Knife work from a modernist approach

[Deleted member 39746]

So you think you can draw a knife, run 20 feet and stab someone before they can draw and shoot?

Maybe that was true in 1890 when ohnimus wrote that,when pistols weighed 5 pounds.. but if someone has a gun licence they probably also have enough training to use the thing..and it's likely to be a firearm made in this century.

Its even less true, firearms have become MORE restricted not less. They wernt that heavy and the pocket pistol concept has existed a lot longer than some people think and calibres for that role have diminished from their prime numbers. According to wiki the colt navy was about 1KG. (now exchange the colt navy with a purpose made pocket pistol like a derringer)

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I doubt that is true. Martial systems do not spring forth fully formed from a vacuum. Those who develop a new system always, I suspect, have some form of martial experience upon which they base their new methodology and developments. I would be shocked if there is any example in history of an effective, comprehensive martial system being developed by someone with no prior training and experience.

And yes, people can figure things out for themselves to an extent. But likely it will be sloppy and inefficient. It can be effective to a point, but definitely not optimal.

I think the oldest english martial arts system doccument was dated at 1100 something, or around that. So presumption would be had it was doccumenting a system that could (and probbly did ) have existed before that time. Now they didnt spring out of thin air, but it would be somone who has survived for X peroid time, probbly consulted with people who did it before them and just doccumenting and remmebering what happened and what seems to work. (now the manuals can be filled with complete toft and be a fraud martial art, as that historical can happen) There was also more fighting knowledge in the collective knowledge of socity than now, like you would probbly learn how to box and wrestle off your parents, your parents may have in all likelyhood done man hunts or had to fight people, or potetionally had war expereince. Or somone in your settlement may have or somone passing through could have.


The ability to figure it out would be trial and error and luck. nothing says it woud be ineffective or in efficient. It was after all banned in some places for peasants to learn how to fight so it sort of drove a underground movement for it, and i wouldnt say a criminal martial art or a underground one is default worse. Oh, need to mention weapons would be dominant as well and it depend if you are talking individual fighting or fighting in a military fashion, that would dictate training.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think the oldest english martial arts system doccument was dated at 1100 something, or around that. So presumption would be had it was doccumenting a system that could (and probbly did ) have existed before that time. Now they didnt spring out of thin air, but it would be somone who has survived for X peroid time, probbly consulted with people who did it before them and just doccumenting and remmebering what happened and what seems to work. (now the manuals can be filled with complete toft and be a fraud martial art, as that historical can happen) There was also more fighting knowledge in the collective knowledge of socity than now, like you would probbly learn how to box and wrestle off your parents, your parents may have in all likelyhood done man hunts or had to fight people, or potetionally had war expereince. Or somone in your settlement may have or somone passing through could have.


The ability to figure it out would be trial and error and luck. nothing says it woud be ineffective or in efficient. It was after all banned in some places for peasants to learn how to fight so it sort of drove a underground movement for it, and i wouldnt say a criminal martial art or a underground one is default worse. Oh, need to mention weapons would be dominant as well and it depend if you are talking individual fighting or fighting in a military fashion, that would dictate training.

And so you are agreeing with me: these fellows would have had training.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Re writing a better reply to the above, dont know if there is a delete fucntion or not so i ahd to edit it out like this.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

And so you are agreeing with me: these fellows would have had training.

Training? Yes but not in the way you are thinking. It would be codified by who ever, or what ever group is making the system/organsiing the fighting. It would be largely trial and error and based on their belifs and educations and observations. And given this is far before any recording of meaningful biology, its largely going to be absed on what would be initiatial results.

It would be from literally nothing or just innate instints and oberservations. (either by persons in the group, or their parents/families) They wouldnt have the beenfit of the information age and being able to access a lot of data on biology, a base education in it or being able to access countless texts on martial arts, their history etc. In comparision, you will never start from scratch in this era unless you dont have access to the internet or good books. (there are some good ones out there that go into detail on how to do the foundations like punch and form a fist, which i honestly wish i knew about and had)

I wrote about this better in my first post on this tangent honestly, or looking at that would clear up the gaps here.

Just remember, humans didnt pop into existance, we follow a chain of millisions of years if not more of evolution with all the genetic preprogramming derived from that for better or worse. The knowledge humans have gained didnt just pop into existance either and follows millions of years of human evolution.

 

[jergar]

Fighting is fighting. The fundamentals of fighting with a weapon are pretty similar. You just have to make variances for length, weight, weapon shape, armor, etc.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Hi Kirk , I agree with you the fundamentals are and should be the same as open hand fighting. In my style of king fu the techniques are the same for knife or weapon fighting just like you said allowing for whatever weapon you are using. Makes things a lot easier to learn and use.

 

[lklawson]

Maybe you should read what I actually said rather than trying to win a conversation like it was a competition. I said a firearm is your best chance besides escape of not getting stabbed. I didn't say it's a magic pill. Read before you respond.

Nope. You wrote, "The only reliable knife defence is a gun licence." And that is, at very best, myopic, and often just flat wrong. Maybe you should reread what you wrote before you respond. I wish it were a competition. That way when you say demonstrably wrong stuff, it doesn't endanger people's lives who take what you write for gospel.

 

[lklawson]

I think the oldest english martial arts system doccument was dated at 1100 something, or around that.

Depends on what is meant by "English" and "documented."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Flying Crane]

Training? Yes but not in the way you are thinking. It would be codified by who ever, or what ever group is making the system/organsiing the fighting. It would be largely trial and error and based on their belifs and educations and observations. And given this is far before any recording of meaningful biology, its largely going to be absed on what would be initiatial results.

It would be from literally nothing or just innate instints and oberservations. (either by persons in the group, or their parents/families) They wouldnt have the beenfit of the information age and being able to access a lot of data on biology, a base education in it or being able to access countless texts on martial arts, their history etc. In comparision, you will never start from scratch in this era unless you dont have access to the internet or good books. (there are some good ones out there that go into detail on how to do the foundations like punch and form a fist, which i honestly wish i knew about and had)

I wrote about this better in my first post on this tangent honestly, or looking at that would clear up the gaps here.

Just remember, humans didnt pop into existance, we follow a chain of millisions of years if not more of evolution with all the genetic preprogramming derived from that for better or worse. The knowledge humans have gained didnt just pop into existance either and follows millions of years of human evolution.

Ok so it seems to me that what you are saying is, going way way back into Pre-history to the beginnings of the human species, they gradually learned to fight more effectively based on “figuring it out” and then building upon that over the generations, based on experiences with what did or did not work.

Well of course.

If you go back and look at what I was responding to, it was the proposal that the founders of martial methods (which I took to imply relatively modern methods: the last several thousand years at least, or since the beginning of at least clan-level human cultures, and I guess maybe my assumption was an error on my part) didn’t have teachers. That they somehow just came up with a sophisticated methodology on their own without instruction and without prior experience. Sprung forth fully formed from a vacuum. That is a proposal that I find unbelievable.

Please tell me you would not argue with my point. If you think fellows like Kano and Ueshiba and Funakoshi and Ed Parker and the Gracies and anybody else who founded a methodology that was teachable and spread beyond themselves did so without having prior instruction and experience, then I don’t think it is possible to communicate with you.

Even in the ancient pre-history, you can bet that those generations learned something from their elders and used that as a platform upon which to improve. You cannot possibly be trying to trace back to the very first individual of our species who balled up his fist and punched somebody, or threw somebody to the ground for the very first time. That is a ridiculous jumping in point for this discussion.

In the modern era, a fellow can try to “invent” his own methodology without prior instruction and experience. Sure, he/she can certainly try. Some things are intuitive, like balling up a fist or trying to trip someone. But this is not founding a methodology. This is very rudimentary. It can be effective on some level, but this is not a methodology.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Depends on what is meant by "English" and "documented."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Compelte forgot its name, nor if it was (at time of making) the oldest european doccument for martial arts, or just the oldest for Great Britain. Or if it was just the oldest recorded system, as in a proper system not just a scripture of techniques/one type of weapon/fighting.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Please tell me you would not argue with my point. If you think fellows like Kano and Ueshiba and Funakoshi and Ed Parker and the Gracies and anybody else who founded a methodology that was teachable and spread beyond themselves did so without having prior instruction and experience, then I don’t think it is possible to communicate with you.

Thats the entire point of education, pass down what you know so someone else doesnt start from scratch. (your not likely to start from scratch now days though, and i dont think you need to or should but you can. )

My first entry into this tangent was something along those lines, so i dont disagree. I dont think its ideal to start from scratch, nor would someone in modernity ever truely start from scratch like in pre history. (unless they live disconnected from all sources of knowledge outside their town)


Got mid way through writing and looked back, turns out i merged this argument and the other argument i have together, so i was not directly replying to the past points. So i dont know where to go from there. Just decided to keep the above as its a decent reply and ia ll ready wrote it in case somone else scrolls through here. So this string is sort of null.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Maybe you should read what I actually said rather than trying to win a conversation like it was a competition. I said a firearm is your best chance besides escape of not getting stabbed. I didn't say it's a magic pill. Read before you respond.

Ok but what about those of us who can't carry? I live in Californistan and my guns only get to leave the house if I am going to the range or hunting. I have had to take away sticks and knives from people and I would rather train something and get cut but be alive than I would just thinking "a gun would be nice right now lol" the next time someone tries to open me up with a blade or broken bottle.

There are effective martial arts techniques against weapons, even period fencing manuals teach techniques that are better than nothing. Not learning from a charlatan by learning to recognize McDojo's and practical training drills go a long way for parsing good from bad techniques. That being said, I have never been cut taking a blade and I was using my imaginary Aikido which you are convinced doesn't work so your mileage will vary I'm sure.

 

[lklawson]

Compelte forgot its name, nor if it was (at time of making) the oldest european doccument for martial arts, or just the oldest for Great Britain. Or if it was just the oldest recorded system, as in a proper system not just a scripture of techniques/one type of weapon/fighting.

The I.33 codex dates to around late 1200 or so or early 1300. It's a monk teaching sidesword and buckler to a student. Not sure about earlier off the top of my head.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Deleted member 39746]

The I.33 codex dates to around late 1200 or so or early 1300. It's a monk teaching sidesword and buckler to a student. Not sure about earlier off the top of my head.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

i think thats the one i have in mind, just havent looked into the details or it for a while.

 

[Martial D]

Nope. You wrote, "The only reliable knife defence is a gun licence." And that is, at very best, myopic, and often just flat wrong. Maybe you should reread what you wrote before you respond. I wish it were a competition. That way when you say demonstrably wrong stuff, it doesn't endanger people's lives who take what you write for gospel.

Yes. Reliable. Maybe there's some number crunch where you can run half way across a football field and stab me before I can squeeze a trigger, but that's not going to happen in reality. It is miles better than any alternative besides running away.

 

[Martial D]

Ok but what about those of us who can't carry? I live in Californistan and my guns only get to leave the house if I am going to the range or hunting. I have had to take away sticks and knives from people and I would rather train something and get cut but be alive than I would just thinking "a gun would be nice right now lol" the next time someone tries to open me up with a blade or broken bottle.

There are effective martial arts techniques against weapons, even period fencing manuals teach techniques that are better than nothing. Not learning from a charlatan by learning to recognize McDojo's and practical training drills go a long way for parsing good from bad techniques. That being said, I have never been cut taking a blade and I was using my imaginary Aikido which you are convinced doesn't work so your mileage will vary I'm sure.

Sure buddy.

 

[lklawson]

Yes. Reliable. Maybe there's some number crunch where you can run half way across a football field and stab me before I can squeeze a trigger, but that's not going to happen in reality.

I'm sorry to have to tell you but you are just not speaking from a position of knowledge. Please, I'm asking you, please go educate yourself on "The Tueller Drill" and the potential solutions for it.

It is miles better than any alternative besides running away.

All on its own? No. With proper training on how to deal with it, sure; there are ways to make it harder for the knife person to stab you while you're trying to shoot them. But it's not "try to beat the stab with a draw and a shot on target." That doesn't work.

Please, I'm begging you, please stop offering advice about stuff you are unfamiliar with.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Sure buddy.

So that's your answer for anyone who can't carry? Very informative. I'm sure the UK members of this forum will be very well served with your astute observation of "just go get a gun". As for my personal anecdotal experience, as funny as you find it, its even funnier on this side of the fence knowing I'm right.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I'm sorry to have to tell you but you are just not speaking from a position of knowledge. Please, I'm asking you, please go educate yourself on "The Tueller Drill" and the potential solutions for it.


All on its own? No. With proper training on how to deal with it, sure; there are ways to make it harder for the knife person to stab you while you're trying to shoot them. But it's not "try to beat the stab with a draw and a shot on target." That doesn't work.

Please, I'm begging you, please stop offering advice about stuff you are unfamiliar with.

Martial D is very good at speaking without experience.

 

[geezer]

You might want to let Ohnimus and that Tueller guy know.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

The problem is that a lot of people don't really grasp what that Tueller drill was all about and somehow think it shows the superiority of knives over guns at close range.

It really has much more to do with the element of surprise and your reaction time when being attacked. If the defender had a sheathed knife instead of a gun, would he be any better off? And suppose you switched the attacker's weapon to a gun? How well could a defender with a sheathed knife defend himself against a surprise attack by an attacker 21 feet away unloading on him with a firearm?

...Of course you know this stuff Kirk. It's your area of expertise. But it seems like a lot of casual posters here don't think this stuff through.