Hey Kirk,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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")…
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.
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.
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
