# Sacrifice hand



## Sandstorm (Mar 1, 2009)

Over the years I have heard this many times. Using the lead hand as the 'sacrifice' hand, to take the damage instead of a vital part of the anatomy. This is based on a knife to knife scenario (which I know, is not likely to happen ever in most peoples lifetimes), but it beggars the question, if you drill/train with the knife in the reverse hand instead of the lead, you will most likely adopt this position in reality? 

Anyone train this way? What are the pro's, (if any) besides using the arm to conceal the bladed hand? Obviously there are pitfalls, such as losing a few fingers or even the whole hand and bleeding to death. 

Personally, I would rather have both hands as close to my body as possible and fence off with the knife in the lead hand.

Be interested to know how you train or if you've encountered anyone who uses the lead hand as the 'sacrifice'.


Kind regards
John


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 1, 2009)

Personally I hate calling it a sacrifice hand. The very words seem to indicate that you are going to lose it.   Yes, it may or most likely will get cut if you try to grab with it but you do have a forearm attached to it that has a larger blocking surface. Blocking first, if possible, them grabbing or locking would seem a better use of the whole arm.
 The unarmed hand in front can hide some of the moves if that hand has to be watched ( pokes at the eyes, ridge hand under the nose as you stab with the other, etc.)  However the lead empty hand is more for blocking in most cases.
IMHO


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 1, 2009)

No we don't train that way , we have the lead hand close to the ribcage and the rear hand is resting near your throat with your chin down. I wouldn't feel very comfortable at all having the knife in the rear hand . 

 I think it would be too much of a telegraph when you went to strike and I like having the abilty to use the knife in the lead hand to parry thrusts or use it to trap.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 1, 2009)

i have two primary stances i use 1) upright stance, leading with the knife, rear hand just in front of my chest.  2) knife in the rear hand held low & tight, low crouch, lead hand open & near your face, elbows in tight.  i look at it this way:

#1 is for sparring knife on knife or knife against some other weapon.  it's fun, it helps develop your timing & such, but knife on knife simply will not happen in real life.  

#2 is for grabbing someone with your lead hand & stabbing the ever loving **** out of them.  this is the way a significant portion of successful knife attacks are committed.

so to answer your question, yes i train with the lead hand forward sometimes, but it's not for use against another bladed weapon.  i would use it against a blunt instrument because they tend to be slower & the lead hand could act as a range finder.  but it's purely academic since such scenarios are spectacularly rare.

jf


----------



## arnisador (Mar 1, 2009)

People do it. That's why so many old Filipino knife masters have knicknames like "Lefty" and "Three-fingered Jose". You also see it with the untrained but not inexperienced, who have learned the hard way that this works--lead with the left hand as a target and stab hard and deep with your own knife.

There are FMAs that use this basic idea, but don't "sacrifice" per se--but they _are_ figuring they may take a slash to give a stab.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 2, 2009)

I practice Bowie Knife.  It's half Machette, half short sword, and all evil.  Bad idea to try to block a 13" Bowie blade with anything not made of steel.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Sandstorm (Mar 2, 2009)

tshadowchaser said:


> Personally I hate calling it a sacrifice hand. The very words seem to indicate that you are going to lose it.


 
I'm not a big fan of the terminology myself, but it is accurate, as you are in effect 'sacrificing' it to save another part of your body



tshadowchaser said:


> Yes, it may or most likely will get cut if you try to grab with it but you do have a forearm attached to it that has a larger blocking surface. Blocking first, if possible, them grabbing or locking would seem a better use of the whole arm.


Agreed about the forearm. We drill and have drilled many techs using the forearm as the first point of contact, (using the back of the forearm against the blade of course) and then transitioning from the block/parry/flow etc to the grab. Working those techs at high speed is very difficult though and takes a very long time to 'master', for want of a better word.



tshadowchaser said:


> The unarmed hand in front can hide some of the moves if that hand has to be watched ( pokes at the eyes, ridge hand under the nose as you stab with the other, etc.) However the lead empty hand is more for blocking in most cases.
> IMHO


I do see this as a valid point. The concealment of the blade or intention does make sense, but it's a hefty price to pay for the element of surprise IMO.



mook jong man said:


> No we don't train that way , we have the lead hand close to the ribcage and the rear hand is resting near your throat with your chin down. I wouldn't feel very comfortable at all having the knife in the rear hand .
> 
> I think it would be too much of a telegraph when you went to strike and I like having the abilty to use the knife in the lead hand to parry thrusts or use it to trap.


 
We train a similar way, more of a traditional boxing stance with the blade it the lead hand. It's wierd because, although I am right handed predominately, I adopt a southpaw stance when doing knife work. It's become an automatic reaction now.
As to the telegraphing, I think that most skilled/semi-skilled knifers won't telegraph anyway. They can use the lead hand for distraction, sure, and then slip the rear hand in for the blade work. 



jarrod said:


> so to answer your question, yes i train with the lead hand forward sometimes, but it's not for use against another bladed weapon. i would use it against a blunt instrument because they tend to be slower & the lead hand could act as a range finder. *but it's purely academic since such scenarios are spectacularly rare.*
> 
> jf


 
Yes, as I pointed out in the opening post, these things just aren't likely to happen at all in most people's lifetimes and this is pretty much purely for accademic purposes, but it is interesting to see how the issue is covered in class. In the event of it happening in real life, how would that training come through, if at all I wonder. Being from the UK, I don't carry, so the chances of me ever getting into a knife-on knife are even more remote. i've face knives a handfull of times, but thankfully, only once been injured.
It's interesting that you train one way but would fight another. I find that fascinating. Do you experiment with different strategies in class that may not be applicable in reality, either sport or street etc?



arnisador said:


> *People do it*. That's why so many old Filipino knife masters have knicknames like "Lefty" and "Three-fingered Jose". You also see it with the untrained but not inexperienced, who have learned the hard way that this works--lead with the left hand as a target and stab hard and deep with your own knife.
> 
> There are FMAs that use this basic idea, but don't "sacrifice" per se--but they _are_ figuring they may take a slash to give a stab.


 
Oh, I know people do it, that's why I wanted to discuss how popular this was as an exercise. I would like to think that we, as human beings, would not want to sacrifice something on the off chance that we could get the upper hand because of it. There's a lot of 'ifs' involved. IMO, by having the hands close to the body and using footwork, the lead hand holding the blade about half-arms distance away at shoulder height, it gives enough room for manouvre without losing a finger or taking risky chances and trying to grab. With the blade in the lead hand, you have no inclination to grab as your fingers are already occupied. The temptation to grab with an empty lead is far higher and thus, more prone to being damaged IMO.





lklawson said:


> I practice Bowie Knife. It's half Machette, half short sword, and all evil. Bad idea to try to block a 13" Bowie blade with anything not made of steel.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 
Now _this_ takes the game to a different level altogether. It's a much larger blade than the type I'm thinking of in these scenarios. Thus, easier to see where it is and what it's doing. Also, due to its size and structure, it's going to be much much easier to grab in a tustle, especially since most bowies are single edged. There's also the levearge issue where it's easier to apply disarms on a larger item. Sure, you have the advantage of a bigger blade to do bigger damage, but IMO, I'd prefer to fight someone with a large knife over a small one I can hardly even see, let alone try and control.



Thanks for all the responses so far, it's good to see a variety of different opinions too. I think we can all agree on one thing though....



Best advice is *Run,* if you can*!*


----------



## arnisador (Mar 2, 2009)

Blade size (and weight) is certainly an issue. There comes point where the "it's only a slash, not a stab" logic fails!


----------



## jarrod (Mar 2, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> It's interesting that you train one way but would fight another. I find that fascinating.



the idea behind it is that even while sparring may not mirror a real fight, it still helps develop attributes useful in real fight, like timing, balance, body co-ordination & blade awareness for instance.  so it's understood that in a life or death altercation with a blade you're not going to do a lot of elaborate feinting & parrying.  but it's still useful to train it.  




> Do you experiment with different strategies in class that may not be applicable in reality, either sport or street etc?



yup.  in sparring i tend to be a counter-fighter.  i try to draw the guy in  then chop up his fingers & wrist as he comes in.  i would probably never have any cause to fight that way in a street fight.  but i think i can take the accuracy, timing, & sense of range i've developed from that & translate into what would need to be done.  

if you do karate or tkd or kickboxing, you've probably thrown some spinning heel kicks.  but if you had to defend yourself, you'd probably stick to direct kicks below the waist.  i figure if you can spin-heel kick a black belt in class, you probably can manage kicking some bad guy in the jimmy.  

i hope this is making sense, & that i understood your question correctly.  

jf


----------



## lklawson (Mar 3, 2009)

mook jong man said:


> I wouldn't feel very comfortable at all having the knife in the rear hand.


There are two prominent styles (at least) which do exactly this.

First is the "Folsom Prison" style as detailed in the well known and popular book "Put 'em down, Take 'em out."

Second is a somewhat less well known style sometimes referred to as the "Mediterranean" style.  In this method, it is common to lead with the "live hand" as an INVITATION while the knife is held edge up (reverse grip, not "ice-pick" grip) with the arm pointed down and hidden by the rear leg and back.  When the bait is taken and the slash is made at the exposed lead arm, the arm is withdrawn and the knife comes up in a rising slash (saber angle #3).  I have a friend who practices this style.  It's more effective than it sounds at first blush.

I don't have an exact exaple drawing but these pics from the spanish Manual del Baratero are similar:






Cambios.





Guardia.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Mar 3, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> Now _this_ takes the game to a different level altogether. It's a much larger blade than the type I'm thinking of in these scenarios. Thus, easier to see where it is and what it's doing.


You'd think so, but I've found that any additional advantage of "it's bigger so I can track it better" is negligible at best.  Perhaps other readers have had different experiences?



> Also, due to its size and structure, it's going to be much much easier to grab in a tustle, especially since most bowies are single edged.


I wouldn't recommend trying it.  I guess in a fight for your life, ya do what ya gotta do, but it's no safer trying to grab a Bowie blade than it is trying to grab any other knife.



> There's also the levearge issue where it's easier to apply disarms on a larger item.


'Bout the same issues as attempting to do a leverage disarm on a machette or a sword.  Sure there's more length for more leverage, but that works more in favor of the guy holding the knife than in favor of the guy trying to strip it.  In the words of Price, "Soyer, or some other great cook, enjoined as a preliminarty to skinning your eel, 'first catch him'."  The Bowie has enough length to make the open-handed or shorter weaponed opponent's Measure very difficult, as opposed to a small knife which has, essentially, identical "True Times" as the empty handed opponent.  However, Bowies are also "short" enough to make many of the "quick" movements of smaller knives more or less viable also.  In many ways, the Bowie hits kind of a "sweet spot" between knife and sword sizes.  Of course, this has it's draw-backs as well, making the Bowie, in a very real sense, "Jack of all trades, Master of none."  

Think of a Bowie as a western analog to the Barong and you'll begin to see it's place in the structure of knives-cum-swords.



> Sure, you have the advantage of a bigger blade to do bigger damage, but IMO, I'd prefer to fight someone with a large knife over a small one I can hardly even see, let alone try and control.


How much experimentation have you done with "passing the point" on large knives?  Yes, the Measure and Tempo are somewhat different from a small knife, true.  But I don't see how this works to the defender's advantage unless he has a similarly sized or longer weapon.

I know I wouldn't want to try to pass the point against someone with a Barong unless I had a decent parry/block instrument.  The added reach of the weapon just pushes my Measure too far out.  That extra 12 to 18 inches is the difference between a quick step in and a reaching/lunging step, and when I gotta move my whole stink'n body and he only has to move his hand... well, it's a bet I'm reluctant to make.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 3, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I practice Bowie Knife. * It's half Machette, half short sword, and all evil.*



I like that!


----------



## lklawson (Mar 3, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> > _I practice Bowie Knife. *It's half Machette, half short sword, and all evil.*_
> 
> 
> I like that!


Feel free.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jarrod (Mar 3, 2009)

lklawson said:


> There are two prominent styles (at least) which do exactly this.
> 
> First is the "Folsom Prison" style as detailed in the well known and popular book "Put 'em down, Take 'em out."
> 
> ...



that is a terrific book.  point of interest, what is taught in that book is almost identical to the knife fighting covered MC basic training.  i later read an article that said MCMAP adopted it's knife techniques from security footage of prison knife attacks.  

jf


----------



## Sandstorm (Mar 4, 2009)

lklawson said:


> *How much experimentation have you done with "passing the point" on large knives?* Yes, the Measure and Tempo are somewhat different from a small knife, true. But I don't see how this works to the defender's advantage unless he has a similarly sized or longer weapon.
> 
> I know I wouldn't want to try to pass the point against someone with a Barong unless I had a decent parry/block instrument. The added reach of the weapon just pushes my Measure too far out. That extra 12 to 18 inches is the difference between a quick step in and a reaching/lunging step, and when I gotta move my whole stink'n body and he only has to move his hand... well, it's a bet I'm reluctant to make.
> 
> ...


 
In answer to the highlighted question, I've done a fair bit, but nowhere near as much as with smaller blades. We've covered the standard 12" kitchen knife primarily, as we're in the UK, we don't get much call for Bowies. 
Don't get me wrong, I love knives and knife-work. My comment was not designed to put down or make large knives inferior to small ones. On the contrary. My comment was purely a personal preference should I have an encounter, I'd prefer to deal with a larger blade than a smaller one. Anything over 4" I feel IMO that there is more I can do to avoid being damaged, as opposed to something like a stanley knife. Of course, if penetrated by the larger blade, the damage will be more severe, but a smaller one I feel would cause more smaller injuries and thus dibilitate.
It's all pretty much theoretical anyway. Chances of having to face such scenarios are next to none now. 
Perhaps, due to my training with smaller blades, I am biased:ultracool, and maybe some more training with larger blades is in order. It's all about learning after all, and if there's something in what you've said that I have missed in the past, and I pick it up from experimenting some more, I will surely thank you and buy you a beer

Thanks for the response, it's good to discuss such things.

kind regards
John


----------



## lklawson (Mar 4, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> In answer to the highlighted question, I've done a fair bit, but nowhere near as much as with smaller blades.


Cool.  Then you must know how how excruciatingly difficult it is to pass the point on something that size.  If you can do it, then you've got some places to go.  But, as the Laconians once told Phillip, "If."



> We've covered the standard 12" kitchen knife primarily, as we're in the UK, we don't get much call for Bowies.


Don't have much call for going unarmed against Bowies anywhere.  Or against knives in general for most of the First World.



> Don't get me wrong, I love knives and knife-work. My comment was not designed to put down or make large knives inferior to small ones. On the contrary. My comment was purely a personal preference should I have an encounter, I'd prefer to deal with a larger blade than a smaller one. Anything over 4" I feel IMO that there is more I can do to avoid being damaged, as opposed to something like a stanley knife. Of course, if penetrated by the larger blade, the damage will be more severe, but a smaller one I feel would cause more smaller injuries and thus dibilitate.


I want to be clear about what I'm saying and not confusing or argumentative.  Yes, you have good leverage disarms against longer blades.  I'd be a fool to dispute this.  Yes, smaller blades can opperate in tighter confines.  What I'm saying is that one of the big advantages of a big 'ol bowie is that it's freaking hard to pass the point and grapple it.  It's big enough to push your Measure out a significant amount but small enough to opperate in confined quarters.

Yes, if the guy wielding a big knife does something stupid, such as telegraphing a thrust (say in Silver's "False Times" for instance), then you have a chance of grappling it.  But if he's got a clue, well, trying to pass the point so you can grapple is going to truly suck.




> It's all pretty much theoretical anyway. Chances of having to face such scenarios are next to none now.


I don't disagree one bit.  The Bowie is, for all intents and purposes, a "dead weapon" (because it's study is, by and large, academic) as are most sword styles.  And, further, knife encounters are fairly rare by anyone's accounting.




> Perhaps, due to my training with smaller blades, I am biased:ultracool, and maybe some more training with larger blades is in order. It's all about learning after all, and if there's something in what you've said that I have missed in the past, and I pick it up from experimenting some more, I will surely thank you and buy you a beer


You're in the U.K., right?  That'd be a heck of a commute visit for me.    Oh, and I pretty much don't drink, but I'd let you buy me a Shirley Temple or a Virgin Mary or something.  



> Thanks for the response, it's good to discuss such things.


And in a polite, manerly fashion, no less!

yay!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Sandstorm (Mar 6, 2009)

lklawson said:


> Cool. Then you must know how how excruciatingly difficult it is to pass the point on something that size. If you can do it, then you've got some places to go. But, as the Laconians once told Phillip, "If."


There are always 'IF's. I am going to revive longer blade training for an experiment and see what happens. So used to using 3" or less blades, the rest is stick, predominately 



lklawson said:


> Don't have much call for going unarmed against Bowies anywhere. Or against knives in general for most of the First World.


Armed OR unarmed, it's best to test the waters and see what needs to be done to improve. While we do indeed live in the First World, people still attack others with long blades/impliments.




lklawson said:


> I want to be clear about what I'm saying and not confusing or argumentative. Yes, you have good leverage disarms against longer blades. I'd be a fool to dispute this. Yes, smaller blades can opperate in tighter confines. What I'm saying is that one of the big advantages of a big 'ol bowie is that it's freaking hard to pass the point and grapple it. It's big enough to push your Measure out a significant amount but small enough to opperate in confined quarters.


 
Clear as a whistle my friend. Seriously, I can tell by your tone that this is purely us debating and offering our own side/ideas on this issue. I am always open to new perspectives because it helps me develop overall, wether I agree or not, there's always going to be a nugget that someone will have to offer that could be invaluable.



lklawson said:


> Yes, if the guy wielding a big knife does something stupid, such as telegraphing a thrust (say in Silver's "False Times" for instance), then you have a chance of grappling it. But if he's got a clue, well, trying to pass the point so you can grapple is going to truly suck.


If we're talking experienced fighters, of course, it's a completely different game. Inexperienced long blade wielders are obviously still an absolute threat, no doubt. Bottom line, we have no business facing knives, period! If theres running available, I'm taking it.




lklawson said:


> You're in the U.K., right? That'd be a heck of a commute visit for me.  Oh, and I pretty much don't drink, but I'd let you buy me a Shirley Temple or a Virgin Mary or something.


I am in the UK, yes. If I happen across the pond and into your vicinity, I will certainly look you up. Would be great to train with an experienced long blade knifer. As for the drink, I'm TeeTotal since new year, so I'm on the OJ anyway:angel:




lklawson said:


> And in a polite, manerly fashion, no less!


Absolutely. Bang on old chap (in corney 'English Gentelman' accent). Seriously, IMO, it's the best way to have a serious discussion. 

Take care mate. Hopefully we will cross paths one day.

Kind regards
John


----------



## lklawson (Mar 6, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> I am in the UK, yes. If I happen across the pond and into your vicinity, I will certainly look you up. Would be great to train with an experienced long blade knifer.


It's a deal.




> As for the drink, I'm TeeTotal since new year, so I'm on the OJ anyway:angel:


Strength to your blade.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 6, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> Over the years I have heard this many times. Using the lead hand as the 'sacrifice' hand, to take the damage instead of a vital part of the anatomy. This is based on a knife to knife scenario (which I know, is not likely to happen ever in most peoples lifetimes), but it beggars the question, if you drill/train with the knife in the reverse hand instead of the lead, you will most likely adopt this position in reality?
> 
> Anyone train this way? What are the pro's, (if any) besides using the arm to conceal the bladed hand? Obviously there are pitfalls, such as losing a few fingers or even the whole hand and bleeding to death.
> 
> ...




John,

It makes sense if you understand where the base techniques come from. 

If it comes from system that uses a shield (* See this link to a seminar about an FMA that is teaching shield and blade work, http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73100 *) then it make lots of sense. 

If you are without your shield then you will still do what you do naturally from your training. 

I train in system(s) that have the weapon hand forward. So, when I go for a knife on knife I find myself in this position. So Yes, you train one way you will react that way. 


Good Questions.


----------



## sjansen (Mar 7, 2009)

The knife should be in the prominent hand. Whatever else, it is called the "live hand" for a reason. It juts in and out of harms way looking for an opening. If it is sacrificial, you are not moving fast enough or don't know what you are doing. Practice left and right and it doesn't matter. When you don't have a weapon, take off your shoe or belt and it becomes the weapon hand and the other is the live hand looking for an opening to disram or break.


----------



## tellner (Mar 7, 2009)

Let's try re-phrasing it a little bit...


There are no good places to get cut. 
There are some places that you can survive.
There are others which suck beyond comprehension.
Getting your weak hand and forearm cut sucks a little less than most of the alternatives.

The shin and the back of the forearm are among the least bad places. Even if you're cut to the bone on the back of the forearm the flexors will be intact, and you can still hold onto your knife. You can have a chunk taken out of your tibia and be able to walk. 

Any place where there are big blood vessels, vital internal organs, eyes or most tendons is a very bad place to get cut. 

It is a real pain to try and get through life without your weak hand. But it's possible. So if something is going to get mangled it's better that it be your off hand than almost anything else. 

When my wife and I did more FMA - mostly Inay, Inosanto and Presas - the off hand got used a lot. But it was pretty static. It generally stayed near the chest while the blade was low, in front of the knife (cf. most old military manuals dealing with knives) or the ways Kirk describes. Good positions but pretty rigid in application.

Recently my Silat teacher has started doing a lot more knife. In days past he'd teach empty hand defense against knife from time to time. The main lesson learned was that you want to avoid going empty hand against a knife is something you want to avoid if there's any conceivable alternative. Like Richard Pryor said "Mother****er will cut that **** all up. If a guy comes at you with a knife you run. If you can. If you can't run FLY!" 

Well, he started teaching us how to use knives lately. Baby steps only at first as Steve Perry says. It became apparent that the answers we'd been given were partial at best. What's important is sticking your knife into the other guy without him doing it to you. To do that the knife has to have or be able to acquire a clear path to the soft squishy parts. At the same time you have to make sure that you can deal with whatever is coming in high and low, near and far left and right. The less movement you can get away with the better, but static positions aren't reality. And you can't grab a hand that's flicking around or doing fast stabs and cuts out of the air.

It's all basic Silat that everyone has heard a thousand times before. Nothing changes.

What it means is that both hands are moving. You always have something high and something low, something near and something far. If you're covering your lines, then something will be there to answer whatever he is sending your way. The knife low and left hand back by the chest and all the rest are not how you fight. They are *snapshots* where you might be for a moment. Reference points at the extremes of your movement. Those _espada y daga _sequences with sword-knife-sword and knife-sword-knife are indications of how your weapons can move either completing their arcs or stopping and reversing while still taking care of high and low_ et cetera_.

During that time you might well get cut. But if you are doing things right it won't be as often, and it will more likely be somewhere that you can survive.

Oh yeah, Bowie knives. The big ones Kirk is talking about are entering short sword territory. The extra range makes them more like a golok or bolo. that is a very different fight, especially if you have the great misfortune not to have a weapon of your own. As the old Pat and Mike story ends:
" Patrick, didn't you have anything in _your_ hand?"
"Nowt but Mrs. Murphy's ****. A thing of beauty in itself but not worth a damn in a fight."


----------



## arnisador (Mar 7, 2009)

sjansen said:


> When you don't have a weapon, take off your shoe or belt and it becomes the weapon hand



I've never had this much time in a situation. If I did I think I'd keep my shoes on and run!


----------



## lklawson (Mar 9, 2009)

tellner said:


> The less movement you can get away with the better


This is one of the truly sweet things about a fencing style thrust. There SEEMS to be very little movement, but that blade is whistling in so darn FAST. All that linear movement and it looks like he's not moveing at all. It's not like you see on those goofball Vanguard comercials (or most of the time you see Fencing on TV). The arm extends linearly and he's already half way (or more) to the mark and your brain hasn't even realized he's moved yet much less been able to go through the decision loop to react (to say nothing of sending the requisite impulses to the muscles). Only then does the Fencer do his lunge step.

This principle is why Silver's "True Times" are so blamed important. In "Time of the Hand" he only has to move his hand to hit you. You can not react fact enough to parry or block. 

Everyone things that the phrase "The hand is quicker than the eye" is talking about prestidigitation. Guys in Tuxes with monkeys and beautiful, scanitily clad "assistants" that they saw in half. No. The phrase is stolen from Silver and it's talking about how easy it is to frigg'n *KILL* you if you're in too close.

Measure is not just your friend, Measure is one of the things that keep you upright and sucking wind. 

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

