Available Knife Fighting Systems

[Joe Hubbard]

Mark



How the hell are you? Nice to hear from you mate. Listen get your *** over to Hock’s Forum, we haven’t heard from you there yet. Plenty of posts from Jeff though. Hey you know I love all the arts, just got tempted to rattle a cage or two, that’s all. I am still trying to figure out all that stuff you showed us at The Ring of Fire. I’ll be there again in Dallas in May. Love to everyone.



Cheers



Joe

 

[MJS]

Hi Mike



Fancy bumping into you here! Sure, train with as many as possible. Believe me I have and still do. I know what the Gaje system is all about and it’s just not for me. He is (and I stand by that) a genius at what he does!



Peace



Joe



P.S. Check out Hock’s forum : www.hockscombatforum.com you’re welcome even if we don’t always see eye to eye.

Hey Joe! First off, no disrespect on my part regarding your last post. :asian:

I too, have heard many very good things about Hock. I'll definately check out his forum.

As for not seeing eye to eye...thats what makes these forums so much fun!! I checked out your site, and I was impressed. You definately have alot to offer, and I respect you for that!!!

Take care and I'll see you around the boards!!

Mike

 

[Mark Lynn]

Mark



How the hell are you? Nice to hear from you mate. Listen get your *** over to Hock’s Forum, we haven’t heard from you there yet. Plenty of posts from Jeff though. Hey you know I love all the arts, just got tempted to rattle a cage or two, that’s all. I am still trying to figure out all that stuff you showed us at The Ring of Fire. I’ll be there again in Dallas in May. Love to everyone.



Cheers



Joe

Joe

I just recently checked out Hock's forum, I use the same name there as well. Look fwd to seeing you in May, set aside some time and we can work on what I taught at the Hock's camp if you want to.

mark

 

[USKS1]

Joe

I just recently checked out Hock's forum, I use the same name there as well. Look fwd to seeing you in May, set aside some time and we can work on what I taught at the Hock's camp if you want to.

mark

Hey guys.. I want to play too...

You know there are many systems that are super sophisticated and could work, but Hock covers what you need to know and shows you how to apply it. I play with some fancier stuff too, but only as a skill developer. I teach Hock's core first, then show them some cool stuff later, but only as skill developers and to have some fun.... Solid foundation and basics will save your life..

If you want to learn the fancier stuff for you own learning go ahead, but at least learn to defend yourself first... Prettier, or fancier does not always equal better or more effective. I still love Hock's old saying..

"Fighting first, systems second" Learn the cool stuff later if you want, but damn it man, learn to fight first...

just my .02

See ya in May.

Dean.

 

[Joe Hubbard]

Absolutely Mark! I can’t wait. See you there.



Dean, I like Hock’s saying, “Don’t look pretty by design, try to look ugly- damn it you’re trying to beat the snot out of this SOB!”



Cheers Guys



Joe

 

[TChase]

Hey guys.. I want to play too...

You know there are many systems that are super sophisticated and could work, but Hock covers what you need to know and shows you how to apply it. I play with some fancier stuff too, but only as a skill developer. I teach Hock's core first, then show them some cool stuff later, but only as skill developers and to have some fun.... Solid foundation and basics will save your life..

If you want to learn the fancier stuff for you own learning go ahead, but at least learn to defend yourself first... Prettier, or fancier does not always equal better or more effective. I still love Hock's old saying..

"Fighting first, systems second" Learn the cool stuff later if you want, but damn it man, learn to fight first...

just my .02

See ya in May.

Dean.

Just curious, what would be some examples of fancy systems?

 

[starrider7777]

Here is a very interesting link on topic:


Knife fighting lies (by MacYoung?)
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html

Once when studying up on knife fighting a stumbled across a book entitled "Put 'Em Down and Take 'Em Out- Knife Fighting Secrets of Folsom Prison."

http://users.pandora.be/wim.demeere/book/book004.htm

I found this little book to be the most useful information I have come across to date on the subject.

The author points out that experienced knife fighters do not lead with the knife, make slashing or overhand attacks, leave the knife arm extended or have paralyzed free- hands. They do in fact keep the knife hand retracted scorpion like at their side so as not to offer you an opportunity to lock the knife arm, disarm them or perform some fancy move. They only move the knife foreward when an opening appears where they can stab you repeatedly. The free hand offers interference and attacks that will create openings for the knife as well as attacks of it's own.

It sounds simple enough. I will tell you that I took this concept to school with me and asked to try it with my JKD instructor who was a two time world Champion in Doce Pares' style Espada Y Daga Escrima/Arnis (knife and stick sport fighting). I was able to defeat him using
the Folsom technique.

I know that every knife fight and every fighter is different...I know that there are no techniques per se in Systema...I know that it is unproductive to ask,"How would you deal with such an attack?" ....

I suppose I will ask if anyone else is familiar with the book I mentioned - or experienced with attacks of that "prison style" nature?

As I said, I have sparred with these ideas and really found no solution to knife attacks in this style when the as a defender I am empty handed. About the best you can hope for is an escape.

If you have not checked out the book, I do recommend it... it's quite enlightening.

Here is a highlight from the first link I posted above...on point...pun intended heheh.
"Lie #4 He's going to attack you a certain way
I have a demonstration that I do during knife seminars. I find the highest ranking Filipino martial arts player present and I tell him to check and pass my attack. I then proceed to do a well balanced, fast, cautious attack. This is a legitimate and fast attack, and they tend to block it. I then tell them to block the another attack - and aiming for the same target - I do a prison yard rush on them. To this day I have gutted everyone of them.

The reason? They are entirely different knife attacks.

Many years ago Don Pentecost wrote a book called "Put 'em down, take 'em out: Knife fighting Secrets From Folsom Prison." In it, Don pointed out how actual knife homicides occurred in maximum security prisons. Putting it mildly, he outraged countless martial artists by what he said in that book, who to this day still disparage the book. Except for one thing, that prison yard rush is exactly what I use to gut so many of them. It is not a sophisticated attack, but it is a very common way to attack someone with a knife in the USA.

The FMA are predicated on one basic assumption, that you will be fighting a trained knifer. The problem with that assumption is that not everyone attacks the way that someone trained in the FMA will attack you. This is problematic because the counters of the FMA are designed to work against how people with FMA training will attack you. Against these kinds of attacks, the counters work great.

The bottom line is, in the Western culture, someone who is attacking you with a knife is attempting to murder you. They are not going to be hanging back cautiously in fear of your weapon and your fighting skill. Instead they will usually attempt to overwhelm you and quickly kill you by whatever means necessary. Such an attack is totally different than the well balanced and liquid attacks of the FMA. And that is totally different than how someone from Italy will attack you with a knife. And that is different than how someone from Venezuela is going to attack with a knife. And that is different than how someone from Brazil will attack you with a knife. And that is different than how someone from South Africa is going to attack you with a knife. And that is totally different than how someone from China will attack you with a knife. I know because I have traveled around the world and encountered knife fighting systems from all of those places.

I know that those who are selling knife fighting training and others who haven't seen these other systems will deny it, but: Just because you know how to handle one, doesn't mean you know how to handle the others. Each are different, and each are equally lethal. And those differences CAN kill you."

Happy Holidays!

 

[Cruentus]

starrider,

I am both familiar with the book by Don Pentacost, and Macyoung's website. They are both good resources, and thank you for posting them! :supcool:

A few things to remember here:

The excerpts from your sources are not discussing knife on knife encounters per say, but they are discussing jail or "street style" murder attempts, which are more common then knife vs. knife encounters. The "rush" with the live (empty) hand in front and with the knife hand behind is very common in jail and the street because the attacker aims to get his prey by surprise and unarmed, and doesn't want his knife hand grabbed. I am familiar with this attack in more ways then one.

In my empty hand vs knife training, this is the most difficult to defend. However, there are solutions...difficult solutions but they are there.

However, dispite this I recommend for using the knife, that it goes in the lead hand if you are experienced enough to not be disarmed, and especially if the other guy is armed, and especially ESPECIALLY if the other guy is armed with a knife himself. There aremany technical and tactical reasons behind this.

If you are caught trying to defend a "street" knife assasination attempt empty handed, however, I suggest running or finding a weapon quickly before attempting any sort of empty hand technique against the blade.

My thoughts anyway...

PJMOD

 

[[email protected]]

Hello Everyone,

I find this overly simplified view of how FMA practitioners train to always be, just that, overly simplified.

Like the Jim Carrey video clip where he is teaching Knife defense..”You attacked me wrong!” does not happen in a street attack. Any and all things can and will happen, all of them bad. As a practitioner who is trying to learn how to survive an attack on the street, I have looked at and studied many different FMA’s as well as Fencing and the recreational views of Western Sword work, and even Modern Military combative tactics. The view that there is a different way of attacking in South Africa, or any other place on earth, again I say this; is highly simplified, as there are only so many ways to hurt the human body, everyone learns how to do it in their country, therefore the rise of martial arts systems around the world. In most violent attacks, these tactics fall into very basic attacks, as an example “the prison yard rush” including several short slashes as well as quick thrusting movements. Many times it What could be missing in many practitioners training is the “mentality” of an aggressive determined attacker, who wants nothing else but to take you out. Many students have not been pushed into that type of training mode. Stress induction is the great advantage of the attacker and the great disadvantage of the defender, if he/she is not trained to deal with it well. If you look at the first example you gave, where he attacks in a precise manner for a person to counter, then tells them to defend again and attacks with an aggressive non compliant mentality, what was different? The technique or the Mentality and level of force on force being put into the exercise?

Gumagalang
Guro Steve L.

www.Bujinkandojo.net

 

[FDVargas0351]

Apache Knife Fighting as taught by Robert Redfeather is the most impressive long range knife material I have seen to date. Hoch's Material that I have seen in the closer ranges is top notch.

 

[bujuts]

Just out of curiosity, why do you teach civilians differently than you teach the military? When it comes to tactical knife fighting, haven't we by nature of the beast already crossed into the realm of deadly combat?

Always curious.

Thanks,

Steve Brown
UKF

 

[Cruentus]

Just out of curiosity, why do you teach civilians differently than you teach the military? When it comes to tactical knife fighting, haven't we by nature of the beast already crossed into the realm of deadly combat?

Always curious.

Thanks,

Steve Brown
UKF

I don't know if this question was directed towards me, but yes, I teach military differently then civilians.

Why?

There are a lot of reasons, but to start with, the objectives are different. Military person is trying to complete a mission before they go home, a civilian is just trying to go home. A civilian, for example, doesn't need to learn how to remove a sentry to get home safely, where as a military person may need such a technique to complete their objective.

Then there is the issue of legalities. Your tactics must be different as a civilian or you will go to jail. Back to the sentry removal example, you will not be able to argue "self-defense" if you do a sentry removal tactic on someone. There are many techniques that I teach to operators that are intended for assassinating another person; far more offensive then any civilian would need.

Then there is the issue of your environment. On the battlefield, your opponent is going to be a different animal then your criminal. He will be armed differently, and he will employ different tactics because his objectives will also be different. Also, if a knife needs to be used on the battlefield, it is because some major screw-up happened for the gun to not be used. There are no "police" to run to on the battlefield, so if the knife has to be deployed, chances are it will have to be done so in a highly offensive and lethal manner. This just is not the case for civilians in most civilized countries.

So these are a few reasons why I teach civilians very differently then operators. But basically, a different environment with a different set of rules and different objectives equals different tactics.

I hope that answers your questions. Unfortunatily, beyond that, the best answer you could get is to come see me, take one of my private programs, and give me the opportunity to demonstrate what I am talking about. However, I know that is difficult being in the UK. So, I hope that what I answered made sense.

Yours,

Paul Janulis
Master of Defense

 

[TChase]

I don't know if this question was directed towards me, but yes, I teach military differently then civilians.

Why?

There are a lot of reasons, but to start with, the objectives are different. Military person is trying to complete a mission before they go home, a civilian is just trying to go home. A civilian, for example, doesn't need to learn how to remove a sentry to get home safely, where as a military person may need such a technique to complete their objective.

Then there is the issue of legalities. Your tactics must be different as a civilian or you will go to jail. Back to the sentry removal example, you will not be able to argue "self-defense" if you do a sentry removal tactic on someone. There are many techniques that I teach to operators that are intended for assassinating another person; far more offensive then any civilian would need.

Then there is the issue of your environment. On the battlefield, your opponent is going to be a different animal then your criminal. He will be armed differently, and he will employ different tactics because his objectives will also be different. Also, if a knife needs to be used on the battlefield, it is because some major screw-up happened for the gun to not be used. There are no "police" to run to on the battlefield, so if the knife has to be deployed, chances are it will have to be done so in a highly offensive and lethal manner. This just is not the case for civilians in most civilized countries.

So these are a few reasons why I teach civilians very differently then operators. But basically, a different environment with a different set of rules and different objectives equals different tactics.

I hope that answers your questions. Unfortunatily, beyond that, the best answer you could get is to come see me, take one of my private programs, and give me the opportunity to demonstrate what I am talking about. However, I know that is difficult being in the UK. So, I hope that what I answered made sense.

Yours,

Paul Janulis
Master of Defense

I'm sorry Paul, but I have to respectfully disagree. Apart from sentry removal I don't see any difference between military and civilian(I have been both)when the outcome of the attack involves death. Survival is survival, whether on the battlefield or on the street. If the enemy is attacking me with a knife or any other type of edged weapon the intent is clear and I would not hesitate to attack in a highly offensive and lethal manner. If it's avoidable so be it, if not it's a decision that has already been made. In my opinion, having a "self defense" mindset against a knife is absolute suicide.

Could you give an example of something you would teach a military person and how you would teach it differently to a civilian?

 

[Cruentus]

It is very simple: In the military your objective is to kill your enemy as quickly as possible. As a civilian, your objective is to get you (and possibly your family or companions) to safety as quickly as possible.

The differences in tactics and techniques for these are pretty huge.

My military clients basically learn to close in and kill their opponent as effeciently as possible. My civilian clients learn to escape, help others escape, and learn to use the knife as a tool to help them escape by cutting anything that comes in their range to hurt them; their primary objective is escape rather then kill. Stopping the threat is a byproduct of escaping, and killing, if it occurs, is only a byproduct of trying to stop the threat to escape the attacker.

In either case, no one is "knife fighting" or knife dueling. My gild members play with knife dueling from a historical perspective and dueling sparring is great for building attributes; however, we all know that in a self-defense circumstance (battlefield or street) dueling isn't what's going to happened. Each circumstance will have an objective, and that objective will determine the proper tactics to employ.

Again, the best way to show these differences is on the training floor. But, I hope my explainations here are sufficient. I do welcome the questions though.

PJMOD

 

[Cruentus]

Actual break down of tactical differences...

My Military clients learn to use the knife by employing more of a stabbing strategy. They learn to close in on their attacker and lethally stab and rip vitals to bring their attacker down, so that their attacker is rendered unable to attack again.

My Civilian clients take more of a "slicing strategy" in a defensive mode. They are taught to try to get away from the attacker, and slice anything that comes in their path to hurt them. They learn how to anatomically cut the limbs first to stop their attacker if the attacker is impeding their escape, and move upward from there to vitals only if nessicary.

What is suicide is to expect the average civilian to be ruthless enough to do anything but uphold the primary objective of escaping an attacker. Here are a number of reasons why:

#1. The average civilian automatically has the cards stacked against them when attacked with lethal force. No amount of training will change this fact. One "rule of the street" is that if the attacker(s) didn't think the odds were in their favor, they wouldn't have attacked in the first place. Plus, an attacker(s) who is deploying lethal force has the ruthlessness to outright kill another human being; most civilians are completely unprepared for this level of ruthlessness, and most civilians will never be able to demonstrate this level of ruthlessness. So, for a civilian to close the gap and kill another with more ruthlessness then their attacker (which is what will be required to do such an act) is asking too much, regardless of training. Most civilians could not do what your average infantry man or LEO could do. Now, our soldiers are a different story, because they have been trained to overcome the aversion to killing another human being.

So, with the cards stacked against them logistically as well as physically and mentally, the civilains best choice in a lethal force circumstance is to try to escape to safety rather then to try to fight.

To try to stand their and fight or kill with a knife, for most civilians, is suicide.

#2. It is a lot more work for the attacker to have to deal with a mark who is intent on escaping at all costs, even if it means going through them to do it, then it is for the mark to stand there and fight them. Just ask any cop or security professional which they'd rather have: the perp stand their and try to fight, or the perp trying to escape at all costs.

Trust me on this, it is a lot harder to prevent someone from escaping then it is to have them stand and try to fight you back, especially if the cards are not in that persons favor. And for most street scum, they don't want things to be difficult; they would rather victimize the woman or weaker male who will try to fight them so they can overpower them then having to chase one down, getting kicked, sprayed, or sliced every time they get close.

#3. In our litigious society, in most cases it is our duty to try to escape the threat as our self-defense then to stand there and fight. This is especially true if a knife is deployed; you will have to prove in court that using such a tool of death was justified. And, you'll have to prove that this was your last resort. And you'll have to prove that you weren't looking to kill this guy; that there was no premeditation. It'll be a real ***** doing so if you weren't trying to escape, and all the entry wounds demonstrate you closing in on someone to kill them. The general concensus on this is that how can your claim to self-defense be true if you weren't trying to get away, and how can your claim to trying to get away be true if the forensic evidence tells a story of you closing the gap and killing your attacker. So, I teach civilians how to defend themselves in all aspects of the threat; and becoming a victim in the courtroom is not good self-defense in my opinion. It does a civilian no good to effectively defend themselves from being robbed of a few dollars on the street to be robbed of their freedom in jail because of poor training.


So I hope that also helps explain a little further. I know that my programs are a little unorthidoxed, so I definatily don't mind the questions. Also, since I am unorthidoxed, don't think of my opinions as a slam on what someone else is doing; I am just explaining what I do and why I do it.

Thanks again,

PJMOD
:asian:

 

[Franc0]

OK, I might get hammered for this reply, but this is why I DO teach sentry removal w/ knife techniques to my civillian students.
Some people keep their guns locked up, and don't have immediate access to one in a quick response situation . Say thats me in this case. I'm awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of an intruder breaking in my home. I get up and in the darkness, I catch a glimpse of someone in my living room with a gun (or knife), and he's heading straight for my room. I know if I make a run for the gun cabinet, he's gonna catch up to me before I get the cabinet open and grab my gun. So do I jump out and confront him? Not me, I stay low and silent and hide behind a chair w/ nothing but the scissors I grabbed off my dresser. He walks in and passes by not seeing me, so I stalk him up from behind and use that good ol sentry removal technique that my sea daddy taught me. Thank you :asian:
F.M.

 

[Cruentus]

F.M.,

O.K....a couple of things...

1. What you described is not self-defense. It may be a justifiable pre-emptive strike on an attacker, but you are actually attacking first, making it not really self-defense. You may be able to justify something like this, but that will depend on if your attorney can beat up the prosecuting attorney in court. Good luck with that. Some states might expect you to run out of your own home before doing something like that, even though it goes against every aspect of the constitution as far as I am concerned.

2. Marc Macyoung has something funny somewhere on his site about "27 ninja's." This made me laugh. Basically its these "what if 27 ninja's armed with uzi's corner me on a rooftop" type of situations. The situation listed is almost like a 27 ninja scenario, in that it is highly improbable. Sure, I agree that this could happened, but know that it is not a probable situation. Many people use improbable scenario's to justify teaching offensive manaeuvers while toting them to be self-defense maneauvers. A lot of fantasy assassin stuff and "knife fighter" crap is wrongly promoted this way. I sincerely hope that you aren't falling into this trap as an instructor.

3. I am not saying "don't teach this or that." What I am saying is present what you are teaching in a true fashion. If civilian pays me for a seminar or private lesson to learn self-defense, I would be doing them a disservice to teach them things like sentry removal techniques, as that is not really self-defense, and it would be a highly rare circumstance that a law abiding civilian would have to think about using such a technique.

Now, for the sake of learning "martial art" or martial craft, I could see teaching these techniques if they exist in a particular style.But remember, what is in a martial art is not always what is good for "self-defense." I teach the manauvers that I teach operators to civilians when they are in my instructor certification programs or journeymans programs. Even though they are not operators themselves, they may at some point have to teach operators, in which case they need to know these tactics.

Final note: So, I am not saying "don't teach something." Teach what you want and have fun. All that I hope for is that you present things how they are.

Paul

 

[Franc0]

Tulisan,
O.K., a couple more things.
1. What you described is not self-defense. It may be a justifiable pre-emptive strike on an attacker, but you are actually attacking first, making it not really self-defense.

Really? A pre-emptive strike is not self defense?? So you're saying I should've jumped out in front of the intruder, who has broken into my home with a weapon in hand and presented myself as a target, then allow him to attack me first so I can use a "self defense" technique against his attack? I don't understand. You already said it may be a justifiable pre-emptive strike against an attacker( which in my state it is 100%justifiable according to the local PD ) So you're saying pre-emptive strikes are not part of "self defense" huh. Which is it?

"Basically its these "what if 27 ninja's armed with uzi's corner me on a rooftop" type of situations. "
Can you please explain to me how this compares to the scenario of a single armed intruder breaking into your home?

3. I am not saying "don't teach this or that." What I am saying is present what you are teaching in a true fashion. If civilian pays me for a seminar or private lesson to learn self-defense, I would be doing them a disservice to teach them things like sentry removal techniques,

So what I'm guessing in that reply is that you really don't know how teach that to civillians.

 

[Cruentus]

Tulisan,

Really? A pre-emptive strike is not self defense?? So you're saying I should've jumped out in front of the intruder, who has broken into my home with a weapon in hand and presented myself as a target, then allow him to attack me first so I can use a "self defense" technique against his attack? I don't understand. You already said it may be a justifiable pre-emptive strike against an attacker( which in my state it is 100%justifiable according to the local PD ) So you're saying pre-emptive strikes are not part of "self defense" huh. Which is it?

Self-Defense? Not in this case. Self-Defense would be going to your neighbors house and calling the police. Third party defense? O.K., maybe. But that maybe factor does not give one the right to teach something in an unrealistic manner. But third party defense is not what you said. I don't mean to play semantics, but there is an important difference.

A sentry removal is not just your average "pre-emptive strike," meaning you hit him first because you know an attack is imminent. Your average pre-emptive strike is a viable self-defense tactic. A sentry removal technique is an highly offensive maneuver. It takes an overcoming of a host of psychological aversians that is not taught and cannot be taught in most martial arts classes. The military does the best job in the world of training people to overcome the aversian to killing, yet even your average infantryman has a good percentage of failure when trying to kill with anything without his rifle. Your average infantryman has a certian personality/mental make-up to be infantry in the first place, and has had adequate training to help with overcoming the psychological aversian to killing, yet they still have a substantial percentage of failure when it comes to killing without the use of the rifle.

Sentry Removal is as close to your victim as you can get. The majority of your civilians will not be able to effectively pull off such a technique in a real life scenario. They don't have the psychological make up, nor the adequate training to pull this off; thus they won't be effective with this even if they, their wife, and their children are in danger. Depending on the circumstance, they may get themselves and their family killed death could have been avoided.

Then there is the other issues of deterring threats that should be sought out first. Having adequate locks on your doors, having adequatly secured windows, having an adequate alarm system, having a home safety plan so you and your family can escape in case of an emergency or a safe room or area to hide in are all things that will deter a "sentry removal" technique from having to be deployed. And, you should have a firearm to defend your home. Why would you have it locked in a locker in the basement when you sleep on the second floor, for example? You should have a firearm nearby where you sleep that you can access in under 30 seconds or so when that alarm in your house goes off. Your wife should be trained to do the same.

I could keep listing and listing and listing things, but if your looking for a reason to justify a moviesque sentry removal as a self-defense technique on a fictitious assassin armed with a carbine and a laser scope wearing a flak jacket and fatigues, then all of these very viable self-defense tactics that require simple adjustments rather then "expert" martial arts training will seem unreasonable.

What I am saying is that for teaching a civilian self-defense (not a martial art), particularly in a self-defense workshop or class, one needs to be covering having a self-defense mindset, and one needs to be covering tactics that will negate the need for the use of force. And when one does cover use of force, one should focus on simple techniques and tactics that will work for most people in multiple situations, regardless of size and experience.

Sentry removal techniques don't fit the above criteria.

Now, a sentry removal technique MAY in an off the wall circumstance be usable for third party defense. However, this will most likely only work for either those highly trained to overcome their psychological safeties, or for the completely psychopathic. The reason has nothing to do with the difficulty of the technique, but has everything to do with the psychological aspects of killing with a knife while body to body with the intruder and at the closest range.

"Basically its these "what if 27 ninja's armed with uzi's corner me on a rooftop" type of situations. "

Can you please explain to me how this compares to the scenario of a single armed intruder breaking into your home?

Gladly, because the concept is very simple.

If one takes all the proper measures to defend ones home, then this makes the probability of having to "sentry remove" the attacker close to nil. Even if one doesn't take the appropriate measures, the probabilities are still very low to begin with. Do some research for yourself if you doubt me. You will be hard pressed to find ONE case where a sentry removal tactic was used for someone to defend their family, and where it was a viable third party defense tactic, let alone many cases to consider this tactic usable in a probable situation.

So what I'm guessing in that reply is that you really don't know how teach that to civillians.

No... my reply is there for you to read, though, plain as the English language. What I AM guessing that you should stick to the topic we are discussing, which is whether or not a sentry removal tactic is viable to teach for self-defense, instead of sniping me and personally attacking the way in which I teach civilians, which is something you know little about.


Conclusion: What is supposedly justifiable by law and how things go down in the courtroom are two completely different things. What is a viable technique in the dojo and what is a viable technique for self-defense can be two different things. What is viable for self-defense training and what is viable for a martial art training is often two different things.

I argue that a sentry removal technique is not really a viable technique for self-defense training at all because 1. it is improbable that a situation would occur in which one would need such a tactic, 2. having a self-defense oriented mindset and lifestyle will further prevent the already improbable, and 3. most civilians will not be able to deploy such a technique if taught anyhow.

Now, for the right person in a very specific scenario (that you would be hard pressed to find an example on), a sentry removal may be viable for third party defense. Again, that is the right person with the right training and in a very specified scenario. This is not your average person who takes up a self-defense class, nor is this scenario your average situation. However, because this may in some off-the-wall circumstance be a viable technique for a civilian, this does not give one the right to skip over the other important aspects of self-defense and the other more viable tactics so one can engage in the fantasy assasin crap (because its so coooool and impressive ya know) while toting fantasy assassin crap up as great self-defense stuff.

Now, I don't know what you teach or how you teach so I am not beiing critical of what you personally. I am not even saying "don't teach this." I am saying that you owe it to yourself and your students to be realistic about what you are teaching, and that I hope that you are doing this.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

No... my reply is there for you to read, though, plain as the English language. What I AM guessing that you should stick to the topic we are discussing, which is whether or not a sentry removal tactic is viable to teach for self-defense, instead of sniping me and personally attacking the way in which I teach civilians, which is something you know little about.

I apologize for being a little harsh here. I read "you don't know how to teach Civilians" rather then "don't know how to teach THAT to civilians." Yea, it was still kind of an off-topic snip, but not as bad as I thought...

Paul