Kenpo Knife Defense by Juan José negreira

[ATACX GYM]

Wow. The number of gigantic inaccuracies in that middle section are frankly staggering, I wouldn't know where to start with correcting it....

No, the reason was nothing to do with being "outlawed".
Your take on the contests is highly romanticised and unrealistic (and strictly a more modern, as in 18 and 1900's, Chinese only concept).
Your concept on the family side of things is also way off, as is your idea of needing to recruit or promote.

Really, Ras, you were questioning my martial history and you come in with this? Sorry, mate, that takes all credibility from you there....

Where do you get your infallibe data on the various older styles,Chris,that you believe provides you with the unshakeable proof that your positions reflect?

 

[Chris Parker]

I train in them, Ras. I live them. And I know them intimately. So, I guess, my "infallible data" comes from those arts who have that history themselves. Just so you know.

 

[ATACX GYM]

So let's get this straight.... in order to be taken seriously in a critique of the methods that you're demonstrating on your clip, I'd need to put out a clip myself? That would change the critique of your actions how, exactly? I might note that you have been very vague in your criticisms of my approach (labeling it as "less versatile", without saying why, and so on), whereas I have been as specific in my critique as I can be, pointing out exactly where and why I see issues, what the pitfalls are, and so on, but because I'm not putting a video up, that deems it all irrelevant? Really, Ras? And you don't see that as a weak argument?

In regards to my putting a video out there, let's see if we can clear that up, shall we? I have no problem putting myself on video, running through both yours and my versions of this type of technique, but there is the issue of personal representation. You are representing yourself and yourself alone, whereas I will be seen as representing my organisation and my instructor. It's not dissimilar to many traditional systems, which have rules against showing their methods to outsiders from the system (again if this is coming across as unusual to you, your understanding of martial history needs work). This is my Chief Instructors intellectual property, so it's up to him if he wants video out for public consumption... and I'm not about to put any out without his agreement... although to be frank I don't really see the need to request it as a video will only show that I can upload a video, it really provides no more credibility than that, frankly.

To illustrate:

This is a bogus ninjutsu group in Australia teaching some Scouts. The video, even of them teaching, gives no credibility to a frankly terrible display of martial arts, which is based on fantasy.

This is from a series of clips from an online show teaching the use of the sword... unfortunately, the person chosen is considered a joke in Japanese Sword Arts, who has most of his training in Chanbara foam weapon sports, and is far from an authority or credible source for Japanese Sword.

Say, here's a knife defence video, so these guys could critique your clip?

So I'm not sure what a video would achieve. Honestly, I don't have the need, or drive to be "famous" by putting videos of myself out there, I'm happy enough passing on what I've learnt to my students, who I can vet and monitor in terms of what they learn and what they get exposed to.

Honestly, so far your argument has amounted to a lot of "no it isn't" with little actual argument to cover it, other than asking for video. Sorry, Ras, that's not enough. If we were in the same place, I'd have no issue going through things with you personally, but I'm not putting my instructors material out for public consumption without his permission. If you can think of a way to send a video straight to you, then you may have a possibility.

Your argument is without merit,and you know it Chris. First my position has been that I've done what very little specific things that you mention that you've done visavis the 2 on 1,and that I incorporate it in my approach. You say that my 2 on 1 is dangerous and less reliable than what you say is your approach. The problem is exactly what you specified to me when I began to level more specific critique about your posts: we don't know your approach. This means that everything I say to you can essentially be answered with: "I don't do that" and there's nothing whatsoever to gainsay you.Theoretically you could adjust your position ad infinitum when faced with criticism and be out of the reach of ANY criticism as a result...because you never have to prove anything,and you said that you won't do so.This is the ultimate conversation stopper,faaar more than what you accused me of. You can just say that you do such and such and take your word for it. If I doubt anything all you have to say all you have to do is what you've already said and done,which is essentially:"You don't know what I do so don't presume that you do". You can specify your criticisms about my actions because I show and prove and you don't.That's really what it boils down to.

Ultimately the difference in debates on sites like this is that many of us have enough in common to draw upon those commonalities to reach some form of definitive conclusion.If somebody in TKD is debating someone who says that TKD lacks functional,competent grappling techs? That someone can not only make posts denying this claim,that specific someone can draw upon videos of TKD practitioners showing functional grappling techs. However,if there's a debate about the specifics of a knife defense tech and one side says their experience indicates that the tech being shown is dangerous or less than what the person showing video says it is,and the person who made such a video in the first place has experience with what the other person's posts claim to be their preferred method and their experiences are diametrically opposed? Then it's quite fair and sensible for the person (me in this case) being critiqued to not only defend their position but ask for specific demonstrations from the critic (that's you,Chris) to specify exactly what's being discussed here because clearly we're either talking about something with sharp and vital differences that aren't immediately being grasped appropriately and properly by both parties.I've been quite specific--contrary to your claims--in my criticism of some of your posts,but it's essentially for naught.I am trying to craft a response specifically to what you do; however you will never allow such a thing to happen.Which renders this whole conversation moot.

Without video? This conversation just revolves on and on. With video? The specifics could still be debated ad infinitum...but at least there are specifics now that have a far higher potential to bring the discussion to a mutually acceptible terminus by reaching a middle ground of some sort or by discovering that "hey...we ARE doing such and such it's just that you do it like this and I do it like that." Sugar Shane Mosley jabs,Floyd Mayweather jabs. They may dispute as to whose jab is better...but neither will deny that the other does indeed jab,nor the utility and ability of the other's jab. I state that my approach includes your approach,Chris,you state that I don't know what your approach is. And since you don't and won't video your efforts? Here is where the argument and problem is. You have never ever and apparently cannot ever ever specify exactly what it is that you actually do because we aren't local and you don't do video.Which leads us right back to that part where I said:" The problem is exactly what you specified to me when I began to level more specific critique about your posts: we don't know your approach. This means that everything I say to you can essentially be answered with: "I don't do that" and there's nothing whatsoever to gainsay you.Theoretically you could adjust your position ad infinitum when faced with criticism and be out of the reach of ANY criticism as a result...because you never have to prove anything,and you said that you won't do so."

 

[ATACX GYM]

I train in them, Ras. I live them. And I know them intimately. So, I guess, my "infallible data" comes from those arts who have that history themselves. Just so you know.

I do this as well.Just so you know. The difference is that if I were to be as harsh in my criticism as you have been? If I were to debunk your argument or position with commentary like this:"No, the reason was nothing to do with being "outlawed".
Your take on the contests is highly romanticised and unrealistic (and strictly a more modern, as in 18 and 1900's, Chinese only concept).
Your concept on the family side of things is also way off, as is your idea of needing to recruit or promote.

Really, Ras, you were questioning my martial history and you come in with this? Sorry, mate, that takes all credibility from you there...."


I would actually cite martial history,leave links,cite books,and stuff. Because your position so far isn't ennobled by a single scintilla of fact,merely frocked by your apparently passionate,articulate opinion. Which is not what I asked you for.I asked how you KNOW such a thing,not what makes you THINK such a thing or what your OPINION IS on such a thing. Just so you know.

 

[MJS]

I'll touch on a few points.

1) Regarding the STAB clip at 1:40. It appears as if it a drill working something specific. Looked to me like it was a knife held at the side, the defender turning, pushing the attacker, then going for the knife/control of the arm.

2) Chris, you mentioned the clips show unrealistic training. Which ones were you talking about? I ask because there were alot of clips posted...lol...just want to make sure I know which one(s) you were talking about.

3) Regarding footwork. Yeah, obvioulsy thats important, but, I can certainly see that not happening during the initial attack. Its probably going to take a second.

4) The static attack: We saw that on the Gracie clip. We see that in many knife clips. Will that happen in real life? Of course not. You will get the sewing machine, pumping stabs. As for that initial block....the idea is predicated on that being a limb destruction. I've gone in about half speed/power and had that done to me. It hurt like a *****. It stopped me long enough for the person to transition into something else. Does this mean it'll work on the next guy, or the guy after that, or the one after that? Of course not. Just like all of our techs., IMO, its foolish to assume everything will work. Assuming it didnt work, and the guy stabs again and again, etc, you better be ready for plan b.

5) Ras said:

"What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?"

We all know how quick the distance can be closed, but until then, the guy can't reach us. I'm a firm believer in using tools to help us. Is there something I can use as a weapon, ie: a chair, a handful of change that I can toss for a momentary distraction, something I can use as a blunt impact weapon, is there something that I can use to position between me and the badguy, can I use footwork to evade. In a nutshell, do what you have to do, until escape is an option. Short of us being in a room with nothing else in it, there should be at least a few options to fall back on.

6) Again, I think the use of the word "Spar" may be misunderstood. Sparring is usually thought of as a contest. No, we should be dancing around, with one guy trying to cut the other, and the defender doing nothing but avoiding. IMO, we should see someone training like we saw on the STAB clips or the DLO Dog Bros clips. Someone is really coming in to stab, mult. times, and the defender defending.

7) Having options. Ras said having 4 options. IMO, the 'techniques' that we have are merely building blocks. Really, I'm not going to know what I'm going to do. We need to take into consideration the "Oh ****!!!" moment as well. Someone pulls a blade, and goes to stab, I may say, "Oh ****!" do a parry, sidestep, get some distance, and then deal with the rest. If we limit ourselves to certain things, ie: 3 options, 10 options, what happens when #'s 4 and 11 happen?

8) Last but not least....IMO, I dont see how posting a clip is really proof that something will definately work/not work. Thats like the people who talk about high percentage moves. High percentage for who? Me? You? A 50yo man? A 23yo woman? I could post clips, so could Chris, or anyone else. IMO, its showing 1 possible option, not an end all be all solution.

 

[ATACX GYM]

I'll touch on a few points.

1) Regarding the STAB clip at 1:40. It appears as if it a drill working something specific. Looked to me like it was a knife held at the side, the defender turning, pushing the attacker, then going for the knife/control of the arm.

2) Chris, you mentioned the clips show unrealistic training. Which ones were you talking about? I ask because there were alot of clips posted...lol...just want to make sure I know which one(s) you were talking about.

3) Regarding footwork. Yeah, obvioulsy thats important, but, I can certainly see that not happening during the initial attack. Its probably going to take a second.

4) The static attack: We saw that on the Gracie clip. We see that in many knife clips. Will that happen in real life? Of course not. You will get the sewing machine, pumping stabs. As for that initial block....the idea is predicated on that being a limb destruction. I've gone in about half speed/power and had that done to me. It hurt like a *****. It stopped me long enough for the person to transition into something else. Does this mean it'll work on the next guy, or the guy after that, or the one after that? Of course not. Just like all of our techs., IMO, its foolish to assume everything will work. Assuming it didnt work, and the guy stabs again and again, etc, you better be ready for plan b.

5) Ras said:

"What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?"

We all know how quick the distance can be closed, but until then, the guy can't reach us. I'm a firm believer in using tools to help us. Is there something I can use as a weapon, ie: a chair, a handful of change that I can toss for a momentary distraction, something I can use as a blunt impact weapon, is there something that I can use to position between me and the badguy, can I use footwork to evade. In a nutshell, do what you have to do, until escape is an option. Short of us being in a room with nothing else in it, there should be at least a few options to fall back on.

6) Again, I think the use of the word "Spar" may be misunderstood. Sparring is usually thought of as a contest. No, we should be dancing around, with one guy trying to cut the other, and the defender doing nothing but avoiding. IMO, we should see someone training like we saw on the STAB clips or the DLO Dog Bros clips. Someone is really coming in to stab, mult. times, and the defender defending.

7) Having options. Ras said having 4 options. IMO, the 'techniques' that we have are merely building blocks. Really, I'm not going to know what I'm going to do. We need to take into consideration the "Oh ****!!!" moment as well. Someone pulls a blade, and goes to stab, I may say, "Oh ****!" do a parry, sidestep, get some distance, and then deal with the rest. If we limit ourselves to certain things, ie: 3 options, 10 options, what happens when #'s 4 and 11 happen?

8) Last but not least....IMO, I dont see how posting a clip is really proof that something will definately work/not work. Thats like the people who talk about high percentage moves. High percentage for who? Me? You? A 50yo man? A 23yo woman? I could post clips, so could Chris, or anyone else. IMO, its showing 1 possible option, not an end all be all solution.

This is an excellent response,and as usual I find myself agreeing with almost all of what MJS has posted...and what differences I have are minor.Only one or two quick clarifications:

I suspect that we mean the same thing when I refer to 4 options,and you refer to the "Oh ****!" moment--I literally teach that with oftentimes that very phraseology,minus that word specifically for kids classes--and building blocks? We're talking about the same thing. As I do almost exactly what you referred to in #7 above.

I hope my specific focus visavis video on certain points to prove disprove or whatever on certain specific points was made clear by my previous post on the matter on this very page.

 

[Cyriacus]

Contact wise,I agree that it IS dangerous to practice fatal or maiming strikes directly to the unprotected human target. However,I have a hogu and mitts so I place the mitt at or near my throat and let my students practice throat and kidney and groin shots full power,and practice light strikes at the these and other sensitive areas.A little training ingenuity can go a long way.

Im just going to stay out of the other Conversation;

Adding Padding can help, certainly. I perhaps could have elaborated on what I meant, which was that you cannot strike the Bare Surface.
On the flipside, it depends how Power-Happy your Form is. But it can still be improvised, certainly.
I can also see how many people would *need* to feel the Contact to be able to get used to performing the Action.

 

[Cyriacus]

On the other hand, im bored.
So now to Contribute to this debate, albeit slightly.

As far as I can tell, youre both making mostly Valid Points, then clashing over numerous Smaller Points, Logistics, and Personal Preferences.

I have a Book that talks about this.
Moves:
1: Provocation
2: Accusation
3: Attempt To Defuse Situation
4: Accusation
5: Defense
6: Now Ive Got You
7: See What You Made Me Do
8: Look How Hard Ive Tried
9; If It Werent For You...
10; Stress
11; Why Dont You - Yes But

...Looks pretty damn accurate to me.
In short, youre both stuck in a Logic Clash. That will just Spital unto itself more and more as it goes on, causing nothing but a bit of unneeded Stress for you both.
The Solution is to go back to the start, and break this down to its essential points, instead of playing "Now Ive Got You" over and over again on new issues every time.

Again - Not pitching myself too far into this Debate. Just mostly making sure it stays well purposed and controlled, rather than becoming some silly trade of;
6: Now Ive Got You
7: See What You Made Me Do
11; Why Dont You - Yes But
Over. And Over.

 

[ATACX GYM]

On the other hand, im bored.
So now to Contribute to this debate, albeit slightly.

As far as I can tell, youre both making mostly Valid Points, then clashing over numerous Smaller Points, Logistics, and Personal Preferences.

I have a Book that talks about this.
Moves:
1: Provocation
2: Accusation
3: Attempt To Defuse Situation
4: Accusation
5: Defense
6: Now Ive Got You
7: See What You Made Me Do
8: Look How Hard Ive Tried
9; If It Werent For You...
10; Stress
11; Why Dont You - Yes But

"On the other hand,im bored..." LOLOLOL.

Now as for all the rest of that? I largely agree. But the Devil is in the detail.

 

[Cyriacus]

"On the other hand,im bored..." LOLOLOL.

Now as for all the rest of that? I largely agree. But the Devil is in the detail.

The Edit to the end of the Original Post elaborates a bit - Perhaps for the better.
And yes, when im bored I join in debates

 

[ATACX GYM]

The Edit to the end of the Original Post elaborates a bit - Perhaps for the better.
And yes, when im bored I join in debates

Okay Cyriacus...thanks for your contribution. I read your EDITED post,and in the spirit of that post (which I think is quite reasonable) let me offer this:

I've repeatedly stated that I use the 2 on 1 in all of its forms,which I consider to be one expression.A part of that single expression is very much akin to what I gather from Chris Parker's posts. Why don't I (just for clarification's sake) just put up a video of me flowing throwing and scrapping with this tech in drills and in practice to show what I'm talking about? That's really more an exercise for clarity on my part. Idk what Chris can do to make us visually grasp what he's talking about unless he's able to find videos that are very akin to what he's talking about and post them up.Then we can compare and contrast more effectively.Whaddya say? Should keep us on point without devolving into playground finger pointing and name calling.

 

[Cyriacus]

Okay Cyriacus...thanks for your contribution. I read your EDITED post,and in the spirit of that post (which I think is quite reasonable) let me offer this:

I've repeatedly stated that I use the 2 on 1 in all of its forms,which I consider to be one expression.A part of that single expression is very much akin to what I gather from Chris Parker's posts. Why don't I (just for clarification's sake) just put up a video of me flowing throwing and scrapping with this tech in drills and in practice to show what I'm talking about? That's really more an exercise for clarity on my part. Idk what Chris can do to make us visually grasp what he's talking about unless he's able to find videos that are very akin to what he's talking about and post them up.Then we can compare and contrast more effectively.Whaddya say? Should keep us on point without devolving into playground finger pointing and name calling.

Its a more reasonable option, surely.
Your method of Communicating these things is Videos; So be it.
Chris's method is Textual; So be it.
If you present your cases to one another, rather than picking at points that can be backlashed by details, some more clear opinions may be drawn.

The Dynamics of Martial Arts will differ on Variables, of course.
For this to not just turn back into "But, what if", the best thing to do is to leave a slight void of Reasonable Doubt on both sides.

Other than that, this could save many pages worth of Argueing.
I think.
Hopefully.

After all - At its core, this IS a discussion about Technical Applications. History and Logistics came into this WAY after it went off of that. In going back to the original Technical Applications, we have the best chance of Clear Communication.

EDIT: The main reason im adding all of this, is so you can all be as un-stressed by this as I am.
Whilst I type this, and you two are still intent on making your points clear; I am drinking Lemonade. Perhaps you should both go drink some Lemonade.

 

[MJS]

After 5 pages, Ras and Chris...please refresh me again with your grip preference. IIRC, Ras is using the 2/1 while standing in front of the knifer, while Chris prefers the 2/1 while standing on the side, ie: the STAB clips.

 

[ATACX GYM]

After 5 pages, Ras and Chris...please refresh me again with your grip preference. IIRC, Ras is using the 2/1 while standing in front of the knifer, while Chris prefers the 2/1 while standing on the side, ie: the STAB clips.

I prefer the 2 on 1 that allows kicks disengagements knees levers throws trips locks breaks escapes disarms plus all the things in the STAB plus what Chris has spoken of and all the things that I spoke of. Chris seems to prefer a much more narrow interpretation which doesn't include all the things that I spoke of--including the longer range 2 on 1 grip,the "oh ****" moment that can lead to it AND the purposeful technical approach that is much more tactically sound...just contrary to his preferences and experience. He referred to "natural responces" which can be pretty much whatever he prefers because there hasn't been specific definitions thereof,and our grasp of it has much wider lattitude because we don't have a visual physical expression of it so he has to paint a picture with his words.

Unless a very accurate,very detailed word picture violates the injunction against sharing techs that he knows...

 

[MJS]

Thanks Ras. I dont know if Chris has given up on this topic, but hopefully he'll chime in again. I for one, do enjoy his insight and feedback on various topics.

Anywho...in the end, everyone will have what they feel is 'the' best defense. For me, my concern always has and always will be, gaining control, and putting myself into the best position possible, to maintain that control. From there, everything else will come into play.

I will say that it seems, to me anyways, that the STAB method is the more popular one. We see it used with the Dog Bros in their DLO clips. Actually, those clips seem to address more of dealing with the rapid pumping thrusts that are common.

 

[MJS]

To give another perspective, here is a clip of Jeff Speakman doing a tech. His version is probably going to be slightly different, as he's made alot of changes to his material.

[yt]_Jh7O1VzkyA[/yt]

 

[MJS]

[yt]SPFfX-cfijg[/yt]

Some Kajukenbo. The knife defense starts at 3:40.

 

[Chris Parker]

Right.

Your argument is without merit,and you know it Chris. First my position has been that I've done what very little specific things that you mention that you've done visavis the 2 on 1,and that I incorporate it in my approach. You say that my 2 on 1 is dangerous and less reliable than what you say is your approach. The problem is exactly what you specified to me when I began to level more specific critique about your posts: we don't know your approach. This means that everything I say to you can essentially be answered with: "I don't do that" and there's nothing whatsoever to gainsay you.Theoretically you could adjust your position ad infinitum when faced with criticism and be out of the reach of ANY criticism as a result...because you never have to prove anything,and you said that you won't do so.This is the ultimate conversation stopper,faaar more than what you accused me of. You can just say that you do such and such and take your word for it. If I doubt anything all you have to say all you have to do is what you've already said and done,which is essentially:"You don't know what I do so don't presume that you do". You can specify your criticisms about my actions because I show and prove and you don't.That's really what it boils down to.

Let's get a few things straight, then.

The issue has been a critique of your actions, your method, your clip, not others. I have, however, provided my alternative instead of just saying "not a good idea" as a way of demonstrating my point and adding credibility to my argument, and have detailed exactly what I have meant through the thread, as well as having my method demonstrated in the majority of clips that others have posted (so my posting a clip of me doing the same thing would mean what, exactly?). When it comes to your "more specific" critiques of my method, the issue there has been that you haven't actually critiqued it at all, instead you have made vague, inaccurate assumptions in order to try to demonstrate (falsely) some form of superiority to your demonstrated clip.

You have claimed that my skills would improve in various areas if I did certain things ("self defence" grappling improving by sparring with Rickson Gracie, for instance), or your constant references to yourself as having superior experience in these and other things are what I'm talking about when saying that you are speaking out of turn, or out of ignorance. I haven't changed what I am saying once, in my description of my method, or my critique of yours. Any mention of "I don't do that" has been in responce to your false, and incorrect assumptions.

What all of this means is that you have posted a clip of yourself in a thread asking for critiques of a Kempo knife defence, with the take that your clip is better, but when critiqued, you basically resort to "well, where's your clip?" Ras, I'm not putting myself up for critique here, you are. That kinda means that I don't really need to put a clip up, especially when most other clips here show exactly what I'm talking about, as I'm discussing your method and it's pitfalls as presented by you in your clip, by offering what I see as a better alternative. My argument was basically that you are refusing to give my position credit if I am "not willing to show and tell", which is where the lack of merit comes in (your argument). Mine just showed the lack in yours, really.

Ultimately the difference in debates on sites like this is that many of us have enough in common to draw upon those commonalities to reach some form of definitive conclusion.If somebody in TKD is debating someone who says that TKD lacks functional,competent grappling techs? That someone can not only make posts denying this claim,that specific someone can draw upon videos of TKD practitioners showing functional grappling techs. However,if there's a debate about the specifics of a knife defense tech and one side says their experience indicates that the tech being shown is dangerous or less than what the person showing video says it is,and the person who made such a video in the first place has experience with what the other person's posts claim to be their preferred method and their experiences are diametrically opposed? Then it's quite fair and sensible for the person (me in this case) being critiqued to not only defend their position but ask for specific demonstrations from the critic (that's you,Chris) to specify exactly what's being discussed here because clearly we're either talking about something with sharp and vital differences that aren't immediately being grasped appropriately and properly by both parties.I've been quite specific--contrary to your claims--in my criticism of some of your posts,but it's essentially for naught.I am trying to craft a response specifically to what you do; however you will never allow such a thing to happen.Which renders this whole conversation moot.

I'll repost (in quotes, in responce to MJS's question in a bit) my approach versus yours, if you still have questions about exactly what I'm talking about, ask, and I'll answer. But saying that the only way to get a real discussion is to post clips back and forth is going to suffer from the same issues as the written discussion. For example, I see your attacker pause, I see the knife pointing straight at you (you aren't off-line of the attack), I see you leap too high, taking too long on your second evasive leap, and more, and you simply turned around and said "No, I was safe, lol". Not really a quality argument... but the same can be leveled at a clip I put up, and if the argument is "no, that's not what I did", it's no different to this typed conversation.

Without video? This conversation just revolves on and on. With video? The specifics could still be debated ad infinitum...but at least there are specifics now that have a far higher potential to bring the discussion to a mutually acceptible terminus by reaching a middle ground of some sort or by discovering that "hey...we ARE doing such and such it's just that you do it like this and I do it like that." Sugar Shane Mosley jabs,Floyd Mayweather jabs. They may dispute as to whose jab is better...but neither will deny that the other does indeed jab,nor the utility and ability of the other's jab. I state that my approach includes your approach,Chris,you state that I don't know what your approach is. And since you don't and won't video your efforts? Here is where the argument and problem is. You have never ever and apparently cannot ever ever specify exactly what it is that you actually do because we aren't local and you don't do video.Which leads us right back to that part where I said:" The problem is exactly what you specified to me when I began to level more specific critique about your posts: we don't know your approach. This means that everything I say to you can essentially be answered with: "I don't do that" and there's nothing whatsoever to gainsay you.Theoretically you could adjust your position ad infinitum when faced with criticism and be out of the reach of ANY criticism as a result...because you never have to prove anything,and you said that you won't do so."

Without video you get to rely on the words that I put here, as well as the clips linked by others that show what I'm talking about.... of course, the false analogy you use (the two different jabs) doesn't help, Ras. And again, this discussion is about the method you show in your clip. In post #20, you explicitly agree that that is the crux of the discussion ("To the issue of the 2 on 1...meaning the double grip on your opponent's wrist..."), in post 6 you stated that "Actually the double grip that I come in with is one of the very best possible responses to the knife attack", which is what my argument has been about. That specific grip as a first choice, best possible responce to a knife attack. Because it isn't. But I'll repost my reasons (again) in a bit.

And really, whether or not I put any video up doesn't change the issues with your grip as you present it there.

I do this as well.Just so you know. The difference is that if I were to be as harsh in my criticism as you have been? If I were to debunk your argument or position with commentary like this:"No, the reason was nothing to do with being "outlawed".
Your take on the contests is highly romanticised and unrealistic (and strictly a more modern, as in 18 and 1900's, Chinese only concept).
Your concept on the family side of things is also way off, as is your idea of needing to recruit or promote.

Really, Ras, you were questioning my martial history and you come in with this? Sorry, mate, that takes all credibility from you there...."


I would actually cite martial history,leave links,cite books,and stuff. Because your position so far isn't ennobled by a single scintilla of fact,merely frocked by your apparently passionate,articulate opinion. Which is not what I asked you for.I asked how you KNOW such a thing,not what makes you THINK such a thing or what your OPINION IS on such a thing. Just so you know.

Believe me, that was far from a "harsh" correction there. Out of interest, what are the traditional arts that you study?

But to the last there, my position comes from actually knowing these things, whether or not you feel it's "ennobled by a single scintilla of fact" doesn't come into it. Frankly, you've shown so much lack of understanding of martial history I could say the same, or further, about you. But do you really want a list of the teachings, histories, books, and so on that bring me to my knowledge here?

I'll touch on a few points.

1) Regarding the STAB clip at 1:40. It appears as if it a drill working something specific. Looked to me like it was a knife held at the side, the defender turning, pushing the attacker, then going for the knife/control of the arm.

Yep, it looks basically like a drill designed to ensure the student gains and maintains control of the weapon hand/arm while the opponent struggles (and strikes). And, I will also say that if that level and type of struggle happens when the knife is held out (as Ras is in his clip), then that's when you end up with a knife in the belly.

2) Chris, you mentioned the clips show unrealistic training. Which ones were you talking about? I ask because there were alot of clips posted...lol...just want to make sure I know which one(s) you were talking about.

The specific quote I think you're referring to is in post #53, yeah? I was referring specifically to the two clips Ras posted there (Paul Vunak and the JKD test one). What I was talking about was the training methodology itself, which deals with a "sparring" type method. In the first one, for instance (Paul Vunak), he uses the old standard Magic Marker knife drill, all fine and good... but his partner, the defender, constantly tries to intercept, or hit down on the knife arm, and gets cut, without ever getting enough distance to escape. If he's not getting the distance, then his best option is to move in to control... he's just staying in the knife's preferred range at this stage, and as a result can't "catch" the knife, and gets cut pretty badly. If he was drilled in moving past the knife (outflanking), and controlling it, which is what I'm talking about, then the amount of ink would be severely reduced. His attempts at kicks lead to his leg being cut pretty often as well, and was basically a fear responce, attempting to keep the knifeman back, without ever having a real tactic being applied.

3) Regarding footwork. Yeah, obvioulsy thats important, but, I can certainly see that not happening during the initial attack. Its probably going to take a second.

Which is what the initial evasions that both Ras and I recommend are for. Yep, the initial reaction is typically that you will be overwhelmed, and move back in a flinch responce along what is referred to as the primal line before you "settle" enough to be able to actually respond positively.

4) The static attack: We saw that on the Gracie clip. We see that in many knife clips. Will that happen in real life? Of course not. You will get the sewing machine, pumping stabs. As for that initial block....the idea is predicated on that being a limb destruction. I've gone in about half speed/power and had that done to me. It hurt like a *****. It stopped me long enough for the person to transition into something else. Does this mean it'll work on the next guy, or the guy after that, or the one after that? Of course not. Just like all of our techs., IMO, its foolish to assume everything will work. Assuming it didnt work, and the guy stabs again and again, etc, you better be ready for plan b.

Ah, but here's the thing. Under a serious, sudden adrenaline dump, it won't be anywhere near as effective as you felt when your instructor hit you. After all, most people who get stabbed (for instance) just think they've been punched... and pretty lightly, too. So I wouldn't rely on it being a limb destruction, really, particularly not at the angle the Gracie boys were coming in (it was more a deflecting angle than an attacking angle, really).

5) Ras said:

"What would you recommend your students do when approached by a knifer who ISN'T within immediate grabbing range,who already has his knife deployed,and escape ISN'T an option?"

We all know how quick the distance can be closed, but until then, the guy can't reach us. I'm a firm believer in using tools to help us. Is there something I can use as a weapon, ie: a chair, a handful of change that I can toss for a momentary distraction, something I can use as a blunt impact weapon, is there something that I can use to position between me and the badguy, can I use footwork to evade. In a nutshell, do what you have to do, until escape is an option. Short of us being in a room with nothing else in it, there should be at least a few options to fall back on.

And here's a question for Ras... In the same scenario, would you expect your students to reach out and try to grab the knife wrist? Do you really think that's the safest, or best plan?

6) Again, I think the use of the word "Spar" may be misunderstood. Sparring is usually thought of as a contest. No, we should be dancing around, with one guy trying to cut the other, and the defender doing nothing but avoiding. IMO, we should see someone training like we saw on the STAB clips or the DLO Dog Bros clips. Someone is really coming in to stab, mult. times, and the defender defending.

Pure evasion as an initial, core skill set, absolutely. Constant attacks (even when the defender is defending), yep. But sparring? No.

7) Having options. Ras said having 4 options. IMO, the 'techniques' that we have are merely building blocks. Really, I'm not going to know what I'm going to do. We need to take into consideration the "Oh ****!!!" moment as well. Someone pulls a blade, and goes to stab, I may say, "Oh ****!" do a parry, sidestep, get some distance, and then deal with the rest. If we limit ourselves to certain things, ie: 3 options, 10 options, what happens when #'s 4 and 11 happen?

That's the core concept of training and utilising principles, rather than having "techniques" to handle things. Ideally, if I can find one thing that'll cover 99% of situations, that's what I'll be working with. In fact, that's kinda what the knife defence I teach is. It is one principle which is applied against forehand, backhand, high, low, thrusts (high and low), inside, outside, grab and stab, threats, close quarters, distance attacks, and more. It is even pretty much the same (the same movement principles) if it's knife against knife, or unarmed knife defence. I don't offer lot's of options, or even more than a small number, as it's just the same principles adapted to the new environments/situations.

So it doesn't matter if they come in with #4, or #11, or even #123, if the principles are solid, it'll be as effective no matter what.

8) Last but not least....IMO, I dont see how posting a clip is really proof that something will definately work/not work. Thats like the people who talk about high percentage moves. High percentage for who? Me? You? A 50yo man? A 23yo woman? I could post clips, so could Chris, or anyone else. IMO, its showing 1 possible option, not an end all be all solution.

Agreed other than the high percentage thing. High percentage should mean that it offers a higher likelihood of generating success for the greater number of people that apply it. It should be a simpler, easier, safer, more reliable, and more consistent method. That's kinda the definition of high percentage there, and something that I've been saying throughout this thread (what Ras can do doesn't matter as much as what his students can, and should rely on), so "for me, for a 50 year old" etc shouldn't come into it. The best chance at success for the greater number of people is high percentage.

Okay Cyriacus...thanks for your contribution. I read your EDITED post,and in the spirit of that post (which I think is quite reasonable) let me offer this:

I've repeatedly stated that I use the 2 on 1 in all of its forms,which I consider to be one expression.A part of that single expression is very much akin to what I gather from Chris Parker's posts. Why don't I (just for clarification's sake) just put up a video of me flowing throwing and scrapping with this tech in drills and in practice to show what I'm talking about? That's really more an exercise for clarity on my part. Idk what Chris can do to make us visually grasp what he's talking about unless he's able to find videos that are very akin to what he's talking about and post them up.Then we can compare and contrast more effectively.Whaddya say? Should keep us on point without devolving into playground finger pointing and name calling.

Once again, though, this discussion has been on the method you present in your clip, as you yourself stated in posts #6 and #20 as repeated above. If you do other versions, great... but you have stated that the method you show in the clip is the best option, and the method you show is both hands on the knifeman's weapon-holding wrist.

For a visual reference to the grip I'm talking about, one more time, look to almost every other clip presented here. Specifically look to the STAB clips that Mike posted in post #31... they both show something very close to my approach/grip, including the versatility (arm shock/bar, knees, disarms, controls, movement from hold to hold, and more) that you seem to think isn't present in that grip, and I will emphatically state is not present in yours (if you try kicking from there and they're still struggling for control of the knife, you will, at best, miss, and at worst get pulled completely off balance to begin with).

After 5 pages, Ras and Chris...please refresh me again with your grip preference. IIRC, Ras is using the 2/1 while standing in front of the knifer, while Chris prefers the 2/1 while standing on the side, ie: the STAB clips.

Ras's grip, and the issues I see (from post #23... way back on page two):

The other thing is the exact secure you are getting here (two hands on the wrist, specifically - not the fact that it's two hands, it's that it's on the wrist. It's not a high-low secure, which is what you have shown in the clip you linked, and is what I'd advise it is changed to, it's a double grab to the wrist. That's what I'm having problems with).

The problems I see with the grab to the wrist are rather numerous, honestly. First off, you're not moving off the line of the attack, so if you miss, then you've just moved into a knife to your stomach. Next is the real possibility of driving your hands directly down onto the blade, or it slicing up the inside of your forearms. Now, that can be survivable, and you may still get your grip, but now it's going to be slippery with your own blood, making it less secure. Next, the grip works with both hands coming down from on top, meaning that the "weak" aspect of the grip (the opening in your hands where your grip is weakest, and against which all grip releases work) are both on the underside of his arm. If he does pull back (typically he may push against you with his free hand while stepping back and yanking his arm out), he will be working against the weakest part of your grab with both of your hands. A high-low secure means that only one of the hands will have it's "weak" side exposed in this way, so where one is weak, the other is strong, making a much more powerful control. Next, he will be flailing around with the blade on his way out, so unless the secure is very tight and controlling the knife itself (which it isn't if it's held out from your body, essentially it's just become a wrestling match now to see who's strongest), there's a good chance of being cut as a method to get you to let go. Finally, if the attack is more of the "sewing machine" attack, then simply getting the timing of catching the wrist with both hands is rather difficult, as the attacker is already pumping their arm back and forth. You may contact their wrist, and they're already pulling it back, which means you miss.

And my grip, as shown in the STAB clips (again, post #23)

Instead, I'd move to the outside (outflank), allowing my left (lead) hand to catch the upper arm (which moves a lot slower), and my right (rear) hand to come down on top of the forearm, and then make it's way down to catch the wrist. From there, the knife hand is pulled in besides my right hip and I drop my bodyweight down on top of the attackers arm to help control. In this position, staying low and stable, even with the knifeman struggling, trying to pull the knife back, trying to shake me off, I can stay in control and ride the struggle. And, yes, I've trained that with people about twice my size. You can get an armbar against the elbow with your body, and the pull in to the hip is the same as your "whipping" action. Additionally, if I miss, my arms form a protective barrier against the knife, and I've moved offline so I don't get stabbed for missing it.

There is also minimalist chance of swapping the knife hand, or striking with the opposite hand in the version I mention as well, I might note, and it works even better against someone with longer limbs or someone taller (as you drag them down, and move inside their field of range). I would not advise going for the wrist initially the way you do as, although it is vital to control it against a knifeman, it is also the fastest moving part of his arm, and the easiest for him to avoid your grip with.

So, in essence, Ras has posted that two hands on the wrist is the "best option", and I have pointed out the issues with it, his entry, and what I feel is a better grip and entry method, involving a tighter, more secure, closer grip, inside the functional range of the knife.

Any more questions on that?

I prefer the 2 on 1 that allows kicks disengagements knees levers throws trips locks breaks escapes disarms plus all the things in the STAB plus what Chris has spoken of and all the things that I spoke of. Chris seems to prefer a much more narrow interpretation which doesn't include all the things that I spoke of--including the longer range 2 on 1 grip,the "oh ****" moment that can lead to it AND the purposeful technical approach that is much more tactically sound...just contrary to his preferences and experience. He referred to "natural responces" which can be pretty much whatever he prefers because there hasn't been specific definitions thereof,and our grasp of it has much wider lattitude because we don't have a visual physical expression of it so he has to paint a picture with his words.

Unless a very accurate,very detailed word picture violates the injunction against sharing techs that he knows...

Oh boy. Really? You think you can kick easily when someone's struggling for their knife, and the knife is between the two of you? It's actually a lot easier to kick from the tighter position, although due to the range, you'd knee instead. And a knee lever (I'm assuming putting your knee on the elbow to force someone to the ground)? You're deliberately giving up balance when there's a knife involved? Ras, my method is firstly NOT narrower, it's higher return. Yours is also not more "tactically sound", as I can pull apart tactical issues in just this little paragraph here. Finally, when it comes to "natural responces", I actually mean what that sounds like. I mean the normal, expected, natural responce that is encountered in such situations, which are handled by the closer, tighter grip, but not by your method, gotta say. That includes the knifeman pulling their knife arm back, pushing against you, struggling to retain control, and so on.

Thanks Ras. I dont know if Chris has given up on this topic, but hopefully he'll chime in again. I for one, do enjoy his insight and feedback on various topics.

Anywho...in the end, everyone will have what they feel is 'the' best defense. For me, my concern always has and always will be, gaining control, and putting myself into the best position possible, to maintain that control. From there, everything else will come into play.

I will say that it seems, to me anyways, that the STAB method is the more popular one. We see it used with the Dog Bros in their DLO clips. Actually, those clips seem to address more of dealing with the rapid pumping thrusts that are common.

Ha, no, I hadn't given up, but needed a bit of time to get this down.... you understand, yeah?

To give another perspective, here is a clip of Jeff Speakman doing a tech. His version is probably going to be slightly different, as he's made alot of changes to his material.

[yt]_Jh7O1VzkyA[/yt]

The control here is much better, with Jeff moving in past the knife (although I'm not fond of the initial defence), you might note that Jeff is using a high/low control (with his upper arm controlling the upper arm of the knifeman, another application of the same principle that I use). The biggest issue with this is the massively out of place murder at the end, with you, having disarmed the knifeman, proceeding to cut him to ribbons. Yeah, that's some pretty serious jail time for killing a now unarmed man there.... oh, and it's rather inefficient use of a knife, I might add....

[yt]SPFfX-cfijg[/yt]

Some Kajukenbo. The knife defense starts at 3:40.

Hmm, I'm going to be blunt here as well (well, why stop now?), and say that not much of that impressed me either. There's a lot of overkill, some dangerous actions, and a few outright fantasy sequences. I'm also not impressed with the "Ferrari versus Go-kart" approach, or the attackers habits of not just stopping the attack, but lowering their defences (their hands) each time as soon as the defence starts as well. Hmm. That said, there are a few things that can be stripped out of it to make a pretty good knife defence program, but a lot needs to be removed first.

Well, wasn't that fun? Oh, and Ras, if you still don't get what I'm talking about, I'll see about putting some kind of clip together that doesn't really give away too much. Okay? It may take a week or so, though. But only if you still don't get what I mean from all of this.

 

[MJS]

Yep, it looks basically like a drill designed to ensure the student gains and maintains control of the weapon hand/arm while the opponent struggles (and strikes). And, I will also say that if that level and type of struggle happens when the knife is held out (as Ras is in his clip), then that's when you end up with a knife in the belly.

Yeah, thats what I figured.

The specific quote I think you're referring to is in post #53, yeah? I was referring specifically to the two clips Ras posted there (Paul Vunak and the JKD test one). What I was talking about was the training methodology itself, which deals with a "sparring" type method. In the first one, for instance (Paul Vunak), he uses the old standard Magic Marker knife drill, all fine and good... but his partner, the defender, constantly tries to intercept, or hit down on the knife arm, and gets cut, without ever getting enough distance to escape. If he's not getting the distance, then his best option is to move in to control... he's just staying in the knife's preferred range at this stage, and as a result can't "catch" the knife, and gets cut pretty badly. If he was drilled in moving past the knife (outflanking), and controlling it, which is what I'm talking about, then the amount of ink would be severely reduced. His attempts at kicks lead to his leg being cut pretty often as well, and was basically a fear responce, attempting to keep the knifeman back, without ever having a real tactic being applied.

Yeah, this is what I eluded to in #6. IMO, alot of this is akin, IMO, to the typical Karate type sparring, only one person is just offense, and the other defense. Like you said below, for evasion, sure, learning how to evade is a key skill...but, if thats all thats ever done, well, IMO, thats foolish. It'd be like you pissing someone off in a roadrage incident, and you using your car as a shield. How long are you going to run from the guy? That may be a poor example, but I think you see what I'm saying.

Which is what the initial evasions that both Ras and I recommend are for. Yep, the initial reaction is typically that you will be overwhelmed, and move back in a flinch responce along what is referred to as the primal line before you "settle" enough to be able to actually respond positively.

Agreed.

Ah, but here's the thing. Under a serious, sudden adrenaline dump, it won't be anywhere near as effective as you felt when your instructor hit you. After all, most people who get stabbed (for instance) just think they've been punched... and pretty lightly, too. So I wouldn't rely on it being a limb destruction, really, particularly not at the angle the Gracie boys were coming in (it was more a deflecting angle than an attacking angle, really).

Thus the reason why I said what I said, about it not being a shure shot thing every time and for every person. Note in the Gracie clip, around 1:41, the block is done at, what seems to me, wrist level. When I do this, I'm using the proper angling and hitting more on the forearm, which yes, will possibly cause the destruction. Of course, I fully understand that with adrenaline, it may not work, which is akin to saying that if you punch someone, it may not have the desired effect. I've been saying that for years...that I dont like to rely on the 1 shot/1 kill, though it has worked.

And here's a question for Ras... In the same scenario, would you expect your students to reach out and try to grab the knife wrist? Do you really think that's the safest, or best plan?

I'm not Ras, but, for me, no, I would not encourage that.

Pure evasion as an initial, core skill set, absolutely. Constant attacks (even when the defender is defending), yep. But sparring? No.

Agreed. See above for my reply.

That's the core concept of training and utilising principles, rather than having "techniques" to handle things. Ideally, if I can find one thing that'll cover 99% of situations, that's what I'll be working with. In fact, that's kinda what the knife defence I teach is. It is one principle which is applied against forehand, backhand, high, low, thrusts (high and low), inside, outside, grab and stab, threats, close quarters, distance attacks, and more. It is even pretty much the same (the same movement principles) if it's knife against knife, or unarmed knife defence. I don't offer lot's of options, or even more than a small number, as it's just the same principles adapted to the new environments/situations.

So it doesn't matter if they come in with #4, or #11, or even #123, if the principles are solid, it'll be as effective no matter what.

Yup, I like to use this philosophy with my empty hand Kenpo stuff, which I've talked about many times. Instead of having 30 different responses to 30 different attacks, I like to have what you said, 1 that'll cover 99% of them.

Agreed other than the high percentage thing. High percentage should mean that it offers a higher likelihood of generating success for the greater number of people that apply it. It should be a simpler, easier, safer, more reliable, and more consistent method. That's kinda the definition of high percentage there, and something that I've been saying throughout this thread (what Ras can do doesn't matter as much as what his students can, and should rely on), so "for me, for a 50 year old" etc shouldn't come into it. The best chance at success for the greater number of people is high percentage.

For the most part Chris I agree. However, its a fact that things will probably have to be modified from person to person. I'm 5'10. Someone who stands 6'7, I'll probably have to modify what I do, due to the height, just like I'd have to make slight changes if I was facing someone 5'3.

Ras's grip, and the issues I see (from post #23... way back on page two):



And my grip, as shown in the STAB clips (again, post #23)

Ok.

Ha, no, I hadn't given up, but needed a bit of time to get this down.... you understand, yeah?

No problem my friend.

The control here is much better, with Jeff moving in past the knife (although I'm not fond of the initial defence), you might note that Jeff is using a high/low control (with his upper arm controlling the upper arm of the knifeman, another application of the same principle that I use). The biggest issue with this is the massively out of place murder at the end, with you, having disarmed the knifeman, proceeding to cut him to ribbons. Yeah, that's some pretty serious jail time for killing a now unarmed man there.... oh, and it's rather inefficient use of a knife, I might add....





Hmm, I'm going to be blunt here as well (well, why stop now?), and say that not much of that impressed me either. There's a lot of overkill, some dangerous actions, and a few outright fantasy sequences. I'm also not impressed with the "Ferrari versus Go-kart" approach, or the attackers habits of not just stopping the attack, but lowering their defences (their hands) each time as soon as the defence starts as well. Hmm. That said, there are a few things that can be stripped out of it to make a pretty good knife defence program, but a lot needs to be removed first.

Yeah, theres alot of 'overkill' in Kenpo/Kaju, though some like to call it 'overskill', but to each their own. I understand that just because the guy is down, doesnt mean he's out, so throwing more shots on the downed man, may be needed, though from the uneducated bystander, it'll seem overkill. "The guy was down, where was the threat???" Another reason why I always say its important to assess the situation and adjust accordinly.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

Yeah, this is what I eluded to in #6. IMO, alot of this is akin, IMO, to the typical Karate type sparring, only one person is just offense, and the other defense. Like you said below, for evasion, sure, learning how to evade is a key skill...but, if thats all thats ever done, well, IMO, thats foolish. It'd be like you pissing someone off in a roadrage incident, and you using your car as a shield. How long are you going to run from the guy? That may be a poor example, but I think you see what I'm saying.

Single attacker, single defender isn't the issue (it's actually more realistic, honestly), it's the way that the defender isn't demonstrating usable skills other than getting his arms cut. I get that it was done to illustrate a point, but the skill set isn't there so the drilling method used is lacking.

Thus the reason why I said what I said, about it not being a shure shot thing every time and for every person. Note in the Gracie clip, around 1:41, the block is done at, what seems to me, wrist level. When I do this, I'm using the proper angling and hitting more on the forearm, which yes, will possibly cause the destruction. Of course, I fully understand that with adrenaline, it may not work, which is akin to saying that if you punch someone, it may not have the desired effect. I've been saying that for years...that I dont like to rely on the 1 shot/1 kill, though it has worked.

As I'm sure you're aware, a strike to the body, or head, which is more static in it's position (relative to the moving, or incoming limb) is going to be higher return to impart force than striking to an incoming arm. So you can rely on a punch that way far more than this form of "limb destruction", to be frank. That said, agreed, all eggs in one basket isn't the best plan on the table.

I'm not Ras, but, for me, no, I would not encourage that.

Ha, didn't think you would! That does leave me wondering what Ras was getting at when he invented that scenario, as my option seems to be by far and away the better out of the two discussed approaches there.... hmm....

Yup, I like to use this philosophy with my empty hand Kenpo stuff, which I've talked about many times. Instead of having 30 different responses to 30 different attacks, I like to have what you said, 1 that'll cover 99% of them.

Which is found in the training of principles, over techniques.

For the most part Chris I agree. However, its a fact that things will probably have to be modified from person to person. I'm 5'10. Someone who stands 6'7, I'll probably have to modify what I do, due to the height, just like I'd have to make slight changes if I was facing someone 5'3.

The technical application will need to change in large or small ways, sure. But the principles shouldn't need to at all (if they do, they aren't really universal principles, are they?). Modification within the principles is the exact way it is supposed to go.

Yeah, theres alot of 'overkill' in Kenpo/Kaju, though some like to call it 'overskill', but to each their own. I understand that just because the guy is down, doesnt mean he's out, so throwing more shots on the downed man, may be needed, though from the uneducated bystander, it'll seem overkill. "The guy was down, where was the threat???" Another reason why I always say its important to assess the situation and adjust accordinly.

Yeah, I get the "overwhelm" aspect, it's one of the hallmarks of American Kempo, Kajukembo etc, my big issue is more with Jeff's end to his technique, starting at 4:20 in the clip above. He strips the knife from his assailant, meaning that the attacker is now unarmed, and strikes to the side of the jaw with the butt of the weapon. Okay, that removes the threat, all good. However, Jeff then proceeds to cut the carotid artery of his unarmed opponent (which is already potentially murder charges, or at the very least aggrevated assault with intent to grievous bodily harm), then cuts back down through the guys cheek and mouth, and then, to clear the arm, cuts open the shoulder and tricep. Not content with that, against his now bleeding out and still unarmed opponent, clearly not posing any threat anymore, Jeff strikes the groin, cuts open the femoral artery now (the second major bleeder), moves behind, and cuts the testicles (for good measure, I suppose....?). That is beyond overkill, it's outright murder and highly irresponsible to be given under any circumstances. The only other place I really see this kind of thing is in the outrightly fraudulant bogus "ninja" schools - nothing historically used would waste that amount of time and energy, frankly!