Self-defense Against a Knife: Myths, Fantasies and How to Stay Alive, Part One

By: Ari Kandel
Submitted: 2007-01-17 16:26:25
Print this article | Tell a friend | For publisher |

Rating:

 

"Knife defense" (actually, "defense against weapons" in general, but let’s stick to knives/shanks/little pointy things for now), as trained these days in most martial arts/self-defense schools, and even in many (but not all) "Reality-Based" ones, is more entertainment than life-saving training.

The Artistic Method: What Does This have to Do With Violence? Let’s eliminate from consideration up front all the thousands of schools where the "armed attacker" brandishes a knife, cocks it at the hip, then lunges forward in a single, committed thrust… then waits or falls off balance while the "defender" performs (yes, it is a performance, as artistic and false as anything on Broadway) the prescribed technique. Of course, that’s Knife Attack #1. Knife Attack #2 would have a similar dynamic, only the knife is held in the ice pick grip, and the thrust comes down from waaaaay overhead to where the "defender" can best perform the counter technique. Wonderful performance, elegant, good fun.

Now, some schools, the ones that purport to take "knife fighting" seriously, expand the number of prescribed knife attacks or "angles". Instead of two, you may get five, or twelve, or over 100 (at least from what I’ve seen)! And of course, you must practice your techniques against every angle. While you start out practicing each angle and defense technique in isolation, with the knife attack freezing conspicuously at its apex to allow the counter to work, eventually things go a little faster, and the "feeder" (that’s actually an official designation of the "attacker" in this version of the drama) starts feeding the angles out of sequence, without telling the "defender" . . . except insofar as the feeder cocks the blade in the prescribed starting position for each attack before launching it, even at high speed (can you say "pattern recognition"?). Especially when things start going fast, and the slapping sounds of parries and passes against the arms start sounding like a drum solo, this is REALLY fun!

Does anyone not see some of the problems inherent in this kind of martial choreography? At least insofar as training to protect yourself is concerned? The limited, pre-planned attacks, the "if he does A, you do B" memorization, the lobotomized attackers with no limbs save the knife-holding one, the lack of any context whatsoever for why you’re going toe-to-toe against someone ostensibly (but not demonstrably) trying to gut you. . . . The list can go on much longer, but you get the idea.

Getting Warmer: The "Reality-Based" Method Now, these days, many (but not all) of the "reality-based" camps have taken things a step beyond the foolishness described above and done away with a lot of the choreography and performance art. Armed aggression is not parsed so finely into discrete, prescribed "attacks," and the "feeder" now acts a bit more like an attacker, at least insofar as he is told to try to repeatedly stab or cut the defender with a training blade (albeit not so fast or hard as to cause injuries). At times, the attacker even remembers he has a free hand. The stances are relaxed, and movement is actually encouraged. Sometimes the action is preceded by some improvised dialogue, and a "scenario" is suggested. Students are told to expect to get cut, even while trying to avoid it. This is progress!

However, problems again arise. . . .

"Realistic Training" The instructors want the students to feel like they’re training "realistically." After all, this is "RBSD" (Reality-Based Self-Defense)! One way to make them "feel" more "realistic" is to remove the need for them to "hold back" or move at less than full power. Unfortunately, good striking cannot be performed full-power in training without bulky, unrealistic protective gear. And even when the gear is used, the dynamic is changed considerably because strikes do not have a realistic effect. What is the only method of fighting that can be trained with nearly full intensity without a prohibitively dangerous risk of injury? Sportive Grappling!

Lo and behold, we now have on the market a bunch of "Reality-Based" (more accurately, "Training-Drill-Based") knife defense methods that are grappling-oriented. The common thread amongst them is that one must initiate one’s defense by grabbing the weapon-bearing arm or wrist through various methods and then control it while launching incidental strikes with the unoccupied limbs (e.g. knees, headbutts) and/or taking down the attacker. The more sophisticated methods teach combinations of classic standing wrestling techniques and positions (e.g. the shoulder stop, arm drag, two-on-one, various takedowns, etc.) in dynamic Greco-Roman wrestling-like drills with a rubber knife added in.

So, the training is dynamic, forceful and uncooperative. What could be wrong?

How about the fact that even in the less intense drills, the students constantly get stabbed in vital areas?

Training To Die You can view video clips of these kinds of drills on sites like Youtube.com. Well, the instructors said the training would be realistic, and that you should expect to get cut while defending against a knife. . . So, by telling the student to put himself in positions where the knife is very near his own vital areas, the instructors are basically training the student to die. . .

But you know what? The training is fun! You sweat, it’s dynamic, it’s lightly competitive just like mixed martial arts training, and everyone cheers you on. I suppose the idea is that as you get better at it, you’ll get stabbed in the heart, liver and kidneys less often than when you started out, just like you eventually get punched less in your boxing training (unless of course the other guy is good or cranks up the intensity…)

Anyone see a problem with this supposedly "realistic" training? Sure, under adrenaline, you may not feel the pain of being stabbed (many people when stabbed say it felt like a light punch). But that does not mean that you’ll survive long with a hole in a vital organ!

The Root of the Problem A major cause of this illogical training paradigm is that many of the programs were developed by instructors who attempted to replace their lack of real-world experience with "hard-core" drill experience. Many instructors have created systems based on thin or non-existent real-life experience with blades, but lots of experience in martial arts training. Some of the instructors may have lots of experience in high risk jobs (bouncing, police, military, etc.), but this does not necessarily equate to vast experience defending against deadly, committed, armed attacks. Even a situation where the opposing party is armed does not necessarily equate to a vicious attack if the armed party is not intent on using the blade to do more than intimidate.

As Lt. Col. Al Ridenhour USMC has repeatedly pointed out (most recently in Guided Chaos Newsletter #58), no matter how "realistic" they may be, sport methods and training drills can never approach the multi-faceted reality of violent conflict! "Realism" is not reality! A real blade does not "tag" you, reminding you to improve your grappling clinch position. It penetrates flesh and bone and does real, disabling, possibly lethal damage. Your body instinctively knows this, and will naturally attempt to maximize distance from a real blade--provided you’re not trying to force it to do the opposite!

Untrained Instincts Morgue reports show that a normal, untrained person, when mercilessly attacked by a determined killer or psychotic armed with a knife, typically reacts in one of two ways, depending on the individual’s mindset going into the situation:

1. The victim panics, curls up in a fetal position, cries out to God or whoever will listen, and generally puts up no significant resistance, so overwhelmed and horrified is he by the sheer brutality and violence of his fate. This is the reaction killers want to illicit when they attack with extreme speed, surprise and violence of action (factors it behooves us to utilize ourselves in violent conflict). It makes their task easier.

2. Even with no prior training, the defender’s body attempts to do everything in its power to keep the weapon away from vital areas. This appears to be to a certain degree instinctive. It typically takes the form of running away if possible, dodging, pulling back the abdomen to avoid thrusts and slashes (compare with pocketing--a Guided Chaos skill), swatting the knife away with the hands at adrenaline speed (compare to the Dog-Dig--also Guided Chaos), and kicking out with the legs if the victim falls to the floor (compare with Modified Native American groundfighting). These actions are the cause of the "defensive wounds" frequently found on victims of knife attacks. In many cases where the untrained defender was eventually killed by thrusts and cuts to vital areas (typically chest and throat), dozens or even scores of cuts were taken first on the limbs as the attacker attempted to cut and stab past the defender’s fast, convulsive animal instincts for self-preservation. What prevents the defender from surviving is his inability (through lack of knowledge, experience and training) to damage the aggressor. However talented one may be at keeping the knife away or even controlling it, if no avenue of escape is available, the attacker must be damaged in order to end the attack.

Real World Experience

Contrast the experiences of the instructors we have discussed so far with the extensive experiences of the WWII-era close combat pioneers like William E. Fairbairn (discussed in Attackproof Newsletter #58) and his contemporaries.

Then, look at the advice they gave:

Late in his career, during an interview, Fairbairn was asked about defending against a knife while unarmed:

Fairbairn had only two suggestions:

A. “RUN!”

B. "With a lighting-like kick of either foot, kick him in the testicles or stomach."

But when my brother asked him to demonstrate this move, "Willie never even got up from his desk. He just said, 'You missed the phrase “lighting-like.” I don't do “lighting-like” anymore.'"

--From The First Commando Knives by Prof. Kelly Yeaton, Lt. Col. Samuel Yeaton (USMC) and Col. Rex Applegate

Kill or Get Killed by Col. Rex Applegate, one of the most complete of the classic close combat manuals, discusses strategies such as using a chair, using a baton and kicking as preferred methods for defending against a blade. Other less preferred methods are also included for closer attacks or for controlling a less dangerous adversary.

Carl Cestari, one of the foremost modern authorities on WWII-era close combat and also an experienced police officer and veteran of all sorts of mayhem, taught several kicking methods to counter a knife-armed attacker, involving straight “savate” kicks to the midsection and low side kicks while stepping offline, all done with rapid-fire “lightning-like” execution that is enhanced by Guided Chaos dropping and balance training.

Finally, a man of my acquaintance with experience on both sides of the law revealed the only strategy he had ever “seen” work successfully against a planned hit in prison (i.e. being suddenly assaulted at close range by multiple shank-armed experienced assassins): get into a corner, drop to the ground, and kick out madly with your feet until the “hats ‘n’ bats” arrive to break things up.

Where’s the disconnect? Why are the methods advocated by veterans of real, desperate life-and-death combat so different from those advocated by masters of sport-based martial arts and “realistic” training drills? We will explore this in Part Two of this article.

Article source: Expert Articles