Okay I'm pressed for time,so this will be quicker than usual.I hope to return and expand upon my comment later. I see that I will have to address the major fallacies in your presumption and which i keep addressing over and over again so let me re-word it in the hopes that my meaning will carry more clearly:
You're pressed for time, yet manage to put down six paragraphs, most of which don't address any of the questions posed to you? Hmm, if you don't have time to answer, cool, but putting down this much without really saying anything just seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. It's also coming across that you may have missed most of this thread, I gotta say, as you're arguing things that haven't been said, and are claiming things have been said that haven't. How about we take this opportunity to recap, while addressing your post, yeah?
When you respond critiquing a person's video or approach,you are in turn placing yourself up to critical review.In this case,your post and the reasoning behind it,Chris,is being rigorously disputed by me.Therefore you are every bit as much subject to and open to criticism as I am.
Not actually the way it works, Ras (if it was, then all film critics would have to make their own movies in order to criticise the ones that are released, all food critics would need to cook the same dishes in order to be critics etc), but I have no problem with being critiqued. But the catch is that you haven't critiqued anything that I've said so far, more just implied some rather inaccurate aspects and constantly referenced a supposed superiority of your two hands on the wrist approach with vague comments unsupported by any actual argument or reasoning (such as it being more "versatile").
And the fact still remains that you put your clip up as an example, in fact as a "better" example than the first one in the OP, which of course raises the questions firstly, whether it is better, and second, what makes it better. And that extends to whether or not a better approach can be shown. Despite the OP (sorry, Mike!), this thread has become a critique of your clip, and what you show in it (nothing else, Ras, just what's in the clip). Not anything else. You can (and should) question the critique, absolutely, but that is different from a demand for video to criticise yourself. Not really the way these things go.
You are critiquing my video and what you gather from it.
No, just what is shown in the video, Ras, I'm not extrapolating anything from it other than what is shown.
I am critiquing your nonvideo posts as someone who not only did the techs you are belaboring with your posts under real world live fire but also as someone who has done and continues to do everything that we've seen in the S.T.A.B. videos that you claim that you do AND the other videos which you claim you don't do.
Catch is, though, you're not. You're dismissing, but not critiquing. You're making vague generalities and assumptions, but not critiquing. As to the rest, I'm going to spell it out to you once more, Ras:
We are discussing the methods you demonstrate in the first clip you put up, specifically the double-hand grab to the wrist to control a knife attack. The rest of the clips have been illustratory at best, and the question of what else you may do is really beside the point. We are discussing the method shown in your clip.
Tell you what, here's the initial discussion, so you can catch up:
Post #3 (my initial criticism):
You are missing, for example, any form of realistic resistance, which would make the catch of the knife arm a lot harder than it is for you there.
Post #5 (continuing in responce to you missing what I meant the first time):
A realistic responce to your grabbing your attackers knife hand is not for them to keep pushing in with the thrust, it's for them to try to pull out of your grip (and retain control of the knife, which, psychologically speaking, is their source of their power in this situation). And the double grip you come in with would have them immediately rip their arm out of your grip and continue stabbing you.
Post #6 (where the thrust of my criticism comes from, with your claim here):
Actually the double grip that I come in with is one of the very best possible responses to the knife attack.
Combined with post #20 (your next post in responce to myself, and clarification of the crux of the discussion, being the specific grip/secure that you show):
To the issue of the 2 on 1...meaning the double grip on your opponent's wrist...I cannot emphasize how effective this is.
That's the discussion, Ras. That particular grip, and whether or not it really is "one of the best possible responces" that you can offer. Not whether or not you do other things as well, but the issues that exist with this particular approach itself (singular). To that end I have provided criticism and an alternative.
Now,you disagree with the functionality,the facility of these other methods.That's perfectly fine and in many ways a good thing. Variety being the spice of life etc. However to conclude that the techs that I use that aren't what you do don't work or are more dangerous than yours or are the most desperate response in a last ditch desperate situation is not true,because you're segmenting a whole...which actually shows that you're doing what you claim that I'm doing: you're not understanding what I'm saying and what you're seeing.
I kinda don't know where to start with this... you've got 20 years experience in this kind of thing, Ras? I'm closer to 25 myself. And what I see, and what I say, is based on some incredibly bad experience, and some incredibly good experience. And here's some of what I've learnt over that time, with both the good and the bad.
A charismatic teacher, by dirnt of their position of authority within the school as well as their ability to lead people, can demonstrate and teach things that don't really stand up on their own, and have it presented without having it really questioned. And, most commonly, it will only be questioned by those outside, whether in a forum such as this, or by moving to another teacher/approach/style. But the thing is that the skill of the teacher, good or bad, does not change functionality and practicality.
Which brings me to the idea of "variety is the spice of life". Not in combat, it isn't. It's the taste of death there. In martial arts, having multiple methods is typically the hallmark of peacetime development, methods designed around actual usage in combat tend far more to the direct, simple, less is more approach. Multiple methods is the domain of creative expression, not combative functionality. Simpler and fewer is better in combative use.
When it comes to claiming that methods that aren't mine "don't work or are more dangerous... or are more desperate... last ditch" etc is nothing to do with them not being what I do. If your method didn't show the issues that it does, but wasn't what I do, then that'd be fine. But it is more desperate, it is last ditch as it's primary usage (tactically), which does rob it of many of what you claim are it's benefits, so I say so. And yes, I'm segmenting a whole (although I am also taking it in it's greater context, probably in a greater context than you seem to be thinking here), as I am looking at the veracity of one aspect of your clip in particular, as evidenced by, oh, I don't know, this entire thread. I might suggest reading it.
I repeatedly stated that everything that you've specified so far is all part of my approach,and that I don't consider a 2 on 1 wrist tie to be different than a 2 on 1 wrist and bicep tie (which is what you champion),because I train the 2 on 1 itself as my main response.
Whether you consider it to be different or not, it is very different, Ras. The body mechanics, the relative strength and control, the balance points, the ability of the opponent to struggle, the way they can struggle to retain the knife, and more are all very different. In fact, the main thing you have done with two hands on his wrist is tie up both your hands with little actual benefit, as even the strength advantage can be countermanned with a simple step. And, one more time, the thrust of this discussion is about your teaching two hands on the wrist as a primary method, not other expressions that you may use. Once more, you state that it is "one of the very best possible responces" against a knife, and that is what I'm arguing against.
Over and over and over and over again,I say that I recommend the 2 on 1 PERIOD...which allows the combination of the approach that you advise with the approaches that I have recommended on video and literally every other option extant in the 2 on 1.
That's not what this discussion has been about, though, Ras. And, going through the thread itself again, the first reference to "the 2 on 1 in all it's forms" is in post #71. Before that you were specifically referencing the two hands on the wrist approach, with some somewhat vague references that you may have intended to mean other versions. But, and I'm going to be as clear as I can be here, two hands controlling the wrist and a double control to the upper arm and forearm (what I've been referring to as a high/low, and you've been calling a bicep and wrist grip) are two different principles, using different principles of leverage, control, strength, balance, timing, adjustment, and more. They are not the same, although they are closely related. But, again, this discussion has been about the two hands on the wrist approach and your claim that it is one of the "very best" responces.
By decrying and denigrating and saying not to do what I am doing,you by definition have the LESS VERSATILE approach. There is no way around this,Chris.
No way around it? Really? Let's try, shall we...
Sure, there's a way around it (didn't take me long to find, either). It comes down to the definition of "versatile", really. What I mean by versatile is the ability to have more productive and powerful options from a single starting point, not having multiple starting points. And, due to the higher degree of control, greater level of security, better balance, and less strength needed for a high/low control, mine is the more versatile, as the double hands on the wrist makes a range of options more dangerous to attempt.
There you go, got around it. Nice try, though.
You don't do what I do because it doesn't work for you.I found a way to make it work AND do what you do AND do other stuff too,all from the 2 on 1. The fact that your apporach is less versatile is absolutely beyond debate if what you say is true.
No, I don't do what you show in the clip because it's more dangerous, less secure, less mechanically powerful, tactically questionable (when other options are present), and more. Not because it "doesn't work for me", because it is flawed from the outset. Once again, though, such "conversation stopper" language is a little presumptuous, don't you think? After all, there is no "fact" that what I do is less versatile.... quite the opposite, when you get down to it.
To my knowledge,until the post that you put on this very page, you have not directly stated that what we see in the S.T.A.B. videos is exactly what you do...you stated that they feature the grip you recommend,but that's not the same as saying that the techs that they display are what you actually do.
You are kidding, right? Seriously? The post directly after Mike's (when he first posted the STAB clips) was me saying that they are showing the grip I was describing (really a close variation, but certainly close enough to show the difference between that and your two hands on the wrist one), and the above post simply states (again!) that they use the same grip... there is no mention of my methods and theirs being the same. Tell you what, I'll help you out there, here are the two mentions in the above post:
For a visual reference to the grip I'm talking about, one more time, look to almost every other clip presented here. Specifically look to the STAB clips that Mike posted in post #31... they both show something very close to my approach/grip, including the versatility (arm shock/bar, knees, disarms, controls, movement from hold to hold, and more) that you seem to think isn't present in that grip, and I will emphatically state is not present in yours (if you try kicking from there and they're still struggling for control of the knife, you will, at best, miss, and at worst get pulled completely off balance to begin with).
And my grip, as shown in the STAB clips (again, post #23)
I haven't said that they are showing my techniques, and this hasn't been about techniques anyway, it's about the grip you use and the one that I use (have I said that enough yet?). Okay?
When you stated this:"as well as having my method demonstrated in the majority of clips that others have posted (so my posting a clip of me doing the same thing would mean what, exactly?)" That's the first time I've seen you specifically state that the S.T.A.B. video is in essence what you do,so you "posting a clip of me [Chris Parker] doing the same thing would mean what,exactly?" ISN'T needed.Prior to this statement? I got the impression that you were alluding to the specific wrist and bicep tie you employed.
My method of control and grip, Ras, as that has been the discussion. It is a reference to the high/low control. I don't know why you thought it referred to anything more or else, really.
I posted multiple wrestling links to bolster my position that I use the 2 on 1 and all of its primary options period. That means by definition--literally--that what I'm talking about encapsulates what you're talking about insofar as grip is concerned.
You have posted a number of links that don't show your two hands on the wrist method, others that do use it, but not against a knife, and a flawed usage against a knife which fails reality tests. Again, the principle of controlling by holding the wrist and the principle of controlling the entire arm at two separate points are different principles, so to go between them you are not "being versatile" with one concept, you are switching between two (not a bad thing in and of itself, but that's not the discussion). So you are, by definition, not. You are instead saying that you transition from yours to mine, which is different. But really, that's beside the point, as the initial clip that spawned all of this doesn't show that, and it is that clip alone that I am critiquing, not your entire methodology against a knife. You spent the first 4 pages of this thread defending that particular grip, and have only really changed to this "oh, but I do everything" comment in recent posts. Cool and all, but not the point, and doesn't change the critique of the method shown in your clip (you know, the one we are discussing?).
The reason you didn't see me utilize this wrist and bicep tie approach in the clip you saw are: 1) I showed the VERSATILITY that is evident in my approach and not in any of the others thus far (which may simply be because they weren't attacked at distance but is probably an unlikely contention). I can get off kicks,kenpo techs,takedowns and the like which are NOT the common fare which means that by and large they're more difficult to defend against precisely because they're not the usual kinds of responses
Oh dear lord, to be frank, Ras, this comes across as the same self delusional talk I hear from a number of people who don't have the actual experience they think they do, and try to approach these areas with a rational, consciously thought out way. Did you ever think that the reason others don't do a lot of the things that you are saying here (kicking by staying out in the knife's functional range, keeping it between you and the opponent, reaching out and extending your balance etc) is because others consider such things too risky to be relied upon?
and 2) My uke Jabari didn't approach me from the rear in exactly the same method of attack that the S.T.A.B. guys faced
Frankly, this is irrelevant. I have no idea why you feel it is a decent reason, as the grip that I use we often practice against an attack from the front. And really? You think the attack needs to be in an exact method? Hmm.
3) If the S.T.A.B. videos and the like demonstrate your approach as you claim then you have cemented my argument and position:those guys don't kick. They don't stomp ankles.Their wrist manipulations are not as emphasized as mine are,if they exist at all. They allow their opponent to continue attacks and switch knife hands and they don't focus on disarms as much as I do.
Reread. Properly, this time. They show pretty much the same grip I use, Ras, what we do after that is fairly different, but that's not the discussion we're having here. Just so you know, though, for us it involves takedowns, controls, disarms, strips, breaks, kicks, locks, strikes, pressures, rips, tears, and more. I would also point out that you were watching a drilling method for the STAB guys, not techniques or defences for the main. Pretty big difference there.
They do knee and so do I. They elbow and so do I. They head butt and so do I. But they allow themselves to be hit due to poor head placement and I do not.They're not as adept at foot sweeps (this is where the Judo and wrestling--especially Judo--is vital and again shows the versatility that I employ which is absent from the other videos and which by extension is absent from your approach too Chris if you would indeed essentially be reposting what we've already seen).
This is what I mean by presuming. You've misread the thread, misread my posts, missed what you're looking at in the clips, and are still presuming to tell me what's missing in my knife defence capabilities. Son, as I said, mine is probably more versatile than yours. How about you just recognise that the discussion is about the two grips? Kay? Kay.
Yes this is a drill--I use it myself,that's why I'm so comfortable with both its strengths and its weaknesses--but what's missing here is that part of the drill where the disarm is mandated. We do the drill for 3 minute rounds (an ETERNITY when a knife or gun is involved) and we focus on controlling the knife/gun arm and opponent so that they cannot harm us and we CAN harm them while they're still in possession of the weapon for the first 2 minutes,and then I give the call to disarm and we have 1 minute to effect the disarm.
And if you were in my class, and you were struggling for more than about 5-10 seconds, I'd consider that a fail. 3 minutes? Either you're dead, or the attacker is one of the most stupid knifemen ever produced.
Now, before you cry foul over that, I get the reasons for such drills, and see their use. But as far as I'm concerned, it's teaching rather dangerous habits and expectations (that you can continue to struggle against a knife for that long with some form of safety).
This is utterly utterly vital,because we can't allow a person with a gun to keep his weapon while we flee. He could easily shoot us. With the knife? Run for it if you can,as that's the second safest option.The safest option of course is not to be the target of a knife attack in the first place.But if attacked by a knife wielding opponent,do as much damage in as little time as possible while remaining as absolutely safe as you can,and escaping at the first reasonable opportunity.
I don't know who you think you're telling this too, Ras, but this is all completely off the discussion topic, which is the grip you are using in the clip you posted in the second post of this thread, and your subsequent defence of it as "one of the very best options". What you do after that hasn't been part of the discussion, hasn't been called into question (save that you may not get to "after" with the grip you are advocating), so I don't know where you think you're going with this. If I didn't know better, I'd think you're trying to build credibility with some self evident truisms, stating things that aren't going to be argued with.... hmm.
Which bring me to the other thing which you decried and which shows that we have a wide difference in experience in real world fighting: you basically guffawed at the idea of the "walk up jackin". It's not funny,dawg. The walk up came as a refinement of the drive-by nearly 20 years ago. Just last week in CPT and LBC here in Killa Cali two friends of my students were assaulted that way,and one of their friends in that group was seriously injured. It's a real world scenario that's grim and the extra close quarters knife fighting shown in S.T.A.B. and the other methods you recommend completely ignore it.
Okay, I had to go hunting for where you got that idea from. And, once again, you seem to have completely missed what I was saying. You were asking about dealing with a knife assault from different ranges, claiming that the STAB clips were limited to a single range, and therefore my approach was as well. And what I told you was that the same principles are employed, and when it starts from a greater distance, then you have more time to deal with it. If you're discussing an ambush type assault, that's why we teach awareness and maintaining distance first and foremost. None of which has any real effect on the discussion here... and none of which was me "guffawing" at the idea of an ambush-style assault. Kay? Kay.
Where I'm from? Ignoring the Walk Up will get you killed.Alot. Again,my approach is more versatile...probably by necessity.Maybe where you're from you don't have to worry about the Walk-Up (lucky you if so) but we do,and thus our greater versatility.The fact that you don't PREFER it does not in any way detract from its viability and effectiveness.
So your approach against a close-quarters (within half an arms length, I believe you suggested) ambush assault is to try to grab their wrist with both your hands? I can think of a few other things I'd rely on first, that don't give them the range to deploy the knife even more successfully and powerfully, don't take me off balance by suddenly leaping back, and don't overcommit myself to a low return movement (trying to catch the fastest moving part of their arm while it holds a bladed weapon), but that's me. And again, you haven't demonstrated anything close to greater versatility or effectiveness.
Back to answer more in depth later...
Can I suggest you go back over the thread and answer the questions I've posed to you first? You don't seem to have answered any of them, while I've answered everything you've asked me so far. Might be nice to get some answers before another plug for your upcoming DVD (is it three or four mentions you've managed to slip into this thread?). Kay? Kay.
The thing with pressure points, while I like them, unless you're so good that you nail it just right, in the heat of the moment, its very possible that you could miss or the desired result will not be reached. 
