To Control Or Not To Control..That Is The Question.

[Brian R. VanCise]

Control, Immobilization that allows you to also strike, disarm and neutralize the opponent is what we are all striving for. In the equation let's not forget the distance, angles and of course getting superior position in the process. All of the above get factored in and more. Now does that mean that you will get control or have to have it. Absolutely not. However, if I can minimize damage to myself while some how immobilizing their weapon/tool bearing hand and striking them in the same process then that is a pretty good sound way to go! That immobilization or control of their tool/weapon bearing hand will hopefully in conjunction with strikes allow me to achieve a disarm so that the weapon cannot be used again against me. While all of that is going on you would still want to have damaged the attacker enough physically that you can gain dominance and or they are incapable of continuing to attack you or your loved ones.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

There are 2 threads in the gun and knife section, regarding dealing with those weapons from a SD point of view. I'm posting this thread here, because I'm sure there're some members who do not frequent those areas, so I wanted to get the input from more of our valued members here.

A poll will be added to this thread as well. The question is simple....Do you, when dealing with an opponent with a weapon, work for control of the weapon, while at the same time, executing your defense and counterstrikes, or do you disregard the weapon and just attempt to overwhelm them, with strikes to vital areas?

I could not answer the poll because for me, it depends on the weapon. If it is a knife, I will maintain distance and seek an exit. If it is a gun, descalation and talking him into holstering the weapon is my first choice, but I will be more inclined to consider controling the weapon if it is a gun, as distance is really more of a disadvantage in that scenario.

Also, I would rather be shot than slashed.

Daniel

 

[Jenna]

Good point Jenna.

Let me clarify. The purpose of this thread was sparked from 2 other thread, one on a gun, the other on a knife, in which some members were saying that their main focus is not on the weapon, but instead, overwhleming the badguy with hits to vital areas, to take him out. So, unless I'm reading wrong, I take that as, "Who cares if this guy has a knife, I'm going to hit him in the eyes, the throat, the groin, break his knees, back and neck...oh, and in the meantime, if I take cuts, not a biggie."

Goodness, personally I think that is foolish wisdom, do you not? "Taking cuts is no biggie" is never a catchphrase I have heard in a RW dojo outside the internet. Slash wounds in the right place can be fatal and that is not considering the simplest stab which we can be still fighting without knowing we are already dead.

Sure, when working club and knife techs., I've had my partner give a real committed attack, and yes, I'd be lying if I said that I never got hit. Difference is, is that I want to minimize as much damage to myself as possible, and IMO, that can be done by controlling the weapon.

As far as disarms go...I put them in the same category as an empty hand vs. empty hand situation. I'm not looking to do something specific. Someone is doing a roundhouse club to my head, I'm not going to be thinking of the X number of techs. for that situation to do. I'm going to react. The situation, environment and targets available to me, are going to dictate what I do.

If we look at a lock flow drill, we'll see a large series of locks. Of course, one would never do all of those, however, its a drill to teach various locks, so when the arm is in a given position, there is a wide array of things to pick from. Same thing with the weapon...I may have to work a bit before I get that disarm.

Whether we grab the arm, wrap our arm around theirs, or pin it to them, I need to get control. Yes, our goal is to take out the badguy, but I don't feel comfortable to just try to take him out with strikes, while the entire time he is swinging that weapon at me.

Sorry for the long post. I hope that answered your question.

Mike, I absolutely agree and could not argue with your logic about controlling the weapon. And I think if BOTH options are available to us (the attacker is unprepared, unaccompanied etc.) then of the two, your view is preferred. And but how often is that really the case?

imo, I just do not think that it is prudent to have made a prior determination EITHER WAY on how we should defend an armed attack. I think both views on this thread are valid. If we take out the attacker then the weapon is inanimate, yes... and but yet the assumption is that we have MANAGED a 'permanent' single strike / single tech disabling of the attacker. If we HAVE disabled him then we are vindicated in choosing "disarm the attacker" as our method. If not, we may not get the second chance to rectify our error. And but likewise if we choose to go after the weapon and miss, we are in exactly the same peril. All I am saying is that imo, I think it is bad practice to have made that prior determination either way. I think our response is dependent upon the circumstances.

For example, generally, if the weapon presents itself first (drawn already) I choose the weapon. And but if the blade is thrust, the attacker's unbalance is exactly what I would be looking for to pin him and control the weapon simultaneously. If the attacker (by his hands) is going for the weapon, I choose the attacker pre-emptively. Ah I think I am sounding argumentative. I just mean that to me it depends on the circumstance and I would not advise anybody to make that decision before the facts or circumstances of the attack are known.

Sorry for rambling
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Jenna]

.

Also, I would rather be shot than slashed.

Daniel

Daniel, Can I ask please why you would have this preference? Thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[BLACK LION]

Injure to gain control of them entirely... not just the tool.

The options for the poll are slim so I did not select one.

 

[Touch Of Death]

There are 2 threads in the gun and knife section, regarding dealing with those weapons from a SD point of view. I'm posting this thread here, because I'm sure there're some members who do not frequent those areas, so I wanted to get the input from more of our valued members here.

A poll will be added to this thread as well. The question is simple....Do you, when dealing with an opponent with a weapon, work for control of the weapon, while at the same time, executing your defense and counterstrikes, or do you disregard the weapon and just attempt to overwhelm them, with strikes to vital areas?

Of course you control the weapon. Divert, sieze, control.
Sean

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Daniel, Can I ask please why you would have this preference? Thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

The idea of long slashes is less appealing than a gunshot wound. Not that that is particularly appealing.

Daniel

 

[MJS]

I could not answer the poll because for me, it depends on the weapon. If it is a knife, I will maintain distance and seek an exit. If it is a gun, descalation and talking him into holstering the weapon is my first choice, but I will be more inclined to consider controling the weapon if it is a gun, as distance is really more of a disadvantage in that scenario.

Also, I would rather be shot than slashed.

Daniel

I agree with what you said regarding the knife. For me, escape, an equalizer, ie: chair, belt, ashtray, rock, etc., then engaging the person, is the order that I would use. While running is something that is certainly wise, and something that is always suggested, there are times when its not possible to do. I'm no track star, so if this guy takes off after me, what happens when I lose my wind? If my wife is with me, I'm certainly not going to leave her behind.

Assess the situation and go from there.

 

[MJS]

Injure to gain control of them entirely... not just the tool.

The options for the poll are slim so I did not select one.

IMO, I didn't think the options were slim. In those other thread, there were 2 views....control the weapon or dont control it and try to hit the throat, groin, etc.

 

[MJS]

Goodness, personally I think that is foolish wisdom, do you not? "Taking cuts is no biggie" is never a catchphrase I have heard in a RW dojo outside the internet. Slash wounds in the right place can be fatal and that is not considering the simplest stab which we can be still fighting without knowing we are already dead.

Well, it wasn't just limited to cuts. Its was suggested that it was no biggie to take a gun shot either.

Mike, I absolutely agree and could not argue with your logic about controlling the weapon. And I think if BOTH options are available to us (the attacker is unprepared, unaccompanied etc.) then of the two, your view is preferred. And but how often is that really the case?

imo, I just do not think that it is prudent to have made a prior determination EITHER WAY on how we should defend an armed attack. I think both views on this thread are valid. If we take out the attacker then the weapon is inanimate, yes... and but yet the assumption is that we have MANAGED a 'permanent' single strike / single tech disabling of the attacker. If we HAVE disabled him then we are vindicated in choosing "disarm the attacker" as our method. If not, we may not get the second chance to rectify our error. And but likewise if we choose to go after the weapon and miss, we are in exactly the same peril. All I am saying is that imo, I think it is bad practice to have made that prior determination either way. I think our response is dependent upon the circumstances.

For example, generally, if the weapon presents itself first (drawn already) I choose the weapon. And but if the blade is thrust, the attacker's unbalance is exactly what I would be looking for to pin him and control the weapon simultaneously. If the attacker (by his hands) is going for the weapon, I choose the attacker pre-emptively. Ah I think I am sounding argumentative. I just mean that to me it depends on the circumstance and I would not advise anybody to make that decision before the facts or circumstances of the attack are known.

Sorry for rambling
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

No worries, you're not rambling. As for the situation...this is why I always say assess the situation. In these cases, I'm not talking about an assassination, such as we'd see in a prison, where one inmate walks by another in the yard, and gets shanked. I'm talking about a situation such as a mugging. I'm at the ATM, guy comes up behind me, presses the knife into my back and asks for cash. Or after I get the cash, he's standing there, waving the knife, demanding the money. Nothing says that once I hand it to him, he won't kill me anyways, so I'd rather take my chances and defend myself.

I still get the impression, not necessarily from you, that when people hear the word "control" that they think grappling. I'm talking about gaining control, punish the person with strikes, break something, and get the hell out. I'm not turning this into a 30min Royce Gracie grappling game.

As I said, there is no reason why someone cant strike while at the same time, a hit/grab to the arm is done, a parry to control, etc.

 

[thardey]

I chose "control" but with the caveat that "control" is a continuum.

I will first go for "enough control" what I mean is this:

So far we're assuming a unarmed response to an armed attacker. But let's assume equally-armed defense.

Gun vs. gun: No one in their right mind teaches to try and draw on someone who's got the drop on you. After the basic skills are taught for shooting, the next step is shooting while moving, or shooting from cover. Moving off-line of the shooter is a way of regaining a small amount of "control" over your opponent's weapong -- that is, in order to maintain the threat, you force him to move his gun. It's a little thing, but a huge part of fencing strategy. I'll get there in a minute.

In taking cover, you gained more "control" over his weapon, in that you've limited the range and usefulness of the weapon. This should theoretically give you enough of an advantage to be able to bring your own gun to bear.

So, control doesn't always mean "grappling" or having a hand on the weapon itself.

Sword vs. Sword: I know, it wasn't part of the original question, but this debate has been raging for millenia about swords, so some of the conclusions are pertinent here. The debate among swords is whether you parry/cover or bind your opponent's weapon before attacking, or whether you avoid/counterattack.

By a certain level of training, it becomes clear that they're not necessarily exclusive. That is, while avoiding, you have your sword in a place where it is covering you. This gains enough control over your opponent's sword (whether touching it or not) to allow you to attack with confidence. If you can get a bind, great! But the primary goal is to establish enough control to allow a counterattack. Attacking first, without moving, attempting a bind, attempting a parry, covering yourself or what not is considered suicidal. (I'm not counting olympic fencing, where there are few, if any "ties" -- that is both die.)

One style of sword fighting uses the idea that you take the small amount of control, then use that control to gain more, control, and so on, until you have "complete" control of the blade before you attempt the final kill. For another, it is enough to be out of the direct line of attack, to launch your own. Each style has a different place of control before the attack is launched.

Knife vs. Knife: If your opponent already has a knife "on guard" -- that is, between you and him, then if you first attack him, you will impale yourself on his knife, if he doesn't move. This is the point of being "on guard." It's designed to force your opponent to attempt something else before they can attack you. This gives them time to react. One way to gain "control" in knife fighting is to attack your opponents hand/forearm. The forces them to react, and move thier knife. You can't always control where they're moving it to, but you've forced it to move. That's a small measure of control.

Now, when dealing with empty hand counters, it becomes obvious that more control is needed before a counterattack can be attempted. The questions is then, how much control is needed?

Can it be enough that the gun is not pointing directly at you? Or is control of the forearm enough? Or much the gun itself be under your control, including some of the functioning parts (such as the hammer, or slide.) Each situation is going to need a different amount of control before a counterattack is appropriate.

The ultimate form of "control" is to influence your opponent's mind so that they no longer wish to harm you. (Discourage and De-escalate the attack verbally.) The next best is to position yourself so that they are unable to harm you (aka "run away"), next is to control the weapon itself (stripping and possesing it is ideal -- but often is not feasible until after the attacker has been weakened), next is control of the hand or forearm holding the weapon, next is control of the person holding the weapon, and finally, the bare minimum is to be able to force the weapon to move in some way, even if you can't control where it is moving. (Including moving off-line and forcing the gun to attempt to track you.)

We're all going to have different personal interpretations on how much is really "control" and that will vary within our personal ideas with regard to each situation. Also, we have to be able to attack the attacker once we are comfortable with that level of control, and not an instant later, or we become hyper-focused on attacking the weapon only. The ultimate point is not to control the weapon, but to defeat the attacker as soon as absolutely possible.

 

[matt.m]

I will use a knife for example.....To be honest you will get cut. At least once, expect it. Then fight or flight will kick in, I guarantee it. I saw in the case of a knife, controlling is the least of your worries. Disarm is the utmost. If the aggressor still has the blade then there is more opportunity for them to cut you.

 

[Jenna]

Well, it wasn't just limited to cuts. Its was suggested that it was no biggie to take a gun shot either.

Sure I understand, knife crime is significantly more prevalent than gun crime here. I appreciate that is not the case all over. I was just giving my experience Knives are routinely carried in schools here. I know that for fact. Without wanting to deviate from your topic, I still cannot grasp the idea of having apathy towards a potential shooting?? I have never been shot with a firearm and but I have been cut once and hit once with a tazer type weapon and if I am honest I would say that I am terrified of either happening again. And but sorry, I do not want to digress, I am just amazed that anyone would have suggested having such an apathetic disposition to weapons.

No worries, you're not rambling. As for the situation...this is why I always say assess the situation. In these cases, I'm not talking about an assassination, such as we'd see in a prison, where one inmate walks by another in the yard, and gets shanked. I'm talking about a situation such as a mugging. I'm at the ATM, guy comes up behind me, presses the knife into my back and asks for cash. Or after I get the cash, he's standing there, waving the knife, demanding the money. Nothing says that once I hand it to him, he won't kill me anyways, so I'd rather take my chances and defend myself.

I still get the impression, not necessarily from you, that when people hear the word "control" that they think grappling. I'm talking about gaining control, punish the person with strikes, break something, and get the hell out. I'm not turning this into a 30min Royce Gracie grappling game.

As I said, there is no reason why someone cant strike while at the same time, a hit/grab to the arm is done, a parry to control, etc.

People who are knife wavers I think lack intent or wherewithal to engage and conclude the attack. I see uncommitted threat and lack of handling capability in someone waving a knife in the air and would feel reasonable confidence at EITHER disarm or takedown, though weapon disarm presents itself sequentially first in that case and would be preferential. To me, the more frightening prospect is the walk-by stab and which is a feature of gang-type initiations in parts of town here and does not necessarily need to be a direct assassination attempt. It just happens. That would be the situation that I would have no preplanned tactic in my head - to me it would be whichever presents itself first, the attacker or the weapon. Grappling with an armed attacker would I think be foolish irrespective of the proficiency of the grappler. I think if a single strike / lock & disarm is not possible then personally I would not stay for entertainment. To me that is another reason for not being premeditated in our own defence. For if the single strike is ineffective then we could find ourselves exactly in that grappling situation and which I think would be dire for us unarmed against the armed attacker. And but again, as you say, with awareness and our ability to sprint, we would hope not to be there at all.

Thank you again my friend for your patience
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[MJS]

I will use a knife for example.....To be honest you will get cut. At least once, expect it. Then fight or flight will kick in, I guarantee it. I saw in the case of a knife, controlling is the least of your worries. Disarm is the utmost. If the aggressor still has the blade then there is more opportunity for them to cut you.

However, unless the arm or hand is struck in such a fashion as to make the badguy drop the knife, you're going to need control prior to the disarm, no?

Just another opinion of control....we dont need to spend 10min playing with the hand. Once its grabbed, either the arm, hand, etc., we should start working for the disarm.

 

[BLACK LION]

IMO, I didn't think the options were slim. In those other thread, there were 2 views....control the weapon or dont control it and try to hit the throat, groin, etc.

No there was no clear line drawn.

The best option is not to be there at all.... but its not always an option.

If evasion, escape or egress is not applicable or not available....

Then....

Cuts and blood are iminent so it wont be a big surprise.
My focus is the driver... If I control him... I control every weapon he has mind, body and tool(s). Injuries get me compromise and control on the part of the threat. Injuring him is the only thing keeping him from injuring me... not wrestling for control of a tool and disregarding a thinking brain and able body. That does not mean that I wont grab the tool hand becuase there are a few situations that require a grab or at least a deflection but its accompanied by striking targets to injure.

For example... A knife from behind to the esophagus and a handful of your hair.... you have to grab the knife hand while rotating in for the testicle injury and so forth. Even here your neck or face may get knicked or cut but your throat wont be gouged or or slit ear to ear.... Try just grabbing the knife and knife hand and throwing them or something and see what happens... anyone agressive enough willsimply hop on your back and stab the lights out of you...

Like a knife to the back... If you put your hands up in neutral you can , upon rotation use the elbow to deflect the blade off track while injuring a target like the side of the neck then follow up and through...


now take an icepick swing... I wouldnt attempt any sort of maneuver on the tool arm but focus one pure agression and injury or evasion and escape... I always maintain a check hand thats stays right on my heart becuase there are times when the swinging tool needs to be checked, most often in tight spaces or extreme close quarters...

 

[MJS]

Sure I understand, knife crime is significantly more prevalent than gun crime here. I appreciate that is not the case all over. I was just giving my experience Knives are routinely carried in schools here. I know that for fact. Without wanting to deviate from your topic, I still cannot grasp the idea of having apathy towards a potential shooting?? I have never been shot with a firearm and but I have been cut once and hit once with a tazer type weapon and if I am honest I would say that I am terrified of either happening again. And but sorry, I do not want to digress, I am just amazed that anyone would have suggested having such an apathetic disposition to weapons.

I was surprised as well. You should check those threads out. I'm sure your jaw will hit the floor a few times with what you're reading.

People who are knife wavers I think lack intent or wherewithal to engage and conclude the attack. I see uncommitted threat and lack of handling capability in someone waving a knife in the air and would feel reasonable confidence at EITHER disarm or takedown, though weapon disarm presents itself sequentially first in that case and would be preferential. To me, the more frightening prospect is the walk-by stab and which is a feature of gang-type initiations in parts of town here and does not necessarily need to be a direct assassination attempt. It just happens. That would be the situation that I would have no preplanned tactic in my head - to me it would be whichever presents itself first, the attacker or the weapon. Grappling with an armed attacker would I think be foolish irrespective of the proficiency of the grappler. I think if a single strike / lock & disarm is not possible then personally I would not stay for entertainment. To me that is another reason for not being premeditated in our own defence. For if the single strike is ineffective then we could find ourselves exactly in that grappling situation and which I think would be dire for us unarmed against the armed attacker. And but again, as you say, with awareness and our ability to sprint, we would hope not to be there at all.

Thank you again my friend for your patience
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

Again, don't misunderstand the term 'grapple' as in this case, I'm not referring to focusing all your energy on the weapon. We as martial artists, have a wide array of things to do. However, there is no magic hit. I dont care what anyone says. If there was a magic shot, everyone would just train that 1 shot. This is why MMAists, laugh at TMAists, because they get a kick out of the TMA guy talking about "The Deadly" eye gouge, groin shot, etc. Yes, those are good targets, but to think that they're fight enders...nope, I'm not buying it. As I said in another post in another thread....its not the shot but the accumulation of hits that matters. Additionally, target availability will dictate what we can do.

Someone just waving the knife, yes, is probably doing it for intimidation purposes. For me, I'm picking 1 of 2 options. Option 1 is to block the attack, counter strike and get the hell out of there. Option 2 would be to do the above, but gain control, and continue to strike. I get the impression that people think that because we have control of the weapon, that striking can't be done. Of course it can. If someone is having a hard time seeing that, I can't help that, however, I can give my feedback from live drills that I've done.

Back to option 1 for a moment. I'm not a track star, so if I take off running, its possible, unless I really stunned this guy, he may come after me. Now we're back to square 1 with having to deal with the blade. Also, if I'm with someone who isn't capable of running or running as fast, I'm not leaving that person to save my own tail. Therefore, I'm forced to stay and fight.

As I've said in other threads...people are free to do what they want, and what they feel is best for them. However, I don't think that its wise to totally disregard the weapon and try to overwhelm them with strikes, while this guy could pull away and shoot us or continue to slash with the blade. We're taking a shot...no pun intended.......that we'll be able to overwhelm them and wont need to worry about the weapon.

Now, I know I was talking about overwhelming them with hits, an accumulation of hits, etc. Let me clarify. When I'm speaking of this, I'm also incorporating control into the mix. This guy probably isn't planning on me trapping his hand, just like he probably wouldn't if he had grabbed my shirt with both hands. They're thinking that the defender will pull away, not marry the badguys hands to their chest, while punishing them with strikes. That is the difference. Yes, I'm striking back, but I take control of the weapon. I dont want them to have that control.

Mike

 

[MJS]

No there was no clear line drawn.

The best option is not to be there at all.... but its not always an option.

If evasion, escape or egress is not applicable or not available....

Then....

I eliminated escape and evasion, because while they are options to take, and good ones at that, they're not always a given. In those threads you started, the main focus was on control, thus, the purpose ofmy thread here. We're talking about whether or not to control, not whether or not to escape.

Cuts and blood are iminent so it wont be a big surprise.
My focus is the driver... If I control him... I control every weapon he has mind, body and tool(s). Injuries get me compromise and control on the part of the threat. Injuring him is the only thing keeping him from injuring me... not wrestling for control of a tool and disregarding a thinking brain and able body. That does not mean that I wont grab the tool hand becuase there are a few situations that require a grab or at least a deflection but its accompanied by striking targets to injure.

For example... A knife from behind to the esophagus and a handful of your hair.... you have to grab the knife hand while rotating in for the testicle injury and so forth. Even here your neck or face may get knicked or cut but your throat wont be gouged or or slit ear to ear.... Try just grabbing the knife and knife hand and throwing them or something and see what happens... anyone agressive enough willsimply hop on your back and stab the lights out of you...

Like a knife to the back... If you put your hands up in neutral you can , upon rotation use the elbow to deflect the blade off track while injuring a target like the side of the neck then follow up and through...


now take an icepick swing... I wouldnt attempt any sort of maneuver on the tool arm but focus one pure agression and injury or evasion and escape... I always maintain a check hand thats stays right on my heart becuase there are times when the swinging tool needs to be checked, most often in tight spaces or extreme close quarters...

Dude, we're not talking about Ninjas here or military men. I highly doubt the punk robbing me so he can get his next fix, is going to jump on my back. Lets focus on reality here, not fantasy land.

Back to your example above. So, with the knife to you back, you said to turn, using the elbow to deflect and then counter strike. And what do you think the other guy is going to do? Stand there and let you hit him? Interestingly enough, I do a similar defense to that, while gaining control and counter striking.

As far as the knife to your neck with a hair grab...please explain what you would do in that case, because unless you gain control, any movement you make will result in a slit throat.

Icepick stab....so while this guy is hitting down, you're going to move in, with no regard to the weapon, and strike him? Again, I do a similar move, however, I, while simultaneously blocking, I'm also striking and I gain control of the weapon.

Your opening line tells me that you're still assuming that I'm going to focus just on control. Thats not the case at all. I think you're either missing that or ignoring it to keep pushing your theory. If you can't control and counter strike, thats not my problem. It works for me, it works for my teachers, thats all I'm worried about. My Arnis inst. has worked in Corrections for over 20yrs. He's seen alot, he still sees alot, so I put faith in what he has seen regarding knife attacks. I train with aliveness and resistance. Yes, I get 'cut' but as its been said, thats to be expected. However, I eliminate additional 'cuts' due to the control.

If you choose not to control, thats fine. If what you do works for you, thats fine. What I do find interesting, is looking at the poll, and some of the replies here, many are advocating control. Hmmm......

 

[MJS]

Slightly off topic. I posted this thread. Guy did a disarm. He was faced with a gun. He didn't disregard the gun, and beat the **** out of him.

 

[just2kicku]

I think the point is control is what we're after.
Taking escape and evasion out of the picture your basically left to fight. Now if I cannot gain control right away, then yes, try to dish out as much punishment as you can before gaining control. ( I'm talking about a knife).

Like others have said, you will get cut in a knife fight. Unless you're extremely lucky, you will get cut. So aside from learning disarm techs, I would suggest learning what part of the anatomy does not kill you when you get cut.

Once control is gained, you must take away the attackers will to fight. Alot of times this means mechanically disabling them. (break something important)

If were talking about a gun, different story. Assuming the guy is idiot enough to actually get close you, I think there are a million factors to think about. i.e. other people around, other standing next to you. I say this because some techs take the gun to the left or to the right. If you have family members next to you, do you want to take the chance hitting one of them should the weapon discharge?

So I still say disarm and control the weapon. It may not present itself right away and you may have to fight before you gain control, but you still want control.

 

[BLACK LION]

There is no way to explain this thru typing... it must be demonstrated and what works will show as well as what does not.... I end up getting frustrated over these threads becuase my position cannot be made clear thru physical evidence... I am much better at physically showing than trying to articualte the physiology behind the action...
We go over this stuff every week and we attempt everything that is discussed here and trust me... most things just dont work.
I know what I type may not makes the best of sense to most but it does to some.... I do try but I do understand that these things must be physically expressed in order to show their true merit of lack thereof...

I am ex-military... the guys I train with are either military affiliated or bunkinkan affiliated... We train every imagineable approach with or without tools in hopes to dispell any myths associated... the sole purpose of our training is to find what works and what does not...
These topics help me get a better idea of where things are at in this realm of combat and I can calibrate and adjust accordingly....

All I can say is wether or not it makes sense or translates into something practical here in this forum is irrelevant compared to wether it works on a living breathing resisting human....
We try and test as many methods and approaches as we can muster... but only train the stuff that works