For simplicity’s sake, lets just stick to melee weapon.
And I will only use the knife for my example.
First incredibly related to my question. WATCH THE VIDEO from start to end, even though its unarmed because its a fundamental car part to what I’m asking.
Now to bring a popular fictional analogy. In Dungeons and Dragons and Computer Role Playing Games, there exists a hierarchy when it comes to weapons. Surprisingly many RPGs are spot on with your statements of how different weapon types tend to have different strengths and weaknesses and are best in different circumstances. Knives are typically stereotyped in D and D and Computer RPGs as having short reach and relatively low damage but excel in speed and often get bonus damage from surprise attacks thus being ideal for close range. Long swords are well balanced weapons typically useful in all ranges but not excelling at any particular one. Maces, clubs, and other blunt weapons excelling at mid range and having destructive on hit KO power. Staves and spears having long hit detection and being the best at longer range. A few more game series with more advanced mechanics take it even further. For example knives may be typically faster than a spear but at long range spear weapons have much quicker attack range and speed than even the best knives under the fastest player and the RPGs with the most sophisticated mechanics even did different attacks. One computer game I played at my friend’s house features at long range your spear automatically attacks with lightning speed but in super close range you have options for either changing the spear into an improvised club but with pathetic damage and attack speed or attempt to thrust overhead but leaving you expose and lower defenses in excahnge for a possible killing blow.
But all these Role Playing Games (even the most advanced mechanically) feature one thing that bugs me. No matter how much of a crappy situation you find your character stuck (eg you have to use a knife and close in against a spearman from 10 feet away), if your “skill point” for using a specific weapon is far higher (and especially when combined with far superior attributes), you’ll always WIN in the end.
For example when I was playing The Elder Scrolls Online, even though my opponent was using a heavy war club (which had a damage of 500 points) against my crappy longsword (which only did 2 damage) and we were fighting specifically at medium range (the range where blunt weapon EXCELS in the game), I won in the end. Simply because my skill level for longsword was so high (at level 80). while my opponent’s blunt skill was just at amateur (level 05 literally). So even though clubs are far superior at toe-to-toe range to sword and his specific weapon was high quality, the difference in skill points decided the match.
Hell even in battles between two people who are quite trained enough to have mastered the fundamentals of weapons, someone who is far superior with his specific tool will still win. In World of Warcraft a quick Rogue with a speed of 230 closed in to my mage and was using his knife to stab me to death. The Rogue had a level 70 “close range” weapons skill and was using one of the strongest knives in the game. My mage only had a speed of 30. However my mage mastered the staff skill (level 300). So even though knife is far superior at close range according and staff weapons are considered worthless at knife range according to gameplay mechanic and despite the fact my opponent was considered by the system as being quite skilled with close range weapons (he even gets ranked in his character stats as “expert”), because my mage had a huge gap in skill I was able to take out this rogue.
In an odd sitaution, when I was playing MIght and Magic even though my knight was armed to the teeth, I couldn’t hurt a wild lion because my skill with longsword was merely at level 10. I was only able to kill the lion after finally sheating my sword and using fistcuffs to beat the lion to death (as my knight’s skill in “strike enhancers” unarmed weapons EG steel toed shoes and metallic gloves was at level 50, far superior than my knight’s longsword skill).
I may sound like I’m ranting. But rewatch the Youtube video I linked at the top of my question again before reading the rest of what I’ll say (BECAUSE its that important).
Nick Drossos states that one of the MOST lovely STUPIDEST things that happens in violence is people getting too “emotionally-attached” to a specific attack. To the point they force in trying to use their favorite moves under situations that hampers said technique power and mechanics, if not make it outright impossible or even suicidal to use such a technique.
Its already bad enough that mass entertainment shows people doing techniques that are crappy for circumstances (like trying to your opponent throw high kicks in an enclosed closet or people trying to throw boxing style punches while when you got attacked while sitting in a desk at university). And people being lacking the common sense and following movies.
BUT just the HOLLYWOOD even portrays the same thing with weapons. Just saw a film about a Chinese resistance fighter in World War II who decides to take on a bunch of Japanese soldiers. He pulls out a Nunchaku and is able to kill over 30 Japs armed with bayonets and swords ina melee.
Just as Nick Drossos points out people becoming so “emotionally bonded” to an unarmed technique that they refuse to adapt and change to a more appropriate move under different circumstances, in real life there are incidents of people taking the weapons they earned a blackbelt in and using it in street fights.
However one thing that confuses me-so far all the real life coverage portrays said martial artists as being effectively using such crappy weapons and defeating hardcore thugs and violence professionals. I saw a few years ago of a person getting a nunchuck and successfully taking out a biker armed with a baseball bat at a bar in the daily news and I just recently saw an article about a group of policemen (equipped with batons and tasers) getting easily pawned by someone trained in Kali sticks.
Looking at the news, its as though I’m seeing Computer RPG mechanics and Dungeons and Dragons rule come to life. Even though they are using weapons under circumstances they are not meant for, well-trained martial artists are winning.
However Marc MacYoung and RBSD mentioned that repeatedly how important it is to recognize the properties of weapons. When it comes to knives, they always emphasize contraire to what traditional martial arts instructors says the knife is one of the worst weapons to in most circumstances and real pros at violence would use other far better weapons as a first resort (and only pull out knives as a backup).
In addition they also emphasize despite the claim of effectiveness of improvised weapons, any well-trained swordsman would quickly cut down a master of using the paddle oar in combat. Hell I seen RBSD guys (MacYoung in his books especially) state someone untrained with real weapons such as spears and war clubs but committed enough to getting you would probably quickly kill a blackbelt who mastered the Tanto.
So I am curious in real life how much does the “skill” mechanics of Role Playing Games apply? I already know you hold a low opinion of using stuff like fistcuffs and Hanbos. But with all the news showing people armed with these improvised stuff like an Irish guy wearing fistcuffs Koing some thugs armed with a tire irons and people using Cane martial arts to even successfully take out people armed with military weapons like a bayonet (actually saw this at a martial arts exhibition), it makes me wonder if emotional attachment is better?
I mean if you mastered using the bo staff would it be better to stick with a staff even if there’s a broad sword nearby and my enemy intends to hack me with a war mace and is in plate armor (but is untrained)? A silly scenario I know but I just saw this at a HEMA exhibition too where someone tried to take on another an opponent who’s in full plate armour. His training with swords was subpar so he couldn’t beat the plated armor guy. He than switched to quarterstaffs and quickly pawned the dude in knight’s armour (evne though the knight dude had some training in sword). Quarter staff user than used that as proof of how someone who’s mastered a specific weapon can win a fight even though he’s using a worse weapon and the opponent is well-armoured and well-trained in swordsmaship. So long as he’s using the weaponry he mastered (no matter how much they aren’t designed to fight armoured opponents).
So I am curious if there is some truth to RPG mechanics? Or if even assuming someone mastered every technique using a knife, he will always lose against someone just trained in the basics using a club? I lack training in swordsmanship but if I got a sword and fought a blackbelt who’s mastered everything about using the Eku (boat oar), would I lose even using a far superior weapon?
I am just confused with how these martial arts masters are winning agaiagainstnt far superior weapons under shitty circumstances despite RBSD's statements about someone even descently trained with swords will always win against a nunchaku master.
And I will only use the knife for my example.
First incredibly related to my question. WATCH THE VIDEO from start to end, even though its unarmed because its a fundamental car part to what I’m asking.
Now to bring a popular fictional analogy. In Dungeons and Dragons and Computer Role Playing Games, there exists a hierarchy when it comes to weapons. Surprisingly many RPGs are spot on with your statements of how different weapon types tend to have different strengths and weaknesses and are best in different circumstances. Knives are typically stereotyped in D and D and Computer RPGs as having short reach and relatively low damage but excel in speed and often get bonus damage from surprise attacks thus being ideal for close range. Long swords are well balanced weapons typically useful in all ranges but not excelling at any particular one. Maces, clubs, and other blunt weapons excelling at mid range and having destructive on hit KO power. Staves and spears having long hit detection and being the best at longer range. A few more game series with more advanced mechanics take it even further. For example knives may be typically faster than a spear but at long range spear weapons have much quicker attack range and speed than even the best knives under the fastest player and the RPGs with the most sophisticated mechanics even did different attacks. One computer game I played at my friend’s house features at long range your spear automatically attacks with lightning speed but in super close range you have options for either changing the spear into an improvised club but with pathetic damage and attack speed or attempt to thrust overhead but leaving you expose and lower defenses in excahnge for a possible killing blow.
But all these Role Playing Games (even the most advanced mechanically) feature one thing that bugs me. No matter how much of a crappy situation you find your character stuck (eg you have to use a knife and close in against a spearman from 10 feet away), if your “skill point” for using a specific weapon is far higher (and especially when combined with far superior attributes), you’ll always WIN in the end.
For example when I was playing The Elder Scrolls Online, even though my opponent was using a heavy war club (which had a damage of 500 points) against my crappy longsword (which only did 2 damage) and we were fighting specifically at medium range (the range where blunt weapon EXCELS in the game), I won in the end. Simply because my skill level for longsword was so high (at level 80). while my opponent’s blunt skill was just at amateur (level 05 literally). So even though clubs are far superior at toe-to-toe range to sword and his specific weapon was high quality, the difference in skill points decided the match.
Hell even in battles between two people who are quite trained enough to have mastered the fundamentals of weapons, someone who is far superior with his specific tool will still win. In World of Warcraft a quick Rogue with a speed of 230 closed in to my mage and was using his knife to stab me to death. The Rogue had a level 70 “close range” weapons skill and was using one of the strongest knives in the game. My mage only had a speed of 30. However my mage mastered the staff skill (level 300). So even though knife is far superior at close range according and staff weapons are considered worthless at knife range according to gameplay mechanic and despite the fact my opponent was considered by the system as being quite skilled with close range weapons (he even gets ranked in his character stats as “expert”), because my mage had a huge gap in skill I was able to take out this rogue.
In an odd sitaution, when I was playing MIght and Magic even though my knight was armed to the teeth, I couldn’t hurt a wild lion because my skill with longsword was merely at level 10. I was only able to kill the lion after finally sheating my sword and using fistcuffs to beat the lion to death (as my knight’s skill in “strike enhancers” unarmed weapons EG steel toed shoes and metallic gloves was at level 50, far superior than my knight’s longsword skill).
I may sound like I’m ranting. But rewatch the Youtube video I linked at the top of my question again before reading the rest of what I’ll say (BECAUSE its that important).
Nick Drossos states that one of the MOST lovely STUPIDEST things that happens in violence is people getting too “emotionally-attached” to a specific attack. To the point they force in trying to use their favorite moves under situations that hampers said technique power and mechanics, if not make it outright impossible or even suicidal to use such a technique.
Its already bad enough that mass entertainment shows people doing techniques that are crappy for circumstances (like trying to your opponent throw high kicks in an enclosed closet or people trying to throw boxing style punches while when you got attacked while sitting in a desk at university). And people being lacking the common sense and following movies.
BUT just the HOLLYWOOD even portrays the same thing with weapons. Just saw a film about a Chinese resistance fighter in World War II who decides to take on a bunch of Japanese soldiers. He pulls out a Nunchaku and is able to kill over 30 Japs armed with bayonets and swords ina melee.
Just as Nick Drossos points out people becoming so “emotionally bonded” to an unarmed technique that they refuse to adapt and change to a more appropriate move under different circumstances, in real life there are incidents of people taking the weapons they earned a blackbelt in and using it in street fights.
However one thing that confuses me-so far all the real life coverage portrays said martial artists as being effectively using such crappy weapons and defeating hardcore thugs and violence professionals. I saw a few years ago of a person getting a nunchuck and successfully taking out a biker armed with a baseball bat at a bar in the daily news and I just recently saw an article about a group of policemen (equipped with batons and tasers) getting easily pawned by someone trained in Kali sticks.
Looking at the news, its as though I’m seeing Computer RPG mechanics and Dungeons and Dragons rule come to life. Even though they are using weapons under circumstances they are not meant for, well-trained martial artists are winning.
However Marc MacYoung and RBSD mentioned that repeatedly how important it is to recognize the properties of weapons. When it comes to knives, they always emphasize contraire to what traditional martial arts instructors says the knife is one of the worst weapons to in most circumstances and real pros at violence would use other far better weapons as a first resort (and only pull out knives as a backup).
In addition they also emphasize despite the claim of effectiveness of improvised weapons, any well-trained swordsman would quickly cut down a master of using the paddle oar in combat. Hell I seen RBSD guys (MacYoung in his books especially) state someone untrained with real weapons such as spears and war clubs but committed enough to getting you would probably quickly kill a blackbelt who mastered the Tanto.
So I am curious in real life how much does the “skill” mechanics of Role Playing Games apply? I already know you hold a low opinion of using stuff like fistcuffs and Hanbos. But with all the news showing people armed with these improvised stuff like an Irish guy wearing fistcuffs Koing some thugs armed with a tire irons and people using Cane martial arts to even successfully take out people armed with military weapons like a bayonet (actually saw this at a martial arts exhibition), it makes me wonder if emotional attachment is better?
I mean if you mastered using the bo staff would it be better to stick with a staff even if there’s a broad sword nearby and my enemy intends to hack me with a war mace and is in plate armor (but is untrained)? A silly scenario I know but I just saw this at a HEMA exhibition too where someone tried to take on another an opponent who’s in full plate armour. His training with swords was subpar so he couldn’t beat the plated armor guy. He than switched to quarterstaffs and quickly pawned the dude in knight’s armour (evne though the knight dude had some training in sword). Quarter staff user than used that as proof of how someone who’s mastered a specific weapon can win a fight even though he’s using a worse weapon and the opponent is well-armoured and well-trained in swordsmaship. So long as he’s using the weaponry he mastered (no matter how much they aren’t designed to fight armoured opponents).
So I am curious if there is some truth to RPG mechanics? Or if even assuming someone mastered every technique using a knife, he will always lose against someone just trained in the basics using a club? I lack training in swordsmanship but if I got a sword and fought a blackbelt who’s mastered everything about using the Eku (boat oar), would I lose even using a far superior weapon?
I am just confused with how these martial arts masters are winning agaiagainstnt far superior weapons under shitty circumstances despite RBSD's statements about someone even descently trained with swords will always win against a nunchaku master.