Borrowed this from another thread 1) Any such techniques are inherently far, far, far less tested than the rest of what I teach. For example, if I'm teaching a right cross: I've landed multiple right crosses in real fights. My teachers have done the same. Through personal experience, first hand observation or video, we can examine potentially hundreds of thousands of right crosses in different contexts which have succeeded or failed and draw our conclusions regarding what works best. Contrariwise, very few instructors have ever performed an unarmed disarm of a real knife in a real assault. Of those who have, none have had occasion to do so more than a few times at most. Most of those rare occasions have not been witnessed or videoed. We don't know how typical those successes are or what sort of factors may have made a difference. We have even less information regarding the knife disarm attempts that failed. In short, we don't have the dataset for anyone to honestly claim to be an expert on the subject. (That said, I do know instructors who I think are on the right track and other instructors who I think are teaching garbage that will get you killed.) Articulately explained by Tony Dismukes. And people will nod their heads and say , "Yes, weapon disarms are incredibly difficult to pull off, and it is a little practice area of self defense." Borrowed from another (different ) thread " Any time you resort to a weapon you must be committing to using it. Otherwise it may be taken away from you and used against you by your opponent. " And again, people will nod their heads and say how there is enough of a danger of having a weapon taken away from you that you must take that into consideration before to bring a weapon into play. If a weapons disarm is a last ditch thing for a skilled practitioner, why is it accepted as fact that the bad guy will be able to disarm you, and use your weapon against you? Is there even anecdotal evidence of bad guys successfully reversing weapons on people using them in self defense?