Quote Originally Posted by Rhynn View Post
That's a whopper to watch! 84m21s

Can you summarise what you find questionable about it Mr. Mask ?

Basically, any unarmed defenses against knives are going to be bad, because you're unarmed against a knife. There's a reason people use weapons. But you have to do something to defend yourself. You might die, and you're probably going to get at least cut, but you better fight as hard as you can.

Any time an instructor is showing you a theoretical defense against a knife, they're showing you a really ideal case. If they're any good, they started by telling you the best defense is to run. Of course, for the police, that may be less of an option.
That's actually a pretty good summary of what I found questionable.

It just seemed like they passed over some of the more dangerous aspects of knives. They mentioned a story where the knifer swapped his knife between hands, but didn't bring it up when recommending the wrist lock. They mentioned how knife attacks were sometimes lead with the empty hand, a few pictures and accounts describing that--but their recommended defence was only for a very telegraphed stab. They also skimmed over the fact you should hold the attacker's wrist rather than their arm, because they have more control with the blade--but I felt they should've elaborated more on how easy it is for a knifer to twist their wrist and cut a would-be disarmer if done incorrectly (admittedly, that might be a necessary bit of propaganda leaving that out, so police aren't scared of disarming people--most cases are just angry people fooling around with knives, rather than killers, after all).

The advice they gave, while showing off a sketch where someone runs screaming with a machete, was one of the main inconsistencies which bothered me. "Create a reactionary gap through verbal commands," was how they put it (they didn't even mention defence in that part). That works well for when you have the guy with the knife at a healthy distance, who seems a lot more bark than bite--a lot of them do seem to give up if you talk to/bark at them a bit.

There were some other details. They recommended slamming the assailant's hand against nearby walls... but I can't see how you can do that without getting your own fingers, if you're double-gripping someone's hand well enough to stop them from cutting you. The example they gave was holding onto the edge of their wrist with their fingertips, while gently touching the woman's wrist to the wall (I don't fault them on that last part--you don't want to hurt the actress). The best I could come up with is turning your body into them and thrusting your elbow into their arm, to try and smash their arm/elbow against the wall. There could be better possibilities, of course, like perhaps smashing them in the side of the head with your elbow, and hopefully get head-wall-contact as a result (that might still be inefficient, by a long way). They didn't mention the possibility that your opponent would use their free hand and legs to their advantage, either (still need to give them props for recommending knee strikes to the abdomen, though at least one in the groin is probably handy in case they're the type to go down from that).


Those are the elements I considered questionable. There might've been some other minor stuff as well, but my goal isn't to b picky and over-critical. This is, after all, a gem; probably the best video about knives I have seen.



G: I agree that the efforts you and others made sated my question quite thoroughly. Rather glad it got brought up again, though, since it brought to light the point of the Chinese possibly having boot-camps of a sort (with their own popular musical numbers). Your extension on the matter is also a benefit.


Goblin: The Templars had a truly impressive fighting arm. Banking was an accidental effect of the order's attempt to guarantee the well being of pilgrims, was the gist of it.