Right, let's see if we can clear up the mess of quotes there.
Not quite. What I'm saying is that your version is more of a "last resort" tactic, and isn't something that should be taught as a mainstay, whereas the one that I'm suggesting is far higher return, allows much greater control, is a lot safer, and puts you in a better position. I do teach a few others, mainly "natural responce" methods, but the core of it is that one. And Burton didn't really impress me, honestly.
That said, the only real way to come to any conclusion here would be to have both of us in a room, and see who comes out on top... but that's not really practical, is it?
I'm of the opinion that if you're empty handed vs a knife gun or other weapon? You're already in the "last resort" stage. Our first resort,I would presume,is not to be in this kind of situation in the first place.And that's cool that you're not impressed by Burton.We disagree there,then.As for you and I scrappin in a room? That would stray from the primary subject. We're talking about techniques and tactics,not technicians and tacticians.If we scrapped? Didn't matter who came out on top.We're talking about the utility of a technique,not the superiority of the combatants.
Now, you well know that I am referring to a "last resort" physical method here Ras. Some physical methods are going to be higher return, and more reliable (and safer) than others, and can be applied earlier in the sequence, provided there is enough awareness. It's when you get caught too late that you have to resort to what an instructor of mine once referred to as "oh hell!" techniques (okay, he used a different word, but the filters here wouldn't like me to use the real quote...), which is the "desperation" and "last resort" methods that I am referring to. Your method is one of these "late responce" methods, hence it being lower return, higher risk, and more desperation. And, to be frank, that actually means that when this method would most likely be applied would rob it of many of the benefits that you are extolling, making it harder to immediately pull the opponent off balance (if you are caught late, and therefore off balance yourself), as well as other aspects. And if you are early enough to catch it when still in balance, you are also early enough to move to a better, safer position, which is the method that I've been talking about, and that features in the majority of clips here.
As far as the two of us getting together, it wasn't a competition that I meant, I was referring more to my showing you (physically) what I see as the issues with your method, as well as having you show me what you feel are the issues with mine. I grab a knife and attack you, so see if you can use your responce, and then you grab a knife to see if I can use mine. That's really about the only way I can see us getting a conclusion here, honestly.
Oh, I read the entire thing, and took note of the "conversation stopper" phrases you were using, which indicates that you aren't open to listening to any other opinions... but, for the record, when it comes to methods such as this, having a range of options can actually be a bad thing. A limited number of high return methods are what you're actually after, other methods simply "get in the way". So, really, your take on things aren't "trump cards", nor "silencing debate", unless you don't want to listen to it. Honestly, your logic here makes conscious sense, but goes against the way people actually work.
^^^I'm not suggesting more than 4 options,and they all flow very well from the hold that I utilize.One of the options that I recommend is the option that you prefer.Clearly we have different life experiences that influence what we would call "high return methods". I've used my method in multiple scenarios; pretty much everything except in a theater of war.I've even pulled it off in a dynamic entry as a HRSP when getting a woman and her kids away from her psycho bf who was threatening passersby and them with his humongous butcher knife.Basically? You're confident in your method,I'm confident in mine...and clearly they both work.Which is what I meant when I said in previous posts that "the FUNCTIONAL VIABILITY IS BEYOND DISPUTE" of the method that I use. You may not PREFER it,but it IS a high percentage method...just not one that you employ or prefer.Between the two of us? I would have the greater experience in using the two methods that we use(which I employ as ONE METHOD,which has been my argument all along) plus a couple more that I use and that gives me the superior functional experience in that arena. I disagree with your opinion that my idea "goes against the way people actually work" for that reason...and because I have the superior experience in deploying a method that incudes your main approach fued with practical methods that you don't use? I think that my opinion would carry more weight in this matter. But again...that is merely my own opinion.
Even four can be too many, though. Based on average responce times, it takes about half a second to consider an option before deciding whether or not to take it. So four options gives you two seconds. That's at least two to four cuts or thrusts before you've decided on what you're going to do.
In terms of "the functional viability is beyond dispute" (really, shouting with capitals isn't really necessary, Ras, nor is the long string of letters to stretch words out... all it shows is an emotional responce, which removes strength from your argument as you are running out of actual answers), all that shows is that you managed to pull it off... but my argument is that it is still a relatively risky method to be giving students who may not possess your "Olympic athlete standards". The question you have to ask yourself as a responsible instructor is "Is this the best method I can give my students, if they find themselves in a real, life threatening situation?" And, honestly, that is not the same thing.
Finally, all your talk of your "superior experience" is rather presumptuous, don't you think? As well as discussing what practical methods I may or may not use. Just a word to the wise there. All I'm discussing is the method you are showing and endorsing in your videos, if you said that this was a rare approach, and only featured in this occasion, with you dominantly showing something else, that would be a different discussion. But that's not what you've said, it's not what's shown, and I'm actually just offering you a way to improve what you present, as I see it. You don't have to, of course, but it's an offer.
Dear lord, that was terrible! The reasoning that they are "knife masters" because their grandfather was a "knife master" is so deeply flawed I don't know where to begin, the entry method they use only works against someone stopping their attack, the control is difficult to get into, great once it's on, but getting there is a much harder and longer journey than they seem to understand... you put that here because...?
I don't agree with all of the logic that these two Gracies employed,but I've used this method and it wasn't hard to get to at all.The 2 on 1 flows directly into this method.I've used it in a multifight before. I only put this method up because this was the first video I could find that demonstrated the specific hand positioning that I meant and can easily get to using the 2 on 1 when somebody is really resisting you hard.
Again, I don't think you get what I meant there, either. The issue I saw with the Gracie clip was that the entry relied on the knife attack stopping when contact was made, allowing the transition into the lock. The lock was relatively fine (some control issues with the knife, though), but it was not an overtly realistic entry method. If you're grabbing the wrist first (your two on one), then you're not doing this technique, and as that initial control is what we're focused on, if you didn't use the same as the Gracies did there, what was the point in showing their clip?
Actually, I have a female student about 5 feet tall, if that, and it works damn well for her against a 6'10" guy.... so, uh, you're a little off there as well.
As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance? As far as the guy at 1:42, he doesn't have full control of the knife arm, but with the same situation you'd have more issues than he has, I have to say.
I'd like to see video of your female 5 footer resisting the big guy when he's going full tilt boogie...and congrats to her no matter how it goes.Glad that she's taking the time to seriously study martial arts. As for Karl's distance? Man...Karl is dealing with the in-close knife attack,80-90% with the antagonists facing each other prior to the knife being deployed.Like I said,I like his stuff and have used it loooong before I heard of him.However,maaany knife fights don't start at that very close distance.What happens when you're at a longer distance and you have to scrap anyway? Your response..."As far as Karl's distance, well, that's the common attack distance for knife attacks... so you're criticizing him for moving from a realistic distance?" ...underscores exactly what I've been saying before: you gotta have the versatility to engage the knifer regardless of being in close quarters or at length. Your response seems to indicate that you don't train at distance,and your preferred method of dealing with the knife is a very poor one to utilize at distance. Stand your 5 footer about half an arm's length out from your 6'10" student and have them scrap.Like she's a victim of a "walk up jacking".Record it. She'll look much worse than this guy did:
PAUL VUNAK KNIFE DEFENSE
As she would be wholly without proficiency in employing at range techs like kicks footwork and strikes that would be needed to keep her assailant away or prior to closing the distance or counterattacking prior to entering and engaging the 2 on 1 (supposing that she could do such a thing in the first place). Our training looks like THIS but with more Judo and "rushing energy" put into it and multifights too for good measure:
And training like this imparts the versatility that isn't apparent in the approach that you recommend.We can strike at range vs weapons because we train to do so and we train the defenses against it AAAAND we train the methods that you train.As time and weather permits,I will put up video of us doing exactly that.I'll show you KIDS and YOUNG TEENS that I train doing this.It's a huge advantage over merely hoping to already be in range for the single method that you prefer and it's a huge advantage over ignoring the other vital circumstances of combat,which cannot be predicted.Your method will get people killed in a multifight,killed at range,and without any options except when they're in the most dire of circumstances...well within knife attack range...which is a LAST RESORT range to be in.We should try to avoid that if at all possible,and activate the in-close 2 on 1 you use as your base method only if escape is impossible or only possible after nuetralizing the knife wielding threat.
Son, don't attempt to presume what she would or wouldn't be trained with (kicks, range control, etc), you're really just showing that you have no idea what I teach. Because, frankly, most of my guys would have significantly less ink on them... but that's to do with our tactical and training approach.
When it comes to dealing with a longer range to begin with? Are you serious with that question? I really don't even know where to start with that... if they come in from a distance, you get more time to react, but the actual methods don't really change. Again, don't presume about what we teach and train, you are way off.
Now, to the clips themselves, these show rather unrealistic training methods when it comes down to it. They also show the big issue with a lot of "free form sparring" methods, in that the actual skills aren't trained properly in the first place, so what comes out is a lot less consistent than they should be. When you say that the second one is "more like you train", and that it imparts the "versatility that isn't apparent in (my) approach", really, gotta say again, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to my training and teaching methods. That hasn't been the discussion here, really, and there is nothing that I've posted that could give you any real indication of the breadth of my methods. You'd find that it's probably a lot broader than yours, frankly.
No, the argument isn't overwhelming when you're deliberately staying in the range of the knife, and relying on such methods, thinking it's more versatile. It isn't, frankly, and just keeps you in the danger zone a lot longer. Since we started this I've played with both under a fair amount of stress (full pace unnominated attacks from my guys), and, honestly, yours leaves more of my guys killed. It's far from superior, honestly.
Okay then we very much disagree here too,and that's fine.To me? It's overwhelmingly apparent that not only is my method far more versatile,it's the superior one visavis immediate disengagement between the methods that you recommend and I recommend because I keep the defender at range to disengage AND cover EVERYTHING that is done in your "preferred" method. In no way do I recommend "deliberately staying in the range of the knife" and I find your suggestion that I am as interesting.Recall that my range starts at a longer range than yours and not only closes to your range,but also provides multiple methods for escape.Your method is muuuch closer in and thus requires staying in the range of the knife due to proximity far more than mine does. I know that if done properly it's very difficult to get knifed using the method that you recommend (which again is only part of what I suggest to do) but the proximity still keeps you within range of the knifer and thus the knife.Mine provides the option of at range strikes,footwork,redirection and disengaging IMMEDIATELY whereas yours STARTS WITHIN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO and pretty much stays there until matters are resolved...without nuetralizing the far arm or other limbs the attacker may employ,ignoring the likelihood of multifights,ignoring the use of ankle stomps,knees,groin strikes,ignoring the reality of at range knife attacks,and more.Again and again...my version is by definition more versatile because it covers more circumstances and scenarios.
What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option? Looking at your primary response,your students would have your "natural response" options and basically the banzai kamikaze charge for the 2 on 1. My students could deploy both body and environmental weapons,footwork,escape methods including the roll escape which you malign but which in reality works so well that even military units recommend that you roll WHILE UNDER GUN FIRE toward shelter if available,aaaand we cover every area of the 2 on 1 method that you champion.You deny the functionality of the options that I recommend,but that allows you to simply not address the scenarios that I and others like me actually DO address...and denial of our functionality doesn't mean that we're not functional.It just means,as you stated about my previous posts,that IN YOUR OPINION some of what I recommend isn't high percentage.Regardless,I can empirically demonstrate that my method allows me to address whole scenarios which yours fails to address...and I speak from experience here because I use your method too.And THAT'S how I discovered its inherent weaknesses.You DON'T use my method,and you HAVEN'T practiced it properly enough to discover that it's a high percentage response that is very good for the kinds of scenarios which your method CANNOT address due to its body contact prerequisites.
Which means my method is more versatile.Yes,in my opinion.
And this entire section shows me that you have a rather dangerous idea as to edged weapon assault, despite your apparent experience. In fact, let's rip this apart point by point, shall we? See if you can pick up the theme here...
To me? It's overwhelmingly apparent that not only is my method far more versatile,it's the superior one visavis immediate disengagement between the methods that you recommend and I recommend because I keep the defender at range to disengage AND cover EVERYTHING that is done in your "preferred" method.
This tells me you don't understand the range. You disengage where you are, and you're dead. You disengage where I am, and you can continue as it's far harder for the opponent to cut you (you are inside their range, not in their range... there's a big difference). Oh, and if you're finding things like this, then you're not training in my "preferred" method, as you're not understanding it. You're covering far less than I am.
In no way do I recommend "deliberately staying in the range of the knife" and I find your suggestion that I am as interesting.Recall that my range starts at a longer range than yours and not only closes to your range,but also provides multiple methods for escape.
Then why is your entire sequence done in the range of the knife? You stay out where it can cut you until the step in (at about 2 minutes in the your clip), at which point you don't have enough control over the upper arm, and are still in a fair amount of danger. And, frankly, there are not the methods of escape that you think there are present. Your evasions from that range are flawed, your entry is dangerous, and there is not enough control shown throughout the sequence. And as far as your starting out further than I do? You really don't have a clue about how I train this, Ras, presuming won't help you.
Your method is muuuch closer in and thus requires staying in the range of the knife due to proximity far more than mine does. I know that if done properly it's very difficult to get knifed using the method that you recommend (which again is only part of what I suggest to do) but the proximity still keeps you within range of the knifer and thus the knife.
My control is much closer in, yep. That's because it's, you know, safer. And easier to control a larger, stronger person. And more secure. And more versatile. And puts you in a better position for any followup, disposal, control, strike, hold, pin, break, or anything you may want. The basic principle is found in every single decent weapon defence method that exists, in the Japanese arts it has become a proverb: Under the blade is Hell, Heaven is one step forward. Basically, there are only two safe distances against a weapon, out of it's range, or inside it's functional range (where it loses functionality), not directly in it's functional range, which is where you are staying. You really aren't showing a lot of understanding of the actual realities of edged weapon assaults, again despite your apparent experience.
But again, that is my distance for the control, not the entire method.
Mine provides the option of at range strikes,footwork,redirection and disengaging IMMEDIATELY whereas yours STARTS WITHIN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO and pretty much stays there until matters are resolved...without nuetralizing the far arm or other limbs the attacker may employ,ignoring the likelihood of multifights,ignoring the use of ankle stomps,knees,groin strikes,ignoring the reality of at range knife attacks,and more.Again and again...my version is by definition more versatile because it covers more circumstances and scenarios.
Sigh... Ras, you really are showing no idea of a range of things here, including what the actual worst case scenario is (here's a clue, it involves disengaging from the distance you are at, not anything in the way I do things), as well as what my approach entails. Again, mine is rather more versatile than you seem to think, and rather more versatile, to a great degree because of the closer range, as well as the higher level of control, than your two hands on the wrist approach.
What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?
Well, since you asked, the first tactic is awareness to not let them get close to you, recognise whether a weapon is present (or possibly present), and maintain distance accordingly. Next we teach evasive actions designed to maximise distance until safe to escape (which is why I can look at your leaping methods and tell you what the faults are, it's a big part of what we do), with moving in to engage something only to be considered and attempted if these early methods fail, or you cannot get enough distance. From there there are a range of entry methods (really a single principle taken and adapted to all angles of attack and entry, which involves a jamming action which can move immediately into a strike, push, or catch and control). This is all combined with an understanding of the psychology of both the attacker and defender, including the fact that moving immediately in is a highly unlikely event, and that is catered for in the methods taught.
Looking at your primary response,your students would have your "natural response" options and basically the banzai kamikaze charge for the 2 on 1.
What we have discussed is our primary control method, Ras, not our primary responce. Again, if you are unaware of what we teach and train, don't presume. You haven't been close to right yet. For instance, the timing aspect hasn't been touched on yet, which is to move in pretty much straight after one attack has gone past, and the opponent is retrieving their blade for a second (or third) attack, timing it "between" the actions. That subtlety is a key aspect that makes our approach safer and easier, but if you don't get it, that's just showing that you don't train it the same way.
My students could deploy both body and environmental weapons,footwork,escape methods including the roll escape which you malign but which in reality works so well that even military units recommend that you roll WHILE UNDER GUN FIRE toward shelter if available,aaaand we cover every area of the 2 on 1 method that you champion.
Oh, dear lord, Ras, context is key, you know. Rolling under gunfire is good and standard, mainly due to the dominant firing height that almost everyone adopts. Rolling under a knife attack at that close range means you get stabbed as you roll, or as you get up. Again, man, rolling is a big thing for us, I'm very aware of it's uses and limitations.
And if your comments here are any indication, you don't cover anywhere near "every area" of my controlling method, as you seem to be missing huge sections of understanding about it.
You deny the functionality of the options that I recommend,but that allows you to simply not address the scenarios that I and others like me actually DO address...and denial of our functionality doesn't mean that we're not functional.
Find me where I've said your approach is inherently non-functional. I've said that it can work a number of times, however that it is not what I would give students if I wanted to give them the best preparation I could, due to the issues I have identified. And seriously, you would be incredibly hard pressed to find a scenario that you address that I don't. You are not that far beyond anyone, Ras.
It just means,as you stated about my previous posts,that IN YOUR OPINION some of what I recommend isn't high percentage.
Your method of controlling the knife, really. And if that isn't high percentage, and fails, what follows it is of little consequence, wouldn't you say?
Regardless,I can empirically demonstrate that my method allows me to address whole scenarios which yours fails to address...and I speak from experience here because I use your method too.
No, you can't. Firstly, you have no idea what scenarios I can or cannot address (particularly based on your comments here), and secondly what you are stating is not "empirically demonstrating" anything, it is subjectively demonstrating. And even in that there are quite a few issues that remain.
Oh, and if you used my method, actually used it, you wouldn't make the comments you have here. So I don't think you do.
And THAT'S how I discovered its inherent weaknesses.You DON'T use my method,and you HAVEN'T practiced it properly enough to discover that it's a high percentage response that is very good for the kinds of scenarios which your method CANNOT address due to its body contact prerequisites.
This level of presumption doesn't help you, Ras. There is nothing that you have mentioned that is not addressed in my method, as well as more. And yes, I have practiced your method. You would not appear to be in a position to state anything of the kind here.
Sooo...let's go beyond the point where we're going: "my method is more realistic and more versatile because it encapsulates all of yours plus the stuff yours doesn't", "no your method is more desperation and less realistic,my method is more realistic". Okay here's a scenario for you: your 5 footer is in the ladies' bathroom. She's washing her hands at the sink,and in comes BIG BG#1,5'10" and 20 pounds,knife in hand,ski mask on. His back is to the door,which is the only exit in the bathroom.He threatens to kill her if she makes a sound and closes to rape her.What does she do? Does she employ your 2 on 1?
Depending on the circumstances, how the attack plays out etc, yes, I'd certainly hope she would. And I'd hope that she stayed away from yours unless she wanted to be killed. But, to clarify, that depends on how the attack played out. Diving for the weapon is not how these methods work, and is not how they are drilled. If all he's doing is holding the knife to threaten and gain compliance, there are other methods used... but the control is the same.
These vague examples don't prove anything, though, Ras, and it's a poor excuse for debate.
I'm not especially impressed by anything in the Gracie clip EXCEPT for the tech they displayed.I used this tech at a shopping plaza post-midnight while working HRSP in Compton CA near the Compton Blue Line Station at night vs a knife wielding crackhead before.It works. I linked that video cuz it was the first video that I saw that showed that tech.All that other stuff about "knife master" Helio? Whatever.I have respect for Helio and all the fighting Gracies,but I don't buy into the marketing hype.Mat work please.And they got plenty of matwork.
Yeah, they have plenty of matwork, but how much against knife? And the technique had issues, mainly on it's entry methods. If all you were meaning was the hold, that wasn't what we are discussing here, so it didn't have relevance. If you mean the entry method, that is a different one again to what we are discussing, so the relevance was limited. And I wasn't particularly impressed with anything in the clip at all, but then again I'm not much of a beach person.
The flaw at 1:42 wasn't the grip imo--you're gonna have to tussle for the grip when you're giving up reach strength and stuff to your opponent--it was the footwork and lack of employment of other options besides the 2 on 1.Even AFTER the 2 on 1 was secured. If your footwork sucks? He'll close on you and stab and slash til WE'RE not "blue in the face" but DEAD in the face.Lol. But if your footwork is right and tite? He won't get close enough to hurt us,and we can dictate the terms of engagement or nonengagement. This same footwork functionalizes the deployment of low kicks and other techs that aren't the 2 on 1.However,if your arsenal is ONLY the 2 on 1? Your options and efficacy levels are similarly decreased.Imo.And when I say "your"...I mean the GENERAL "your" here.
And this tells me that you don't understand what you were looking at.
