We do train knife drills for those occasions where students have to fight back and running/submission etc is not an option. Our drills for knives and guns are carefully interlocked with our unarmed drills so that there is no reaction/procedure clash. Drills are initially trained slowly against a compliant attacker. Gradually speed, contact and resistance is increased. Other elements are introduced such as verbal abuse, lighting changes, pre-drill exhaustion training, background loud noise etc. All drills are done with rubber blades. When it comes to doing the drills in a full on simulation all participants wear full face armour, and generally full mobile body armour. In some people this on its own produces an adrenal release. Participants are not always told that a knife will be used, they are not always told who is going to attack them, and they are not always told that they will be the victim. All combative scenarios have a non participating safety observer. Feedback will be given by all concerned. If a drill is filmed - the footage will be examined. If a student is sliced or stabbed the drill goes on until they achieve dominance, just as they would have to do to ensure survival if it were real. We do not stop drills where people make mistakes unless there is a safety issue. People have to learn to correct their mistakes, and they have to learn not to give in.
Sounds like a fantastic methodology for preparing students for the reality of a violent attack and for building mental and physical attributes I understand your reasoning for allowing the drill to continue past after the student has been stabbed etc but do you highlight to the student after they have achieved a position of dominance that they in fact died multiple times during the drill? do you think there are points in the drill where it might be more pragmatic to reset and start from the beggining again? like situations when the drill is departing from the original parameters of the technique? for an extreme example someone is maybe training a two on one arm drag to avoid being cut and take out the attacker/mount an escape from there... however they end up being stabbed multiple times in the ribs, end up on the floor get their throat cut, end up in back mount with the agressor still holding the knife etc.. or do you just let things run regardless. what do you think of the material presented in the self defence video posted in the op?
Well we don't generally die multiple times during the drill! I eliminated the drills where that happened. That's not to say we win all the time! But generally it seems to be easier to deal with committed repetitive close range strikes (under or over) than with distance slashing attacks by someone who is hanging back. Generally speaking it's a matter of identifying little slashes while moving and hitting the person due to poor positioning, control or contact. Or I might go back to a stage in a drill and show how an alternative response to a foul up could have worked and get them to do it. If a person is getting 'slaughtered' I will call a halt - the important thing is that the person being attacked doesn't call the halt - mentally they have to be prepared to go on. We do a fun grappling session at the end of some classes where you are not allowed to strike and one person has a knife. In those we do tend to get sliced or stabbed quite a bit (in the way you've mentioned), but the aim is to get more comfortable with grappling and to work strength against a resisting partner. It has a positive feedback into other areas of what we do but the knife in that is purely to give a focus point to the grappling. With regard to the drill demonstrated, I would be interested to see it done full speed and power to its logical conclusion.
This is a neat thread - I'm enjoying it all and really think a lot of useful material has been covered. I do think that an area that hasn't been discussed enough is perhaps at the core of a lot of the discussions we have, it's to do with intent and capability. 1) So there you are asleep in bed and you wake up knife at throat with some HUGE MONSTER saying how you will submit or he will kill you. 2) So there you are asleep in bed and you wake up knife at throat with some small bloke saying how you had better submit or he will kill you. 3) You are awake and a guy comes into your room saying how you had better submit or he will kill you. 4) Your boyfriend gets over amorous and isn't listening when you say no. Those scenarios (and hundreds more) can all result in rape but in each and every case the possible responses (from a huge repertoire of possible responses) will be situational. AND... Is there almost always a response that will result in the rape not being successful? Probably not. Is there even always a response that will allow survival - being that rape is awful but I would suggest that being killed is worse. Again, probably not. However there are LOTS of situations where people do talk, escape, fight and survive - if there were none then there would be no such thing as self defence... So, I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't believe any single technique is an ALWAYS WIN solution, but I guess it's better to try and use a poor technique that to have no options at all.
Ha fair enough! I guess that's what I was driving at really... if the student is getting cut up you have to come to a point where you say that technique wasn't made to work. If you've identified the instances where this has happened consistently and binned the technique then that's just taking advantage of of the advantages of training the way you do eh? It's understanding the effect that proper training has on a curriculum (as above) that makes me doubt the claims of resistant drilling made by sifujason in relation to the demonstrated techniques. I think, if that drilling was done properly, then their glaring flaws would be all too apparant and they wouldn't be using the technique anymore. Gotcha. That's a pretty important distinction I guess. In my opinion there is only one logical conclusion to that technique. But I would like to see it being tested too.
SifuJason, these appear to have been missed in the off-topic shuffle. A very informative off-topic shuffle! I will bold the relevant bits. Which is actually quoted just above...
I'm pretty much with you in terms of the sentiment of your post (there are no 100% fool proof techniques and context varies wildly) but I'd have to ask why set the bar so low? You should at least be working on and techning things that have sound a technical foundation behind them... ie not attempting to keep a person at bay with only one foot/point of contact, not trying to ko punch from guard with elevated hips and the other solitary hand attempting to control a knife. Plus you shoul dbe honest about the viability of what you teach. you know what I mean?
I will jump on the off-topic bandwagon myself. Re: the one leg pushoff to the hip. What is the one leg doing while the other is pushing at the hip? Possibly (I haven't tested this scenario) right after you've pushed at the hip come in with the other leg and smash them right in the face. Preferably with the heel. I am picturing a broken nose and maybe some teeth being spit out. After the hip push, the attacker will be advancing again and hopefully leading with his face. My little daughter kicked me in the face last night while we were just playing and it hurt like the devil. And she's two!
The testing process is one of those things I've had issues with for a long time. This has nothing to do with your statement Killa_Gorillas, but what you said reminded me of it. People use the term "pressure testing" to apply to a technique... however, pressure testing cannot apply to a technique, it applies to the person under fire. You can't test a specific technique under these conditions, you can only test what works and what doesn't work... Good list for pressure testing a person. When a technique is said to have been tested, it means that it has been successfully used by a person under fire. I'm sure we all can agree that just because one person successfully used a technique under fire this does not mean that everyone could get that same technique to work. When pressure testing, there are limitations for safety, but there are no techniques, just attack. So this is not the time to be trying something new and unnatural. IME, it comes down to fundamentals and giving each student something they can continue to work on. That's why I like associating elbows to the rear with the arm motion of running... a student could remember this and then practice it. When you give a seminar to women, what they can remember, they often will go home and practice the technique with their boyfriend or husband, etc. This extends the learning time passed the 2 hour seminar. Most boyfriends, for instance, would not let themselves be easily taken in cause that is a sign of weakness. They might likely call BS on the technique and prove that it DOESN'T work, then typically offer their girlfriend some advice on what works better... just like what many are doing on this thread. IMHO, this is the hard headed boyfriend with good intentions. How many here saw the video, then said it wouldn't work, then offered what they feel works better. Instead of in person, this is all going on in an Internet forum. However, this can lead to a lot of mixed messages to the woman or man interested in self-defense. What techniques actually work? With explosive aggression, almost anything can work for 3-7 seconds... then if they aren't down, you need to be exiting the area, getting backup, and getting a weapon. The alternative is finishing them off so they can't come after you. Best scenario might be they decide to run off (limp off is even better). Any technique, once the aggression moves to full intensity, after 3-7 seconds, are you in a better place than when you started, or are you not? Simple question to train for. After this, things get a lot more complex.
Monkeywench, In my limited live blade training, everything was done in slow motion. It was purely to set the proper mindset in realizing that the blade is real. First time I got a bit of adrenaline rushing through me too. There are a lot of bad habits people can develop when training only with training blades. Live blade training can help to enforce procedures used when training with non-live blades. Some people go faster, but that is because they have been training together for a long time. Sifu Jason actually stated in one of his posts that when they train with resistance they use TRAINING knives... (e.g. not live blades). I think some may have missed or misunderstood when he said this.
Kick to the face is a good one. When you train this, keep your hands up to protect your face because if you kick them hard in the hip track, it is likely your training partner will fall on top of you head first. You can get a nasty headbutt from them. You can also catch fingers in your eyes cause somethings their hands will extend out in front of them to break their fall. Anyway, you may find a lot of the time that kicking them in the hip track basically causes them to fall on you and now you are squished under the weight of them, instead of free to move around. You might also find that some movements like standing up in base and shrimping are much more difficult when you are on a soft surface like a couch, sofa, or bed.
appologies for initiating the off topic tangent. I think up-kicking the face is a perfectly valid idea but people need to be aware that a solitary foot on the hip is not going to be an affect barrier between you and another person... and that's how it was portrayed. You need at least two points of contact to maintain control and distance. In the instance of the hip check I'd say a hook on the opposite leg at least. I don't agree I think it is easy to evidence the fact that pressure testing applies to both the person and the technical theory behind a technique. pressure testing is an excellent way of refining the technical proceedure behind a technique. I believe you are drawing a false distinction between the two. They are both equally important. what do you mean? I pull off 'techniques' in a live environment every time I train. Insecure boyfriends aside, the whole point of a technique is that it should work against somebody who is not going to be 'easily taken in', right? As for mixed messages I think all it really does is provide a clear message that there is a lot of guff and nonsense peddled out there unde the banner of self defence. You need to be aware that what you are being told will work might not and that you need to face the reality of violence not the fantasy. So I'm not sure what you are saying... should we not call out nonsense when we see it? not necessarily. Many actions/choices/technique scan leave you totally screwed (not pun intended given the context of the thread) in that time. Yeah so by extension an ineffective technique based on a faulty premise is going to see you in a much worse position after 3-7 secs. Pressure testing will reveal this.
Right, I got all that. He did comment (and this might have been in an email to me) that he did other blade work with the person in that video. And he indicated he trained live blades with his Sifu. Hence my followup questions about how they do live blade work in general. I'm just trying to get a full picture. Or video... ; ) But still, the type of live blade training you are talking about sounds good in theory. But any little slip up could be serious or even fatal. Accidents happen regardless of rank/experience. Examples of this have been discussed in this thread. Just not worth the risk in my opinion. The types of scenario I can see using a live blade is in a sword kata/form demo. Even then to be done with extreme caution and by oneself. We should drag a couch into the dojo and try this out!
How can you test the technical theory behind a technique that a person is no good at? Say a person only has been shown for the first time how to do an arm bar, then you pressure test them under fire. How does this test the arm bar, all it shows is how well the person performs trying to do an arm bar under pressure. You come out of it learning more about the technique as a result. Rather than testing the technique, you are learning how to do the technique better... how to make it work and conversely if it doesn't work, you could come out of it learning how to better counter the technique. Well that's where I'm coming from. Yes, agreed. I'm just saying you got to start somewhere less than full out intensity to learn a technique and progress from there. Some techniques are much better for this and in a matter of less than an hour, it can be trained to an acceptable level. Some techniques are way too complex and those do not work for many. The videos did not show what really happens under fire, they were a demonstration. I think that is more true if we actually try to learn from the videos rather than attend the actual training. However, pointing out perceived flaws and dangerous assumptions, I'm 100% in agreement with you. Yes! This is what pressure testing is for, IMHO. You really do not have time to think about what you are going to do. You are going to do what comes natural or you aren't going to do anything. Either way, it is a learning experience.
No worries...it was a fine derail! And it was related to the video... Now with the attacker holding a knife, I'd hesitate to say grab that arm. But if you could get a hold of one arm/wrist and pummel the face/head with a leg that would be great. Pull (or at least hold for control) the arm while pushing with the leg. Now the question is would this be too advanced to show in a one-time demo.
The handgun disarms aren't rehearsed. We simply hold an airsoft gun at them at point blank range and have them attempt to counter. One person did it right, the other two didn't (which you can see in the video). By did it right, I mean used the basic principles/drills we espouse when working the very limited gun disarms that we do. It was mostly a pressure test.
Oh, we definitely state that fighting is a low-percentage option, for the exact reasons (size, etc) you mention. However, people are tired of going to seminars where they spend 2 hours being told to "not be in that situation" and "run away." Most people know that. People want to be exposed to some basic skills (and in the case of the single rape defense, not so basic) that might help their odds a bit. We then tell them to go train martial arts for a few years, and provide a list of options/school clubs they can go train at. Also, we have had a few incidences where we have heard back from people who took our seminar, and who ended up having to use it. Mostly knees to the balls and that hip push, but it worked.
In 2 hours, we do about 30-45 minutes of "talking" depending on the group. The rest is physical practice.
