I agree with both PASmith and Hannibal, in different ways. I agree with PASmith that you want a style of combat that assumes the presence of weapons and is capable of dealing with it without totally changing your style. Your basic approach should not get you cut up even if you didn't notice he had a knife until it is used, shouldn't get you knocked down if he has an ashtray swinging for your head, and so on and so forth. But I also agree with Hannibal that you need to be able to adapt. Against multiple opponents you might adapt your techniques to keep the enemies moving as you strike through them, using them to shield you against the next in order to gain the time to finish them. Against a big nasty kitchen knife you might put a lot more effort into bypassing that arm safely rather than doing damage, since his reach and damage potential will greatly out do you. If it is a drunk friend at a party you might apply control and restraint as you calm him down, rather than breaking his jaw. There are variations in your approach based on the information you have to hand. The trick, it seems to me, is to have as a base a style of fighting which: a) Works against most attack patterns without having to identify them beforehand. b) Can easily and quickly be adapted for different approaches without much variation in overall style and without any thought required beyond an appreciation of the situation. c) Whatever the situation, finishes people quickly, and is as forgiving as possible of mistakes or slips under pressure. But I will admit this is mostly theory, tested under artificial pressure rather than real pressure. I'd be interested in what you both think about this possible compromise position between the two of you.
I have not read everything just a couple of pages and have not seen mentioned anything about how violent we have to be when defending ourselves. What I mean is the defender has to be more violent than the attacker and having this violent mindset or ability to go into that mode is a massive thing from what I have learnt and been taught. An unskilled violent loon is more dangerouse than a skilled person who cant comprehend this violence. So if a guy is trying to kill a person or damage them with a knife they must be pretty violent and be violently attacking. So its good having all these methods yet its arguably more important,and crucial to first somehow comprehend and grasp the violent mindset and determination to overcome an attack. Directly linked to that would be having the anearobic fitness to keep doing whatever it is a person needs to do to defend themselves untill they have done. Also its highly likely a person will be stabbed or cut so can they now keep going and defending themselves to at least survive? I would argue alot of this is more mindset than skill.
I think a lot of people have a lot of good points here but I have to point out another of my pet hates. People think about stuff too much and it clouds their mind. I bet a lot of people here would be actually THINKING if they had a knife pulled on them rather than simply reacting. Thinking in these situations will get you killed, you have to react and that is where realistic training comes in, not rubbish like the original post was based on. Defending yourself is so simple when it really boils down to it, but everyone wants to analyse and argue and I suppose discussion is the point of having the forum - but I genuinely worry for some of the people here and its incredibly easy to see who the ones who've never been attacked with a knife are. There's absolutely no fooling anyone. I've never been stabbed but i've come close and i've been lucky out of the several times i've been attacked. RJ
I don't want to nitpick, just wanted to throw something out there. I don't think you will have the choice whether to think or react. You will just react. You will not have the presence of mind to think. Thinking would actually be great, but under stress, humans normally dont, we just react. That is why training should be based off the startle flinch mechanisms we have relied upon for, forever. Have I missed your point RJDefaye? Are you saying thinking is a longer process and reacting is quicker? If so, I agree totally. This becomes most relevant once an encounter is already happening. At the start, there will be no opportunity to think, just react. I guess thats what I am trying to say. Good thread. Just one more thing. I have found numerous examples of people getting mixed up in violent encounters or fights and one thing which is common is that many times, people have finished the encounter and have realised they have been stabbed. In extreme examples, they have had a knife sticking out of their necks or embedded inside their bodies. I can provide a link to an article I have done in the past on this for those interested. So afterwards, no matter if you "won" or "lost", check yourself for bleeding. You may be cut and not realise it. They did not see the knife at all. You will probably not feel the pain, you will think you have been punched. I guess the beginning of knife defence on the ground is looking out for one being introduced. Look for people to reach around behind them or into their belt or something and draw it. Sometimes a knife won't be pulled at the start but they will pull it during an encounter. The best way to prepare for this is the next time you are rolling or wrestling or whatever, have a knife tucked away somewhere and whenever you want, draw it and use it in a sly manner, dont bring it around and stab them where they can obviously see it. Try to keep it out of site. This probably how a knife will be used on the ground. Over time, this will force both training partners to be aware of the threat and look for those tells of when they are going for it. Seeing the knife is the first step. Then controlling that knife bearing limb becomes the main focus.
You make a good point. I'll freely admit I've never been stabbed, and although I have been attacked with a knife it was before my martial arts training. For me, the thinking is useful when trying to work out how to go about training, what needs to be emphasized and what has application. Of course, a lot of this comes from testing, and I do pressure test whenever I can. Taking the lessons from there and using them to inform ones training seems to be a good application of the desire to (over)think things, as there it can provide some benefit. However you are completely correct that you want to be able to move without thinking. That was part of the point for me, that your training and style of fighting shouldn't require a thought process to engage different opponents, but rather should just be able to deal with and adapt to whatever comes at you as automatically as possible.
Yeah, altc, that's exactly what I meant... Sorry, most of my posting is done very early in the morning here after work and it's sometimes hard for me to get my point across. Dizzyj, you touched on a very good point too. You need to do the thinking when you're training so you don't have to do it when you're attacked. Also, I love the Mas Oyama quote, i'm an old student of Kyokushin, you? I haven't been to a Kyokushin class in ten years though, been doing other stuff. RJ
Yup, trained with Hanchi Steve Arneil for a little over year, my first proper move into martial arts. Although I have found that the kyokushin teaching methods aren't as productive for me as more modern western methods, I still have great respect for the style and the quality of fighters produced. [/off topic]
