Closing The Gap - knife fighting

[Keeper]

Guys, please excuse my ignorance...what does BG stand for?

[NWPTrainer]

Originally posted by Keeper
Guys, please excuse my ignorance...what does BG stand for?

BG = Bad Guy

[szorn]

NWPTrainer,

I think that we agree more on this than we disagree with. I didn't say that we should not train for that type of attack but again I have to go with the statistical research and say that this type of attack is rare. I always suggest training for the most common attacks first and the less common (but possible) attacks second. The only thing I think we truely disagree on is the actual percentage that this type of assissination attack takes place. In high risk situations, which obviously is common in your line of work, this type of attack may be more common. It's definitely common for convicts in the prison environment. However, it's not as common for the regular citizen during robbery or rape assaults. Unless you can point me to some Department of Justice statistics or other research to validate this point I think we will just have to agree to disagree.



Steve http://www.geocities.com/combatives

[szorn]

Originally posted by doubleouch
Szorn,
Rant and rave all you want. You never answered my question. How do you know? I have read all the above posts. I recognize and understand that knife training has had some value to many people in self defense situations. I would have to be foolish to say otherwise. I think if you are using other peoples experience and statistics to prove your training then you are fooling yourself. The only true measure is your own experience. Again, it is impossible to mimic a knife fight in a way that you can test your techniques against real live resistance. Why won't you people admit that there is a large unknown when it comes to knife training? I'm not saying that you should not train the knife or that the training is bad, I'm simply saying that you will never know for sure if your training will be able to save your life, or how you will react in a knife attack because the training doesn't allow you to practice the actual event.

I did answer the question in the previous posts. How do you know anything that you have ever learned? How do you know that the world is round? Have you actually been around the world or entered space to validate these things that you believe to be true? Have you ever shot a human being with a firearm? If not, how do you know how it will effect the human body? Simply put, thousands of people have encountered life-or-death altercations and some even dying in the process. Others, with common sense, have researched these altercations to know exactly what happened and how it happened. Through the process they have learned what to do and what not to do. Your lack of knowledge and lack of mind-set amazes me. There is a large unkown to lots of things in life, especially physical combat. The only thing we can do is attempt to improve our odds in all aspects of these possible life-or-death altercations. To sit back and wonder about the meaning of life or other such topics (like your questions) is a waste of time.

In short focus on those things you know to be true and learn to adapt to those things unknown.

Steve

[NWPTrainer]

Originally posted by szorn
NWPTrainer,

I think that we agree more on this than we disagree with.

I agree.

I always suggest training for the most common attacks first and the less common (but possible) attacks second.

THis is where our disagreement lies. My thoughts on this is that it is far more important to train for the WORST possible contingencies the most often. I.e. THe guy who KNOWS how to use a knife as a close-wuarters killing tool. If you can deal with him, you can damn sure deal with the amateur who is waving it in your face. If some Bozo is waving the weapon in your face, most martial arts are adequate to deal with it. I mean, Hell, I learned defenses against that in Taekwondo as an adolescent. I am more concerned with being able to train my clients and my friends to deal with the worst case scenario.
If you'll allow me, I'll use a military analogy, since I so often equate the two. (Self-defense is war in a microcosm.) For forty plus years, the convential branches of the U.S. Army trained to fight the worst case scenario...the Soviets crashing through the Fulda Gap. THat NEVER happened. Nonetheless, having trained for that made Desert Storm a walk in the park, comparatively speaking.
On the other hand, they had never trained for a worst-case scenario that they did not realize was far more likely to occur....guerrilla warfare/unconventional warfare, outside of the special operations community. That made the Vietnam a bitch to deal with. Yes, we managed to win most of the battles, and all of the "conventional" battles, but th underlying scenario, we were ill-equipped to deal with.
Looking at it in the SD role now...If you train to deal with the guy waving the knife in your face, and assume he is a "trained" martial artist, that is the "conventional" worst-case scenario (the Soviets coming through the Gap). If you face an untrained guy trying to use the same tactics, you willd defeat his "Iraqi" self. However, if the guy is a real pro, and approaches in a way you are not used to dealing with, and in a more lethal manner (the ambush/guerilla attack), you MIGHT win or at least score some solid hits, but you are not properly prepared to deal with it.

THus, it IS important to spend time training for the "easier" contingency, but it is more important to train for the contingency that is far more dangerous, if not as likely.

As far as agreeing to disagree, that's why I live in the United States. (Besides being born here.....)


RLTW




The only thing I think we truely disagree on is the actual percentage that this type of assissination attack takes place. In high risk situations, which obviously is common in your line of work, this type of attack may be more common. It's definitely common for convicts in the prison environment. However, it's not as common for the regular citizen during robbery or rape assaults. Unless you can point me to some Department of Justice statistics or other research to validate this point I think we will just have to agree to disagree.


Steve http://www.geocities.com/combatives [/QUOTE]

[spiderchoke]

Good points guys!

I personally would like to be prepared for the common occurances and the un-common ones. I would probably start training, to build a foundation, with the common ones. I think I would leave the uncommon ones for more advanced training.


"Everyday spent training is one day closer to learning something."
....Spiderchoke

[doubleouch]

Szorn,
OK this is my last post on the subject. I think we probably agree on more than we disagree. That the world is round I don't have to prove. Others have done it and I don't need to re-prove it because their discovery applies to me also because I live on the same ball that they do. That a gunshot does nasty things to the human body I don't need to prove either. My body is made of the same flesh and blood as the millions of people who have been shot. That my knife techniques will work against an agressive attacker in a real life knife fight situation I can not be sure of. While I can be reasonably sure that the world will be round for me just as it was for Columbus I can't say that just because my 60 year old philipine grand master once killed an attacker with a gun ting that I will also be able to do it. That logic doesn't hold. You can never assume that because a technique worked for someone else that it will work for you. Never. The fatal flaw of any self defense system is that you don't practice the actual event you train for. You can only simulate it. Self defense training is great. Do it to your hearts content. How much it improves your ods in a self defense situation you will never know. My point is that you can't go into a self defense situation thinking you will control what happens because of your training. Does it improve your ods? In some cases probably dramatically. In some cases probably not at all and in some cases it could hurt your chances. Are you better off with the training. Deffinately yes. Should you have the mindset that in a self defense situation all your training could be for naught. Yes. The best knife people I know have all told me that they now train for exercise and enjoyment. They all say that they would never engage in a knife fight because they know there are too many unknowns and can't rely on their training to see them through. I had this conversation with Innosanto at a seminar.

[szorn]

Originally posted by NWPTrainer
[B] I agree.

THis is where our disagreement lies. My thoughts on this is that it is far more important to train for the WORST possible contingencies the most often. I.e. THe guy who KNOWS how to use a knife as a close-wuarters killing tool. If you can deal with him, you can damn sure deal with the amateur who is waving it in your face. If some Bozo is waving the weapon in your face, most martial arts are adequate to deal with it. I mean, Hell, I learned defenses against that in Taekwondo as an adolescent. I am more concerned with being able to train my clients and my friends to deal with the worst case scenario.




RLTW

This why combatives instructors teach "conceptual" tactics based on "universal adaptation" and adrenal response theories. Essentially using the same tactics regardless of the attack. This means that is doesn't matter which method of attack is used, the individual will respond accordingly. I teach how to deal with the most common attacks because that is what they are most likely to see then I show them how the same material is used against those "worst case" situations that they will most likely never see but they know how to deal with them with no change in physical tactics. In short, teaching the less common attacks first is no different than teaching kata or other fantasy moves that will never be used. I do understand your basis for that teaching structure but I think it's important to give the student a solid grasp of survival basics with "conceptual" tactics that start with common attacks.

I should also mention that there is usually a learning curve involved. If instructors start with those attacks that you mention and the student has a hard time grasping the fact that they might be attacked in that manner or if they have a physically hard time learning the tactics a couple different things can happen- they might get frustrated and quit, they might come to believe that they are not physically or mentally capable of protecting themselves and decide to just give up. Either way it can compromise the student. We need to take into consideration that I am talking about regular people who aren't police, soldiers, athletes or martial artists. Having trained quite a number of regular people, including airline personnel, I have had the opportunity to see this learning curve in hundreds of people. The students need to be taught material that they can both physically and mentally grasp. They need to be able to accept the fact that it's something that they are likely to see IF they are attacked. They need to be able to say to themselves "I can see having to use this in the real world and I can see myself using it successfully".

Steve http://www.geocities.com/combatives

[Keeper]

END OF SUBJECT

We now all agree that we train for reality but can't be absolutely prepared.

Now we can all kiss and hug and make-up.


....What do you mean you don't want to kiss me?



Keeper

[NWPTrainer]

Originally posted by doubleouch
Szorn,
Should you have the mindset that in a self defense situation all your training could be for naught. Yes. The best knife people I know have all told me that they now train for exercise and enjoyment. They all say that they would never engage in a knife fight because they know there are too many unknowns and can't rely on their training to see them through. I had this conversation with Innosanto at a seminar.

I have always had a massive issue with this philosophy. If I train someone to be able to defend themselves or to control a hostile sunject, I am NOT about to turn around and undermine their confidence by telling them, "Oh, but don;t expect it to work. You'll just get killed."

Another military/LE analogy: When young soldiers are trained, they are not taught Small-Unit Tactics(SUT) and Individual Movement Techniques(IMT), then told, "Oh, but you might as well just expect to get shot and killed." To do so would be the heighth of absurdity. Everyone knows, if you go into combat, you might get killed. Someone is damned sure likely to. It might be you. You train in exercises to deal with casualty evac and battlefield aid, but you never tell your guys, "Ah, don;t worry about this, you're gonna get whacked by the Hajis as soon as the rounds start flying."

We accept the possibility that we might be the guy that catches a round, but we train to fight as if it won't be us. The resultant aggressiveness of action is what makes it COMMON for modern American ground forces to close with enemy forces, absolutely decimate the bad guys, and sustain minimal to no casualties.

How does it relate? When you teach a practical defensive tactics course, you make damn sure you are using simple, effective counters and concepts, and you make damned sure that you are getting it through to the client/student/etc, that the greatest weapon they have is aggressiveness and violence of action. They dhouldn;t be trying to trap the arm and use a jointlock to disarm the BG, they should be grabbing the arm and gouging the bastid's eye out, or crushing his throat, OR accessing their sidearm and blowing his a$$ away.

The problem with taking the above advice, even from a "knifefighting expert" is that, 1) the ego is involved. If they are not teaching the "ultimate, unbeatable fighting style" why are they teaching a fighting style? 2) Even in the more pragmatic "martial arts" there is still the duelling mindset in play.
Rebuttals:
1) This is not intended to be disrespectful to Mr. Insosanto, or any of the other knife fighting gurus out there, but I feel it is the issue. There have been instances of untrained, inexperienced citizens successfully disarming knife-weilding attackers without getting cut. If you have trained to accomplish that, then it is even more possible to do. 100% guaranteed? No, of course not.

2) AS I stated in an above post, this "mutually agreed combat" mentality is absurd in real-world combatives training. SO why do people still do it? Because it is easier to train for than the reality.

This why combatives instructors teach "conceptual" tactics based on "universal adaptation" and adrenal response theories. Essentially using the same tactics regardless of the attack. This means that is doesn't matter which method of attack is used, the individual will respond accordingly.

I consider myself a "combatives" instrcutor/trainer. I am not a martil artist, cause I don't give a shit how pretty it looks, I just want to put the BG on the ground.

I teach completely from a conceptual approach, to the extent that the biomechanics of a weapon strike is the same as that of an unarmed strike. AN edge of the hand blow to the side of the neck/carotid is the same as a reverse grip knife thrust to the same region, or a foreward grip slash to the same target. A foreward grip stab is the same basic biomechnics as a heel of hand blow, etc. Hell, even a handgun encounter uses the same basic biomechanics.
If I draw my SIG in an ECQ situation, and it comes to a pectoral index position, with my off hand shielding and checking the BGs advnace or attacks, once I make space, and shove my pistol out into a "standard" firing stance, be it Weaver, Iso, or Mod-Iso, the biomechanics are the same as if I just threw a long-range heel of hand blow. I completely agree with your reasoning behind the conceptual basis to training.

The problem still comes with the scenarios used to train the clients. I don;t know where you live, but in the large urban areas I have lived in, and do live in, violent crime is not a joke. (I grew up in Arkansas though, where violent crime is generally constrained to a barfight, or some guy shooting his brother for screwing around with their sister...) I feel responsible for training my clients to deal with the worst possible attack I can envision. Considering the level of ability with some of my former colleagues in the miliary, and some of the people I work with now, I can envision some pretty hard core people doing some pretty hard-core stuff. I want to be able to have confidence that my clients have at least a chance of surviving that kind of attack.

Can my 70 year old grandmother drop a crackhead mugger with a heel of the hand blow to the chin? No. She can however, damn sure though stick a kitchen knife in his chest, or pepper spray his ass. (My grandfather was a Detroit narcotics cop for thirty years, and she dealt with him all that time...she's hard enough to stick someone, I can assure you.) So, is my training for someone like her gonna be different than for a 25 year-old Recon Marine? Of course! The tools will be different, but the tactics to use those tools will be the same. The argument that combatives training as I approach it is only suitable for "athletes" of superior conditioning is absurd. Hell, that Recon Marine can probably overcome most attackers through sheer physical stamina and combat mindset. It is the average Joe or Jane who nneds the combatives approach the most.

ONce they have learned the underlying concepts to deal with the worst case scenario, it is easy to teach the application of those concepts to a lesser threat. THAT is the reality of the learning curve approach to combatives as I see it.

I have trained teenage girls, older women, and even senior citizens, as well as DoD personnel. I find that their confidence in their abilities is far greater when you demonstrate that they CAN deal with a serious attack.. Hell, after learning they can survive against a pro, the rest is much simpler. This also tends to reduce the possiblity of the panic mode kicking in during a less than lethal situation where the person goes, "Holy Sheet, I'm being attacked, what can I do?" Then they go totally apeshit and kill someone when a lethal force response was NOT justified.

The confidence instilled by training someone to deal with a worst case scenario makes them far more competent to deal with lesser assaults in a "reasonable" manner.

All in all, even if we do disagree, at least we are having a constructive discussion on the subject and haven;t yet resorted to assinine name-calling, etc....THt tells me that you are at least mature enough to have though about your reasons and theories. Good sign.

RLTW

[szorn]

Same Goals!

NWPTrainer,

Although we both have different opinions and different approaches, I believe that our end goal is ultimately the same. We both want to teach our students to survive those vicious life-or-death altercations that can be unpredictable and deadly. With this understanding I see no reason to resort to name calling or personal bashing. In fact I think that like minds should stick together, regardless of differing opinions.

Feel free to stop by the following message board forum (which I happen to moderate) and join in the various conversations-

http://www.hockscqc.com/discus

Steve