Nunchaku for Self-Defense

[FieldDiscipline]

Mac and Langen, I just wanted to congratulate you both on a string of posts that totally removed my ability to add anything to this thread :lol:.

Oh I dont know. Looks like you managed to me.

 

[Langenschwert]

I've read that he thought that using a weapon 'limited' your options

True enough. But not having one limits your options even more, and that's the key point. If you are without a weapon, you effectively have no ranged defence. You must close past the weapon to control the wrist, say. This limits you in several ways. Firstly, you have to wait to receive the attack in virtually every situation. If you close with a swordsman, he can merely step back to optimal range and butcher you like a lamb while you close. Similarly with a knife, you can hold the knife further back and extend the unarmed hand to delay the closing unarmed person and stick them as they close. This waiting to receive the attack is a huge disadvantage in real fights. There's a reason why the German masters stressed striking first in armed combat. In doing so, you can more easily control the tempo of the fight. Against an unarmed man, anybody with decent weapons training knows what the opponent will have to do and be prepared. Against a weapon, you must close or void in some fashion if you're unarmed. If I'm striking with a longsword, I can alter my step in "mid-flight" to adjust to my unarmed victim's movements, whereas against me, he must close like gangbusters to gain any advantage. If he merely backs up, great... that gives me a new tempo to attack.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Sukerkin]

Oh I dont know. Looks like you managed to me.

Thanks, FD. I did manage to muck up my post a little tho' I note on re-reading.

This line:

"in context I've never heard it said that fighting unarmed versus an armed opponent was a bad idea."

Should've read either:

"in context I've never heard it said that fighting unarmed versus an armed opponent wasn't a bad idea."

Or:

"in context I've never heard it said that fighting unarmed versus an armed opponent was a good idea."

It appears I had a slip between brain and keyboard there .

 

[Zero]

OK I thought all you guys hammering on poor Phil were out of line and rude SOBs, given the guy must have spent some time and effort producing a book to enable this knowledge to be accessible to others.

Then I started going through the book and the pictures and almost pissed myself - this is the best piece of comedy I 've seen in years. I particularly like the first pic - the low guard (to protect the groin/waistline) it seems to be just begging for a low stomp or side kick to smash right through it!

Anyway, a solid 10 out of 10 for effort my man.

I've trained in nunchuk for years under goju and we train in hard target hitting against poles/bambo in the for accuracey and mellons etc on end of said poles for practising power and follow through - also (really) just for the sheer fun of it. A chuk against unarmed or short blade/knife I rate but as said before on other links, against longer weapons (bo/sword or a long 2x4 on the street not that flash from my own experience.

We also trained in sparring - foam/rubber ones - not with the real deal though.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Thanks, FD. I did manage to muck up my post a little tho' I note on re-reading.

This line:

"in context I've never heard it said that fighting unarmed versus an armed opponent was a bad idea."

Should've read either:

"in context I've never heard it said that fighting unarmed versus an armed opponent wasn't a bad idea."

Or:

"in context I've never heard it said that fighting unarmed versus an armed opponent was a good idea."

It appears I had a slip between brain and keyboard there .

I knew what you meant.

 

[frank raud]

Unarmed combat is for those foolish enough to be caught without a weapon-paraphrased from W.E. Fairbairn, a man with waay more experience than Bruce Lee.