Slashing with knives vs stabbing

[Gaston]

Two areas that are being neglected in this discussion of stab vs. slash are tendons and nerves, which will produce instant results. Many street drugs can produce assailants with inhuman responses. These assailants could “temporarily” shrug off lethal stabs to vital organs, including the heart. All major tendons of the limbs lie very close to the surface of the body. I know you may be thinking “a severed tendon will not dispatch an opponent.” However, consider the loss of say your biceps tendon, which would prevent you from flexing your elbow, regardless if you feel it or not. Another prime target could be the brachial plexus (just under the armpit) which would sever the nervous and arterial conduits to the entire arm. With just one slash the attacker would loose the use of his entire arm instantly. Without medical aid they would also bleed out in under a minute. The immediate immobility of ones arm could prove a difficult injury to continue with. In dealing with medicated or fatally determined individuals you “can not” wait for lack of blood to the brain to render them neutral. It is far faster to target the mechanical components of the anatomy. If nerves are not connected to the muscles, or the muscle is not attached to the bone the limbs will cease to function period. Yes, I know that there are certain stabs that will sever these mechanical components. This would require an extremely accurate thrust; and once the point entered the body it would become an internal slash would it not?
Any comments? :enguard:

 

[MJS]

Two areas that are being neglected in this discussion of stab vs. slash are tendons and nerves, which will produce instant results. Many street drugs can produce assailants with inhuman responses. These assailants could “temporarily” shrug off lethal stabs to vital organs, including the heart. All major tendons of the limbs lie very close to the surface of the body. I know you may be thinking “a severed tendon will not dispatch an opponent.” However, consider the loss of say your biceps tendon, which would prevent you from flexing your elbow, regardless if you feel it or not. Another prime target could be the brachial plexus (just under the armpit) which would sever the nervous and arterial conduits to the entire arm. With just one slash the attacker would loose the use of his entire arm instantly. Without medical aid they would also bleed out in under a minute. The immediate immobility of ones arm could prove a difficult injury to continue with. In dealing with medicated or fatally determined individuals you “can not” wait for lack of blood to the brain to render them neutral. It is far faster to target the mechanical components of the anatomy. If nerves are not connected to the muscles, or the muscle is not attached to the bone the limbs will cease to function period. Yes, I know that there are certain stabs that will sever these mechanical components. This would require an extremely accurate thrust; and once the point entered the body it would become an internal slash would it not?
Any comments? :enguard:

First off, I'd like to thank you for your reply! :asian: You brought up many good points. The only other thing that I'd like to add, is that I was trying to focus this thread off of the slash/stab debate, due to the fact that its already been a :deadhorse for the last 4 pages. I think that we all know that both the slash and stab have their respective place and that both can be deadly. I'd like to focus now on the best defenses for said attacks. I also have to say that you brought up a good point regarding the attacker being under the influence of a drug. I agree that it can play a part in his reaction to whatever it is that you're doing to defend yourself.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Two areas that are being neglected in this discussion of stab vs. slash are tendons and nerves, which will produce instant results. Many street drugs can produce assailants with inhuman responses. These assailants could “temporarily” shrug off lethal stabs to vital organs, including the heart. All major tendons of the limbs lie very close to the surface of the body. I know you may be thinking “a severed tendon will not dispatch an opponent.” However, consider the loss of say your biceps tendon, which would prevent you from flexing your elbow, regardless if you feel it or not. Another prime target could be the brachial plexus (just under the armpit) which would sever the nervous and arterial conduits to the entire arm. With just one slash the attacker would loose the use of his entire arm instantly. Without medical aid they would also bleed out in under a minute. The immediate immobility of ones arm could prove a difficult injury to continue with. In dealing with medicated or fatally determined individuals you “can not” wait for lack of blood to the brain to render them neutral. It is far faster to target the mechanical components of the anatomy. If nerves are not connected to the muscles, or the muscle is not attached to the bone the limbs will cease to function period. Yes, I know that there are certain stabs that will sever these mechanical components. This would require an extremely accurate thrust; and once the point entered the body it would become an internal slash would it not?
Any comments? :enguard:

That is why, regardless of slash, stab, blunt trauma weapon, bullet.... I say that the goal is to cause the dysfunction an opponents ability to continue posing a threat/negative behavior and not pain inducement. Pain, as a goal, is really for coercion/compliance for professionals like LEO and such who have to direct or control people. As a civilian martial artist, self defense is not about inducing pain/compliance for me. It is about getting out of there intact

 

[Cruentus]

Two areas that are being neglected in this discussion of stab vs. slash are tendons and nerves, which will produce instant results. Many street drugs can produce assailants with inhuman responses. These assailants could “temporarily” shrug off lethal stabs to vital organs, including the heart. All major tendons of the limbs lie very close to the surface of the body. I know you may be thinking “a severed tendon will not dispatch an opponent.” However, consider the loss of say your biceps tendon, which would prevent you from flexing your elbow, regardless if you feel it or not. Another prime target could be the brachial plexus (just under the armpit) which would sever the nervous and arterial conduits to the entire arm. With just one slash the attacker would loose the use of his entire arm instantly. Without medical aid they would also bleed out in under a minute. The immediate immobility of ones arm could prove a difficult injury to continue with. In dealing with medicated or fatally determined individuals you “can not” wait for lack of blood to the brain to render them neutral. It is far faster to target the mechanical components of the anatomy. If nerves are not connected to the muscles, or the muscle is not attached to the bone the limbs will cease to function period. Yes, I know that there are certain stabs that will sever these mechanical components. This would require an extremely accurate thrust; and once the point entered the body it would become an internal slash would it not?
Any comments? :enguard:

This sounds like the Biomechanical cutting theory that I have heard about...I believe that this is something that Bram Frank covers in detail. I say that it is a good theory, particularly for civilian self defense. As I have said before, it depends on what your needs are. Severing a nerve or tendon on the attacking limb may provide for a good escape if you are a civilian dealing with a crazed attacker. If you are military, you may need to go for an instant (as instant as you can, anyways) kill instead of just a disabling attack, which will require a stab. Even if the attacker takes a minute to bleed out, a minute is a long time...long enough for an enemy to attack you again or find a gun to shoot you on the battlefield. Plus, I wouldn't count on the attacker bleeding out unless an artery is severed. But, as a civilian, you may find that killing your attacker at all isn't the best option for you, but that severing a tendon or nerve so they can't attack you is.

It all depends on what you need to do at the moment.

:asian:

 

[arnisador]

It's an important point. With a smaller knife, I wouldn't want to count on getting a tendon--with a bigger knife, it may be nhard not to do so! It's just another spin on defanging the snake, to my mind--instead of removing the fang (weapon), disable the muscles/nerves/tendons that allow him to raise that weapon and use it.

 

[loki09789]

This sounds like the Biomechanical cutting theory that I have heard about...I believe that this is something that Bram Frank covers in detail. I say that it is a good theory, particularly for civilian self defense. As I have said before, it depends on what your needs are. Severing a nerve or tendon on the attacking limb may provide for a good escape if you are a civilian dealing with a crazed attacker. If you are military, you may need to go for an instant (as instant as you can, anyways) kill instead of just a disabling attack, which will require a stab. Even if the attacker takes a minute to bleed out, a minute is a long time...long enough for an enemy to attack you again or find a gun to shoot you on the battlefield. Plus, I wouldn't count on the attacker bleeding out unless an artery is severed. But, as a civilian, you may find that killing your attacker at all isn't the best option for you, but that severing a tendon or nerve so they can't attack you is.

It all depends on what you need to do at the moment.

:asian:

There are manuals that cover "quick kill" or 'sentry take out' techniques that can be a real eye opener about the difference between knife defense and knife offense. Either way, I like distance and sending steel where men shouldn't go first when ever possible.

 

[Cruentus]

There are manuals that cover "quick kill" or 'sentry take out' techniques that can be a real eye opener about the difference between knife defense and knife offense. Either way, I like distance and sending steel where men shouldn't go first when ever possible.

Yup. Seen the manuals. I like the "Bullet defense" myself! :asian:

 

[arnisador]

Yes, there's a difference between a military art, where it may be that one must fight and kill, and a self-defense art, where one need only escape and survive.

 

[arnisandyz]

The slashing type attacks that are taught in several martial arts is just nonscence in a real high threat situations. The slashing does not effectively take out your opponent. That is why they say expect to get cut. Because you will if you dance around defanging the snake or what ever....So when you join your local club and train all these fancyful knife techniques and sparring back and forth becoming a " knife fighter", just know it doesn't go down like that when it is for real. And all those sweeping slashes, largo mano ect go right out the door.

Ed

Also, take into consideration the type of knife you are using. Are you telling me a slash/chop from a kukri to a wrist will have less of an effect than a stab? A shank or a nail would obviously be better with thrust/puncturing. Some knives are better for slashing/chopping, some for thrusting.

Why eliminate a method of attack? in many cases slashes are used to setup entries, helping bridge the gap to get to your thrust. And if your doing wide "sweeping" slashes as you say that don't seem to work for you, perhaps you should practice tighening your arc and keeping your knife in front of you, rather than giving up on slashing?

 

[arnisandyz]

The originator of this thread is no longer a member of Martial Talk.

~Tess

-MT S. Moderator-

Sorry, Didn't realize he was no longer a member...maybe he'll take the extra time and train a little more before he comes back.

 

[Stick Dummy]

Nice Recovery on the thread folks!

Gaston - Good points and worded very eloquently, I'm barely capable of wording my thoughts although I do think them.

Many theories and plans, and more tools for the toolbox of all of us. :asian:

 

[MJS]

Sorry, Didn't realize he was no longer a member...maybe he'll take the extra time and train a little more before he comes back.

If we're lucky, he wont be back!!!

Mike

 

[Flatlander]

Does that happen? Have you guys ever seen someone get the boot, reincarnate themselves, and catch them again?

 

[Gaston]

Nice Recovery on the thread folks!

Gaston - Good points and worded very eloquently, I'm barely capable of wording my thoughts although I do think them.

Many theories and plans, and more tools for the toolbox of all of us. :asian:

Thanks for the complements on the posts. I'm quite enjoying the dialogs that are attempting to share knowledge and promote growth.
GG

 

[Rich Parsons]

Does that happen? Have you guys ever seen someone get the boot, reincarnate themselves, and catch them again?

This has only happened once or twice with people who I believe were only suspended for a while and could not let the arguement go, and signed back up. Having multiple accounts is against the rules, and breaking a suspension is also.

Relatively speaking the couple of incidents with our many members makes it a real low occurrance rate.

Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Administrator

 

[Ender]

very interesting read. I contacted a friend who is wound care specialist at a major metropolitan hospital and posed the the question "which is deadlier, a knife slash or a stabbing?" The response was:

"It just depends on where, you can slash the jugular and kill someone as
quick as a knife in the heart"

 

[DoxN4cer]

Slashing is not an inferior fighting method. Consider flaying your attacker's punching arm lenthwise on the way to his throat, and then pulling the blade through a clavical. He's dead and you never once stabbed him. :asian:

Ah, but I differ here. IMHO, slashing infers a superficial wound. "Slashing" is not the same as "cutting". Cutting is the forceful separation of flesh by a sharp implement. A cut from a knife creates a larger wound that a slash. Within that context, I maintain that slashing IS inferior to stabbing. A cut will create far more penetration and tussue separation than a slash.

Musashi described this concept very well in his classic.

Tim Kashino

 

[hardheadjarhead]

How many knife fights have you been in?

How many people have you killed with your special techniques?

Sure, a stab is more lethal...the Romans knew that.

But the majority of injuries caused by an edged weapon are -SLASHES-.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1341852003


Of course, I'm interested in what your fantasy-world training would say to the statement "Disarms can get you killed"?

An old, dead thread...but what the heck...I need the practice.

The old debate goes on and on and on and on and on....

The number of fights a person has been in is invalid. The test sample is too small. People are always pulling this out...how many street fights have YOU been in? It makes a difference in some respects, but hardly in this one. The next fight might be won by a stab or a slash...one can't prognosticate based on previous street experience. Its as if saying "Ali won his last three fights with a right cross. Ergo he'll win his next fight with a right cross." He may not win with a right cross, he may. He might win with a hook. He might not win at all. It could be a draw. It could be a forfeit.

When you say the Romans knew that a stab was more lethal, they were able to figure that out from experiences wherein HUNDREDS of men stabbed HUNDREDS of Gallic warriors in one day...and slashed them too. They took a poll, probably, found the stab worked the best, and worked from there.

The Brits in the early nineteenth century found the slash was better for lethality...and for injuring. The Brit calvalry sabre could chop a man in half from shoulder to hip, though...something few swords of that size could do up to that time. It went through the heavy French overcoats quite nicely. So are we merely dealing with a difference in technology?

When referring to antiquity, WHY did the Romans want the stab versus the slash? Because it was easier to do? Because it worked better with the tactics they employed? Was it all that necessary to kill the Galli right away? What's wrong with an incapacitating wound? What about the Brits? Were they too going for the "one shot stop?" If so, why?

Anybody here read the "Myth of the Quick Kill?" I think that's the title. I'd have to look it up. It has a lot to say on this topic. You can download it offline.

Regards,


Steve

 

[arnisador]

"Slashing" is not the same as "cutting". Cutting is the forceful separation of flesh by a sharp implement.

I understand, but I wasn't drawing that distinction for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[Cruentus]

I understand, but I wasn't drawing that distinction for the purposes of this discussion.

Yea...

There are a whole bunch of different types of attacks with the knife outside of "stab" or "slash". There is the cut as TIm K described, "The run," "The Fillet," "Body assisted attacks" "Hand assists" "C" Cut, rotating poke, rotation, etc., etc. etc.

The knife is very diverse...and the list is actually quiet large. I say don't limit yourself at all, as each attack has it's place. It terms of "edge attack" (where edge of blade is the point of contact) vs. "point attack" (where the tip or point of the blade is the point of contact), the point attack or stabbing attack is generally more lethal...although I say generally because it again all depends.

I think that this whole "arguement" was silly to begin with; if you knoe the strengths and limits to what you are doing, then you can be effective with what you are doing.

My opinions,

William 'Bill the Butcher' Cutting