All the training in the world still doesn't make it a smart decision. You only have to make a mistake once, or be a split second slow, to pay the ultimate price.
Consider the thief's motivator is obviously money. Once he has it, anything else is just extra work for him (assuming mental stability). In that case, then the Israeli soldier has no choice but to engage.
I've learned a little bit of knife work from a very good Philipino knife fighter. He did a demo of what he calls the ultimate knife defense (he claims a 100% success rate in both practice and on the street):
A student held up the knife and demanded his wallet. Guro took his wallet out slowly, and tossed it behind the student at an angle (i.e., didn't scare him by throwing it directly). The student bent to retrieve the wallet; when he looked away, Guro turned and ran out the door screaming "help, police, he's got a knife!"
He actually clarified that you should only yell for the police if you are in a place where help is likely to arrive quickly (as well as several other clarifications). I skipped the caveats and clarifications since they would mess up the pacing of the story.
> You only have to make a mistake once, or be a split second slow, to pay the ultimate price.
The difference in skill is so important though. My best mate is into Aikido - some of the masters he's trained with wouldn't flinch if threatened with a gun. It's no threat to them.
There is the famous story of the Aikido founder who claimed to be able to dodge bullets - and did so, once dodging an entire firing squad. One of his students invited a game hunter to come and try hit him: the master accepted the challenge and stood opposite the hunter. Hunter stands there holding rifle, swings it up to shoot and the Master dives to the ground shouting "stop stop".
When they asked him why he'd given up he said:
"that man does not aim"
He'd met his match and bowed out.
The same lesson applies. The smart move may be to hand over the money - but if you assess the smarter move is to disarm him then you should do so.
Also; waiting for an attack or more stress is the worst thing to do. If you have the element of surprise it is a big advantage.
> Consider the thief's motivator is obviously money.
Often this is not the case - especially in South America. If your mugger has a gun your probably dead. A knife? Depends where you are.
> You only have to make a mistake once, or be a split second slow, to pay the ultimate price.
Again: if your confident and the odds stack up just go for it.
Disarming a knife holder is pretty easy and unless they are really good with it then your unlikely to get badly hurt if your on the offensive.
Wow, no, not even close. I mean no disrespect, but I think you need to reassess reality.
There is a lot of bullshit in martial arts claims. Being able to dodge bullets, is obviously one of them. Its not impossible to disarm a guy with a gun or knife, people spend their lives practicing it. But execution is a whole different ball game. You either succeed, or you die.
If it matters, I train in brazilian jiu jitsu and boxing 4-5 days a week. In boxing, you can be highly skilled and duck, slip, and bob and weave punches. But if you become so cocky you decide to drop your hands and rely on your reflexes, you will be caught by even the worst fighters.
Disarming a knife holder is NOT easy. Get a rubber knife, give it to your friend, and tell him to play robber. You'll get stabbed.
A good visual for that exercise is to skip the rubber knife; give your friend a marker. Pretend that's a knife and try to disarm him.
When you're done, count up the marks and see how many times you'd have been cut and where. Even without taking into account the edge of the fictional knife, it's a pretty damning visual.
(Also: with a standard rubber knife, too many of the hits during the exercise won't be noticed or remembered by either party.)
It is. I have been trained in unarmed combat and it is relatively easy with a little training. I personally would be confident of disarming, with minimal or no injury, someone unfamiliar in handling a knife.
The first thing to remember is that if you take and maintain control of their wrist it is very hard for them to attack you - and harder to actually do serious damage. Usually they then focus on trying to regain control of the knife - at which point you either reach over with a spare hand and pressure point them into releasing the knife or you hit the solar plexus or whatever is within easy reach - really hard.
EDIT: personally I would drive the heel of your hand into their jaw. It's an easy hit, hard to dodge (as you have their wrist) and big impact.
> There is a lot of bullshit in martial arts claims. Being able to dodge bullets, is obviously one of them.
Agreed. I think the Hunter story is probably a parable - but Morehei Ueshiba did dodge bullets according to historical accounts [1]. Note that dodging bullets here means he read their body signals and moved out of the path he knew the bullets were going to travel. Still good timing though. Body signal reading is one of the basics of Aikido.
> But if you become so cocky you decide to drop your hands and rely on your reflexes, you will be caught by even the worst fighters.
Ah... boxing. No disrespect intended here but boxers do get so cocky :D And your right that's where it fails.
Martial arts is about discipline. It also trains you not to use reflexes. ever That will get you killed.
This comes back to where I mentioned above that waiting to be attacked is the worst move: because you do then have to rely on reflexes to respond. If your attacking your always ahead of your opponent (unless they are also skilled)
My personal survival training highlighted one thing: the mantra in a situation where your going to have to fight is - Be first, Be sudden, Be brutal.
It is. I have been trained in unarmed combat and it is relatively easy with a little training. I personally would be confident of disarming, with minimal or no injury, someone unfamiliar in handling a knife.
No, it isn't easy. I'm no expert, but I have been taught by a couple of experts. A 95% success rate is good. It's also really crappy odds when the other guy is trying to stab you.
Plus, you don't really know if the other guy is unfamiliar or not.
Someone I know who actually is very good with a knife had the following experience: someone broke into his home and attacked him with a knife. After getting stabbed once, he did successfully disarm his attacker and stabbed him. The attacker pulled out another knife and stabbed him again!
(Eventually the attacker fled after being stabbed a few times as well.)
> someone broke into his home and attacked him with a knife.
Key point: he was under attack. This lowers your odds quite a bit.
Once your friend was wounded (I hope he was ok!) things go massively against him.
The aim is to suddenly and brutally disarm your opponent and then disengage. Leaving him either senseless or unsure what happened (and you out of range of a new attack).
> Plus, you don't really know if the other guy is unfamiliar or not.
I've dealt with this elsewhere - it's mostly about body language and if your trained you can note the signals.
Oops accidentally upvoted you. I know it's not as polite as pointing when you accidentally downvote someone, but your series of posts just seems so unrealistic, dangerous and immature that I didn't want to endorse it.
Like I said, you can train all you want and have the best training in the world. It still doesn't make it a smart decision to try and engage a robber with a knife.
My boxing point was: you pay for your mistakes. The penalty for your mistakes in boxing is a punch. In a knife fight, the penalty is severely amplified. And thats a risk you could totally avoid by NOT pushing the confrontation.
So full circle: just because you're trained and think you can take on a knife wielding robber, doesn't mean you should.
> In a knife fight, the penalty is severely amplified.
Unlilkely. This is another point: doing serious damage with a knife is tough (and by serious I mean life threatening). Even if you screw up and take a hit it is unlikely to be serious (or lose you the fight).
And if your going to take a more serious hit you shouldn't be trying it :)
> just because you're trained and think you can take on a knife wielding robber, doesn't mean you should.
It means you should judge the situation and you have the serious option.
"Gun and knife robberies are equally like to result in serious injury.
The fatality rate in gun robberies is three times that of knife
robberies.
(Cook, J of Criminal Law and Criminology 78:357-76)"
Personally, I am not willing to risk even serious damage from a knife for the sake of whatever valuables I am carrying in a situation where I may be robbed. I cannot imagine being in possesion of more than about $500 worth of stealable, uninsured equipment in any situation where someone with a knife can take me by surprise.
Yes, I've done various martial arts - I've even practiced with sharps - but it really does not make sense to tkae the extra risk. If you know that you will be attacked anyway, this is different.
> I think that your point about taking serious damage from a knife fight is wrong.
It's.... complex.
Part of my point is that if your trained and attacking it's hard for them to do serious injury without being skilled themselves.
small knives will do damage to your abdomen (it's hard to hit there anyway) but aren't likely to be fatal (unless of course you dont get help). A knife wound to the lower back doesn't have to be deep to kill you fast.
Slashes can be worse in some areas than others (e.g. belly slashes are worse than stabs if deep enough).
If your opponent has a carving knife you need to consider options. On on hand it is less wieldy and they are unlikely to be able to stab you. But it's also longer and the chances of getting knicked or catching a slash are higher.
With a short knife your reasonably ok if you can get their wrist.
If they have a machete or anything really long like that your made. :)
Unlikely!? Doing damage with a knife is tough? Yeah, 4 inches of steel in your chest is no problem, lol, walk it off.
Final point: There may be a time in my life where I get robbed with a knife wielder. I'll assess the situation, and I might even take action. But it'll still be the stupidest decision of my life, and I might have to pay for it.
ErrantX, you must be some sort of superman. I hope to God, for your sake, that no one armed maniac ever tries to rob you. Goooood night, take care.
> Unlikely!? Doing damage with a knife is tough? Yeah, 4 inches of steel in your chest is no problem, lol, walk it off.
It would hurt quite a bit yea.
Any knife fighter will also tell you that hitting a skilled opponent there is bloody hard :)
Bearing in mind how an unskilled person will almost certainly hold the knife (pointed straight at you) them hitting you in the chest requires a serious fuck up on your part :) There are 2 defence options (lets assume a right handed attacker):
1. Side step the knife on their off-body side (so they have no way to swing their arm at you without reversing grip - which will take too long). Take their hand in a standard grip (I'll dig out some pictures later) with your right hand and pull the knife/arm "forward" (i.e. into the place you were just standing). Reverse left elbow into their face to stun them, pull left hand forward to pressure point a knife released. This should take 2 or 3 seconds at most. They will either be on their knees behind you (kick the knife away btw) in which case you can push them sideways (not forward - that will put them potentially near the knife) and put them into a lock. If they are still stood you could do all manner of things.
2. If your better and prefer a more violent approach you can step onto their on-side inside their arm. Take the wrist in a lock with your left hand and push outwards (let them bend the arm up if they try too, it gives little extra leverage). Hit them really hard in one of the open spots on their body with your right. Preffered hit is the heel of the hand into the kneck just under the jaw. Disadvantage is a) it might break their neck and b) often they will put their head down. Side of the neck is probably your next best target. Again this should take seconds.
> There may be a time in my life where I get robbed with a knife wielder. I'll assess the situation, and I might even take action. But it'll still be the stupidest decision of my life, and I might have to pay for it.
Are you trained in unarmed defence? Have you practiced disarming knife holders? Are you able to react instantly and violently?
If the answer to any that is less than a Yes then you, clearly, shouldn't be doing this. And I've never said otherwise.
The Israeli in the OP clearly was a Yes for all of those. I am confident I am enough of a yes to take on unskilled combatants like the one sketched out in the OP.
And I have been held at knife point. At that time someone else took action but I was prepared too if needed.
2 or 3 seconds at most? You're describing a kung-fu movie series of moves where you execute this complicated dance and the other dude just goes with it, cause he's a sparring partner.
Sounds like you've been through some training, you can probably take a glancing punch without having it stun you too bad, but you think getting nicked by a knife in the process is gonna leave you good odds of recovering and winning the fight? In real world fights, the first serious hit usually wins, you don't have training at fighting while stabbed, your body will react on it's own and the guy will probably stab you again.
As some people said upthread, even if you think you have 90% odds, it's stupid to fight someone with a knife.
> you don't have training at fighting while stabbed,
I've done a small amount of training against low power tazers (the kins that numb you a bit but don't take you down). A knife would certainly hurt more but adrenaline can keep you moving.
> 2 or 3 seconds at most? You're describing a kung-fu movie series
Afraid not. Go on a couple of serious self defence training classes (the ones for, say, security guards working in war zones). They will teach you pretty much the same things; the manouvere's are designed to give you maximum dominance in the fight.
It's not really a fight; your moving so fast it's over in seconds (hopefully).
The chances of "winning" the physical fight could be insanely high, but it'd still make more sense to first try cooperation, to see if you could avoid the knife fight entirely.
I've been reading your posts on this thread with fascination. Where exactly were you trained, if I might ask? The streets of Compton? No offense intended, it's just that "heavily injured by a baseball bat during training" doesn't sound like national military to me...
Some initial training in the uk with the military. A little in Brazil (that was more for fun) and a week in India. The last was where I got brained with the bat. My fault. It was the last day and I tripped while practicing defence.
I find it somewhat hilarious that you had a clear demonstration that accidents can happen in fights, yet you still advocate escalating to violence before verifying if the violence can be avoided altogether.
I hope his overconfident demeanor isn't giving you ideas about "winning" knife fights. It's very easy to talk tough. Not getting stabbed is a lot harder.
I'm responding just because what you are writing about is dangerous, and your unwarranted confidence is irresponsibly influencing impressionable people.
Dan Inosanto used to run (and maybe still does) knife defense courses for, among others, police officers.
The rule of thumb is that in knife-vs-gun situations, if your gun is holstered, the magic number to not die is 15 FEET. If a knife-wielding attacker is within 15 feet of you, trying to race him by drawing your gun to shoot him is more likely to end with you getting stabbed.
> A knife would certainly hurt more but adrenaline can keep you moving.
...And then you bleed to death.
> I guess my training revolved around the idea that the you should never surrender an advantage if you have it.
Being ALIVE is the real advantage. "Winning" a fight doesn't mean anything when you're going into shock on the way to the hospital.
Even if you beat someone up and escape without a scratch, the guy's buddies might kill you in your hotel room two years later.
I agree - this has got out of hand. And the last thing I would want is to get someone hurt by suggesting they should try it..
However, the kinds of techniques described here can keep you alive in tough countries. Everyone seemed to be expressing the opinion that the guy described in the OP was idiotic or dangerous - Im trying to simply put across information I know that counterpoints that view.
It is. I have been trained in unarmed combat and it is relatively easy with a little training. I personally would be confident of disarming, with minimal or no injury, someone unfamiliar in handling a knife.
I'm afraid you don't understand the difference between a partner in training who is offering resistance, and a person who is actually trying to hurt you.
A lot of arts make it look a lot easier than it really is but it is also not as impossible as others in this thread seems to believe.
The main trick is accepting the fact that you are going to get hurt. Get past that then you can focus on minimizing that hurt by taking the other guy out as fast as possible.
[aside]
It can be a lot of fun to play with this with a buddy. Go to staples and get a 12-pack of coloured sharpies. Your buddy gets a sharpie and you get nothing. Spar with your buddy with him/her seriously trying to mark you (none of that "telegraphed motion" crap most people use in regular practice). You win the round if you make your buddy drop the "knife" or he ends up on the ground with you still standing. Your buddy wins if she marks you in any one of [your core, neck, back of your knee, hamstring, inside of arm] or marks you more than twice anyplace else. Use a different colour each round so it's easier to keep track.
After you use all the colours, switch roles.
[/aside]
Note that the OP had a highly trained unarmed vs an incompetent knife. That's way easier.
Most people aren't saying it's impossible. I'm not.
In practice, I can actually do fairly well against unskilled people. I can disarm/stab them maybe 50-60% of the time, unarmed vs knife. The highly skilled people can win 90-95% of the time against newbies, 80% of the time against me.
I've never indicated making that assumption though. Ive discussed your response to a robber who you judge to be unskilled.
As I mentioned in the first post I indicated this is usually obvious (if they are skilled/unskilled) and if you are trained you will recognize this.
The easiest pointer is how they hold the knife - if they havge it out in front of them (pointed at you) they are probably unskilled. Skilled handlers will hold the knife at their side a few inches from their body pointed away from you at a 30 degree angle.
Unskilled handlers will also glance at the knife a lot (you can use this - time your attack to their glancing).
If the robber is skilled then, clearly, you need to make a different assessment
(and I guess then it comes down to "is he planning to attack me")
You're repeatedly making the claim that you can differentiate, with near 100.00% accuracy, between street fighters who can and can not fight effectively (or get lucky in this one fight).
That strikes me as bad math.
(and I guess then it comes down to "is he planning to attack me")
On this we agree. If there is clearly going to be an attack, then figuring out an optimal fight strategy is wise. But if there is an option not to have an attack, that seems even better.... even if you're confident that you have a 100.00% accurate ability to differentiate between superior/lucky and inferior/unlucky opponents.
Im not sure how I give that impression.. I've deliberately tried not too.
You gave it by saying things like:
If your well trained and you are happy that your assailant is unskilled then it makes sense to take action :)
Anyway, I think the biggest difference in our standpoints is that I've been robbed at knifepoint.
In the moment, all I could really think was that I wanted to be around for my wife and kids far more than I gave a shit about anything else, so I decided, in the moment, that I'd engage only if it seemed like a physical attack was inevitable. I tossed the wallet, and avoided the attack.
I was, and still am, happy with the result. And I will continue to disagree with those (such as yourself) who advocate fighting simply when you think you'll win, drawing the line instead at fighting when there are no other viable options.
Which isn't trying to imply 100% accuracy of prediction. It's saying if your happy that your assessment is that he's unskilled is accurate then do it. If your not, then I guess it depends on the person what you want to do.
I see you mentioned elsewhere you were learning boxing and karate when you were mugged. Im not aware that any of those disciplines give you suitable training in disarming a knife wielder. So you made the right choice IMO.
Waiting till your forced to fight is, IMO, the worst move. If your able to disarm the guy all your doing is sacrificing a part of your advantage. (if your not able to disarm him then, yeh, clearly co-operation then trying your best if attacked is the best policy).
That mugger had all the signs of being a drug addict trying to get the money for his next fix. Here in São Paulo, professional criminals specialize in items with a better payoff, like laptops and motorcycles, and they rarely, if ever, act alone. Sometimes, only one approaches the victim, while his backup stands a few meters away.
It is. I have been trained in unarmed combat and it is relatively easy with a little training. I personally would be confident of disarming, with minimal or no injury, someone unfamiliar in handling a knife.
The 'minimal' is where your analysis goes completely out of the window. Wounds hurt; being hurt throws you off. Even a relatively undeep scratch with a knife can disable your hand. You can be trained all you want: you are not trained in fighting with a knife wound: when hurting and bleeding. This is why martial arts teachers all over the world tell their students: the best defense from a weapon is to run. If the change of getting hurt is 1%, it is too large. Hand over the money and run.
Actually, I've always held that the best defense against anything is to get your own weapon and attack like crazy. There's always one around: coffee mug, large rock, laptop, broom.
Muggers, etc. rely on people doing what they're told. The "victim" immediately going on the offensive is the last thing they want. Sure, attacking your attacker has to be a calculated move, but if you think you're going to be killed or injured anyway, you have nothing to lose, so go for it and don't stop until he's a bleeding pulp on the ground.
In my other posts I talk about an important mantra: Be first, Be sudden, Be brutal. You should be able to take down the assailant before any wound would take affect.
If you cant do that then your not properly trained and you shouldn't be trying it :)
I cant speak for martial arts directly because my training is military/civilian response based.
My best mate is into Aikido - some of the masters he's trained with wouldn't flinch if threatened with a gun. It's no threat to them.
That's a ridiculous statement. If someone has a gun pointed at you and is outside of kicking, punching or grabbing range, you are always a split second away from death. All gun disarms have one thing in common: you have to be close enough to touch the man with the gun. In the moment it takes to move into a range, they can pull the trigger.
Depends on the gun and the range and what cover is available. Certainly they are unlikely to be hit with the first shot unless the shooter is skilled (this is always the key bit).
If you can close fast enough after their first shot the only real risk is the closest few yards.
Aikido masters sometimes demonstrate this with paint guns - I've seen people make maybe 20 feet (sometimes they are hit, usually nowhere fatal) and take down their opponent.
Have you ever tried to hit an Aikido master? It's an amazing experience because it is pretty much impossible for anyone below their skill levels. They train to watch body signals and are already avoiding your punch before you actually move.
Same applies to the gun (within reasonable limits). They can see where you are pointing it, where you intend to fire and have easily 1-2 seconds (if not more) on you when you start to pull the trigger. 1-2 seconds sounds like nothing but couple it with the time to pull the trigger and for the weapon to fire you easily have time to move out of the path.
Consider the thief's motivator is obviously money. Once he has it, anything else is just extra work for him (assuming mental stability). In that case, then the Israeli soldier has no choice but to engage.