Bat or knife - greatest chance of fatality during an attack

[WingChunIan]

Okay so this seems a little bit like those conversations you used to have as a kid - who'd win in a fight between Godzilla and King Kong etc etc but it was raised on another thread that some folks teach that attacks with bats (I assume of the wooden and metal kind as opposed to the flying kind) are more likely to result in fatal injury than attacks with knives. My view for what it's worth is entirely opposite, so I thought it might make an interesting thread to see what people's views and experiences are. Obvioulsy either weapon has the potential to cause massive amounts of damage both fatal and otherwise and neither should be taken lightly but given the way in which the weapons are used, the areas of the body targetted, the nature of the injuries inflicted and the ease / difficulty of detecting the threat and dealing with it. Which do folks feel is more likely to result in fatal injury, a knife attack or an attack with a bat?

 

[grumpywolfman]

Godzilla vs. King Kong haha I love it, this is a fun one.

Of course there are the obvious factors like did somebody get the 'drop' first and environment, is it close quarters or in an empty lot? So ... if both guys had the heads-up, no surprises in an empty environment with good lighting, my answer would fall under the distance needed to cover for the first strike. Close quarters, (elevator for example) I'll take the knife. If I had distance to move and run around (an empty parking lot for example), I'll take the bat.

lol good post, :cheers:

 

[Dirty Dog]

There are way too many variables to say that one is more lethal than the other. In own professional experience (and beaing in mind that anecdotal evidence is not scientific) I've seen more fatalities from stab wounds (slashes are not nearly as lethal as stabs) than from blunt instruments.

 

[seasoned]

And then there is the 21 foot rule pertaining to edged weapons, or any weapon in fact. Distance can be covered in a relatively short time span. No matter how trained you are, more distance and some type of cover is the best course of action, if possible.
We are talking blunt trauma to the arms if you can get them up in time versus cuts and stab wounds where you can bleed out quickly. A lot of food for thought.

 

[jezr74]

I think I recall the "science" behind a baseball bat in an episode of Mafia Vs Yakuza, where they test effectiveness of weapons. Will see if I can find a link.


Sent using Tapatalk

 

[oftheherd1]

I go with Godzilla because ...

I have no statistics to back up what I think.

There are two many variables, including the intent of the attacker, not just the skill of the defender. Assuming no escape from the attack, and no superior weapons, I tend to go with the knife. A glancing blow from a bat may knock you out, and give you a concussion. Or you may have broken arms from defense. If that satisfies the attacker, you will recover, probably with a new resolve to avoid fights with bat weilding assailants.

Knife fighters may both slash and stab during one fight. A stab in the heart or penetrating the skull is more likely to cause death. Slashes which take out major muscle groups in the legs or arms, render you incapble of defending, and may cause you to bleed out if one or more large arteries are cut. Stabs which involve organs such as the liver or spleen also may cause you to bleed out quickly, and first aid isn't likely to help. If simply giving you some new tatoo patterns satisfies your assailant, you may indeed live.

If your assailant is determined to kill you, and you don't know any defenses and cannot run, it isn't going to be a good day for you.

 

[MJS]

Okay so this seems a little bit like those conversations you used to have as a kid - who'd win in a fight between Godzilla and King Kong etc etc but it was raised on another thread that some folks teach that attacks with bats (I assume of the wooden and metal kind as opposed to the flying kind) are more likely to result in fatal injury than attacks with knives. My view for what it's worth is entirely opposite, so I thought it might make an interesting thread to see what people's views and experiences are. Obvioulsy either weapon has the potential to cause massive amounts of damage both fatal and otherwise and neither should be taken lightly but given the way in which the weapons are used, the areas of the body targetted, the nature of the injuries inflicted and the ease / difficulty of detecting the threat and dealing with it. Which do folks feel is more likely to result in fatal injury, a knife attack or an attack with a bat?

I'm going to assume that you're not asking for specific situations/scenarios in which each may be used, but instead simply our opinion. So, IMHO, while both have the potential for death, I'm going to go with the knife. I would say that with the bat, the most obvious target is going to be the head. Sure, if you took a full power swing at the arms or legs, you will most likely get a break, unless you're repeatedly hitting the head, or perhaps the chest, the end result probably won't result in death.

The knife...well, IMO, I think we've seen those pretty graphic pics that've been posted on this forum, of knife wounds. While a slash may not have the immediate effect as a stab, I'd say the accumulation of slashes, again going back to those pics, will add up.

 

[grumpywolfman]

Godzilla vs. King Kong
Of course there are the obvious factors like did somebody get the 'drop' first and environment, is it close quarters or in an empty lot? So ... if both guys had the heads-up, no surprises in an empty environment with good lighting, my answer would fall under the distance needed to cover for the first strike. Close quarters, (elevator for example) I'll take the knife. If I had distance to move and run around (an empty parking lot for example), I'll take the bat.

I forgot to mention in my reponse, the hypothetical situation would be where both guys have a weapon to fight with (& which would I choose). If the question is where one person is unarmed, and has to defend against an armed assailant, then a knife would definitely be the more lethal weapon IMO to defend against.

 

[Cyriacus]

I say the bat. The knife can pierce deep, but the bat can break and damage more in one blow than a knife can in one cut.

 

[oftheherd1]

I say the bat. The knife can pierce deep, but the bat can break and damage more in one blow than a knife can in one cut.

To each there own, but a slash can cut or sever a juglar or carotid; a slash across the abdomen can seriously eviserate a person; none of which will ensure survival. And those can happen with a glancing type attack.

Maybe your should sharpen your knife and think it through again ( :uhyeah: ). A single glancing blow with a bat might stun a person, or a limb, but won't necessarily lead to death. What I describe above is very likely to lead to death, especially at the juglar or carotid.

A continued determined-to-kill attack with either weapon without defense, is of course likely to lead to death. And I don't want to face either weapon if I can avoid it.

 

[grumpywolfman]

I go with Godzilla because ...

I have no statistics to back up what I think.

Actually, both Godzilla and King Kong have documented fights. I think Godzilla has a great distance game with the breathing fire, and could try to sneak up on Kong swimming across the ocean - but the in-fighting game is where Kong remains King. Godzilla vs. King Kong? I'll put my money on King Kong

 

[Takai]

While there are to many variables to say outright which is better I would rather deal fight against a bat than a knife. While the bat is a devastating bludgeoning weapon that will crush and pulverize I feel much more comfortable being able to get on the inside neutralizing it than a knife.

A knife is designed to pierce and slash. I really like my internal organs but, I don't really want to see them up close and personal. Getting to safe position on a knife is a lot harder in my opinion and it is much easier for your opponent to change to direction/angle of their attack. A glancing blow from a bat is really going to hurt but, a sharp knife is going to splay you open.

In the end both are very dangerous weapons to deal with given the choice I would opt for "none of the above."

 

[Cyriacus]

To each there own, but a slash can cut or sever a juglar or carotid; a slash across the abdomen can seriously eviserate a person; none of which will ensure survival. And those can happen with a glancing type attack.

Maybe your should sharpen your knife and think it through again ( :uhyeah: ). A single glancing blow with a bat might stun a person, or a limb, but won't necessarily lead to death. What I describe above is very likely to lead to death, especially at the juglar or carotid.

A continued determined-to-kill attack with either weapon without defense, is of course likely to lead to death. And I don't want to face either weapon if I can avoid it.

Of course - But Id rather not be hit in the neck with a baseball bat, either. And since its longer, Im inclined to think itd be easier to use.

To each their own

 

[oftheherd1]

Of course - But Id rather not be hit in the neck with a baseball bat, either. And since its longer, Im inclined to think itd be easier to use.

To each their own

It is just that I can touch or be touched by a bat while blocking and counterattacking, without worrying about being cut. But it is what one is comfortable with defending the most easily. Everyone has to decide for themselves for sure. And I still prefer not to have to defend myself against either, but know defenses for knife and sword (applical in some ways to a bat) if it is a last ditch stand and no running allowed.

 

[DennisBreene]

The techniques in Arnis are designed for just such fighting. Like any MA it takes time and practice, but you spend a great deal of time learning to use these weapons and build better reflexes for counterfighting and defense. This is not to say that Arnis will make you invulnerable. I still believe in the old adage that when fighting a knife, expect to get cut. Hopefully you can control the attacks to minimize the damage inflicted by a blade. Your best defense is still running if possible.

While there are to many variables to say outright which is better I would rather deal fight against a bat than a knife. While the bat is a devastating bludgeoning weapon that will crush and pulverize I feel much more comfortable being able to get on the inside neutralizing it than a knife.

A knife is designed to pierce and slash. I really like my internal organs but, I don't really want to see them up close and personal. Getting to safe position on a knife is a lot harder in my opinion and it is much easier for your opponent to change to direction/angle of their attack. A glancing blow from a bat is really going to hurt but, a sharp knife is going to splay you open.

In the end both are very dangerous weapons to deal with given the choice I would opt for "none of the above."

 

[lklawson]

Get a wiffle-bat and a rubber trainer and spar it out.

Solid strikes with the bat "do damage." Broken arm, busted skull, broken ribs, etc.

Solid stabs or "good" slashes with the knife "do damage" to that area.

Spar it out then consult medical references to get an idea of who dies first/fastest and what injuries are incapacitating even if not deadly.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Takai]

Get a wiffle-bat and a rubber trainer and spar it out.

Solid strikes with the bat "do damage." Broken arm, busted skull, broken ribs, etc.

Solid stabs or "good" slashes with the knife "do damage" to that area.

Spar it out then consult medical references to get an idea of who dies first/fastest and what injuries are incapacitating even if not deadly.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Never tried the wiffle bat but, I used to train against the rubber knives. At the time
would put chalk on the edges. It made it really easy to see point of "contact" on a black gi.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay so this seems a little bit like those conversations you used to have as a kid - who'd win in a fight between Godzilla and King Kong etc etc but it was raised on another thread that some folks teach that attacks with bats (I assume of the wooden and metal kind as opposed to the flying kind) are more likely to result in fatal injury than attacks with knives. My view for what it's worth is entirely opposite, so I thought it might make an interesting thread to see what people's views and experiences are. Obvioulsy either weapon has the potential to cause massive amounts of damage both fatal and otherwise and neither should be taken lightly but given the way in which the weapons are used, the areas of the body targetted, the nature of the injuries inflicted and the ease / difficulty of detecting the threat and dealing with it. Which do folks feel is more likely to result in fatal injury, a knife attack or an attack with a bat?

Right. Being the person who made the claim that a baseball bat attack is more potentially a lethal attack in the first place, I think it might be pertinent to explain what that was in reference to, as it wasn't to the amount of damage that each weapon could potentially cause. It was more to do with the more commonly encountered tactics that you might come up against.

When it comes to a knife, the most common usage is to threaten/intimidate, commonly in order to extort compliance or money out of someone. The next is a "defensive offence", in which the knife is used to create a barrier by slashing back and forth. The idea is that the person doesn't really want to do much damage, or kill you, but is using the knife to maintain a sense of power. Finally you have the dedicated attempt on your life, which is far more commonly a stabbing action than a slashing one. While common in prisons (where a lot of people seem to get their ideas on knife combat/assault from), it's not as common as a "street" assault, to the point where it makes up the minority of knife attacks.

With a baseball bat, it again can be used to intimidate, either by showing it and waving it around, or by hitting other objects (think road rage incidents, where the car becomes the "victim" of the attack). Once it becomes a case of actually attacking the other person, whether it's the "defensively offensive" actions, or an actually intended lethal assault, the common targeting is the same: the head. That's due to a range of reasons, including the psychological aspects of attacking the "face" (which represents the person, psychologically speaking), as well as it being perceived (accurately) as a powerful action. In other words, as soon as the baseball bat-attacker moves past intimidating, the most common attack is going to be potentially lethal, whereas with a knife it might not be.

So the reasoning behind saying that a baseball bat attack is more likely to be potentially a lethal attack is based on the type of attack more prevalent with a baseball bat, not on the amount of damage that could be done, or the type of attack that could be made.

I'm going to assume that you're not asking for specific situations/scenarios in which each may be used, but instead simply our opinion. So, IMHO, while both have the potential for death, I'm going to go with the knife. I would say that with the bat, the most obvious target is going to be the head. Sure, if you took a full power swing at the arms or legs, you will most likely get a break, unless you're repeatedly hitting the head, or perhaps the chest, the end result probably won't result in death.

The knife...well, IMO, I think we've seen those pretty graphic pics that've been posted on this forum, of knife wounds. While a slash may not have the immediate effect as a stab, I'd say the accumulation of slashes, again going back to those pics, will add up.

The thing is that aiming at the head is the more common method for a baseball bat, not the arms. And as for the effects of the slashes, as seen in the well-worn photos, well... they didn't die. Most of those wounds are nasty looking, but realistically superficial. A baseball bat to the skull is not really such a superficial injury.

 

[MJS]

The thing is that aiming at the head is the more common method for a baseball bat, not the arms. And as for the effects of the slashes, as seen in the well-worn photos, well... they didn't die. Most of those wounds are nasty looking, but realistically superficial. A baseball bat to the skull is not really such a superficial injury.

Are we talking about the same pics? I know they've been posted on here before. I'll see if I can find them. Perhaps you're correct, and they didn't die, however, by the looks of them, you'd swear they were dead. Of course, how fast one gets treatment is also key.

 

[Chris Parker]

These are the ones I'm referring to (http://www.dlsports.com/knife_dangers.html). For the record, the first time I saw them was when a friend of mine, and a fellow senior, who is a cardiac surgeon, sent them around to us, which included the stories for the injuries, and the fact that, despite the appearances, these injuries were really superficial, rather than genuinely life-threatening. Still damn scary, but this is the difference between slashing attacks and stabbing ones.