" etc shouldn't come into it. The best chance at success for the greater number of people is high percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, though, this discussion has been on the method you present in your clip, as you yourself stated in posts #6 and #20 as repeated above. If you do other versions, great... but you have stated that the method you show in the clip is the best option, and the method you show is both hands on the knifeman's weapon-holding wrist.
> 
> For a visual reference to the grip I'm talking about, one more time, look to almost every other clip presented here. Specifically look to the STAB clips that Mike posted in post #31... they both show something very close to my approach/grip, including the versatility (arm shock/bar, knees, disarms, controls, movement from hold to hold, and more) that you seem to think isn't present in that grip, and I will emphatically state is not present in yours (if you try kicking from there and they're still struggling for control of the knife, you will, at best, miss, and at worst get pulled completely off balance to begin with).
> 
> 
> 
> Ras's grip, and the issues I see (from post #23... way back on page two):
> 
> 
> 
> And my grip, as shown in the STAB clips (again, post #23)
> 
> 
> 
> So, in essence, Ras has posted that two hands on the wrist is the "best option", and I have pointed out the issues with it, his entry, and what I feel is a better grip and entry method, involving a tighter, more secure, closer grip, inside the functional range of the knife.
> 
> Any more questions on that?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy. Really? You think you can kick easily when someone's struggling for their knife, and the knife is between the two of you? It's actually a lot easier to kick from the tighter position, although due to the range, you'd knee instead. And a knee lever (I'm assuming putting your knee on the elbow to force someone to the ground)? You're deliberately giving up balance when there's a knife involved? Ras, my method is firstly NOT narrower, it's higher return. Yours is also not more "tactically sound", as I can pull apart tactical issues in just this little paragraph here. Finally, when it comes to "natural responces", I actually mean what that sounds like. I mean the normal, expected, natural responce that is encountered in such situations, which are handled by the closer, tighter grip, but not by your method, gotta say. That includes the knifeman pulling their knife arm back, pushing against you, struggling to retain control, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, no, I hadn't given up, but needed a bit of time to get this down.... you understand, yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> The control here is much better, with Jeff moving in past the knife (although I'm not fond of the initial defence), you might note that Jeff is using a high/low control (with his upper arm controlling the upper arm of the knifeman, another application of the same principle that I use). The biggest issue with this is the massively out of place murder at the end, with you, having disarmed the knifeman, proceeding to cut him to ribbons. Yeah, that's some pretty serious jail time for killing a now unarmed man there.... oh, and it's rather inefficient use of a knife, I might add....
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I'm going to be blunt here as well (well, why stop now?), and say that not much of that impressed me either. There's a lot of overkill, some dangerous actions, and a few outright fantasy sequences. I'm also not impressed with the "Ferrari versus Go-kart" approach, or the attackers habits of not just stopping the attack, but lowering their defences (their hands) each time as soon as the defence starts as well. Hmm. That said, there are a few things that can be stripped out of it to make a pretty good knife defence program, but a lot needs to be removed first.
> 
> Well, wasn't that fun? Oh, and Ras, if you still don't get what I'm talking about, I'll see about putting some kind of clip together that doesn't really give away too much. Okay? It may take a week or so, though. But only if you still don't get what I mean from all of this.





Okay I'm pressed for time,so this will be quicker than usual.I hope to return and expand upon my comment later. I see that I will have to address the major fallacies in your presumption and which i keep addressing over and over again so let me re-word it in the hopes that my meaning will carry more clearly:

When you respond critiquing a person's video or approach,you are in turn placing yourself up to critical review.In this case,your post and the reasoning behind it,Chris,is being rigorously disputed by me.Therefore you are every bit as much subject to and open to criticism as I am. You are critiquing my video and what you gather from it. I am critiquing your nonvideo posts as someone who not only did the techs you are belaboring with your posts under real world live fire but also as someone who has done and continues to do everything that we've seen in the S.T.A.B. videos that you claim that you do AND the other videos which you claim you don't do. Now,you disagree with the functionality,the facility of these other methods.That's perfectly fine and in many ways a good thing. Variety being the spice of life etc. However to conclude that the techs that I use that aren't what you do don't work or are more dangerous than yours or are the most desperate response in a last ditch desperate situation is not true,because you're segmenting a whole...which actually shows that you're doing what you claim that I'm doing: you're not understanding what I'm saying and what you're seeing.

I repeatedly stated that everything that you've specified so far is all part of my approach,and that I don't consider a 2 on 1 wrist tie to be different than a 2 on 1 wrist and bicep tie (which is what you champion),because I train the 2 on 1 itself as my main response. Over and over and over and over again,I say that I recommend the 2 on 1 PERIOD...which allows the combination of the approach that you advise with the approaches that I have recommended on video and literally every other option extant in the 2 on 1.By decrying and denigrating and saying not to do what I am doing,you by definition have the LESS VERSATILE approach. There is no way around this,Chris. You don't do what I do because it doesn't work for you.I found a way to make it work AND do what you do AND do other stuff too,all from the 2 on 1. The fact that your apporach is less versatile is absolutely beyond debate if what you say is true. To my knowledge,until the post that you put on this very page, you have not directly stated that what we see in the S.T.A.B. videos is exactly what you do...you stated that they feature the grip you recommend,but that's not the same as saying that the techs that they display are what you actually do. When you stated this:"as well as having my method demonstrated in the majority of clips that others have posted (so my posting a clip of me doing the same thing would mean what, exactly?)" That's the first time I've seen you specifically state that the S.T.A.B. video is in essence what you do,so you "posting a clip of me [Chris Parker] doing the same thing would mean what,exactly?" ISN'T needed.Prior to this statement? I got the impression that you were alluding to the specific wrist and bicep tie you employed.

I posted multiple wrestling links to bolster my position that I use the 2 on 1 and all of its primary options period. That means by definition--literally--that what I'm talking about encapsulates what you're talking about insofar as grip is concerned. The reason you didn't see me utilize this wrist and bicep tie approach in the clip you saw are: 1) I showed the VERSATILITY that is evident in my approach and not in any of the others thus far (which may simply be because they weren't attacked at distance but is probably an unlikely contention). I can get off kicks,kenpo techs,takedowns and the like which are NOT the common fare which means that by and large they're more difficult to defend against precisely because they're not the usual kinds of responses and 2) My uke Jabari didn't approach me from the rear in exactly the same method of attack that the S.T.A.B. guys faced  3) If the S.T.A.B. videos and the like demonstrate your approach as you claim then you have cemented my argument and position:those guys don't kick. They don't stomp ankles.Their wrist manipulations are not as emphasized as mine are,if they exist at all. They allow their opponent to continue attacks and switch knife hands and they don't focus on disarms as much as I do. 

They do knee and so do I. They elbow and so do I. They head butt and so do I. But they allow themselves to be hit due to poor head placement and I do not.They're not as adept at foot sweeps (this is where the Judo and wrestling--especially Judo--is vital and again shows the versatility that I employ which is absent from the other videos and which by extension is absent from your approach too Chris if you would indeed essentially be reposting what we've already seen). Yes this is a drill--I use it myself,that's why I'm so comfortable with both its strengths and its weaknesses--but what's missing here is that part of the drill where the disarm is mandated. We do the drill for 3 minute rounds (an ETERNITY when a knife or gun is involved) and we focus on controlling the knife/gun arm and opponent so that they cannot harm us and we CAN harm them while they're still in possession of the weapon for the first 2 minutes,and then I give the call to disarm and we have 1 minute to effect the disarm. This is utterly utterly vital,because we can't allow a person with a gun to keep his weapon while we flee. He could easily shoot us. With the knife? Run for it if you can,as that's the second safest option.The safest option of course is not to be the target of a knife attack in the first place.But if attacked by a knife wielding opponent,do as much damage in as little time as possible while remaining as absolutely safe as you can,and escaping at the first reasonable opportunity.

Which bring me to the other thing which you decried and which shows that we have a wide difference in experience in real world fighting: you basically guffawed at the idea of the "walk up jackin". It's not funny,dawg. The walk up came as a refinement of the drive-by nearly 20 years ago. Just last week in CPT and LBC here in Killa Cali two friends of my students were assaulted that way,and one of their friends in that group was seriously injured. It's a real world scenario that's grim and the extra close quarters knife fighting shown in S.T.A.B. and the other methods you recommend completely ignore it.Where I'm from? Ignoring the Walk Up will get you killed.Alot. Again,my approach is more versatile...probably by necessity.Maybe where you're from you don't have to worry about the Walk-Up (lucky you if so) but we do,and thus our greater versatility.The fact that you don't PREFER it does not in any way detract from its viability and effectiveness.

Back to answer more in depth later...


----------



## Chris Parker

ATACX GYM said:


> Okay I'm pressed for time,so this will be quicker than usual.I hope to return and expand upon my comment later. I see that I will have to address the major fallacies in your presumption and which i keep addressing over and over again so let me re-word it in the hopes that my meaning will carry more clearly:



You're pressed for time, yet manage to put down six paragraphs, most of which don't address any of the questions posed to you? Hmm, if you don't have time to answer, cool, but putting down this much without really saying anything just seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. It's also coming across that you may have missed most of this thread, I gotta say, as you're arguing things that haven't been said, and are claiming things have been said that haven't. How about we take this opportunity to recap, while addressing your post, yeah?



ATACX GYM said:


> When you respond critiquing a person's video or approach,you are in turn placing yourself up to critical review.In this case,your post and the reasoning behind it,Chris,is being rigorously disputed by me.Therefore you are every bit as much subject to and open to criticism as I am.



Not actually the way it works, Ras (if it was, then all film critics would have to make their own movies in order to criticise the ones that are released, all food critics would need to cook the same dishes in order to be critics etc), but I have no problem with being critiqued. But the catch is that you haven't critiqued anything that I've said so far, more just implied some rather inaccurate aspects and constantly referenced a supposed superiority of your two hands on the wrist approach with vague comments unsupported by any actual argument or reasoning (such as it being more "versatile").

And the fact still remains that you put your clip up as an example, in fact as a "better" example than the first one in the OP, which of course raises the questions firstly, whether it is better, and second, what makes it better. And that extends to whether or not a better approach can be shown. Despite the OP (sorry, Mike!), this thread has become a critique of your clip, and what you show in it (nothing else, Ras, just what's in the clip). Not anything else. You can (and should) question the critique, absolutely, but that is different from a demand for video to criticise yourself. Not really the way these things go.



ATACX GYM said:


> You are critiquing my video and what you gather from it.


 
No, just what is shown in the video, Ras, I'm not extrapolating anything from it other than what is shown.



ATACX GYM said:


> I am critiquing your nonvideo posts as someone who not only did the techs you are belaboring with your posts under real world live fire but also as someone who has done and continues to do everything that we've seen in the S.T.A.B. videos that you claim that you do AND the other videos which you claim you don't do.


 
Catch is, though, you're not. You're dismissing, but not critiquing. You're making vague generalities and assumptions, but not critiquing. As to the rest, I'm going to spell it out to you once more, Ras:

We are discussing the methods you demonstrate in the first clip you put up, specifically the double-hand grab to the wrist to control a knife attack. The rest of the clips have been illustratory at best, and the question of what else you may do is really beside the point. We are discussing the method shown in your clip. 

Tell you what, here's the initial discussion, so you can catch up:

Post #3 (my initial criticism):


> You are missing, for example, any form of realistic resistance, which would make the catch of the knife arm a lot harder than it is for you there.



Post #5 (continuing in responce to you missing what I meant the first time):


> A realistic responce to your grabbing your attackers knife hand is not for them to keep pushing in with the thrust, it's for them to try to pull out of your grip (and retain control of the knife, which, psychologically speaking, is their source of their power in this situation). And the double grip you come in with would have them immediately rip their arm out of your grip and continue stabbing you.



Post #6 (where the thrust of my criticism comes from, with your claim here):


> Actually the double grip that I come in with is *one of the very best possible responses* to the knife attack.



Combined with post #20 (your next post in responce to myself, and clarification of the crux of the discussion, being the specific grip/secure that you show):


> To the issue of the 2 on 1...*meaning the double grip on your opponent's wrist*...I cannot emphasize how effective this is.



That's the discussion, Ras. That particular grip, and whether or not it really is "one of the best possible responces" that you can offer. Not whether or not you do other things as well, but the issues that exist with this particular approach itself (singular). To that end I have provided criticism and an alternative. 



ATACX GYM said:


> Now,you disagree with the functionality,the facility of these other methods.That's perfectly fine and in many ways a good thing. Variety being the spice of life etc. However to conclude that the techs that I use that aren't what you do don't work or are more dangerous than yours or are the most desperate response in a last ditch desperate situation is not true,because you're segmenting a whole...which actually shows that you're doing what you claim that I'm doing: you're not understanding what I'm saying and what you're seeing.



I kinda don't know where to start with this... you've got 20 years experience in this kind of thing, Ras? I'm closer to 25 myself. And what I see, and what I say, is based on some incredibly bad experience, and some incredibly good experience. And here's some of what I've learnt over that time, with both the good and the bad.

A charismatic teacher, by dirnt of their position of authority within the school as well as their ability to lead people, can demonstrate and teach things that don't really stand up on their own, and have it presented without having it really questioned. And, most commonly, it will only be questioned by those outside, whether in a forum such as this, or by moving to another teacher/approach/style. But the thing is that the skill of the teacher, good or bad, does not change functionality and practicality.

Which brings me to the idea of "variety is the spice of life". Not in combat, it isn't. It's the taste of death there. In martial arts, having multiple methods is typically the hallmark of peacetime development, methods designed around actual usage in combat tend far more to the direct, simple, less is more approach. Multiple methods is the domain of creative expression, not combative functionality. Simpler and fewer is better in combative use.

When it comes to claiming that methods that aren't mine "don't work or are more dangerous... or are more desperate... last ditch" etc is nothing to do with them not being what I do. If your method didn't show the issues that it does, but wasn't what I do, then that'd be fine. But it is more desperate, it is last ditch as it's primary usage (tactically), which does rob it of many of what you claim are it's benefits, so I say so. And yes, I'm segmenting a whole (although I am also taking it in it's greater context, probably in a greater context than you seem to be thinking here), as I am looking at the veracity of one aspect of your clip in particular, as evidenced by, oh, I don't know, this entire thread. I might suggest reading it.



ATACX GYM said:


> I repeatedly stated that everything that you've specified so far is all part of my approach,and that I don't consider a 2 on 1 wrist tie to be different than a 2 on 1 wrist and bicep tie (which is what you champion),because I train the 2 on 1 itself as my main response.


 
Whether you consider it to be different or not, it is very different, Ras. The body mechanics, the relative strength and control, the balance points, the ability of the opponent to struggle, the way they can struggle to retain the knife, and more are all very different. In fact, the main thing you have done with two hands on his wrist is tie up both your hands with little actual benefit, as even the strength advantage can be countermanned with a simple step. And, one more time, the thrust of this discussion is about your teaching two hands on the wrist as a primary method, not other expressions that you may use. Once more, you state that it is "one of the very best possible responces" against a knife, and that is what I'm arguing against.



ATACX GYM said:


> Over and over and over and over again,I say that I recommend the 2 on 1 PERIOD...which allows the combination of the approach that you advise with the approaches that I have recommended on video and literally every other option extant in the 2 on 1.



That's not what this discussion has been about, though, Ras. And, going through the thread itself again, the first reference to "the 2 on 1 in all it's forms" is in post #71. Before that you were specifically referencing the two hands on the wrist approach, with some somewhat vague references that you may have intended to mean other versions. But, and I'm going to be as clear as I can be here, two hands controlling the wrist and a double control to the upper arm and forearm (what I've been referring to as a high/low, and you've been calling a bicep and wrist grip) are two different principles, using different principles of leverage, control, strength, balance, timing, adjustment, and more. They are not the same, although they are closely related. But, again, this discussion has been about the two hands on the wrist approach and your claim that it is one of the "very best" responces.



ATACX GYM said:


> By decrying and denigrating and saying not to do what I am doing,you by definition have the LESS VERSATILE approach. There is no way around this,Chris.



No way around it? Really? Let's try, shall we...

Sure, there's a way around it (didn't take me long to find, either). It comes down to the definition of "versatile", really. What I mean by versatile is the ability to have more productive and powerful options from a single starting point, not having multiple starting points. And, due to the higher degree of control, greater level of security, better balance, and less strength needed for a high/low control, mine is the more versatile, as the double hands on the wrist makes a range of options more dangerous to attempt.

There you go, got around it. Nice try, though.



ATACX GYM said:


> You don't do what I do because it doesn't work for you.I found a way to make it work AND do what you do AND do other stuff too,all from the 2 on 1. The fact that your apporach is less versatile is absolutely beyond debate if what you say is true.



No, I don't do what you show in the clip because it's more dangerous, less secure, less mechanically powerful, tactically questionable (when other options are present), and more. Not because it "doesn't work for me", because it is flawed from the outset. Once again, though, such "conversation stopper" language is a little presumptuous, don't you think? After all, there is no "fact" that what I do is less versatile.... quite the opposite, when you get down to it.



ATACX GYM said:


> To my knowledge,until the post that you put on this very page, you have not directly stated that what we see in the S.T.A.B. videos is exactly what you do...you stated that they feature the grip you recommend,but that's not the same as saying that the techs that they display are what you actually do.



You are kidding, right? Seriously? The post directly after Mike's (when he first posted the STAB clips) was me saying that they are showing the grip I was describing (really a close variation, but certainly close enough to show the difference between that and your two hands on the wrist one), and the above post simply states (again!) that they use the same grip... there is no mention of my methods and theirs being the same. Tell you what, I'll help you out there, here are the two mentions in the above post:



> *For a visual reference to the grip I'm talking about*, one more time, look to almost every other clip presented here. Specifically look to the STAB clips that Mike posted in post #31... *they both show something very close to my approach/grip*, including the versatility (arm shock/bar, knees, disarms, controls, movement from hold to hold, and more) that you seem to think isn't present in that grip, and I will emphatically state is not present in yours (if you try kicking from there and they're still struggling for control of the knife, you will, at best, miss, and at worst get pulled completely off balance to begin with).





> *And my grip*, as shown in the STAB clips (again, post #23)



I haven't said that they are showing my techniques, and this hasn't been about techniques anyway, it's about the grip you use and the one that I use (have I said that enough yet?). Okay?



ATACX GYM said:


> When you stated this:"as well as having my method demonstrated in the majority of clips that others have posted (so my posting a clip of me doing the same thing would mean what, exactly?)" That's the first time I've seen you specifically state that the S.T.A.B. video is in essence what you do,so you "posting a clip of me [Chris Parker] doing the same thing would mean what,exactly?" ISN'T needed.Prior to this statement? I got the impression that you were alluding to the specific wrist and bicep tie you employed.



My method of control and grip, Ras, as that has been the discussion. It is a reference to the high/low control. I don't know why you thought it referred to anything more or else, really.



ATACX GYM said:


> I posted multiple wrestling links to bolster my position that I use the 2 on 1 and all of its primary options period. That means by definition--literally--that what I'm talking about encapsulates what you're talking about insofar as grip is concerned.



You have posted a number of links that don't show your two hands on the wrist method, others that do use it, but not against a knife, and a flawed usage against a knife which fails reality tests. Again, the principle of controlling by holding the wrist and the principle of controlling the  entire arm at two separate points are different principles, so to go between them you are not "being versatile" with one concept, you are switching between two (not a bad thing in and of itself, but that's not the discussion). So you are, by definition, not. You are instead saying that you transition from yours to mine, which is different. But really, that's beside the point, as the initial clip that spawned all of this doesn't show that, and it is that clip alone that I am critiquing, not your entire methodology against a knife. You spent the first 4 pages of this thread defending that particular grip, and have only really changed to this "oh, but I do everything" comment in recent posts. Cool and all, but not the point, and doesn't change the critique of the method shown in your clip (you know, the one we are discussing?). 



ATACX GYM said:


> The reason you didn't see me utilize this wrist and bicep tie approach in the clip you saw are: 1) I showed the VERSATILITY that is evident in my approach and not in any of the others thus far (which may simply be because they weren't attacked at distance but is probably an unlikely contention). I can get off kicks,kenpo techs,takedowns and the like which are NOT the common fare which means that by and large they're more difficult to defend against precisely because they're not the usual kinds of responses



Oh dear lord, to be frank, Ras, this comes across as the same self delusional talk I hear from a number of people who don't have the actual experience they think they do, and try to approach these areas with a rational, consciously thought out way. Did you ever think that the reason others don't do a lot of the things that you are saying here (kicking by staying out in the knife's functional range, keeping it between you and the opponent, reaching out and extending your balance etc) is because others consider such things too risky to be relied upon?



ATACX GYM said:


> and 2) My uke Jabari didn't approach me from the rear in exactly the same method of attack that the S.T.A.B. guys faced


 
Frankly, this is irrelevant. I have no idea why you feel it is a decent reason, as the grip that I use we often practice against an attack from the front. And really? You think the attack needs to be in an exact method? Hmm.



ATACX GYM said:


> 3) If the S.T.A.B. videos and the like demonstrate your approach as you claim then you have cemented my argument and position:those guys don't kick. They don't stomp ankles.Their wrist manipulations are not as emphasized as mine are,if they exist at all. They allow their opponent to continue attacks and switch knife hands and they don't focus on disarms as much as I do.



Reread. Properly, this time. They show pretty much the same grip I use, Ras, what we do after that is fairly different, but that's not the discussion we're having here. Just so you know, though, for us it involves takedowns, controls, disarms, strips, breaks, kicks, locks, strikes, pressures, rips, tears, and more. I would also point out that you were watching a drilling method for the STAB guys, not techniques or defences for the main. Pretty big difference there.



ATACX GYM said:


> They do knee and so do I. They elbow and so do I. They head butt and so do I. But they allow themselves to be hit due to poor head placement and I do not.They're not as adept at foot sweeps (this is where the Judo and wrestling--especially Judo--is vital and again shows the versatility that I employ which is absent from the other videos and which by extension is absent from your approach too Chris if you would indeed essentially be reposting what we've already seen).



This is what I mean by presuming. You've misread the thread, misread my posts, missed what you're looking at in the clips, and are still presuming to tell me what's missing in my knife defence capabilities. Son, as I said, mine is probably more versatile than yours. How about you just recognise that the discussion is about the two grips? Kay? Kay.



ATACX GYM said:


> Yes this is a drill--I use it myself,that's why I'm so comfortable with both its strengths and its weaknesses--but what's missing here is that part of the drill where the disarm is mandated. We do the drill for 3 minute rounds (an ETERNITY when a knife or gun is involved) and we focus on controlling the knife/gun arm and opponent so that they cannot harm us and we CAN harm them while they're still in possession of the weapon for the first 2 minutes,and then I give the call to disarm and we have 1 minute to effect the disarm.



And if you were in my class, and you were struggling for more than about 5-10 seconds, I'd consider that a fail. 3 minutes? Either you're dead, or the attacker is one of the most stupid knifemen ever produced.

Now, before you cry foul over that, I get the reasons for such drills, and see their use. But as far as I'm concerned, it's teaching rather dangerous habits and expectations (that you can continue to struggle against a knife for that long with some form of safety).



ATACX GYM said:


> This is utterly utterly vital,because we can't allow a person with a gun to keep his weapon while we flee. He could easily shoot us. With the knife? Run for it if you can,as that's the second safest option.The safest option of course is not to be the target of a knife attack in the first place.But if attacked by a knife wielding opponent,do as much damage in as little time as possible while remaining as absolutely safe as you can,and escaping at the first reasonable opportunity.



I don't know who you think you're telling this too, Ras, but this is all completely off the discussion topic, which is the grip you are using in the clip you posted in the second post of this thread, and your subsequent defence of it as "one of the very best options". What you do after that hasn't been part of the discussion, hasn't been called into question (save that you may not get to "after" with the grip you are advocating), so I don't know where you think you're going with this. If I didn't know better, I'd think you're trying to build credibility with some self evident truisms, stating things that aren't going to be argued with.... hmm.



ATACX GYM said:


> Which bring me to the other thing which you decried and which shows that we have a wide difference in experience in real world fighting: you basically guffawed at the idea of the "walk up jackin". It's not funny,dawg. The walk up came as a refinement of the drive-by nearly 20 years ago. Just last week in CPT and LBC here in Killa Cali two friends of my students were assaulted that way,and one of their friends in that group was seriously injured. It's a real world scenario that's grim and the extra close quarters knife fighting shown in S.T.A.B. and the other methods you recommend completely ignore it.



Okay, I had to go hunting for where you got that idea from. And, once again, you seem to have completely missed what I was saying. You were asking about dealing with a knife assault from different ranges, claiming that the STAB clips were limited to a single range, and therefore my approach was as well. And what I told you was that the same principles are employed, and when it starts from a greater distance, then you have more time to deal with it. If you're discussing an ambush type assault, that's why we teach awareness and maintaining distance first and foremost. None of which has any real effect on the discussion here... and none of which was me "guffawing" at the idea of an ambush-style assault. Kay? Kay.



ATACX GYM said:


> Where I'm from? Ignoring the Walk Up will get you killed.Alot. Again,my approach is more versatile...probably by necessity.Maybe where you're from you don't have to worry about the Walk-Up (lucky you if so) but we do,and thus our greater versatility.The fact that you don't PREFER it does not in any way detract from its viability and effectiveness.



So your approach against a close-quarters (within half an arms length, I believe you suggested) ambush assault is to try to grab their wrist with both your hands? I can think of a few other things I'd rely on first, that don't give them the range to deploy the knife even more successfully and powerfully, don't take me off balance by suddenly leaping back, and don't overcommit myself to a low return movement (trying to catch the fastest moving part of their arm while it holds a bladed weapon), but that's me. And again, you haven't demonstrated anything close to greater versatility or effectiveness.



ATACX GYM said:


> Back to answer more in depth later...



Can I suggest you go back over the thread and answer the questions I've posed to you first? You don't seem to have answered any of them, while I've answered everything you've asked me so far. Might be nice to get some answers before another plug for your upcoming DVD (is it three or four mentions you've managed to slip into this thread?). Kay? Kay.


----------



## Cyriacus

Im not even going to attempt to properly follow this conversation - I am going to comment on my own Opinion from what I can gather, however.

Securing the Wrist with both hands incapacitates your movement substantially.
Whilst you could slide a hand up and grab the arm as well, I can see a few ways that could go wrong.
Now, a sidenote: This also depends on how youre Training. This would definitely work on some thug. But any remotely Trained individual would be able to circumvent that using the Arm youre grabbing to rather keep YOU in Position; And we Train under a Combative Idealogy, in which all of your Opponents are potentially rather skilled. Unless im now talking about what you two arent talking about but which I think youre talking about or something.
Im of the Idealogy that securing the Wrist with one hand gives you more options from that point. Optionally, the Forearm. I personally think the Bicep would get you too close.
Now, im not saying anyones right or wrong. You two can debate that.
Im just taking this chance to state how id go about starting off. And id start off by deflecting, then if possible from there, grabbing the Wrist or Forearm.
Then using any number of options from that point.
How I deflected/grabbed would be subject to what best suited the Knife Attack itself.

Whats most Pertinent, I feel, is that you have Options after the Catalyst. Rather than creating a new Catalyst after a certain point. Since that deflection (Or Dodge. But thats different again) renders that particular attack null. What you do after that is what should count. It could be Grabbing the Forearm or Wrist. It could be Kicking. It could be jamming the attack and coming in with Punches. It could be a Disarm. A Takedown. You could Reposition. Do a Legsweep. Again, thats not what im talking about mainly.

That said, grabbing the Wrist and Arm can work. Im not saying it wont. Or Forearm and Bicep. Its just a different approach, with different Dynamics. And id rather have one hand on the Forearm and the other on the Head or Neck. Since youre that close, why not? It reduces your Opponents Offensive Options more than entrapping a single arm. What if they start kicking your Knees? Your own Grab keeps you in range for that, unless youre doing something to cause an immediate effect.

Incidentally, ill mention im completely open to Criticism. Praise. Suggestion. Whathaveyou. In our System, Knife stuff becomes much more focused at Blue Belt. While the Training of it is the same at Green Belt, im not going to claim im Super-Experienced. I know enough to discuss it though.

Just My Contribution.
Thats whats worked for me in Self Defense stuff with Knives, anyway.


----------



## Chris Parker

Cyriacus said:


> Im not even going to attempt to properly follow this conversation - I am going to comment on my own Opinion from what I can gather, however.



Yeah, it's a fun one to try to follow... I've had to keep going back over the entire thread in my responces!



Cyriacus said:


> Securing the Wrist with both hands incapacitates your movement substantially.
> Whilst you could slide a hand up and grab the arm as well, I can see a few ways that could go wrong.



It's best use is to move into a "arm drag" movement, pulling the knife past you to move in and get the better control. And I think Ras is kinda halfway there when he was talking about the "grab and whip" action he initially employs, he just isn't continuing onto the second part.



Cyriacus said:


> Now, a sidenote: This also depends on how youre Training. This would definitely work on some thug. But any remotely Trained individual would be able to circumvent that using the Arm youre grabbing to rather keep YOU in Position; And we Train under a Combative Idealogy, in which all of your Opponents are potentially rather skilled. Unless im now talking about what you two arent talking about but which I think youre talking about or something.



Hmm. No. On a couple of fronts there.

First off, let's look at your street thug. The primary thing to understand about someone attacking you is that they feel they have an advantage which makes it safe for them to do so, whether it is alcohol, drugs, desperation, prior experience, friends around them, size, strength, speed, or a weapon. These advantages gives the attacker confidence, which is put into the particular item itself (in this case, a knife). As a result, once you threaten their perceived "power" (by taking control of the knife or knife arm), they will automatically, and immediately try to regain or retain control of it. So as soon as you grab their arm, wherever you do, their immediate responce is to try to pull it back. As a result, a grab needs to be very secure and immediate against them. Otherwise, the immediate, and natural responce from an untrained person, will be to cut back at your arm as they retrieve their weapon.

If you are dealing with a skilled person, the same thing occurs, just with better placed cuts and better mechanics. But the thing is, that type of specialisation is not something that would be commonly encountered. It's more likely to be the street thug, so training (for self defence) should be geared with them in mind, not the trained individual. Trained individuals are encountered in sporting contests, not outside of that in the main. The skills that the average street thug, particularly a knifeman, possesses are not to be underestimated, though! They may typically be relatively simple, but they are also highly effective, and are borne out of experience more than training.



Cyriacus said:


> Im of the Idealogy that securing the Wrist with one hand gives you more options from that point.



Except that it's far too weak to rely on, and there can be some major structural issues to contend with (the angle that you would need to come in on can lead to even less strength, whereas the attacking arm is already in a functionally strong position, relatively speaking, as it needs to be to use the knife effectively). Bad idea.



Cyriacus said:


> Optionally, the Forearm. I personally think the Bicep would get you too close.



You want to be that close. The only safe places against a knife (really, any weapon) are outside of it's functional range, or inside it. Staying directly in the functional range is the bad place to be. With a knife, it's going to be anywhere from a slightly bent arm  (the attackers arm) to another three feet beyond that. You need to be either inside of that range, and controlling, or outside of it. 



Cyriacus said:


> Now, im not saying anyones right or wrong. You two can debate that.
> Im just taking this chance to state how id go about starting off. And id start off by deflecting, then if possible from there, grabbing the Wrist or Forearm.
> Then using any number of options from that point.
> How I deflected/grabbed would be subject to what best suited the Knife Attack itself.



Start by evading and guarding. From there you move into control. Then, and only then (once control is established) you can start to look at other options. But you should first look to your footwork, you have two choices, evade out, or move in.



Cyriacus said:


> Whats most Pertinent, I feel, is that you have Options after the Catalyst. Rather than creating a new Catalyst after a certain point. Since that deflection (Or Dodge. But thats different again) renders that particular attack null. What you do after that is what should count. It could be Grabbing the Forearm or Wrist. It could be Kicking. It could be jamming the attack and coming in with Punches. It could be a Disarm. A Takedown. You could Reposition. Do a Legsweep. Again, thats not what im talking about mainly.



Control of the weapon is key. The only time you don't want to be going for weapon control is when you are purely escaping.



Cyriacus said:


> That said, grabbing the Wrist and Arm can work. Im not saying it wont. Or Forearm and Bicep. Its just a different approach, with different Dynamics. And id rather have one hand on the Forearm and the other on the Head or Neck. Since youre that close, why not? It reduces your Opponents Offensive Options more than entrapping a single arm. What if they start kicking your Knees? Your own Grab keeps you in range for that, unless youre doing something to cause an immediate effect.



Not the forearm. There isn't enough control over the weapon itself. The high/low control controls the weapon (at the wrist) and the body (by controlling the upper arm). Kicking your knee really isn't a huge possibility, unless you are too far out to control properly, in which case you're in that danger zone I mentioned earlier. The arm on the head and/or neck doesn't actually give enough control, as it allows a fair amount of movement of the upper body, allowing them to move around, and ultimately, control the weapon. Bad idea.



Cyriacus said:


> Incidentally, ill mention im completely open to Criticism. Praise. Suggestion. Whathaveyou. In our System, Knife stuff becomes much more focused at Blue Belt. While the Training of it is the same at Green Belt, im not going to claim im Super-Experienced. I know enough to discuss it though.
> 
> Just My Contribution.
> Thats whats worked for me in Self Defense stuff with Knives, anyway.



Criticism? Check. Suggestions? Check. Praise? Uh... maybe not with these ideas, my friend.


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, it's a fun one to try to follow... I've had to keep going back over the entire thread in my responces!
> 
> 
> 
> It's best use is to move into a "arm drag" movement, pulling the knife past you to move in and get the better control. And I think Ras is kinda halfway there when he was talking about the "grab and whip" action he initially employs, he just isn't continuing onto the second part.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. No. On a couple of fronts there.
> 
> First off, let's look at your street thug. The primary thing to understand about someone attacking you is that they feel they have an advantage which makes it safe for them to do so, whether it is alcohol, drugs, desperation, prior experience, friends around them, size, strength, speed, or a weapon. These advantages gives the attacker confidence, which is put into the particular item itself (in this case, a knife). As a result, once you threaten their perceived "power" (by taking control of the knife or knife arm), they will automatically, and immediately try to regain or retain control of it. So as soon as you grab their arm, wherever you do, their immediate responce is to try to pull it back. As a result, a grab needs to be very secure and immediate against them. Otherwise, the immediate, and natural responce from an untrained person, will be to cut back at your arm as they retrieve their weapon.
> 
> If you are dealing with a skilled person, the same thing occurs, just with better placed cuts and better mechanics. But the thing is, that type of specialisation is not something that would be commonly encountered. It's more likely to be the street thug, so training (for self defence) should be geared with them in mind, not the trained individual. Trained individuals are encountered in sporting contests, not outside of that in the main. The skills that the average street thug, particularly a knifeman, possesses are not to be underestimated, though! They may typically be relatively simple, but they are also highly effective, and are borne out of experience more than training.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that it's far too weak to rely on, and there can be some major structural issues to contend with (the angle that you would need to come in on can lead to even less strength, whereas the attacking arm is already in a functionally strong position, relatively speaking, as it needs to be to use the knife effectively). Bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to be that close. The only safe places against a knife (really, any weapon) are outside of it's functional range, or inside it. Staying directly in the functional range is the bad place to be. With a knife, it's going to be anywhere from a slightly bent arm  (the attackers arm) to another three feet beyond that. You need to be either inside of that range, and controlling, or outside of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Start by evading and guarding. From there you move into control. Then, and only then (once control is established) you can start to look at other options. But you should first look to your footwork, you have two choices, evade out, or move in.
> 
> 
> 
> Control of the weapon is key. The only time you don't want to be going for weapon control is when you are purely escaping.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the forearm. There isn't enough control over the weapon itself. The high/low control controls the weapon (at the wrist) and the body (by controlling the upper arm). Kicking your knee really isn't a huge possibility, unless you are too far out to control properly, in which case you're in that danger zone I mentioned earlier. The arm on the head and/or neck doesn't actually give enough control, as it allows a fair amount of movement of the upper body, allowing them to move around, and ultimately, control the weapon. Bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Criticism? Check. Suggestions? Check. Praise? Uh... maybe not with these ideas, my friend.



All Duly Noted;
And this is the kind of Alternative Perspective I aimed to ascertain from this Site all those... Weeks or Months, im not sure; Ago.
And I seem to keep getting it.

I gather from that, overall; Closer = Better. Control > Position. Be more worried about the Knife than the Attacker at first. Thugs can be senselessly brave.


----------



## Chris Parker

Not quite... Close isn't better than far away, the aim is to be in a place where the weapon is not readily able to injure you, or such usage is severely limited. Control is essential, but position is part of that. And don't overly fixate on the knife, or other things catch you by surprise. Thugs can be senseless....


----------



## Cyriacus

Chris Parker said:


> Not quite... Close isn't better than far away, the aim is to be in a place where the weapon is not readily able to injure you, or such usage is severely limited. Control is essential, but position is part of that. And don't overly fixate on the knife, or other things catch you by surprise. Thugs can be senseless....


The first part was bad phrasing - Of course you want to be out of Range, but if youre actively performing a Defensive Movement;
*nods at the rest*


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> 
> 
> Single attacker, single defender isn't the issue (it's actually more realistic, honestly), it's the way that the defender isn't demonstrating usable skills other than getting his arms cut. I get that it was done to illustrate a point, but the skill set isn't there so the drilling method used is lacking.



Yeah, I agree.  I'm not sure how we got on the single/single discussion came up, but yes, I agree, and that was kinda my point....unless I missed something, I didn't see anything usable. 





> As I'm sure you're aware, a strike to the body, or head, which is more static in it's position (relative to the moving, or incoming limb) is going to be higher return to impart force than striking to an incoming arm. So you can rely on a punch that way far more than this form of "limb destruction", to be frank. That said, agreed, all eggs in one basket isn't the best plan on the table.



True. Like I said earlier, its simply one option.  If that option works, great.  If not, move on to the next, and so forth.   The thing with pressure points, while I like them, unless you're so good that you nail it just right, in the heat of the moment, its very possible that you could miss or the desired result will not be reached.  





> Ha, didn't think you would! That does leave me wondering what Ras was getting at when he invented that scenario, as my option seems to be by far and away the better out of the two discussed approaches there.... hmm....









> Which is found in the training of principles, over techniques.



Agreed! Which is why I'm a huge advocate of this, unfortunately, to the deaf ears of some Kenpoists, but to each his own. 





> The technical application will need to change in large or small ways, sure. But the principles shouldn't need to at all (if they do, they aren't really universal principles, are they?). Modification within the principles is the exact way it is supposed to go.



Ah, yes, I agree.  Sorry, misunderstood the text. 





> Yeah, I get the "overwhelm" aspect, it's one of the hallmarks of American Kempo, Kajukembo etc, my big issue is more with Jeff's end to his technique, starting at 4:20 in the clip above. He strips the knife from his assailant, meaning that the attacker is now unarmed, and strikes to the side of the jaw with the butt of the weapon. Okay, that removes the threat, all good. However, Jeff then proceeds to cut the carotid artery of his unarmed opponent (which is already potentially murder charges, or at the very least aggrevated assault with intent to grievous bodily harm), then cuts back down through the guys cheek and mouth, and then, to clear the arm, cuts open the shoulder and tricep. Not content with that, against his now bleeding out and still unarmed opponent, clearly not posing any threat anymore, Jeff strikes the groin, cuts open the femoral artery now (the second major bleeder), moves behind, and cuts the testicles (for good measure, I suppose....?). That is beyond overkill, it's outright murder and highly irresponsible to be given under any circumstances. The only other place I really see this kind of thing is in the outrightly fraudulant bogus "ninja" schools - nothing historically used would waste that amount of time and energy, frankly!



I dont see any huge issues with using the butt end of the blade, if you had to, but the blade part...well, unless the guy was hell bent on killing you and you could prove this in court......it'd be better to beat the **** out of the guy with your empty hands..lol.  I saw a Kenpo guy, who also does Pikiti Tirsia.  It pretty much showed exactly what you described here.  If you're interested in seeing it, I'll PM you, but I'd rather not post here so we dont derail the thread.  That'd probably make a good topic though...what not to do when dealing with an armed attacker.


----------



## MJS

ATACX GYM said:


> Which bring me to the other thing which you decried and which shows that we have a wide difference in experience in real world fighting: you basically guffawed at the idea of the "walk up jackin". It's not funny,dawg. The walk up came as a refinement of the drive-by nearly 20 years ago. Just last week in CPT and LBC here in Killa Cali two friends of my students were assaulted that way,and one of their friends in that group was seriously injured. It's a real world scenario that's grim and the extra close quarters knife fighting shown in S.T.A.B. and the other methods you recommend completely ignore it.Where I'm from? Ignoring the Walk Up will get you killed.Alot. Again,my approach is more versatile...probably by necessity.Maybe where you're from you don't have to worry about the Walk-Up (lucky you if so) but we do,and thus our greater versatility.The fact that you don't PREFER it does not in any way detract from its viability and effectiveness.
> 
> Back to answer more in depth later...



Just so I'm clear on the terms being used here: Walk up-  is that being defined as someone walking up to you, blade out, in an attempt to use the knife, intimidate with the knife, grab you with a free hand, while the knife is pressed up against you?  Lets look at this a few different ways.

1) First and foremost, if you saw someone approaching you with a blade, why in Gods name, would you allow them to get that close?  IIRC, this came up in another post in this thread, and I gave examples of what I would do.  IIRC, Chris did the same.  Unless I'm in a room with nothing around, and totally naked, theres a number of improvised tools that should be readily available to use.  IMO, this is where the footwork and ability to create distance will come into play.  

2) If by chance you're not aware, and the guy does get close enough, well, the methods of dealing with that, will differ from if he's coming in from a distance.


----------



## MJS

Cyriacus said:


> Im not even going to attempt to properly follow this conversation - I am going to comment on my own Opinion from what I can gather, however.
> 
> Securing the Wrist with both hands incapacitates your movement substantially.
> Whilst you could slide a hand up and grab the arm as well, I can see a few ways that could go wrong.
> Now, a sidenote: This also depends on how youre Training. This would definitely work on some thug. But any remotely Trained individual would be able to circumvent that using the Arm youre grabbing to rather keep YOU in Position; And we Train under a Combative Idealogy, in which all of your Opponents are potentially rather skilled. Unless im now talking about what you two arent talking about but which I think youre talking about or something.
> Im of the Idealogy that securing the Wrist with one hand gives you more options from that point. Optionally, the Forearm. I personally think the Bicep would get you too close.
> Now, im not saying anyones right or wrong. You two can debate that.
> Im just taking this chance to state how id go about starting off. And id start off by deflecting, then if possible from there, grabbing the Wrist or Forearm.
> Then using any number of options from that point.
> How I deflected/grabbed would be subject to what best suited the Knife Attack itself.
> 
> Whats most Pertinent, I feel, is that you have Options after the Catalyst. Rather than creating a new Catalyst after a certain point. Since that deflection (Or Dodge. But thats different again) renders that particular attack null. What you do after that is what should count. It could be Grabbing the Forearm or Wrist. It could be Kicking. It could be jamming the attack and coming in with Punches. It could be a Disarm. A Takedown. You could Reposition. Do a Legsweep. Again, thats not what im talking about mainly.
> 
> That said, grabbing the Wrist and Arm can work. Im not saying it wont. Or Forearm and Bicep. Its just a different approach, with different Dynamics. And id rather have one hand on the Forearm and the other on the Head or Neck. Since youre that close, why not? It reduces your Opponents Offensive Options more than entrapping a single arm. What if they start kicking your Knees? Your own Grab keeps you in range for that, unless youre doing something to cause an immediate effect.
> 
> Incidentally, ill mention im completely open to Criticism. Praise. Suggestion. Whathaveyou. In our System, Knife stuff becomes much more focused at Blue Belt. While the Training of it is the same at Green Belt, im not going to claim im Super-Experienced. I know enough to discuss it though.
> 
> Just My Contribution.
> Thats whats worked for me in Self Defense stuff with Knives, anyway.



Just a few things that caught my attention.

1) The trained vs. non trained:  Unfortunately alot of it is blocked out for a few, then comes back to a clear shot, but in the Dog Bros DLO (Die Less Often) clips, which can be found on youtube, we see the same method or a similar method in the STAB clips.  I'd say those guys fall into the trained category.

2) The 2 on 1 grip: IMO, the STAB clips do start with that, however, they're transitioning to another grip, one, which, IMO, gives alot more control, due to the marrying of the arm, to your body.  The badguys 1 arm, vs. the strength of your body, should allow more control.

3) Where to grab: I agree, there are a number of spots. 

In closing....this stuff is like going thru a lock flow series.  We transition from lock to lock to lock.  Will we do that in a real situation?  Of course not.  What thats showing, is when you're attempting one, and it fails, something else will hopefully open up, so you can transition to that, and so forth.  This is similar to the "Oh ****" moment that I talked about earlier.  Initially we may have to grab, stop, etc, the arm, one way, and move to a more productive method.


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Yeah, I agree.  I'm not sure how we got on the single/single discussion came up, but yes, I agree, and that was kinda my point....unless I missed something, I didn't see anything usable.



  Ah. I took the "single attacker, single defender" thing from your comment about "one person attacks, one defends", that could be it..



MJS said:


> True. Like I said earlier, its simply one option.  If that option works, great.  If not, move on to the next, and so forth.   The thing with pressure points, while I like them, unless you're so good that you nail it just right, in the heat of the moment, its very possible that you could miss or the desired result will not be reached.



  Ah, pressure points... fun. There's a couple of ways that they can be approached very effectively (as additions to pins for pain compliance, for example), what I was getting at was more that the arm moves, which can lessen the effectiveness of a strike to it. That, combined with the natural pain blocking aspects of adrenaline, means that I wouldn't rely on it being a "limb destruction" unless I was guaranteeing breaking it.



MJS said:


> I dont see any huge issues with using the butt end of the blade, if you had to, but the blade part...well, unless the guy was hell bent on killing you and you could prove this in court......it'd be better to beat the **** out of the guy with your empty hands..lol.  I saw a Kenpo guy, who also does Pikiti Tirsia.  It pretty much showed exactly what you described here.  If you're interested in seeing it, I'll PM you, but I'd rather not post here so we dont derail the thread.  That'd probably make a good topic though...what not to do when dealing with an armed attacker.



No, using the butt end of the knife is good, it's a non-lethal responce that ends the opponents ability to continue to threaten, the rest is highly irresponsible. But, to clarify, it's not what I described, it's what Jeff did! And, looking back at my comment, I missed Jeff's cut to the Achilles Tendon, so it's even worse than I suggested! The thread sounds like a good one, though.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Ah. I took the "single attacker, single defender" thing from your comment about "one person attacks, one defends", that could be it..



There were times when I'd spar, and we'd work specific things.  In some cases, one person would just be offense, while the other was defense.  That is what that clip reminded me of.  To me, it didn't seem like the defender was really doing anything, other than getting cut, such as you said. LOL.  Maybe my example is what led to the condusion.  No problem. 





> Ah, pressure points... fun. There's a couple of ways that they can be approached very effectively (as additions to pins for pain compliance, for example), what I was getting at was more that the arm moves, which can lessen the effectiveness of a strike to it. That, combined with the natural pain blocking aspects of adrenaline, means that I wouldn't rely on it being a "limb destruction" unless I was guaranteeing breaking it.



Ah, ok, I see what you're saying.  Yes, we're in agreement.





> No, using the butt end of the knife is good, it's a non-lethal responce that ends the opponents ability to continue to threaten, the rest is highly irresponsible. But, to clarify, it's not what I described, it's what Jeff did! And, looking back at my comment, I missed Jeff's cut to the Achilles Tendon, so it's even worse than I suggested! The thread sounds like a good one, though.



Agreed. I'll go ahead and start the new thread.  Hopefully it'll be a success.


----------



## ATACX GYM

MJS said:


> Just so I'm clear on the terms being used here: Walk up-  is that being defined as someone walking up to you, blade out, in an attempt to use the knife, intimidate with the knife, grab you with a free hand, while the knife is pressed up against you?  Lets look at this a few different ways.
> 
> 1) First and foremost, if you saw someone approaching you with a blade, why in Gods name, would you allow them to get that close?  IIRC, this came up in another post in this thread, and I gave examples of what I would do.  IIRC, Chris did the same.  Unless I'm in a room with nothing around, and totally naked, theres a number of improvised tools that should be readily available to use.  IMO, this is where the footwork and ability to create distance will come into play.
> 
> 2) If by chance you're not aware, and the guy does get close enough, well, the methods of dealing with that, will differ from if he's coming in from a distance.



I'd completely forgotten about this thread. Lol. MJS the "Walk-Up" is a refinement of the "Drive-By", a high speed surprise attack designed to catch your opponent(s) off guard--usually rival gang members but now it's just any kind of rival period--unawares and inflict maximal fatal damage on them and be gone before they registered what happened. The Walk-Up came about because many people doing the drive-by [ usually this is done by first surveying your enemies,waiting for a time that their guard is down, creeping up on them with lights out, waiting until they are maximally vulnerable and oftentimes intoxicated and wholly distracted, then driving by in an oftentimes stolen vehicle firing shots from the car and blazing off of the block in a single violent ultra-fast ultra-surprise attack] would miss the target or include too much collateral damage in the shooting attack. The Walk-Up utilized similar methods of surprise but usually the attackers would come swooping from some unexpected spot like hiding behind cars parked in the driveway of the intended victim or swooping around on foot from the neighbors' house. They've also dropped from trees, popped out from the sides of the houses, walked up on wall sized living room windows and shot through them, etc etc. There are infinite permutations,but basically it's a surprise attack and extraction set up wholly without the mark's notice and carried out from much closer quarters in order to amplify the likelihood of killing the specific victim(s) targeted. It's not some moron walking up with blade out doing stupid stuff just begging to be countered. Lolol. Good question, though...


And Chris Parker? Yeah...we'll need that video of yours,thanks.


----------



## Chris Parker

You mean you still didn't get what I meant after all those descriptions, and now, 3 months later, you want a clip? Give me a week or two, and I'll see what I can come up with...


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> You mean you still didn't get what I meant after all those descriptions, and now, 3 months later, you want a clip? Give me a week or two, and I'll see what I can come up with...




Still waitin on those clips of you personally doing your thing, Chris...thanks. Been 4 months now...


----------



## Chris Parker

So you don't get what has been written? Really? Right, I'll see what I can come up with. In the meantime, try reading the thread again... we'll see if you can see what the message has been all along. Although I don't hold out much hope, honestly.


----------



## ATACX GYM

Chris Parker said:


> So you don't get what has been written? Really? Right, I'll see what I can come up with. In the meantime, try reading the thread again... we'll see if you can see what the message has been all along. Although I don't hold out much hope, honestly.



I think this thread has shown that there is an admixture of things going on...but for my part? it's not that I don't "get" what has been written. I DISAGREE with what you've said in the way that you've said it. And video goes a looong way toward eliminating contention or specifying the areas of disagreement because presumably a video of you doing your thing would be tantamount to you incarnating your words with visible movement. I could write a description of a Olympic gymnastic event...or you could watch the Olympic event live. Which would give you a more thorough appreciation of the skill power grace and athleticism displayed? Answer: both could do the trick, but only if you had a common mental pic with me to start with. Once you've SEEN an Arabian done by a gymnast? When you READ about it you won't be flummoxed. You and I differ on two main points: I include your method in my approach, you don't include mine in yours. You believe that what I showed in my video is high risk and low yield, and I've been doing this for years in real world situations so I know for a fact that it's not.

It's now time for you to show us empirically what you mean, as I have shown you what I mean. The foregoing thread and its multiple pages actually strongly support the need for the visual medium to supplement it, rather than in any way denigrates or de-emphasizes such a need.


----------



## Chris Parker

Ah, but what I'm mostly going to do is demonstrate what I've said here... which are the issues with your grip the way it's employed. Not necessarily "how I do it", as there are enough videos already in this thread showing that, but illustrating why your approach is not the recommended one.


----------



## jks9199

Folks, 
It might be worth remembering that demanding a member provide proof or documentation starts getting into fraudbusting territory.  By & large, you can *ask*, but the other member is free to decline to respond.  Asking repeatedly becomes a concern.


----------



## ATACX GYM

jks9199 said:


> Folks,
> It might be worth remembering that demanding a member provide proof or documentation starts getting into fraudbusting territory.  By & large, you can *ask*, but the other member is free to decline to respond.  Asking repeatedly becomes a concern.




fradubusting, huh? Never thought of that. Okay then thanks for the heads up


----------

