# Is Knife defence even worth teaching?



## Christian Soldier (Sep 11, 2012)

Allright, this is kind of a continutation of "How do you defend against this? (knife attack)"

I'm continueing to hear how hopeless going up against _anyone_ with a knife is, doesn't matter if it's a hooligan with a box cutter or a kali master with a fighting knife, you are pretty much out of luck no matter who you are. You might as well just give up.

What are your thoughts? Do you teach knife defence at your school? If so, what do you teach?

I'm very willing to learn and listen, so if you have any expierence/wisdom in this matter, please share.


Thanks.


Dan


----------



## MJS (Sep 11, 2012)

Certain people will talk about how pointless it is.  IMO, those people say that because they probably don't have any solid knife skills.  Now, of course, just because we train, that doesn't turn us into Supermen, nor does it mean that we won't get cut.  IMO, saying we should give up just because the person has a knife, is akin to giving up because the person may be a better puncher.

As for what I teach/prefer as far as knife defense goes...well, I'm a student of the FMAs, so I'm pretty much bias...lol.  I also like the stuff that we see with Karl Tanswell, and the Red Zone guys.  One of my FMA teachers has worked in the Dept. Of Corrections for many years, so I enjoy working with him, and picking his brain, as to what he's seen over the years.  I also like to work with smaller training blades, rather than the typical, larger size ones that we often see.  IMHO, the smaller ones are much harder to get a disarm on, so it forces you to work other things, ie: controlling, strikes while controlling, and then a disarm, if possible.  

I like the idea of using a no lie blade, marker or shock knife, though those can be pricey.  Adding in a bit of realism, can certainly go a long way.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 11, 2012)

Decent knife defense is absolutely worth training and practicing.  The problem is there's so damn little realistic and good knife defense being taught...  Way too much comes from fantasy land, based on tv and movie "knife fights."


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 11, 2012)

Absolutely it's worth training knife defence, in fact, I'm teaching it at the moment. For a brief overview (from a post I made on another forum):



			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> To give you an idea of our knife defence (as I teach it), it begins with awareness drills, taking notice of whether you can see both hands of an approaching threat, watching when hands "disappear" to produce weapons (or potentially, at least), methods of maintaining distance if unsure, ways of checking if they have a weapon (verbal challenges, for want of a better term, essentially removing their sense of the element of surprise), all with the aim of not engaging in the first place. From there we deal with the appearance of a knife (or any other weapon), with a verbal recognition of the weapon (which ensures that you recognize it yourself, as well as ensuring that any witnesses see what's happening, and demonstrating to the attacker that there is no surprise anymore). Then, we deal with technical methods for handling an attack, starting with simple drills to ensure protective actions (jamming and blocking methods combined with movement "inside" the arc of the attacking weapon, moving on to controlling methods, then onto disengaging and disposal methods), then moving onto actual "techniques" against the attack. These all follow the same essential pattern, which is to commit completely to the action decided upon, whether an evasive leap out of the way, or moving in to control and counter; when moving in to ensure complete control over the knife arm immediately, taking into account the natural response of the attacker (which is to try to retrieve their weapon), before moving onto a disposal/control/counter.
> 
> As you can see, a safe escape is the dominant aim as soon as possible, but the training needs to take into account everything from seeing the threat early and escaping, to handling an attacking opponent, otherwise you're missing a large section of necessary skills. But when it comes to the disarms/techniques used, they need to be realistic, which means that you need to have a realistic understanding of knife assaults and defence. Within our traditions there are plenty of knife/short blade defences, most notably within Gyokko Ryu, Koto Ryu, and Takagi Yoshin Ryu (if you know where to look there....). Now, those techniques are great, however if taken just as they are, they don't work against modern knife assaults. The principles and tactics found in them, though, do. But the important thing is that our modern knife defences are trained against realistic (modern) attacks, with realistic responces from the attackers. Ideally, when done properly, the students won't have an inflated sense of security against a knife.... after training knife defence with my guys for a couple of months, I asked for some feedback on the way we were approaching it. The comments I got back were that the students hadn't realized just how scary, and dangerous, knife defence is. And that comes down to going up against realistic attacks.




The biggest thing to ensure, though, is that the knife defence taught is solid... and that's where there can be some disagreement. For instance, this thread (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/97177-Self-defense-against-a-knife) had quite a fair bit of disagreement on what constitutes good or bad ideas in this area, as did this one (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/97607-Kenpo-Knife-Defense-by-Juan-Jos%C3%A9-negreira)... so it's really a case of being as educated as you can be in this area before blindly accepting some things...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 11, 2012)

In the Hapkido I learned, we were taught knife defenses against jabs, downward strikes, inside to outside, and outside to inside. It took me a while to decide I might actually be able to do them. Some I like better than others, but eventually I got fairly comfortable with all, and even saw advantages to some I initially thought sort of dangerous or useless. Most consist of a block and simultaneous counter attack. I learned at the colored (red) belt level. It has since been moved to between 1st and 2nd dan.

The main thing as mentioned above, is to learn well, and train, train, train. You have to be good, fast, and accurate. No room for error.

EDIT:  So yes, I think knife defense is worth learning, just as defense against punches, kicks, throws, guns, or any other means of attack.


----------



## zDom (Sep 11, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> In the Hapkido I learned, we were taught knife defenses against jabs, downward strikes, inside to outside, and outside to inside. It took me a while to decide I might actually be able to do them. Some I like better than others, but eventually I got fairly comfortable with all, and even saw advantages to some I initially thought sort of dangerous or useless. Most consist of a block and simultaneous counter attack. I learned at the colored (red) belt level. It has since been moved to between 1st and 2nd dan.
> 
> The main thing as mentioned above, is to learn well, and train, train, train. You have to be good, fast, and accurate. No room for error.
> 
> EDIT:  So yes, I think knife defense is worth learning, just as defense against punches, kicks, throws, guns, or any other means of attack.




Sounds similar to what we train in our HKD curriculum.

Knife techniques are all about mitigating the harm, not expecting to avoid all arm (although there is nothing wrong with HOPING it works out that well).

The central idea is don't just give up and let them stab and/or cut you over and over again until they decide they are done stabbing and cutting. Get the knife in control even if it means taking a punch in the face from the attacker's free hand. Realize that it is mortal combat once a knife is introduced. If you can escape without engaging and getting stabbed during that retreat, take that opportunity.


And just because you get cut and/or stabbed doesn't mean "you lose" and that you should just ball up and wait for the attacker to finish. There is the possibility that you might not even FEEL the cuts and/or stab wounds (um.. until later) so GET CONTROL OF THE KNIFE; end the attack; call for help.

If someone has attacked with a knife, odds are at least one of them, maybe both, are going to need an ambulance.

At least that is how I feel about it.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 11, 2012)

If nothing else, if you have the mentality of "why learn it, your screwed if they have a knife" then you are training your students to give up if they see a knife.  At the very least, teach them evasion skills and improvised weapons or SOMETHING instead of just telling there is nothing that can be done.

Knife attacks are too varied to say definitively one way or another.  Does the guy just want you dead and blitzes you with no care other than to kill you?  That is alot different than someone pulling a knife to just try and threaten you with it.

For example, one of my instructors had a guy pull a knife on him and threaten it with him.  He did two inward strikes to the wrist/forearm and broke the guy's forearm and he dropped the knife.  Is that a 100% technique or even a high percentage move to try and teach people?  Probably not, but it worked for him in that case.  So you just never know, but the main thing was his attitude was a never give up one.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 11, 2012)

zDom said:


> Knife techniques are all about mitigating the harm, not expecting to avoid all arm (although there is nothing wrong with HOPING it works out that well).
> ...



Similar perhaps, but not the same.  We were not taught to 'mitigate' the harm but still expect some harm.  We were taught to block and counter-attack.  The counter-attack would usually result in the attacker being disarmed and the knife used to cut the attacker from top to bottom.  In all Hapkido, you have to be faster and more accurate than your opponent.  If not, you will place yourself where your opponent couldn't hope to find you; right in his sphere of greatest power.  Never a good place to be, but worse if a weapon is involved.

Mind you, I don't think any of us were foolish enough to discount the possibility of coming into contact with a knife.  But the goal was not to.


----------



## K-man (Sep 11, 2012)

Years ago when I was starting out we did so little knife defence that it would have been practically useless in the real world. Now I teach knife defence at least once a week.  I don't teach a set defence  against a particular attack because it is likely to produce a confused response in a real attack if the attack is slightly different to the practice attack. Rather, I teach certain principles which are true regardless of the attack and rely on instinctive response. 

For the higher grades we use real knives with the edge ground down.  They still look 100% real and give you the feel of the real thing.

Is it worth the effort? Well, knives are a big part of street attacks here and to ignore them in martial art training would IMO be irresponsible. As Chris said, awareness is an important part of the teaching and in reality if you are attacked there is a high probability you will be cut. If I was confronted by someone with a knife, and I could get away, I would prefer to have had regular realistic training than no training.     :asian:


----------



## zDom (Sep 11, 2012)

OK. Here we go.




oftheherd1 said:


> Similar perhaps, but not the same.  We were not taught to 'mitigate' the harm but still expect some harm.  We were taught to block and counter-attack.  The counter-attack would usually result in the attacker being disarmed and the knife used to cut the attacker from top to bottom.


 

Yes I very much doubt if they are exactly the same. I was merely commenting on your comment that "knife defenses against jabs, downward strikes, inside to outside, and outside to inside" are taught in your curriculum.

We also have defenses to downward strikes, inside to outside, outside to inside.

/end noted similarities.

Regarding "block / counterattack" it sounds like flawed technique to me. A deflected knife attack (i.e., a "blocked" attack) leaves the attacker free to initiate ANOTHER knife attack if your counterattack does not disable to the attacker and/or disarm the attacker. So if the attacker is NOT disabled or disarmed, what then? Rinse, repeat? 

What are these wonderful techniques that enable you to block in such a way that "the knife is used to cut the attacker from top to bottom"? I find that sort of cut, if deep enough, to be exceptional with a blade that small &#8212; or superficial.

We do have some techniques in which we use both of our hands to redirect the point of the knife back into the attacker, but I am having problems visualizing this "top to bottom" cut. And this happens USUALLY?  Not just some of the time? Outstanding.




oftheherd1 said:


> In all Hapkido, you have to be faster and more accurate than your opponent. If not, you will place yourself where your opponent couldn't hope to find you; right in his sphere of greatest power. Never a good place to be, but worse if a weapon is involved.
> 
> Mind you, I don't think any of us were foolish enough to discount the possibility of coming into contact with a knife. But the goal was not to.



In ALL hapkido? What makes you think so?

I am relieved that I am studying Moo Sul Kwan hapkido in which we assume the attacker is larger and stronger &#8212; and yes, maybe even faster and more accurate. Our thinking is smaller, weaker folk rarely attacker us. We certainly hope they are slower and less accurate but do not rely on those factors. The older I get the more people there are that are faster than me but turns out I don't end up "in his sphere of greatest power." 

I guess I'm just lucky, eh?


----------



## zDom (Sep 11, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> We were not taught to 'mitigate' the harm but still expect some harm.



This is the part I originally meant to address.

Exactly what are you reading into this comment?

By mitigate, I meant I was taught: "Expect to get cut. It is likely. But try to keep from getting cut in your vital areas. A cut on the outer arm or hand is less likely to be serious than a cut or stab to the torso."

Is this not mitigation? Sounds like you are first rebutting my comment and then paraphrasing it so I am confused.


----------



## zDom (Sep 11, 2012)

K-man said:


> For the higher grades we use real knives with the edge ground down.  They still look 100% real and give you the feel of the real thing.




What about the pointy part?


----------



## Aiki Lee (Sep 11, 2012)

Knife defense is an essential skill for practical self defense. If you have solid principles and practice realistic attacks like being shanked up close, then you stand a chance. Edged weapons defense is not the terrible boogey man some people make it out to be. Obviously edged weapons are dangerous and the training needs to reflect that, but it's by no means impossible.


----------



## K-man (Sep 11, 2012)

zDom said:


> What about the pointy part?


Ground to rounded but will still cause injury if it is a direct thrust or more particularly near the face. That is why I only let those with a reasonable amount of training, use them. Normally the others just use rubber knives, although I use the wooden Tanto occasionally.   :asian:


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 11, 2012)

Christian Soldier said:


> Allright, this is kind of a continutation of "How do you defend against this? (knife attack)"
> 
> I'm continueing to hear how hopeless going up against _anyone_ with a knife is, doesn't matter if it's a hooligan with a box cutter or a kali master with a fighting knife, you are pretty much out of luck no matter who you are. You might as well just give up.
> 
> ...



Is it worth teaching? Yes.
How is it taught? By being less about technique, even if a technique is being used along the way.

As for giving up, no, not at all. Youre not condemned to failure, Youre condemned to a disadvantage no matter what. That doesnt mean Youre going to lose, it means Youre at a disadvantage, and that Your life could be at risk. You might very well beat the guy down anyway - Thats a base fact for any situation, knife or no knife.

But it Youve spent, say, 5 years learning striking or grappling, and Theyve spent 5 years learning to use a knife, its simple. Dont let Them do what Theyre good at. Do what Youre good at, hope for the best, and dont get overconfident.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 11, 2012)

I teach it. I've used it. I emphasize that the odds are well in favor of a smart knifer--but that many aren't smart, which is of some help, and that many people have survived such attacks (e.g., George Harrison). Be very wary but don't give up. You may get cut but you might also survive.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 12, 2012)

At our last seminar with Sifu Planas, we did 3 hours of knife. We train with sticks (escrima) and knives. IMHO, I'm much more likely to be able to grab something approximating an escrima stick than a staff, or any of the many other martial arts weapons, and knives? I always have a knife, it isn't a weapon, it is a tool, one I use many times a day. Why wouldn't I want to know new and better ways to use what I'm carrying anyway?
We have a knife class once every 45 days or so with a senior student of Mr Planas, who brings us such fun little training aids as Shock Knives. (OW  )


----------



## Christian Soldier (Sep 12, 2012)

Wow, you guys really cleared things up. Thank you. 

I've had a fair amount of professional (in a MA school not just watching YT) Knife vs Knife, and Hand vs Hand, but not much hand vs knife. In Kenpo we have a few techniqes for knife defence but I wouldn't stake my life on them.
I got a few ideas from Chris but do you guys have any preffered knife drills or techniques you teach in class?


----------



## MJS (Sep 12, 2012)

K-man said:


> This!!!   I agree with this.  In any art, we see techs for just about every attack out there...grabs, punches, kicks, you name it.  However, as you said, I feel that while the teaching of set techs is fine, IMO, its more important to fall back on the principles, concepts, etc, to formulate a response.


----------



## zDom (Sep 13, 2012)

MJS said:


> ... I feel that while the teaching of set techs is fine, IMO, its more important to fall back on the principles, concepts, etc, to formulate a response.



Absolutely.

It so happens we initiate students in those principles, concepts, etc. USING set techniques; but those are never intended to be a catalogue of exclusively acceptable responses.


By the way: do those shock knives shock through a judo gi?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 13, 2012)

zDom said:


> By the way: do those shock knives shock through a judo gi?



They're only like 200v-300v, so pretty much no. A sweat _soaked_ judo gi, maybe, but I wouldn't think that'd be good........they're unnecessarily expensive,too. I could probably fabricate a better one that would go through a judo gi, by using a dog training "shock-collar" circuit (3000v, 0.4A) but that might result in burns for some, and medical problems for others-it would be cheaper, though....:lol:


----------



## Blindside (Sep 13, 2012)

elder999 said:


> They're only like 200v-300v, so pretty much no. A sweat _soaked_ judo gi, maybe, but I wouldn't think that'd be good........they're unnecessarily expensive,too. I could probably fabricate a better one that would go through a judo gi, by using a dog training "shock-collar" circuit (3000v, 0.4A) but that might result in burns for some, and medical problems for others-it would be cheaper, though....:lol:



You can buy stun guns for $30 on amazon.  Sure you can't simulate a slash, but I bet it will get a pretty good adrenal response for the defender.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 13, 2012)

Blindside said:


> You can buy stun guns for $30 on amazon. Sure you can't simulate a slash, but I bet it will get a pretty good adrenal response for the defender.



The stun gun would be another circuit you could use, but the circuit used for dog-training is adjustable.
(as you can probably tell, I've thought about this before...)


----------



## KydeX (Sep 13, 2012)

elder999 said:


> The stun gun would be another circuit you could use, but the circuit used for dog-training is adjustable.
> (as you can probably tell, I've thought about this before...)



Could potentially kill someone with a heart condition though...


----------



## elder999 (Sep 13, 2012)

KydeX said:


> Could potentially kill someone with a heart condition though...



Less than a taser, actually, but sure. So could training.

So could a bowel movement...:lfao:


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 13, 2012)

KydeX said:


> Could potentially kill someone with a heart condition though...


So can a pencil to the arm. 

(I dont mean heart conditions. I mean, a pencil to the arm can kill someone as well. Nothings totally safe.)


----------



## KydeX (Sep 13, 2012)

It was meant mainly as a fun comment  People that have a condition where they need to stay away from being shocked probably know it themselves.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 13, 2012)

KydeX said:


> It was meant mainly as a fun comment  People that have a condition where they need to stay away from being shocked probably know it themselves.





[





elder999 said:


> They're only like 200v-300v, so pretty much no. A sweat _soaked_ judo gi, maybe, but I wouldn't think that'd be good........they're unnecessarily expensive,too. I could probably fabricate a better one that would go through a judo gi, by using a dog training "shock-collar" circuit (3000v, 0.4A) but that might result in burns for some, and *medical problems for others-*it would be cheaper, though....:lol:


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 13, 2012)

zDom said:


> OK. Here we go.
> 
> Yes I very much doubt if they are exactly the same. I was merely commenting on your comment that "knife defenses against jabs, downward strikes, inside to outside, and outside to inside" are taught in your curriculum.
> 
> ...



Well, first of all, my apologies.  I have obviously used incorrect wording.  I meant no offense, but to point out that in my style we did not expect to be injured, but rather to defend and injure.  I guess I should have simply said that and stopped.

As to blocking a knife attack, what other choice other than retreat is there?  You must block or retreat, or get a cut or puncture.  That was why I said we blocked and simultaneously counter-attacked.  The counter attack might be a punch, or beginning control of the knife hand/arm to facilitate the counter-attack.  Beyond that, if my technique was imperfect for some reason, I would hope the block prevented me from being injured.  Then yes, I would, if attacked again, apply another technique or try for better application of the failed one.

Wonderful techniques?  Do you never place your opponent in such a position that you can take the knife from his hand?  We do that, and will usually then cut the opponent.  We have some techniques that as you say, redirect the knife into his body.  How many of the techniques in my style of Hapkido (Soong Moo Kwan) teach to take the knife and cut the opponent versus how many do something else, I never counted.

The top to bottom is the attack where the opponent raises the knife above his head and strikes downward, with the point, into the opponent's head, neck, shoulder, or whatever presents itself.  Surely you defend against that, but we just use different terms to describe it.

All Hapkido?  You are correct to point out that I really can't comment on all Hapkido; only that I have studied.

If you are happy studying your style of Hapkido, you are indeed lucky.



zDom said:


> This is the part I originally meant to address.
> 
> Exactly what are you reading into this comment?
> 
> ...



Again, we were not taught to expect to get cut as part of our defense.  What we were taught was intended to be learned with sufficient skill to prevent that.  That would almost be like saying, "expect to be punched, but try not to take it on the chin or the temple."  But as I said, we realized it could happen.

By all means, understand I am not trying to put your art down.  I still think there may be a problem with communicating what each of us is trying to say.  My fault no doubt.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 13, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Wonderful techniques?  Do you never place your opponent in such a position that you can take the knife from his hand?  We do that, and will usually then cut the opponent.  We have some techniques that as you say, redirect the knife into his body.  How many of the techniques in my style of Hapkido (Soong Moo Kwan) teach to take the knife and cut the opponent versus how many do something else, I never counted.
> 
> The top to bottom is the attack where the opponent raises the knife above his head and strikes downward, with the point, into the opponent's head, neck, shoulder, or whatever presents itself.  Surely you defend against that, but we just use different terms to describe it.



These highlight why I said that there is little realistic or good training.  The first set of techniques, as I usually see them, live heavily in fantasy land, where compliant attackers come at you "the right way."  I'm not saying all of them are, and I obviously can't assess your techniques, but much more often than not, when I see them presented, they include major fail points if the attacker is not complaint.  The "top to bottom attack" or classic psycho icepick downward stab is another example of fantasy land... It just happens so damn rarely in real life that all the wonderful techniques to defend it are kind of like having a handy MegaGodzilla trap in your backyard.  He might come stomping by one day... but it ain't all that likely.  More likely attacks are the "sewing machine" of repeated stabs to the body or slashing attacks, each of which needs to be defended against properly.  And differently.  The simple reality of most actual knife attacks is that you'll be cut long before you realize a knife is in the game...


----------



## chinto (Sep 13, 2012)

yes I think  that it is a worth while thing to teach, but you should teach it with some realistic kinds of things in mind.  attackers with a knife are a real possibility and something you should have a clue how to defend against. the big thing is you should teach them that once a blade comes into a fight it is a deadly force situation and any restraint better go right out the window! if there was any doubt before it should be gone if even a hint of a blade is present! I would make clear that at that point you should go for the vitals, this must be ended as fast and with as much damage to the attacker as you can do, or you are provably going to die.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 13, 2012)

KydeX said:


> It was meant mainly as a fun comment  People that have a condition where they need to stay away from being shocked probably know it themselves.


To be fair, I brought up Pencils as being a lethal weapon. Looks like We were both having a bit of a giggle with our comments


----------



## Big Don (Sep 13, 2012)

elder999 said:


> They're only like 200v-300v, so pretty much no. A sweat _soaked_ judo gi, maybe, but I wouldn't think that'd be good........they're unnecessarily expensive,too. I could probably fabricate a better one that would go through a judo gi, by using a dog training "shock-collar" circuit (3000v, 0.4A) but that might result in burns for some, and medical problems for others-it would be cheaper, though....:lol:


  These are the ones we use, Shocknife Votage Delivered:Maximum 7500 volts Amperage Delivered:Less than 1 milliamp They have four settings, Low )Wussies) medium (sissies) high (average people) and Extreme ( Us...) You can feel it thru a heavy weight gi, apparently, thinner people, feel it quite a bit more than those, like myself with a large body 
Although, I did take one to the crown of my head, that did NOT feel good at all.
You should make some up, Elder, I can get you a dozen free test subjects...


----------



## zDom (Sep 14, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> By all means, understand I am not trying to put your art down.  I still think there may be a problem with communicating what each of us is trying to say.  My fault no doubt.



No problem! I figured it was just misunderstanding/miscommunication.

And I am not REALLY questioning your art, either: just showing how you can pick out a few word choices in anyone's post and end up distorting what they were actually trying to say.

I bet we would find a lot of similarities if were able to train together for a session.

Hoshin!


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 15, 2012)

Christian Soldier said:


> Wow, you guys really cleared things up. Thank you.
> 
> I've had a fair amount of professional (in a MA school not just watching YT) Knife vs Knife, and Hand vs Hand, but not much hand vs knife. In Kenpo we have a few techniqes for knife defence but I wouldn't stake my life on them.
> I got a few ideas from Chris but do you guys have any preffered knife drills or techniques you teach in class?



Just to clarify, it wasn't my aim to give any drills or techniques, just a basic overview in very broad strokes. For one thing, I don't think such things can really be done via a text-only medium (or really any way except for in person), and the ease with which things can be mis-interpreted, leading to mistakes in the training and drilling, especially in such a high-stakes area, means that I'm not going to supply any now. Additionally, our knife defence methods are just that... our knife defence methods. I'm not about to give away our intellectual property quite so freely... 

My advice is to look around your area, and find out who is respected when it comes to such areas. This will take a fair bit of education in the first place, so as to be able to discern who is, or isn't, feeding you garbage (there's a lot of that around). If your Kenpo teacher doesn't have much to offer, and this is an area you want to focus on, then looking outside could be the best bet. But I'd talk to your teacher first. I'd also suggest going back over the threads I linked earlier to see what people think of various approaches, such as the Dog Brothers approach, and so on. If you find something that you think might be interesting, good, or just makes you curious, come back and ask about it (probably in a new thread), and we'll let you know what we think... but just giving you knife defence techniques or drills with absolutely no way of knowing if you are even close to getting them right is just something I'm not willing to do. In things like knife defence, a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing... but a little incorrectly applied knowledge with enhanced confidence in that incorrect application is downright potentially lethal.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 15, 2012)

Knife defense training has training positives in that it adds a different range, timing, and repurcussions of being struck.  This helps a student be more fluid in thier self defense practices and undertand different things about thier training.  However, if your knife defense training is subpar, it would be much better just to drop it all together than have a student not in line with reality when it comes to weapon use.  It is much better to tell a student, "If he pulls a knife your pretty much ****ed" than to let him believe he is prepared when he is not.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 16, 2012)

zDom said:


> ...
> 
> I bet we would find a lot of similarities if were able to train together for a session.
> 
> Hoshin!



I'm sure we would, and I wish we had that opportunity.  I am always glad to share with other MA, especially other Hapkidoists, and even more so wish to learn.


----------



## Christian Soldier (Sep 17, 2012)

Chris, what I really ment is you got the gears in my head turning more, as opposed to you giving me the gears from your martial art. I'll be sure to look around and ask about whatever knife drills/techniques I intend on teaching. 

Thus far, the only non-kenpo knife technique I've taught is the extremely simple military armbar style defence. I've tried it against a few commited simulated attackers and attacks and it worked better than anything else I've tried (and it's in several millitary manuels I've read) so I figured that's the most reliable.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2012)

I think one key consideration in teaching unarmed defense against a knife is to be honest about the limitations of our knowledge.

When it comes to something like defense against a haymaker punch, we have the results of tens of thousands of real-life "experiments" (competitions, challenge matches, street fights) to draw from in determining what techniques can actually work. We have individuals who have been through many, many fistfights who can compare which approaches worked best for them. As a result, it is possible to say "these techniques, if trained properly, are very effective in countering a punch."

We don't have that data for defense against knives. We don't have footage of thousands of unarmed people successfully defending against a knife attack. We don't have a bunch of individuals who have sucessfully defended unarmed against dozens of real-life knife attacks. When someone does sucessfully manage such a defense in a real life situation, it may not be a standard martial arts technique. If someone does sucessfully manage a unarmed knife defense that they learned in the dojo, it's probably going to be a once-in-their-lifetime event, so we don't have data on whether it is a reliable technique or if they just got lucky.

For those knife defenses that are handed down from traditional martial arts, we have no real information about how the techniques were originally devised or what actual sucess rate they may have had. 

The most honest thing we can do is say - "based on our understanding of how combat works and how knives are used and the simulations we've run, this is our best guess as to the techniques and tactics that might allow you to survive against a knife-wielding attacker."


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2012)

Christian Soldier said:


> Chris, what I really ment is you got the gears in my head turning more, as opposed to you giving me the gears from your martial art. I'll be sure to look around and ask about whatever knife drills/techniques I intend on teaching.
> 
> Thus far, the only non-kenpo knife technique I've taught is the extremely simple military armbar style defence. I've tried it against a few commited simulated attackers and attacks and it worked better than anything else I've tried (and it's in several millitary manuels I've read) so I figured that's the most reliable.



Hi Dan,

I want to preface this by saying that everything said here is intended to be gentle and is aimed at being able to give you the best advice that I can, so please forgive any bluntness. Cool? Okay, good.

What I was getting was more that I was discouraging you from trying things based on what I wrote. I would also discourage asking about "drills and techniques". By themselves, they're nothing. What you should be asking around about is who is good (in your area) to learn from... and that is far more than just getting some drills and techniques. If you're genuinely interested in getting skill in this area, and your current classes don't fulfill that, then you need to look at the idea of engaging in training somewhere else (note: this is not saying you need to leave where you are, but you would need to commit to actual ongoing training to develop the skills you are after). But that does bring me to a question.

You're very young. You're, what, 16? My point is that you have a lot of time... there's no rush to get everything right now. If there's something that you're after like this, it might involve some travel (my top choice, from a quick look, would be a four hour drive for the closest I can find... which might not be the best idea for you, or practical at present). You've also stated that you've spent 4 years learning "knife fighting", although I can't find any reference to exactly what you mean by that... so, if I could ask, what exactly has your training in "knife fighting" entailed?

I'm also not entirely sure what you're meaning by the "military arm-bar style defence"... can you show a link, or provide a more detailed description?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 17, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> I'm also not entirely sure what you're meaning by the "military arm-bar style defence"... can you show a link, or provide a more detailed description?


View attachment $wallyhandarmbar2.gifView attachment $thumbnail.jpg


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2012)

Cool, thanks Elder... I've seen a few things that could have been meant, this among them. So, taking this as the actual one that Dan is talking about, to be blunt, there are a range of potential issues that I can see... if we're talking about non-military attacks (personal defence). I'm not saying it can't work, but there are better technologies out there.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 17, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Cool, thanks Elder... I've seen a few things that could have been meant, this among them. So, taking this as the actual one that Dan is talking about, to be blunt, there are a range of potential issues that I can see... if we're talking about non-military attacks (personal defence). I'm not saying it can't work, but there are better technologies out there.



Pick one. U.S military combatives used to mean _simpler_. Not quite true, anymore, but there it is-there's a few of them, but they all are basically the same thing. Maybe they work, maybe they don't, but they were developed to that point to teach to people who carry *guns for a living,* against people with little or no training-certainly less than the people who were trained to di it....

So, they mostly work, but sometimes won't.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2012)

Yeah, I know what you mean... there is an automatic assumption sometimes that what is taught to a particular group, due to the focus (or, at least, the image of that focus) that whatever they do is purely designed for practicality in that one area. I was once shown some of what is taught for knife defence to some police here.... my immediate reaction was "what, so they want the police to be killed?" The above military method can work against a particular type of attack, which is very influenced by the military methods and approaches, which isn't really the same thing as a "street" attack on a number of levels.


----------



## Bluesman (Nov 17, 2015)

I think it is worth training because any training is better than no training. However, teachers should make it clear to the student that when someone has a knife that odds are seriously stacked against you. 8 or 9 times out of 10 in will NOT work. When I used to come out of my Krav Maga class there were a bunch of guys all pumped up thinking that they could disarm any knife wielding maniac!!


----------



## Paul_D (Nov 18, 2015)

A bit long, but worth a it.  This sums it up for me. 

Weapon Defence | Iain Abernethy


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Nov 18, 2015)

Well any training is better than no training as long as it's from a competent instructor. Truth is anything can work in certain situations. Say you learn one knife defence one time it might help you another time it might be useless. There's no guarantees in fighting and in martial arts. If someone says this move is going to work 100% of the time then they're lying


----------



## crazydiamond (Nov 18, 2015)

We do a lot of knife training. Knife on Knife and Knife vs empty hand. Basically we are told if someone has a knife (or any weapon) run, unless you are trapped and can not escape or have to defend family/children. Also prepare to take damage.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 18, 2015)

Kenpoguy123 said:


> Well any training is better than no training as long as it's from a competent instructor.


Well, unless it leads to the student developing a false sense of confidence and trying to stand and fight against a knife when they should be running or looking for a weapon of their own.

I think that even with competent instruction (which is unfortunately rarer than it should be), you need a certain minimum time spent on the subject to get a student to the point where it's more likely to help than hurt.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 18, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, unless it leads to the student developing a false sense of confidence and trying to stand and fight against a knife when they should be running or looking for a weapon of their own.
> 
> I think that even with competent instruction (which is unfortunately rarer than it should be), you need a certain minimum time spent on the subject to get a student to the point where it's more likely to help than hurt.



And given the rarity with which the training will be used (most people are unlikely to ever need to physically defend themselves at all, and of those that do, most will be facing an unarmed opponent), is the time worthwhile?

Personally, I think it is, but I tend to think that it's better left until a solid grounding in the more commonly used aspects of the art has been gained.

My own preferred knife defense sits behind my right hip. Except when I'm at work, since the hospital administration is far enough detached from reality to think that "No Weapons" signs on the doors will protect us.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 18, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> And given the rarity with which the training will be used (most people are unlikely to ever need to physically defend themselves at all, and of those that do, most will be facing an unarmed opponent), is the time worthwhile?
> 
> Personally, I think it is, but I tend to think that it's better left until a solid grounding in the more commonly used aspects of the art has been gained.


That's sort of where I come down on the issue. I don't include knife defense in my beginning BJJ classes, but the fundamental skills I'm teaching will hopefully be useful if the students want to learn knife defenses later on.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 18, 2015)

My biggest problem with most unarmed knife defense is that most of them assume a certain degree of ineptitude from the knife attacker.  I'm not talking about the classic Jim Carry over-hand stab or the full lunge-stab which hangs in the air, but rather a caveman-esque lack of even the most basic sophistication.  It seems that most assume that the person attacking with a knife is not only untrained in its use but also is fairly unfamiliar with it as a tool of attack.  Almost as if a person who's never used a steak knife at the table or a pairing knife in the kitchen decides one day to go out and attack me with a really weird shiny thing he found in the street with a pointy end.

Sadly, I'm not sure there's much to be done about this because when you apply even a modicum of sophistication in knife use against an unarmed defender, the odds of success go from abysmal to "where do I send the flowers?"  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 18, 2015)

lklawson said:


> My biggest problem with most unarmed knife defense is that most of them assume a certain degree of ineptitude from the knife attacker.  I'm not talking about the classic Jim Carry over-hand stab or the full lunge-stab which hangs in the air, but rather a caveman-esque lack of even the most basic sophistication.  It seems that most assume that the person attacking with a knife is not only untrained in its use but also is fairly unfamiliar with it as a tool of attack.  Almost as if a person who's never used a steak knife at the table or a pairing knife in the kitchen decides one day to go out and attack me with a really weird shiny thing he found in the street with a pointy end.
> 
> Sadly, I'm not sure there's much to be done about this because when you apply even a modicum of sophistication in knife use against an unarmed defender, the odds of success go from abysmal to "where do I send the flowers?"
> 
> ...


That's why I say that unarmed defenses against the knife range from "just might possibly work if you are skilled and lucky and your attacker is neither" to "will just make you look stupid as you get yourself killed." Too many instructors teach stuff from that second category, but it's important to recognize that even the best techniques only fall into the first category.

That's why Marc Denny refers to that sort of training as learning to "die less often."


----------



## drop bear (Nov 18, 2015)

lklawson said:


> My biggest problem with most unarmed knife defense is that most of them assume a certain degree of ineptitude from the knife attacker.  I'm not talking about the classic Jim Carry over-hand stab or the full lunge-stab which hangs in the air, but rather a caveman-esque lack of even the most basic sophistication.  It seems that most assume that the person attacking with a knife is not only untrained in its use but also is fairly unfamiliar with it as a tool of attack.  Almost as if a person who's never used a steak knife at the table or a pairing knife in the kitchen decides one day to go out and attack me with a really weird shiny thing he found in the street with a pointy end.
> 
> Sadly, I'm not sure there's much to be done about this because when you apply even a modicum of sophistication in knife use against an unarmed defender, the odds of success go from abysmal to "where do I send the flowers?"
> 
> ...



Mount is a terrible position to fight from. So you get taught to escape that position. I am leaning towards that as the better concept for unarmed against knife.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 18, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That's why Marc Denny refers to that sort of training as learning to "die less often."


I've always loved that title.  I'm still mad that I didn't think of it first.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 18, 2015)

lklawson said:


> My biggest problem with most unarmed knife defense is that most of them assume a certain degree of ineptitude from the knife attacker.  I'm not talking about the classic Jim Carry over-hand stab or the full lunge-stab which hangs in the air, but rather a caveman-esque lack of even the most basic sophistication.  It seems that most assume that the person attacking with a knife is not only untrained in its use but also is fairly unfamiliar with it as a tool of attack.  Almost as if a person who's never used a steak knife at the table or a pairing knife in the kitchen decides one day to go out and attack me with a really weird shiny thing he found in the street with a pointy end.
> 
> Sadly, I'm not sure there's much to be done about this because when you apply even a modicum of sophistication in knife use against an unarmed defender, the odds of success go from abysmal to "where do I send the flowers?"
> 
> ...



That's pretty much true of unarmed vs ANY weapon. If you person with the weapon knows how to use it, you're in trouble.
A person who knows how to use a knife doesn't over commit.
A person who knows how to use a gun doesn't stand in contact range.
Etc etc etc.

Success unarmed vs a weapon requires one of two things.
1 - The armed person doesn't really know how to use it.
2 - You can stay alive and mobile until they make a bad mistake.

Can the 2nd be done vs a knife? Sure. If you're good, and lucky. I've done it in training. But I got simulated sliced all to hell more often than I survived.

I've faced a real knife twice. In one case, the person was very clearly in category one. In the other, I lost an eye.
Not exactly a great record.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 18, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's pretty much true of unarmed vs ANY weapon. If you person with the weapon knows how to use it, you're in trouble.
> A person who knows how to use a knife doesn't over commit.
> A person who knows how to use a gun doesn't stand in contact range.
> Etc etc etc.
> ...


Yup.  And that's my problem.  The thing is, as I said, I'm not sure there's much to be done about it, really.  Either you train and hope for the best or don't train and accept the worst.

An old Silat buddy of mine used to say something along the lines of, "Sure, but it's better than wetting your pants and crying like a little girl."  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 18, 2015)

Agreed. As I said, once a student has a solid grounding in the core aspects of the system, teaching things like knife defense is a good idea. You're in a crappy position no matter what, but you might get lucky.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 18, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's pretty much true of unarmed vs ANY weapon. If you person with the weapon knows how to use it, you're in trouble.
> A person who knows how to use a knife doesn't over commit.
> A person who knows how to use a gun doesn't stand in contact range.
> Etc etc etc.
> ...


What's really scary about working against the knife is that sometimes the knife wielder can kill you even if they _don't_ know how to use it properly.

That's why I agree with the part I've bolded below:



Dirty Dog said:


> Can the 2nd be done vs a knife? Sure. If you're good, *and lucky*.





Dirty Dog said:


> I've faced a real knife twice. In one case, the person was very clearly in category one. In the other, I lost an eye.
> Not exactly a great record.



That record still gives you significantly more real world experience than 99+% of the instructors out there teaching knife defense.


----------



## Buka (Nov 18, 2015)

I used to teach some nifty cool knife defenses back in the day. And they worked pretty good with a rubber knife and a fellow dojo mate adhering to a script. I believe had anyone been forced to apply them in real life that someone would probably not make it out alive. It was poorly researched Martial Arts on my part.

Nowadays what seems to work the best (for us) is training in a knife fighting system before concentrating on any disarms or actual fighting against an edged weapon.

Knives scare the hell out of me.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 19, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> My own preferred knife defense sits behind my right hip. Except when I'm at work, since the hospital administration is far enough detached from reality to think that "No Weapons" signs on the doors will protect us.



To be honest here, Mark, no it's not. That's you preferred tactical response… which is very different to being a preferred defence. Your preferred defence might well be to disengage and gain distance in order to deploy your firearm… but this is like saying your favourite defence against road rage is to drive a tank. You may certainly dissuade others from driving aggressively around you, but it's not really a defence against getting caught up in such situations… as well as not being practical on a range of levels. And frankly, in the range that a knife assault typically occurs, I'd rather rely on some unarmed defence rather than try to go for a firearm… that's only really practicable when range is achieved… which requires you to have some actual defensive actions first.


----------



## Tiger84 (Nov 19, 2015)

Christian Soldier said:


> Allright, this is kind of a continutation of "How do you defend against this? (knife attack)"
> 
> I'm continueing to hear how hopeless going up against _anyone_ with a knife is, doesn't matter if it's a hooligan with a box cutter or a kali master with a fighting knife, you are pretty much out of luck no matter who you are. You might as well just give up.
> 
> ...


Of course you should train knife defense... Knives are way more versitile than guns which makes them more dangerous. Just because you train knife defense doesn't mean your not going to get cut but it could save your life.


----------



## Tiger84 (Nov 19, 2015)

Christian Soldier said:


> Wow, you guys really cleared things up. Thank you.
> 
> I've had a fair amount of professional (in a MA school not just watching YT) Knife vs Knife, and Hand vs Hand, but not much hand vs knife. In Kenpo we have a few techniqes for knife defence but I wouldn't stake my life on them.
> I got a few ideas from Chris but do you guys have any preffered knife drills or techniques you teach in class?


We actually have many techniques that will work if the attacker had a knife instead of no weapon or a different weapon (wink wink). There's a handful that are specifically knife defense techniques but that doesn't mean others won't work effectively. Take a closer look at the material and do just that. Put a knife in their hand and see if you can run your techniques with it. There may be a modification or two that needs to happen but it's all there.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger84 said:


> Knives are way more versitile than guns which makes them more dangerous.


Which is why the military and police forces of every nation has eschewed firearms, preferring instead to remain exclusively with knives and swords.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## geezer (Nov 21, 2015)

lklawson said:


> Which is why the military and police forces of every nation has eschewed firearms, preferring instead to remain exclusively with knives and swords.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



He may have a _point,_ Kirk. 

Knives _are versatile_. I've used knives from everything from cutting cord, to eating food, to sharpening a pencil, to opening cans and getting inside a locked door (when a credit card wouldn't do the job). Knives are also _dangerous_. I cut my self, usually my fingers a zillion times using a knife (especially as a kid), and the last time I used one of our "good" kitchen knives as a screwdriver I almost got killed. ...by my wife.  And, don't military forces issue knives? They should. Heck, I had one as a boy scout. Piece of crap but I really liked it.

Yep, knives are versatile and dangerous. Guns are not so versatile. But they can be very _deadly_.

Oh, and I'm ambivalent about training knife defenses. We do some basic stuff in our Escrima. And the highest percentage stuff I've seen is ...very low percentage. Learning _that_ is probably the most important part of the training.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

geezer said:


> He may have a _point,_ Kirk.
> 
> Knives _are versatile_. I've used knives from everything from cutting cord, to eating food, to sharpening a pencil, to opening cans and getting inside a locked door (when a credit card wouldn't do the job). Knives are also _dangerous_. I cut my self, usually my fingers a zillion times using a knife (especially as a kid), and the last time I used one of our "good" kitchen knives as a screwdriver I almost got killed. ...by my wife.  And, don't military forces issue knives? They should. Heck, I had one as a boy scout. Piece of crap but I really liked it.
> 
> ...



I would be interested to see if full contact changes the percentages on unarmed vs knife.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 22, 2015)

No, it doesn't. Because it has little to no effect on what actually matters in the training there.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> No, it doesn't. Because it has little to no effect on what actually matters in the training there.



Have you actually tried it?

I mean the times i have taken knives off guys myself. Panelbeating them does seem to help


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 22, 2015)

I have done "full contact" training, I have done many, many years of knife defence, I understand how the training operates, what the important aspects are, and so on. I also understand the short-fall of a range of tactics that "work" in the dojo/training hall… and none of this is about "panelbeating" someone.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I have done "full contact" training, I have done many, many years of knife defence, I understand how the training operates, what the important aspects are, and so on. I also understand the short-fall of a range of tactics that "work" in the dojo/training hall… and none of this is about "panelbeating" someone.



So you are suggesting that i will not get a greater chance of success if i really beat on a guy while defending a knife?


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 22, 2015)

Are you even following your own comments here? You asked about whether "full contact" would change the percentages… which is a training concept… and you're taking that to "full contact" in actual usage? Do you know anyone who suggests that we try some kinda non-contact response to a real knife threat? Really?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you even following your own comments here? You asked about whether "full contact" would change the percentages… which is a training concept… and you're taking that to "full contact" in actual usage? Do you know anyone who suggests that we try some kinda non-contact response to a real knife threat? Really?


I have no idea what response you will try in a knife threat. 

 Mabye the better question is why if it has an effect in a real knife attack.  Does it not have an effect in the training?


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 22, 2015)

Because in training, you're not fully applying such tactics and techniques…so there has to be some "play acting"… otherwise it just becomes unrealistic.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I'd rather rely on some unarmed defence rather than try to go for a firearm… that's only really practicable when range is achieved… which requires you to have some actual defensive actions first.



Err...kinda...

There are several ways to deploy a handgun at CQB range or while engaged H2H. 

Yes. You will need to resolve the immediate threat before drawing at close quarters, and "range" is one desired option, but "position" is acceptable if range can't be achieved.

of knives, guns and 21 feet.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## lklawson (Nov 23, 2015)

geezer said:


> He may have a _point,_ Kirk.
> 
> Knives _are versatile_. I've used knives from everything from cutting cord, to eating food, to sharpening a pencil, to opening cans and getting inside a locked door (when a credit card wouldn't do the job). Knives are also _dangerous_. I cut my self, usually my fingers a zillion times using a knife (especially as a kid), and the last time I used one of our "good" kitchen knives as a screwdriver I almost got killed. ...by my wife.  And, don't military forces issue knives? They should. Heck, I had one as a boy scout. Piece of crap but I really liked it.
> 
> Yep, knives are versatile and dangerous. Guns are not so versatile. But they can be very _deadly_.


Nah.  His claim is twofold.  First that knives are "more versatile."  More versatile for what?  As a tool for cutting string and dividing peanut butter sandwiches?  OK.  As a tool for making holes in stuff at distance?  No.  "Versatile" is a very subjective term.

Second, he claims that this extra "versatility" makes knives "more dangerous."  Hogwash.  Guns are "more versatile" than a nuke, which has a very limited set of roles.  Are guns, therefore, "more dangerous."  Knives are good at cutting and stabbing (often differentiating between the two based on design) only at very close range.  Guns are often good at poking holes in things at ranges from contact through to very long rage, bashing and bludgeoning, and cutting and stabbing.





Even if you choose to opt for a handgun without a bayonet (as some, particularly early examples) were oft configured, said handgun, wielded as a bludgeon, was like to permanently reconfigure a face and just flat out break stuff off of a person.  There's a reason that "pistol whipping" is still considered deadly force.

Don't misunderstand, I'm a fan of knives (look at my avatar!) and I know about the Tueller drill (which Ohnimus knew in 1890).  But I also understand reality.  And the reality is as I have stated.  Knives are only "more versatile" if you narrowly define versatility to your own ends and they're certainly not "more dangerous" or, as I already wrote, no one would be using guns, they'd all be using knives.

He doesn't have a point and he can click on "disagree" as many times as he likes.  It won't change reality.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## geezer (Nov 23, 2015)

OK Kirk, I admit that I was joking around... mostly because I agree with you that the idea that knives are, overall, more deadly than guns is _pretty silly_. At very close range, the advantage of a gun is diminished but not eliminated.

I believe most people completely misunderstand the _Tueller_ experiment and its findings, and somehow think that a knife is more deadly than a gun at that range. Hardly! Applied to self defense, the "21 ft. rule" has more to do with effective response time to a sudden unanticipated attack than the relative lethality of a knife versus gun. If the defender had a holstered knife or folder in a pocket, would he be better able to defend himself? Of course not. And what if your attacker coming at you from 21 feet away had a firearm ...would you be better off?


----------



## meeshbenson (Nov 23, 2015)

Two of my friends and I got jumped last year by six high schoolers. Two of those high schoolers had knives and honestly we could have probably took them on if we had any knife self defense training. I was so mad because I have never felt so defenseless.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 23, 2015)

meeshbenson said:


> Two of my friends and I got jumped last year by six high schoolers. Two of those high schoolers had knives and honestly we could have probably took them on if we had any knife self defense training. I was so mad because I have never felt so defenseless.


Yeah, this is what I was referring to earlier when I said that some training might be worse than no training if it leads to a false sense of confidence that leads the student to try fighting when they shouldn't. Outnumbered 2 to 1 with two of the attackers having knives is not a situation where you want to fight unless you have absoulutely no choice.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 24, 2015)

geezer said:


> OK Kirk, I admit that I was joking around... mostly because I agree with you that the idea that knives are, overall, more deadly than guns is _pretty silly_. At very close range, the advantage of a gun is diminished but not eliminated.


Dangiit.  You mean I just wasted a good rant?  



> I believe most people completely misunderstand the _Tueller_ experiment and its findings, and somehow think that a knife is more deadly than a gun at that range. Hardly! Applied to self defense, the "21 ft. rule" has more to do with effective response time to a sudden unanticipated attack than the relative lethality of a knife versus gun. If the defender had a holstered knife or folder in a pocket, would he be better able to defend himself? Of course not. And what if your attacker coming at you from 21 feet away had a firearm ...would you be better off?


Well said.  Several years back I taught a "test cutting" class in a western martial arts context.  One of the drills I taught was a "deploy from carry and cut/stab" drill.  It's amazing how freaking slow it can be, even to people who practice knife carry.  Sure they were all deployed in less than a second, but the target was hanging right there in front of them at "contact" range. The presumption is that the knife is being deployed in response to an attack.  I hope it was an eye opening drill for some of the participants.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Balrog (Dec 22, 2015)

Christian Soldier said:


> Allright, this is kind of a continutation of "How do you defend against this? (knife attack)"
> 
> I'm continueing to hear how hopeless going up against _anyone_ with a knife is, doesn't matter if it's a hooligan with a box cutter or a kali master with a fighting knife, you are pretty much out of luck no matter who you are. You might as well just give up.


If knife defense is taught correctly, it is invaluable.  There are two fundamental rules:  

1.  You're most likely gonna get cut.  Minimize the damage you take, maximize the damage you give.
2.  If in doubt, see rule #1.

Remember that the attacker's focus is on the knife and his mindset is that he is superior because he is armed.  Once you break his focus, you gain the advantage and you don't stop until he's on the ground and incapable of fighting with you any more.  He's presented deadly force against you, so he's bought and paid for in my book.  Anything you do is justified, up to and including lethal force in return.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 22, 2015)

Balrog said:


> If knife defense is taught correctly, it is invaluable.  There are two fundamental rules:
> 
> 1.  You're most likely gonna get cut.  Minimize the damage you take, maximize the damage you give.
> 2.  If in doubt, see rule #1.
> ...



I would add "control the weapon" as a fundamental rule. I agree with you on the mindset, though. On the occasions that I've been faced with a knife, the attacker has completely ignored their other limbs. They would struggle to regain control of the knife hand, but they never even tried to strike with their other hand. I've seen this in training as well. The weapon becomes THE weapon, to the exclusion of other options, to most people.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 22, 2015)

Balrog said:


> Remember that the attacker's focus is on the knife


You sure about that?  Cuz I know lots of folks who train knife and an important part of the training is that they're more than just the knife.



> and his mindset is that he is superior because he is armed.


Umm...  That's the whole point of weapons.  They're a "Force Multiplier."  Weapons are what lets smaller, weaker, less trained individuals overcome stronger, larger, better trained unarmed individuals.  They do more damage than bare hands.  It's why they were invented.



> Once you break his focus, you gain the advantage and you don't stop until he's on the ground and incapable of fighting with you any more.


And, by corollary, once you realize you're cut it breaks your focus.



> He's presented deadly force against you, so he's bought and paid for in my book.  Anything you do is justified, up to and including lethal force in return.


So which is it, are weapons not "superior" or are they "deadly force?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 22, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> I would add "control the weapon" as a fundamental rule.


I teach "control the weapon bearing limb" instead of "control the weapon."



> On the occasions that I've been faced with a knife, the attacker has completely ignored their other limbs. They would struggle to regain control of the knife hand, but they never even tried to strike with their other hand. I've seen this in training as well. The weapon becomes THE weapon, to the exclusion of other options, to most people.


That's just a matter of training.  Most of the knife specific martial arts I've trained with go to great lengths to emphasize that you're more than just the knife.  The Dog Brothers (and many others) teach ways to overcome and train out of "Monkey Fist Syndrome" and many FMA arts specifically call the hand without the weapon a "Live Hand" specifically to remind the practitioner that they've got another hand and they should use it.

So just because untrained people do one thing doesn't mean that we should expect everyone to do that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 22, 2015)

lklawson said:


> I teach "control the weapon bearing limb" instead of "control the weapon."



Same idea, different words.



lklawson said:


> That's just a matter of training.  Most of the knife specific martial arts I've trained with go to great lengths to emphasize that you're more than just the knife.  The Dog Brothers (and many others) teach ways to overcome and train out of "Monkey Fist Syndrome" and many FMA arts specifically call the hand without the weapon a "Live Hand" specifically to remind the practitioner that they've got another hand and they should use it.
> 
> So just because untrained people do one thing doesn't mean that we should expect everyone to do that.



Of course. But the vast majority of people using a knife don't have any formal training. They just know "hold the dull end and stick them with the sharp end." I'm not saying _*I*_ would ignore their other limbs. I'm saying that, in the vast majority of cases, _*they*_ will do so. 
As with unarmed combat; train to fight a trained attacker, but know that you're more likely to face an untrained or minimally trained attacker.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 22, 2015)

A week into learning knife defence as a kid I gave a sick to a friend and told him to "come at me bro" 

He punched me in the face with his free hand. Then stabbed me.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 22, 2015)

I personally think the odds of being cut controlling the limb are about the same as just bashing the guy.

For the same set of preconceptions. Either they are fighting their hand free and not stabbing you. Or defending shots and not stabbing you.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 22, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I personally think the odds of being cut controlling the limb are about the same as just bashing the guy.
> 
> For the same set of preconceptions. Either they are fighting their hand free and not stabbing you. Or defending shots and not stabbing you.


Use one of the "marking" trainers or a "shock knife" and pressure test.  My person pressure tests give a slight "edge" (har har) to controlling the limb and punching over just punching.  But try it yourself.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Dec 22, 2015)

lklawson said:


> Use one of the "marking" trainers or a "shock knife" and pressure test.  My person pressure tests give a slight "edge" (har har) to controlling the limb and punching over just punching.  But try it yourself.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yeah i got some aluminium knives i will give it a go with those. 

(i mean i would love some shock knives.  They are just a bit costy. )


----------



## JP3 (Dec 22, 2015)

In some play with the shock knives we learned (really quick, I might add) that going in on the knife-hand side (the armed side) is kind of a losing endeavor, for both trained and non-trained (lower rank) people.  We did it with various combinations, body sizes, etc. and entering the fray moving into the armed opponent on the unarmed "side" worked about 3x better (very "sorta" measured in how many times shocked silly) than in coming in vs. the armed side.  It makes sense, doesn't it. "Stay away from the blade." Well, duh.  Much harder to do than to say, but really, really worth the time spent training it, in my opinion.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 22, 2015)

Well it seem the general trend is to go in from that position.






You are in range you go forwards and clean the guy up. In some fashion.

I was thinking go out. You are in range create space run for the hills. Even if you are chased I think you are better able to defend if they are overextended.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2015)

Hey Kirk,



lklawson said:


> You sure about that?  Cuz I know lots of folks who train knife and an important part of the training is that they're more than just the knife.



Not to speak for Balrog, but I don't feel that's who he's talking about… most knife assaults aren't by people who train in knife… so while you're absolutely right that those who do tend to have a great understanding that the knife is but one option (and not the real "power"), a mugger/assailant is specifically using a weapon to give themselves an "edge" (ha!)… it becomes almost a talisman… an external "power" that is used to give an advantage over others… which means that yeah, they do tend to get rather overly focused on the knife itself.



lklawson said:


> Umm...  That's the whole point of weapons.  They're a "Force Multiplier."  Weapons are what lets smaller, weaker, less trained individuals overcome stronger, larger, better trained unarmed individuals.  They do more damage than bare hands.  It's why they were invented.



Sort of… but you're only looking at part of the story there. As mentioned, it's a talisman in the arms of a mugger… not something necessarily to even to anything more than scare the victim into compliance… or it might be to make up for some perceived weakness… regardless, at this point, we're not looking at tactical advantages of a knife (or other weapon), but psychological advantages.

One thing I point out to my guys fairly regularly is that an attacker is (most often) attacking because they feel they have an advantage… you pretty much never get attacked by someone wanting a "fair fight". Now, that advantage could be real, or perceived… it might be size, strength, experience, confidence (whether internal, or from the added influence of drugs or alcohol… or even social pressures…), numbers advantages (groups), or some form of weapon, whether revealed (threatening) or hidden (ambush). When we take that to the usage of a weapon in an assault, the weapon is used (chosen) for it's inherent ability to put the attacker "above" the victim… if you threaten that weapon, you threaten to take them back down to a level they're not wanting to be at… so yeah, the focus in on the weapon (above and beyond the rest of the body), as the reasons for using them aren't the same as a trained individual's understanding of the tactical advantages of the item itself.



lklawson said:


> And, by corollary, once you realize you're cut it breaks your focus.



Yep. Of course, how you break focus matters (theirs and yours)… as well as to what level.



lklawson said:


> So which is it, are weapons not "superior" or are they "deadly force?"



I don't think that's what he was saying… he was saying that the mindset (attitude, psychology) of the attacker is that they are (now) superior (to the victim) as they have a greater power (the weapon)… which represents deadly force. Not that the weapon itself is superior.



lklawson said:


> I teach "control the weapon bearing limb" instead of "control the weapon."



Yep. The way I teach my guys is that if you're not in control of the weapon (usually by restricting usage of the controlling limb, as well as a few other aspects), then they are. So that has to be a primary tactic in handling a weapon assault.



lklawson said:


> That's just a matter of training.  Most of the knife specific martial arts I've trained with go to great lengths to emphasize that you're more than just the knife.  The Dog Brothers (and many others) teach ways to overcome and train out of "Monkey Fist Syndrome" and many FMA arts specifically call the hand without the weapon a "Live Hand" specifically to remind the practitioner that they've got another hand and they should use it.



Sure… but again, you're talking about trained persons… which is not what would be commonly encountered. I mean, you're even addressing (or mentioning how others address) the issue of how untrained persons engage with a knife ("Monkey Fist Syndrome")… 



lklawson said:


> So just because untrained people do one thing doesn't mean that we should expect everyone to do that.



True, but it's also very important to look at (and give your focus to) exactly what the most likely forms of attack would be… training for a highly unlikely possibility due to the idea that "well, you can't expect everyone to do the same thing" is not an overtly realistic training paradigm, honestly… it's like studying Icelandic before a trip to Japan just in case you run into Bjork there… sure, it may happen… but you're better off learning Japanese.



drop bear said:


> A week into learning knife defence as a kid I gave a sick to a friend and told him to "come at me bro"
> 
> He punched me in the face with his free hand. Then stabbed me.



As amusing as that visual is, there are some issues to look at. 

As mentioned, the usage of a knife is often a psychological advantage (unless the knife is hidden… in which case it's about assassination… but that's a very different set up)… giving him a stick, he didn't (psychologically) feel he had a knife… so went to what he felt was a powerful attack (in this case, a punch). He would most likely have felt that an attack with a stick isn't that powerful… especially a stabbing action… however, an actual knife would have had him more likely to lead with it.



drop bear said:


> I personally think the odds of being cut controlling the limb are about the same as just bashing the guy.
> 
> For the same set of preconceptions. Either they are fighting their hand free and not stabbing you. Or defending shots and not stabbing you.



Based on what? Your lack of experience?

Here's the thing… if they have a knife, and you're coming in with a barrage of attacks, but not controlling the weapon arm at all, you're likely dealing with defensive flailing… which will, in no uncertain terms, cut you up a hell of a lot. So… you may want to rethink your grasp on the topic.

Say, here's a good article that covers many ideas that I'm talking about here. It's specifically about knife against knife, but also deals with unarmed against knife… anyway, have a read. It's rather accurate. Lies about knife fighting



drop bear said:


> Yeah i got some aluminium knives i will give it a go with those.
> 
> (i mean i would love some shock knives.  They are just a bit costy. )



You won't necessarily know where you're "touched/cut" with the aluminium knives… which is why Kirk suggested marked trainers (lipstick on the edge of a rubber training knife is good…) or shock knives.



JP3 said:


> In some play with the shock knives we learned (really quick, I might add) that going in on the knife-hand side (the armed side) is kind of a losing endeavor, for both trained and non-trained (lower rank) people.  We did it with various combinations, body sizes, etc. and entering the fray moving into the armed opponent on the unarmed "side" worked about 3x better (very "sorta" measured in how many times shocked silly) than in coming in vs. the armed side.  It makes sense, doesn't it. "Stay away from the blade." Well, duh.  Much harder to do than to say, but really, really worth the time spent training it, in my opinion.



Hi JP,

Out of interest, how much time is spent in your dojo dealing with knife response? And how much in knife training?

Thing is, "stay away from the blade", unless you manage to create quite a bit of distance (to escape) is really a short-term defence… and gets overwhelmed pretty quickly. You can only avoid for so long… eventually (pretty soon, really) you'll get caught… and then, well, it's the beginning of the end… 



drop bear said:


> Well it seem the general trend is to go in from that position.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, Peter… he's got some good stuff, but a lot that I'm less fond of… some overly complicated, and technical responses which have little chance of working, but look great demo'd against training partners half his size standing still… 

That said, the reason "go in and control" is the go-to for the vast majority of knife defence methodologies is because, well, it is your best chance at survival. Sure, if you get the opportunity, create distance (a lot of distance!), escape, and get out of there… but, if you can't do that, your best option is to engage, which will mean going in hard, fast, and with a focus on controlling the opponent's weapon arm first. The issue with your idea of "even if you are chased I think you are better able to defend if they are overextended" has some basic logic to it (more time, more leverage, greater range to see what is coming), but sadly, reality isn't so nice as to follow that form of logic. If you are being chased, that's when the non-weapon arm will come into it, by reaching out and catching you. And, if your back is to them, all they really need is a fingertip on you to unbalance you, at which point you're stabbed when you try to turn or maintain balance… so being chased is not good. If you turn to face before they get that close, you're back at the same starting point that we were at before the chase… and now you still have to cover a large range of distance to get in past the weapon arm in order to defend successfully.

So, while it can make some clean logic devoid of the realities of life, in the real world it's a bit different.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Based on what? Your lack of experience?
> 
> Here's the thing… if they have a knife, and you're coming in with a barrage of attacks, but not controlling the weapon arm at all, you're likely dealing with defensive flailing… which will, in no uncertain terms, cut you up a hell of a lot. So… you may want to rethink your grasp on the topic.
> 
> Say, here's a good article that covers many ideas that I'm talking about here. It's specifically about knife against knife, but also deals with unarmed against knife… anyway, have a read. It's rather accurate. Lies about knife fighting


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2015)

So… your argument about when you're likely to not get stabbed is that you've been stabbed, so you don't know how to avoid it?

You do realise that this picture tells us absolutely nothing, other than that you don't wax, yeah? That's with the assumption it actually is you, of course…


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> So… your argument about when you're likely to not get stabbed is that you've been stabbed, so you don't know how to avoid it?
> 
> You do realise that this picture tells us absolutely nothing, other than that you don't wax, yeah? That's with the assumption it actually is you, of course…



My lack of experience was brought into question. I suppose I will now have to bring up yours. Realities of the real world and all that.

Actually that wasn't me. It was a mate of mine. But any of us could have been stabbed in that fight.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2015)

So… not even your experience. Okay. Are you actually going to attempt to answer the question, then? Or post pictures of other people as if it answers something?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> So… not even your experience. Okay. Are you actually going to attempt to answer the question, then? Or post pictures of other people as if it answers something?



My experience I just didn't get stabbed. Mate got stabbed and we jumped on the guy.

So again your real world experience is? Seeing as we are bringing this into question.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 25, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> so being chased is not good. If you turn to face before they get that close, you're back at the same starting point that we were at before the chase…


Only a lot more tired.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2015)

I think people forget that we are dealing with a method that probably won't work. Which sucks. I know I would not like to train for years and still be a very small chance of winning an unarmed against knife. But it is what it is.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2015)

Sigh… read the Marc MacYoung link I provided. Then tell me we're forgetting such things.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Sigh… read the Marc MacYoung link I provided. Then tell me we're forgetting such things.



Read it. You are forgetting such things.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2015)

I honestly have no idea where you get your ideas from… it might be from your decision to ignore the words people write in lieu of you deciding what you think they mean… which I'm going to suggest is a really poor idea at the best of times.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I honestly have no idea where you get your ideas from… it might be from your decision to ignore the words people write in lieu of you deciding what you think they mean… which I'm going to suggest is a really poor idea at the best of times.



OK. Simply put. If you accept that unarmed vs knife does not really work. How can you critique a method based on whether it works or not.

So you say my idea gets me stabbed. But your idea gets you stabbed. There is mabye a roll of the dice in the difference. 

Now if you get off this nobody has experience but you insane pedastool that you are on. And actually discuss the topic like adults. We might actually be able to hold a two way conversation.

But I am not holding my breath to be honest.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 26, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I think people forget that we are dealing with a method that probably won't work. Which sucks. I know I would not like to train for years and still be a very small chance of winning an unarmed against knife. But it is what it is.



Have you ever noticed in videos like this they almost never present a better method of defending against a knife than the ones they call 'fantasy'. This one is like "here's how someone living in a fantasy world does it' "now for comparison here's how someone completely incompetent does it". Reality is likely somewhere in between.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 26, 2015)

Chris asked, "Out of interest, how much time is spent in your dojo dealing with knife response? And how much in knife training?

Thing is, "stay away from the blade", unless you manage to create quite a bit of distance (to escape) is really a short-term defence… and gets overwhelmed pretty quickly. You can only avoid for so long… eventually (pretty soon, really) you'll get caught… and then, well, it's the beginning of the end…" 

   Chris, honestly we don't spend enough time on it.  We know it, but anything is better than nothing, generally. Unless we're not doing technically/practically sound stuff, I get that.  Trying to work more and more knife work into my school's curriculum, but the time constraints are a hindrance to getting that done right.

	I wasn't clear about it initially, but my phrase about "keep away from the blade," wasn't a reference to the time-honored Run-Fu techniques (i.e. Run Away! Run Away! - Monty Python fan), it was a tactical statement. If the blade is in attacker's R-hand, then we found it is a measurably-less stupid way to move in against the knife on the attacker's left side, attempting to get control of the unarmed side, and go right into the first nasty thing that could render the knife-wielding hand ineffective that pops into defender's mind.  

  I'll grant you, writing out the above is WAY easier than performing it competently.

To me, it's got to be quick/direct/brutal and over before the knife guy figures out that you didn't just run.  Been to enough knife clinics where the instructor had everyone bring an extra white t-shirt that they didn't care about to, then "armed" everyone with Sharpie pens with red ink to point out exactly how easy it is to get cut, how many times you can get cut in a VERY short span of time, etc.  Scares the bejeezus out of me thinking about fighting a dude with a knife who knows how to use it (Arnis, etc.).  It is very weird to be in a seminar and have the instructor, in all seriousness, start saying things that sound like they come out of old-school Samurai code (because they did).  Only fight when you are prepared to die, for a reason for which you are prepared to die and accept the death that comes and be surprised when it is you that did not die.

Yikes!  It's a long way from judo class, that mindset. But, ti's what you got to have in order to survive on something other than luck.  Though... it's always to have good luck, too.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Have you ever noticed in videos like this they almost never present a better method of defending against a knife than the ones they call 'fantasy'. This one is like "here's how someone living in a fantasy world does it' "now for comparison here's how someone completely incompetent does it". Reality is likely somewhere in between.



I don't think there is a much better way. We can maby argue some semantics. But you are in so much trouble that the semantic argument seems a bit silly.

It is a crap position. So change the position. As far as I can tell escaping the unarmed vs knife dynamic is the priority. Not trying to finish the fight from there.

If I just pop a guy in the head. (Sucker punch him)There is a small chance he will collapse. If I grab the hand there is a small chance I will wrestle the knife off him.

I could do a combination of both and mabye raise my chance a bit. 

But none of this is still this close clinch and finish mentality. Especially using technique that are knife focused. Because they are hard as all get out to pull off on a guy who fights back.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2015)

Every time I restrained a guy with arm locks I am basically using anti knife techniques. I have done this mostly with bottles. Because that is a more common weapon.

But that is using a team to sneak up on a guy and double goose neck him.

This is what we did when a guy was seen to have a weapon or suspected of having a weapon.

Two guys grab his arms and the third searched him. No arms no weapon.

Or I would get them while their hand is reaching into their pocket. (I also disarmed some phones and cigarette packets. But hey it is a stupid move if you are making threats)

These were probably the safest knife disarms I have done. Knife or bottle out and getting waved around is really risky.

Again safest done with a team,clamp both arms,no arms no weapon.

I have stripped knives and bottles off people. And talked my way out of a gun or two.

I used a variation of the outer wristlock throw mostly. That has worked best for me. And I have known guys who have just sucker punched guys. And that worked for them generally as well.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 26, 2015)

Drop Bear, I have to ask where you "did" these techniques, as I am sensing a like historical behavior in the Force...


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2015)

JP3 said:


> Drop Bear, I have to ask where you "did" these techniques, as I am sensing a like historical behavior in the Force...



I used to bounce for a bit. Well all sorts of security jobs.


----------

