If you were making a sport for weapon disarms, what would the rules be?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 39746
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 39746

Guest
The thought just came to my mind, and i was curious if you were going to make a sport based on weapon disarms, or wanted it to be applicable to them what rules would you have/scoring system.

The only default rules/criteria i can think of is:
No Strikes, you may only open hand strike people
No gouges
No groin slaps
No ear slaps
(basically safety rules to prevent maiming)
you get stood up up after 30seconds to 2 minuetes on the ground. (pending activity)
I am unsure if i should have weapons in it or not, so just do a reply with and without.

So the two(three) reply blocks are:
Both participants are unarmed
One participant is armed, and the others objective is to disarm them/throw them, and the armed parties objective is not to be disarmed or thrown.
(third, the armed catergory just the armed person isnt "in play", so isnt scoring, but rather providing resistance for the person to disarm them)

This may seem confusing, but combat sports are normally based on a martial art and may be done to encorage practioneers to practise and get better at doing fighting. So for the sake of this point, the goal of the sport is to help people practise weapon disarms (And retention if one party is armed and in play rather than a moving dummy)

If its confusing, just ask and i will try to clarify, i may also make a few more posts about this for obscure things.

(by the way Shin Kicking is a sport, thats the most obscure vagly combat sport i can think of)

Addendum: and no i dont care about the profit margin for this sport, or the logisitcs about running a sport, or corruption etc.
 

lklawson

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
4,676
Reaction score
1,368
Location
Huber Heights, OH
It might look a lot like Tomiki Aikido's "Tanto Randori."

But the problem with sports is that the application always evolves to be most efficient within the rules which often makes it look somewhat different from <cough> "real life."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
OP
D

Deleted member 39746

Guest
It might look a lot like Tomiki Aikido's "Tanto Randori."

But the problem with sports is that the application always evolves to be most efficient within the rules which often makes it look somewhat different from <cough> "real life."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Im aware of that caviate, but something like boxing seems to work irregardless.

Didnt know that existed, just looked it up. And while doing so i just remmebered jukendos companion art (forgot its name) exists.


Ok, after watching a little on "tanto randori" the person with the knife (if one is armed) should not be in play, they should be a dummy. I had in my mind something like judo, just with more throws and grapples that make sense if the persons going to stick you with a knife.

What a weird sport you have found. :p

Edit: I have no idea whats going on, but this is a weird sport, and i kind of want to try it. Its like Jukendos companion art, but they just take turns with the knife.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
19,576
Reaction score
5,127
Location
Covington, WA
So, if this isn't a fighting competition and is strictly about disarming, I think the idea is intriguing.

I think step one, then, would be to figure out what "winning" looks like. Is it a sport where you win by doing something the fastest, like a race? Are there points involved? Is the structure of the sport where you have brackets? Teams?

Depending on how winning and losing goes, I'd figure out what kind of technology is available. Maybe something like what is used in TKD or fencing, where you've got "weapons" and you have "targets". And the goal would be to disarm someone. You could keep score by doing it as many times as possible in a given time frame, or perhaps just going by time, or something like that. If the person with the weapon scores points, then the lowest point count could be the winner.

You could also have different "divisions" or something based on the weapons. Spear, sword, knife, etc. Different lengths, and different cutting surfaces.

I think it's an intriguing idea. Could be the next "History Channel" original show, right up there with Forged in Fire and Alone. :D At the minimum, it's a fun thought exercise.
 

WaterGal

Master of Arts
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
574
I think the big question with weapons disarming is, of course, "can you disarm the attacker before they kill you with the weapon".

So I think the sport should have the "attacker" use something like a paintball gun or laser tag gun that they can "shoot" at the "defender", and the "defender" should have some kind of clothing or laser tag rig with targets on it, so it can be known if they would've been "fatally injured" by the weapon.

I think that I would have each competitor take one round as the "attacker" (the person with the weapon) and one round as the "defender" (the person disarming the weapon), and each round would be a certain length (maybe 3 minutes?).

If the defender can get control of the weapon without being "shot" in the head or chest, they get a point. If the attacker can shoot the defender in the head or chest and still has control of the gun at the end of the round, they get a point. If the defender disarms the weapon but gets shot in the head or chest, no points. If the defender doesn't disarm the attacker but also doesn't get shot, no points.

Whoever has the most points at the end wins. I guess, with 2 rounds, there's a reasonable chance of a tie, so there would need be some kind of a tiebreaker round (both competitors have paintball guns and try to disarm each other? I dunno).
 

Buka

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
11,757
Reaction score
8,420
Location
Maui
If we're going to make it a sport, can we have cool hats? I like cool hats.
 

lklawson

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
4,676
Reaction score
1,368
Location
Huber Heights, OH
Im aware of that caviate, but something like boxing seems to work irregardless.

Didnt know that existed, just looked it up. And while doing so i just remmebered jukendos companion art (forgot its name) exists.


Ok, after watching a little on "tanto randori" the person with the knife (if one is armed) should not be in play, they should be a dummy.
It's how the rules of the sport evolved. And now, there's some weird stuff about how the man with the foam "tanto" uses it which make it better for him in the sport but would be utterly stupid if he was actually trying to use a knife to stab someone.

It's one of the issues I mentioned about sportifying something to train and test.

I had in my mind something like judo, just with more throws and grapples that make sense if the persons going to stick you with a knife.
Tomiki was a Judoka before studying Aikido and then founding his own style of Aikido. There's a lot of oral history and mythos surrounding Tomiki and his relationships with Kano and Ueshiba. Nevertheless, the very (VERY) short version of verifiable history is that Tomiki wanted to apply some of the Judo training methodology to Aikido.

What a weird sport you have found. :p

Edit: I have no idea whats going on, but this is a weird sport, and i kind of want to try it. Its like Jukendos companion art, but they just take turns with the knife.

I have a shodan in Tomiki Aikido. Tomiki Aikido's application of randori in general, and Tanto Randori in particular, I have philosophical "issues" with. I don't like 'em and I think that the sport has evolved in such a way as to pretty much negate most of what Tomiki was wanting to accomplish with it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

lklawson

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
4,676
Reaction score
1,368
Location
Huber Heights, OH
If we're going to make it a sport, can we have cool hats? I like cool hats.
I vote for the 1910 style Straw Boater hat!

straw boater hat for men.jpg

straw boater hat for men II.jpg


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

MadMartigan

Green Belt
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
177
Reaction score
200
Agreed that this is a cool idea.

The first problem to overcome that popped into my mind was around the competition aspect.

In sparring competitions, each side of the contest has a vested interest in winning in order to move on to the next round. If 1 side is just the 'uke' (only providing resistance), what is their motivation to stop you from winning (potentially resulting in some competitors having a much easier time advancing than others).

Maybe if each match was 2 rounds. 1 each to be the disarmer then the disarmee.

The one with the weapon could get points by:
- Counted strikes with the weapon on the opponent (at least in the case of knife defense).
- Maybe 1 point each

The disarmer scores by:
- Complete disarm (10 points);
- Takedowns (2 points);
- Maintaining a dominant control position for 'x' amount of time (2 points).

Combined points total from both rounds advances.

Those are at least my first pass thoughts on it.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 39746

Guest
Then what are you disarming?

You dont need to disarm anything, you can just do something like Judo just put priority in points to the throws and grapples that work against weapons. The point isnt to test if they work, but to get practise and encourage doing them.

Although, i did put the optional discussion of with and without weapons here, so its a null complaint to begin with. Made a argument for and against.
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
9,395
Reaction score
3,427
Location
New York
You dont need to disarm anything, you can just do something like Judo just put priority in points to the throws and grapples that work against weapons. The point isnt to test if they work, but to get practise and encourage doing them.

Although, i did put the optional discussion of with and without weapons here, so its a null complaint to begin with. Made a argument for and against.
Not really a null complaint. You were asking what the rules would be, my recommendation would be that weapons are needed. Even if you know X theoretically works, you don't know if they did it in a way that would work, without there being a weapon in hand. Or that someone with a weapon wouldn't have been able to respond to it (me grabbing someone's elbow and shoulder is much easier when they do not have a weapon to hit me with when I try to close distance).
 

Dirty Dog

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
18,743
Reaction score
5,677
Location
Pueblo West, CO
I fail to see the issue here, it doesnt have to have weapons.
So... a competition involving disarming techniques that doesn't involve weapons.
Do you really not see how silly this is?
If you want to practice weapon disarms, you need weapons (at least simulations).
Real practice. Real training. Not watching YouTube videos.
 
OP
D

Deleted member 39746

Guest
Not really a null complaint. You were asking what the rules would be, my recommendation would be that weapons are needed. Even if you know X theoretically works, you don't know if they did it in a way that would work, without there being a weapon in hand. Or that someone with a weapon wouldn't have been able to respond to it (me grabbing someone's elbow and shoulder is much easier when they do not have a weapon to hit me with when I try to close distance).
Well, it wasnt really a complaint. So wrong wording on my side.
The manner in which it was brought up makes it appear:
I am unsure if i should have weapons in it or not, so just do a reply with and without.

So the two(three) reply blocks are:
Both participants are unarmed
One participant is armed, and the others objective is to disarm them/throw them, and the armed parties objective is not to be disarmed or thrown.
(third, the armed catergory just the armed person isnt "in play", so isnt scoring, but rather providing resistance for the person to disarm them)
Doesnt exist, you know the ruleset i stated to have weapons in, and the sort of on the third one with the person being armed being in play or not. (yes i know you didnt lodge it, martial D did, and he also cherry picked)

So with that aside, you can make a argument for and without, and it would still fall under the caviates and issues sport does of making things work for the sport.

The manner in which you test something is really important, the sport is not nessisarily a test, but a means to practise what you belive to work.* Ergo the prescene of a weapon is not nessiarily needed. (and it is belief, unless you have scentific tests on techniques i dont know about, not that its important for the argument anyway)

Even if we include the weapon there is still a long list of caviates you have, pending design needed safety equipment etc. One of the biggest caviates is how do you know you have "killed"them? One hit stops are fairly common for weapon sports, but we all know a person doesnt nesssiarily die in one hit, and the fact nothing is going into the person favours cutting as opposed to stabbing. (and mesuring stabbing is hard as nothing goes in the person)

I think it would be better if you look at my propsition as a sport, in the game sense, you do it for fun as opposed to any sort of social or finicial gain. Its not meant to be industralised and sold, but as a means to practise this particular skill and encourage people to do so. (and yes, if it did exist it could become a offical sport or evolve into something like Tanto Randori, or it could fizzle out, or evolve into a weird throwing game, who knows)


* Sport would be a pretty poor test as its not in a vacuum, you can only test what works in that sports rules, and scoring system and prioerties. As we all know,what works in a sport may not outside it, or vice veras and people get good at doing a sport so focus on all the caviates etc about it. Case and point, if you use boxing, only punching works. If you use judo, only their allowed grappling does. (as you will be DQed if you hip throw somone in boxing, or punch somone in the face in judo)
 
OP
D

Deleted member 39746

Guest
So... a competition involving disarming techniques that doesn't involve weapons.
Do you really not see how silly this is?
If you want to practice weapon disarms, you need weapons (at least simulations).
Real practice. Real training. Not watching YouTube videos.
Your on a martial arts forum and presumably practise it. I dont think you can start on about what is "silly" or not.

It is no more or less than half of the "nonsense" in combat sports & martial arts. (and sports and the arts in general for that matter)
 

wab25

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Sep 22, 2017
Messages
995
Reaction score
804
If you want to do gun disarms, use simunitions. Its a non-lethal training round, designed for this kind of force on force training. You convert your real gun, to shoot these rounds. The gun works the way it normally would only its not lethal. You won't have to worry about deciding if someone was shot or not... they HURT. (you will have a welt for week...)

If you practice gun disarms, you should really try it out with simunitions. You will learn how good your disarm really is. You will also learn that most people have to work through some issues before shooting someone with a real gun, even if it is only loaded with simunitions... especially after you see how much they hurt.

This second part is good to understand... most people skip this part of the training. Theoretically, you end up with the bad guys weapon. But, the bad guy may not be done. He may have another weapon. He may still attack you... its his turn now to have the adrenaline dump. Once you took his weapon, he is now fighting for his life. It would really be bad to successfully take the bad guys weapon, then not be able to decide to use it, when he pulls his next weapon or just overpowers you and takes it back...
 
Top