Starting to mix it up a bit!!!

[travis quaas]

Ok,

It seems that the major portion of folks that are responding seem to know a lot about protecting themselves from knife attacks. Now it's time to pose another question...and yes Rex, you better respond to this one.



"The best defense is an offense." This statment was drilled into me in the military. I still believe that there is some validity to this. So, far I have learned the best way to defend myself in reference to a knife attack. But, how would I go about "attacking"? Mind you, I know that we want to defend ourselves, but am I the only one out there that says, "If that Mother ****** comes at me, they better be prepared to get a rain of hellfire on them..."? As I have stated before, I am not looking for a fight. My first option is to get myself out of a fight by running or de-escalating the situation with whatever I have (ie. humor, mock the Asians...so on so on) Sometimes WE do not mandate the situations, the question still stands, if an offense is better, how would I go about doing so?



AND THE RAMBLINGS GO ON AND ON AND ON....



TQ

[travis quaas]

Come on Rex,

I just saw you post a reply on another thread...get over here!!

TQ

[Rex G]

OK, I have just read this. Give me time; I am on a short break while at work, on my wireless modem. <img src="wink.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle border=0> In general, during a physical confrontation, it is best to make it your fight, and make the bad guy react to you, rather than vice versa. But, in the eyes of the law, it is better not to be seen as the aggressor. More on this later, and I hope others contribute also.

[Michael Janich]

Dear Travis:

Offense is built into the MBC defense. If you think about it, every defensive response begins with a potentially disabling cut to the attacker's weapon arm. Too often, knife tactics are allowed to degenerate into sloppy sparring. When the offense/defense lines get too blurred, it's easy to get tagged. However, when you remain committed to defending yourself and do it in a way that always attacks the nearest target with beody mechanics that are structurally more compact and effective than your attacker's, you're on a good offensive roll.

The next step in this process, which we really focus on in Level 3, is to shorten the timing of your strike to jam your attacker. In this way, he's still attacking, but he never quite gets there before he gets cut.

If you go much further than this, you can run into legal issues because you may be considered the aggressor. Of course, only you can make that call and the fact that you survived to call your lawyer means you did something right...

I hope this helps.

Stay safe,


mike j

I train in a system thats foundational priciples are based strictly in offense. In fact the use of the term 'defense' is discouraged. We are either in offensive mode of counter offensive. Which is actually more correct. As Mike stated a defensive response is to execute a debilitating 'attack' of some sort. It is hard IMO to be so in control of a chaotic exchange to pinpoint 'humane' cuts or thrusts. I'm not saying one shouldn't practice in this manner, it's just that it can be 'very' difficult to manifest in a chaotic moment. In our freeflow exercises(sparring), I've found myself in positions where I've taken a couple cuts on the back of the forearm or shoulder right off the bat, and knew in my head that I screwed up, and I'm most likely not going to last/live if I continue in defensive/counter only mode for much longer, and when I saw a window of opportunity, I placed a shot that would be very intense and permanently damaging(thrust to face/eyes). In replaying that I realized that though I could've been the victim in a 'real' engagment and actually played 'defensive' through a couple attacks that I ate, the one shot I gave the opponent would probably lead people/jury to think I'm the monster here.
I came to the conclusion that if I was the one intiating the attacks, I could've likely been more in control of where I placed intended 'disarming' attacks, instead of trying to react(which is always slower) and taking potentially disarming slashes/thrusts and ending up attacking any/all targets that open up.
Like with any strike, like a punch, what is the difference between an offensive punch and a defensive one? None. You should be executing it at the same speed, intensity, power either way, what it seems to boil down to is 'targeting'.
Was that horizontal slash down to the bone of the forearm of the weapon arm, or was it a disemboweling slash across the gut? Same motion, energy, speed, but 'peoples' perception of the damage will define what we do/did, regardless of our intent. So, perhaps the best way to train is to go highly offensive to defensive target zones. And as I said before, not an easy thing in a chaotic exchange. It truly is easier to just go for gold at evey open target regardless of how severe, in a super aggresive mode. But despite us being in a defensive/victim status, the courts and uninitiated citizens incapable of critical thinking and analysis from a non emotional POV will nail this kind of response in the worst way I'm sure.
Unless one is 'witnessed' to obviously protecting a family or grandma, and you were just walking late to your car in the lot, I think either party(s) involved will or can look just as guilty despite any precipitating acts before the physical engagement occurs. I know I'm not very optimistic about all this, but I truly feel that the 2 most likely outcomes of a weapon to weapon encounter is you get screwed and die in the engagement or you live and get screwed in the aftermath.
I guess this didn't help much, but just my point of view.

take care,
Ken

[Gray_Fallen]

Just my humble opinion on forward drive, and apply the principle of &quot;self offense&quot; - An essential part of all close combat, be it un-armed or armed, is the “Forward Drive”. An aggressive “assault” upon your attacker, forward motion and momentum going into each technique. This puts him on the defensive, and takes him off balance, physically and psychologically. He is now defending against you, and no longer attacking you. This doesn’t mean he has disengaged from the fight, because if he has you can no longer press your “attack”. He is still in the fight, but you are now controlling it. You are forcing him into unknown, unseen, quarters by pressing him backwards. By taking ground and being offensive in your defense you take the initiative, foster an aggressive spirit, and put your body in motion. This means when the immediate conflict ends, he goes down or disengages, you are already moving to either take on the next opponent, or make your escape to safer ground. It’s not a sport you’re engaged in, and the need for survival dictates that you have to take the dominant role to win. Since it is already going to be close, I want to have that advantage, I want to get on top of him (metaphorically) and take advantage of him. Now, if he stops fighting and disengages - it doesn’t matter if I have me teeth sunk into his ball sack, I'm going to disengage and get away from him. Then I will be defensive, I will separate from him, get back and give him the option to run - right them I am defensive, but if he comes at me again, re-starts the fight, I will again want to be the one in the dominant role, using my forward drive
If the fight finishes, I want to get away - my attacker may have buddies and they may come back. I am going somewhere that I can safely call the police, and tend to any wounds I may have gotten. If I am in &quot;forward drive&quot;, then I am already going - he disengages and I am already in movement, so I can get the hell out of there.
Assualtive movement and technique, not defensive, are key. If you defend you are only reacting to his actions, and a reaction is a submissive thing – by reacting we let him dictate the engagement. However if you attack you are acting, forcing him to react and to submit. If taken by surprise only your initial movements should be reaction, you should react only enough to set up your take off for action. If avoidance and de-escalation have failed and the fight is on, do you want to be the one who hits first, or reacts to the first hit? Exactly, you want to be acting, not reacting. This is preemptive striking, taking your opponent off balance and putting yourself immediately in a position of control. Preemptive striking is justified in a personal defense conflict when all other attempts to avoid, de-escalate and get away from the situation have failed, and you are now in reasonable fear of being harmed no matter what. Your action was from reasonable fears of immediate bodily harm to your person. If you just hit someone for being rude to you, that’s different.
We are justified in doing all it takes to save our lives, but not in doing more than that. Excessive force cannot be used – only force which is needed to end the conflict. You are not trying to do any specific thing to your attacker other than stop him. And that’s how you should phrase it when talking to the police, or to a prosecutor. If you say that “He was going to mug me with a knife, so I attacked him and killed him” you look like the bad guy. “He had the knife in his hand and I was afraid for my life, I just tried to stop him from hurting me” is a better response. I may think in different terms, but I would put things to the cops in a much better, more politically correct manner that explained why I feared for my safety enough to do whatever it was I did. This is not to imply that I would be deceitful, I would not - I would be perfectly honest. However on a day-to-day basis none of us actually speak in the same manner as we think. At work the other day there were some kids in the back making a ton of racket and a mess, I thought &quot;I wish those f*cking rugrats would shut the hell up and behave.” but when I went back to ask them to calm down I said &quot;Please calm down, you're making a lot of noise and disturbing other patrons, and someone might get hurt if you keep roughhousing.&quot; Same idea, hold to the truth of the matter - just phrase it in a fashion that isn’t abrasive.
Argument may be made for this “assualtive mindset” using clich&#233; terms “the best defense is a good offense”, “a proven maxim of war is to always take ground”, and citing that military operations often use pre-emptive striking and a large scale “forward drive”. In fact I have often cited Col. Rex Applegate and Maj. W.E. Fairbairn for this purpose, as most in the self-defense community are familiar with them and can easily associate them with personal close combat. I’ve encountered argument against that saying that military trainers such as Applegate have no bearing on personal self-defense other than basic technique. However Applegate worked for the military only for a small part of his illustrious and multi-decade career. It is documented that he applied the same principles he taught in the military in his own cases of personal defense later in life - and he died an old man in his own home without a criminal record.

The way a thug attacks, and this can be seen over and over, is in a manner that immediately dictates little to no range. Odds are that you will be fighting to get your knife drawn, and that even once you get that knife out, he will still be coming at you tooth and nail. Because of that I feel, and justify, the need to come back at him tooth and nail and give him everything I can that the conflict merits until he either breaks and runs, passes out, or dies. As I said before, which of those happens is his choice. I see no reason to defend, no reason when I know he is going to keep striking me, to wait for him to do so and then react to his action. I would rather act, before he can, so that he is forced to react. If this means controlling his knife arm with my weak arm, bending him down and kneeing him in the ribs five or six times to make him drop his knife and give up, then that’s what it means. If it means wrapping his knife arm, and stabbing him a few times to make him stop, then that’s what it means. If I know without a doubt he is two heartbeats away from smacking me in the kisser, then I will take the in between heartbeat to hit him. Pre-emptive striking is a valuable tool and an essential part of a “forward drive mindset”. If you've already tried to leave the situation, already tried to de-escalate, and now its come down to two seconds and he'll hit you - I say hit him first. That one hit might take the fight right out of him.
“Forward Drive” does not mean using unnecessary force, or pursuing them if they try to run - it means doing reasonable things to them, to make them stop, it is simply not defensive, it is forward aggression. It is taking the fight to them, putting them at a disadvantage, and stopping them. And this is whether they have a box cutter, a folding knife, a lead pipe, a broken beer bottle or a baseball bat. It’s not just a knife on knife conflict – it is all conflict. If it is an un-armed conflict, the attitude is the same. Once awareness fails, once de-escalation fails, once running fails, or if it is not an option, do everything possible to survive, and stop an attack.

[Rex G]

Hey, I am back, but once again in a hurry. I agree with Michael's response. I have not had time to read the others yet. One important issue in any defensive confrontation is how it is perceived by witnesses. Watch what you say, to minimize the chance that a witness will perceive you as the bad guy. I am not saying that the defender should lapse into a Shakespearean soliloquy, because it is very difficult to talk and fight at the same time. Personal example: Witnesses heard me say &quot;Back off!&quot; and &quot;Drop the knife!&quot; before they heard my gunshot. They then heard me yell &quot;You stupid ************, WHY did you make me have to shoot you?!&quot; as I stood over him. All of this was unrehearsed, and to this day I do not recall saying anything before I fired the shot. It would have been better, of course, if I had not used any profanity, but at least the context of my words was that I did not want to shoot him.

[travis quaas]

Let me see here,

I have heard someone say, &quot;Your attacker can walk forward faster than you can walk backward.&quot; (hint hint last name of the person that said this starts with a &quot;J&quot<img src="wink.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle border=0>.

That is one thing that I didn't think about. For every past, meet and follow I do, I am incorporating an offensive motion. Oooo I like that. Great points brought up by KenN and Rex G.

In your experiences (I for one have never been on the receiving end of a knife or stick fight)do most of the knife, stick and empty hand fights end up on the ground? I have always been wondering about this. I know that there are a lot of folks out there that have training that keeps them off the ground. But, for those that have this type training, can you think of the pro's and con's of going to the ground? This is kinda loaded, but, with as many people out there that have had experiences and training for fights on the ground and standing, which do you seem to be the better option and why? This would be one person against one other person. Thanks in advance.

TQ

My curriculum adamantly prefers to avoid going to the ground in a blade on blade scenario. We have an aggressive(simple but comprehensive) system of footwork that aids in controlling space/distance to make the most of power stroke and thrust body mechanics against the opponent. That is assuming we aren't in a shoulder width hallway.
Only in freeflow sparring have I gotten into a grapple with training knife(s), and every time, it ended with both people pretty much pumping their blades into oblivion into the other guy. Unless, one person is willing to submit and not resist much, or is not trained to squirrel and slither big time out of even a slight grapple, both people will be be butchering each other, cause there really isn't anything else either can do at that point. Everytime I got into a (ground)grapple with my partner, he was immediately trying to smother/immobilize/lock, whatever my weapon hand or arm, so the main way for me to avoid that is to blast into pointblank attacks, not slowing for an instant. If I slowed for an instant he'd trap/lock and that would be it for me. Thing was I too was doing the exact same thing simultaneously, trap/lock up his weapon arm while blasting your own attacks to avoid getting trapped and to just flat out deanimate him asap. It's just ugly and I'd avoid that scenario with everything I've got. Knife grappling is practiced, but is a serious no-no to get into that position at all.
The only time we would advance into grappling range, standing or ground, is after we've disarmed the weapon from them, or inflicted a serious disabling strike that would give us the time and space to apply a grapple, never as an initial tactic.

I'm speaking strictly when facing a fast, small blade(regardless of whether you have one too). With blunt/impact class of objects, they can be used as leverage devices among other things, and getting that close might have advantages, but the thing about blunt levers, is that control over it can reverse and be turned on you very quickly if you don't know what you are doing, or if they are just better. With a knife, bowie or long blade, it's not likely the opponent will grab the blade and leverage it out of your hand or lock it up while holding on to a blade, but with a baton it's more likely.
IMO, stay out of grapples unitl the advantage is definitely yours by disarming them or disabling them with strikes at distance first.

I've on very rare occations stripped the trainer knife from my partners hand(usually accidentally), and had the opportunity to move into a grapple, but he is a bit bigger and a wrestling coach and grappler outside of knifework, so I never shoot in on him knowing I could still be in trouble even though I'm the only one armed. But on the street how would you know who is what and not?
Stay safe at distance, do as much damage as possible there, because you have the most amount of control over your own body(positioning) there, and probably have the most open windows to just bolt and run with no one smothering and locking you up where the only option is to nonstop blast attacks at anything and everything.

take care,
Ken

[Joe Talmadge]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:<hr height=1 noshade> if an offense is better, how would I go about doing so? <hr height=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2>

Kind of a broad question, doncha think? <img src="smile.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle border=0> Seriously, the answer you're looking for comes with training -- whether it's full-on sparring or combative-type drills, hands-on is the way to learn how to open up and exploit a weakness in someone's defense, it's the best way to learn to move fast, smooth, explosively, and without telegraphing. I'm just a beginner when it comes to knife stuff, but that's a general statement about martial arts period.

Since I took MBC I've been training in two FMAs. One of them has moves that are very similar to MBC, though it's a tad more aggressive (we tend to go for vital targets after the initial snake defanging). The other is really offense-minded ... a description that I've heard that makes me smirk because it's pretty apt is: &quot;most martial arts ask, how do you defend yourself empty-handed against the knife? In our art, you're the guy with the knife.&quot; Very different offensive philosophy.

[travis quaas]

Sorry Joe,
I kept the question as broad as the members on this forum on purpose. I was hoping that a question like that would offer more answers from the diverse group we have here. Take a look at the past posts...I'm seeing terms in them that I have never heard before. I ask the broad question, I get many responses, my education increases at a higher rate than if I asked a 'yes' or 'no' question. I thank you for the criticism...I'll try to be less &quot;broad&quot;.

It keeps ringing in my mind the same scenario KenN describes. The mutual slicing and poking of the attacker and the defender. I'm just wondering if you have experienced any technique that has taught you a good option in reference to (in particular) knife or stick fight? For example, when I go through the 6 count drill that Vince, Justin, and Mr. Janich taught me, I seem to always prefer moving my body to get on the &quot;outside&quot; of my opponent. Also, it seems that I see other folks that are versed in MBC to lock the elbow of the attacking angle 1 or 3 (obviously locking after the follow through) and step to the outside. I think that I would look for that in a knife or stick attack. Is there a specific tactic that you prefer? If you have other training, please share, you would be helping me protect myself...Thanks Joe...I knew you would understand. <img src="tongue.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle border=0>

TQ

Edited by - travis quaas on 9/12/2003 10:43:51 PM

[Joe Talmadge]

Travis -- the original smiley indicated I was just teasing you, although I have to confess I still don't know exactly what you're asking. In any case, I'll tell you about a couple of the drills I use to hone some of the skills I'm trying to develop.

One drill is a continual attack. The bad guy comes one with a full-toot attack, continuous offense without worrying about defense (in reality, probably closer to a realistic street attack than technical sparring is). The bad guy does not stop his attack until the good guy forces him to stop, and &quot;kills&quot; him or escapes. As the good guy gets better, the bad guy increases the intensity of his attacks -- it's also an opportunity for the bad guy to practice his offense to some extent. The drill almost always ends the same way -- the good guy traps the bad guy's arm and kills the bad guy or turns him around and runs away, or the good guy wraps up the bad guy's arm (as if in mid-#1 stroke) and kills him, usually taking a stab or two in the shoulder or back for his trouble. I'm trying to get good at both the trapping and the locking up, you have to take whichever opportunity presents itself as quickly as possible.

Another good drill is to pick a low number -- say 3. The bad guy will come at the good guy with 3 hard, fast, committed attacks. The good guy defends all three (including working in defanging, etc.), then wraps up the bad guy and finishes him. Again, I like this drill becaue it's not unrealistic tit-for-tat knife dueling, the bad guy is coming in full.

One thing I haven't worked into trianing yet, but plan to, is to add a fencing mask to our drills. the advanced fighters say that shots to the face are amazing for stopping the rhythm of an attack and opening up huge gaping holes in the opponent's defense ... but obviously you need pretty serious face protection to add that into your drills.

[travis quaas]

Joe,
I gotcha now...sorry for the mis-understanding. JUST TO KEEP YOU INFORMED...I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I AM ASKING. Let me re-clarify.

1) Have you trained using a knife as an attacker and defender?
2) Have you trained using a knife in the standing position?
3) Have you trained using a knife while taking someone to the ground?

(all above with a training knife I hope)

If yes to all those questions above, which was your preference? Standing or taking someone to the ground. What I am looking for is the preferred tactics of everyone here. More confusing, or should I stope while I am BEHIND? Thanks again Joe.

TQ

Edited by - travis quaas on 9/13/2003 2:38:16 PM

[Jimd]

Most of the knife fights I've seen or had experience with did not go immediately to the ground.

Most often, the victim reacts by trying to get away, often by running.

Occasionally, there have been instances of two inmates going at it, each armed with his own knife. In such cases, both parties became fairly butchered up.

Knife fighting is a very dicey (no pun intended) business. There are no absolutes, and that's a fact. You can train 12 hours a day, 365 days a year and still be sliced up during a knife attack.

I recently had a debate with a knife maker (Kevin McLung from Mad Dog Knives). He claimed that he could face me while I had a knife, let me make the first move, and absolutely guarantee that he'd stick the knife in my throat. He claimed all this without knowing me or my background, or capabilities.

Such an attitude is bound to eventually bring on disaster, because he's going to meet someone who's a tad bit quicker, and then he'll be lying on the stainless steel table in the regrigerator room.

I've never met the man (no loss there, obviously) and never intend to. I just think mentioning the incident is illustrative of the wacked-out attitudes that are out there.

Sniper -- One Shot, One Kill Email: ST8PEN01@aol.com

Travis,
The tactic of controlling the weapon bearing elbow on the 'outside' at extreme close quarters is not only effective, but one of the only things you can do if they still retain their blade/weapon, from coming back with any number of backhand attacks. Your targets are many with their arm compressed against their chest(momentarily of course), obviously you got the torso, but also the armpit and also if they've retained their weapon, you can continue to cut/slash that (fore)arm until they drop it. Secondary targets in that position might be the face up high, or deep into the thigh for down low, if you can manage a foot trap at that point, you can drive that elbow through and down and dump them to the ground.

Generally, in any MBC system, the role of the feeder or attacker in any and all drills is just as important and revealing/educational as being the defender. Some students don't realize how important it is to be a good attacker not just for their partner, but for their own offensive honing as well. If your partner is constantly going 'wide' or 'off' target because they are afraid of hitting you, both of you are actually losing out, and wasting each others time. ALL training attacks should be executed with control, conviction and to the designated target point. Otherwise, one develops reflexive body mechanics that misses the mark on attacks and counterattacks under pressure.

Hope some of that helps.

take care,
Ken

[Ray]

[Quote} Travis Quaas&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Ok,
It seems that the major portion of folks that are responding seem to know a lot about protecting themselves from knife attacks. Now it's time to pose another question
[Quote}


I'm in the &quot;untrained&quot; minority but wanted to express my (limited) thoughts on a couple points.

If I may,

The best defense is a &quot;good&quot; offense. This sounds great and is a good general agressive attitude but it seems to me that in a blade on blade kinda deal, A good defense is better that a good offense. By that I mean that one should cut without being cut (or stabbed) It's not very good defense if you both die...Does this make sense?

Thanks for the cool topic!

Ray

Ray
'Offensive' means ones strategic mode of action, or kind of like you said attitude.
It means taking the initiative and going on the attack rather than waiting to see what the attacker does(which will always put them ahead in timing, and forcing you the defender to play catch-up). Going on offensive doesn't mean to strike with disregard to ones own safety. It's common sense to strike or counter strike only when the risk of being countered is at it's lowest. And yes, those windows are fractions of an instant in most cases, but with training one can see and do more in those small windows(or that is what we shoot for anyway), that's where fakes, baits, and false telegraphs sometimes get used.

Defensive mind set is simply the one of 'wait and see' what they do mode. The main problem with that is what if they are faster and don't care about getting cut/stabbed in trade? There is no telling what this stranger is capable of, and by the time you discovered they can lunge a huge distance and pop the first shot across your eyes and flow into several follow through strikes, it's basically over.

In either mode, one tries to preserve thier own safety before, during and after thier attack or counter attack. Not too many systems out their trains it's students to 'trade' shots. It's not like boxing where you train to take glancing shots or deflect the blade off your head/shoulder/body, you just can't do that with weapons. Alot of the body mechanics can be similar to boxing, but just in a more exaggerated fashion to not get touched by the opponents weapon(blade, stick or hands)at all.

Yes, striking while getting struck is very bad. Not a good way to train IMO. I do reiterate though, back to Travis' grapple question, sometimes you simply have no choice but to attack faster and harder without stopping with disregard to what damage you are taking. A scenario we should all train to avoid alltogether.

take care,
Ken